[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 12, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1597-1608]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-372]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(A-570-949)


Wire Decking from the People's Republic of China: Notice of 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Postponement of Final Determination

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 12, 2010.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``Department'') preliminarily 
determines that wire decking 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 requests from interested parties, we are 
postponing the final determination and extending the 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: Frances Veith or Trisha Tran, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4295 or (202) 482-4852, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Initiation

    On June 5, 2009, the Department received an antidumping duty 
(``AD'') petition concerning imports of wire decking from the PRC filed 
in proper form by AWP Industries, Inc., ITC Manufacturing, Inc., J&L 
Wire Cloth, Inc., and Nashville Wire Products Mfg. Co., Inc., 
(collectively, ``Petitioners''). See the Petition for the Imposition of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duties Pursuant to Sections 701 and 731 
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``Petition''), filed on June 5, 
2009. On June 22, 2009, Petitioners submitted a letter stating that 
another domestic producer of the like product, Wireway Husky 
Corporation, had joined the petition.
    The Department initiated this investigation on June 25, 2009.\1\ 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. 
The process requires exporters and producers to submit a separate-rate 
status application (``SRA'')\2\ and to demonstrate an absence of both 
de jure and de facto government control over its export activities. The 
SRA for this investigation was posted on the Department's website 
http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html on July 2, 2009. The 
due date for filing an SRA was August 31, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Wire Decking from the People's Republic of China: 
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 74 FR 31691 (July 2, 
2009) (``Initiation Notice'').
    \2\ See 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/bull05-1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 31, 2009, the International Trade Commission (``ITC'') 
determined 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 of wire decking from the PRC.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Investigation Nos. 701-TA-466 and 731-TA-116 
(Preliminary): Wire Decking from China, 74 FR 38229 (July 31, 2009).

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

[[Page 1598]]

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (``POI'') is October 1, 2008, through 
March 31, 2009. This period corresponds to the two most recent fiscal 
quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition, which was 
June 2009. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).

Postponement of Preliminary Determination

    On October 15, 2009, petitioners made a timely request pursuant to 
section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(2) and (e) for a 
50-day postponement of the preliminary determination. On October 27, 
2009, the Department published a postponement of the preliminary 
antidumping duty determination on wire decking from the PRC.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Wire Decking from the People's Republic of China: 
Postponement of Preliminary Determinations of Antidumping Duty 
Investigations, 74 FR 55211 (October 27, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Investigation

    The scope of the investigation covers welded-wire rack decking, 
which is also known as, among other things, ``pallet rack decking,'' 
``wire rack decking,'' ``wire mesh decking,'' ``bulk storage 
shelving,'' or ``welded-wire decking.'' Wire decking consists of wire 
mesh that is reinforced with structural supports and designed to be 
load bearing. The structural supports include sheet metal support 
channels, or other structural supports, that reinforce the wire mesh 
and that are welded or otherwise affixed to the wire mesh, regardless 
of whether the wire mesh and supports are assembled or unassembled and 
whether shipped as a kit or packaged separately. Wire decking is 
produced from carbon or alloy steel wire that has been welded into a 
mesh pattern. The wire may be galvanized or plated (e.g., chrome, zinc 
or nickel coated), coated (e.g., with paint, epoxy, or plastic), or 
uncoated (``raw''). The wire may be drawn or rolled and may have a 
round, square or other profile. Wire decking is sold in a variety of 
wire gauges. The wire diameters used in the decking mesh are 0.105 
inches or greater for round wire. For wire other than round wire, the 
distance between any two points on a cross-section of the wire is 0.105 
inches or greater. Wire decking reinforced with structural supports is 
designed generally for industrial and other commercial storage rack 
systems.
    Wire decking is produced to various profiles, including, but not 
limited to, a flat (``flush'') profile, an upward curved back edge 
profile (``backstop'') or downward curved edge profile 
(``waterfalls''), depending on the rack storage system. The wire 
decking may or may not be anchored to the rack storage system. The 
scope does not cover the metal rack storage system, comprised of metal 
uprights and cross beams, on which the wire decking is ultimately 
installed. Also excluded from the scope is wire mesh shelving that is 
not reinforced with structural supports and is designed for use without 
structural supports.
    Wire decking enters the United States through several basket 
categories in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(``HTSUS''). U.S. Customs and Border Protection has issued a ruling (NY 
F84777) that wire decking is to be classified under HTSUS 9403.90.8040. 
Wire decking has also been entered under HTSUS 7217.10, 7217.20, 
7326.20, 7326.90, 9403.20.0020 and 9403.20.0030. While HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the 
written description of the scope of the investigations is dispositive.

Scope Comments

    As discussed in the preamble to the regulations, we set aside a 
period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product 
coverage. See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 
FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). The Department encouraged all 
interested parties to submit such comments within 20 calendar days of 
signature of the Initiation Notice. See Initiation Notice, 74 FR at 
31692. The Department did not receive scope comments from any 
interested party.

Non-Market Economy Country

    For purposes of initiation, Petitioners submitted an LTFV analysis 
for the PRC as an NME.\5\ The Department's most recent examination of 
the PRC's market status determined that NME status should continue for 
the PRC.\6\ Additionally, in two recent investigations, the Department 
also determined that the PRC is an NME country.\7\ In accordance with 
section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the NME status remains in effect 
until revoked by the Department. The Department has not revoked the 
PRC's status as an NME country, and we have therefore treated the PRC 
as an NME in this preliminary determination and applied our NME 
methodology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Initiation Notice, 72 FR at 31693-94.
    \6\ See the Department's memorandum entitled, ``Antidumping Duty 
Investigation of Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's 
Republic of China (``China'') - China's status as a non-market 
economy (``NME''),'' dated August 30, 2006. This document is 
available online at: http:// ia.ita.doc.gov/download/prc-nmestatus/ 
prc-lined-paper-memo-08302006.pdf.
    \7\ See, e.g., Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks From 
the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 74 
FR 9591 ( March 5, 2009) (``Kitchen Racks Prelim'') unchanged in 
Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks From the People's 
Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, 74 FR 36656 (July 24, 2009) (``Kitchen Racks Final'') and 
Certain Tow Behind Lawn Groomers and Certain Parts Thereof from the 
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 74 FR 
4929 (January 28, 2009) unchanged in Certain Tow Behind Lawn 
Groomers and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of 
China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 74 FR 
29167 (June 19, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Selection of Respondents

