[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 173 (Wednesday, September 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55357-55362]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22856]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-888]
Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts
Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the
Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on floor-standing, metal-top
ironing tables and certain parts thereof (ironing tables) from the
People's Republic of China (PRC). The period of review (POR) is August
1, 2009 through July 31, 2010. We have preliminarily determined that
respondent Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares & Hardware Co., Ltd.
(Foshan Shunde) has made sales to the United States of the subject
merchandise at prices below normal value (NV). We invite interested
parties to comment on these preliminary results. Parties filing
comments are requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement of
the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument(s).
DATES: Effective Date: September 7, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael J. Heaney or Robert James, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4475 or (202) 482-0649, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 6, 2004, the Department published in the Federal Register
the antidumping duty order regarding ironing tables from the PRC. See
Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
and Antidumping Duty Order: Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables
and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR
47868 (August 6, 2004) (Amended Final and Order).
On August 2, 2010, the Department published a notice of opportunity
to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on,
inter alia, ironing tables from the PRC. See Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation;
Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 75 FR 45094 (August 2,
2010). On August 31, 2010, Home Products International (the Petitioner
in this proceeding) and Foshan Shunde requested, in accordance with 19
CFR 351.213(b)(1), an administrative review of this order for Foshan
Shunde.
On September 29, 2010, the Department initiated an administrative
review of Foshan Shunde. See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation
in Part, 75 FR 60076 (September 29, 2010).
On May 4, 2011, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), the
Department extended the deadline for the preliminary results of review
until August 31, 2011. See Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and
Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Extension of
the Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the Administrative
Review, 76 FR 25301 (May 4, 2011).
The Department issued its original antidumping questionnaire to
Foshan Shunde on October 4, 2010. Foshan Shunde timely filed its
response to Section A of the questionnaire on November 12, 2010; Foshan
Shunde's Sections C and D responses followed on November 19, 2010 and
November 30, 2010 respectively. Petitioner filed comments on Foshan
Shunde's sections A, C and D responses on January 12, 2011, May 17,
2011, July 28, 2011 and July 8, 2011.
The Department issued supplementary questionnaires to Foshan Shunde
on March 30, 2011, June 2, 2011, and July 13, 2011. Foshan Shunde
timely responded to each of these supplemental requests for information
on May 2, 2011, June 23, 2011, and July 29, 2011.
Surrogate Country and Surrogate Value Data
On July 8, 2011 the Department issued a memorandum on surrogate
country selection and surrogate value (SV) data. See Memorandum from
Carole Showers, Director Office of Policy to Richard Weible, Director
Office 7, Re: Request for a List of Surrogate Countries for an
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Floor-Standing,
Metal-Top, Ironing Tables and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic
of China (``PRC''): Surrogate Country List, dated June 8, 2011
(Surrogate Country List). On June 10, 2011 the Department distributed
the Surrogate Country List Memorandum to interested parties via e-mail.
On July 8, 2011, the Petitioner submitted information to value factors
of production (FOP) from Indonesia. See Petitioner July 8, 2011 letter.
On July 22, 2011, Foshan Shunde submitted suggested FOPs from India.
See Foshan Shunde July 22, 2011, letter. For the reasons explained
infra, the Department has determined that Indonesia is an appropriate
surrogate country for purposes of this review. Accordingly, all the
surrogate values used to value FOPs were obtained from sources in
Indonesia.
Scope of the Order
For purposes of this order, the product covered consists of floor-
standing, metal-top ironing tables, assembled or unassembled, complete
or incomplete, and certain parts thereof. The subject tables are
designed and used principally for the hand ironing or pressing of
garments or other articles of fabric. The subject tables have full-
height leg assemblies that support the ironing surface at an
appropriate (often adjustable) height above the floor. The subject
tables are produced in a variety of leg finishes, such as painted,
plated, or matte, and they are available with various features,
including iron rests, linen racks, and others. The subject ironing
tables may be sold with or without a pad and/or cover. All types and
configurations of floor-standing, metal-top ironing tables are covered
by this review.
Furthermore, this order specifically covers imports of ironing
tables, assembled or unassembled, complete or incomplete, and certain
parts thereof. For purposes of this order, the term ``unassembled''
ironing table means a product requiring the attachment of the leg
assembly to the top or the
[[Page 55358]]
attachment of an included feature such as an iron rest or linen rack.
