[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 214 (Friday, November 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68407-68422]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-28655]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-975]


Galvanized Steel Wire From the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Postponement of Final Determination

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

DATES: Effective Date: November 4, 2011.

SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine that galvanized steel wire from the 
People's Republic of China (``PRC'') is being, or is likely to be, sold 
in the United States at less than fair value (``LTFV''), as provided in 
section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). The 
estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the ``Preliminary 
Determination'' section of this notice. Pursuant to a request from an 
interested party, we are postponing the final determination by 60 days 
and extending provisional measures from a four-month period to not more 
than six months. Accordingly, we will make our final determination not 
later than 135 days after publication of the preliminary determination.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irene Gorelik, Katie Marksberry or 
Kabir Archuletta, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-6905, (202) 482-7906, or 482-2593, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Initiation

    On March 31, 2011, the Department of Commerce (``Department'') 
received an antidumping duty petition concerning imports of galvanized 
steel wire from the PRC, filed in proper form by Davis Wire 
Corporation, Johnstown Wire Technologies, Inc., Mid-South Wire Company, 
Inc., National Standard, LLC and Oklahoma Steel & Wire Company, Inc. 
(collectively, ``Petitioners'').\1\ On April 20, 2011, the Department 
initiated an antidumping duty investigation of

[[Page 68408]]

galvanized steel wire from the PRC.\2\ Additionally, in the Initiation 
Notice, the Department notified parties of the application process by 
which exporters and producers may obtain separate-rate status in non-
market economy (``NME'') investigations.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on 
Galvanized Steel Wire from Mexico and Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duties on Galvanized Steel Wire from the People's Republic of China 
filed on March 31, 2011 (the ``Petition'').
    \2\ See Galvanized Steel Wire from the People's Republic of 
China and Mexico: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations, 76 
FR 23548 (April 27, 2011) (``Initiation Notice'').
    \3\  See id., at 76 FR 23553.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 16, 2011, the United States International Trade Commission 
(``ITC'') issued its affirmative preliminary determination that there 
is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is 
materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of 
imports from the PRC of galvanized steel wire. The ITC's preliminary 
determination was published in the Federal Register on May 20, 2011.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Investigation Nos. 701-TA-479 and 731-TA-1183-1184 
(Preliminary), Galvanized Steel Wire From China and Mexico, 76 FR 
29266 (May 20, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (``POI'') is July 1, 2010, through 
December 31, 2010. This period corresponds to the two most recent 
fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition (March 
31, 2011).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Investigation

    The scope of this investigation covers galvanized steel wire which 
is a cold-drawn carbon quality steel product in coils, of solid, 
circular cross section with an actual diameter of 0.5842 mm (0.0230 
inch) or more, plated or coated with zinc (whether by hot-dipping or 
electroplating).
    Steel products to be included in the scope of this investigation, 
regardless of Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(``HTSUS'') definitions, are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, 
by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) the carbon 
content is two percent or less, by weight; and (3) none of the elements 
listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:

--1.80 percent of manganese, or
--1.50 percent of silicon, or
--1.00 percent of copper, or
--0.50 percent of aluminum, or
--1.25 percent of chromium, or
--0.30 percent of cobalt, or
--0.40 percent of lead, or
--1.25 percent of nickel, or
--0.30 percent of tungsten, or
--0.02 percent of boron, or
--0.10 percent of molybdenum, or
--0.10 percent of niobium, or
--0.41 percent of titanium, or
--0.15 percent of vanadium, or
--0.15 percent of zirconium.

    Specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation is 
galvanized steel wire in coils of 15 feet or less which is pre-packed 
in individual retail packages. The products subject to this 
investigation are currently classified in subheadings 7217.20.30 and 
7217.20.45 of the HTSUS which cover galvanized wire of all diameters 
and all carbon content. Galvanized wire is reported under statistical 
reporting numbers 7217.20.3000, 7217.20.4510, 7217.20.4520, 
7217.20.4530, 7217.20.4540, 7217.20.4550, 7217.20.4560, 7217.20.4570, 
and 7217.20.4580. These products may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 
7229.20.0015, 7229.20.0090, 7229.90.5008, 7229.90.5016, 7229.90.5031, 
and 7229.90.5051. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and Customs purposes, the written description of the 
merchandise is dispositive.

Scope Comments

    In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations, 
see Preamble, 62 FR at 27323, in our Initiation Notice we set aside a 
period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage, 
and encouraged all parties to submit comments within 20 calendar days 
of publication of the Initiation Notice.
    On May 10, 2011, we received comments from Qingdao Ant Hardware 
Manufacturing, Co., Ltd. (AHM) concerning the scope of this 
investigation.\6\ In its submission, AHM requested that the Department 
exclude from the scope of the investigation certain steel wire pre-
packed in retail packaging.\7\ AHM stated that this type of wire is 
typically sold in pre-packed, retail packages having inner diameters of 
2.25 to 8 inches and with lengths of 25 to 250 feet and, furthermore, 
is generally sold in retail stores that do not carry industrial or 
commercial building products. AHM further commented that pre-packed 
retail steel wire of the afore-mentioned lengths is not contemplated to 
be within the scope of this investigation, as the wire is non-
industrial, retail-ready and for individual/home use. Specifically, AHM 
requested that the Department exclude from the scope of this 
investigation ``galvanized steel wire * * * sold in retail packaging 
where the pre-packaged length is no more than 300 feet, regardless of 
the diameter (gauge) of the wire.'' \8\ Also on May 10, 2011, we 
received scope comments from Shanghai Bao Zhang Industry Co., Ltd., 
Anhui Bao Zhang Metal Products Co., Ltd., and B&Z Galvanized Wire 
Industry (collectively, Baozhang), requesting that the Department 
exclude from the scope of the investigation galvanized steel wire with 
a diameter of less than one millimeter.\9\ In its comments, Baozhang 
states that it has been a reliable source of this smaller-gauged wire 
to U.S. producers of stucco netting because the U.S. galvanized wire 
industry does not offer this gauge wire with a diameter of less than 
one milimeter. As such, Baozhang requests that the Department exclude 
from the scope of this investigation such material since any alleged 
injury experienced by the U.S. industry cannot be related to imports of 
this product.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Letter from Qingdao Ant Hardware Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 
to the Department, titled ``Scope Comments in the Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Investigations of Galvanized Steel Wire from 
China and Mexico,'' dated May 10, 2011 (``AHM Scope Comments'').
    \7\ See id., at 2.
    \8\ See id., at 4; In the AHM Scope Comments, AHM had originally 
and inadvertently specified a maximum pre-packed length of 30 feet. 
AHM subsequently filed an additional submission on June 17, 2011, 
correcting this language, and clarifying that the reference to ``30 
feet'' was intended to reference ``300 feet.'' AHM requested that 
these products also be excluded from the scope of the antidumping 
investigation covering galvanized wire from the People's Republic of 
China.
    \9\ See Letter from Baozhang to the Department, titled 
``Comments on Scope Issues: Investigation of the Galvanized Steel 
Wire from the People's Republic of China,'' dated May 10, 2011 
(``Baozhang Scope Comments'').
    \10\ See id., at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 10, 2011, the Department also received comments from two 
U.S. producers of stucco netting, Tree Island Wire (USA), Inc. (Tree 
Island) and Preferred Wire Products, Inc., (Preferred Wire) both 
supporting the position that galvanized steel wire less than 1 
millimeter in diameter be excluded from the scope of the 
investigation.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Letter from Tree Island to the Department, titled 
``Scope Comments in the Investigation of Galvanized Steel Wire from 
China,'' dated May 10, 2011; Letter from Preferred Wire to the 
Department, titled ``Scope Comments in the Investigation of 
Galvanized Steel Wire from China,'' dated May 10, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioners filed rebuttal comments regarding the scope exclusion 
requests by AHM and Baozhang on June 22, 2011.\12\ In its comments, 
Petitioners state that despite AHM's contention that retail-ready, 
shorter strands of galvanized wire are purely for non-industrial, 
personal use, this galvanized

[[Page 68409]]

wire is covered by the scope of this investigation. We preliminarily 
determine that the material described by AHM is subject to the scope of 
this investigation and constitutes a product for which Petitioners are 
seeking relief. However, Petitioners state that galvanized wire in 
coils of 15 feet or less, which are pre-packed in individual retail 
packages, may be excluded from the scope of the investigation as they 
are not seeking relief for this specific product. Accordingly, and as 
noted above, we have excluded such merchandise from the scope of this 
investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Letter from Petitioners to the Department, titled 
``Galvanized Steel Wire from Mexico and China--Petitioners' Comments 
on Respondents' Scope Requests,'' dated June 22, 2011 (``Rebuttal 
Scope Comments'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, with regard to the remaining comments concerning the 
exclusion of galvanized wire of a diameter less than one millimeter, 
Petitioners state a diameter less than one millimeter is covered by the 
scope of this investigation. We preliminarily find that such 
merchandise is subject to the scope of this investigation and is a 
product for which Petitioners are seeking relief.

