Federal Register, Volume 76 Issue 176 (Monday, September 12, 2011)

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 176 (Monday, September 12, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56147-56156]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23148]

[[Page 56147]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-909]

Certain Steel Nails From the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Results and Preliminary Rescission, in Part, of the
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Intent To
Rescind New Shipper Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``Department'') is conducting an
administrative review and new shipper review (``NSR'') of the
antidumping duty Order \1\ on certain steel nails (``nails'') from the
People's Republic of China (``PRC'') for the period of review (``POR'')
August 1, 2009, through July 31, 2010, and August 1, 2009, through
August 5, 2010, respectively. The Department has preliminarily
determined that The Stanley Works (Langfang) Fastening Systems Co.,
Ltd. (``Stanley Langfang''), and Stanley Black & Decker (``The Stanley
Works'')/Stanley Fastening Systems, LP (collectively ``Stanley''),
Tianjin Jinghai County Hongli Industry and Business Co., Ltd.
(``Hongli''), and Tianjin Jinchi Metal Products Co., Ltd. (``Jinchi''),
all made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value
(``NV''). The Department has also preliminarily determined that
Shanghai Colour Co., Ltd. and Wuxi Colour Co., Ltd. (collectively
``Shanghai Colour'')'s single sale to the United States does not
constitute a bona fide transaction. Therefore, we have preliminarily
rescinded the new shipper review with regard to Shanghai Colour. If
these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this
review, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of
subject merchandise during the POR. Interested parties are invited to
comment on these preliminary results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Steel Nails
from the People's Republic of China, 73 FR 44961 (August 1, 2008)
(``Order'').

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: September 12, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alexis Polovina, Ricardo Martinez, or
Javier Barrientos, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street
and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)
482-3927, (202) 482-4532, or (202) 482-2243, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Case Timeline

On August 27, 2010, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b) and (c), the
Department received an NSR request from Shanghai Colour.
On September 29, 2010, the Department published in the Federal
Register a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on nails from the PRC, for 222 companies.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 75 FR
60076 (September 29, 2010) (``2nd AR Initiation'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On October 4, 2010, the Department published in the Federal
Register a notice of initiation of a new shipper review of nails from
the PRC, for Shanghai Colour.\3\ On April 28, 2011, the Department
published a notice rescinding the administrative review with respect to
160 companies and extending the time period for issuing the preliminary
results by 90 days to August 1, 2011.^{4 5 6}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ See Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China:
Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 75 FR 61132
(October 4, 2010).
\4\ See Certain Steel Nails from the Peoples' Republic of China:
Notice of Extension of Time Limits and Partial Rescission of the
Second Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 23788 (April
28, 2011) (``Rescission'').
\5\ The Department incorrectly identified three companies, Cana
(Tianjin) Hardware Ind., Co., Ltd.; Huanghua Jinhai Metal Products
Co., Ltd.; and Qingdao Jisco Co., Ltd., in the Rescission as having
separate rates. These three companies do not have separate rates
from previous reviews and may still be under review as part of the
PRC-wide entity. The Department intends to issue liquidation
instructions for the PRC-wide entity 15 days after publication of
the final results of this review. Although Qingdao Jisco Co., Ltd.
submitted a Separate Rate Certification stating it received a
separate rate in the investigation, Qingdao Jisco Co., Ltd. in fact
never received a separate rate. In the investigation, as a producer,
Qingdao Jisco Co., Ltd. received a combination rate, however, in the
first review, the separate rate was assigned to the exporter, Jisco
Corporation. See Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of
China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 73 FR
33977, 33981 (June 16, 2008) (``Investigation''). See also Certain
Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of
the First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 16379, 16382
(March 23, 2011) (``1st Review'').
\6\ Additionally, in Petitioner's December 28, 2010, withdrawal
request, Petitioner withdrew requests for review on Shanxi Tianli
Enterprise Co., Ltd. and Shanxi Tianli Enterprise Co. The Department
subsequently rescinded the review for both companies, although the
Department had not ever initiated a review of Shanxi Tianli
Enterprise Co. We clarified with Petitioner and they explained that
they considered both companies to be variations of the same company.
As such, the Department intends to liquidate Shanxi Tianli
Enterprise Co., Ltd. at the PRC-wide rate 15-days after publication
of the final results of this review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Between October 25, 2010, and June 30, 2011, Shanghai Colour
submitted responses to the Department's original and supplemental
questionnaires. Between January 21, 2011, and July 19, 2011, Stanley,
Hongli, and Jinchi submitted responses to the Department's original and
supplemental questionnaires.
On July 11, 2011, the Department aligned the antidumping duty new
shipper and administrative reviews.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ See Memorandum to the File, through Matthew Renkey, Office 9
Acting Program Manager, from Ricardo Martinez Rivera, Case Analyst,
dated July 11, 2011, Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic
of China: Alignment of the New Shipper Review of Shanghai Colour
Co., Ltd and Wuxi Colour Co., Ltd. (``Shanghai Colour'') with the
2nd Administrative Review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Respondent Selection

Section 777A(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``Act'')
directs the Department to calculate individual dumping margins for each
known exporter or producer of the subject merchandise. However, section
777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the Department discretion to limit its
examination to a reasonable number of exporters or producers if it is
not practicable to examine all exporters or producers involved in the
review.
The Department initiated a review for the 222 companies for which
it received a timely request for review. See 2nd AR Initiation. On
October 28, 2010, the Department released CBP data for entries of the
subject merchandise during the POR under administrative protective
order (``APO'') to all interested parties with access to the APO,
inviting comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection.
Between November 5, 2010, and November 8, 2010, Stanley and Petitioner
\8\ submitted comments on the respondent selection process. On November
22 and 24, 2010, respectively, Petitioner met with the Senior Director,
China/NME Unit, for AD/CVD Operations and the Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration regarding respondent selection. On
November 26, 2010, Hongli requested to be selected as a mandatory
respondent or to be permitted to participate as a voluntary respondent.
On December 14, 2010, Stanley requested to be selected as a mandatory
respondent or to be permitted to participate as a voluntary respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ Mid Continent Nail Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

After assessing its resources, on December 16, 2010, the Department
issued its respondent selection memorandum. The Department determined
that the number of

