U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4172 July 2010

Washington, DC 20436

Wire Decking from China

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-466 and 731-TA-1162 (Final)
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS 

 

Deanna Tanner Okun, Chairman 

Charlotte R. Lane 

Daniel R. Pearson 

Shara L. Aranoff 

Irving A. Williamson 

Dean A. Pinkert

Robert B. Koopman

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Acting Director of Operations

Christopher Cassise, Senior Investigator 

Ralph Watkins, Industry Analyst 

Ioanna Mic, Economist 

Justin Jee, Financial Analyst/Auditor 

Charles St. Charles, Attorney 

Steve Hudgens, Senior Statistician 

Jim McClure, Supervisory Investigator
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4172 July 2010

Wire Decking from China

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-466 and 731-TA-1162 (Final)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Determinations ................................................................. 1

Views of the Commission ......................................................... 3

Dissenting Views of Commissioners Charlotte R. Lane and Irving A. Williamson . . . . . . . . . . 25

Part I: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Statutory criteria and organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

Statutory criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

Organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

U.S. market summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

Summary data and data sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

Previous and related investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Nature and extent of sales at LTFV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Nature of countervailable subsidies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

The subject product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

Commerce’s scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

Tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

Description and applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

Manufacturing processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

Domestic like product issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

Part II: Conditions of competition in the U.S. market ................................ II-1

U.S. market characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1

Channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1

Supply and demand considerations ................................................ II-2

Supply ................................................................... II-2

Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-5

Substitutability issues .......................................................... II-8

Factors affecting purchasing decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-8

Comparisons of domestic products and subject imports ............................. II-12

Comparisons of domestic products and nonsubject imports .......................... II-13

Comparisons of subject imports and nonsubject imports ............................ II-13

Elasticity estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-14

U.S. supply elasticity ........................................................ II-14

U.S. demand elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-14

Substitution elasticity ....................................................... II-14

Part III: U.S. producers’ production, shipments, and employment ...................... III-1

U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1

U.S. capacity, production, and capacity utilization ................................... III-2

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments and export shipments ................................. III-4

U.S. producers’ imports and purchases of imports .................................... III-5

U.S. producers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-6

U.S. employment, wages, and productivity ......................................... III-6

i
C O N T E N T S

Page

Part IV: U.S. imports, apparent consumption, and market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1

U.S. importers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1

U.S. imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-3

Negligibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-4

Apparent U.S. consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-4

U.S. market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-5

Ratio of imports to U.S. production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-6

Part V: Pricing and related information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Factors affecting prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Raw material costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

U.S. inland transportation costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Pricing practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Pricing methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Sales terms and discounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2

Price trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-6

Price comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-6

Lost sales and lost revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-7

Part VI: Financial condition of U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1

Operations on wire decking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1

Capital expenditures and research and development expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-5

Assets and return on investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-5

Capital and investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-6

Part VII: Threat considerations and information on nonsubject countries ............... VII-1

The industry in China .......................................................... VII-2

 U.S. importers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-4

U.S. importers’ current orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-4

Antidumping and countervailing duty orders in third-country markets .................... VII-4

Information on producers in nonsubject countries .................................... VII-5

Appendixes

A. Federal Register notices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

B. List of hearing witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

C. Summary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

D. Alleged effects of imports on U.S. producers’ existing development and production 

 efforts, growth, investment, and ability to raise capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

Note.--Information that would reveal confidential operations of individual concerns may not be published

and therefore has been deleted from this report. Such deletions are indicated by asterisks.

ii
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-466 and 731-TA-1162 (Final)

WIRE DECKING FROM CHINA

DETERMINATIONS

On the basis of the record1

 developed in the subject investigations, the United States International

Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to sections 705(b) and 735(b) of the Tariff Act of

1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1671d(b)) and (19 U.S.C. § 1673d(b)) (the Act), that an industry in the United States is

not materially injured or threatened with material injury, and the establishment of an industry in the

United States is not materially retarded, by reason of imports of wire decking from China, provided for in

subheadings 9403.90.80, 7217.10, 7217.20, 7326.20, 7326.90, and 9403.20.00 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States, that the U.S. Department of Commerce has determined are subsidized and

sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”).2

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted these investigations effective June 5, 2009, following receipt of a

petition filed with the Commission and Commerce by AWP Industries, Inc., Frankfort, KY; ITC

Manufacturing, Inc., Phoenix, AZ; J&L Wire Cloth, Inc., St. Paul, MN; Nashville Wire Products Mfg.