    In accordance with section 777A(c)(2) of the Act, the Department 
selected the two largest exporters of wire decking (i.e., Dalian 
Huameilong Metal Products Co., Ltd. (``DHMP'') and Dalian Eastfound 
Metal Products Co., Ltd. (``Eastfound Metal'') and its affiliate Dalian 
Eastfound Material Handling Products Co., Ltd. (``Eastfound Material'') 
(collectively, ``Eastfound'') by volume as the mandatory respondents in 
this investigation based on the quantity and value (``Q&V'') 
information from exporters/producers that were identified in the 
Petition, of which eight firms filed timely Q&V questionnaire 
responses.\8\ Of the eight Q&V questionnaire responses, two companies 
(i.e. Eastfound Material and Eastfound Metal) filed a consolidated Q&V 
questionnaire response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See the Department's memorandum entitled, ``Antidumping Duty 
Investigation of Wire Decking from the People's Republic of China: 
Selection of Respondents,'' dated August 19, 2009 (``Respondent 
Selection Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department issued its antidumping questionnaire to DHMP and 
Eastfound on August 31, 2009. In its questionnaire, the Department 
requested that the respondents provide a response to section A of the 
Department's questionnaire on September 21, 2009, and to sections C and 
D of the questionnaire on October 7, 2009. On September 16, 2009, and 
September 18, 2009, the Department granted DHMP's and Eastfound's 
requests, respectively, to extend the deadline to submit Sections A, C, 
and D. As such, Section A was timely submitted on September 28, 2009, 
by both parties. DHMP timely submitted its Sections C and D Response on 
October 16, 2009. On October 16, 2009, the Department granted Eastfound 
an extension to submit its Sections C and D

[[Page 1599]]

questionnaire. Eastfound timely submitted its Sections C and D Response 
on October 23, 2009. The Department issued several supplemental 
questionnaires to both DHMP and Eastfound between October and December 
2009. Both respondents responded timely to those supplemental 
questionnaires.

Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional 
Measures

    Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act, between December 31, 
2009, and January 4, 2010, Eastfound, DHMP, and Petitioners requested 
that in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination in this 
investigation, the Department postpone the final determination by 60 
days. Eastfound, DHMP, and Petitioners also each requested that the 
Department extend the application of the provisional measures 
prescribed under 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) from a four-month period to a 
six-month period. In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act and 19 
CFR 351.210(b), because (1) our preliminary determination is 
affirmative, (2) the requesting exporters account for a significant 
proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, and (3) no compelling 
reasons for denial exist, we are granting the requests 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.

Surrogate Country

    When the Department is investigating imports from an NME, section 
773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base normal value, in most 
circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of production (``FOPs'') 
valued in a surrogate market-economy 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 market-
economy countries that are at a level of economic development 
comparable to that of the NME country and are significant producers of 
comparable merchandise. The sources of the surrogate values we have 
used in this investigation are discussed under the ``Normal Value'' 
section below.
    The Department's practice with respect to determining economic 
comparability is explained in Policy Bulletin 04.1,\9\ which states 
that ``OP {Office of Policy{time}  determines per capita economic 
comparability on the basis of per capita gross national income, as 
reported in the most current annual issue of the World Development 
Report (The World Bank).'' On September 15, 2009, the Department 
identified six countries as being at a level of economic development 
comparable to the PRC for the specified POR: India, the Philippines, 
Indonesia, Colombia, Thailand, and Peru.\10\ The Department considers 
the six countries identified in the Surrogate Countries Memo as 
``equally comparable in terms of economic development.'' See Policy 
Bulletin 04.1 at 2. Thus, we find that India, the Philippines, 
Indonesia, Colombia, Thailand, and Peru are all at an economic level of 
development equally comparable to that of the PRC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Policy Bulletin 04.1: Non-Market Economy Surrogate 
Country Selection Process, (March 1, 2004), (``Policy Bulletin 
04.1'') at Attachment II of the Department's Surrogate Country 
Letter, also available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull04-1.html.
    \10\ See the Department's Memorandum from Kelly Parkhill, Acting 
Director, Office of Policy, to Wendy Frankel, Office Director, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 8, regarding, ``Request for a List of 
Surrogate Countries for an Antidumping Duty Investigation of Wire 
Decking from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''),'' dated 
September 15, 2009 (``Surrogate Countries Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 30, 2009, the Department invited all interested 
parties to submit comments on the surrogate country selection.\11\ The 
Department did not receive any comments regarding the Department's 
selection of a surrogate country for the preliminary determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See the Department's letter regarding, ``Antidumping Duty 
Investigation of Wire Decking from the People's Republic of China '' 
requesting all interested parties to provide comments on surrogate-
country selection and provide surrogate FOP values from the 
potential surrogate countries (i.e., India, Indonesia, the 
Philippines, Thailand, Colombia, and Peru), dated September 30, 
2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Policy Bulletin 04.1 provides some guidance on identifying 
comparable merchandise and selecting a producer of comparable 
merchandise. As noted in the Policy Bulletin, comparable merchandise is 
not defined in the statute or the regulations, since it is best 
determined on a case-by-case basis. See Policy Bulletin 04.1 at 2. As 
further noted in Policy Bulletin 04.1, in all cases, if identical 
merchandise is produced, the country qualifies as a producer of 
comparable merchandise. Id.
    The Department examined worldwide export data for comparable 
merchandise, using the six-digit level of the HTS numbers listed in the 
scope language for this investigation.\12\ Specifically, we reviewed 
the POI export data from the World Trade Atlas (``WTA'') for the HTS 
headings. The merchandise subject to the scope of the order is 
currently classifiable under subheading HTSUS 9403.90.8040. Wire 
decking has also been entered under HTSUS 7217.10, 7217.20, 7326.20, 
7326.90, 9403.20.0020, and 9403.20.0030.\13\ The Department found that, 
of the countries provided in the Surrogate Country List, using the six-
digit level of the HTS numbers listed in the scope language for this 
investigation (the best data available to the Department for this 
purpose), all six countries were exporters of comparable merchandise. 
Thus, all countries on the Surrogate Country List are considered as 
appropriate surrogates because each exported comparable merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Because the Department was unable to find production data, 
we relied on export data as a substitute for overall production data 
in this case.
    \13\ See Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2007) 
(Rev. 2), available at www.usitc.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Policy Bulletin 04.1 also provides some guidance on identifying 
significant producers of comparable merchandise and selecting a 
producer of comparable merchandise. Further analysis was required to 
determine whether any of the countries which produce comparable 
merchandise are significant' producers of that comparable merchandise. 
The HTS data is reported in either kilograms or pieces, depending upon 
the HTS category and country. The data we obtained shows that, during 
the POI, worldwide exports from these countries under the relevant HTS 
categories were as follows: (1) 355,679 kilograms (HTS 7217.10, 
7217.20) and 11,080,755 pieces (HTS 9403.90, 9403.20, 7326.20, 7326.90) 
from Colombia; (2) 37,994,423 kilograms from Indonesia; (3) 5,385,873 
kilograms from Philippines; (4) 89,367,977 kilograms from Thailand; (5) 
1,065,699 kilograms (HTS 7217.10, 7217.20) and 618,727 pieces (HTS 
9403.90, 9403.20, 7326.20, 7326.90) from Peru; and (6) 53,185,837 
kilograms from India. We find that these exports are sufficient to 
establish that all of the potential surrogate countries are significant 
producers of comparable merchandise. Thus, all countries on the 
Surrogate Country List are considered as appropriate surrogates because 
each exported significant comparable merchandise. Finally, we have 
reliable data from India on the record that we can use to value the 
FOPs. Petitioners, DHMP, and Eastfound submitted surrogate values using 
Indian sources, suggesting greater availability of appropriate 
surrogate value data in India.
    The Department is preliminarily selecting India as the surrogate 
country on the basis that: (1) it is at a similar