[[Page 56148]]

companies (i.e., 222) was too large a number for individual reviews and
that the Department could reasonably examine three exporters subject to
this review. Pursuant to section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, the
Department selected Stanley, Hongli, and Qingdao Jisco Co., Ltd.
(``Jisco'') as mandatory respondents.\9\ On December 17, 2010, the
Department issued an antidumping duty questionnaire to these three
mandatory respondents. On January 21, 2011, after receiving requests
for withdrawal of review from Jisco and Petitioner, the Department
selected Jinchi as a mandatory respondent in place of Jisco.\10\ On
January 21, 2011, the Department issued an antidumping duty
questionnaire to Jinchi.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ See Memorandum regarding: Respondent Selection for the
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Steel Nails from
the People's Republic of China, dated December 16, 2010 (``First
Respondent Selection Memo'').
\10\ See Memorandum regarding: Second Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Certain Steel Nails from the People's
Republic of China: Replacement of Respondent Selected for Individual
Examination, dated January 21, 2011 (``Second Respondent Selection
Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Shipper Review Bona Fide Analysis

Consistent with the Department's practice, we investigated the bona
fide nature of Shanghai Colour's sale for this NSR. In evaluating
whether a single sale in a NSR is commercially representative, and
therefore bona fide, the Department considers, inter alia, such factors
as: (1) Timing of the sale; (2) price and quantity; (3) the expenses
arising from the transaction; (4) whether the goods were sold at a
profit; and (5) whether the transaction was made on an arms-length
basis.\11\ Accordingly, the Department considers a number of factors in
its bona fide analysis, ``all of which may be specific to the
commercial realities surrounding an alleged sale of subject
merchandise.'' \12\ In examining Shanghai Colour's sale in relation to
these factors, the Department found evidence that indicates this sale
was non-bona fide.\13\ Therefore, we preliminarily find that the new
shipper sale by Shanghai Colour was not made on a bona fide basis and,
thus, preliminarily determine that Shanghai Colour has not met the
requirements to qualify as a new shipper during this POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ See Tianjin Tiancheng Pharmaceutical Co. v. the United
States, 366 F. Supp. 2d 1246, 1250 (CIT 2005).
\12\ See Hebei New Donghua Amino Acid Co. v. the United States,
374 F. Supp. 2d 1333, 1342 (CIT 2005).
\13\ See Memorandum regarding: Bona Fide Sales Analysis and
Intent to Rescind the Review with Respect to Shanghai Colour, dated
August 31, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preliminary Rescission of the New Shipper Review

For the foregoing reasons, and as discussed in the bona fide memo,
the Department finds that the sale by Shanghai Colour is not bona fide
and that the sale does not provide a reasonable or reliable basis for
calculating a dumping margin. Because this non-bona fide sale was the
only sale of subject merchandise during the POR, the Department is
preliminarily rescinding the NSR.

Preliminary Partial Rescission of Administrative Review

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we have preliminarily determined
that the following companies made no shipments of subject merchandise
during the POR: (1) Beijing Hongsheng Metal Co., Ltd.; (2) Besco
Machinery Industry (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd.; (3) Certified Products
International Inc. (``CPI''); (4) Chiieh Yung Metal Ind. Corp.; (5)
China Staple Enterprise (Tianjin) Co., Ltd.; (6) CYM (Nanjing) Nail
Manufacture Co., Ltd.; (7) Jining Huarong Hardware Products Co., Ltd.;
(8) Nanjing Yuechang Hardware Products Co., Ltd.; (9) PT Enterprise
Inc.; (10) Qidong Liang Chyuan Metal Industry Co., Ltd.; (11) Shanghai
Tengyu Hardware Tools Co., Ltd.; (12) Shanxi Yuci Broad Wire Products
Co., Ltd.; and (13) Zhejiang Gem-Chun Hardware Accessory Co., Ltd.;
(collectively, the ``No Shipment Respondents'').
Subsequent to receiving no-shipment certifications from the No
Shipment Respondents, the Department examined entry statistics obtained
from CBP. The Department also issued no-shipment inquiries to CBP,
asking it to provide any information contrary to our preliminary
findings of no entries of subject merchandise for merchandise
manufactured and shipped by the above companies.\14\ For nine
companies, we did not receive any response from CBP, thus indicating
that there were no entries of subject merchandise into the United
States exported by these companies. CBP did indicate potential entries
of nails during the POR for four companies. The Department requested
CBP entry packages for the four companies. Between November 24, 2010
and March 2, 2011, we placed these entry packets on the record and
requested comments from interested parties.\15\ After reviewing the
responses, and the corrected entry documents, we preliminarily conclude
that these companies did not have entries of subject merchandise during
the POR. Consequently, we are preliminarily rescinding the reviews with
respect to the No Shipment Respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ See Memoranda to Michael Walsh, Director, AD/CVD/Revenue
Policy & Programs, from Jim Doyle, Office Director, dated between
October 28, 2010, and December 17, 2010, Request for U.S. Entry
Documents: Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China.
\15\ See Second Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of
Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''):
No Shipment Supplemental Questionnaire Letters from the Department
of Commerce, to Besco, CPI, China Staple, and Tengyu, dated between
November 24, 2010, and March 2, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Facts Otherwise Available

Section 776(a)(1) of the Act mandates that the Department use facts
available (``FA'') if necessary information is not available on the
record of an antidumping proceeding. In addition, section 776(a)(2) of
the Act mandates that the Department use FA where an interested party
or any other person: (A) Withholds information requested by the
Department; (B) fails to provide requested information by the requested
date or in the form and manner requested; (C) significantly impedes an
antidumping proceeding; or (D) provides information that cannot be
verified.
Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among
the facts otherwise available, the Department may employ an adverse
inference if an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to
the best of its ability to comply with requests for information.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ See Statement of Administrative Action, accompanying the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''), H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, 870
(1994) (``SAA''); see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality
Steel Products From the Russian Federation, 65 FR 5510, 5518
(February 4, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this case, two of the mandatory respondents, Stanley and Jinchi,
used unaffiliated tollers for production of tolled intermediate inputs.
Jinchi was unable to obtain the factors of production (``FOPs'') from
any of its tollers and Stanley was unable to obtain the FOPs from a
number of its galvanizing tollers. Both respondents attempted to obtain
the FOPs from their unaffiliated tollers and documented these
attempts.\17\ We do not find that they failed to cooperate by not
acting in the best of their abilities. Consistent with our treatment of
missing tolled FOPs of an intermediate input in the first
administrative review,\18\ the

