[Federal Register: November 9, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 215)]
[Notices]
[Page 57653-57658]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr09no09-32]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-822]
Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers From the People's Republic of
China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``Department'') is conducting an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain helical
spring lock washers (``HSLWs'') from the People's Republic of China
(``PRC'') covering the period of review (``POR'') October 1, 2007
through September 30, 2008. We preliminarily determine that sales have
been made below normal value (``NV'') by Hangzhou Spring Washer Co.,
Ltd. (``HSW'') (also known as Zhejiang Wanxin Group Co., Ltd.). If
these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this
review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'')
to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject
merchandise during the POR. The Department invites interested parties
to comment on these preliminary results.
DATES: Effective Date: November 9, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brandon Farlander, Austin Redington or
David Layton, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone
(202) 482-0182, (202) 482-1664, and (202) 482-0371, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Department published the antidumping duty order on certain
HSLWs from the PRC on October 19, 1993. The order was amended on
November 23, 1993. See Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Helical Spring
Lock Washers From the People's Republic of China, 58 FR 53914 (October
19, 1993), and Amended Final Determination and Amended Antidumping Duty
Order: Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers From the People's Republic
of China, 58 FR 61859 (November 23, 1993). On October 1, 2008, the
Department published a notice of opportunity to request an
administrative review of this order. See Antidumping or Countervailing
Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request
Administrative Review, 73 FR 57056 (October 1, 2008). In accordance
with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1) and (2), on October 31, 2008, Shakeproof
Assembly Components Division of Illinois Tool Works, Inc.
(``Shakeproof'' or ``Petitioner''), a domestic interested party,
requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of HSW,
a producer and exporter of subject merchandise.
On November 24, 2008, the Department published the initiation of
the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on HSLWs from
the PRC covering the period October 1, 2007, through September 30,
2008. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews, 73 FR 70964 (November 24, 2008).
The Department issued an antidumping duty questionnaire to HSW on
December 10, 2008. We received the questionnaire responses from HSW on
January 14, 2009, and February 12, 2009. We received supplemental
questionnaire responses from HSW on July 10, 2009, September 29, 2009,
October 6, 2009 and October 14, 2009.
The Department informed interested parties that surrogate country
selection comments submitted by February 25, 2009, would be considered
for the preliminary results. See Letter to IPs: Deadlines for Surrogate
Country Comments. Neither of the interested parties provided comments
on the selection of a surrogate country. On March 30, 2009, Petitioner
provided publicly available information to value the factors of
production (``FOPs'').
On June 23, 2009, the Department published a notice in the Federal
Register extending the time limit for the preliminary results of this
review until November 2, 2009. See Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers
from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for the
Preliminary Results of the 2007-2008 Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 74 FR 29669 (June 23, 2009).
Non-Market Economy Country Status
In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the
PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (``NME'') country. In
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (``the Act''), any determination that a foreign country is an
NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering
authority. See, e.g., Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China:
Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 2004/2005 Administrative
Review and Notice of Rescission of 2004/2005 New Shipper Review, 71 FR
66304 (November 14, 2006); Honey from the People's Republic of China:
Final Results and Final Rescission, In Part, of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 71 FR 34893 (June 16, 2006); and Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Partial
Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades
and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 29303 (May
22, 2006) (``Sawblades''). None of the parties to this proceeding has
contested such treatment. Accordingly, we calculated NV in accordance
with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME countries.
Surrogate Country and Surrogate Values
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to base NV on
the NME producer's FOPs, valued in a surrogate market economy country
or countries considered to be appropriate by the Department if NV
cannot be determined pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act. In
accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, the Department valued the
FOPs, to the extent possible, using the costs of the FOPs in one or
more market-economy countries that are at a level of economic
development comparable to that of the PRC and are significant producers
of comparable merchandise. The Department determined that Colombia,
India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Peru and Thailand are countries
comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development. See Memorandum
from Carole Showers, Acting Director, Office of Policy, to Brandon
Farlander, Program Manager, Office 1, entitled ``Request for a List of
Surrogate Countries for an Administrative Review of the Antidumping
Duty Order on Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers'' (``HSLW'') from the
People's Republic of China (``PRC''), dated December 22, 2008 (``Policy
Memo'').
