[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 111 (Thursday, June 10, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32905-32910]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13977]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-949]
Wire Decking from the People's Republic of China: Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 10, 2010
SUMMARY: On January 12, 2010, the Department of Commerce
(``Department'') published its preliminary determination of sales at
less than fair value (``LTFV'') in the antidumping investigation of
wire decking from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''). 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.
The final dumping margins for this investigation are listed in the
``Final Determination Margins'' section below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frances Veith or Trisha Tran, 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) 482-4852, respectively.
Final Determination
We determine that wire decking from the PRC is being, or is 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 estimated margins
of sales at LTFV are shown in the ``Final Determination Margins''
section of this notice.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Case History
The Department published its preliminary determination of sales at
LTFV on January 12, 2010. See Wire Decking From the People's Republic
of China: Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 75 FR 1597 (January
12, 2010) (``Preliminary Determination'').
On January 19, 2010, the Department issued post-Preliminary
Determination supplemental questionnaires to DHMP and Eastfound\1\ and
received responses to these supplemental questionnaires on January 25,
2010. From February 1 through 12, 2010, the Department conducted
verifications of DHMP, and Eastfound and released its verification
reports for these companies on March 26, 2010, and April 14, 2010,
respectively. See the ``Verification'' section below for additional
information. On February 12, 2010, DHMP and Eastfound filed timely
requests for a public hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Mandatory respondents are Dalian Huameilong Metal Products
Co., Ltd. (``DHMP'') and Dalian Eastfound Material Handling Products
Co., Ltd. (``Eastfound Material'') and its affiliate Dalian
Eastfound Metal Products Co., Ltd. (``Eastfound Metal'')
(collectively ``Eastfound'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 16, 2010, in response to a request filed by DHMP, the
Department extended the deadline for submission of publicly available
information to March 12, 2010. On March 12, 2010, AWP Industries, Inc.,
ITC Manufacturing, Inc., J&L Wire Cloth, Inc., Nashville Wire Products
Mfg. Co., Inc., and Wireway Husky Corporation (``Petitioners''), DHMP,
and Eastfound submitted surrogate value information for the record, and
each party submitted rebuttal comments to this information on March 22,
2010. On April 22, 2010, case briefs were filed by Petitioners, Nucor
Corporation (``Nucor''), a domestic interested party, DHMP, Eastfound,
and the Government of China (``GOC''). On April 30, 2010, Petitioners,
Nucor, Eastfound, and the GOC each filed the final version of their
rebuttal briefs, and on May 3, 2010, DHMP filed the final version of
its rebuttal brief. The Department held a public hearing on May 5,
2010. On May 10, 2010, the Department rejected Nucor's case brief, but
provided Nucor an opportunity to correct and resubmit its case brief.
On May 11, 2010, Nucor filed its corrected case brief.
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., May 27, 2010). See Preliminary Determination, 75
FR at 1599. However, as explained in the memorandum from the Deputy
Assistant Secretary (``DAS'') for Import Administration, the Department
exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the
closure of the Federal Government, February 5, through February 12,
2010. Thus, all existing deadlines associated with this investigation
were postponed by seven days. See Memorandum to the Record from Ronald
Lorentzen, DAS for Import Administration, regarding ``Tolling of
Administrative Deadlines As a Result of the Government Closure During
the Recent Snowstorm,'' dated February 12, 2010. Accordingly, the
revised deadline for this final determination is June 3, 2010.