The term ``complete'' ironing table means product sold as a ready-to-
use ensemble consisting of the metal-top table and a pad and cover,
with or without additional features, e.g., iron rest or linen rack. The
term ``incomplete'' ironing table means product shipped or sold as a
``bare board''--i.e., a metal-top table only, without the pad and
cover--with or without additional features, e.g., iron rest or linen
rack. The major parts or components of ironing tables that are intended
to be covered by this order under the term ``certain parts thereof''
consist of the metal top component (with or without assembled supports
and slides) and/or the leg components, whether or not attached together
as a leg assembly. The order covers separately shipped metal top
components and leg components, without regard to whether the respective
quantities would yield an exact quantity of assembled ironing tables.
Ironing tables without legs (such as models that mount on walls or
over doors) are not floor-standing and are specifically excluded.
Additionally, tabletop or countertop models with short legs that do not
exceed 12 inches in length (and which may or may not collapse or
retract) are specifically excluded.
The subject ironing tables are currently classifiable under
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading
9403.20.0011. The subject metal top and leg components are classified
under HTSUS subheading 9403.90.8041. Although the HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and for Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
purposes, the Department's written description of the scope remains
dispositive.
Non-Market-Economy Status
In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the
PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (NME). 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. 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). None of the parties to
this administrative review has contested such treatment or provided
such information that would overturn that designation. Accordingly, we
calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which
applies to NME countries.
Surrogate Country
When the Department investigates imports from an NME country and
available information does not permit the Department to determine NV
pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act, then, pursuant to section
773(c)(4) of the Act, the Department bases NV on an NME producer's FOPs
to the extent possible, in one or more market-economy countries that
(1) are at a level of economic development comparable to that of the
NME country, and (2) are significant producers of comparable
merchandise. The Department determined the Philippines, Indonesia,
Ukraine, Thailand, Colombia and South Africa are countries comparable
to the PRC in economic development. (See Surrogate Country List).
Based on publicly available information placed on the record by
interested parties (e.g., production data), the Department determines
Indonesia to be a reliable source for surrogate values. Indonesia is at
a comparable level of economic development pursuant to section
773(c)(4) of the Act. Id. Moreover, Indonesia is a significant producer
of the subject merchandise. See Petitioner July 8, 2011, submission at
Exhibit 1. Additionally, Indonesia has publicly available and reliable
data. See Memorandum to the File through Robert James, Program Manager
Office 7 from Michael J. Heaney International Trade Analyst:
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Floor-Standing, Metal Top
Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of
China, dated August 31, 2011 (Factors Valuation Memorandum).
Accordingly because Indonesia meets all of the Department's criteria
for selection as a surrogate country, the Department has selected
Indonesia for purposes of valuing FOP surrogate values.
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department has a
rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are
subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single
antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all
exporters of 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. See Policy Bulletin 05.1:
Separate Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in
Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market Economy Countries,
available at http://ia.ita.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf (Policy Bulletin
O5:1). Exporters can demonstrate this independence through the absence
of both de jure and de facto governmental control over export
activities. The Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject
merchandise under a test arising from the Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China,
56 FR 20588 at Comment 1 (May 6, 1991) (Sparklers). This concept was
further developed in 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). However, if the Department
determines that a company is wholly foreign-owned or located in a
market economy, then a separate rate analysis is unnecessary to
determine whether it is independent from government control. See Policy
Bulletin 05:1 at 5.
Accordingly, we have considered whether Foshan Shunde is
independent from government control, and therefore eligible for a
separate rate. The Department's separate-rate test to determine whether
the exporters are independent from government control does not
consider, in general, macroeconomic/border-type controls, e.g., export
licenses, quotas, and minimum export prices, particularly if these
controls are imposed to prevent dumping. See Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Preserved
Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China, 63 FR 72255, 72256
(December 31, 1998). The test focuses, rather, on controls over the
investment, pricing, and output decision-making process at the
individual firm level. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate
from Ukraine, 62 FR 61754, 61758 (November 19, 1997); see also Tapered
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the
People's Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997).
Foshan Shunde provided complete separate-rate information in its
response to our original and supplemental questionnaires. Accordingly,
we performed a separate-rates analysis to determine whether Foshan
Shunde is independent from government control.