Quantity and Value and Respondent Selection

    In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that after 
considering the large number of producers and exporters of galvanized 
steel wire from the PRC identified by Petitioners, and considering the 
resources that must be utilized by the Department to mail quantity and 
value (``Q&V'') questionnaires to all 279 identified producers and 
exporters, the Department determined to limit the number of Q&V 
questionnaires sent out to exporters and producers \13\ based on U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') data for U.S. imports under the 
HTSUS numbers 7217.20.3000, 7217.20.4510, 7217.20.4520, 7217.20.4530, 
7217.20.4540, 7217.20.4550, 7217.20.4560, 7217.20.4570, and 
7217.20.4580. These are the same HTSUS numbers used by Petitioners to 
demonstrate that dumping occurred during the POI, are referenced in the 
scope of the investigation above, and closely match the merchandise 
under consideration.\14\ Of the 28 companies to which we sent Q&V 
questionnaires, we received ten Q&V responses.\15\ We also received 14 
unsolicited Q&V responses.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Department sent Q&V questionnaires to the following 28 
companies: Anhui Baozhang Metal Products Limited; Anping Shuangmai 
Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Anping Xinhong Wire Mesh Co Ltd.; Beijing 
Catic Industry Limited.; Benxi Wasainuo Metal Packaging Production 
Co., Ltd.; China National Electronics Imp. & Exp. Ningbo Co., Ltd.; 
Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products Co. Ltd.; Easen Corp.; Ecms O/B 
Tianjin Huayuan Metal Wire; Fasten Group Imp. & Exp. Co. Ltd.; Hebei 
Cangzhou New Century Foreign Trade; Hebei Dongfang Hardware And Mesh 
Co., Ltd.; Hebei Longda Trade Co., Ltd.; Hebei Minmetals Co. Ltd.; 
Huanghua Yufutai Hardware Products Co., Ltd.; M & M Industries Co., 
Ltd.; Maccaferri (Changsha) Enviro-Tech Co.; Nantong Long Yang 
International Trade Co., Ltd.; Shaanxi New Mile International Trade 
Co. Ltd.; Shandong Hualing Hardware & Tools Co. Ltd.; Shanghai 
Baozhang Industry Co. Ltd.; Shanghai Multi-development Enterprises; 
Shanghai Seti Enterprise Int'l Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Suntec Industries 
Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Jing Weida International Trade Co., Ltd.; Tianjin 
Jinhai Yicheng Metal Products Co. Ltd.; Tianjin Pcss Trading Co., 
Ltd.; and Weifang Hecheng International Trade Co., Ltd.
    \14\ See Initiation Notice, 76 FR at 23553.
    \15\ We received Q&V responses from the following companies to 
which we issued a Q&V questionnaire: Anhui Baozhang Metal Products 
Limited (``Baozhang''); Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products Co. Ltd.; 
Fasten Group Imp. & Exp. Co. Ltd.; Hebei Cangzhou New Century 
Foreign Trade; Hebei Minmetals Co. Ltd.; M & M Industries Co., Ltd.; 
Shaanxi New Mile International Trade Co. Ltd.; Shanghai Baozhang 
Industry Co. Ltd.; Shanghai Seti Enterprise Int'l Co., Ltd.; and 
Tianjin Jinghai Yicheng Metal Products Co. Ltd.
    \16\ We received unsolicited Q&V responses from the following 
companies: Huanghua Jinhai Hardware Products Co., Ltd.; Huanghua 
Jinhai Import and Export Trading Co., Ltd.; Shandong Minmetals Co., 
Ltd.; Shanxi Yuci Broad Wire Products Co., Ltd.; Shijiazhuang 
Kingway Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Suntec Industries Co., Ltd.; 
Tianjin Honbase Machinery Manufactory Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Tianxin 
Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Huayuan Metal Wire Products Co., 
Ltd.; Tianjin Huayuan Times Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Mei 
Jia Hua Trade Co., Ltd.; Qingdao Ant Hardware Manufacturing Co., 
Ltd.; Xi'an Metals and Minerals Import and Export Co., Ltd.; and 
Guizhou Wire Rope Inc., Co.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering comments submitted by certain interested parties, 
on June 9, 2011, the Department selected three mandatory respondents 
for individual examination: Tianjin Honbase Machinery Manufactory Co., 
Ltd. (``Tianjin Honbase''); Tianjin Huayuan Metal Wire Products Co., 
Ltd. (``Tianjin Huayuan''); and Tianjin Jinghai Yicheng Metal Products 
Co., Ltd. (``Tianjin Jinghai''). These companies account for the 
largest volume of exports of galvanized steel wire, based on the Q&V 
responses, to the United States that can be reasonably examined.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See ``Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, from 
James C. Doyle, Director, Office 9; Antidumping Duty Investigation 
of Galvanized Steel Wire from the People's Republic of China: 
Respondent Selection,'' dated June 9, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 21, 2009, Tianjin Jinghai filed a letter stating that it 
would not participate as a mandatory respondent in this 
investigation.\18\ On June 29, 2011, the Department selected Baozhang 
as a replacement mandatory respondent, as Baozhang was the next largest 
producer/exporter of galvanized steel wire by volume.\19\ The 
Department issued the NME questionnaire to Baozhang on June 29, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Letter from Tianjin Jianghai dated June 21, 2011.
    \19\ See ``Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, from 
James C. Doyle, Director, Office 9; Antidumping Duty Investigation 
of Galvanized Steel Wire from the People's Republic of China, re; 
Selection of an Additional Mandatory Respondent,'' dated June 29, 
2011 (``Replacement Respondent Selection Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questionnaires

    On June 9, 2011, the Department issued to the mandatory respondents 
the NME questionnaire with product characteristics used in the 
designation of CONNUMs and assigned to the merchandise under 
consideration. The Department issued supplemental questionnaires to 
Tianjin Huayuan, Tianjin Honbase, and Baozhang between July 2011 and 
October 2011.

Surrogate Country Comments

    On June 20, 2011, the Department determined that Colombia, 
Indonesia, the Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, and Ukraine are 
countries whose per capita gross national income are comparable to the 
PRC in terms of economic development.\20\ On June 21, 2011, the 
Department requested comments from the interested parties regarding the 
selection of a surrogate country. On August 2, 2011, the Department 
extended the deadline for the submission of surrogate country and 
factor valuation comments to August 15, 2011, and September 1, 2011, 
respectively. On August 15, 2011, Petitioners, Tianjin Honbase, Tianjin 
Huayuan, and Baozhang submitted surrogate country comments. For a 
detailed discussion of the selection of the surrogate country, see 
``Surrogate Country'' section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See ``Memorandum from Carole Showers, Director, Office of 
Policy, to Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, China/NME Group, 
Office 9: Antidumping Investigation of Galvanized Steel Wire from 
the People's Republic of China (PRC): Request for a List of 
Surrogate Countries,'' dated June 20, 2011 (``Surrogate Country 
List'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surrogate Value Comments

    On September 1, 2011, Petitioners, Tianjin Huayuan, Tianjin 
Honbase, and Baozhang submitted surrogate factor valuation comments and 
data. On September 12, 2011, Petitioners and Baozhang submitted 
rebuttal surrogate factor valuation comments.

Separate-Rates Applications

    Between June 13, 2011, and June 28, 2011, we received separate rate 
applications from 21 companies.\21\ See

[[Page 68410]]

the ``Separate Rates'' section below for the full discussion of the 
treatment of the separate rate applicants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The following companies filed separate-rate applications: 
Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products Co. Ltd.; Xi'an Metals and Minerals 
Import and Export Co., Ltd; Hebei Cangzhou New Century Foreign 
Trade; Guizhou Wire Rope Incorporated Co.; M&M Industries Co. Ltd.; 
Huanghua Jinhai Import & Export Trading Co. Ltd.; Huanghua Jinhai 
Hardware Products Co. Ltd.; Fasten Group Imp. & Exp. Co. Ltd.; 
Shandong Minmetals Co., Ltd.; Shijiazhuang Kingway Metal Products 
Co., Ltd.; Hebei Minmetals Co. Ltd.; Tianjin Tiaxin Metal Products 
Co., Ltd. (``TTM''); Tianjin Mei Jia Hua Trade Co., Ltd. (``TMJH''); 
Tianjin Huayuan Times Metal Products Co., Ltd. (``THTM''); Shanxi 
Yuci Broad Wire Products Co., Ltd.; Shaanxi New Mile International 
Trade Co., Ltd.; Shanghai SETI Enterprise International Co., Ltd.; 
Suntec Industries Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Bao Zhang Industry Co., Ltd.; 
Anhui Bao Zhang Metal Products Co., Ltd.; and Qingdao Ant Hardware 
Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (collectively, ``separate rate 
applicants'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Postponement of Preliminary Determination

    On July 13, 2011, Petitioners filed a timely request to postpone 
the issuance of the preliminary determination by 50 days. On August 4, 
2011, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice 
postponing the preliminary antidumping duty determination on galvanized 
steel wire from the PRC.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Galvanized Steel Wire From the People's Republic of 
China and Mexico: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations of 
Antidumping Duty Investigations, 76 FR 47150 (August 4, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, on October 19, 2011, Tianjin Honbase requested that, in 
the event of an affirmative preliminary determination in this 
investigation, the Department: (1) Postpone its final determination by 
60 days, in accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.210(b)(2)(ii); and (2) extend the application of the provisional 
measures prescribed under section 733(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.210(e)(2) from a four month period to a six month period. For 
further discussion, see the ``Postponement of Final Determination and 
Extension of Provisional Measures'' section of this notice, below.

Non-Market-Economy Country

    For purposes of initiation, Petitioners submitted LTFV analyses of 
the PRC as an NME country.\23\ The Department considers the PRC to be 
an NME country. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, 
any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain 
in effect until revoked by the administering authority.\24\ No party 
has challenged the designation of the PRC as an NME country in this 
investigation. Therefore, we continue to treat the PRC as an NME 
country for purposes of this preliminary determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Initiation Notice, 76 FR at 23550.
    \24\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surrogate Country

    When the Department is investigating imports from an NME country, 
section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV, in most 
circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of production (``FOP''), 
valued in a surrogate market economy (``ME'') country or countries 
considered to be appropriate by the Department. In accordance with 
section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the FOPs, the Department shall 
utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in one or 
more ME countries that are: (1) At a level of economic development 
comparable to that of the NME country; and (2) significant producers of 
comparable merchandise.\25\ As stated above, the Department determined 
that Colombia, Indonesia, the Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, and 
Ukraine are countries whose per capita gross national income are 
comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development. The sources of 
the surrogate values (``SVs'') we have used in this investigation are 
discussed under the ``Normal Value'' section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Import Administration Policy Bulletin 04.1: Non-Market 
Economy Surrogate Country Selection Process (March 1, 2004) 
(``Policy Bulletin'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioners submit that, for purposes of the Department's selection 
of an appropriate surrogate, Indonesia, South Africa, Thailand, and 
Ukraine are producers of identical merchandise and, further, that 
Indonesia, South Africa, and Thailand also are producers of comparable 
merchandise.\26\ Therefore, Petitioners propose these four countries as 
appropriate candidates for the primary surrogate country in this 
investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Petitioners' Surrogate Country comments dated August 
15, 2011, at page 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Baozhang, Tianjin Huayuan, and Tianjin Honbase propose that the 
Department should select the Philippines as the surrogate country in 
this investigation. All three respondents note that as the Department 
included the Philippines on the Surrogate Country List, the Department 
has already found the Philippines comparable in terms of economic 
development. Further, all three respondents contend that the 
Philippines is a significant producer of both identical and comparable 
merchandise.\27\ As evidence that the Philippines has producers of 
identical merchandise, Tianjin Huayuan submitted the financial 
statements of two Philippine producers of merchandise it claims is 
identical to galvanized steel wire.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Tianjin Huayuan's Surrogate Country Comments dated 
August 15, 2011, at Exhibit 1 (containing information regarding the 
existence of a Galvanized Iron Wire Manufacturers Association and 
other associations for nail manufactures in the Philippines); 
Baozhang's Surrogate Country Comments dated August 15, 2011, at 
Exhibit 1.
    \28\ See id., at Exhibits 3 and 4. Tianjin Huayuan claims that 
the financial statements of these companies, Sterling Steel Inc. and 
Supersonic Manufacturing Inc., indicate that they are producers of 
galvanized wire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tianjin Honbase also suggests that, consistent with its established 
practice, the Department should define ``significant producer'' in this 
proceeding as a country that has produced comparable merchandise during 
the relevant period. Consequently, Tianjin Honbase states that the 
Department should find that the Philippines is a significant producer 
of comparable merchandise, based on the data submitted in its comments.
    Baozhang and Tianjin Huayuan suggest that the Philippines is the 
best choice for the surrogate country because publicly available 
information from Philippine sources is readily available to value the 
FOPs used to produce galvanized steel wire.\29\ Finally, Tianjin 
Huayuan provided publicly available and contemporaneous financial 
statements for Philippine producers of identical and comparable 
merchandise for which the Department is able to calculate overhead, 
selling, general, and administrative expenses (``SG&A''), and profit. 
Tianjin Huayuan posits that, for all the above reasons, the Department 
should select the Philippines as the surrogate country since it best 
satisfies the requirements pursuant to the statute, the regulations, 
and the Policy Bulletin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Both Tianjin Huayuan and Baozhang cite to the Department's 
recent selection of the Philippines as the surrogate country in the 
antidumping investigation of Multilayered Wood Flooring from the PRC 
and the continuing selection of the Philippines in the 
administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on Wooden 
Bedroom Furniture from the PRC . See, e.g., Baozhang's Surrogate 
Country Comments dated August 15, 2011, at page 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tianjin Honbase also contends that there is substantial Philippine 
data for valuing FOPs that are publicly available from the World Trade 
Atlas (``WTA'') or from the Philippine National Statistics Office 
(``NSO''), both of which, Tianjin Honbase notes, are readily available 
to the Department. Tianjin Honbase notes that both NSO data and WTA 
data are equally acceptable as sources to obtain public and 
contemporaneous surrogate values for FOPs that will allow the 
Department to exclude import data from