On January 16, 2009, the Department solicited comments on its
selection of surrogate countries for this administrative review and
also invited
[[Page 57654]]
parties to submit publicly available information to value FOPs. Between
March 30, 2009 and July 27, 2009, the Department received surrogate
value information from Petitioner and HSW.
We preliminarily determine that India is comparable to the PRC in
terms of per capita gross national product and the national
distribution of labor. Furthermore, India is a significant producer of
comparable merchandise. See Memorandum from the Team to the File
entitled, ``2007-2008 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain
Helical Spring Lock Washers from the People's Republic of China:
Selection of a Surrogate Country,'' November 2, 2009.
Moreover, it is the Department's practice to select an appropriate
surrogate country based on the availability and reliability of data
from these countries. See Department Policy Bulletin No. 04.1: Non-
Market Economy Surrogate Country Selection Process, dated March 1,
2004. The Department finds India to be a reliable source for surrogate
values because India is at a comparable level of economic development
pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act, is a significant producer of
comparable merchandise, and has publicly available and reliable data.
Furthermore, the Department notes that India has been the primary
surrogate country in past segments, and the only surrogate value data
submitted on the record are from Indian sources.
Given the above facts, the Department has selected India as the
primary surrogate country for this review.
For a detailed discussion of the Department's selection of
surrogate values and financial ratios, see ``Factor Valuations''
section below. See also Memorandum from the Team to the File, entitled
``2007-2008 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Helical
Spring Lock Washers from the People's Republic of China: Factor
Valuation for the Preliminary Results,'' November 2, 2009, (``Factor
Valuation Memorandum''), which is on file in the Central Records Unit
(``CRU'') in Room 1117 of the main Department of Commerce building.
Scope of the Order
The products covered by the order are HSLWs of carbon steel, of
carbon alloy steel, or of stainless steel, heat-treated or non-heat-
treated, plated or non-plated, with ends that are off-line. HSLWs are
designed to: (1) Function as a spring to compensate for developed
looseness between the component parts of a fastened assembly; (2)
distribute the load over a larger area for screws or bolts; and (3)
provide a hardened bearing surface. The scope does not include internal
or external tooth washers, nor does it include spring lock washers made
of other metals, such as copper.
HSLWs subject to the order are currently classifiable under
subheading 7318.21.0030 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (``HTSUS''). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope
of this proceeding is dispositive.
Separate Rates Determination
A designation as an NME remains in effect until it is revoked by
the Department. See section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, the
Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies
within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should
be assessed a single antidumping duty deposit rate (i.e., a country-
wide rate). See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, and Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part: Certain
Lined Paper Products From the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 53079
(September 8, 2006); see also Sawblades, 71 FR 29303.
It is the Department's standard policy to assign all exporters of
the merchandise subject to review in NME countries a single rate unless
an exporter can affirmatively demonstrate an absence of government
control, both in law (de jure) and in fact (de facto), with respect to
exports. To establish whether a company is sufficiently independent to
be entitled to a separate, company-specific rate, the Department
analyzes each exporting entity in an NME country under the test
established in Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value:
Sparklers From the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6,
1991) (``Sparklers''), as amplified by Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide From the People's
Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (``Silicon Carbide'').