[[Page 56149]]

Department has preliminarily applied neutral FA (facts available
without an adverse inference) in accordance with section 776(a)(1) of
the Act. As neutral FA for Jinchi, the Department is using Jinchi's own
production experience because Jinchi also performs the same production
steps in-house as the tollers. As neutral FA for Stanley, the
Department is using the reported FOPs from Stanley's galvanizers
because Stanley did not perform galvanizing itself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ See Stanley's Supplemental Section D at 1-8, and
Supplemental Section D at 1-17, dated May 13, 2011; Jinchi's
Supplemental Sections C&D at Exhibits 17 and 19, dated May 16, 2011.
\18\ See Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of
China: Final Results of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 76 FR 16379 (March 23, 2011) and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additionally, all three of the mandatory respondents purchased
subject merchandise nails from unaffiliated producers, but were unable
to obtain the FOPs for all or a portion of the purchased nails. Hongli
eventually was able to obtain the FOPs but because they were submitted
to the Department unsolicited and untimely, the Department rejected
these FOPs.\19\ Because the respondents attempted to obtain the FOPs
from the unaffiliated producers and documented these attempts,\20\ we
do not find that they failed to cooperate by not acting in the best of
their abilities. Therefore, for the preliminary results the Department
has applied neutral FA in accordance with section 776(a)(1) of the Act.
However, after the preliminary results, we intend to issue
questionnaires directly to the unaffiliated producers requesting the
FOP data. For Hongli and Jinchi, because they do not produce the same
type of nails that they purchased from the unaffiliated suppliers
(i.e., masonry nails cut from steel plate), the Department will apply
as neutral FA the weighted average margin calculated for these
respondents' other U.S. sales of subject merchandise reported by Hongli
and Jinchi. As neutral FA for Stanley, the Department will use
Stanley's own production data, as it produces the same type of nails
for which it was unable to obtain the FOP data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ See Letter to Hongli, regarding Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Certain Nails from the People's Republic of
China: Rejection of Untimely and Unsolicited Information, dated June
30, 2011.
\20\ See Stanley's Supplemental Section D at 1-8, and
Supplemental Section D at 1-7, dated May 13, 2011; Hongli's Section
C&D at 2, dated February 2, 2011; Jinchi's Supplemental Sections C&D
at Exhibits 17 and 19, dated May 16, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

The merchandise covered by this proceeding includes certain steel
nails having a shaft length up to 12 inches. Certain steel nails
include, but are not limited to, nails made of round wire and nails
that are cut. Certain steel nails may be of one piece construction or
constructed of two or more pieces. Certain steel nails may be produced
from any type of steel, and have a variety of finishes, heads, shanks,
point types, shaft lengths and shaft diameters. Finishes include, but
are not limited to, coating in vinyl, zinc (galvanized, whether by
electroplating or hot dipping one or more times), phosphate cement, and
paint. Head styles include, but are not limited to, flat, projection,
cupped, oval, brad, headless, double, countersunk, and sinker. Shank
styles include, but are not limited to, smooth, barbed, screw threaded,
ring shank and fluted shank styles. Screw-threaded nails subject to
this proceeding are driven using direct force and not by turning the
fastener using a tool that engages with the head. Point styles include,
but are not limited to, diamond, blunt, needle, chisel and no point.
Finished nails may be sold in bulk, or they may be collated into strips
or coils using materials such as plastic, paper, or wire. Certain steel
nails subject to this proceeding are currently classified under the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') subheadings
7317.00.55, 7317.00.65 and 7317.00.75.
Excluded from the scope are steel roofing nails of all lengths and
diameter, whether collated or in bulk, and whether or not galvanized.
Steel roofing nails are specifically enumerated and identified in ASTM
Standard F 1667 (2005 revision) as Type I, Style 20 nails. Also
excluded from the scope are the following steel nails: (1) Non-collated
(i.e., hand-driven or bulk), two-piece steel nails having plastic or
steel washers (caps) already assembled to the nail, having a bright or
galvanized finish, a ring, fluted or spiral shank, an actual length of
0.500'' to 8'', inclusive; and an actual shank diameter of 0.1015'' to
0.166'', inclusive; and an actual washer or cap diameter of 0.900'' to
1.10'', inclusive; (2) Non-collated (i.e., hand-driven or bulk), steel
nails having a bright or galvanized finish, a smooth, barbed or ringed
shank, an actual length of 0.500'' to 4'', inclusive; an actual shank
diameter of 0.1015'' to 0.166'', inclusive; and an actual head diameter
of 0.3375'' to 0.500'', inclusive; (3) Wire collated steel nails, in
coils, having a galvanized finish, a smooth, barbed or ringed shank, an
actual length of 0.500'' to 1.75'', inclusive; an actual shank diameter
of 0.116'' to 0.166'', inclusive; and an actual head diameter of
0.3375'' to 0.500'', inclusive; and (4) Non-collated (i.e., hand-driven
or bulk), steel nails having a convex head (commonly known as an
umbrella head), a smooth or spiral shank, a galvanized finish, an
actual length of 1.75'' to 3'', inclusive; an actual shank diameter of
0.131'' to 0.152'', inclusive; and an actual head diameter of 0.450''
to 0.813'', inclusive.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ As the result of a changed circumstances review, the
Department partially revoked the order with respect to these four
specific types of steel nails, effective August 1, 2009. See Certain
Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 76 FR 30101 (May 24,
2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also excluded from the scope of this proceeding are corrugated
nails. A corrugated nail is made of a small strip of corrugated steel
with sharp points on one side. Also excluded from the scope of this
proceeding are fasteners suitable for use in powder-actuated hand
tools, not threaded and threaded, which are currently classified under
HTSUS 7317.00.20 and 7317.00.30. Also excluded from the scope of this
proceeding are thumb tacks, which are currently classified under HTSUS
7317.00.10.00.
Also excluded from the scope of this proceeding are certain brads
and finish nails that are equal to or less than 0.0720 inches in shank
diameter, round or rectangular in cross section, between 0.375 inches
and 2.5 inches in length, and that are collated with adhesive or
polyester film tape backed with a heat seal adhesive. Also excluded
from the scope of this proceeding are fasteners having a case hardness
greater than or equal to 50 HRC, a carbon content greater than or equal
to 0.5 percent, a round head, a secondary reduced-diameter raised head
section, a centered shank, and a smooth symmetrical point, suitable for
use in gas-actuated hand tools. While the HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description
of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Surrogate Country and Surrogate Value Data

