[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 216 (Tuesday, November 9, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68758-68767]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28287]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-918]


Steel Wire Garment Hangers From the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results and Preliminary Rescission, in Part, of the First 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``Department'') is conducting the 
first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel wire 
garment hangers from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'') for the 
period March 25, 2008, through September 30, 2009. The Department has 
preliminarily determined that sales have been made below normal value 
(``NV'') by the respondents. If these preliminary results are adopted 
in our final results of this review, the Department will instruct U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on 
all appropriate entries of subject merchandise during the period of 
review (``POR''). Interested parties are invited to comment on these 
preliminary results.

DATES: Effective Date: November 9, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irene Gorelik or Josh Startup, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6905 or (202) 
482-5260, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On October 6, 2008, the Department published in the Federal 
Register an antidumping duty order on steel wire garment hangers 
(``hangers'') from the PRC. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Steel 
Wire Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China, 73 FR 58111 
(October 6, 2008). On October 1, 2009, the Department published in the 
Federal Register a notice of opportunity to request an administrative 
review of hangers from the PRC for the period March 25, 2008, to 
September 30, 2009.\1\ See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, 
Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request 
Administrative Review, 74 FR 50772 (October 1, 2009). On October 30, 
2009, certain PRC exporters requested that the Department conduct an 
administrative review. On November 2, 2009, Petitioner \2\ also 
requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of 187 
companies. On November 25, 2009, the Department initiated this review 
of hangers from the PRC with respect to 187 requested companies 
covering the period of March 25, 2008, through September 30, 2009. See 
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Reviews, 74 FR 61658 (November 25, 2009) (``Initiation Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Department generally does not include merchandise that 
entered the United States during the provisional measures gap period 
(``gap period''), in this case, September 22, 2008, to October 2, 
2008, in our margin calculation because these entries are not 
subject to antidumping duties. See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Low Enriched 
Uranium from France, 69 FR 3883 (January 27, 2004). However, for the 
purposes of these preliminary results, we are basing the margin 
calculation on all reported U.S. sales made during the POR because 
we are unable to determine whether any of the respondents' reported 
U.S. sales entered during the gap period.
    \2\ M&B Metal Products Co., Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Between December 28, 2009, and January 21, 2010, we received 
separate rate certifications or applications from 15 exporters, in 
addition to those received from the mandatory respondents as discussed 
in the ``Respondent Selection'' section below. For a detailed 
discussion of the separate rate applicants, see the ``Separate Rates'' 
section below. Additionally, between December 16, 2009, and December 
28, 2009, the Department received no-shipment certifications from five 
companies. For a detailed discussion of the companies that certified 
they had no shipments during the POR, see the ``Preliminary Partial 
Rescission of Administrative Review'' section below.
    As explained in the memorandum from the Deputy Assistant Secretary 
for Import Administration, the Department has exercised its discretion 
to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal 
Government from February 5, through February 12, 2010. See Memorandum 
to the Record regarding ``Tolling of Administrative Deadlines As a 
Result of the Government Closure During the Recent Snowstorm,'' dated 
February 12, 2010. Thus, all deadlines in this segment of the 
proceeding have been extended by seven days. On April 30, 2010, the 
Department also published a notice in the Federal Register extending 
the deadline for issuing the preliminary results by 120 days to 
November 7, 2010.\3\ See First Antidumping Duty

[[Page 68759]]

Administrative Review of Steel Wire Hangers From the People's Republic 
of China: Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results, 75 FR 
22739 (April 30, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Department practice dictates that where a deadline falls on 
a weekend, the appropriate deadline is the next business day. See 
Notice of Clarification: Application of ``Next Business Day'' Rule 
for Administrative Determination Deadlines Pursuant to the Tariff 
Act of 1930, As Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Respondent Selection

    Section 777A(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the 
Act''), directs the Department to calculate individual dumping margins 
for each known exporter or producer of the subject merchandise.\4\ 
However, section 777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the Department the 
discretion to limit its examination to a reasonable number of exporters 
or producers if it is not practicable to examine all exporters or 
producers involved in an administrative review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See also 19 CFR 351.204(c) regarding respondent selection, 
in general.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 30, 2009, the Department released CBP data for entries 
of subject merchandise during the POR under administrative protective 
order (``APO'') to all interested parties having an APO as of five days 
after publication of the Initiation Notice, and invited comments 
regarding the CBP data and respondent selection. The Department 
received comments and rebuttal comments from Petitioner and certain PRC 
exporters between November 30, 2009, and December 7, 2009.
    On February 12, 2010, the Department issued the respondent 
selection memorandum after assessing its resources and determining that 
it could only reasonably examine two exporters subject to this review. 
Pursuant to section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, the Department selected 
Shanghai Wells Hanger Co., Ltd. (``Shanghai Wells'') and Shaoxing 
Dingli Metal Clotheshorse Co., Ltd. (``Shaoxing Dingli'') as mandatory 
respondents.\5\ The Department sent the non-market economy (``NME'') 
antidumping questionnaire to Shanghai Wells and Shaoxing Dingli on 
February 12, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See ``Memorandum to James Doyle, Director, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 9, from Josh Startup, Analyst; First 
Administrative Review of Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the 
People's Republic of China: Selection of Respondents for Individual 
Review,'' dated February 12, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Period of Review

    The POR is March 25, 2008, to September 30, 2009.

Preliminary Partial Rescission of Administrative Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we preliminarily determine that 
the following companies made no shipments of subject merchandise during 
the POR: Viet Anh Import-Export Joint Stock Company; Dong Nam A Co., 
Ltd.; Vietnam Hangers Joint Stock Company; Royal McGoun Chemicals Inc.; 
and NV Hanger Co., Ltd. As stated above, the Department received no-
shipment certifications from the aforementioned companies between 
December 16, 2009, and December 28, 2009.
    The Department also issued a no-shipments inquiry to CBP, asking it 
to provide any information contrary to our CBP run showing zero entries 
of subject merchandise for merchandise manufactured and shipped by the 
aforementioned companies. We did not receive any response from CBP 
indicating whether there were any entries of subject merchandise into 
the United States during the POR which were exported by these 
companies. Consequently, we preliminary determine that none of the 
above-named companies had shipments of subject merchandise to the 
United States during the POR, and we are preliminarily rescinding the 
review with respect to the above-named companies.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See, e.g., Fourth Administrative Review of Certain Frozen 
Warmwater Shrimp From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary 
Results, Preliminary Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Intent Not To Revoke, In Part, 75 FR 11855 
(March 12, 2010), unchanged in Administrative Review of Certain 
Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 75 FR 49460 (August 13, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise that is subject to the order is steel wire garment 
hangers, fabricated from carbon steel wire, whether or not galvanized 
or painted, whether or not coated with latex or epoxy or similar 
gripping materials, and/or whether or not fashioned with paper covers 
or capes (with or without printing) and/or nonslip features such as 
saddles or tubes. These products may also be referred to by a 
commercial designation, such as shirt, suit, strut, caped, or latex 
(industrial) hangers. Specifically excluded from the scope of the order 
are wooden, plastic, and other garment hangers that are not made of 
steel wire. Also excluded from the scope of the order are chrome-plated 
steel wire garment hangers with a diameter of 3.4 mm or greater. The 
products subject to the order are currently classified under U.S. 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (``HTSUS'') subheadings 7326.20.0020 and 
7323.99.9060.
    Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and 
customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is 
dispositive.