Absence of De Jure Control
The Department considers the following de jure criteria in
determining
[[Page 55359]]
whether an individual company may be granted a separate rate: (1) An
absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an individual
exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative enactments
decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal measures by
the government decentralizing control of companies. See Sparklers, 56
FR 20588 at Comment 1. The evidence provided by Foshan Shunde supports
a preliminary finding of de jure absence of control based on the
following: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with
its business and export licenses; (2) applicable legislative enactments
decentralizing control of companies; and (3) formal measures (e.g., the
Foreign Trade Law) decentralizing control of companies. See, e.g.,
Foshan Shunde November 12, 2010, Section A questionnaire response at
pages at A-4-A-5.
Absence of De Facto Control
Typically, the Department considers 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 authority; (2) whether the respondent
has 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 its management; and (4) whether
the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes
independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of
losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR 22857; see also Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol from
the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544 (May 8, 1995). 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 governmental control which would preclude the Department from
assigning separate rates.
The evidence provided by Foshan Shunde supports a preliminary
finding of de facto absence of government control based on the
following: (1) The absence of evidence that the export prices are set
by or are subject to the approval of a government agency; (2) the
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other
agreements; (3) the respondent has autonomy from government in making
decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) the respondent
retains the proceeds of its export sales and make independent decisions
regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses. See Foshan
Shunde November 12, 2010, Section A questionnaire response at A-7
through A-9.
In accordance with the criteria identified in Sparklers and Silicon
Carbide, the evidence placed on the record of this review by Foshan
Shunde demonstrates an absence of de jure and de facto government
control with respect to Foshan Shunde's exports of the subject
merchandise. Accordingly, we have determined that Foshan Shunde has
demonstrated eligibility for a separate rate.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether the respondent's sales of the subject
merchandise to the United States were made at prices below NV, we
compared its United States prices to normal values, as described in the
``U.S. Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. See
section 773(a) of the Act.
U.S. Price
Export Price
We based U.S. price for Foshan Shunde on export price (EP) in
accordance with section 772(a) of the Act because the first sale to an
unaffiliated purchaser was made prior to importation, and constructed
export price (CEP) was not otherwise warranted by the facts on the
record. We calculated EP based on the packed price from the exporter to
the first unaffiliated customer in the United States. We deducted
foreign inland freight, and foreign brokerage and handling expenses
from the starting price (gross unit price), in accordance with section
772(c) of the Act. Where appropriate, we made an addition to U.S. price
for billing adjustments.
Foshan Shunde incurred foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage
and handling expenses from PRC service providers. We therefore valued
these services using Indonesian surrogate values (see ``Factors of
Production'' section below for further discussion).
Normal Value
Factors of Production (FOPs)
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall
determine NV using an FOP methodology if the merchandise is exported
from an NME country and the Department finds that the available
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. When determining NV in an NME context, the Department will
base NV on FOPs because the presence of government controls on various
aspects of these economies renders price comparisons and the
calculation of production costs invalid under our normal methodologies.
The Department's questionnaires required Foshan Shunde to provide
information regarding its weighted-average FOP.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), the Department will
normally use publicly available information to find an appropriate SV
to value FOPs, but when a producer sources an input from a market
economy and pays for it in market-economy currency, the Department may
value the factor using the actual price paid for the input. See 19 CFR
351.408(c)(1); see also Shakeproof Assembly Components, Div. of Ill.
Tool Works, Inc. v. United States, 268 F. 3d 1376, 1382-1383 (Fed. Cir.
2001) (affirming the Department's use of market-based prices to value
FOPs). During the POR, Foshan Shunde reported that it purchased a
certain production material from a market economy supplier. See Foshan
Shunde November 30, 2010, Section D response at Exhibit D-2 (because of
the proprietary nature of this information, we do not summarize it
here). Foshan Shunde further claimed that it purchased more than 33
percent of its total volume of this particular input from a market
economy supplier. However, in response to our requests for further
information concerning this input, Foshan Shunde was unable to
establish that the production input was indeed of market economy
origin. Accordingly, we used the Indonesian surrogate value of the
input to value this FOP. See August 31, 2011, Memorandum from Michael
Heaney to the File: ``Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares & Hardware Co.,
Ltd. (Foshan Shunde) Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary Results''
(Preliminary Analysis Memorandum) at pages 3-4.