On February 1, 2011, the Department sent interested parties a
letter inviting comments on surrogate country selection and surrogate
value data.\22\ On March 1, 2011, Petitioner, Hongli, and Jinchi
submitted surrogate country comments. For a detailed discussion of the
selection of the surrogate country, see ``Surrogate Country'' section
below. On May 2, 2011, the Department

[[Page 56150]]

received surrogate value information from interested parties.\23\ All
the surrogate values placed on the record were obtained from sources in
India.\24\ Between May 12, 2011, and June 24, 2011, parties submitted
additional arguments and data regarding the selection and calculation
of the surrogate values.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ See The Department's Letter regarding: Antidumping Duty
Review of Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China
(``PRC''): Surrogate Country List, attaching January 31, 2011,
Memorandum to Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, AD/CVD
Operations, from Carole Showers, Director, Office for Policy,
Request for List of Surrogate Countries for an Antidumping Duty
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Steel Nails
(``Nails'') from the People's Republic of China (``Surrogate Country
List'').
\23\ See Letters to the Secretary of Commerce, Surrogate Value
Submissions, from Wiley Rein and Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz,
Silverman & Klestadt LLP, dated May 2, 2011.
\24\ See id.
\25\ See Letters to the Secretary of Commerce, Rebuttal
Surrogate Value Submissions, from Wiley Rein and Grunfeld,
Desiderio, Lebowitz, Silverman & Klestadt LLP, dated May 12, 2011,
through July 15, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Non-Market Economy (``NME'') Country Status

The Department considers the PRC to be an NME country.\26\ 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. No party has challenged the
designation of the PRC as an NME country in this review. Therefore, we
continue to treat the PRC as an NME country for purposes of these
preliminary results and calculated normal value in accordance with
section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to all NME countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Coated Free Sheet
Paper from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 30758, 30760 (June
4, 2007), unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of
China, 72 FR 60632 (October 25, 2007) (``CFS Paper'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surrogate Country

When the Department reviews imports from an NME country and the
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
factors of production (``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 has
determined that India, Philippines, Indonesia, Ukraine, Thailand, and
Peru are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of economic
development. See Surrogate Country List.
Based on publicly available information placed on the record, the
Department determines 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
with which to value FOPs. See Surrogate Country List. Furthermore, all
the surrogate values placed on the record by the parties were obtained
from sources in India. Accordingly, the Department has selected India
as the surrogate country for purposes of valuing the FOPs because it
meets the Department's criteria for surrogate country selection. India
is also the surrogate country the Department selected in the last
administrative review and investigation.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ See Investigation, 73 FR at 33980 and 1st Review, 76 FR at
16381.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate Rates

In proceedings involving NME countries, there is a rebuttable
presumption that all companies within the country are subject to
government control and thus should be assessed a single antidumping
duty rate.\28\ Exporters can demonstrate this independence through the
absence of both de jure and de facto government control over export
activities. Id. The Department analyzes each entity exporting the
subject merchandise under a test arising from the Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the
People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588, 20589 (May 6, 1991)
(``Sparklers''), as 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, 22586-87 (May 2, 1994) (``Silicon
Carbide''). However, if the Department determines that a company is
wholly foreign-owned or located in a market economy (``ME''), then a
separate rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether it is
independent from government control. See, e.g., PET Film, 73 FR at
55040. In addition to the three mandatory respondents, Stanley, Hongli,
and Jinchi, the Department received separate rate applications
(``SRAs'') or certifications (``SRCs'') from 15 companies (the
``Separate Rate Applicants'').\29\ Because Stanley is wholly foreign-
owned, a separate-rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether
it is independent from government control, so we preliminarily grant
Stanley a separate rate. In contrast, because Hongli, Jinchi, and the
Separate Rate Applicants have all stated that they are either joint
ventures between Chinese and foreign companies, or are wholly Chinese-
owned companies, the Department must analyze whether these companies
can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto governmental
control over export activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\28\ See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from
the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value, 73 FR 55039, 55040 (September 24, 2008) (``PET
Film'').
\29\ These companies include: (1) Dezhou Hualude Hardware
Products Co., Ltd.; (2) Hengshui Mingyao Hardware & Mesh Products
Co., Ltd.; (3) Huanghua Jinhai Hardware Products Co., Ltd.; (4)
Huanghua Xionghua Hardware Products Co., Ltd.; (5) Koram Panagene
Co., Ltd.; (6) Qingdao D & L Group Ltd.; (7) Romp (Tianjin) Hardware
Co., Ltd.; (8) Shandong Dinglong Import & Export Co., Ltd.; (9)
Shanghai Curvet Hardware Products Co., Ltd.; (10) Shanghai Jade
Shuttle Hardware Tools Co., Ltd.; (11) Shanghai Yueda Nails Industry
Co., Ltd.; (12) Shanxi Tianli Industries Co.; (13) Tianjin Lianda
Group Co., Ltd.; (14) Tianjin Universal Machinery Imp & Exp
Corporation; and (15) Tianjin Zhonglian Metals Ware Co., Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Absence of De Jure Control

The Department considers the following de jure criteria in
determining 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 at 20589.
The evidence submitted by Hongli, Jinchi, and the Separate Rate
Applicants supports a preliminary finding of absence of de jure
governmental control based on the following: (1) An absence of
restrictive stipulations associated with the individual exporter's
business and export licenses; (2) applicable legislative enactments
decentralizing control of the companies; and (3) other formal measures
by the government decentralizing control of companies. See each
company's SRA, SRC, and/or Section A response, dated November 3, 2010,
through February 28, 2011 (where each individually-reviewed or
separate-rate respondent stated that it had no relationship with any
level of the PRC government with respect to ownership, internal
management, and business operations).