[[Page 1600]]

level of economic development pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act; 
(2) it is a significant producer of comparable merchandise; and (3) we 
have reliable data from India that we can use to value the FOPs. Thus, 
we have calculated normal value (``NV'') using Indian prices when 
available and appropriate to the respondents' FOPs. See Surrogate Value 
Memorandum.\14\ In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), for the 
final determination in an antidumping investigation, interested parties 
may submit publicly available information to value the FOPs within 40 
days after the date of publication of the preliminary 
determination.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See the Department's memorandum to the file entitled, 
``Antidumping Investigation of Wire Decking from the People's 
Republic of China: Factor Valuations for the Preliminary 
Determination,'' dated concurrently with this notice (``Surrogate 
Value Memorandum'').
    \15\ In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final 
determination of this investigation, interested parties may submit 
factual information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual 
information submitted by an interested party less than ten days 
before, on, or after, the applicable deadline for submission of such 
factual information. However, the Department notes that 19 CFR 
351.301(c)(1) permits new information only insofar as it rebuts, 
clarifies, or corrects information recently placed on the record. 
The Department generally will not accept the submission of 
additional, previously absent-from-the-record alternative surrogate 
value information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). See Glycine from 
the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Final Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809 
(October 17, 2007), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 
at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surrogate Value Comments

    Surrogate factor valuation comments and surrogate value information 
with which to value the FOPs in this proceeding were filed on November 
13, 2009, by DHMP and Petitioners. On November 18, 2009, DHMP and 
Eastfound filed rebuttal surrogate factor valuation comments. On 
November 23, 2009, Eastfound filed additional surrogate valuation 
comments. On November 24, 2009, Petitioners filed additional comments 
on appropriate surrogate values for factors of production reported by 
Eastfound and DHMP. For a detailed discussion of the surrogate values 
used in this LTFV proceeding, see the ``Factor Valuation'' section 
below and the Surrogate Value Memorandum.

Affiliation

    Based on the evidence presented in Eastfound's questionnaire 
responses, we preliminarily find that Eastfound Metal is affiliated 
with Eastfound Material, which also produces subject merchandise, 
pursuant to sections 771(33)(E) and (G) of the Act. In addition, based 
on the evidence presented in Eastfound's questionnaire responses, we 
preliminarily find that Eastfound Metal and Eastfound Material should 
be collapsed for the purposes of this investigation. This finding is 
based on the determination that Eastfound Metal and Eastfound Material 
are affiliated, that Eastfound Metal and Eastfound Material Handling 
are both producers of identical products and no retooling would be 
necessary in order to restructure manufacturing priorities, and that 
there is significant potential for manipulation of price or production 
between the parties. See 19 C.F.R. Sec. 351.401(f)(1) and (2). For 
further discussion, see the Department's Memorandum regarding, 
``Antidumping Duty Investigation of Wire Decking from the People's 
Republic of China: Affiliation and Collapsing of Dalian Eastfound Metal 
Products Co., Ltd. and Dalian Eastfound Material Handling Products Co., 
Ltd.,'' dated concurrently with this notice.
    In response to allegations raised by Petitioners,\16\ we reviewed 
Eastfound's relationship with its U.S. customer and we preliminarily 
find that Eastfound and its U.S. customer were not affiliated during 
the POI under the meaning of section 771(33) of the Act. Specifically, 
based on Eastfound's questionnaire responses identifying its ownership 
structure, we preliminarily find that Eastfound is not affiliated with 
its U.S. customer within the meaning of sections 771(33)(B) and (E) of 
the Act. In addition, we preliminarily find that Eastfound is not 
affiliated with its U.S. customer within the meaning of sections 
771(33)(F) and (G) of the Act, because in its response, Eastfound 
presented evidence that the distributor agreement between Eastfound and 
its U.S. customer does not offer either party control over the other 
party to the agreement. Accordingly, we have used Eastfound's reported 
export price (``EP'') sales to the United States for the preliminary 
determination. However, we intend to issue additional questions to 
Eastfound following the publication of the preliminary determination 
with respect to this affiliation issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Letter from Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, regarding ``Wire 
Decking from the People's Republic of China - Eastfound Is 
Affiliated with Its Exclusive North American Importer and 
Distributor,'' dated December 18, 2009, where they allege that 
Eastfound and its U.S. Customer are affiliated pursuant to sections 
771(33)(B), (E), (F), and (G) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate Rates