[[Page 68411]]

NME countries and countries that provide non-industry-specific export 
subsidies. Lastly, Tianjin Honbase notes that contemporaneous 
information is available from the International Labor Organization 
(``ILO''), the World Bank's Doing Business in the Philippines report, 
and The Cost of Doing Business in Camarines Sur that will allow the 
Department to use Philippine data to value labor costs, utility 
expenses, and transportation and handling.
    On August 25, 2011, Tianjin Honbase also filed rebuttal comments to 
Petitioners' August 15, 2011, surrogate country comments. Tianjin 
Honbase argues that Petitioners failed to limit its comments to the 
selection of a single surrogate country by suggesting that Indonesia, 
South Africa, Thailand, and Ukraine all are producers of identical 
merchandise and that each of those countries is comparable with the PRC 
in terms of economic development, without order of preference. Second, 
Tianjin Honbase argues that Petitioners have not responded to the 
Department's request for information on whether the country is a 
significant producer of merchandise comparable to the merchandise 
subject to this investigation. Tianjin Honbase further argues that 
Petitioners suggest, by omission, that the Philippines is not a 
producer of merchandise that is either comparable or identical to the 
merchandise subject to this investigation. Third, Tianjin Honbase 
contends that Petitioners have not provided any information regarding 
data availability or the quality of the data available within any of 
the countries they identified as ``appropriate candidates'' for the 
major FOPs and financial statements. Fourth, Tianjin Honbase suggests 
that Petitioners had ample time to amass information regarding data 
availability and the quality available within any potential surrogate 
country, considering the lead time required to file an antidumping duty 
petition. Therefore, Tianjin Honbase argues, despite this lead time, 
Petitioners were not able to identify in its surrogate country comments 
a single producer of merchandise identical or comparable to the 
merchandise subject to this investigation in any of the six countries 
identified by the Department as potential surrogate countries. Finally, 
Tianjin Honbase provides that the four countries that Petitioners 
suggested as appropriate surrogate countries, namely Indonesia, South 
Africa, Thailand, and Ukraine, have been previously found by the 
Department to have benefitted from subsidies or distortive pricing, 
which, Tianjin Honbase notes, the Department typically avoids.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Tianjin Honbase's Rebuttal Comments dated August 25, 
2011, at 4-5, citing to Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Carbon 
and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, 
Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine, 67 FR 65945 (October 29, 
2002); Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain 
Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Thailand, 66 FR 50410 
(October 3, 2001); Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty 
Investigations: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Brazil, 
Canada, Egypt, Germany, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, South Africa, 
Trinidad and Tobago, Ukraine, and Venezuela, 66 FR 50164, 50168, 
50170 (October 2, 2001) (acknowledging that the ITC ultimately 
determined that imports of wire rod into the United States from 
South Africa were negligible).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Economic Comparability

    As explained in our Surrogate Country List, the Department 
considers Colombia, Indonesia, the Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, 
and Ukraine all comparable to the PRC in terms of economic 
development.\31\ Therefore, we consider all six countries as having met 
this prong of the surrogate country selection criteria satisfied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Surrogate Country List.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Producers of Identical or Comparable Merchandise

    Section 773(c)(4)(B) of the Act requires the Department to value 
FOPs in a surrogate country that is a significant producer of 
comparable merchandise. Neither the statute nor the Department's 
regulations provide further guidance on what may be considered 
comparable merchandise. Given the absence of any definition in the 
statute or regulations, the Department looks to other sources such as 
the Policy Bulletin for guidance on defining comparable merchandise. 
The Policy Bulletin states that ``the terms `comparable level of 
economic development,' `comparable merchandise,' and `significant 
producer' are not defined in the statute.'' \32\ The Policy Bulletin 
further states that ``in all cases, if identical merchandise is 
produced, the country qualifies as a producer of comparable 
merchandise.'' \33\ Conversely, if identical merchandise is not 
produced, then a country producing comparable merchandise is sufficient 
in selecting a surrogate country.\34\ Further, when selecting a 
surrogate country, the statute requires the Department to consider the 
comparability of the merchandise, not the comparability of the 
industry.\35\ ``In cases where the identical merchandise is not 
produced, the team must determine if other merchandise that is 
comparable is produced. How the team does this depends on the subject 
merchandise.'' \36\ In this regard, the Department recognizes that any 
analysis of comparable merchandise must be done on a case-by-case 
basis:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Policy Bulletin.
    \33\ See id.
    \34\ The Policy Bulletin also states that ``if considering a 
producer of identical merchandise leads to data difficulties, the 
operations team may consider countries that produce a broader 
category of reasonably comparable merchandise.'' See id., at note 6.
    \35\ See Sebacic Acid from the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 65674 
(December 15, 1997) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 
at Comment 1 (to impose a requirement that merchandise must be 
produced by the same process and share the same end uses to be 
considered comparable would be contrary to the intent of the 
statute).
    \36\ See Policy Bulletin, at 2.

    In other cases, however, where there are major inputs, i.e., 
inputs that are specialized or dedicated or used intensively, in the 
production of the subject merchandise, e.g., processed agricultural, 
aquatic and mineral products, comparable merchandise should be 
identified narrowly, on the basis of a comparison of the major 
inputs, including energy, where appropriate.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See id., at 3.

Further, the statute grants the Department discretion to examine 
various data sources for determining the best available 
information.\38\ Moreover, while the legislative history provides that 
the term ``significant producer'' includes any country that is a 
significant ``net exporter,'' \39\ it does not preclude reliance on 
additional or alternative metrics. In this case, because production 
data of identical or comparable merchandise was not available, we 
analyzed which of the six countries are exporters of identical or 
comparable merchandise, as a proxy for production data. We obtained 
export data using the Global Trade Atlas (``GTA'') for Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule (``HTS'') 7217.20: Wire, Iron or Non-Alloy Steel, 
Plated or Coated With Zinc, which is identical to the merchandise under 
consideration. The GTA data demonstrates that the Philippines was not 
an exporter of identical merchandise in 2010.\40\ However, we also 
obtained GTA export data for HTS 7217: Wire of Iron or Non-alloy Steel, 
which can be considered comparable merchandise in this case

[[Page 68412]]

because this basket category represents steel wire products, whether or 
not galvanized. The GTA data for the comparable merchandise 
demonstrates that all the countries on the Surrogate Country List are 
exporters of comparable merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See section 773(c) of the Act; Nation Ford Chem. Co. v. 
United States, 166 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
    \39\ See Conference Report to the 1988 Omnibus Trade & 
Competitiveness Act, H.R. Rep. No. 100-576, at 590 (1988).
    \40\ See ``Memorandum to the File, through Catherine Bertrand, 
Program Manager, Office 9, from Irene Gorelik, Senior Analyst, 
Office 9, re; Investigation of Galvanized Steel Wire from the 
People's Republic of China: Surrogate Values for the Preliminary 
Determination,'' dated concurrently with this notice at Exhibit 4 
(``Prelim SV Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Significant Producers of Identical or Comparable Merchandise

    As noted above, South Africa, Ukraine, Thailand, Indonesia, and 
Colombia were exporters of identical merchandise (galvanized steel 
wire) in 2010, and Philippines, South Africa, Ukraine, Thailand, 
Indonesia, and Colombia were also exporters of comparable merchandise 
(steel wire) in 2010. We find that the GTA data demonstrates that in 
each category, whether exporter of identical merchandise or comparable 
merchandise, these countries were also significant exporters.\41\ Since 
none of the potential surrogate countries have been disqualified 
through the above analysis, the Department looks to the availability of 
SV data to determine the most appropriate surrogate country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Data Availability

    When evaluating SV data, the Department considers several factors 
including whether the SV is publicly available, contemporaneous with 
the POI, represents a broad-market average, from an approved surrogate 
country, tax and duty-exclusive, and specific to the input. There is no 
hierarchy among these criteria. It is the Department's practice to 
carefully consider the available evidence in light of the particular 
facts of each industry when undertaking its analysis.\42\ In this case, 
because the record does not contain any data or surrogate financial 
statements for Colombia, Ukraine, or Indonesia, these countries will 
not be considered for primary surrogate country selection purposes at 
this time. With respect to South Africa, we find that the four 
financial statements \43\ on the record are not useable because the 
companies: (1) Did not produce comparable merchandise; or (2) were not 
primarily dedicated to steel production.\44\ As a result, we find that 
none of the South African financial statements on the record properly 
reflect the production experience of the mandatory respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See Policy Bulletin.
    \43\ See Petitioners' Surrogate Value Submission dated September 
1, 2011, at Attachments 4A, 4B, 4C, and 4D.
    \44\ See id. Petitioners placed financial statements for four 
South African companies on the record: Alert Steel Holdings, 
Palabora Mining Co., Ltd., ArcelorMittal, and Murray and Roberts. 
Alert Steel Holdings is a reseller of building materials and does 
not produce any merchandise and Palabora Mining Co., Ltd. is a 
copper mining and smelting company; although ArcelorMittal is a 
steel product manufacturer, the financial statement on the record 
shows its aggregate global steel production and indicates that less 
than ten percent of its production takes place in South Africa. 
Furthermore, it is unclear from the information on the record what 
types of steel products are manufactured by ArcelorMittal in South 
Africa. Finally, although Murray and Roberts produces some steel in 
South Africa, through one of its subsidiaries, the financial 
statement on the record is reflective of its consolidated 
international business, which includes large construction and 
engineering subsidiaries and does not indicate the amount or type of 
steel produced in South Africa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With Colombia, Indonesia, Ukraine and South Africa disqualified, 
the Department is left with the Philippines and Thailand as potential 
surrogate countries. Again, we looked to data considerations in 
selecting the appropriate surrogate country and found that the Global 
Trade Atlas (``GTA'') import statistics for Thai steel wire rod (the 
main input in producing galvanized steel wire), is more specific than 
that of the Philippines steel wire rod. In particular, unlike the 
Philippine steel wire rod import statistics, the Thai GTA data for 
steel wire rod are more specific to the respondents' steel wire rod 
inputs, as the Thai GTA steel wire rod HTS data are categorized by 
varying levels of carbon content (one of the important physical 
characteristics of galvanized steel wire under investigation). Because 
the specificity of the inputs is one of the Department's SV selection 
criteria, and the GTA has been consistently used as a reliable source 
of import statistics \45\ that fulfill the other SV selection criteria, 
we have selected Thailand as the primary surrogate country over the 
Philippines. A detailed explanation of the SVs is provided below in the 
``Normal Value'' section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See, e.g., Administrative Review of Certain Frozen 
Warmwater Shrimp From the People's Republic of China: Final Results 
and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 
FR 51940 (August 19, 2011) and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Affiliations and Single Entity Determinations

    Section 771(33) of the Act provides that:

    The following persons shall be considered to be `affiliated' or 
`affiliated persons':
    (A) Members of a family, including brothers and sisters (whether 
by the whole or half blood), spouse, ancestors, and lineal 
descendants;
    (B) Any officer or director of an organization and such 
organization;
    (C) Partners;
    (D) Employer and employee;
    (E) Any person directly or indirectly owning, controlling, or 
holding with power to vote, 5 percent or more of the outstanding 
voting stock or shares of any organization and such organization;
    (F) Two or more persons directly or indirectly controlling, 
controlled by, or under common control with, any person;
    (G) Any person who controls any other person and such other 
person.