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation (``POI'') is October 1, 2008, through
March 31, 2009. This period corresponds to the two most recent fiscal
quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition, which was
June 2009. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the
information submitted by DHMP and Eastfound for use in our final
determination. See the Department's verification reports on the record
of this investigation in the Central Records Unit (``CRU''), Room 1117
of the main Department building,
[[Page 32906]]
with respect to these entities. For all verified 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 Wire Decking
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 Appendix I. 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
Financial statements - In the Preliminary Determination,
we calculated financial ratios based on three Indian producers'
financial statements (i.e., Bansidhar Granites Private Limited,
Bedmutha Wire Com. Ltd., and Mekins Agro Products Ltd.), each covering
the fiscal period ending March 31, 2008. For the final determination,
we have determined to use the Indian financial statements of Rajratan
Global Wire Limited, Visakha Wire Ropes Limited, and Nasco Steels
Private Limited for the fiscal period ending March 31, 2009. See the
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
For DHMP:
[ctrcir] We used DHMP's commercial invoice date as the date of
sale, as opposed to the shipment date used in the Preliminary
Determination. See the Department's Memorandum entitled, ``Verification
of the Sales and Factors Response of Dalian Huameilong Metal Products
Co., Ltd. in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Wire Decking from
the People's Republic of China,'' dated March 26, 2010 (``DHMP's
Verification Report''). See also the Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 10.
[ctrcir] At verification, we determined the distances from DHMP to
its unaffiliated hot-dip galvanizing toller and its affiliated
galvanizing electroplating supplier. For the final determination, we
applied a freight-in expense to those CONNUMs that indicated they were
galvanized under either of these operations, as opposed to the distance
from DHMP to the port for the unaffiliated toller and no distance for
the affiliated supplier used in the Preliminary Determination. See
DHMP's Verification Report; see also DHMP's Final Analysis Memo.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See the Department's memorandum entitled, Investigation of
Wire Decking from the People's Republic of China: Analysis of the
Final Determination Margin Calculation for Dalian Huameilong Metal
Products Co., Ltd., dated concurrently with this notice (``DHMP's
Final Analysis Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ctrcir] We valued DHMP's hot-rolled steel strip FOP using Indian
import data under harmonized tariff schedule (``HTS'') category
7211.19.50 from the World Trade Atlas (``WTA'') ($0.60247 per
kilogram). See the Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5; see
also DHMP's Final Analysis Memo.
[ctrcir] At verification, we found that DHMP's reported per-unit
billing adjustments had been incorrectly reported in DHMP's sales
database. DHMP had reported the full amount of the adjustment, instead
of the per-unit billing adjustment. For the final determination, in the
Department's margin program for DHMP, we changed DHMP's reported
billing adjustment to the actual per-unit billing adjustment. See
DHMP's Verification Report at pages 4 and 22 through 25; see also
DHMP's Final Analysis Memo.
For Eastfound:
[ctrcir] We made the following changes to Eastfound's factors-of-
production (``FOP'') data: 1) we used facts available and adjusted the
consumption for all inputs for certain CONNUMs by the percent
difference between the bill of material (``BOM'') steel weight and
Eastfound's reported FOP consumption of steel; 2) we used facts
available and set the actual weight reported for certain CONNUMs in
Eastfound's U.S. sales data file equal to the corresponding BOM weight
for steel; and 3) we used facts available and adjusted consumption for
all inputs for certain CONNUMs by the percent difference between the
amount of unreported hot-rolled steel found at verification and the
total steel from the BOM. See the Department's Memorandum entitled,
``Verification of the Sales and Factors Response of Dalian Eastfound
Metal Products Co., Ltd., and Dalian Eastfound Material Handling
Products Co., Ltd. in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Wire
Decking from the People's Republic of China,'' dated April 14, 2010
(``Eastfound's Verification Report''); see also the Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comments 7 and 8, and see Eastfound's Final Analysis
Memo.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See the Department's memorandum entitled, Investigation of
Wire Decking from the People's Republic of China: Analysis of the
Final Determination Margin Calculation for Dalian Eastfound Metal
Products Co., Ltd. and Dalian Eastfound Material Handling Products
Co., Ltd., dated concurrently with this notice (``Eastfound's Final
Analysis Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ctrcir] We have capped the amount of Eastfound's freight revenue
by the surrogate value amount deducted for ocean freight in the
Department's U.S. net price calculation. See the Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 6; see also Eastfound's Final Analysis Memo.
[ctrcir] We are not granting Eastfound a by-product offset. See the
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 7. See also Eastfound's
Verification Report; see also Eastfound's Final Analysis Memo.