    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. See Initiation Notice, 74 
FR at 31695. The process requires exporters and producers to submit an 
SRA. See also Policy Bulletin 05.1.\17\ The standard for eligibility 
for a separate rate is whether a firm can demonstrate an absence of 
both de jure and de facto government control over its export 
activities. In this instant investigation, the Department received 
timely-filed SRA's from seven companies.\18\ The two mandatory 
respondents (i.e., Eastfound Metal and Eastfound Material (collectively 
Eastfound) and DHMP) and the four separate-rate respondents provided 
company-specific information and each\19\ stated that it meets the 
criteria for the assignment of a separate rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Policy Bulletin 05.1 states: ``while 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 
subject merchandise to it during the period of investigation. This 
practice applied 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 <gr-thn-eq>combination rates<gr-thn-eq> 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.
    \18\ The seven separate-rate applicants are: (1) Eastfound 
Material; (2) Eastfound Metal; (3) DHMP; (4) Dandong Riqian 
Logistics Equipment Co. Ltd. (``Riqian''); (5) Globsea Co., Ltd. 
(``Globsea''); (6) Ningbo Xinguang Rack Co., Ltd. (``Ningbo 
Xinguang''); and (7) Dalian Xingbo Metal Products Co. Ltd. (``Dalian 
Xingbo'').
    \19\ The non-selected respondents are as follows: Riqian, 
Globsea, Ningbo Xinguang, and Dalian Xingbo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 the subject merchandise under 
a test arising from Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588

[[Page 1601]]

(May 6, 1991) (``Sparklers''), as further developed in Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from 
the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (``Silicon 
Carbide ''). However, if the Department determines that a company is 
wholly foreign-owned or located in a market economy, then a separate-
rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether it is independent 
from government control. In this investigation, one company, Eastfound 
Material has provided company-specific information that indicates it is 
a wholly-foreign owned entity. Therefore, a separate rate-analysis is 
not necessary to determine whether it is independent from government 
control.
    The other remaining companies have all stated that they are either 
joint ventures between PRC and foreign companies, or are wholly PRC-
owned companies. Thus, the Department must analyze whether Eastfound 
Metal, DHMP, Riqian, Globsea, Ningbo Xinguang, and Dalian Xingbo can 
demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto government control 
over their 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. See 
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
    The evidence provided by Eastfound Metal, DHMP, Riqian, Globsea, 
Ningbo Xinguang, and Dalian Xingbo 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) applicable legislative 
enactments that decentralize control of the companies; and (3) formal 
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See 
each company's SRA submission, dated August 21, 2009, through August 
31, 2009, where each separate-rate respondent stated that it had no 
relationship with any level of the PRC government with respect to 
ownership, internal management, and business operations.
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.
    In this investigation, Eastfound Metal, DHMP, Riqian, Globsea, 
Ningbo Xinguang, and Dalian Xingbo each asserted the following: (1) 
that the export prices are not set by, and are not subject to, the 
approval of a governmental agency; (2) they have authority to negotiate 
and sign contracts and other agreements; (3) they have autonomy from 
the government in making decisions regarding the selection of 
management; and (4) they retain the proceeds of their export sales and 
make independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or 
financing of losses. Additionally, each of these companies' SRA 
responses indicate that its pricing during the POI does not involve 
coordination among exporters. See each company's SRA submissions dated 
August 21, 2009, through August 31, 2009. However, evidence placed on 
the record by Dalian Xingbo indicates that it did not export wire 
decking to the United States during the POI. See the ``Companies Not 
Receiving a Separate Rate'' section below for further details.
    Evidence placed on the record of this investigation by Eastfound 
Material, Eastfound Metal, DHMP, Riqian, Globsea, and Ningbo Xinguang 
demonstrate an absence of de jure and de facto government control with 
respect to their respective exports of the merchandise under 
investigation, in accordance with the criteria identified in Sparklers 
and Silicon Carbide. Therefore, we are preliminary granting a separate 
rate to these entities.

Companies Not Receiving a Separate Rate

    We preliminarily determine that Dalian Xingbo does not qualify for 
a separate rate because Dalian Xingbo did not export wire decking to 
the United States during the POI. Dalian Xingbo stated that the invoice 
it provided in its SRA, which is dated within the POI, for its first 
sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States, is not its 
commercial invoice. See Dalian Xingbo's SRA dated August 21, 2009, at 
Exhibit 1. The commercial invoice provided by Dalian Xingbo is dated 
outside the POI. See Dalian Xingbo's Supplemental SRA questionnaire 
dated September 21, 2009, at Exhibit 1. Furthermore, evidence on the 
record (U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') entry summary form 
7501) indicates that Dalian Xingbo exported the above goods from the 
PRC to the United States prior to the POI. See Dalian Xingbo's SRA 
dated August 21, 2009, at Exhibit 1. Nevertheless, Dalian Xingbo 
asserts that because the shipment entered the United States during the 
POI, this shipment represents Dalian Xingbo's first sale to an 
unaffiliated customer in the United States during the POI. See Dalian 
Xingbo's Supplemental SRA questionnaire dated September 21, 2009, at 7/
16.
    In the introductory paragraph of the Department's SRA, we state 
that the Department will limit its consideration of SRAs in the wire 
decking investigation to firms that either exported or sold wire 
decking to the United States during the POI. Though Dalian Xingbo 
argues that the entry date into the United States of its wire decking 
establishes that it either exported or sold wire decking to the United 
States during the POI, the Department normally considers the shipment 
date as establishing when a product is exported, and the Department 
normally considers the date of invoice as establishing the date of 
sale, unless record evidence demonstrates otherwise. The documentation 
provided by Dalian Xingbo (i.e., CBP entry summary form 7501 and 
commercial invoice) indicate that the goods were both sold and exported 
to the United States prior to the POI. Thus, we preliminarily determine 
that Dalian Xingbo does not qualify for a separate rate in this 
investigation.
    In addition, though we received a Q&V response from Brynick 
Enterprises Limited and Shanghai Hesheng Hardware Products Co., neither 
company submitted a separate rate

[[Page 1602]]

application, and therefore will be treated as part of the PRC-wide 
entity.