2. Absence of De Facto Control

Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating
whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of
its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or are
subject to the approval of a governmental agency; (2) whether the
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other

[[Page 56151]]

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 disposition of profits or
financing of losses.\30\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\30\ 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 People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May
8, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We determine that, for the individually-reviewed respondents and
Separate Rate Applicants, the evidence on the record supports a
preliminary finding of absence of de facto governmental control based
on record statements and supporting documentation showing the
following: (1) Each exporter sets its own export prices independent of
the government and without the approval of a government authority; (2)
each exporter retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent
decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses; (3)
each exporter has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and
other agreements, and; (4) each exporter has autonomy from the
government regarding the selection of management. See each company's
SRA, SRC, and/or Section A response, dated November 3, 2010, through
February 28, 2011.
The evidence placed on the record of this investigation by the
individually-reviewed respondents and the Separate Rate Applicants
demonstrates an absence of de jure and de facto government control with
respect to each of the exporter's exports of the merchandise under
investigation, in accordance with the criteria identified in Sparklers
and Silicon Carbide. As a result, we have preliminarily determined that
it is appropriate to grant the Separate Rate Applicants a margin based
on the experience of the individually-reviewed respondents.

Calculation of Margin for Separate Rate Companies

The statute and the Department's regulations do not address the
establishment of a rate to be applied to individual companies not
selected for examination where the Department limited its examination
in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act.
Generally, we have looked to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which
provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an
investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for respondents
we did not examine in an administrative review. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of
the Act instructs that we are not to calculate an all-others rate using
any zero or de minimis margins or any margins based entirely on facts
available. Accordingly, the Department's practice in this regard, in
reviews involving limited respondent selection based on exporters
accounting for the largest volume of trade, has been to average the
rates for the selected companies, excluding zero and de minimis rates
and rates based entirely on facts available.\31\ Section 735(c)(5)(B)
of the Act also provides that, where all margins are zero, de minimis,
or based entirely on facts available, we may use ``any reasonable
method'' for assigning the rate to non-selected respondents, including
``averaging the estimated weighted average dumping margins determined
for the exporters and producers individually investigated.'' In this
instance, consistent with our practice, we have preliminarily
established a margin for the Separate Rate Applicants based on the rate
we calculated for the mandatory respondents whose rates were not zero,
de minimis, or based entirely on facts available.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\31\ See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam: Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 52273, 52275
(September 9, 2008) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum
at Comment 6.
\32\ See, e.g., Fourth Administrative Review of Certain Frozen
Warrnwater Shrimp From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary
Results, Preliminary Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Intent Not To Revoke, In Part, 75 FR
11855, 11859 (March 12, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PRC-Wide Entity

As discussed above, in this administrative review we limited the
selection of respondents using CBP import data. See First and Second
Respondent Selection Memos. In this case, we made available to the
companies who were not selected, the separate rates application and
certification, which were put on the Department's Web site. See 2nd AR
Initiation. Because some parties for which a review was requested did
not apply for separate rate status, the PRC-Wide entity is considered
to be part of this review.\33\ The following companies did not apply
for separate rates and are thus considered to be part of the PRC-wide
entity:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\33\ See, e.g., Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's
Republic of China; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 71 FR 64930, 64933 (November 6, 2006).

(1) Aironware (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.
(2) Beijing Daruixing Global Trading Co., Ltd.
(3) Beijing Daruixing Nail Products Co., Ltd.
(4) Beijing Hong Sheng Metal Products Co., Ltd.
(5) Beijing Tri-Metal Co., Ltd.
(6) Cana (Tianjin) Hardware Ind., Co., Ltd.
(7) China Silk Trading & Logistics Co., Ltd.
(8) Chongqing Hybest Tools Group Co., Ltd.
(9) CYM (Nanjing) Nail Manufacture Co., Ltd.
(10) Faithful Engineering Products Co., Ltd.
(11) Handuk Industrial Co., Ltd.
(12) Hong Kong Yu Xi Co., Ltd.
(13) Huanghua Jinhai Metal Products Co., Ltd.
(12) Huanghua Huarong Hardware Products Co., Ltd.
(13) Jinding Metal Products Ltd.
(14) Kyung Dong Corp.
(15) Nanjing Dayu Pneumatic Gun Nails Co., Ltd.
(16) Qingdao Jisco Co., Ltd.
(17) Rizhao Handuck Fasteners Co., Ltd.
(18) Senco-Xingya Metal Products (Taicang) Co., Ltd.
(19) Shandong Minimetals Co., Ltd.
(20) Shanghai Chengkai Hardware Product Co., Ltd.
(21) Shanghai Seti Enterprise International Co., Ltd.
(22) Shanxi Tianli Enterprise Co., Ltd.
(23) Shouguang Meiqing Nail Industry Co., Ltd.
(24) Sinochem Tianjin Imp & Exp Shenzhen Corp.
(25) Superior International Australia Pty Ltd.
(26) Suzhou Xingya Nail Co., Ltd.
(27) Tianjin Baisheng Metal Products Co., Ltd.
(28) Tianjin Jurun Metal Products Co., Ltd.
(29) Wintime Import & Export Corporation Limited of Zhongshan
(30) Wuxi Qiangye Metalwork Production Co., Ltd.
(31) Xuzhou CIP International Group Co., Ltd.
(32) Yitian Nanjing Hardware Co., Ltd.
(33) Zhejiang Gem-Chun Hardware Accessory Co., Ltd.
(34) Zhongshan Junlong Nail Manufactures Co., Ltd.