Affiliation/Single Entity

    Based on the evidence presented in the Shanghai Wells' 
questionnaire responses, we preliminarily find that Shanghai Wells, 
Hong Kong Wells Limited (``HK Wells''), and Hong Kong Wells Limited 
(USA) are affiliated, pursuant to sections 771(33)(A), (E), and (F) of 
the Act. In addition, based on the evidence presented in its 
questionnaire responses, we preliminarily find that Shanghai Wells and 
HK Wells should be treated as a single entity for the purposes of this 
administrative review. This finding is based on our determination that 
HK Wells is involved in the export of subject merchandise produced by 
Shanghai Wells and that a significant potential for manipulation of 
price or production exists between these two entities.\7\ See 19 CFR 
351.401(f)(1) and (2). For further discussion of the Department's 
affiliation and single-entity decisions, see ``Memorandum to Catherine 
Bertrand, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Irene 
Gorelik, Senior Case Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: Preliminary 
Results in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Steel Wire 
Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China: Affiliation/Single 
Entity Memorandum for Shanghai Wells Hanger Co., Ltd.,'' dated 
concurrently with this notice. Consequently, we have calculated a 
single antidumping duty rate for the single entity comprised of 
Shanghai Wells and HK Wells, hereinafter referred to as the Wells 
Group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ While HK Wells is not a producer of hangers, we note that 
where companies are affiliated, and there exists a significant 
potential for manipulation of prices and/or export decisions, the 
Department has found it appropriate to treat those companies as a 
single entity. The Court of International Trade upheld the 
Department's decision to include export decisions in its analysis of 
whether there was a significant potential for manipulation. See 
Hontex Enterprises v. United States, 248 F. Supp. 2d 1323, 1343 (CIT 
2003). In this case, not only is HK Wells an exporter of subject 
merchandise, but it is an exporter of the subject merchandise 
produced by its affiliate, Shanghai Wells.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surrogate Country and Surrogate Value Data

    On March 25, 2010, the Department sent interested parties a letter 
inviting comments on surrogate country selection and information 
regarding valuing factors of production (``FOPs''). On May 21, 2010, 
Petitioner filed

[[Page 68760]]

comments on surrogate country selection, stating India, the 
Philippines, Indonesia and Thailand may be appropriate surrogates if 
there were publicly available, reliable and contemporaneous data for 
them, and Shaoxing Dingli filed comments recommending the Department 
select India as a surrogate country. On June 1, 2010, the Department 
received information to value FOPs from Shaoxing Dingli and Petitioner. 
On June 1, 2010, the Department also received surrogate value (``SV'') 
information from Fabricare Choice Distributors Group, an interested 
party. On June 11, 2010, Petitioner and Shaoxing Dingli filed rebuttal 
comments with respect to SVs. On June 21, 2010, Petitioner and Shaoxing 
Dingli provided additional factual information concerning SV 
information. On July 1, 2010, Shaoxing Dingli filed rebuttal comments 
to Petitioner's factual information concerning SV information. Both 
Petitioner and Shaoxing Dingli provided SVs from sources in India, 
while Petitioner also provided SVs from Thailand.

Surrogate Country

    When the Department investigates imports from an NME country and 
available information does not permit the Department to determine NV 
pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act, then, pursuant to section 
773(c)(4) of the Act, the Department bases NV on an NME producer's 
FOPs, to the extent possible, in one or more market-economy countries 
that (1) are at a level of economic development comparable to that of 
the NME country, and (2) are significant producers of comparable 
merchandise. Regarding the ``level of economic development,'' the 
Department places primary emphasis on per capita gross national income 
(``GNI'') as the measure of economic comparability.\8\ Using per capita 
GNI, the Department determined that India, Indonesia, Philippines, 
Peru, Ukraine and Thailand are countries comparable to the PRC in terms 
of economic development.\9\ Once we have identified the countries that 
are economically comparable to the PRC, we select an appropriate 
surrogate country by determining whether an economically comparable 
country is a significant producer of comparable merchandise and whether 
the data for valuing FOPs are both available and reliable. Regarding 
the ``significant producer'' prong of section 773(c)(4)(B) of the Act, 
the Department identified all countries that had exports of comparable 
merchandise (defined as exports under HTS 7326.20, 7323.99, the HTS 
numbers identified in the scope of the order) between 2007 and 2009, 
and deemed such countries to be significant producers. In this case, we 
have defined a ``significant producer'' as a country that has exported 
comparable merchandise in between 2007 and 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 19 CFR 351.408(b).
    \9\ The Department notes that these six countries are part of a 
non-exhaustive list of countries that are at a level of economic 
development comparable to the PRC. See the Department's letter to 
``All Interested Parties; First Administrative Review of Steel Wire 
Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China: Deadlines for 
Surrogate Country and Surrogate Value Comments,'' dated March 25, 
2010 at 1 and Attachment I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department has determined that India is the appropriate 
surrogate country for use in this review. The Department based its 
decision on the following facts: (1) India is at a level of economic 
development comparable to that of the PRC; (2) India is a significant 
producer of comparable merchandise; and (3) India provides the best 
opportunity to use quality, publicly available data to value the FOPs. 
Although Petitioner provided SV data for both Thailand and India, 
India's data is the best available data on the record for selection as 
the primary surrogate. Therefore, we have selected India as the 
surrogate country and, accordingly, have calculated NV using Indian 
prices to value the respondent's FOPs, when available and appropriate. 
We have obtained and relied upon publicly available information 
wherever possible.

Non-Market Economy Country Status

    In every proceeding conducted by the Department involving the PRC, 
we have treated it as an NME country. In accordance with section 
771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a country is an NME 
shall remain in effect until revoked by the Department. See, e.g., 
Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and 
Partial Rescission of the 2004/2005 Administrative Review and Notice of 
Rescission of 2004/2005 New Shipper Review, 71 FR 66304 (November 14, 
2006). None of the parties to this proceeding have contested such 
treatment. Accordingly, the Department calculated NV in accordance with 
section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME countries.