Application of Facts Otherwise Available and Total Adverse Facts 
Available

The PRC-Wide Entity and PRC-Wide Rate

    The Department has data that indicate there were more exporters of 
wire decking from the PRC than those indicated in the response to our 
request for Q&V information during the POI. See the Department's 
memorandum regarding, ``Antidumping Duty Investigation of Wire Decking 
from the People's Republic of China: Delivery of Quantity and Value 
Questionnaire and Separate Rate Application to Exporters/Producers,'' 
dated September 2, 2009 (``Q&V Delivery Memo''). We issued our request 
for Q&V information to 83 potential Chinese exporters of the subject 
merchandise, in addition to posting the Q&V questionnaire on the 
Department's website. See Q&V Delivery Memo. While information on the 
record of this investigation indicates that there are numerous 
producers/exporters of wire decking in the PRC, we received only nine 
timely filed Q&V responses. Although all exporters were given an 
opportunity to provide Q&V information, not all exporters provided a 
response to the Department's Q&V letter. Therefore, the Department has 
preliminarily determined that there were exporters/producers of the 
subject merchandise during the POI from the PRC that did not respond to 
the Department's request for information. We have treated these PRC 
producers/exporters as part of the PRC-wide entity because they did not 
apply for a separate rate. See, e.g., Kitchen Racks Prelim, unchanged 
in Kitchen Racks Final.
    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 non-responsive. Certain companies did not respond 
to our questionnaire requesting Q&V information. As a result, pursuant 
to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we find that the use of facts 
available (``FA'') is appropriate to determine the PRC-wide rate. See 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative 
Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of 
Final Determination: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 4986 (January 31, 2003), unchanged in Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Critical 
Circumstances: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic 
of Vietnam, 68 FR 37116 (June 23, 2003).
    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. 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). 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 facts available, an adverse inference is appropriate.
    When employing an adverse inference, section 776 indicates that the 
Department may rely upon information derived from the petition, the 
final determination from the LTFV 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. 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 31, 
2000), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, at ``Facts 
Available.'' As AFA, we have preliminarily assigned to the PRC-wide 
entity a rate of 289.00 percent, the highest calculated rate from the 
petition. The Department preliminarily determines that this information 
is the most appropriate from the available sources to effectuate the 
purposes of AFA. The Department's reliance on the petition rate to 
determine an AFA rate is subject to the requirement to corroborate 
secondary information, discussed in the Corroboration section below.

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. Secondary information is described in the SAA as 
``information derived from the petition that gave rise to the 
investigation or review, the final determination concerning subject 
merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the 
subject merchandise.''\20\ The SAA explains that to ``corroborate'' 
means simply that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary 
information to be used has probative value. Id. The SAA also explains 
that 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. Id. To corroborate secondary information, the Department 
will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance 
of the information used.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See SAA at 870.
    \21\ 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 derived from information 
in the Petition and from the Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation 
Checklist: Wire Decking from the PRC (``Initiation Checklist'').\22\ 
Petitioners' methodology for calculating the EP and NV in the petition, 
and modified by the

[[Page 1603]]

Department, is discussed in the Initiation Checklist.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Initiation Checklist at Exhibit V.
    \23\ See Initiation Checklist at Exhibit V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our examination of information on the record, including 
examination of the petition export prices and normal values, we find 
that, for purposes of this investigation, there is not a sufficient 
basis to consider that certain petition margins have probative value. 
However, there is a sufficient basis to determine that the petition 
margin selected does have probative value. In this case, we have 
selected a margin that is not so much greater than the highest CONNUM-
specific margin calculated for one of the mandatory respondents in this 
proceeding that it can be considered to not have probative value. This 
method of selecting an AFA dumping margin is consistent with the recent 
final determination involving kitchen appliance shelving and racks from 
the PRC and prestressed concrete steel wire strand from the PRC. See 
July 20, 2009, Memorandum to the File, regarding Corroboration of the 
PRC-Wide Entity Rate and the Wireking Total AFA Rate for the Final 
Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Kitchen 
Appliance Shelving and Racks from the People's Republic of China, see 
also, Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand From the People's Republic 
of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 
74 FR 68232 (December 23, 2009).
    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.'' 
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). As guided by the SAA, the information used as AFA should 
ensure an uncooperative party does not benefit more by failing to 
cooperate than if it had cooperated fully. See SAA at 870. We conclude 
that using DHMP's highest transaction-specific margin as a limited 
reference point, the highest petition margin that can be corroborated 
within the meaning of the statute is 289.00 percent, which is 
sufficiently adverse so as to induce cooperation such that the 
uncooperative companies do not benefit from their failure to cooperate. 
See Memorandum to the File, regarding Corroboration of the PRC-Wide 
Entity Rate and for the Preliminary Determination in the Antidumping 
Duty Investigation of Wire Decking from the People's Republic of China, 
dated concurrently with this notice. Accordingly, we find that the rate 
of 289.00 percent is corroborated within the meaning of section 776(c) 
of the Act.
    Consequently, we are applying 289.00 percent as the single 
antidumping rate to the PRC-wide entity. The PRC-wide rate applies to 
all entries of the merchandise under investigation except for entries 
from Eastfound Metal, Eastfound Material, DHMP, and the separate rate 
applicants receiving a separate rate (i.e., Riqian, Globsea, and Ningbo 
Xinguang).

Margin for the Separate Rate Companies

    As discussed above, the Department received timely and complete 
separate rate applications from Riqian, Globsea, and Ningbo Xinguang, 
who are all exporters of wire decking from the PRC during the POI and 
who were not selected as mandatory respondents in this investigation. 
Through the evidence in their applications, these companies have 
demonstrated their eligibility for a separate rate, as discussed above. 
Consistent with the Department's practice, as the separate rate, we 
have established a margin for the Riqian, Globsea, and Ningbo Xinguang 
based on the average of the rates we calculated for the mandatory 
respondents, Eastfound and DHMP, excluding any rates that were zero, de 
minimis, or based on total adverse facts available.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical 
Circumstances: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's 
Republic of China, 71 FR 77373, 77377 (December 26, 2006), unchanged 
in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial 
Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain 
Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 
19690 (April 19, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.'' 
In Allied Tube, the Court of International Trade (``CIT'') noted that a 
``party seeking to establish a date of sale other than invoice date 
bears the burden of producing sufficient evidence to satisf{y{time} ' 
the Department that a different date better reflects the date on which 
the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale.''' 
Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. United States 132 F. Supp. 2d at 1090 
(CIT 2001) (quoting 19 CFR 351.401(i)) (``Allied Tube''). Additionally, 
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. See 19 CFR 351.401(i); see also Allied Tube, 132 F. Supp. 2d 
1087, 1090-1092. The date of sale is generally the date on which the 
parties agree upon all substantive terms of the sale. This normally 
includes the price, quantity, delivery terms and payment terms. See 
Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago: Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 62824 (November 7, 
2007), and accompanying Issue and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1; 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 
Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from Turkey, 65 
FR 15123 (March 21, 2000), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 1.