Absence of De Jure Control
The Department considers the following criteria in determining
whether an individual company may be granted a separate rate: (1) An
absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the individual
exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative enactments
decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any other formal measures
by the government decentralizing control of companies. See Sparklers,
56 FR at 20589.
HSW has placed on the record documents to demonstrate the absence
of de jure control. These documents include its list of shareholders,
business license, approval of company name and Company Law of the
People's Republic of China (``Company Law''). Other than limiting HSW
to activities referenced in the business license, we found no
restrictive stipulations associated with the license. In addition, in
previous cases the Department has analyzed the Company Law and found
that it establishes an absence of de jure control. See, e.g.,
Sawblades, 71 FR 29303, and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum
at Comment 9. We have no information in this proceeding that would
cause us to reconsider this determination. Therefore, based on the
foregoing, we preliminarily find an absence of de jure control for HSW
based on: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with
the exporter's business license; (2) the legal authority on the record
decentralizing control over the respondent, as demonstrated by the PRC
laws placed on the record of this review; and (3) other formal measures
by the government decentralizing control of companies.
Absence of De Facto Control
As stated in previous cases, there is some evidence that certain
enactments of the PRC central government have not been implemented
uniformly among different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. See
Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22587. Therefore, the Department has
determined that an analysis of de facto control is critical in
determining whether respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of
government control which would preclude the Department from assigning
separate rates.
The Department typically considers the following four factors in
evaluating whether a respondent is subject to de facto government
control of its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set
by, or subject to the approval of, a government agency; (2) whether the
respondent has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government
in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4)
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and
makes independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or
financing of losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-87, see also
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Furfuryl Alcohol from the
[[Page 57655]]
People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995).
With regard to de facto control, HSW reported the following: (1) It
sets prices to the United States through negotiations with customers
and these prices are not subject to review by any government
organization; (2) the PRC government does not coordinate the export
activities of HSW; (3) HSW's general manager and deputy general manager
have the authority to contractually bind the company to sell subject
merchandise; (4) the board of directors has appointed the general
manager, and the other managers are appointed either by the board of
directors or the general manager; (5) there is no restriction on its
use of export revenues; and (6) HSW's management decides how to dispose
of the profits. Additionally, HSW's questionnaire responses do not
suggest that pricing is coordinated among exporters nor does it reveal
other information indicating government control of export activities.
As a result, there is a sufficient basis to preliminarily determine
that HSW has demonstrated a de facto absence of government control of
its export functions and is entitled to a separate rate. Therefore,
based on the information provided, we preliminarily determine that
there is an absence of de facto government control over HSW's export
functions.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether HSW's sales of subject merchandise were made
at less than NV, we compared the NV to individual export price (``EP'')
transactions in accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act. See
``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice, below.
Export Price
In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, EP is ``the price at
which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold)
before the date importation by the producer or exporter of the subject
merchandise outside of the United States or to an unaffiliated
purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for
exportation to the United States,'' as adjusted under section 772(c) of
the Act. In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we used EPs for
sales by HSW to the United States because the subject merchandise was
sold directly to unaffiliated customers in the United States (or to
unaffiliated resellers outside the United States with knowledge that
the merchandise was destined for the United States) prior to
importation, and constructed export price methodology was not otherwise
indicated. We based EP on one of the following sales delivery terms:
(1) Free-on-board port; (2) cost, insurance and freight; or (3) cost
and freight to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. In
accordance with section 772 (c)(2)(A) of the Act, we made deductions
for movement expenses, where appropriate. Movement expenses included
expenses for foreign inland freight from plant to port of exportation,
foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, and marine
insurance, where applicable. Foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage
and handling, international freight, and marine insurance were provided
by an NME vendor and, thus, as explained in the section below, we based
the amounts of the deductions for these movement charges on values from
a surrogate country. For a detailed description of all adjustments, see
Memorandum from Brandon Farlander, Program Manager, Office 1, to the
File entitled ``Analysis for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review of Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers from
the People's Republic of China.'' (``Preliminary Calculation
Memorandum''), November 2, 2009.