Date of Sale

The date of sale is generally the date on which the parties agree
upon all substantive terms of the sale, which

[[Page 56152]]

normally includes the price, quantity, delivery terms and payment
terms.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\34\ See Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Trinidad and
Tobago: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72
FR 62824 (November 7, 2007) and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 1; see also Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled
Carbon Quality Steel Products from Turkey, 65 FR 15123 (March 21,
2000) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

19 CFR 351.401(i) states that, ``{i{time} n identifying the date of
sale of the merchandise under consideration or foreign like product,
the Secretary normally will use the date of invoice, as recorded in the
exporter or producer's records kept in the normal course of business.
The Secretary may use a date other than the date of invoice if the
Secretary is satisfied that a different date better reflects the date
on which the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of
sale.'' \35\ However, as noted by the Court of International Trade
(``CIT'') in Allied Tube, a party seeking to establish a date of sale
other than invoice date bears the burden of establishing that ``a
different date better reflects the date on which the exporter or
producer establishes the material terms of sale.'' See Allied Tube, 132
F. Supp. 2d at 1090 (quoting 19 CFR 351.401(i)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\35\ See 19 CFR 351.401(i); see also Allied Tube & Conduit Corp.
v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 1090-1092 (CIT 2001)
(``Allied Tube'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stanley reported that the earlier of invoice date or shipment date
is the appropriate date of sale. See Stanley's section A questionnaire
response at 27-29, dated January 21, 2011, and Stanley's supplemental
section A questionnaire response at 15-17, dated March 4, 2011.
Consistent with the regulatory presumption for invoice date and because
the Department found no evidence on the record contrary to Stanley's
claims, for these preliminary results, the Department used the invoice
date as the date of sale. Consistent with the Department's practice,
for those sales where shipment date preceded invoice date, the
Department used the shipment date as the date of sale.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\36\ See 19 CFR 351.401(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hongli and Jinchi reported that the PRC Export Declaration is the
appropriate date of sale. See Hongli's section A questionnaire response
at 12, dated January 21, 2011, and Hongli's supplemental A
questionnaire response at 12-14, dated March 16, 2011, and Jinchi's
section A questionnaire response at 11, dated February 28, 2011, and
Jinchi's supplemental section A at 1, dated April 7, 2011. As explained
above, the Department will not use a date other than the date of
invoice unless a party provides sufficient evidence that a different
date better reflects the date on which the material terms of sale were
established. See 19 CFR 351.401(i). Hongli and Jinchi did not provide
such evidence. Instead, Hongli and Jinchi merely asserted that the PRC
Export Declaration date is the correct date of sale without any
discussion of when the material terms of sale such as price and
quantity were established for their sales. Therefore, given the
respondents' failure to demonstrate that a date other then invoice date
better reflects the date on which the material terms of sale were
established the Department is following the presumption established in
its regulation and using the invoice date as the date of sale.

Fair Value Comparison

In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act, to determine
whether sales of nails to the United States by Stanley, Hongli, or
Jinchi, were made at less than normal value, we compared the export
price (``EP'') or constructed export price (``CEP''), as appropriate,
to NV, as described in the ``U.S. Price,'' and ``Normal Value''
sections of this notice.

U.S. Price

A. Export Price

For Hongli and Jinchi, in accordance with section 772(a) of the
Act, we based the U.S. price for sales on EP because the first sale to
an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States was made prior to
importation, and the use of CEP was not otherwise warranted. In
accordance with section 772(c) of the Act, we calculated EP by
deducting the applicable movement expenses and adjustments from the
gross unit price. We based these movement expenses on surrogate values
where a PRC company provided the service and was paid in Renminbi
(``RMB''). See ``Factors of Production'' section below for further
discussion. For details regarding our EP calculations, see Memorandum
regarding: Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Steel
Nails from the People's Republic of China: Tianjin Jinchi Metal
Products Co., Ltd., dated concurrently with this notice; see also
Memorandum regarding: Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain
Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China: Tianjin Jinghai County
Hongli Industry and Business Co., Ltd.,'' dated concurrently with this
notice.

B. Constructed Export Price

In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we based the U.S.
price for Stanley's sales on CEP because the first sale to an
unaffiliated customer was made by Stanley's U.S. affiliate. In
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we calculated CEP by
deducting the applicable expenses from the gross unit price charged to
the first unaffiliated customer in the United States. Further, in
accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402(b),
where appropriate, we deducted from the starting price the applicable
selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the
United States. In addition, pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act,
we made an adjustment to the starting price for CEP profit. We based
movement expenses on either surrogate values or actual expenses, where
appropriate. For details regarding our CEP calculations, and for a
complete discussion of the calculation of the U.S. price for Stanley,
see Memorandum regarding: Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of
Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China: Stanley,''
dated concurrently with this notice.

Normal Value

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 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 bases NV on FOPs
because the presence of government controls on various aspects of NMEs
renders price comparisons and the calculation of production costs
invalid under the Department's normal methodologies.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\37\ See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part, and
Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Lined Paper Products
From the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 19695, 19703 (April 17,
2006), unchanged in 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Factor Valuation Methodology

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), the Department will
normally use publicly available information to value the FOPs, but when
a producer sources an input from an ME country and pays for it in an ME
currency, the Department may value the factor using the actual price
paid for the input. During the POR, Stanley reported

[[Page 56153]]