Eastfound

    For the preliminary determination, we used the shipment date as the 
date of sale rather than Eastfound's reported sale date (booking date), 
because based on the record evidence to date, we preliminarily find 
that shipment date best reflects the date on which the essential terms 
of sale are fixed and final. In our analysis of Eastfound's 
information, we determined that the sale date reported in Eastfound's 
sales database only represents the date that Eastfound chose to record 
the sale of merchandise under consideration in its books and records, 
not the date the material terms of the sale were established with its 
U.S. customer. We asked Eastfound to provide sales based on commercial 
invoice date or explain why Eastfound's booking date better reflects 
the date on which the exporter established the material terms of sale 
(e.g., price, quantity, etc.). Instead, Eastfound explained how it uses 
its commercial invoice numbering and dating system to assign invoice 
numbers and dates and how it recorded its sales in its books and 
records. The information that Eastfound provided did not adequately 
demonstrate when the material terms of its sale were established. 
Because Eastfound has not adequately demonstrated that the material 
terms of sale for Eastfound's

[[Page 1604]]

sales were established on its reported sale date (i.e., booking date) 
or any other date, we preliminarily determine Eastfound's shipment date 
best reflects the date on which the essential terms are fixed and 
final. However, subsequent to the preliminary determination we will 
request additional information with respect to this issue.

DHMP

    For the preliminary determination, we used DHMP's shipment date as 
the date of sale, because, based on record evidence to date, we 
preliminarily find that it best represents the date on which the 
essential terms of sale are fixed and final. In DHMP's October 16, 
2009, questionnaire response, DHMP designated a date of sale other than 
the invoice date but did not produce sufficient evidence to establish 
that ``a different date better reflects the date on which the exporter 
or producer establishes the material terms of sale.'' On November 16, 
2009, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire and explained 
that the Department will normally use the date of invoice, unless DHMP 
demonstrates that a different date better reflects the date on which 
the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale. In 
DHMP's December 1, 2009, Supplemental Questionnaire Response, DHMP 
submitted an alternate database for its U.S. sales during the POI based 
on the shipment date. Additionally, in DHMP's December 23, 2009 
submission, DHMP stated that the material terms of sale are set at the 
time of shipment. Thus, for the preliminary determination, the 
Department has used the shipment date as the date of sale. However, 
subsequent to the preliminary determination we will request additional 
information with respect to this issue.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of wire decking to the United States by 
the respondents were made at LTFV, we compared EP to NV, as described 
in the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice.

Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, EP is the price at 
which the merchandise subject to this investigation is first sold (or 
agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or 
exporter of the merchandise subject to this investigation outside of 
the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or 
to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States, as 
adjusted under section 772(c) of the Act. In accordance with section 
772(a) of the Act, we used EP for DHMP's and Eastfound's U.S. sales 
because the merchandise subject to this investigation was sold directly 
to the unaffiliated customers in the United States prior to importation 
and because constructed export price (``CEP'') was not otherwise 
indicated. See Affiliation Section above.
    We calculated EP based on the packed prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers in, or for exportation to, the United States. We made 
deductions, as appropriate, for any movement expenses (e.g., foreign 
inland freight from the plant to the port of exportation, domestic 
brokerage, international freight to the port of importation, etc.) in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Where foreign inland 
freight or foreign brokerage and handling fees were provided by PRC 
service providers or paid for in renminbi, we based those charges on 
surrogate value rates from India. See ``Factor Valuation'' section 
below for further discussion of surrogate value rates.
    In determining the most appropriate surrogate values to use in a 
given case, the Department's stated practice is to use period-wide 
price averages, prices specific to the input in question, prices that 
are net of taxes and import duties, prices that are contemporaneous 
with the POI, and publicly available data.\25\ We valued brokerage and 
handling using a simple average of the brokerage and handling costs 
that were reported in public submissions that were filed in three 
antidumping duty cases. Specifically, we averaged the public brokerage 
and handling expenses reported by Navneet Publications (India) Ltd. in 
the 2007-2008 administrative review of certain lined paper products 
from India, Essar Steel Limited in the 2006-2007 antidumping duty 
administrative review of hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from 
India, and Himalya International Ltd. in the 2005-2006 administrative 
review of certain preserved mushrooms from India. Because these values 
were not concurrent with the POI of this investigation, we adjusted 
these rates for inflation using the Wholesale Price Indices (``WPI'') 
for India as published in the International Monetary Fund's (``IMF's'') 
International Financial Statistics, available at http://ifs.apdi.net/imf, and then calculated a simple average of the three companies' 
brokerage expense data.\26\ See Surrogate Value Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See, e.g., Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic 
of China; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 71 FR 38366 (July 6, 2006), and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
    \26\ See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or 
Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results 
of the 2007 2008 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty 
Order, 74 FR 32539 (July 8, 2009), (unchanged in final results) 
(``07-08 TRBs'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To value marine insurance, the Department used data from RGJ 
Consultants (http://www.rjgconsultants.com/). This source provides 
information regarding the per-value rates of marine insurance of 
imports and exports to/from various countries. We valued international 
freight shipping expenses using contemporaneous rates reported by 
Maersk Line Shipping. Where applicable, the Department used the 
international freight rates reported for each corresponding origin and 
destination port for each month of the POI.

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. 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. 
See, e.g., Kitchen Racks Prelim, 71 FR at 19703 (unchanged in Kitchen 
Racks Final).