We valued brokerage and handling using a simple average of the
brokerage and handling costs that were reported in public submissions
that were filed in three antidumping duty cases. Specifically, we
averaged the public brokerage and handling expenses reported by: Agro
Dutch Industries Ltd. in Mushrooms from India; Kejirwal Paper Ltd. in
Lined Paper Products From India; and Essar Steel in HRS from India.\1\
We identify the source used to value foreign inland freight,
international freight, and marine insurance in the ``Normal Value''
section of this notice, below. We adjusted these values, as
appropriate, to account for inflation or deflation between the
effective period and the POR. We calculated the inflation or deflation
adjustments for these values using the wholesale price indices
(``WPI'') for India as published in the International Financial
Statistics (``IFS'') Online Service maintained by the Statistics
Department of the International Monetary Fund at the Web site http://
www.imfstatistics.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 10646 (March 2, 2006)
(``Mushrooms from India''); see also Notice of Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of
Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary Determination of
Critical Circumstances in Part: Certain Lined Paper Products From
India, 71 FR 19706 (April 17, 2006) (``Lined Paper Products From
India''), unchanged 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 Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products
From India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 71 FR 2018, 2021 (January 12, 2006), unchanged in Certain
Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 40694 (July 18, 2006)
(``HRS from India'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Normal Value
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall
determine NV using a factor of production methodology if the
merchandise is exported from an NME country and the information does
not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-
country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act.
The Department will base NV on FOPs because the presence of
government controls on various aspects of these NME economies renders
price comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under
our normal methodologies. Therefore, we calculated NV based on FOPs in
accordance with sections 773(c)(3) and (4) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.408(c). The FOPs include: (1) Hours of labor required; (2)
quantities of raw materials employed; (3) amounts of energy and other
utilities consumed; and (4) representative capital costs. We used the
FOPs reported by HSW for materials, energy, labor, and packing.
With regard to the Indian import-based surrogate values, we have
disregarded prices that we have reason to believe or suspect may be
subsidized. See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China; Final Results of 1999-
2000 Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and
Determination Not To Revoke Order in Part, 66 FR 57420 (November 15,
2001), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. We
have found that India, Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand maintain
broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies, and it is
reasonable to infer that exports to all markets from these countries
may be subsidized. See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 54007,
54011 (September 13, 2005), unchanged in Certain Frozen Fish Fillets
From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the First
Administrative Review, 71 FR 14170 (March 21, 2006); and China Nat'l
Machinery Import &
[[Page 57656]]
Export Corp. v. United States, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1336 (Ct. Int'l.
Trade 2003), aff'd 104 Fed. Appx. 183 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
In avoiding the use of prices that may be subsidized, the
Department does not conduct a formal investigation to ensure that such
prices are not subsidized. See H.R. Rep. 100-576 at 590-91 (1988),
reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 1623. Rather, the Department bases
its decision on information that is available to it at the time it is
making its determination. Therefore, we have not used prices from these
countries either in calculating the Indian import-based surrogate
values or, where applicable, in calculating ME input values. See Factor
Valuation Memorandum.
Factor Valuations
In accordance with section 773(c)(3) of the Act, we calculated NV
based on FOPs reported by HSW for the POR. We multiplied the reported
per-unit factor quantities by publicly available Indian surrogate
values. In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality,
specificity, and contemporaneousness of the data.
In accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, for purposes of
calculating NV, we attempted to value the FOPs using surrogate values
that were in effect during the POR. If we were unable to obtain
surrogate values that were in effect during the POR, we adjusted the
values, as appropriate, to account for inflation or deflation between
the effective period and the POR. We calculated the inflation or
deflation adjustments for all factor values, as applicable, except
labor, using the WPI for the appropriate surrogate country as published
in the IFS.
As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including freight costs
to make them delivered prices. Specifically, we added to the Indian
import surrogate values a surrogate freight cost calculated using the
shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the
factory or the distance from the nearest port of export to the factory
where appropriate (i.e., where the sales terms for the ME inputs were
not delivered to the factory). This adjustment is in accordance with
the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Sigma
Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407-1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
(1) Chemical Inputs: The respondent, HSW, reported the following
chemical FOPs: hydrochloric acid; nitric acid; barium carbonate; and
zinc chloride. In prior cases, the Department has valued chemical FOPs
using Chemical Weekly, an Indian publication containing domestic (i.e.,
Indian) prices for chemicals. See Helical Spring Lock Washers from the
People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 73 FR 4175 (January 24, 2008), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4; Glycine from the People's
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 74 FR 41121 (August 14, 2009), and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 3 (``Glycine from PRC Final 2009'').