We calculated NV based on FOPs in accordance with section 773(c)(3)
and (4) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c). The FOPs include but are not
limited to: (1) Hours of labor required; (2) quantities of raw material
employed; (3) amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; and (4)
representative capital costs. The Department used FOPs reported by
Foshan Shunde for materials, energy, by-products, and packing. To
calculate NV, we multiplied the reported unit factor quantities by
publicly available values in the surrogate country, Indonesia. As
[[Page 55360]]
explained infra, to value labor, we used the industry specific labor
rate for schedule 28 release 5B for Indonesia.
Foshan Shunde reported by-product sales. Consistent with the
Department's determination in the investigation of Diamond Sawblades
from the PRC, we will deduct the surrogate value of by-products sold
from NV because the surrogate financial statements on the record of
this administrative review contain no references to the treatment of
by-products and because Foshan Shunde provided evidence to demonstrate
sales of their by-products. See 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) (Diamond Sawblades from
the PRC), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 9,
unchanged in Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's
Republic of China, 71 FR 35864 (June 22, 2006). This is consistent with
accounting principles based on a reasonable assumption that if a
company sells a by-product, the by-product necessarily incurs expenses
for overhead, SG&A, and profit. Id.
In selecting the surrogate Indonesian values, we considered the
quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data, in accordance
with our normal practice. See, e.g., Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide
from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 48195 (August 18, 2008), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. The Department adjusted
input prices by including freight costs to make them delivered prices,
as appropriate. Specifically, the Department added to Indonesian import
SVs a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported distance
from the domestic supplier to the factory, or the distance from the
nearest seaport to the factory of production. This adjustment is in
accordance with the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1407-
08 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A detailed description of all SVs used to value
Foshan Shunde's FOPs may be found in the Memorandum to the File through
Robert James, Program Manager Office 7 from Michael J. Heaney
International Trade Analyst: Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of
Floor-Standing, Metal Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from
the People's Republic of China, dated August 31, 2011 (Factors
Valuation Memorandum).
The Department used Indonesian import data from the Global Trade
Atlas (GTA) published by Global Trade Information Services, Inc., which
is sourced from the Buku Tarif Bea Masuk Indonesia (BTBMI) to determine
the surrogate values for most raw materials, by-products and packing
material inputs. With regard to the Indonesian-based surrogate values,
we have disregarded prices that we have reason to believe or suspect
may be subsidized, such as those imports from India, South Korea, and
Thailand. We have found in other proceedings that these countries
maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies and,
therefore, it is reasonable to infer that all exports to all markets
from these countries may be subsidized. See, e.g., Frontseating Service
Valves from the People's Republic of China; Preliminary Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Preliminary Negative Determination of
Critical Circumstances, and Postponement of Final Determination, 73 FR
62952, 62597 (October 22, 2008), unchanged in Frontseating Service
Valves from the People's Republic of China; Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Final Negative Determination of
Critical Circumstances, 74 FR 10886 (March 13, 2009); and China
National Machinery Import & Export Corporation v. United States, 293 F.
Supp. 2d 1334, 1339 (CIT 2003), aff'd 104 Fed. Appx. 183 (Fed. Cir.
2004). We are also guided by the statute's legislative history that
explains that it is not necessary to conduct a formal investigation to
ensure that such prices are not subsidized. See Conference Report to
the 1988 Omnibus Trade & Competitiveness Act, H.R. Rep. No 100-S-76 at
590 (1988) which stipulates that the Department will ``avoid using any
prices which it has reason to believe or suspect may be dumped or
subsidized prices.'' Rather, the Department bases its decisions on
information that is available to it at the time it is making its
determination. Therefore, we have not used prices from these countries
in calculating the Indonesian import-based surrogate values.
Additionally, we disregarded prices from NME countries. These countries
include Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova,
China, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam. Finally,
imports that were labeled as originating from an ``unspecified''
country were excluded from the averaging value, because the Department
could not be certain that they were not from either an NME country or a
country with general export subsidies.