Separate Rates

    To obtain separate rate status, the Department requires exporters 
and producers to submit a separate rate status certification and/or 
application. See Separate Rates and Combination Rates in Antidumping 
Investigations involving Non-Market Economy Countries, 70 FR 17233 
(April 5, 2005) (``Policy Bulletin 05.1''), also available at: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/index.html. However, the standard for eligibility 
for a separate rate (which is whether a firm can demonstrate an absence 
of both de jure and de facto government control over its export 
activities) has not changed.
    As noted above, a designation of a country as an NME remains in 
effect until it is revoked by the Department. See section 771(18)(c)(i) 
of the Act. In proceedings involving NME countries, it is the 
Department's practice to begin with a rebuttable presumption that all 
companies within the country are subject to government control and thus 
should be assessed a single antidumping duty rate. See Policy Bulletin 
05.1; see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, and Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part: Certain Lined 
Paper Products From the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 53079, 53080 
(September 8, 2006); and Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Final Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical 
Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's 
Republic of China, 71 FR 29303, 29307 (May 22, 2006).
    It is the Department's policy to assign all NME exporters of 
merchandise subject to an administrative review this single rate unless 
an exporter can affirmatively demonstrate that it is sufficiently 
independent from government control so as to be entitled to a separate 
rate. See Policy Bulletin 05.1. The Department analyzes each entity 
exporting the subject merchandise under a test arising from the Notice 
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from 
the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (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'') country, then a separate 
rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether it is independent 
from government control. See, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic 
of China, 72 FR 52355, 52356 (September 13, 2007).
    Excluding the companies selected for individual review, the 
Department received separate rate applications or certifications from 
the following 15

[[Page 68761]]

companies: (1) Shaoxing Gangyuan Metal Manufactured Co. Ltd.; (2) 
Shaoxing Tongzhou Metal Manufactured Co. Ltd.; (3) Shaoxing Andrew 
Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd.; (4) Shaoxing Shunji Metal Clotheshorse 
Co., Ltd.; (5) Yiwu Ao-Si Metal Products Co., Ltd.; (6) Shangyu 
Baoxiang Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd.; (7) Jiaxing Boyi Medical Device 
Co., Ltd.; \10\ (8) Pu Jiang County Command Metal Products Co., Ltd.; 
(9) Shaoxing Meideli Metal Hanger Co., Ltd.; (10) Shaoxing Zhongbao 
Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd.; (11) Zhejiang Lucky Cloud Hanger Co., 
Ltd.; (12) Ningbo Dasheng Hanger Ind. Co., Ltd.; (13) Shaoxing Guochao 
Metallic Products Co., Ltd.; (14) Shanghai Jianhai International Trade 
Co., Ltd.; and (15) Shaoxing Liangbao Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Department inadvertently misspelled Jiaxing Boyi 
Medical Device Co., Ltd.'s name in the Initiation Notice as 
``Jianxing Boyi Medical Device Co., Ltd.'' The name has been 
corrected for these preliminary results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Separate Rate Recipients

1. Wholly Foreign-Owned
    Shanghai Wells reported that it is a wholly foreign-owned 
entity.\11\ Additionally, there is no evidence that the Wells Group is 
under the control of the PRC government, and we have determined that 
further separate rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether 
this entity is independent from government control.\12\ Thus, we have 
preliminarily granted separate rate status to the Wells Group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Shanghai Wells' Section A Questionnaire Response, dated 
March 12, 2010, at 2.
    \12\ See, e.g, Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate from the People's Republic of 
China, 64 FR 71104, 71104-05 (December 20, 1999) (where the 
respondent was wholly foreign-owned and, thus, qualified for a 
separate rate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Joint Ventures Between Chinese and Foreign Companies or Wholly 
Chinese-Owned Companies
    Shaoxing Dingli \13\ and the 15 separate rate applicants in this 
administrative review stated that they are either joint ventures 
between Chinese and foreign companies or are wholly Chinese-owned 
companies. The Department has analyzed whether Shaoxing Dingli and the 
15 separate rate applicants have demonstrated the absence of de jure 
and de facto governmental control over their respective export 
activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Shaoxing Dingli's Section A Questionnaire Response, 
dated March 8, 2010, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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) any other 
formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. 
See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. The evidence provided by Shaoxing Dingli 
and the 15 separate rate applicants supports a preliminary finding of 
de jure absence of government control based on the following: (1) an 
absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the individual 
exporter's business and export licenses; (2) there are applicable 
legislative enactments decentralizing control of the companies; and (3) 
there are formal measures by the government decentralizing control of 
companies.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See, e.g., Shaoxing Dingli's Section A Questionnaire 
Response dated March 8, 2010, at 2-4; Shaoxing Shunji Metal 
Clotheshorse Co., Ltd.'s Separate Rate Certification dated December 
28, 2009, at 4; Shaoxing Meideli Metal Hanger Co., Ltd.'s Separate 
Rate Certification dated December 28, 2009, at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Absence of De Facto Control
    Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating 
whether each respondent is subject to de facto government control of 
its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or are 
subject to the approval of a government 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. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-87; see also 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 
22545 (May 8, 1995). The Department has determined that an analysis of 
de facto control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in 
fact, subject to a degree of government control which would preclude 
the Department from assigning separate rates. The evidence provided by 
Shaoxing Dingli and the 15 separate rate applicants supports a 
preliminary finding of de facto absence of government control based on 
the following: (1) The companies set their own export prices 
independent of the government and without the approval of a government 
authority; (2) the companies have authority to negotiate and sign 
contracts and other agreements; (3) the companies have autonomy from 
the government in making decisions regarding the selection of 
management; and (4) there is no restriction on any of the companies' 
use of export revenue.\15\ Therefore, the Department preliminarily 
finds that Shaoxing Dingli and the 15 separate rate applicants have 
established that they qualify for a separate rate under the criteria 
established by Silicon Carbide and Sparklers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See, e.g., Shaoxing Dingli's Section A Questionnaire 
Response dated September 5, 2008, at 5-9; Shaoxing Guochao Metallic 
Products Co., Ltd.'s Separate Rate Certification dated December 28, 
2009, at 5; Shaoxing Andrew Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd.'s Separate 
Rate Certification dated December 28, 2009, at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Companies Located Outside the PRC

    Based on the public certificate of service in Petitioner's request 
for administrative review, dated November 2, 2009, the record indicates 
that 70 of the 187 companies upon which the Department initiated this 
administrative review are located outside of the PRC.\16\

[[Page 68762]]