In 1999 and 2003, representatives from Chemical Weekly informed the
Department that unless the price quote specified the chemical purity
level, the reported prices for chemicals in liquid form were based on
one hundred percent purity levels. See Sebacic Acid from the People's
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 64 FR 69503 (December 13, 1999), and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 2, November 22, 1999, Memo to the File
from Christopher Priddy; Synthetic Indigo from the People's Republic of
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR
53711 (September 12, 2003), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 5. Accordingly, when Chemical Weekly did not
specify the concentration level at which a particular chemical was
reported, the Department treated the Chemical Weekly price as
reflecting a one hundred percent concentration level. See id. Based on
this, when a respondent reported the purity level of a chemical FOP in
a liquid form, the Department could adjust the Chemical Weekly prices
by the purity level reported by the respondent to obtain a surrogate
value specific to the purity level of the chemical FOP consumed by the
respondent. See Glycine from PRC Final 2009, at Comment 3; Final
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Helical Spring
Lock Washers from the People's Republic of China, 58 FR 48833, 48846
(September 20, 1993). Thus, when the record included values from both
World Trade Atlas (``WTA'') and Chemical Weekly, and the WTA data did
not indicate the concentration level for the chemical, the Department
would select Chemical Weekly as the best available information for
valuing the chemical FOP because it was more specific to the input
actually used.
The Department recently contacted Chemical Weekly to reconfirm that
the price quotes for chemicals, with no purity level indicated,
reflected one hundred percent purity levels. The Department was
informed by representatives of Chemical Weekly that the reported price
for hydrochloric acid in liquid form reflects a 30-33 percent purity
level. Moreover, the representatives did not believe any of the other
chemical prices were at a one hundred percent purity level. See Factor
Valuation Memo, at Attachment 3. Based on these recent statements,
which contradict prior statements made by Chemical Weekly
representatives, unless the price quotes from Chemical Weekly indicate
the purity level, the Department will treat the purity level of
chemicals sold in either liquid or solid form as unknown. Therefore,
from here on, except for price quotes that identify the purity level of
the chemical and for hydrochloric acid (because we have been informed
that the purity level is 30-33 percent), the Department will assume
that the purity level of all other chemicals sold in either liquid or
solid form as reported by Chemical Weekly is unknown and, thus, will no
longer make an adjustment. Since the purity level is unknown for these
chemicals, the Department finds that making such an adjustment using
the respondent's reported purity level would not result in a surrogate
value that is specific to the purity level of the respondent's chemical
FOP.
In light of the above, we have analyzed the WTA and Chemical Weekly
values for barium carbonate, nitric acid, and zinc chloride. In each
instance the import data reported in the WTA conforms to the FOP used
by HSW. Accordingly, for HSW's barium carbonate, nitric acid, and zinc
chloride FOPs, the Department finds that the WTA data represents the
best available information on the record for valuing these chemicals.
While we consider both WTA and Chemical Weekly to be reliable,
comparable, public, and contemporaneous, we are using WTA to value
these chemicals because the WTA represents a value from the whole of
India, whereas the Chemical Weekly value is derived from prices in just
three of India's major markets for barium carbonate, two of India's
major markets for nitric acid, and three of India's major markets for
zinc chloride.
For HSW's hydrochloric acid, the Chemical Weekly data represents
the best available information on the record for valuing this FOP. As
stated above, while we consider both WTA and Chemical Weekly to be
reliable, comparable, public, and contemporaneous, the Chemical Weekly
prices are more specific to the type of hydrochloric acid used by HSW.