Co., Inc., Nashville, TN; and Wireway Husky Corp., Denver, NC. The final phase of the investigations

was scheduled by the Commission following notification of preliminary determinations by Commerce

that imports of wire decking from China were subsidized within the meaning of section 703(b) of the Act

(19 U.S.C. § 1671b(b)) and dumped within the meaning of 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1673b(b)). 

Notice of the scheduling of the final phase of the Commission’s investigations and of a public hearing to

be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary,

U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal

Register on January 28, 2010 (75 FR 4584). The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on May 27, 2010,

and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel.

 1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR § 207.2(f)).

 2

 Commissioners Charlotte R. Lane and Irving A. Williamson dissented and determined that an industry in the

United States is materially injured by reason of imports of wire decking from China. 

1

VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

Based on the record in the final phase of these investigations, we find that an industry in the

United States is not materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of wire

decking from China that have been found by the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) to be sold

in the United States at less than fair value and subsidized by the Government of China.1 2

I. BACKGROUND

The petition in these investigations was filed on June 5, 2009, by domestic producers AWP

Industries, Inc. (“AWP”) of Frankfort, KY; ITC Manufacturing, Inc. (“ITC”) of Phoenix, AZ; J&L Wire

Cloth, Inc. (“J&L”) of St. Paul, MN; Nashville Wire Products Mfg. Co., Inc. (“Nashville Wire”) of

Nashville, TN; and Wireway Husky Corp. (“Wireway”) of Denver, NC (collectively, “petitioners”). 

Petitioners filed prehearing and posthearing briefs and appeared at the hearing. Nucor Corporation

(“Nucor”), also a domestic producer, filed prehearing and posthearing briefs. Respondent parties that

filed joint prehearing and posthearing briefs and appeared at the hearing are foreign producers Dalian

Eastfound Metal Products Co., Ltd., and Dalian Eastfound Material Handling Products Co., Ltd., and the

U.S. entity Worldwide Material Handling Products, LLC (“Worldwide”) (collectively, “respondents”). 

Eleven firms currently produce wire decking in the United States, of which seven provided usable

responses to the Commission’s questionnaire.3

 These questionnaire responses are estimated to account

for 99 percent of domestic production of wire decking in 2008.4

 The Commission received questionnaire

responses from seven U.S. importers of subject merchandise from China that are reported to account for

the majority of such imports during the period examined.5

 The Commission received 26 purchaser

questionnaire responses.6

 The Commission also received questionnaire responses from four Chinese

producers/exporters of wire decking, which are believed to account for approximately *** percent of

Chinese production and *** percent of Chinese exports to the United States in 2009.7

II. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT

A. In General

In determining whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with

material injury by reason of imports of the subject merchandise, the Commission first defines the

 1 Commissioners Lane and Williamson dissent, finding that an industry in the United States is materially injured

by reason of the subject imports. See Dissenting Views of Commissioners Charlotte R. Lane and Irving A.

Williamson. They join sections I-IV of these views.

 2

 Material retardation of the establishment of an industry in the United States is not at issue in these

investigations. 

 3

 Confidential Staff Report, INV-HH-064 (Jun 17, 2010) (“CR”) and Public Staff Report (“PR”) at III-1. U.S.

producers that did not respond were Complex Steel & Wire of Wayne, MI; Equipto, Inc. of Tatamy, PA; and Salco

Engineering & Manufacturing Co. of Jackson, MI. Another producer, ***. CR/PR at III-1 n.1. 

 4

 CR/PR at III-1 n.1. 

 5

 CR/PR at IV-1. Three small importers that responded to the Commission’s importer questionnaire in the

preliminary phase of these investigations did not provide responses in the final phase. These firms, which accounted

for only *** percent of subject imports in the preliminary phase, are ***. CR/PR at IV-1 n.2.

 6

 Staff Worksheet (May 7, 2010). 

 7

 CR at VII-2-3, PR at VII-2.

3
“domestic like product” and the “industry.”8

 Section 771(4)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended

(“the Tariff Act”), defines the relevant domestic industry as the “producers as a whole of a domestic like

product, or those producers whose collective output of a domestic like product constitutes a major

proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”9

 In turn, the Tariff Act defines “domestic like

product” as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses

with, the article subject to an investigation ... .”10

The decision regarding the appropriate domestic like product(s) in an investigation is a factual

determination, and the Commission has applied the statutory standard of “like” or “most similar in

characteristics and uses” on a case-by-case basis.11 No single factor is dispositive, and the Commission

may consider other factors it deems relevant based on the facts of a particular investigation.12 The

Commission looks for clear dividing lines among possible like products and disregards minor variations.13

Although the Commission must accept the determination of the U.S. Department of Commerce

(“Commerce”) as to the scope of the imported merchandise subsidized or sold at less than fair value,14 the

Commission determines what domestic product is like the imported articles Commerce has identified.15

B. Product Description

In its final determinations, Commerce defined the imported merchandise under investigation as

follows:

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

 8 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 9 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 10 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10).