[ctrcir] We valued Eastfound's unreported galvanizing tolling FOPs
using the galvanizing cost from Galrebars (8,000 Rupees per metric
ton). See the Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 9; see also
Eastfound's Final Analysis Memo.
Scope of Investigation
The scope of the investigation covers welded-wire rack decking,
which is also known as, among other things, ``pallet rack decking,''
``wire rack decking,'' ``wire mesh decking,'' ``bulk storage
shelving,'' or ``welded-wire decking.'' Wire decking consists of wire
mesh that is reinforced with structural supports and designed to be
load bearing. The structural supports include sheet metal support
channels, or other structural supports, that reinforce the wire mesh
and that are welded or otherwise affixed to the wire mesh, regardless
of whether the wire mesh and supports are assembled or unassembled and
whether shipped as a kit or packaged separately. Wire decking is
produced from carbon or alloy steel wire that has been welded into a
mesh pattern. The wire may be galvanized or plated (e.g., chrome, zinc
or nickel coated), coated (e.g., with paint, epoxy, or plastic), or
uncoated (``raw''). The
[[Page 32907]]
wire may be drawn or rolled and may have a round, square or other
profile. Wire decking is sold in a variety of wire gauges. The wire
diameters used in the decking mesh are 0.105 inches or greater for
round wire. For wire other than round wire, the distance between any
two points on a cross-section of the wire is 0.105 inches or greater.
Wire decking reinforced with structural supports is designed generally
for industrial and other commercial storage rack systems.
Wire decking is produced to various profiles, including, but not
limited to, a flat (``flush'') profile, an upward curved back edge
profile (``backstop'') or downward curved edge profile
(``waterfalls''), depending on the rack storage system. The wire
decking may or may not be anchored to the rack storage system. The
scope does not cover the metal rack storage system, comprised of metal
uprights and cross beams, on which the wire decking is ultimately
installed. Also excluded from the scope is wire mesh shelving that is
not reinforced with structural supports and is designed for use without
structural supports.
Wire decking enters the United States through several basket
categories in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(``HTSUS''). U.S. Customs and Border Protection has issued a ruling (NY
F84777) that wire decking is to be classified under HTSUS 9403.90.8040.
Wire decking has also been entered under HTSUS 7217.10.1000,
7217.10.2000, 7217.10.3000, 7217.10.4030, 7217.10.4090, 7217.10.5030,
7217.10.5090, 7217.10.6000, 7217.10.7000, 7217.10.8010, 7217.10.8020,
7217.10.8025, 7217.10.8030, 7217.10.8045, 7217.10.8060, 7217.10.8075,
7217.10.8090, 7217.10.9000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.20.3000, 7217.20.4510,
7217.20.4520, 7217.20.4530, 7217.20.4540, 7217.20.4550, 7217.20.4560,
7217.20.4570, 7217.20.4580, 7217.20.6000, 7217.20.7500, 7326.20.0010,
7326.20.0020, 7326.20.0070, 7326.90.1000, 7326.90.2500, 7326.90.3500,
7326.90.4500, 7326.90.6000, 7326.90.8505, 7326.90.8510, 7326.90.8530,
7326.90.8535, 7326.90.8545, 7326.90.8560, 7326.90.8575, 7326.90.8576,
7326.90.8577, 7326.90.8588, 9403.20.0020, and 9403.20.0030.\4\ While
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes,
the written description of the scope of these investigations is
dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ In the Preliminary Determination, we presented in the scope,
certain HTSUS categories that wire decking is also entered under, as
a six-digit category number (i.e., 7217.10, 7217.20, 7326.20, and
7326.90). Since the Preliminary Determination, we found that U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') requires a 10-digit format
for these HTSUS categories. Thus, for the final determination, we
have determined that wire decking's scope HTSUS categories will be
presented in their full 10-digit format.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surrogate Country
In the Preliminary Determination, we stated that we had selected
India 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 India that we can use to value
the FOPs. See Preliminary Determination, 75 FR at 1599-1600. 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 Rates
In proceedings involving non-market-economy (``NME'') countries,
the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies
within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should
be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the
Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to
an investigation 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. See 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''), and 19 CFR 351.107(d).