None of these companies have requested that the Department assign to 
them their own rate or certified that they had no shipments of subject 
merchandise during the POR. Because the 70 companies did not request 
the Department to assign to them their own rate, any exports of subject 
merchandise by these non-PRC exporters will be subject to the cash 
deposit rate of the PRC exporters that supplied them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Petitioner's November 2, 2009, review request. These 70 
companies are: Ahlers Vina Logistics; Alpi Trading Service Co., 
Ltd.; Amerasian Shipping Logistics Corp.; Anc Service Co., Ltd.; 
Angang Clothes Rack Manufacture Co.; Apex Holding Group Limited.; 
Arturo Huizar Velazquez; Biz Sources Inc. (Biz Sources PTY Ltd.); 
Canada Cleaning Supply Corp.; Centurion Logistics Services Ltd.; 
Cohesion Freight (HK) Ltd.; Cong Ty Duoc Thao; Cong Ty Trach Nhiem 
(CTN Co., Ltd.); Diep Son Hangers One Member Co., Ltd.; Dma 
Logistics Inc.; Dong Nam A Co., Ltd.; Evergreen Logistics Vietnam 
Co., Ltd.; Far Go Express Company Limited; Focus Shipping Corp.; For 
You Beautiful Industrial Co., Ltd.; General Merchandise 
Consolidators, Inc.; Giant Choice Co., Ltd.; Gle Logistics Co., 
Ltd.; Globe Express Services S.a.r.L. Co., Ltd.; Good Wonder 
Limited; Hcmc General Import and Export Investment Joint Stock 
Company (IMexico); Hippo Logistics Co., Ltd.; Honour Lane Logistics 
Co., Ltd.; Honour Lane Shipping Limited; Intercontinental Shipping 
Co., Ltd.; Ju Fu Co., Ltd.; KB Steel; Kingly Industry (Canada) 
Corp.; Korea Laundry Industry Co., Ltd.; Kyung Dong Industrial Co., 
Ltd.; Limpiaduria Zaragoza Huizar; Maple Hangers Inc.; Mico Mit Co., 
Ltd.; Moc Viet Manufacture Co., Ltd.; Multi-Sander Tech. Co., Ltd.; 
N2j Co., Ltd.; NV Hanger Co., Ltd.; Oec Freight Worldwide Co., Ltd.; 
Orient Star Shipping Pte.; Oriental Dragon Co., Ltd.; Oriental 
Logistics Group Ltd.; P T Transportation Ltd.; Pacific Star Express 
Corporation; Price Group Ltd.; Prolim De Baja California; Quyky-
yanglei International Co., Ltd.; Rising Trade Inc.; Royal Cargo 
Combined Logistics, Inc.; Royal McGoun Inc.; Seamaster Logistics 
Inc.; Sirius Global Logistics Co., Ltd.; Smart Concept Trading 
Limited; Star Glory Ltd.; Summit Logistics International Inc.; Sun 
Vn Transport Corp. (Sunvn Transport Corporation); Tay Ruey 
Enterprise Co.; Thanh Hieu Manufacturing Trading Co., Ltd.; Top 
Harvest Metal Co. Ltd.; Topocean Vietnam; Transworld Transportation 
Co., Ltd.; Twt-Transworld Transportation Co., Ltd.; Unitex 
International Forwarding (HK) Ltd., Vantage Logistics Corporation; 
Viet Anh Import-Export Joint Stock Company; Vietnam Hangers Joint 
Stock Company; Wiexin Cargo Services Co., Ltd.; Whale Logistics 
Company Ltd.; Winwell Industrial Limited; Zownzi Hardware Hanger Fty 
Ltd.; and Zynpak Packaging Products Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. PRC-Wide Entity

    As stated above in the ``Background'' section, the Department 
initiated an administrative review with respect to 187 companies. The 
Department provided companies not selected for individual examination 
the opportunity to file either a separate rate application or 
certification, which was made available on the Department's website. 
See Initiation Notice, 74 FR at 61658-9. Out of the 187 companies, 
excluding the two mandatory respondents, 15 filed either separate rate 
certifications or separate rate applications. Of the remaining 
companies, five reported having made no shipments to the United States 
during the POR and 70 companies appear to be located outside of the 
PRC, thus an analysis of whether these companies have rebutted the 
presumption of PRC government control is moot.
    However, 94 companies upon which we initiated a review, and which 
are located within the PRC, did not: (1) Apply for separate rate 
status; or (2) notify the Department that they had no shipments of 
subject merchandise during the POR.\17\ These 94 companies listed in 
the Initiation Notice have not demonstrated their eligibility for 
separate rate status in this administrative review. Therefore, the 
Department preliminarily determines that because there were exports of 
merchandise under review from PRC exporters that did not demonstrate 
their eligibility for separate rate status, we are treating these 
companies as part of the PRC-wide entity, and subject to the PRC-wide 
entity rate of 187.25 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ These 94 companies are: Acrowell International Logistics; 
Acx Logistics (China) Ltd.; Agility Logistics (Shanghai) Ltd.; Alcon 
Express Corp.; Anhui Whywin International Co., Ltd.; Apex Maritime 
Co. Ltd.; Apl Logistics China, Ltd.; Ate Logistics Co., Ltd.; 
Beijing Kang Jie Kong Cargo Agent Co., Ltd.; Brilliant Globe 
Logistics Inc.; China Coast Freight Co., Ltd.; China Container Line 
(Shanghai) Ltd.; China International Freight Co., Ltd.; China Ocean 
Shipping Agency (Ningbo); City Ocean Logistics Co., Ltd.; Cixi K&J 
International Co., Ltd.; Cohesion Freight Agency Ltd. (Shanghai); De 
Well Container Shipping Corp.; Direct Service Inc.; Distribution 
Rsjo Inc.; Dragon Trading Shipping Co., Ltd.; Dynamic Network 
Container Line Ltd.; Expeditors China; Fastic Transportation Co., 
Ltd.; Fortune Freight International Co., Ltd.; Ge Li Commerce Co., 
Ltd.; Goldever International Logistics Co.; Guangdong Provincial 
Taoyue Mfg. Co., Ltd.; Guangxi Shengfeng Import and Export Co., 
Ltd.; Guangzhou Yanglei-Packing Co., Ltd.; Guilin Yc Enterprise Co., 
Ltd.; Hangzhou Rico Homeware and Apparel Ltd.; Hanhen Shipping 
(China) Co., Ltd.; Hanjin (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.; Hanjin Logistics 
(Shanghai) Co., Ltd.; Hecny Shipping Limited; Huada Fashion 
Enterprise, Inc.; Huguang Huojia Factory; Jiangmen Hongjun Hardware 
& Elect.; Jiangsu Globe Logistics Limited Co.; Jiangyin Hongji Metal 
Products Co., Ltd.; Jr Metal Products Shanghai; Kaiping Youming 
Hardware & Plastic Products Co., Ltd.; Kuehne & Nagel Ltd.; Laidlaw 
Company LLC; Laidlaw Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Laidlaw Shanghai; 
Lights Out Machinery Co., Ltd.; Link & Link Shipping Ltd.; Nanchang 
Tuhai Industry Co., Ltd.; Ningbo Eidz Holding Ltd.; Ningbo Jude 
Trading Co., Ltd.; Ningbo Peacebird Import & Export Co., Ltd.; 
Ningbo Yifan International Forwarding Agency Co., Ltd.; Ocean Star 
International Logistics Co., Ltd.; Odyssey International (China) 
Ltd.; Orient Express Container Co., Ltd.; Orient Star Transport 
International Ltd.; Pacific Star International Logistics (China) 
Co., Ltd.; Phoenix International Freight Services Ltd.; Pingye 
Foreign Transportation Co., Ltd.; Post-Pop Art Co., Ltd.; Pudong 
Trans USA, Inc.; RDD Freight International Inc.; Rich Shipping 
Company Limited; Schenker China Ltd.; Sea Bright International 
Industrial; Shanghai Air Sea Transport Inc.; Shanghai Channel 
International Logistics; Shanghai Fanyuan Freight Forwarding; 
Shanghai Garment Group Import/Export Corp.; Shanghai Light Industry 
and Textile Group Co., Ltd.; Shanghai T.H.I Transport Co., Ltd.; 
Shaoguang International Trade Co.; Shaoxing Leiluo Metal 
Manufactured; Shenzhen Center Link International; Shenzhen Pacific-
Net Logistics Inc.; Shipping & Distribution Ltd.; Sino Connections 
Logistics Inc.; Sinobo International Logistics Co., Ltd.; Sinotrans 
Zhejiang Co., Ltd.; The Houjie Town Yongxiang/Hardware Processing 
Plant; Tianjin Hongtong Metal Manufacture Co., Ltd.; Top Shipping 
Logistics Co., Ltd.; Topocean Consolidation Service (China) Ltd.; 
Translink Shipping Inc.; U.S. United Logistics Inc.; Unique 
Logistics International (HK) Ltd.; Ups Scs Ltd.; Wuhu Rising 
International Trade Co., Ltd.; Xin Chang Heng Xin Yi Jia Factory; 
Zhejiang Hailiang Co., Ltd.; Zhejiang King Merchandise Industrial; 
and Zhejiang Peace Industry and Trade Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate Rate Calculation