Except as noted below, we valued raw material inputs using the
weighted-average unit import values derived from the BTBMI, in the GTA,
available at http://www.gtis.com/gta. All surrogate values used from
the GTA are available on the record of this proceeding and are listed
in the Factors Valuation Memorandum. Where we could not obtain publicly
available information contemporaneous with the POR with which to value
FOPs, we adjusted the surrogate values using, where appropriate, the
Indonesian Wholesale Price Index as published in the International
Financial Statistics of the International Monetary Fund. See Factors
Valuation Memorandum at Attachment 1. We further adjusted these prices
to account for freight expenses incurred between the input supplier and
the respondent. For business proprietary factors, valuation
descriptions are described in the Factors Valuation Memorandum.
The Department valued electricity using electricity price data for
Indonesia specified in the World's Bank's 2003 Electricity for All:
Options for Increasing Access in Indonesia, issued in 2003 (Electricity
for All). Petitioner has placed a copy of Electricity for All on the
record of this proceeding. See Petitioner's July 8, 2011, Surrogate
Value Comments at Exhibit 3. The electricity rates reported represent
actual, country-wide, publicly-available information on tax-exclusive
electricity rates charged to small, medium, and large industries in
Indonesia. To represent current electricity rates during the POR, we
used the Indonesian Wholesale Price Index to inflate these values to
POR price levels. See Factors Valuation Memorandum at page 5.
The Department valued water using data collected by the United
Nations in 2006. See Human Development Report: Disconnected Poverty:
Water Supply and Development in Jakarta, Indonesia (Water Supply and
Development). Petitioner has placed a copy of Water Supply and
Development on the record of this proceeding. See Petitioner's July 8,
2011, Surrogate Value Comments at Exhibit 6. We based the value for
water on the 2005 value listed for large hotels, high-rise buildings,
banks, and factories. To represent current water rates during the POR,
we used the Indonesian Wholesale Price Index to inflate these values to
POR price levels. See Factors Valuation Memorandum at page 5.
To calculate the labor input, we based our calculation on the
methodology
[[Page 55361]]
which the Department enunciated on June 21, 2011 in Antidumping
Methodologies in Proceedings Involving Non-Market Economies Valuing the
Factor of Production: Labor 76 FR 36092 (June 21, 2011) (Labor
Methodologies). Prior to 2010, the Department used regression-based
wages that captured the worldwide relationship between per capita Gross
National Income and hourly manufacturing wages, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.408(c)(3). On May 3, 2010, the Federal Circuit, in Dorbest Ltd., v.
United States, 604 F. 3d 1363, 1372 (Fed Cir. 2010) (Dorbest),
invalidated part of that regulation. As a consequence of the Federal
Circuit's ruling in Dorbest, the Department no longer relies on the
regression-based methodology described in 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3).
In Labor Methodologies, the Department explained that the best
methodology to value the labor input is to use industry-specific labor
rates from the primary surrogate country. See Labor Methodologies at 76
FR at 36093. Additionally, the Department determined that the best data
source for industry-specific labor rates is Chapter 6A: Labor Cost in
Manufacturing, from the International Labor Organization (ILO) Yearbook
of Labor Statistics (Yearbook). See Labor Methodologies at 76 FR at
36093-36094.
There are no Chapter 6A labor data available in this proceeding
from Indonesia. Therefore, in these Preliminary Results, the Department
has calculated the labor input using Indonesian Chapter 5B data which
reflects direct compensation and bonuses. The Department finds that
because Chapter 6A data are unavailable, it is preferable to use
Chapter 5B data from Indonesia to remain consistent with the other data
sources that we are relying on from the primary surrogate country.
Also, the Department further finds the two digit description under
ISIC-Revision 3 (Manufacture of Fabricated Metal Products, except
Machinery and Equipment) to be the best available information on the
record because it is specific to the industry being examined, and is
therefore derived from industries that produce comparable merchandise.
This is the same classification used in the prior review of this case
when the Department also relied on Chapter 5B data under the
Department's interim labor rate methodology. See Antidumping
Methodologies in Proceedings Involving Non Market Economies Valuing the
Factor of Production: Labor 76 FR 9544 (February 18, 2011).
Accordingly, relying on Chapter 5B of the Yearbook, we calculated the
labor data reported by Indonesia to the ILO to the Department under
Sub-classification 28 of the ISIC-Revision 3 standard, in accordance
with section 773(c)(4) of the Act. For these Preliminary Results, the
calculated industry-specific wage rate is $0.5347 per hour. Because
these data reflect direct compensation and bonuses and none of the
indirect costs reflected in Chapter 6A data, we find that the facts and
information on the record do not warrant or permit an adjustment to the
surrogate financial statements. See Labor Methodologies at 76 FR at
36094. A more detailed description of the wage rate calculation
methodology is provided in the Factors Valuation Memorandum.