In the Preliminary Determination, we found that Eastfound Material,
Eastfound Metal, DHMP, Dandong Riqian Logistics Equipment Co. Ltd.
(``Riqian''), Globsea Co., Ltd. (``Globsea''), and Ningbo Xinguang Rack
Co., Ltd. (``Ningbo Xinguang'') demonstrated their eligibility for
separate-rate status. For the final determination, we continue to find
that the evidence placed on the record of this investigation by
Eastfound Material, Eastfound Metal, DHMP, Riqian, Globsea, and Ningbo
Xinguang demonstrate both a de jure and de facto absence of government
control, with respect to their respective exports of the merchandise
under investigation, and, thus are eligible for separate-rate status.
See Preliminary Determination, 75 FR at 1600-01.
Companies Not Receiving a Separate Rate
In the Preliminary Determination, we found that Dalian Xingbo Metal
Products Co. Ltd. (``Dalian Xingbo'') did not qualify for a separate
rate because Dalian Xingbo did not export wire decking to the United
States during the POI. See 75 FR at 1601. For the final determination,
we continue to find that the evidence placed on the record of this
investigation by Dalian Xingbo demonstrate that Dalian Xingbo did not
export wire decking to the United States and, therefore, is not
eligible for separate rate status.
In the Preliminary Determination, we found that Brynick Enterprises
Limited (``Brynick'') and Shanghai Hesheng Hardware Products Co.
(``Hesheng'') were not eligible for a separate rate because neither
company submitted a separate rate application and, thus, were treated
as part of the PRC-wide entity. See 75 FR at 1601-02. For the final
determination, we continue to find that Brynick and Hesheng are part of
the PRC-wide entity and, thus, are not eligible for separate-rate
status.
Facts Available and the PRC-wide Entity
Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act provide that the Department
shall apply ``facts otherwise available'' if, inter alia, necessary
information is not on the record, or an interested party: (A) withholds
information requested by the Department, (B) fails to provide such
information by the deadline, or in the form or manner requested, (C)
significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D) provides information that
cannot be verified, as provided by section 782(i) of the Act.
Where the Department determines that a response to a request for
information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act
provides that the Department will so inform the party submitting the
response and will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the
opportunity to remedy or explain its deficiency. If the party fails to
remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits, subject to
section 782(e) of the Act, the Department may disregard all or part of
the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Pursuant to
section 782(e) of the Act, the Department shall not decline to
[[Page 32908]]
consider submitted information if all of the following requirements are
met: (1) The information is submitted by the established deadline; (2)
the information can be verified; (3) the information is not so
incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the
applicable determination; (4) the interested party has demonstrated
that it acted to the best of its ability; and (5) the information can
be used without undue difficulties.
In the Preliminary Determination, the Department preliminarily
determined that there were exporters/producers of the subject
merchandise during the POI from the PRC that did not respond to the
Department's request for information. We treated these PRC producers/
exporters as part of the PRC-wide entity because they did not apply for
a separate rate. As a result, we found that the use of facts available
(``FA'') was appropriate to determine the PRC-wide rate pursuant to
section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act. See Preliminary Determination at 75 FR
at 1602.
Thus, in the Preliminary Determination, the Department determined
that, in selecting from among the facts available, an adverse inference
is appropriate because the PRC-wide entity failed to cooperate by not
acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for
information. See Id. As adverse facts available (``AFA''), we
preliminarily assigned to the PRC-wide entity a rate of 289.00 percent,
the highest calculated rate from the petition. See id; see also
Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No.
103-316, vol. 1, at 870 (1994) (``SAA'').
There have been no changes to the information on the record
concerning the PRC-wide entity. Therefore, we have made no changes in
our analysis for the final determination. Consequently, we determine
that the use of AFA for the PRC-wide entity is warranted for the final
determination.
Selection of the Adverse Facts Available Rate
In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act
and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) provide that the Department may rely on
information derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final determination in
the investigation, (3) any previous review or determination, or (4) any
information placed on the record. In selecting a rate for AFA, the
Department selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse ``as to
effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule to induce
respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate
information in a timely manner.''\5\ It is also 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.''\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 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).