    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.\18\ 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 * * 
*''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 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, 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 accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 
at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because using the weighted-average margin based on the calculated 
net U.S. sales values for the Wells Group and Shaoxing Dingli 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 U.S. sales values the Wells Group and Shaoxing Dingli reported in 
the public versions of their responses (dated April 12, 2010, and 
October 13, 2010, respectively) to our request for information 
concerning the quantity and value of their exports to the United States 
is more appropriate than applying a simple average. 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 the Wells Group and Shaoxing 
Dingli. 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.
    Because the calculated net U.S. sales values for the Wells Group 
and Shaoxing Dingli are business-proprietary figures, we find that 6.58 
percent, which we calculated using the publicly available figures of 
U.S. sales values for these two firms, is the best reasonable proxy for 
the weighted-average margin based on the calculated net U.S. sales 
values of the Wells Group and Shaoxing Dingli. See ``Memorandum to the 
File from Joshua Startup, Analyst, through Catherine Bertrand, Program 
Manager, Office 9; First Administrative Review of Steel Wire Garment 
Hangers from the PRC: Calculation of the Separate Rate,'' dated 
concurrently with this notice.

Date of Sale

    Both the Wells Group and Shaoxing Dingli reported the invoice date 
as the date of sale because they claim that, for their U.S. sales of 
subject merchandise made during the POR, the material terms of sale 
were established based on the invoice date. The Department 
preliminarily determines that the

[[Page 68763]]

invoice date is the most appropriate date to use as the Wells Group and 
Shaoxing Dingli date of sale in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(i) and 
the Department's long-standing practice of determining the date of 
sale.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical 
Circumstances: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From 
Thailand, 69 FR 76918 (December 23, 2004), and accompanying Issues 
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of hangers to the United States by the 
Wells Group and Shaoxing Dingli were made at less than NV, the 
Department compared either export price (``EP'') or constructed export 
price (``CEP'') to NV, as described in the ``U.S. Price'' and ``Normal 
Value'' sections below.

U.S. Price

Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, the Department 
calculated EP for a portion of sales to the United States for the Wells 
Group and Shaoxing Dingli because the first sale to an unaffiliated 
party was made before the date of importation and the use of CEP was 
not otherwise warranted. The Department calculated EP based on the 
price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. In accordance 
with section 772(c) of the Act, as appropriate, the Department deducted 
from the starting price to unaffiliated purchasers foreign inland 
freight and brokerage and handling (``B&H''). Each of these services 
was either provided by a NME vendor or paid for using a NME currency. 
Thus, the Department based the deduction of these movement charges on 
surrogate values. See ``Memorandum to the File from Josh Startup, 
Analyst, through Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager; First 
Administrative Review of Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People's 
Republic of China: Surrogate Values for the Preliminary Results,'' 
dated November 8, 2010 (``Prelim Surrogate Value Memo'') for details 
regarding the surrogate values for movement expenses. For international 
freight provided by a ME provider and paid in U.S. dollars, the 
Department used the actual cost per kilogram (``kg'') of the freight.

Constructed Export Price

    For some of the Wells Group's and Shaoxing Dingli's sales, the 
Department based U.S. price on CEP in accordance with section 772(b) of 
the Act, because sales were made on behalf of the Chinese-based 
companies by a U.S. affiliate to unaffiliated purchasers in the United 
States. For these sales, the Department based CEP on prices to the 
first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, 
the Department made deductions from the starting price (gross unit 
price) for foreign movement expenses, international movement expenses, 
U.S. movement expenses, and appropriate selling adjustments, in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, the Department 
also deducted those selling expenses associated with economic 
activities occurring in the United States. The Department deducted, 
where appropriate, commissions, inventory carrying costs, interest 
revenue, credit expenses, warranty expenses, and indirect selling 
expenses. Where foreign movement expenses, international movement 
expenses, or U.S. movement expenses were provided by PRC service 
providers or paid for in renminbi, the Department valued these services 
using SVs (see ``Factor Valuations'' section below for further 
discussion). For those expenses that were provided by an ME provider 
and paid for in an ME currency, the Department used the reported 
expense. Due to the proprietary nature of certain adjustments to U.S. 
price, for a detailed description of all adjustments made to U.S. price 
for each company, see the company specific analysis memoranda, dated 
November 8, 2010.