Factor Valuations

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on FOP data reported by respondents during the POI. To calculate 
NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor-consumption rates by 
publicly available surrogate values (except as discussed below). In 
selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, specificity, 
and contemporaneity of the data. See, e.g., Fresh Garlic From the 
People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New 
Shipper Review, 67 FR 72139 (December 4, 2002), and accompanying Issues 
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6; and Final Results of First New 
Shipper Review and First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: 
Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 
31204 (June 11, 2001), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 
at Comment 5. As

[[Page 1605]]

appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including freight costs to 
make them delivered prices. Specifically, we added to Indian import 
surrogate values 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). A detailed description of all surrogate 
values used for DHMP and Eastfound can be found in the Surrogate Value 
Memorandum.
    For the preliminary determination, in accordance with the 
Department's practice, we used data from the Indian Import Statistics 
and other publicly available Indian sources in order to calculate 
surrogate values for DHMP's and Eastfound's FOPs (direct materials, 
energy, and packing materials) and certain movement expenses. 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, surrogate values which are non-
export average values, most contemporaneous with the POI, product-
specific, and tax-exclusive. 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). The record shows that data 
in the Indian Import Statistics, as well as those from the other Indian 
sources, are contemporaneous with the POI, product-specific, and tax-
exclusive. See Surrogate Value Memorandum. In those instances where we 
could not obtain publicly available information contemporaneous to the 
POI with which to value factors, we adjusted the surrogate values 
using, where appropriate, the Indian WPI as published in the IMF's 
International Financial Statistics. See, e.g., Kitchen Racks, 74 FR at 
9600.
    Furthermore, with regard to the Indian import-based surrogate 
values, 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, South Korea, and Thailand 
may have been subsidized. We have found in other proceedings that these 
countries maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export 
subsidies and, therefore, it is reasonable to infer that all exports to 
all markets from these countries may be subsidized. See 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.
    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. 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). Rather, the Department bases its decision on 
information that is available to it at the time it makes its 
determination. See 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). Therefore, we have not used 
prices from these countries in calculating the Indian import-based 
surrogate values. Additionally, we 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 general export subsidies. See id.
    For direct, indirect, and packing labor, consistent with 19 CFR 
351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC regression-based wage rate as reported 
on Import Administration's home page, Import Library, Expected Wages of 
Selected NME Countries, revised in December 2009. See 2009 Calculation 
of Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, 74 FR 65092 (December 9, 2009), 
and http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html. The source of these wage-
rate data on the Import Administration's web site is the 2006 and 2007 
data in Chapter 5B of the International Labour Organization's Yearbook 
of Labour Statistics. Because this regression-based wage rate does not 
separate the labor rates into different skill levels or types of labor, 
we have applied the same wage rate to all skill levels and types of 
labor reported by the respondents.
    We valued truck freight expenses using a per-unit average rate 
calculated from data on the infobanc Web site: http://www.infobanc.com/logistics/logtruck.htm. The logistics section of this Web site contains 
inland freight truck rates between many large Indian cities. This value 
is contemporaneous with the POI.
    We valued electricity using price data for small, medium, and large 
industries, as published by the Central Electricity Authority of the 
Government of India (``CEA'') in its publication titled Electricity 
Tariff & Duty and Average Rates of Electricity Supply in India, dated 
July 2006. These electricity rates represent actual country-wide, 
publicly available information on tax-exclusive electricity rates 
charged to industries in India.
    Because water is essential to the production process of the 
merchandise under consideration, the Department considers water to be a 
direct material input, not overhead, and valued water with a surrogate 
value according to our practice. 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 
23, 2003), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 
11. To value water, we used the revised Maharashtra Industrial 
Development Corporation water rates available at http://www.midcindia.com/water-supply. See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
    To value low carbon steel wire rod, we used price data from the 
Indian Join Plant Committee (``JPC''), which is a joint industry/
government board that monitors Indian steel prices. These data are 
fully contemporaneous with the POI, and are specific to the reported 
inputs of the respondents. See Eastfound's Surrogate Value Rebuttal 
Comments, dated November 18, 2009. Further, these data are publicly 
available, represent a broad market average, and we are able to 
calculate them on a tax-exclusive basis. See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1). For 
a detailed discussion of all surrogate values used for this preliminary

[[Page 1606]]

determination, see Surrogate Value Memo.
    To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative 
expenses, and profit, we used audited financial statements of Bansidhar 
Granites Private Limited (``Bansidhar''), Bedmutha Wire Com. Ltd. 
(``Bedmutha''), and Mekins Agro Products (``Mekins''), each covering 
the fiscal period April 1, 2007, through March 31, 2008. Each of the 
three surrogate producers makes a range of products including: wire 
decking, drawn and welded wire products, fasteners or nuts and bolts, 
or some combination thereof. These are all comparable merchandise to 
that produced by the respondents.\27\ The Department may consider other 
publicly available financial statements for the final determination, as 
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Use of Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(1) of the Act mandates that the Department use FA if 
necessary information is not available on the record of an antidumping 
proceeding.

Eastfound

    In our review of Eastfound's reported information, we found that 
Eastfound did not report FOPs for certain control numbers (``CONNUMs'') 
in its sales database. In our original questionnaire, we instructed 
Eastfound to ensure that its FOP database contains a separate record 
for each unique CONNUM contained in its U.S. sales file. Additionally, 
in a supplemental questionnaire, we pointed out to Eastfound that the 
FOP database did not contain FOPs for certain sales CONNUMs. We 
requested that Eastfound report consumption factors for all of these 
CONNUMs. In its December 7, 2009, response, Eastfound stated that it 
had no production for these CONNUMs during the POI and it provided 
alternate CONNUMs for the Department to use in its margin program for 
the missing FOPs. However, in its supplemental questionnaire response, 
Eastfound did not adequately explain why the Department should use the 
FOPs of these alternate CONNUMs in lieu of obtaining FOPs for the 
actual CONNUMs. Eastfound stated that the missing CONNUMs represent a 
small percentage of its reported sales and that its alternate CONNUMs 
are ``very similar'' to the CONNUMs that did not have production during 
the POI. On December 23, 2009, Eastfound submitted an update to its 
alternate CONNUM recommendation and also provided an explanation as to 
why the FOPs for these alternate CONNUMs should be used in lieu of the 
actual CONNUMs.
    Pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act, Eastfound failed to 
provide information relevant to the Department's analysis with respect 
to the above-mentioned missing FOPs for certain CONNUMs. Thus, 
consistent with section 782(d) of the Act, the Department has 
determined it necessary to apply facts otherwise available for these 
CONNUMs. For the preliminary determination, as FA, we will use the FOPs 
of the CONNUMs recommended by Eastfound in its December 23, 2009, 
submission because they represent a very small percentage of 
Eastfound's U.S. sales, and based on a review of the product 
characteristics we find that Eastfound's suggested alternate CONNUMs 
represent very similar products to the CONNUMs with no FOPs.
    In our review of Eastfound's FOP database, we found that for 
certain CONNUMs the consumption of hot-rolled steel strip in coils and 
wire rods (collectively ``steel weight''), which is the amount of steel 
needed to produce Eastfound's wire decking, is less than the reported 
``standard weight'' of the finished product. See Eastfound's 
Preliminary Analysis Memorandum. Because we did not provide Eastfound 
an opportunity to remedy the above weight discrepancies, we intend to 
issue a supplemental questionnaire after this preliminary 
determination. However, for the preliminary determination, for those 
CONNUMs where the steel weight in Eastfound's FOP database is less than 
the standard weight reported in its sales database, we applied partial 
FA. Pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, as FA, we applied the 
weighted average margin calculated for Eastfound to these transactions. 
See Eastfound's Analysis Memorandum.
    The Department instructed Eastfound to provide an FOP database for 
the processing performed for Eastfound Metal and/or Eastfound Material 
by their galvanizing tollers during the POI. Eastfound stated that its 
unaffiliated galvanizing tollers refused to provide the requested 
information because the information is proprietary. Eastfound 
recommends that for the preliminary determination, the Department use 
the galvanizing costs used in the Petition, which were also used in 
Certain Steel Threaded Rod from the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 58931 
(October 8, 2008). Petitioners recommend that we use an average of the 
galvanizing surrogate values from the Petition. For the preliminary 
determination, we are applying the average of both surrogate values 
from the Petition as a surrogate cost to the galvanizing performed by 
Eastfound's unaffiliated tollers.