\6\ 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); See also, SAA at 870.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generally, the Department finds selecting the highest rate in any
segment of the proceeding as AFA to be appropriate.\7\ It is the
Department's practice to select, as AFA, the higher of the (a) highest
margin alleged in the petition, or (b) the highest calculated rate of
any respondent in the investigation.\8\ In the instant investigation,
as AFA, we have assigned to the PRC-wide entity the highest petition
rate on the record of this proceeding that can be corroborated. See
Wire Decking From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of
Antidumping Duty Investigation, 74 FR 31691, 31694 (July 2, 2009)
(``Initiation Notice''). The Department determines that this
information is the most appropriate from the available sources to
effectuate the purposes of AFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See, e.g., Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic
of China; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and Intent to Rescind in Part, 70 FR 76755, 76761 (December
28, 2005) unchanged in final, Certain Cased Pencils from the
People's Republic of China; Final Results and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 38366 (July 6, 2006),
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 10.
\8\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from the People's
Republic of China, 65 FR 34660 (May 21, 2000), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at ``Facts Available.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corroboration
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies
on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the
course of an investigation as facts available, it must, to the extent
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources
reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is described as
``information derived from the petition that gave rise to the
investigation or review, the final determination concerning merchandise
subject to this investigation, or any previous review under section 751
concerning the merchandise subject to this investigation.''\9\ To
``corroborate'' means simply that the Department will satisfy itself
that the secondary information to be used has probative value.\10\
Independent sources used to corroborate may include, for example,
published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and
information obtained from interested parties during the particular
investigation.\11\ To corroborate secondary information, the Department
will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance
of the information used.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Sodium Hexametaphosphate From the People's Republic of China, 73 FR
6479, 6481 (February 4, 2008); see also, SAA at 870.
\10\ See id.
\11\ See id.
\12\ See Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand From the
People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value, 75 FR 28560, 28562-63 (May 21, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the Preliminary Determination, in accordance with section 776(c)
of the Act, we corroborated our AFA margin by comparing the highest
CONNUM-specific margin from the two mandatory respondents to the
petition margins.\13\ Similarly, for the final determination, we
compared the highest CONNUM-specific margin from the two mandatory
respondents to the petition margins. We conclude that using the highest
CONNUM-specific margin as a reference point, the highest petition
margin that can be corroborated within the meaning of the statute is
143.00 percent, which is sufficiently adverse so as to induce
cooperation such that the uncooperative companies do not benefit from
their failure to cooperate. See Memorandum to the File, regarding
Corroboration of the PRC-Wide Entity Rate and for the Final
Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Wire Decking
from the People's Republic of China, dated concurrently with this
notice. Accordingly, we find that the rate of 143.00 percent is
corroborated within the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See the Department's memorandum entitled, Corroboration of
the PRC-Wide Entity Rate and for the Preliminary Determination in
the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Wire Decking from the People's
Republic of China, dated January 4, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of the merchandise under
investigation except for entries from Eastfound, DHMP, Riqian, Globsea,
and Ningbo Xinguang as they have demonstrated eligibility for a
separate rate. These companies and their corresponding antidumping duty
cash deposit rates are listed below in the ``Final Determination''
section of this notice. Accordingly, we find that the rate of 143.00
percent is corroborated within the meaning of section 776(c) of the
Act.
[[Page 32909]]
Combination Rates
In the Preliminary Determination, the Department stated that it
would calculate combination rates for respondents that are eligible for
a separate rate in this investigation.\14\ This practice is described
in the Separate Rate Policy Bulletin.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Preliminary Determination, 75 FR at 1606.