    Additionally, section 771(33) of the Act stipulates that: ``For 
purposes of this paragraph, a person shall be considered to control 
another person if the person is legally or operationally in a position 
to exercise restrain or direction over the other person.''
    Finally, according to 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1) and (2), two or more 
companies may be treated as a single entity for antidumping duty 
purposes if: (1) The producers are affiliated, (2) the producers have 
production facilities for similar or identical products that would not 
require substantial retooling of either facility in order to 
restructure manufacturing priorities, and (3) there is a significant 
potential for manipulation of price or production.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1) and (2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tianjin Honbase

    The record of this investigation demonstrates that Tianjin Honbase, 
a producer and exporter of galvanized steel wire, and Midwest Air 
Technologies Inc. (``MAT''), an importer and further manufacturer of 
galvanized steel wire, are affiliated pursuant to section 771(33)(F) of 
the Act. Evidence of this affiliation was provided by both companies in 
their questionnaire responses, ownership/affiliation chart, 
organization chart, and business licenses/certificates of approval 
submitted by the companies, which are business proprietary data and 
discussed in greater detail in the company-specific analysis memo.\47\ 
Additionally, Tianjin Honbase has claimed throughout its numerous 
questionnaire responses that it is affiliated with MAT, pursuant to the 
Department's regulations and the statute. Therefore, we preliminarily 
determine that Tianjin Honbase and MAT are affiliated within the 
meaning of section 771(33)(F) of the Act.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See, e.g., Tianjin Honbase's Section A Questionnaire 
Response dated July 15, 2011, at Exhibit 14-15; Tianjin Honbase's 
Supplemental Section A questionnaire response dated August 12, 2011, 
at 8 and Exhibit 5. See also ``Memorandum to the File, through 
Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, from Kabir Archuletta, Analyst, 
re; Analyis Memorandum for Tianjin Honbase; Preliminary 
Determination of the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Galvanized 
Steel Wire from the People's Republic of China,'' dated concurrently 
with this notice (``Honbase Prelim Analysis Memo'').
    \48\ See Honbase Prelim Analysis Memo.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 68413]]

Baozhang

    Based on the information presented in Baozhang's questionnaire 
responses, we preliminarily find that Anhui Bao Zhang Metal Products 
Co., Ltd. is affiliated with Shanghai Bao Zhang Industry Co., Ltd. 
(``Shanghai Baozhang''), B&Z Galvanized Industry, Inc., and Company A 
\49\ pursuant to sections 771(33)(A) and (F) of the Act, based on 
ownership and common control. Furthermore, we find that Baozhang and 
Shanghai Baozhang should be considered as a single entity for purposes 
of this investigation.\50\ In addition to being affiliated, they have 
production facilities for similar or identical products that would not 
require substantial retooling and there is a significant potential for 
manipulation of production based on the level of common ownership and 
control, shared management, and an intertwining of business 
operations.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ The identity of this company is business proprietary 
information; for further discussion of this company, see 
``Memorandum to Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, Office 9, from 
Katie Marksberry, International Trade Analyst, Office 9: Antidumping 
Duty Investigation of Galvanized Steel Wire from the People's 
Republic of China: Preliminary Affiliation and Collapsing 
Determinations for Anhui Bao Zhang Metal Products Co., Ltd.,'' dated 
concurrently with this notice (``Baozhang Affiliation Memo'').
    \50\ See 19 CFR 351.401(f).
    \51\ See 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1) and (2). For a detailed discussion 
of this issue, see Baozhang Affiliation Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the Department finds that Baozhang and Shanghai Baozhang 
are a single entity, the Department is utilizing the aggregate FOP 
database Baozhang provided for purposes of the preliminary 
determination, which includes the FOPs used by Baozhang and Shanghai 
Baozhang.

Tianjin Huayuan

    Based on the information presented in Tianjin Huayuan's 
questionnaire responses and various responses submitted by TTM, TMJH, 
and THTM, we preliminarily find that Tianjin Huayuan is affiliated with 
TTM, TMJH, and THTM, pursuant to section 771(33)(F) of the Act, based 
on ownership and common control.\52\ In addition to being affiliated, 
they have production facilities for similar or identical products that 
would not require substantial retooling and there is a significant 
potential for manipulation of production based on the level of common 
ownership and control, shared management, and an intertwining of 
business operations. Accordingly, because Tianjin Huayuan reported that 
all four companies operations' are intertwined, as defined under 19 CFR 
351.401(f) \53\, we preliminarily determine that Tianjin Huayuan, TTM, 
THTM, and TMJH should be treated as a single entity (collectively, the 
``Huayuan Group'').\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See ``Memorandum to Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, 
Office 9, from Irene Gorelik, Senior International Trade Analyst, 
Office 9: Antidumping Duty Investigation of Galvanized Steel Wire 
from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affiliation and 
Single Entity Determinations for Tianjin Huayuan Metal Wire Products 
Co., Ltd.,'' dated concurrently with this notice (``Huayuan 
Affiliation Memo'').
    \53\ Intertwined operations, as defined under CFR 351.401(f), 
can mean such things as: Through the sharing of sales information, 
involvement in production and pricing decisions, the sharing of 
facilities or employees, or significant transactions between the 
affiliated producers. See Tianjin Huayuan's questionnaire response 
dated August 9, 2011, at 11.
    \54\ For a detailed discussion of this issue, see Huayuan 
Affiliation Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate Rates

    Additionally, in the Initiation Notice, the Department notified 
parties of the application process by which exporters and producers may 
obtain separate rate status in NME investigations.\55\ The process 
requires exporters and producers to submit a separate rate status 
application.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See Initiation Notice.
    \56\ See also Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate Rates Practice and 
Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations 
involving Non-Market Economy Countries, (April 5, 2005), (``Policy 
Bulletin 05.1'') available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov. Policy Bulletin 
05.1 states: ``{w{time} hile continuing the practice of assigning 
separate rates only to exporters, all separate rates that the 
Department will now assign in its NME investigations will be 
specific to those producers that supplied the exporter during the 
period of investigation. Note, however, that one rate is calculated 
for the exporter and all of the producers which supplied galvanized 
steel wire to it during the period of investigation. This practice 
applies both to mandatory respondents receiving an individually 
calculated separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated 
firms receiving the weighted-average of the individually calculated 
rates. This practice is referred to as the application of 
``combination rates'' because such rates apply to specific 
combinations of exporters and one or more producers. The cash-
deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to merchandise 
both exported by the firm in question and produced by a firm that 
supplied the exporter during the period of investigation.'' See 
Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 assessed a single 
antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all 
exporters of merchandise subject to investigation in an NME country 
this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is 
sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. 
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 galvanized steel wire 
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 
(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 (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.

A. Separate Rate Recipients

Wholly Foreign-Owned
    One of the mandatory respondents, Tianjin Honbase, reported that it 
is wholly owned by individuals or companies located in a ME in its 
questionnaire responses.\57\ Therefore, because it is wholly foreign-
owned, and we have no evidence indicating that its export activities 
are under the control of the PRC, a further separate rate analysis is 
not necessary to determine whether this company is independent from 
government control.\58\ Accordingly, we have preliminarily granted a 
separate rate to this company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See, e.g., Tianjin Honbase's Section A questionnaire 
response dated July 5, 2011, at Exhibit 14; see also Honbase Prelim 
Analysis Memo.
    \58\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate From the People's Republic of 
China, 64 FR 71104-71105 (December 20, 1999) (where the respondent 
was wholly foreign-owned, and thus, qualified for a separate rate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, one of the separate rate applicants, Qingdao Ant 
Hardware Manufacturing Co., Ltd. has also reported that it is wholly 
foreign-owned,\59\ thus, we have preliminarily granted separate rate 
status to Qingdao Ant Hardware Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ See Separate Rate Application submitted by Qindao Ant 
Hardware Manufacturing Co., Ltd. dated June 27, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wholly Chinese-Owned Companies
    One of the mandatory respondents, Baozhang is a wholly Chinese-
owned company. Because the Department has preliminarily determined that 
Baozhang and its affiliate Shanghai Baozhang are a single entity, their 
separate rate analysis was conducted in conjunction with one another.
    Additionally, the remaining 16 separate rate applicants in this 
investigation stated that they are wholly

[[Page 68414]]

Chinese-owned companies. Therefore, the Department analyzed whether 
these 16 companies and the mandatory respondents demonstrated the 
absence of both de jure and de facto governmental control over export 
activities.
a. 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.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ See Sparklers, at 56 FR 20589.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The evidence provided by the separate rate applicants supports a 
preliminary finding of de jure absence of governmental control based on 
the following: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated 
with the individual exporters' business and export licenses; (2) there 
are applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of the 
companies; and (3) and there are formal measures by the government 
decentralizing control of companies. With respect to Baozhang,\61\ we 
find that there is sufficient evidence on the record to preliminarily 
determine that it is free of de jure government control. We performed 
the same analysis for the separate rate applicants and found no 
instances of de jure government control.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ See, e.g., Baozhang's Section A Questionnaire response 
dated July 20, 2011; Baozhang's separate rate application dated June 
27, 2011; Shanghai Baozhang's separate rate application dated June 
27, 2011.
    \62\ See, e.g., Shanghai SETI Enterprise International Co., 
Ltd.'s separate rate application dated June 27, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. 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 (``EP'') 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 
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.\63\ 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 the separate rate applicants supports a preliminary finding 
of de facto absence of governmental control based on the following: (1) 
The EP is not set by or subject to the approval of a governmental 
agency; (2) the respondent has authority to negotiate and sign 
contracts and other agreements; (3) the respondent has autonomy from 
the government in making decisions regarding the selection of 
management; and (4) the respondent retains the proceeds of its export 
sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits 
or financing of losses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22587; 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 & 
n.3 (May 8, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to Baozhang and Honbase,\64\ we find that there is 
sufficient evidence on the record to preliminarily determine that both 
mandatory respondents are free of de facto government control. We 
performed the same analysis for the separate rate applicants and found 
no instances of de facto government control.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ See, e.g., Baozhang's Section A Questionnaire response 
dated July 20, 2011; Baozhang's separate rate application dated June 
27, 2011; Shanghai Baozhang's separate rate application dated June 
27, 2011; Tianjin Honbase Section A questionnaire response dated 
July 5, 2011.
    \65\ See, e.g., Shaanxi New Mile International Trade Co., Ltd.'s 
separate rate application dated June 28, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Companies Receiving a Separate Rate
    The Department has preliminarily determined that Tianjin Honbase 
and Baozhang are eligible for a separate rate. In addition, we have 
also granted separate rate status to the 16 separate rate applicants 
that were not selected for individual examination and have demonstrated 
an absence of government control both in law and in fact.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ These companies are: Shijiazhuang Kingway Metal Products 
Co., Ltd.; Shanxi Yuci Broad Wire Products Co., Ltd.; Huanghua 
Jinhai Hardware Products Co., Ltd.; Huanghua Jinhai Import & Export 
Trading Co., Ltd.; Guizhou Wire Rope Incorporated Company; Hebei 
Minmetals Co., Ltd.; Shandong Minmetals Co., Ltd.; Fasten Group Imp. 
& Exp. Co., Ltd.; Qingdao Ant Hardware Manufacturing Co., Ltd.; 
Suntec Industries Co., Ltd.; M & M Industries Co., Ltd.; Shaanxi New 
Mile International Trade Co., Ltd.; Hebei Cangzhou New Century 
Foreign Trade Co., Ltd.; Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products Co., Ltd.; 
Shanghai SETI Enterprise International Co., Ltd.; and Xi'an Metals 
and Minerals Import and Export Co., Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The evidence placed on the record of this investigation by the 
separate rate applicants demonstrates an absence of de jure and de 
facto government control with respect to each of the exporters' exports 
of galvanized steel wire, in accordance with the criteria identified in 
Sparklers and Silicon Carbide.