This is because the purity level of hydrochloric acid used by HSW is
within the purity
[[Page 57657]]
level range of hydrochloric acid reported by Chemical Weekly (30-33
percent). See HSW's February 12, 2009, section D response at Exhibit D-
5. In contrast, the WTA data for hydrochloric acid, HTS category
2806.10.00 (hydrochloric acid), does not state a chemical concentration
level. See HSLW Final 2008, at Comment 4. Therefore, in accordance with
our new practice, the Department preliminarily finds that Chemical
Weekly represents the best available information for valuing
hydrochloric acid because the Chemical Weekly price quote for
hydrochloric acid is specific to the purity level of the FOP used by
HSW.
(2) We valued HSW's steel wire rod using price data fully
contemporaneous with the POR for 6mm, 8mm, 12mm and 16mm steel wire rod
available on the Web site of the Indian Joint Planning Committee
(``JPC''). The JPC is a joint industry/government board that monitors
Indian steel prices. These data are publicly available, specific to the
input in question, represent a broad market average, and are tax-
exclusive since the Central Excise Tax and VAT have been removed. See
Factor Valuation Memo at Attachment 2; see also Petitioner's SV
Submission, (March 30, 2009) at Attachment 1, and Petitioner's
Correction to Calculation Error (April 3, 2009). Specifically, we
calculated a weighted-average steel wire rod value by weighting the
average JPC values for the different dimensions by HSW's consumption of
these dimensions. See Factor Valuation Memo at Attachment 2; see also
HSW Supplemental Questionnaire response, (October 6, 2009) at
Attachment 1.
(3) We valued electricity using price data for small, medium, and
large industries, as published by the Central Electricity Authority of
the Government of India in its publication titled ``Electricity Tariff
& Duty and Average Rates of Electricity Supply in India,'' dated July
2006. These electricity rates represent actual country-wide, publicly-
available information on tax-exclusive electricity rates charged to
industries in India.
(4) Section 351.408(c)(3) of the Department's regulations requires
the use of a regression-based wage rate. Therefore, we valued labor
using the regression-based wage rate for China published on IA's Web
site. The source of the wage rate data on the Import Administration's
Web site is the International Labour Organization (``ILO''), Geneva,
Labour Statistics Database Chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing. See
Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries (revised November 2008)
(available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html). Since this
regression-based wage rate does not separate the labor rates into
different skill levels or types of labor, we have applied the same wage
rate to all skill levels and types of labor.
(5) We derived ratios for factory overhead, depreciation, and
selling, general and administrative expenses, interest expenses, and
profit for the finished product using the 2007-2008 financial
statements of two Indian companies, M/S Shivalik Wires Pvt. Ltd. and
Sterling Tools Ltd., in accordance with the Department's practice with
respect to selecting financial statements for use in NME cases. See,
e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Chlorinated Isocyanurates From the People's Republic of China, 70 FR
24502 (May 10, 2005), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum
at Comment 2. The Department prefers to derive financial ratios using
data from those surrogate producers whose financial data will not be
distorted by subsidies or otherwise unreliable. See Magnesium Metal
from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 73 FR 40293 (July 14, 2008), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3. We found that these two
Indian companies use steel wire rod inputs similar to those used by
HSW, and both manufacture merchandise comparable to that produced by
HSW. Specifically, one company produces nuts, and the other company
produces both nuts and washers. Because both use steel wire rod as
their input, we believe their production processes are similar to
HSW's. We did not rely on other Indian companies' financial statements
that were on the record because these companies did not use wire rod
and, hence, do not appear to employ the same production process as HSW,
or, for another Indian company that did use wire rod, the company's
financial statements showed that it received subsidies.