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine the NV using an FOP methodology if the merchandise is 
exported from an NME and the information does not permit the 
calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or 
constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. Further, pursuant to 
section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the valuation of an NME respondent's FOPs 
shall be based on the best available information regarding the value of 
such factors in an ME country or countries considered to be appropriate 
by the Department. The Department bases NV on the FOPs because the 
presence of government controls on various aspects of NMEs renders 
price comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under 
the Department's normal methodologies.
    The Department used Indian import statistics to value the raw 
material and packing material inputs that the Wells Group and Shaoxing 
Dingli used to produce the merchandise under investigation during the 
POR, except where listed below. In past cases, it has been the 
Department's practice to calculate an SV for various FOPs using import 
statistics of the primary selected surrogate country from World Trade 
Atlas (``WTA''), as published by Global Trade Information Services 
(``GTIS'').\20\ However, in October 2009, the Department learned that 
Indian import data obtained from the WTA, as published by GTIS, began 
identifying the original reporting currency for India as the U.S. 
dollar. The Department then contacted GTIS about the change in the 
original reporting currency for India from the Indian rupee to the U.S. 
dollar. Officials at GTIS explained that while GTIS obtains data on 
imports into India directly from the Ministry of Commerce, Government 
of India, as denominated and published in Indian rupees, the WTA 
software is limited with regard to the number of significant digits it 
can manage. Therefore, GTIS made a decision to change the official 
reporting currency for Indian data from the Indian rupee to the U.S. 
dollar in order to reduce the loss of significant digits when obtaining 
data through the WTA software. GTIS explained that it converts the 
Indian rupee to the U.S. dollar using the monthly Federal Reserve 
exchange rate applicable to the relevant month of the data being 
downloaded and converted.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic 
of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper 
Review, 74 FR 50946, 50950 (October 2, 2009), unchanged in Certain 
Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 74 FR 65520 
(December 10, 2009).
    \21\ See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the People's 
Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, Affirmative Final determination of Critical Circumstances and 
Final Determination of Targeted Dumping, 75 FR 20335 (April 19, 
2010), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, the data reported in the GTA software report import 
statistics, such as data from India, in the original reporting currency 
and thus these data correspond to the original currency value reported 
by each country. Additionally, the data reported in GTA software are 
reported to the nearest digit and thus there is not a loss of data by 
rounding, as there is with the data reported by the WTA software. 
Consequently, the Department will now obtain import statistics from GTA 
for valuing FOPs because the GTA import statistics are in the original 
reporting currency of the country from which the data are obtained and 
have the same level of accuracy as the original data released.
    With respect to the SVs based on Indian import statistics, the 
Department

[[Page 68764]]

has disregarded prices that the Department has reason to believe or 
suspect may be subsidized. In accordance with the OTCA 1988 legislative 
history, the Department continues to apply its long-standing practice 
of disregarding SVs if it has a reason to believe or suspect the source 
data may be subsidized.\22\ The Department has previously found that it 
is appropriate to disregard such prices from India, Indonesia, South 
Korea and Thailand because we have determined that these countries 
maintain broadly available, non-industry specific, export 
subsidies.\23\ Based on the existence of these subsidy programs that 
were generally available to all exporters and producers in these 
countries at the time of the POR, the Department finds that it has 
reason to believe or suspect that all exporters from Indonesia, South 
Korea and Thailand may have benefitted from these subsidies and that we 
should therefore disregard any data from these countries contained in 
the Indian import statistics used to calculate SVs. Additionally, the 
Department disregarded prices from NME countries. Finally, imports that 
were labeled as originating from an ``unspecified'' country were 
excluded from the average value, because the Department could not be 
certain that they were not from either an NME country or a country with 
generally available export subsidies.\24\ For further discussion 
regarding all SV calculations using Indian import statistics derived 
from the GTA data, see Prelim Surrogate Value Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, Conf. Report 
to Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. Rep. No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess. 
(1988) at 590.
    \23\ See, e.g., Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India: Final 
Results of the Expedited Five-year (Sunset) Review of the 
Countervailing Duty Order, 75 FR 13257 (March 19, 2010) and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 4-5; Certain Cut-to-
Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from Indonesia: Final Results of 
Expedited Sunset Review, 70 FR 45692 (August 8, 2005) and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 4; See Corrosion-
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: 
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 
2512 (January 15, 2009) and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at 17, 19-20; See Final Affirmative 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.
    \24\ See, e.g., Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and 
Strip from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 24552, 24559 (May 5, 2008), 
unchanged in Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from 
the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value, 73 FR 55039 (September 24, 2008) (``PET Film'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Factor Valuations

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, for subject 
merchandise produced by the Wells Group and Shaoxing Dingli, the 
Department calculated NV based on the FOPs reported by the Wells Group 
and Shaoxing Dingli for the POR. The Department used data from GTA and 
other publicly available Indian sources in order to calculate SVs for 
the Wells Group and Shaoxing Dingli FOPs (direct materials, energy, and 
packing materials) and certain movement expenses. To calculate NV, the 
Department multiplied the reported per-unit factor quantities by 
publicly available Indian SVs (except as noted below). Because the 
statute is silent concerning what constitutes the ``best available 
information'' for a particular SV, the courts have recognized that the 
Department enjoys ``broad discretion to determine the best available 
information for an antidumping review.'' See Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action 
Comm. v.  United States, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 18745 (Fed. Cir. 2010). 
The Department's practice when selecting the best available information 
for valuing FOPs is to select, to the extent practicable, SVs which are 
product-specific, representative of a broad market average, publicly 
available, contemporaneous with the POR and exclusive of taxes and 
duties. See, e.g., Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide From the People's 
Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, 73 FR 48195 (August 18, 2008) and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
    As appropriate, the Department adjusted input prices by including 
freight costs to render them delivered prices. Specifically, the 
Department added to the Indian 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. 
This adjustment is in accordance with the decision of the Federal 
Circuit in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1408 (Fed. Cir. 
1997). For a detailed description of all SVs used for the Wells Group 
and Shaoxing Dingli, see Prelim Surrogate Value Memo.
    In those instances where the Department could not obtain publicly 
available information contemporaneous to the POR with which to value 
FOPs, consistent with our practice, we adjusted the SVs using, where 
appropriate, the Indian Wholesale Price Index as published in the 
International Financial Statistics of the International Monetary Fund, 
a printout of which is attached to the Prelim Surrogate Value Memo at 
Exhibit 2. See also PET Film. Where necessary, the Department adjusted 
SVs for inflation, exchange rates, and taxes, and the Department 
converted all applicable items to a per kg basis.
    The Department valued electricity using the updated electricity 
price data for small, medium, and large industries, as published by the 
Central Electricity Authority, an administrative body of the Government 
of India, in its publication titled Electricity Tariff & Duty and 
Average Rates of Electricity Supply in India, dated March 2008. These 
electricity rates represent actual country-wide, publicly available 
information on tax-exclusive electricity rates charged to small, 
medium, and large industries in India. We did not inflate this value 
because utility rates represent current rates, as indicated by the 
effective dates listed for each of the rates provided. See Prelim 
Surrogate Value Memo.
    The Department valued water using publicly available data from the 
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (http://www.midcindia.org) because these data include a wide range of 
industrial water tariffs. This source provides industrial water rates 
within the Maharashtra province for ``inside industrial areas'' and 
``outside industrial areas'' from April 2009 through June 2009. Because 
the average of these values is contemporaneous with the POR, we did not 
adjust it for inflation. See Prelim Surrogate Value Memo.
    On May 14, 2010, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 
(``CAFC'') in Dorbest Ltd. v.  United States, 604 F.3d 1363, 1372 (CAFC 
2010), found that the ``{regression-based{time}  method for calculating 
wage rates {as stipulated by 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3){time}  uses data not 
permitted by {the statutory requirements laid out in section 773 of the 
Act (i.e., 19 U.S.C. 1677b(c)){time} .'' The Department is continuing 
to evaluate options for determining labor values in light of the recent 
CAFC decision. However, for these preliminary results, we have 
calculated an hourly wage rate to use in valuing the respondents' 
reported labor input by averaging industry-specific earnings and/or 
wages in countries that are economically comparable to the PRC and that 
are significant producers of comparable merchandise.
    For the preliminary results of this administrative review, the 
Department is valuing labor using a simple average industry-specific 
wage rate using earnings or wage data reported under Chapter 5B by the 
International Labor