\15\ See Memorandum entitled ``Separate-Rates Practice and
Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations
involving Non-Market Economy Countries'' dated April 5, 2005,
available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Determination
The weighted-average dumping margin percentages are as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Exporter Producer Margin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dalian Huameilong Metal Products Co., Ltd..... Dalian Huameilong Metal Products Co., Ltd. 17.75[perc
nt]
Dalian Eastfound Metal Products Co., Ltd. / Dalian Eastfound Metal Products Co., Ltd., or Dalian 14.24[perc
Dalian Eastfound Material Handling Products Eastfound Material Handling Products Co. Ltd. nt]
Co. Ltd......................................
Globsea Co., Ltd.............................. Dalian Yutiein Storage Manufacturing Co. Ltd., or 16.00[perc
Dalian Xingbo Metal Products Co. Ltd. nt]
Ningbo Xinguang Rack Co., Ltd................. Ningbo Xinguang Rack Co., Ltd. 16.00[perc
nt]
Dandong Riqian Logistics Equipment Co. Ltd.... Dandong Riqian Logistics Equipment Co. Ltd. 16.00[perc
nt]
PRC-Wide Entity[ast].......................... .................................................... 143.00[per
cnt]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ast] This rate also applies to Brynick Enterprises Limited, Shanghai Hesheng Hardware Products Co., and Dalian
Xingbo Metal Products Co. Ltd.
Disclosure
We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the
date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are
directing CBP to continue to suspend liquidation of all imports of
subject merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the date of publication of the Preliminary
Determination in the Federal Register. We will instruct CBP to continue
to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond for all companies
based on the estimated weighted-average dumping margins shown above.
Where the product under investigation is also subject to a
concurrent countervailing duty investigation, we instruct CBP to
require a cash deposit or posting of a bond equal to the amount by
which the normal value exceeds the export price, less the amount of the
countervailing duty determined to constitute an export subsidy.\16\
Accordingly, for cash deposit purposes for Eastfound, we will subtract
from the antidumping applicable cash deposit rate that portion of the
rate attributable to the export subsidies found in the affirmative
countervailing duty determination (i.e., 0.01 percent). See the final
notice for the concurrent CVD investigation of wire decking from the
PRC, dated concurrently with this notice. After the adjustment for the
export subsidies, the resulting cash deposit rate will be 14.23 percent
for Eastfound.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India, 69 FR
67306, 67307 (November 17, 2004).
\17\ Normally, where the non-individually examined entities
receiving a separate rate in an AD investigation are found to have
benefitted from export subsidies in a concurrent CVD investigation
on the same product (either through individual examination or
through the ``All Others'' rate), the Department will instruct CBP
to collect a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal the amount
of the AD margin adjusted for the amount of the export subsidy. In
this case, none of the non-individually examined entities receiving
a separate rate in the AD investigation were individually examined
in the companion CVD investigation. Further, the export subsidy
found for ``All Others'' in the CVD companion case is so small
(0.005 percent) as to have no impact on the AD margin. Accordingly,
we will not adjust the AD margins for these entities in our
instructions to CBP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect
until further notice.
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the
International Trade Commission (``ITC'') of our final determination of
sales at LTFV. As our final determination is affirmative, in accordance
with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, within 45 days the ITC will
determine whether the domestic industry in the United States is
materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of
imports 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 proprietary information 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 the
terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This determination and notice are issued and published in
accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: June 3, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix I - List of Issues
Case Issues:
Comment 1: Double Remedy
Comment 2: Selection of Financial Statements
Comment 3: Valuation of Electricity
Comment 4: Valuation of Wire Rod
Comment 5: Valuation of Flat Rolled Steel
Comment 6: Eastfound's US Price and Freight Charges
Comment 7: Eastfound's Consumption factors
Comment 8: Eastfound's Wire Rod Correction from Verification
Comment 9: Galvanization
A. Whether to Reject Galvanizing
[[Page 32910]]
Information Submitted by Eastfound at Verification
B. Whether the Department Should Use a Surrogate Value for
Galvanizing
C. Whether the Department Should Revise the Surrogate Value for
Galvanizing
Comment 10: DHMP's Date of Sale
Comment 11: Value of Sulfuric Acid, Thiourea, Caustic Soda, Zinc Oxide,
Nitric Acid
[FR Doc. 2010-13977 Filed 6-9-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S