B. Companies Not Receiving a Separate Rate

    The Department is not granting a separate rate to Tianjin Jinghai 
because it withdrew its participation from this investigation as a 
selected mandatory respondent, having never provided any evidence 
demonstrating an absence of government control both in law and in fact. 
In addition, the 18 companies that were not responsive to the 
Department's Q&V questionnaire are also not eligible for a separate 
rate because they never provided any evidence demonstrating an absence 
of government control both in law and in fact.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ These companies are: Anping Shuangmai Metal Products Co., 
Ltd.; Anping Xinhong Wire Mesh Co Ltd.; Beijing Catic Industry 
Limited; Benxi Wasainuo Metal Packaging Production Co., Ltd.; China 
National Electronics Imp. & Exp. Ningbo Co., Ltd.; Easen Corp.; Ecms 
O/B Tianjin Huayuan Metal Wire; Hebei Dongfang Hardware And Mesh 
Co., Ltd.; Hebei Longda Trade Co., Ltd.; Huanghua Yufutai Hardware 
Products Co., Ltd.; Maccaferri (Changsha) Enviro-Tech Co.; Nantong 
Long Yang International Trade Co., Ltd.; Shandong Hualing Hardware & 
Tools Co. Ltd.; Shanghai Multi-development Enterprises; Shanghai 
Suntec Industries Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Jing Weida International Trade 
Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Pcss Trading Co., Ltd.; and Weifang Hecheng 
International Trade Co., Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, as noted above, the Department found that Huayuan 
Group entities are affiliation based on familial relations, positions 
of directorship or management, and controlling ownership interest, 
pursuant to sections 771(33)(A), (B), (E), and (G) of the Act.\68\ We 
also noted above that TTM, THTM, and TMJH have all filed separate rate 
applications on the record indicating their affiliation to one another, 
guided by the statutory definition of affiliation. Further, we also 
determined that Tianjin Huayuan and its affiliates comprise a single 
entity pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f). Therefore, the Department 
evaluated the separate rate eligibility of the entire collapsed Huayuan 
Group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ See ``Memorandum to Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, 
Office 9, from Irene Gorelik, Senior International Trade Analyst, 
Office 9: Antidumping Duty Investigation of Galvanized Steel Wire 
from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affiliation and 
Single Entity Determinations for Tianjin Huayuan Metal Wire Products 
Co., Ltd.,'' dated concurrently with this notice (``Huayuan 
Affiliation Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The record shows that the collapsed Huayuan Group cannot overcome 
the presumption of de jure and de facto

[[Page 68415]]

government control,\69\ based on the roles of an individual who is in a 
position to exercise restraint and direction over the Tianjin Huayuan 
group of companies.\70\ For business proprietary reasons noted in the 
Huayuan Affiliation Memo and Huayuan Prelim Analysis Memo, we 
preliminarily find that the Huayuan Group has not demonstrated that 
there is an absence of de jure and de facto government control by the 
PRC government. A detailed discussion of this determination is provided 
in Huayuan Prelim Analysis Memo and Huayuan Affiliation Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ See, e.g., TMJH's Separate Rate Application dated June 27, 
2011, at Exhibit 18; Tianjin Huayuan's Questionnaire Response dated 
October 17, 2011, at Exhibit SA3-1.
    \70\ For a complete discussion of these business proprietary 
details, see ``Memorandum to the File from Irene Gorelik, Senior 
Case Analyst: Program Analysis for the Preliminary Determination of 
Antidumping Duty Investigation of Galvanized Steel Wire from the 
People's Republic of China: Tianjin Huayuan Metal Wire Products Co., 
Ltd.,'' dated concurrently with this notice (``Huayuan Prelim 
Analysis Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Calculation of Separate Rate

    The statute and our regulations do not address directly how we 
should establish a rate to apply to imports from companies which we did 
not select for individual examination in accordance with section 
777A(c)(2) of the Act in an administrative review. Generally, we have 
used section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for 
calculating the all-others rate in an investigation, as guidance when 
we establish the rate for respondents not examined individually in an 
administrative review.\71\ Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides 
that ``the estimated all-others rate shall be an amount equal to the 
weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins 
established for exporters and producers individually investigated, * * 
*''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ See Notice of Final Results and Partial Rescission 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Frozen Warmwater 
Shrimp from the People's Republic of China, 75 FR 49460 (August 13, 
2010); Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice of Final Results of the 
Twelfth Administrative Review, 75 FR 6352 (February 9, 2010), and 
the accompanying I&D Memo at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Huayuan has not qualified for a separate rate, as explained above, 
and accordingly it will not receive an individually calculated margin. 
Furthermore, because using the weighted-average margin based on the 
calculated net U.S. sales quantities for Honbase and Baozhang would 
allow these two respondents to deduce each other's business-proprietary 
information and thus cause an unwarranted release of such information, 
we cannot assign to the separate rate companies the weighted-average 
margin based on the calculated net U.S. sales values from these two 
respondents.
    For these preliminary results, we determine that using the ranged 
total sales quantities reported by Honbase and Baozhang from the public 
versions of their submissions, is more appropriate than applying a 
simple average.\72\ These publicly available figures provide the basis 
on which we can calculate a margin which is the best proxy for the 
weighted-average margin based on the calculated net U.S. sales values 
of Honbase and Baozhang. We find that this approach is more consistent 
with the intent of section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act and our use of 
section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act as guidance when we establish the rate 
for respondents not examined individually in an administrative review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ See Honbase Supplemental Section CE questionnaire response 
(Public Version) dated October 12, 2011, at Exhibit 4; see also Bao 
Zhang Group Resubmission of the Public Version of Exhibit SA-1 for 
the First Supplemental Section A Response, dated October 3, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the calculated net U.S. sales values for Honbase and 
Baozhang are business-proprietary figures, we find that 127.09 percent, 
which we calculated using the publicly available figures of U.S. sales 
quantities for these two firms, is the best reasonable proxy for the 
weighted-average margin based on the calculated U.S. sales quantities 
of Honbase and Baozhang.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ See ``Memorandum to the File from Katie Marksberry, 
International Trade Specialist, Office 9 Re: Calculation of Separate 
Rate,'' dated concurrently with this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Application of Adverse Facts Available, the PRC-Wide Entity and PRC-
Wide Rate

    Information on the record of this investigation indicates that 
there were more exporters of galvanized steel wire from the PRC than 
those indicated in the response to our request for Q&V information 
during the POI.\74\ As stated above, we issued our request for Q&V 
information to 28 potential PRC producers/exporters of galvanized steel 
wire. While information on the record of this investigation indicates 
that there are other producers/exporters of galvanized steel wire in 
the PRC, we received only ten timely-filed solicited Q&V responses. As 
noted above, we also received 14 timely-filed, unsolicited Q&V 
responses, which we considered for respondent selection purposes. 
Although all producers/exporters were given an opportunity to provide 
Q&V information, not all producers/exporters provided a response to the 
Department's Q&V letter.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ See Respondent Selection Memorandum.
    \75\ The following 18 companies were not responsive to the 
Department's request for Q&V information: Anping Shuangmai Metal 
Products Co., Ltd.; Anping Xinhong Wire Mesh Co Ltd.; Beijing Catic 
Industry Limited; Benxi Wasainuo Metal Packaging Production Co., 
Ltd.; China National Electronics Imp. & Exp. Ningbo Co., Ltd.; Easen 
Corp.; Ecms O/B Tianjin Huayuan Metal Wire; Hebei Dongfang Hardware 
And Mesh Co., Ltd.; Hebei Longda Trade Co., Ltd.; Huanghua Yufutai 
Hardware Products Co., Ltd.; Maccaferri (Changsha) Enviro-Tech Co.; 
Nantong Long Yang International Trade Co., Ltd.; Shandong Hualing 
Hardware & Tools Co. Ltd.; Shanghai Multi-development Enterprises; 
Shanghai Suntec Industries Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Jing Weida 
International Trade Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Pcss Trading Co., Ltd.; and 
Weifang Hecheng International Trade Co., Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, Tianjin Jinghai filed a letter stating that it 
would not participate as a mandatory respondent. Additionally, as 
discussed above, Tianjin Huayuan will not receive a separate rate. 
Therefore, the Department has preliminarily determined that there were 
PRC producers/exporters of galvanized steel wire during the POI that 
did not respond to the Department's request for information. We have 
treated these PRC producers/exporters, as part of the PRC-wide entity 
because they did not qualify for a separate rate.\76\ For a detailed 
discussion, see the ``Separate Rate'' section above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ See, e.g., Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand From the 
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value, 74 FR 68232, 68236 (December 23, 2009) 
unchanged in Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand From the 
People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value, 75 FR 28560 (May 21, 2010) (``PC Strand Prelim''); 
see also Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 
Postponement of Final Determination, and Preliminary Partial 
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts 
Thereof From the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 77121, 77128 
(December 29, 2005), and unchanged in 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party 
(A) withholds information that has been requested by the Department, 
(B) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form 
or manner requested, subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the 
Act, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping 
statute, or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be 
verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the 
Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable 
determination.
    Information on the record of this investigation indicates that the 
PRC-wide entity was unresponsive to the

[[Page 68416]]

Department's requests for information. Certain companies: (1) Did not 
respond to our questionnaires requesting either Q&V information; or (2) 
withdrew participation from the investigation. As a result, pursuant to 
section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we find that the use of FA is 
appropriate to determine the PRC-wide rate.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ See PC Strand Prelim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.\78\ We 
find that, because the PRC-wide entity did not respond to our requests 
for information, it has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. 
Therefore, the Department preliminarily finds that, in selecting from 
among the FA, an adverse inference is appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When employing an adverse inference, section 776 of the Act 
indicates that the Department may rely upon information derived from 
the petition, the final determination from the less than fair value 
investigation, a previous administrative review, or any other 
information placed on the record. In selecting a rate for adverse facts 
available (``AFA''), the Department selects a rate that is sufficiently 
adverse to ensure that the uncooperative party does not obtain a more 
favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had fully 
cooperated. It is the Department's practice to select, as AFA, the 
higher of the: (a) Highest margin alleged in the petition; or (b) the 
highest calculated rate of any respondent in the investigation.\79\ As 
AFA, we have preliminarily assigned a rate of 235.00 percent to the 
PRC-wide entity, which is the highest petition rate on the record of 
this proceeding that can be corroborated.\80\ The Department determines 
that this information is the most appropriate from the available 
sources to effectuate the purposes of AFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from the People's 
Republic of China, 65 FR 34660 (May 21, 2000) and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
    \80\ See Initiation Notice, at 76 FR 23552.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Corroboration