that it purchased certain inputs from an ME supplier and paid for the
inputs in an ME currency. See Stanley's Supplemental Section D, dated
May 13, 2011. The Department has a rebuttable presumption that ME input
prices are the best available information for valuing an input when the
total volume of the input purchased from all ME sources during the
period of investigation or review exceeds 33 percent of the total
volume of the input purchased from all sources during the period. See
Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, Expected Non-Market
Economy Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for Comments, 71 FR 61716,
61717-18 (October 19, 2006) (``Antidumping Methodologies'').
In this case, unless case-specific facts provide adequate grounds
to rebut the Department's presumption, the Department will use the
weighted-average ME purchase price to value the input. Alternatively,
when the volume of an NME firm's purchases of an input from ME
suppliers during the period is below 33 percent of its total volume of
purchases of the input during the period, but where these purchases are
otherwise valid and there is no reason to disregard the prices, the
Department will weight-average the ME purchase price with an
appropriate SV according to their respective shares of the total volume
of purchases, unless case-specific facts provide adequate grounds to
rebut the presumption. See Antidumping Methodologies. When a firm has
made ME input purchases that may have been dumped or subsidized, are
not bona fide, or are otherwise not acceptable for use in a dumping
calculation, the Department will exclude them from the numerator of the
ratio to ensure a fair determination of whether valid ME purchases meet
the 33 percent threshold. See Antidumping Methodologies.
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV
based on FOP data reported by the respondents. To calculate NV, we
multiplied the reported per-unit factor-consumption rates by publicly
available surrogate values. In selecting surrogate values, the
Department is tasked with using the best available information on the
record. See section 773(c) of the Act. To satisfy this statutory
requirement, we compared the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity
of the potential surrogate value data.\38\ The Department's practice is
to select, to the extent practicable, surrogate values which are:
publicly available; representative of non-export, broad market average
values; contemporaneous with the POR; product-specific; and exclusive
of taxes and import duties.\39\ As appropriate, we adjusted input
prices by including freight costs to make them delivered prices.
Specifically, we added to the surrogate values derived from Indian
Import Statistics 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 where appropriate.
This adjustment is in accordance with the Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit's decision in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d
1401, 1407-08 (Fed. Cir. 1997). For a detailed description of all
surrogate values selected in these preliminary results, see Memorandum
regarding: Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Steel
Nails from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Values for the
Preliminary Results, dated concurrently with this notice (``Preliminary
Surrogate Value Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\38\ See, e.g., Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 67 FR
72139 (December 4, 2002) and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 6; Final Results of First New Shipper Review
and First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Preserved
Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 31204 (June 11,
2001) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5.
\39\ See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary Determination of Critical
Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain
Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged in Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and
Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69
FR 71005 (December 8, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For these preliminary results, we concluded that data from Indian
Import Statistics and other publicly available Indian sources
constitute the best available information on the record for the
surrogate values for the respondents' raw materials, packing, by-
products, energy, and the surrogate financial ratios. The record shows
that data in the Indian Import Statistics, as well as those from the
other publicly available Indian sources, are contemporaneous with the
POR, product-specific, tax-exclusive, and represent a broad market
average. See Preliminary Surrogate Value Memo. In those instances where
we could not obtain publicly available information contemporaneous with
the POR we adjusted the surrogate values, consistent with our practice
using where appropriate the Indian Wholesale Price Index (``WPI'') as
published in the International Financial Statistics of the
International Monetary Fund.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\40\ See, e.g., Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews, 69 FR
46498, 46500 (August 3, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Department used Indian import data from the Global Trade Atlas
(``GTA'') published by Global Trade Information Services, Inc., which
is sourced from the Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence &
Statistics, Indian Ministry of Commerce, to determine the surrogate
values for certain raw materials, by-products, and packing material
inputs. The Department has disregarded statistics from NMEs, countries
with generally available export subsidies, and countries listed as
``unidentified'' in GTA in calculating the average value. In accordance
with the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 legislative
history, the Department continues to apply its long-standing practice
of disregarding surrogate values if it has a reason to believe or
suspect the source data may be subsidized.\41\ In this regard, the
Department has previously found that it is appropriate to disregard
such prices from e.g., Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand, because we
have determined that these countries maintain broadly available, non-
industry specific export subsidies.\42\ Based on the existence of these
subsidy programs that were generally available to all exporters and
producers in these countries at the time of the POI, the Department
finds that it is reasonable to infer that all exporters from Indonesia,
South Korea and Thailand may have benefitted from these subsidies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\41\ Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, Conf. Report
to Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. Rep. No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess.
(1988) at 590.
\42\ See, e.g., Expedited Sunset Review of the Countervailing
Duty Order on Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India, 75 FR 13257
(March 19, 2010) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
4-5; Expedited Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Quality Steel Plate from Indonesia, 70
FR 45692 (August 8, 2005) and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at 4; See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products
from the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Countervailing Duty
Administrative Review, 74 FR 2512 (January 15, 2009) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 17, 19-20; See
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Thailand: Final
Results of Countervailing Duty Determination, 66 FR 50410 (October
3, 2001) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additionally, consistent with our practice, we disregarded prices
from NME countries and excluded imports labeled as originating from an
``unspecified'' country from the average value, because the Department
could not be certain that they were not from

[[Page 56154]]

either an NME country or a country with general export subsidies.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\43\ See Certain Non-Frozen Apple Juice Concentrate from the
People's Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary Results of the New
Shipper Review, 75 FR 47270, 47273 (August 5, 2010); see also Drill
Pipe From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Determination of
Critical Circumstances, and Postponement of Final Determination, 75
FR 51004, 51006 (August 18, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Department valued electricity using the updated electricity
price data for small, medium, and large industries, as published by the
Central Electricity Authority, an administrative body of the Government
of India, in its publication titled Electricity Tariff & Duty and
Average Rates of Electricity Supply in India, dated March 2008. These
electricity rates represent actual country-wide, publicly-available
information on tax-exclusive electricity rates charged to small,
medium, and large industries in India. We did not inflate this value
because utility rates represent current rates, as indicated by the
effective dates listed for each of the rates provided.
The Department valued water using data from the Maharashtra
Industrial Development Corporation (``MIDC'') as it includes a wide
range of industrial water tariffs. To value water, we used the average
rate for industrial use from MIDC water rates at http://www.midcindia.org.
The Department valued truck freight expenses using a per-unit
average rate calculated from data on the Infobanc 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 this value is not contemporaneous with the POR, the
Department deflated the rate using WPI.
To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative
(``SG&A'') expenses, and profit, the Department used the audited
financial statements of Bansidhar Granites, Nasco Steel Pvt Ltd., and
J&K Wire and Steel.