(6) We valued inland truck freight expenses using a per-unit
average rate calculated from data on the following Web site: http://
www.infobanc.com/logistics/logtruck.htm. The logistics section of this
Web site contains inland freight truck rates between many large Indian
cities. Since the truck rate value is based on an annual per-unit rate
which includes two months of transactions falling in the POR, we are
treating the derived average rate as contemporaneous. For rail freight,
we use 2007-2008 data from the Web site www.Indianrailways.gov to
derive, where appropriate, input-specific train rates on a rupees per
kilogram per kilometer basis (``Rs/kg/km''). For ship freight
applicable to one domestic input, HSW did not report whether it was an
NME or market economy carrier and, therefore, for the preliminary
determination we used a surrogate international freight value from
www.maerskline.com.
For further discussion of the surrogate values we used for these
preliminary results of review, see the Factor Valuation Memorandum,
which is on file in the Central Records Unit (``CRU'') in Room 1117 of
the main Department of Commerce building.
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with
section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on
the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.
Preliminary Results of Review
We preliminarily determine that the following margin exists for the
period October 1, 2007 through September 30, 2008:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hangzhou Spring Washer Co. Ltd. (also known as Zhejiang 20.68
Wanxin Group Co., Ltd.).....................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department will disclose calculations performed for these
preliminary results to the parties within five days of the date of
publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results
of this administrative review, interested parties may submit publicly
available information to value FOPs within 20 days after the date of
publication of these preliminary results. Interested parties must
provide the Department with supporting documentation for the publicly
available information to value each FOP. Additionally, in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final results of this administrative
review, interested parties may submit factual information to rebut,
clarify, or correct factual information submitted by an interested
party less than ten days before, on, or after, the applicable deadline
for submission of such factual information. However, the Department
notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1) permits new information only insofar as
it rebuts, clarifies, or corrects information recently placed on the
record. The Department generally cannot accept the
[[Page 57658]]
submission of additional, previously absent-from-the-record alternative
surrogate value information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). See
Glycine from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Rescission, in Part,
72 FR 58809 (October 17, 2007), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 2.
Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days
after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review.
See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs are limited to issues raised
in the case briefs and may be filed no later than five days after the
time limit for filing the case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties
who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A
statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a
table of authorities. Further, the Department requests that parties
submitting written comments provide the Department with a diskette
containing the public version of those comments. Also, an interested
party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of the
preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). We will issue a memorandum
identifying the date of a hearing, if one is requested.
The Department will issue the final results of this administrative
review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised by
the parties in their comments, within 120 days of publication of the
preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Assessment Rates
Upon completion of this administration review, the Department will
determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP
15 days after the date of publication of the final results of review.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate importer- or
customer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio
of the total amount of the dumping margins calculated for the examined
sales to the total entered value of those same sales. To determine
whether the duty assessment rates are de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50
percent), in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR
351.106(c)(2), we will calculate customer-specific ad valorem ratios
based on export prices.
We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer- or
customer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of
this review is above de minimis.
For entries of the subject merchandise during the POR from
companies not subject to this review, we will instruct CBP to liquidate
them at the cash deposit rate in effect at the time of entry. The final
results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of
antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final
results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties,
where applicable.
For HSW, we have calculated customer-specific antidumping duty
assessment amounts for subject merchandise based on the ratio of the
total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to
the total quantity of sales examined. We calculated these assessment
amounts because there is no information on the record which identifies
entered values or the importers of record for the U.S. sales of HSW.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements will apply to all shipments
of certain helical spring lock washers from the PRC entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication
date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by
section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For HSW, which has a separate
rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the final
results of this administrative review; (2) for any previously reviewed
or investigated PRC or non-PRC exporter, not covered in this review,
with a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the company-
specific rate established in the most recent segment of this
proceeding; (3) for all other PRC exporters of subject merchandise that
have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit
rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 128.63 percent; and (4) the cash
deposit rate for any non-PRC exporter of subject merchandise from the
PRC will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that
exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in
effect until further notice.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing the preliminary results determination
in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: November 2, 2009.
Ronald Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-26945 Filed 11-6-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P