    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies 
on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the 
course of an investigation as FA, it must, to the extent practicable, 
corroborate that information from independent sources reasonably at its 
disposal. The SAA provides guidance as to what constitutes secondary 
information. Suggested sources of secondary information include 
``information derived from the petition that gave rise to the 
investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject 
merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the 
subject merchandise.'' \81\ The SAA further suggests that to 
``corroborate'' means that the Department will satisfy itself that the 
secondary information to be used has probative value.\82\ Independent 
sources used to corroborate may include, for example, published price 
lists, official import statistics, and CBP data, and information 
obtained from interested parties during the particular 
investigation.\83\ To corroborate secondary information, the Department 
will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance 
of the information used.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ See SAA at 870.
    \82\ See id.
    \83\ See id.
    \84\ See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or 
Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and 
Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 
(November 6, 1996), unchanged in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller 
Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components 
Thereof, From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part: 62 FR 11825 (March 
13, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The AFA rate that the Department used is from the Petition. To 
corroborate the AFA margin that we have selected, we compared this 
margin to the model-specific margins we found for the cooperating 
mandatory respondents. We find that the margin of 235.00 percent has 
probative value because it is within the range of the non-aberrational, 
model-specific margins that we found for one of the mandatory 
respondents during the POI.\85\ Accordingly, we find this rate is 
reliable and relevant, considering the record information, and thus, 
has probative value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ See ``Memorandum to the File, from Irene Gorelik, Senior 
Analyst, re; Corroboration of the PRC-Wide Entity Rate for the 
Preliminary Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of 
Galvanized Steel Wire from the People's Republic of China,'' dated 
concurrently with this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department's practice, when selecting an AFA rate from among 
the possible sources of information, has been to ensure that the margin 
is sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the statutory purposes of 
the adverse facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the 
Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.'' 
\86\ As guided by the SAA, the information used as AFA should ensure an 
uncooperative party does not benefit by failing to cooperate than if it 
had cooperated fully.\87\ Given that 18 producers/exporters did not 
respond to the Department's requests for information and that Tianjin 
Jinghai, which is part of the PRC-wide entity, ceased participating in 
the investigation, the Department concludes that the petition rate of 
235.00 percent, as total AFA for the PRC-wide entity, is sufficiently 
adverse to prevent these respondents from benefitting from their lack 
of cooperation.\88\ Accordingly, we found that the rate of 235.00 
percent is corroborated to the extent practicable within the meaning of 
section 776(c) of the Act. Accordingly, we determine that 235.00 
percent is the most appropriate antidumping rate for the PRC-wide 
entity. The PRC-wide entity rate applies to all entries of galvanized 
steel wire except for entries from Tianjin Honbase, Baozhang and the 16 
producers/exporters receiving a separate rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value and Final Negative Critical Circumstances: Carbon and 
Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, 67 FR 55792, 55796 (Aug. 
30, 2002); see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From 
Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (Feb. 23, 1998).
    \87\ See SAA at 870.
    \88\ See SAA at 870. See Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks From the 
People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Critical Circumstances, 75 FR 45467, August 2, 
2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Sale

    19 CFR 351.401(i) states that, ``in 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.'' 
However, 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.\89\ The date of sale is generally the date on

[[Page 68417]]

which the parties agree upon all substantive terms of the sale. This 
normally includes the price, quantity, delivery terms and payment 
terms.\90\ In order to simplify the determination of date of sale for 
both the respondents and the Department and in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.401(i), the date of sale will normally be the date of the invoice, 
as recorded in the exporter's or producer's records kept in the 
ordinary course of business, unless the Department is satisfied that 
the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale on some 
other date.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ 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'').
    \90\ See PSF 2006 at 71 FR 77377.
    \91\ For instance, in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Polyvinyl Alcohol From Taiwan, 61 FR 14064, 
14067-14068 (March 29, 1996), the Department used the date of the 
purchase order as the date of sale because the terms of sale were 
established at that point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Allied Tube, the Court of International Trade (``CIT'') found 
that a ``party seeking to establish a date of sale other than invoice 
date bears the burden of producing sufficient evidence to `satisfy' the 
Department that a different date better reflects the date on which the 
exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale.'' \92\ 
After examining the questionnaire responses and the sales documentation 
that the respondents placed on the record, we preliminarily determine 
that the invoice date is the most appropriate date of sale for Tianjin 
Honbase.\93\ However, the appropriate date of sale for Baozhang is the 
date of shipment from the PRC, because the material terms of sale are 
set upon shipment from the PRC, not from the latter-issued invoice in 
the United States.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ See Allied Tube 132 F. Supp. 2d at 1092.
    \93\ See Tianjin Honbase's Section A Questionnaire Response 
dated July 5, 2011, and Section C Questionnaire Response dated 
August 10, 2011.
    \94\ See Baozhang's Section A Questionnaire Response dated July 
20, 2011, and Section C Questionnaire Response dated August 19, 
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of galvanized steel wire to the United 
States by Tianjin Honbase and Baozhang were made at less-than-fair-
value, we compared the EP and/or constructed export price (``CEP'') to 
NV, as described in the ``U.S. Price,'' and ``Normal Value'' sections 
of this notice. We compared NV to weighted-average EPs and/or CEPs in 
accordance with section 777A(d)(1) of the Act.

U.S. Price

A. EP

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we based the U.S. 
price for certain Tianjin Honbase sales on EP because the first sale to 
an unaffiliated purchaser 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, where applicable, foreign 
inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, 
and rebates 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.

B. CEP

    In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we based the U.S. 
price for certain Tianjin Honbase's sales and all of Baozhang's sales 
on CEP because the first sale to an unaffiliated customer was made by 
these two respondents' respective U.S. affiliates.\95\ In accordance 
with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we calculated CEP by deducting, 
where applicable, the following expenses from the gross unit price 
charged to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States: Marine 
insurance, discounts, rebates, billing adjustments, foreign movement 
expenses, and international freight, and United States movement 
expenses, including brokerage and handling. 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 following selling expenses 
associated with economic activities occurring in the United States: 
Credit expenses, warranty expenses, other direct selling expenses, and 
indirect selling expenses. 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, actual expenses, 
or an average of the two.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ We consider these CEP sales because the respondents 
reported that their respective affiliates in the United States 
performed sales functions such as: Sales negotiation, issuance of 
invoices and receipt of payment from the ultimate U.S. customer 
during the POI. See Glycine From the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Preliminary Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 18457 (April 12, 2007) 
unchanged in Final Results (where the Department stated that ``we 
based U.S. price for certain sales on CEP in accordance with section 
772(b) of the Act, because sales were made by Nantong Donchang's 
U.S. affiliate, Wavort, Inc. {``Wavort''{time}  to unaffiliated 
purchasers.''); AK Steel Corp., et al., v. United States, 226 F.3d 
1361 (Fed.Cir. 2000).
    \96\ For details regarding our CEP calculations, see, e.g., 
Tianjin Honbase Prelim Analysis Memo; see also ``Memorandum to the 
File from Irene Gorelik, Senior Case Analyst: Program Analysis for 
the Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation of 
Galvanized Steel Wire from the People's Republic of China: Anhui 
Baozhang Metal Products Limited,'' dated concurrently with this 
notice (``Baozhang Prelim Analysis Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Further Manufacturing

    Tianjin Honbase reported that its affiliate in the United States, 
MAT, further manufactures galvanized steel wire into downstream 
products. The Department required Tianjin Honbase to complete and file 
a Section E questionnaire response, which requests data related to cost 
of further manufacturing or assembly performed in the United States of 
galvanized steel wire. Based on Tianjin Honbase's responses and data, 
in accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the Act, the Department has 
deducted the cost of further manufacturing for sales of galvanized 
steel wire to which value was added in the United States by MAT prior 
to sale to unaffiliated customers.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ See Tianjin Honbase Prelim Analysis Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine the NV using a 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 the FOP 
because the presence of government controls on various aspects of non-
market economies renders price comparisons and the calculation of 
production costs invalid under the Department's normal 
methodologies.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ 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 (April 17, 2006) 
(``CLPP'') unchanged in 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the basis for NV, Tianjin Honbase and Baozhang provided FOPs 
used in each stage for the production of galvanized steel wire (i.e., 
from drawing steel wire rod into steel wire to completion of the final 
product: Galvanized steel wire). Additionally, Tianjin Honbase and 
Baozhang reported that they are integrated producers because these 
respondents draw steel wire rod into steel wire, then galvanize the 
steel wire into finished product and provided the FOP information used 
in these processing stages.
    Consistent with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, it is the 
Department's practice to value the FOPs that a respondent uses to 
produce galvanized steel wire.\99\ If an

[[Page 68418]]

NME respondent is an integrated producer, we take into account the 
factors utilized in each stage of the production process. For example, 
in a previous case, one respondent was a fully integrated firm, and the 
Department valued both the steel wire rod drawing FOPs and steel wire 
garment hanger processing FOPs because this company bore all the costs 
related to these stages of production.\100\ In this case, we are also 
valuing the respondents' steel wire rod drawing FOPs and the FOPs 
consumed in the galvanizing process because the respondents bore the 
costs related to these stages of production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of 
China, 73 FR 15726, 15732 (March 25, 2008) unchanged in Steel Wire 
Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China: Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 47587 (August 
14, 2008) (``Steel Wire Garment Hangers Final LTFV''); Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and 
Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 
70997 (December 8, 2004) and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 9(E).
    \100\ See Steel Wire Garment Hangers Final LTFV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Factor Valuation Methodology

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on FOP data reported by Tianjin Honbase and Baozhang for the POI. 
To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor-consumption 
rates by publicly available SVs (except as discussed below). In 
selecting the SVs, among other criteria, we considered the quality, 
specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we 
adjusted input prices by including freight costs to make them delivered 
prices. Specifically, we added to Thai 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 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).\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ A detailed description of all surrogate values used for 
respondents can be found in the Prelim SV Memo and company-specific 
analysis memoranda.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For this preliminary determination, in accordance with the 
Department's practice, we used Thai GTA import statistics to calculate 
SVs for the mandatory respondents' FOPs (direct materials, including 
steel wire rod, certain energy FOPs, and packing materials). In 
selecting the best available information for valuing FOPs in accordance 
with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the Department's practice is to 
select, to the extent practicable, SVs which are non-export average 
values, most contemporaneous with the POI, product-specific, and tax-
exclusive.\102\ The record shows that data in the Thai Import 
Statistics, as well as that from the other Thai sources, represent data 
that are contemporaneous with the POI, product-specific, and tax-
exclusive.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ 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).
    \103\ See Prelim SV Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, with regard to the Thai import-based SVs, we have 
disregarded import prices that we have reason to believe or suspect may 
be subsidized. We have reason to believe or suspect that prices of 
inputs from Indonesia, India, and South Korea may have been subsidized 
because we have found in other proceedings that these countries 
maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export 
subsidies.\104\ Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that all exports 
to all markets from these countries may be subsidized.\105\ Further, 
guided by the legislative history, it is the Department's practice not 
to conduct a formal investigation to ensure that such prices are not 
subsidized.\106\ Rather, the Department bases its decision on 
information that is available to it at the time it makes its 
determination. 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 
either an NME country or a country with general export subsidies.\107\ 
Therefore, we have not used prices from these countries either in 
calculating the Thai import-based surrogate values or in calculating 
market-economy input values.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ 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; 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; Final 
Results of Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled 
Carbon Steel Flat Products from Thailand, 66 FR 50410 (October 3, 
2001), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 23.
    \105\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical 
Circumstances: Certain Color Television Receivers From the People's 
Republic of China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004) and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 7.
    \106\ See Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, 
Conference Report to accompany H.R. Rep. 100-576 at 590 (1988) 
reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 1623-24; see also Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet 
Paper from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 30758 (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.
    \107\ See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Chlorinated 
Isocyanurates From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 75294, 
75300 (December 16, 2004), unchanged in Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Chlorinated 
Isocyanurates From the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 24502 (May 
10, 2005).
    \108\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), when a respondent sources inputs 
from an ME supplier in meaningful quantities (i.e., not insignificant 
quantities), we use the actual price paid by respondent for those 
inputs, except when prices may have been distorted by findings of 
dumping by the PRC and/or subsidies.\109\ Where we find ME purchases to 
be of significant quantities (i.e., 33 percent or more), in accordance 
with our statement of policy as outlined in Antidumping Methodologies: 
Market Economy Inputs,\110\ we use the actual purchases of these inputs 
to value the inputs. Where the quantity of the reported input purchased 
from ME suppliers is below 33 percent of the total volume of the input 
purchased from all sources during the POI, and were otherwise valid, we 
weight-average the ME input's purchase price with the appropriate SV 
for the input according to their respective shares of the reported 
total volume of purchases.\111\ Where appropriate, we add freight to 
the ME prices of inputs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 
62 FR 27296, 27366 (May 19, 1997).
    \110\ See Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, 
Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for 
Comments, 71 FR 61716, 61717 (October 19, 2006) (``Antidumping 
Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs'').
    \111\ See id., at 71 FR 61718.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tianjin Honbase claimed that it contracted for ocean freight 
services sourced from an ME country and paid for in an ME currency. 
Because information reported by Tianjin Honbase demonstrated that it 
purchased significant quantities (i.e., 33 percent or more) of freight 
services from market economy suppliers, the Department used Honbase's 
weighted average market economy purchase price to value all of its 
ocean freight expenses.\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ See id., at 71 FR 61717; see also Tianjin Honbase Prelim 
Analysis Memo.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 68419]]