Labor

Section 773(c) of the Act provides that the Department will value
the FOPs in NME cases using the best available information regarding
the value of such factors in an ME country or countries considered to
be appropriate by the administering authority. The Act requires that
when valuing FOPs, the Department utilize, to the extent possible, the
prices or costs of factors of production in one or more ME countries
that are (1) at a comparable level of economic development and (2)
significant producers of comparable merchandise. See section 773(c)(4)
of the Act.
Previously, the Department used regression-based wages that
captured the worldwide relationship between per capita Gross National
Income (``GNI'') and hourly manufacturing wages, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.408(c)(3), to value the respondent's cost of labor. However, on May
14, 2010, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (``CAFC''), in
Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 1363, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
(``Dorbest''), invalidated 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3). As a consequence of
the CAFC's ruling in Dorbest, the Department no longer relies on the
regression-based wage rate methodology described in its regulations. On
February 18, 2011, the Department published in the Federal Register a
request for public comment on the interim methodology, and the data
sources.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\44\ See Antidumping Methodologies in Proceedings Involving Non-
Market Economies: Valuing the Factor of Production: Labor, Request
for Comment, 76 FR 9544 (February 18, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On June 21, 2011, the Department revised its methodology for
valuing the labor input in NME antidumping proceedings.\45\ In Labor
Methodologies, the Department determined that the best methodology to
value the labor input is to use industry-specific labor rates from the
primary surrogate country. 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\45\ See Antidumping Methodologies in Proceedings Involving Non-
Market Economies: Valuing the Factor of Production: Labor, 76 FR
36092 (June 21, 2011) (``Labor Methodologies'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In these preliminary results, the Department calculated the labor
input using the wage method described in Labor Methodologies. To value
the respondent's labor input, the Department relied on data reported by
India to the ILO in Chapter 6A of the Yearbook. 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. Accordingly, relying on Chapter 6A of
the Yearbook, the Department calculated the labor input using labor
data reported by India to the ILO 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 $1.22. A more detailed description of the wage rate
calculation methodology is provided in the Preliminary Surrogate Value
Memo.
As stated above, the Department used India ILO data reported under
Chapter 6A of Yearbook, which reflects all costs related to labor,
including wages, benefits, housing, training, etc. Because the
financial statements used to calculate the surrogate financial ratios
include itemized detail of labor costs, the Department made adjustments
to certain labor costs in the surrogate financial ratios. See Labor
Methodologies, 76 FR at 36093.

Currency Conversion

Where necessary, the Department 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

The Department preliminarily determines that the following
weighted-average dumping margins exist:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted average
Manufacturer/Exporter margin (Percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) The Stanley Works (Langfang) Fastening Systems 1.24
Co., Ltd. (``Stanley Langfang''), and Stanley Black
& Decker (``The Stanley Works'')/Stanley Fastening
Systems, LP \46\....................................
(2) Tianjin Jinghai County Hongli Industry and 19.59
Business Co., Ltd...................................
(3) Tianjin Jinchi Metal Products Co., Ltd........... 31.27
(4) Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products Co., Ltd........ 7.60
(5) Hengshui Mingyao Hardware & Mesh Products Co., 7.60
Ltd.................................................
(6) Huanghua Jinhai Hardware Products Co., Ltd....... 7.60

[[Page 56155]]

(7) Huanghua Xionghua Hardware Products Co., Ltd..... 7.60
(8) Koram Panagene Co., Ltd.......................... 7.60
(9) Qingdao D & L Group Ltd.......................... 7.60
(10) Romp (Tianjin) Hardware Co., Ltd................ 7.60
(11) Shandong Dinglong Import & Export Co., Ltd...... 7.60
(12) Shanghai Curvet Hardware Products Co., Ltd...... 7.60
(13) Shanghai Jade Shuttle Hardware Tools Co., Ltd... 7.60
(14) Shanghai Yueda Nails Industry Co., Ltd.......... 7.60
(15) Shanxi Tianli Industries Co..................... 7.60
(16) Tianjin Lianda Group Co., Ltd................... 7.60
(17) Tianjin Universal Machinery Imp & Exp 7.60
Corporation.........................................
(18) Tianjin Zhonglian Metals Ware Co., Ltd.......... 7.60
PRC-Wide Rate.................................... 118.04
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure and Public Hearing

The Department intends to disclose to parties the calculations
performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days
of the date of publication of this notice.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\46\ Stanley Fastening Systems LP and Stanley Fastening LP, two
names that were initiated upon, appear to be slight variations of
The Stanley Works (Langfang) Fastening Systems Co., Ltd., and
Stanley Black & Decker/Stanley Fastening Systems, LP (collectively
``Stanley''). As such, the Department is assigning Stanley's rate to
both variations of the name.
\47\ See 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. In regard to this publicly
available information and in accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1),
interested parties may submit factual information to rebut, clarify, or
correct such factual information no later than ten days after the date
such factual information is served on the interested party. 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
submission of additional, previously absent-from-the-record alternative
surrogate value information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1).\48\
Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no
later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary
results of review.\49\ Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written
comments must be limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments
and must be filed no later than five days after the deadline for filing
case briefs.\50\ The Department requests that interested parties
provide an executive summary of each argument contained within the case
briefs and rebuttal briefs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\48\ 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.
\49\ See 19 CFR 351.309(c).
\50\ See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Department will issue the final results of this administrative
review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised
in any such comments, within 120 days of publication of these
preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Assessment Rates

Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine,
and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries
covered by this review. The Department intends to issue assessment
instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final
results of this review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we are
calculating importer- (or customer-) specific assessment rates for the
merchandise subject to this review. Where the respondent has reported
reliable entered values, we calculate importer- (or customer-) specific
ad valorem rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all
U.S. sales to each importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by
the total entered value of the sales to each importer (or customer).
Where an importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem rate is greater
than de minimis, we will apply the assessment rate to the entered value
of the importers'/customers' entries during the POR, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1).
Where we do not have entered values for all U.S. sales to a
particular importer/customer, we calculate a per-unit assessment rate
by aggregating the antidumping duties due for all U.S. sales to that
importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total quantity
sold to that importer (or customer).\51\ To determine whether the duty
assessment rates are de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set
forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer- (or customer-)
specific ad valorem ratios based on the estimated entered value. Where
an importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem rate is zero or de
minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without
regard to antidumping duties.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\51\ See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
\52\ See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 exporters
listed above, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the
final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de
minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, a zero cash deposit rate 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 that have not been found to be entitled to a
separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of
118.04

[[Page 56156]]

percent; \53\ 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 exporter(s) that supplied that non-PRC
exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in
effect until further notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\53\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Chlorinated Isocyanurates From the People's Republic of
China, 70 FR 24502, 24505 (May 10, 2005), for an explanation on the
derivation of the PRC-wide rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notification to Importers

This notice also 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.
These preliminary results are issued and published in accordance
with sections 751(a)(1), 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, 19 CFR
351.221(b)(4), and 19 CFR 351.214.

Dated: August 31, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-23148 Filed 9-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P