[[Page 68765]]

Organization (``ILO''). To achieve an industry-specific labor value, we 
relied on industry-specific labor data from the countries we determined 
to be both economically comparable to the PRC, and significant 
producers of comparable merchandise. A full description of the 
industry-specific wage rate calculation methodology is provided in the 
Prelim Surrogate Value Memo. The Department calculated a simple average 
industry-specific wage rate of $1.39 for these preliminary results. 
Specifically, for this review, the Department has calculated the wage 
rate using a simple average of the data provided to the ILO under Sub-
Classification 28 of the ISIC-Revision 3 standard by countries 
determined to be both economically comparable to the PRC and 
significant producers of comparable merchandise. The Department finds 
the two-digit description under ISIC-Revision 3 (Manufacture of 
Fabricated Metal Products, Except Machinery and Equipment) to be the 
best available wage rate SV on the record because it is specific and 
derived from industries that produce merchandise comparable to the 
subject merchandise. Consequently, we averaged the ILO industry-
specific wage rate data or earnings data available from the following 
countries found to be economically comparable to the PRC and are 
significant producers of comparable merchandise: Ecuador, the Arab 
Republic of Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Peru, Philippines, Thailand, and 
Ukraine. For further information on the calculation of the wage rate, 
see Prelim Surrogate Values Memo.
    The Department valued truck freight expenses using an Indian per-
unit average rate calculated from publicly available data on the 
following web site: http://www.infobanc.com/logistics/logtruck.htm. The 
logistics section of this web site contains inland freight truck rates 
between many large Indian cities. We did not inflate this rate since it 
is contemporaneous with the POR. See Prelim Surrogate Value Memo.
    To value B&H, the Department used a price list of export procedures 
necessary to export a standardized cargo of goods in India. The price 
list is publicly available and compiled based on a survey case study of 
the procedural requirements for trading a standard shipment of goods by 
ocean transport in India that is published in Doing Business 2010: 
India (published by the World Bank). See Prelim Surrogate Value Memo.
    To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative 
(``SG&A'') expenses, and profit, the Department used the 2008-2009 
audited financial statements of Lakshmi Precision Screws Ltd. 
(``Lakshmi'') and Nasco Steels Private Limited (``Nasco''), both of 
which are Indian screw/nail and fastener manufacturers.\25\ Among all 
the other financial statements placed on the record of this review, we 
find that Lakshmi's and Nasco's financial statements are the most 
appropriate for these preliminary results because they are both 
producers of downstream products made of steel wire rod. Furthermore, 
the Department finds that both financial statements are appropriate 
sources given that no usable financial statements are available for 
producers of identical merchandise. Finally, Lakshmi's and Nasco's 
2008-2009 financial statements fulfill the broadest range of the 
criteria examined by the Department when selecting appropriate 
financial statements with which to value SG&A expenses, such as 
contemporaneity, specificity, and quality of data.\26\ For a detailed 
discussion regarding our selection of Lakshmi's and Nasco's 2008-2009 
financial statements to calculate the surrogate financial ratios, see 
Prelim Surrogate Value Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Lakshmi's 2008-2009 audited financial statements were 
submitted by Petitioner on June 1, 2010.
    \26\ See, e.g., Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 72 FR 44827 (August 9, 2007), and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Company Specific Issues

Shaoxing Dingli

    For these preliminary results, the Department is not granting 
Shaoxing Dingli a by-product offset for ``Scrap Iron Buckets'' because 
they are not generated from the subject merchandise production process. 
This is consistent with the Department's practice of not granting 
offsets to by-products which are not generated in the production 
process.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See, e.g., 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) and accompanying Issues 
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shaoxing Dingli reported a warranty expense for damaged or 
defective merchandise, and reported its sales quantity net of these 
returns in its Section C database. Shaoxing Dingli credited its 
customers for the damaged merchandise, and allocated the cost out over 
all of its sales. Consistent with the Department's practice, for these 
preliminary results, we are allowing the warranty expenses to be 
allocated over all of Shaoxing Dingli's CEP sales.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See, e.g., Certain New Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires from 
the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination 
of Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 40485 (July 15, 2008) and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 59 and 69 
(where we stated that ``consistent with the Department's practice, 
we have utilized all expenses incurred during the {period of 
investigation{time}  and allocated such across all {period of 
investigation{time}  sales using a value-based allocation 
methodology'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioner submitted comments alleging that Shaoxing Dingli may 
have not reported the universe of subject merchandise sales to the 
United States during the POR, following the indictment of an importer 
of subject merchandise on a duty evasion charge.\29\ The Department has 
taken note of this issue, but for these preliminary results is not 
including the sales alleged by Petitioner as unreported, because 
Shaoxing Dingli produced documentation showing that a bonded truck was 
contracted to transport all of the merchandise in question to Mexico 
and there is no CBP documentation that any of the alleged unreported 
sales entered the United States for consumption.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Petitioner's comments dated August 27, 2010.
    \30\ See, e.g., Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the Third New Shipper Reviews, 
74 FR 29473 (June 22, 2009), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comments 4 and 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Wells Group