    The Department used Thai Import Statistics from the GTA to value 
the raw material, certain energy inputs and packing material inputs 
that Tianjin Honbase and Baozhang used to produce galvanized steel wire 
during the POI, except where listed below.
    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 June 21, 2011, the Department revised its methodology for 
valuing the labor input in NME antidumping proceedings.\113\ 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ See Antidumping Methodologies in Proceedings Involving 
Non-Market Economies: Valuing the Factor of Production: Labor, 76 FR 
36092 (June 21, 2011) (``Labor Methodologies'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the preliminary determination, 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 Thailand to the ILO in Chapter 6A of the Yearbook. Although 
the Department further finds the two-digit description under ISIC-
Revision 3 (``Manufacture of Basic Metals'') 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, Thailand has not reported data specific to the 
two-digit description since 2000. However, Thailand did report total 
manufacturing wage data in 2005. Accordingly, relying on Chapter 6A of 
the Yearbook, the Department calculated the labor input using total 
labor data reported by Thailand to the ILO, in accordance with section 
773(c)(4) of the Act. For the preliminary determination, the calculated 
industry-specific wage rate is 135.72 Baht/hour or $4.43/hour. A more 
detailed description of the wage rate calculation methodology is 
provided in the Prelim SV Memo.
    As stated above, the Department used Thailand ILO data reported 
under Chapter 6A of Yearbook, which reflects all costs related to 
labor, including wages, benefits, housing, training, etc. Additionally, 
where 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.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ See Labor Methodologies, 76 FR at 36093.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because water was used by the respondents in the production process 
of galvanized steel wire, the Department considers water to be a direct 
material input, and not as overhead, and valued water with a SV 
according to our practice.\115\ The Department valued water using data 
from Thailand's Board of Investment.\116\ This source provides water 
rates for industrial users that are VAT exclusive. Although Petitioners 
suggested that we value water using information from Thailand's 
Metropolitan Waterworks Authority, we find that the information 
provided is approximate and not explicitly tax-exclusive. Therefore, 
the data provided by the Board of Investment provides a more specific 
and accurate surrogate value.\117\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value 
and Critical Circumstances: Certain Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings 
From the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 61395 (October 28, 2003) 
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 11.
    \116\ See Prelim SV Memo at 10 and Exhibit 7.
    \117\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We used Thai transport information in order to value the freight-in 
cost of the raw materials. The Department determined the best available 
information for valuing truck freight to be from Doing Business 2011: 
Thailand. This World Bank report gathers information concerning the 
distance and cost to transport products in a 20-foot container from the 
largest city in Thailand to the nearest seaport. We calculated the per-
unit inland freight costs using the distance from Thailand's largest 
city, Bangkok, to the nearest seaport. The inland freight costs in the 
World Bank report are for shipping a 20-foot container. We calculated a 
per-kilogram, per-kilometer surrogate inland freight rate of 0.0008 
U.S. dollars per kilometer per kilogram based on using the full 
capacity of a 20-foot container.\118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ See id., at Exhibit 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We valued brokerage and handling using a price list of export 
procedures necessary to export a standardized cargo of goods in 
Thailand. The price list is compiled based on a survey case study of 
the procedural requirements for trading a standard shipment of goods by 
ocean transport in Thailand that is published in Doing Business 2011: 
Thailand, published by the World Bank.
    To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative 
expenses, and profit, we relied on one financial statement from a 
company located in Thailand. We calculated the surrogate financial 
ratio using data from the 2010 audited financial statement Capital 
Engineering Network (``Capital Engineering'').\119\ Capital Engineering 
is a producer of comparable wire rod based products rather than 
identical merchandise. Petitioners provided additional Thai financial 
statements for Tycoons Worldwide, Thai Wire Products Co., Ltd (``Thai 
Wire'') and Thailand Iron Works (``Thai Iron''). We have determined not 
to rely on the 2010 financial statement for Tycoons Worldwide because 
it indicates that it received promotional privileges from the Board of 
Investment (``BOI''). Specifically, Tycoons International received two 
different tax exemptions that fall under the Investment Promotion Act 
(``IPA'') in Sections 28, 31, and 35.\120\ The Department has found 
these two tax exemption programs from the BOI to be countervailable 
subsidies.\121\ Consistent with the Department's practice, we prefer 
not to use financial statements of a company we have reason to believe 
or suspect may have received subsidies, because financial ratios 
derived from that company's financial statements may not constitute the 
best available information with which to value financial ratios.\122\ 
Further, as Thai Iron

[[Page 68420]]

is a producer of galvanized iron sheets, we find that Thai Iron's 
financial statements do not reflect the production experience of the 
respondents to the degree of Capital Engineering's financial 
statements. Additionally, we were unable to calculate a financial ratio 
based on the statement of Thai Wire because the statement lacked 
sufficient detail in order to allow for the classification of expenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ See Petitioners' September 1, 2011, Surrogate Value 
Submission at Exhibits 5B and 5D; see also Petitioners' Submission 
of Complete 2010 Financial Statement of Thai Wire Products Public 
Company Limited, dated September 12, 2011; see also Prelim SV Memo 
at Exhibits 11a-c.
    \120\ See Final Negative Countervailing Duty Determination: 
Bottle-Grade Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Resin From Thailand, 
70 FR 13462 (March 21, 2005); see also Ball Bearings and Parts 
Thereof From Thailand: Final Results of Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Review, 61 FR 729 (January 6, 1997).
    \121\ See id.
    \122\ See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's 
Republic of China: Notice of Final Results and Rescission, In Part, 
of 2004/2005 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper 
Reviews, 72 FR 19174 (April 17, 2007) and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, we were unable to segregate and, therefore, were 
unable to exclude energy costs from the calculation of the surrogate 
financial ratio using Capital Engineering's financial statement. 
Accordingly, we have disregarded the respondents' energy inputs (coal 
and electricity) in the calculation of normal value for purposes of the 
preliminary determination, in order to avoid double-counting energy 
costs which have necessarily been captured in the surrogate financial 
ratios.\123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ See Tianjin Honbase Prelim Analysis Memo; see also 
Baozhang Prelim Analysis Memo; see also Citric Acid and Certain 
Citrate Salts From the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 74 FR 16838, 16839 
(April 13, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with 
section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on 
the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we intend to verify 
the information upon which we will rely in making our final 
determination.

Combination Rates

    In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that it would 
calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible 
for a separate rate in this investigation.\124\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ See Initiation Notice, 76 FR at 23553 and as described in 
Policy Bulletin 05.1, available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preliminary Determination

    The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

                   Galvanized Steel Wire from the PRC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Weighted-
            Exporter                     Producer         average margin
                                                             (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tianjin Honbase Machinery        Tianjin Honbase                  131.84
 Manufactory Co., Ltd.            Machinery Manufactory
                                  Co., Ltd.
Anhui Bao Zhang Metal Products   Anhui Bao Zhang Metal             76.34
 Co., Ltd.                        Products Co., Ltd.
Shanghai Bao Zhang Industry      Shanghai Bao Zhang                76.34
 Co., Ltd.                        Industry Co., Ltd.
Shanghai Bao Zhang Industry      Anhui Bao Zhang Metal             76.34
 Co., Ltd.                        Products Co., Ltd.
Anhui Bao Zhang Metal Products   Shanghai Bao Zhang                76.34
 Co., Ltd.                        Industry Co., Ltd.
Shijiazhuang Kingway Metal       Shijiazhuang Kingway             127.09
 Products Co., Ltd.               Metal Products Co.,
                                  Ltd.
Shanxi Yuci Broad Wire Products  Shanxi Yuci Broad Wire           127.09
 Co., Ltd.                        Products Co., Ltd.
Huanghua Jinhai Hardware         Huanghua Jinhai                  127.09
 Products Co., Ltd.               Hardware Products Co.,
                                  Ltd.
Huanghua Jinhai Import & Export  Huanghua Jinhai                  127.09
 Trading Co., Ltd.                Hardware Products Co.,
                                  Ltd.
Guizhou Wire Rope Incorporated   Guizhou Wire Rope                127.09
 Company.                         Incorporated Company.
Hebei Minmetals Co., Ltd.......  Huanghua Jinhai                  127.09
                                  Hardware Products Co.,
                                  Ltd.
Hebei Minmetals Co., Ltd.......  Huanghua Huarong                 127.09
                                  Hardware Co., Ltd.
Hebei Minmetals Co., Ltd.......  Shandong Jining                  127.09
                                  Lianzhong Hardware
                                  Products Co., Ltd.
Shandong Minmetals Co., Ltd....  Huanghua Jinhai                  127.09
                                  Hardware Products Co.,
                                  Ltd.
Shandong Minmetals Co., Ltd....  Huanghua Xincheng Metal          127.09
                                  Products Co., Ltd.
Shandong Minmetals Co., Ltd....  Tianjin Shi Dagangqu             127.09
                                  Yuliang XianCaichang.
Shandong Minmetals Co., Ltd....  Tianjin Hengfeng Metal           127.09
                                  Wire Co., Ltd.
Shandong Minmetals Co., Ltd....  Tianjin Shi Jinghai              127.09
                                  Yicheng Hardware
                                  Products Co., Ltd.
Fasten Group Imp. & Exp. Co.,    Jiangsu Fasten Stock             127.09
 Ltd.                             Co., Ltd.
Fasten Group Imp. & Exp. Co.,    Zhangjiagang Guanghua            127.09
 Ltd.                             Communication Cable
                                  Materials Co., Ltd.
Fasten Group Imp. & Exp. Co.,    Zhangjiagang Kaihua              127.09
 Ltd.                             Metal Products Co.,
                                  Ltd.
Qingdao Ant Hardware             Qingdao Ant Hardware             127.09
 Manufacturing Co., Ltd.          Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
Suntec Industries Co., Ltd.....  Tianjin Jinnan 4th Wire          127.09
                                  Factory.
Suntec Industries Co., Ltd.....  Tianjin Yinshan                  127.09
                                  Manufacture & Trade
                                  Co., Ltd.
Suntec Industries Co., Ltd.....  Tianjin Zhaohong Metal           127.09
                                  Products Co., Ltd.
Suntec Industries Co., Ltd.....  Tianjin Wandai Metal             127.09
                                  Products Co., Ltd.
Suntec Industries Co., Ltd.....  Tianjin Dagang Wire              127.09
                                  Factory.
Suntec Industries Co., Ltd.....  Tianjin Jinghai Yicheng          127.09
                                  Metal Products Co.,
                                  Ltd.
Suntec Industries Co., Ltd.....  Tianjin Liquan Metal             127.09
                                  Products Co., Ltd.
Suntec Industries Co., Ltd.....  Tianjin Huayuan Times            127.09
                                  Metal Products Co.,
                                  Ltd.
Suntec Industries Co., Ltd.....  Tianjin Fusheng Metal            127.09
                                  Products Co., Ltd.
M & M Industries Co., Ltd......  Tianjin Huayuan Times            127.09
                                  Metal Products Co.,
                                  Ltd.
M & M Industries Co., Ltd......  Tianjin Huayuan Metal            127.09
                                  Wire Products Co., Ltd.
M & M Industries Co., Ltd......  Tianjin Tianxin Metal            127.09
                                  Products Co., Ltd.
M & M Industries Co., Ltd......  Tianjin Jinghai County           127.09
                                  Yongshun Metal
                                  Products Mill.
M & M Industries Co., Ltd......  Huanghua Jinhai                  127.09
                                  Hardware Products Co.,
                                  Ltd.
Shaanxi New Mile International   Tianjin Huayuan Metal            127.09
 Trade Co., Ltd.                  Wire Products Co., Ltd.
Shaanxi New Mile International   Tianjin Jinghai Yicheng          127.09
 Trade Co., Ltd.                  Metal Products Co.,
                                  Ltd.
Shaanxi New Mile International   Tianjin Zhaohong Metal           127.09
 Trade Co., Ltd.                  Products Co., Ltd.
Shaanxi New Mile International   Tianjin Lianxing Metal           127.09
 Trade Co., Ltd.                  Products Co., Ltd.
Shaanxi New Mile International   Tianjin Beichen                  127.09
 Trade Co., Ltd.                  Gangjiaoxian Metal
                                  Products Co., Ltd,
                                  Fuli Branch.
Shaanxi New Mile International   Shenzhou Hongli Metal            127.09
 Trade Co., Ltd.                  Products Co., Ltd.
Hebei Cangzhou New Century       Tianjin Huayuan Metal            127.09
 Foreign Trade Co., Ltd.          Wire Products Co., Ltd.
Hebei Cangzhou New Century       Tianjin Randa Metal              127.09
 Foreign Trade Co., Ltd.          Products Factory.