The Department valued truck freight expenses using a per-unit
average rate calculated from a 2001 study Cost of Investing and Doing
Business in ASEAN (ASEAN Study). We used the Indonesian Wholesale Price
Index to inflate these values to POR levels. The ASEAN Study is
attached at Attachment 7 of the Factors Valuation Memorandum.
The Department valued brokerage and handling using the values
published in Doing Business 2010: Indonesia by the World Bank.
Petitioner has placed a copy of Doing Business 2010: Indonesia on the
record of this proceeding. See Petitioner July 8, 2011, Surrogate Value
Comments at Exhibit 10.
To value factory overhead, selling, general and administrative
(SG&A) expenses, and profit the Department used the audited 2009
financial statements of PT Lion Metal Works Tbk (PT Lion). PT Lion is
an Indonesian producer of Indonesian fabricated metal products which we
find comparable to the subject merchandise. Petitioner placed upon the
record of this proceeding, product brochures which describe the
merchandise produced by PT Lion. See Petitioner July 8, 2011, letter at
Exhibit 7. Many of the products produced by PT Lion are products which
like the subject merchandise involve the fabrication of metal.
Petitioner has placed a copy of the 2009 Financial Statements of PT
Lion on the record of this proceeding. (See Petitioner July 8, 2011
Surrogate Value Comments at Exhibit 8).
We are preliminarily granting a by-product offset to Foshan Shunde
for scrap steel sales. See Preliminary Analysis Memorandum at page 3.
Currency Conversion
Where necessary, the Department made currency conversions into U.S.
dollars, in accordance with section 773(A) of the Act, based on the
exchange rates in effect on the date of the U.S. sale, as certified by
the Federal Reserve Board.
Preliminary Results of Review
We preliminarily determine that the following antidumping duty
margin exists:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares & Hardware Co., Ltd... 63.09
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment Rates
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and
CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The
Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to
CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this
review. For assessment purposes, where possible, we calculated
importer-specific ad valorem assessment rates for ironing tables from
the PRC based on the ratio of the total amount of the dumping duties
calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those
same sales. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries covered by this review if any assessment rate
calculated in the final results of this review is above de minimis. 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 these reviews and for future deposits of estimated duties,
where applicable.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporter
listed above, the cash deposit rate will be established in the final
results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis,
i.e., less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit will be required for that
company); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC
exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit
rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the
most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise
which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash
deposit rate will
[[Page 55362]]
be the PRC-wide rate of 157.68 percent (see Amended Final and Order);
and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not
received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate
applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied that non-PRC exporter.
These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
Public Comment
The Department will disclose calculations performed in connection
with the preliminary results of this review within five days of the
date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR
351.224(b). Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days
of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any
hearing will be held 37 days after the publication of this notice, or
the first workday thereafter unless the Department alters the date
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d). Individuals who wish to request a
hearing must submit a written request within 30 days of the publication
of this notice in the Federal Register to the Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, pursuant to the
Department's e-filing regulations. See https://iaaccess.trade.gov/help/IA%20ACCESS%20User%20Guide.pdf.
Requests for a public hearing should contain: (1) The party's name,
address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3)
to the extent practicable, an identification of the arguments to be
raised at the hearing.
Unless otherwise notified by the Department, interested parties may
submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this
notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). As part of the case
brief, parties are encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments and
a table of authorities cited in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2).
Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case
briefs, must be filed within five days after the case brief is filed in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(d). If a hearing is held, an interested
party may make an affirmative presentation only on arguments included
in that party's case brief and may make a rebuttal presentation only on
arguments included in that party's rebuttal brief in accordance with 19
CFR 351.310(c). Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and
place of the hearing within 48 hours before the scheduled time. The
Department will issue the final results of this review, which will
include the results of its analysis of issues raised in the briefs, not
later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice in
accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.213(h)(1).
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during these review periods. 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.
These preliminary results of administrative review are issued and
this notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and
777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: August 31, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-22856 Filed 9-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P