    In its questionnaire responses and sales databases, the Wells Group 
reported certain expenses incurred, and corresponding revenues earned, 
related to the transportation or movement of the subject merchandise 
sales during the POR. Our practice with respect to revenue earned, such 
as freight revenue, from sales is to add the revenue to the gross unit 
price.\31\ Here, to account for post-sale adjustments of various 
reported transportation-related revenues as an addition to the gross 
unit price and the corresponding transportation-expenses incurred as a 
deduction included in the international and U.S. movement charges, we 
deducted the transportation-related revenues from the corresponding 
transportation-related expenses, where applicable, resulting only in a 
deduction of the actual transportation-related expense incurred, which 
inherently accounts for the Wells Group's transportation-related 
revenues earned by reducing the associated expenses. This is consistent 
with our

[[Page 68766]]

treatment of the Wells Group's transportation-related revenues in the 
underlying investigation.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See, e.g., Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and 
Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 
51781 (September 11, 2007), unchanged in Floor-Standing, Metal-Top 
Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic 
of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
73 FR 14437 (March 18, 2008).
    \32\ See 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) and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 9A (``Hangers LTFV'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, with respect to U.S. antidumping duty revenue reported by 
the Wells Group, the Department excluded this ``revenue'' item as an 
addition to gross unit price, because the increased ``revenue'' of the 
Wells Group's U.S. sales during the POR to cover antidumping duties are 
already accounted for in the reported gross unit price, as confirmed by 
the Wells Group itself.\33\ For a full discussion of the adjustments to 
the gross unit price, see ``Memorandum to the File from Irene Gorelik, 
Senior Analyst: Program Analysis for the Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Steel Wire Garment Hangers 
from the People's Republic of China: Shanghai Wells Hanger Co., Ltd.,'' 
dated November 8, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See Shanghai Wells' Supplemental Section C Questionnaire 
Response dated May 13, 2010 at 13, where Shanghai Wells stated that 
it reported ``in the field REVDOCT the revenue of antidumping duty 
that is being part of the invoiced price that Shanghai Wells charged 
its customers.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Currency Conversion

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

Preliminary Results of Review

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

     Steel Wire Garment Hangers From the People's Republic of China
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Weighted
                                                                average
                    Manufacturer/exporter                       margin
                                                               (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shanghai Wells Hanger Co., Ltd. and/or Hong Kong Wells              1.10
 Limited....................................................
Shaoxing Dingli Metal Clotheshorse Co., Ltd.................       12.25
Shaoxing Metal Companies \34\...............................        6.58
Shaoxing Shunji Metal Clotheshorse Co. Ltd..................        6.58
Yiwu Ao-Si Metal Products Co., Ltd..........................        6.58
Shangyu Baoxiang Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd................        6.58
Jiaxing Boyi Medical Device Co., Ltd........................        6.58
Pu Jiang County Command Metal Products Co. Ltd..............        6.58
Shaoxing Meideli Metal Hanger Co., Ltd......................        6.58
Shaoxing Zhongbao Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd...............        6.58
Zhejiang Lucky Cloud Hanger Co., Ltd........................        6.58
Ningbo Dasheng Hanger Ind. Co., Ltd.........................        6.58
Shaoxing Guochao Metallic Products Co. Ltd..................        6.58
Shanghai Jianhai International Trade Co., Ltd...............        6.58
Shaoxing Liangbao Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd...............        6.58
PRC-Wide Entity \35\........................................      187.25
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure and Public Hearing
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ In the this administrative review, Shaoxing Gangyuan Metal 
Manufactured Co. Ltd., Shaoxing Tongzhou Metal Manufactured Co. 
Ltd., and Shaoxing Andrew Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd. all reported 
in their respective separate rate certifications that their 
affiliations, legal structure, and ownership structure have not 
changed since the underlying investigation. Thus, we continue to 
find that these three companies comprise a single entity, as 
determined in the underlying investigation, where we found that 
Shaoxing Gangyuan Metal Manufactured Co. Ltd., Shaoxing Tongzhou 
Metal Manufactured Co. Ltd., and Shaoxing Andrew Metal Manufactured 
Co., Ltd. were a single entity pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1) and 
(2). See Hangers LTFV, 73 FR at 47589.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed 
in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Because the 
Department intends to seek additional information, the Department will 
establish the briefing schedule at a later time, and will notify 
parties of the schedule in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309. Parties who 
submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested 
to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief 
summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. See 19 CFR 
351.309(c) and (d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ The PRC-Wide entity includes the 94 companies listed in 
footnote 16 of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to 
request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a 
written request within 30 days of the date of publication of this 
notice. Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address and 
telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of 
issues to be discussed. Id. Issues raised in the hearing will be 
limited to those raised in the respective case briefs. The Department 
will issue the final results of this administrative review, including 
the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, 
not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, 
pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Assessment Rates

    Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, 
and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries 
covered by these reviews. The Department intends to issue assessment 
instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final 
results of this review excluding any reported sales that entered during 
the gap period. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated 
exporter/importer (or customer)-specific assessment rates for the 
merchandise subject to this review. Where the respondent has reported 
reliable entered values, we calculated importer (or customer)-specific 
ad valorem rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all 
U.S. sales to each importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by 
the total entered value of the sales to each importer (or customer). 
See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Where an importer (or customer)-specific ad 
valorem rate is greater than de minimis, we will apply the assessment 
rate to the entered value of the importers'/customers' entries during 
the POR. See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
    Where we do not have entered values for all U.S. sales, we 
calculated a per-unit assessment rate by aggregating the antidumping 
duties due for all U.S. sales to each importer (or customer) and 
dividing this amount by the total quantity sold to that importer (or 
customer). See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). To determine whether the duty 
assessment rates are de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set 
forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer (or customer)-
specific ad valorem ratios based on the estimated entered value. Where 
an importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rate is zero or de 
minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without 
regard to antidumping duties. See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
    For the companies receiving a separate rate that were not selected 
for individual review, we will calculate an assessment rate based on 
the weight-average of the publicly-ranged values reported by the 
companies selected for individual review pursuant to section 
735(c)(5)(B) of the Act.

[[Page 68767]]

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters 
listed above, the cash deposit rate will be established in the final 
results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, 
i.e., less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit will be required for that 
company); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC 
exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit 
rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the 
most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise 
which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash 
deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 187.25 percent; and (4) for 
all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received 
their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to 
the PRC exporters that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit 
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further 
notice.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

    Dated: November 3, 2010.
Susan H. Kuhbach,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-28287 Filed 11-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P