[[Page 68421]]

 
Hebei Cangzhou New Century       Tianjin Jinghai Yicheng          127.09
 Foreign Trade Co., Ltd.          Metal Products Co.,
                                  Ltd.
Hebei Cangzhou New Century       Tianjin Jinghai                  127.09
 Foreign Trade Co., Ltd.          Hongjiufeng Wire
                                  Products Co., Ltd.
Hebei Cangzhou New Century       Huanghua Jinhai                  127.09
 Foreign Trade Co., Ltd.          Hardware Products Co.,
                                  Ltd.
Dezhou Hualude Hardware          Tianjin Jinghai Yicheng          127.09
 Products Co., Ltd.               Metal Products Co.,
                                  Ltd.
Dezhou Hualude Hardware          Tianjin Yinshan                  127.09
 Products Co., Ltd.               Industry and Trade
                                  Co., Ltd.
Dezhou Hualude Hardware          Tianjin Zhenyuan                 127.09
 Products Co., Ltd.               Industry and Trade
                                  Co., Ltd.
Dezhou Hualude Hardware          Dingzhou Xuri Metal              127.09
 Products Co., Ltd.               Products Factory.
Dezhou Hualude Hardware          Huanghua Jinhai                  127.09
 Products Co., Ltd.               Hardware Products Co.,
                                  Ltd.
Dezhou Hualude Hardware          Tianjin Dagang Wire              127.09
 Products Co., Ltd.               Mill.
Dezhou Hualude Hardware          Tianjin Huayuan                  127.09
 Products Co., Ltd.               Industrial Company.
Dezhou Hualude Hardware          Hebei Yongwei Metal              127.09
 Products Co., Ltd.               Products Co., Ltd.
Dezhou Hualude Hardware          Tianjin Guanshun Metal           127.09
 Products Co., Ltd.               Products Co., Ltd.
Shanghai SETI Enterprise         Shanghai Xiaoyu Metal            127.09
 International Co., Ltd.          Products Co., Ltd.
Xi'an Metals and Minerals        Tianjin Jinyongtai               127.09
 Import and Export Co., Ltd.      Hardware Products Co.,
                                  Ltd.
Xi'an Metals and Minerals        Tianjin Hengfeng Metal           127.09
 Import and Export Co., Ltd.      Wire Co., Ltd.
Xi'an Metals and Minerals        Shenzhou City Hongli             127.09
 Import and Export Co., Ltd.      Hardware Manufacturing
                                  Co., Ltd.
Xi'an Metals and Minerals        Tianjin Dagang Jinding           127.09
 Import and Export Co., Ltd.      Metal Products Factory.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   PRC-Wide Rate \125\                            235.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \125\ The PRC-Wide entity includes: Tianjin Huayuan Metal Wire 
Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Meijiahua Trade Co., Ltd., Tianjin 
Huayuan Times Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Tianxin Metal 
Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Jinghai Yicheng Metal Products Co., 
Ltd.; Anping Shuangmai Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Anping Xinhong Wire 
Mesh Co., Ltd.; Beijing Catic Industry Limited; Benxi Wasainuo Metal 
Packaging Production Co., Ltd.; China National Electronics Imp. & 
Exp. Ningbo Co., Ltd.; Easen Corp.; Ecms O/B Tianjin Huayuan Metal 
Wire; Hebei Dongfang Hardware And Mesh Co., Ltd.; Hebei Longda Trade 
Co., Ltd.; Huanghua Yufutai Hardware Products Co., Ltd.; Maccaferri 
(Changsha) Enviro-Tech Co.; Nantong Long Yang International Trade 
Co., Ltd.; Shandong Hualing Hardware & Tools Co., Ltd.; Shanghai 
Multi-development Enterprises; Shanghai Suntec Industries Co., Ltd.; 
Tianjin Jing Weida International Trade Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Pcss 
Trading Co., Ltd.; and Weifang Hecheng International Trade Co., Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we will instruct CBP 
to suspend liquidation of all entries of galvanized steel wire from the 
PRC as described in the ``Scope of Investigation'' section, entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption from Tianjin Honbase and 
Baozhang, the non-selected companies receiving a separate rate, and the 
PRC-wide entity on or after the date of publication of this notice in 
the Federal Register.
    Additionally, the Department has determined in its Galvanized Steel 
Wire From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative 
Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Determination 
With Final Antidumping Determination, 76 FR 55031 (September 6, 2011) 
that galvanized steel wire exported by Baozhang and M&M Industries Co., 
Ltd., benefitted from export subsidies. With respect to Baozhang, we 
will instruct CBP to require an antidumping cash deposit or posting of 
a bond equal to the amount by which the NV exceeds the U.S. price, as 
indicated above, reduced by the export subsidy determined for Baozhang 
in the companion CVD investigation.\126\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \126\ See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From India, 69 FR 
67306, 67307 (November 17, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to M&M Industries Co., Ltd., a separate rate recipient 
in this case, but a mandatory respondent in the companion CVD case that 
was found to have benefitted from export subsidies, we will instruct 
CBP to require an antidumping cash deposit or posting of a bond equal 
to the amount by which the NV exceeds the U.S. price, as indicated 
above, reduced by the lesser of its own CVD export subsidy rate or the 
average of the CVD export subsidy rates applicable to the mandatory 
respondents, on which M&M Industries Co., Ltd.'s dumping margin is 
based. For the other separate rate recipients \127\ in this case, 
excluding M&M Industries Co., Ltd., who are receiving the All-Others 
rate in the CVD investigation, we will instruct CBP to require an 
antidumping cash deposit or posting of a bond equal to the amount by 
which the NV exceeds the U.S. price, as indicated above, reduced by the 
lesser of the average of the export subsidy rates determined in the CVD 
investigation or the average of the CVD export subsidy rates applicable 
to the mandatory respondents, on which the separate rate dumping 
margins are based.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \127\ The Department notes that it is our practice to adjust the 
separate rate companies by the lesser of the export subsidy rate (or 
average thereof) applicable to the mandatory respondents from which 
the separate rate is calculated, or the All-Others export subsidy 
rate from the CVD case (with exception of M&M, which has its own 
calculated export subsidy rate). Because the weighted-average export 
subsidy rate is not currently on the record of the antidumping duty 
investigation, we are using a simple average of the export subsidy 
rates calculated in the CVD case. However, for the final 
determination, we intend to update this information based on the 
final determination in the CVD case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because Tianjin Honbase is a mandatory respondent in this case but 
received the All-Others rate in the companion CVD case, we will 
instruct CBP to require an antidumping cash deposit or posting of a 
bond equal to the amount by which the NV exceeds the U.S. price, as 
indicated above, reduced by the average of the export subsidy rates 
determined in the CVD investigation.
    For all other entries of galvanized steel wire from the PRC, the 
following cash deposit/bonding instructions apply: (1) The rate for the 
firms listed in the chart above will be the rate we have determined in 
this preliminary determination; (2) for all non-PRC exporters of 
galvanized steel wire which have not received their own rate, the cash-
deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter in the 
combination listed above, that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These 
suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain in effect until 
further notice.

[[Page 68422]]

International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we will notify the 
ITC of our preliminary affirmative determination of sales at less than 
fair value. Section 735(b)(2) of the Act requires the ITC to make its 
final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United 
States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by 
reason of imports of galvanized steel wire, or sales (or the likelihood 
of sales) for importation, of the galvanized steel wire within 45 days 
of our final determination.

Public Comment

    Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no later than seven days 
after the date the final verification report is issued in this 
proceeding and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case 
briefs, no later than five days after the deadline for submitting case 
briefs.\128\ A list of authorities used and an executive summary of 
issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. This 
summary should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \128\ See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i) and 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 774 of the Act, we will hold a public 
hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to 
comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. If a request 
for a hearing is made, we intend to hold the hearing three days after 
the deadline of submission of rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave NW., Washington, DC 20230, 
at a time and location to be determined. Parties should confirm by 
telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before 
the scheduled date.
    Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
publication of this notice.\129\ Hearing requests should contain the 
following information: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone 
number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to 
be discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in 
the briefs.\130\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \129\ See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
    \130\ See 19 CFR 351.310(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional 
Measures

    Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination 
may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the 
publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an 
affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement 
is made by exporters, who account for a significant proportion of 
exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative 
preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by 
the petitioner. The Department's regulations, at 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), 
require that requests by respondents for postponement of a final 
determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional 
measures from a four-month period to not more than six months.
    As noted above, on October 21, 2011, Tianjin Honbase requested that 
in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination in this 
investigation, the Department postpone its final determination by 60 
days (135 days after publication of the preliminary determination) and 
extend the application of the provisional measures prescribed under 
section 733(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), from a four month 
period to a six month period. In accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) 
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because (1) our preliminary 
determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting producers/exporters 
account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject 
merchandise; and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are 
granting this request and are postponing the final determination until 
no later than 135 days after the publication of this notice in the 
Federal Register. Suspension of liquidation will be extended 
accordingly. We are also granting the request to extend the application 
of the provisional measures prescribed under section 733(d) of the Act 
and 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) from a four month period to a six month 
period.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: October 27, 2011.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-28655 Filed 11-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P