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 from DHMP and Eastfound 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.\28\ This practice is 
described in Policy Bulletin 05.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Initiation Notice, 74 FR at 31695.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preliminary Determination

    The weighted-average dumping margin percentages are as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Exporter                                       Producer                          Percent Margin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dalian Huameilong Metal Products Co.,             Dalian Huameilong Metal Products Co., Ltd.       50.95[percnt]
 Ltd..................................
Dalian Eastfound Metal Products Co.,    Dalian Eastfound Metal Products Co., Ltd., or Dalian       42.61[percnt]
 Ltd. / Dalian Eastfound Material              Eastfound Material Handling Products Co. Ltd.
 Handling Products Co. Ltd............
Globsea Co., Ltd......................     Dalian Yutiein Storage Manufacturing Co. Ltd., or       46.78[percnt]
                                                       Dalian Xingbo Metal Products Co. Ltd.
Ningbo Xinguang Rack Co., Ltd.........                        Ningbo Xinguang Rack Co., Ltd.       46.78[percnt]
Dandong Riqian Logistics Equipment Co.           Dandong Riqian Logistics Equipment Co. Ltd.       46.78[percnt]
 Ltd..................................

[[Page 1607]]

 
PRC-Wide Entity[ast]..................  ....................................................      289.00[percnt]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ast] This rate also applies to Brynick Enterprises Limited, Shanghai Hesheng Hardware Products Co., and Dalian
  Xingbo Metal Products Co. Ltd.

Disclosure

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

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we will instruct CBP 
to suspend liquidation of all entries of merchandise subject to this 
investigation, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on 
or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal 
Register.
    The Department has determined in Wire Decking from the People's 
Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determination and Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination 
with Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 74 FR 57629 (November 9, 
2009) (``CVD Wire Decking Prelim''), that the product under 
investigation, exported and produced by Eastfound, benefitted from an 
export subsidy. Normally, where the product under investigation is also 
subject to a concurrent countervailing duty investigation, we instruct 
CBP to require an antidumping cash deposit or posting of a bond equal 
to the weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds the EP, as 
indicated above, minus the amount determined to constitute an export 
subsidy. 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).
    Accordingly, the following cash deposit requirements will be 
effective upon publication of the preliminary determination. For 
merchandise under consideration entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the publication date of this preliminary 
determination in the Federal Register that is exported and produced by 
Eastfound, we will instruct CBP to require an antidumping cash deposit 
or the posting of a bond for each entry equal to the weighted-average 
amount by which the NV exceeds U.S. price, as indicated above, adjusted 
for the export subsidy rate determined in CVD Wire Decking Prelim.
    For merchandise under consideration entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of this 
preliminary determination in the Federal Register that is exported and 
produced by DHMP, we will instruct CBP to require an antidumping cash 
deposit or the posting of a bond for each entry equal to the weighted-
average amount by which the NV exceeds U.S. price, as indicated above. 
For the non-individually examined separate rate recipients in this 
investigation, we will instruct CBP to require an antidumping cash 
deposit or the posting of a bond for each entry equal to the weighted-
average amount by which the NV exceeds U.S. price, as indicated 
above.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Normally, where the non-individually examined entities 
receiving a separate rate in an AD investigation are found to have 
benefitted from export subsidies in a concurrent CVD investigation 
on the same product (either through individual examination or 
through the ``All Others'' rate), the Department will instruct CBP 
to collect a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal the amount 
of the AD margin adjusted for the amount of the export subsidy. In 
this case, none of the non-individually examined entities receiving 
a separate rate in the AD investigation were individually examined 
in the companion CVD investigation. Further, the export subsidy 
found for ``All Others'' in CVD Wire Decking Prelim is so small 
(0.005 percent) as to have no impact on the AD margin. Accordingly, 
we will not adjust the AD margins for these entities in our 
instructions to CBP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For all other entries of wire decking from the people's republic of 
china, the following cash deposit/bonding instructions apply: (1) For 
all PRC exporters of wire decking which have not received their own 
rate, the cash-deposit or bonding rate will be the PRC-wide rate; (2) 
for all non-PRC exporters of wire decking from the people's republic of 
china which have not received their own rate, the cash-deposit or 
bonding rate will be the rate applicable to the exporter/producer 
combinations that supplied that non-PRC exporter. This suspension of 
liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our preliminary affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. 
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 wire decking, or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for 
importation, of the merchandise under consideration 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 on which the final verification report is issued in this 
proceeding and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case 
briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline 
date for case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309. A table of contents, 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. The Department also requests 
that parties provide an electronic copy of its case and rebuttal brief 
submissions in either a ``Microsoft Word'' or a ``pdf'' format.
    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. Interested 
parties, who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is 
requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for 
Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, within 
30 days after the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 
351.310(c). Requests should contain the party's name, address, and 
telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues 
to be discussed. 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. See 19 CFR 351.310. Parties should confirm by telephone the 
date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled 
date.
    We will make our final determination no later than 135 days after 
the date of publication of this preliminary determination, pursuant to 
section 735(a)(2) of the Act.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.


[[Page 1608]]


    Dated: January 4, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-372 Filed 1-11-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S