 11 See, e.g., Cleo, Inc. v. United States, 501 F.3d 1291, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2007); NEC Corp. v. Department of

Commerce, 36 F. Supp.2d 380, 383 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 19 CIT 450, 455

(1995); Torrington Co. v. United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 749 n.3 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1990), aff’d, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed.

Cir. 1991) (“every like product determination ‘must be made on the particular record at issue’ and the ‘unique facts

of each case’”). The Commission generally considers a number of factors including the following: (1) physical

characteristics and uses; (2) interchangeability; (3) channels of distribution; (4) customer and producer perceptions

of the products; (5) common manufacturing facilities, production processes, and production employees; and, where

appropriate, (6) price. See Nippon, 19 CIT at 455 n.4; Timken Co. v. United States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l

Trade 1996).

 12 See, e.g., S. Rep. No. 96-249 at 90-91 (1979).

 13 Nippon, 19 CIT at 455; Torrington, 747 F. Supp. at 748-49; see also S. Rep. No. 96-249 at 90-91 (1979)

(Congress has indicated that the like product standard should not be interpreted in “such a narrow fashion as to

permit minor differences in physical characteristics or uses to lead to the conclusion that the product and article are

not ‘like’ each other, nor should the definition of ‘like product’ be interpreted in such a fashion as to prevent

consideration of an industry adversely affected by the imports under consideration.”).

 14 See, e.g., USEC, Inc. v. United States, 34 Fed. Appx. 725, 730 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“The ITC may not modify the

class or kind of imported merchandise examined by Commerce.”); Algoma Steel Corp. v. United States, 688 F.

Supp. 639, 644 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1988), aff’d, 865 F.3d 240 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 919 (1989).

 15 Hosiden Corp. v. Advanced Display Mfrs., 85 F.3d 1561, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (Commission may find a single

like product corresponding to several different classes or kinds defined by Commerce); Cleo, 501 F.3d at 1298 n.1

(“Commerce’s {scope} finding does not control the Commission’s {like product} determination.”); Torrington, 747

F. Supp. at 748-52 (affirming Commission determination of six like products in investigations where Commerce

found five classes or kinds).

4
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 square or rectangular 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 gauges 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. Wire decking may or may

not be anchored to the rack storage system. The scope does not cover the metal rack

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.16

Wire decking is a fabricated decking assembly used to form a shelf surface in a rack storage

system in warehouse, commercial, or industrial storage installations. The most common profile of wire

decking, “waterfall,” has a 90-degree downward curved edge that covers about 1.5 inches of the outside

of the support beams. The waterfall feature helps to hold the decking in position. Other profiles include a

flat or “flush” surface and a “backstop” surface with an upward bend at the back to prevent material from

being pushed off the rear of the shelf.17

 The size and spacing of the wire used in the mesh, as well as the number and characteristics of the

support members, determine the weight and load-bearing capacity of the decking. For instance, for the

most common size of decking, 42-inch by 46-inch, the weight of the section may range from 24 to 30

pounds, and its load-bearing capacity may range from 2,000 pounds to 3,500 pounds.18

Another feature of wire decking is the finish, which affects the appearance and the corrosion

resistance of the product. The product may be coated with a baked-on enamel paint or a baked-on spraypowder finish, or may be fabricated from galvanized (zinc-coated) products. Wire decking may also be

hot-dipped or electroplated with zinc after fabrication.19

 16 CR at I-7-8, PR at I-6-7. Commerce explained that wire decking enters the United States under several basket

categories in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”). U.S. Customs and Border Protection

has issued a ruling (NY F84777) that wire decking is to be classified under HTS 9403.90.8040. Wire decking has

also been entered under HTS 7217.10, 7217.20, 7326.20, 7326.90, 9403.20.0020 and 9403.20.0030. HTS numbers

are provided for convenience purposes only; Commerce’s physical description above controls the scope coverage. 

CR at 1-8, PR at I-7.

 17 CR at I-9-10, PR at I-8-9.

 18 CR at I-11, PR at I-9.

 19 Id.

5
C. Analysis

In the preliminary phase of these investigations, the Commission found that all forms of wire

decking are used in the same application, i.e., as shelving surfaces in rack storage systems, and that, as

supported wire mesh, they share physical characteristics distinct from those of other shelving. In

addition, the Commission found that all domestically produced wire decking is manufactured in the same

facilities using the same production processes and employees. The Commission also found that wire

decking with similar dimensions, profiles, and load-bearing characteristics can be used interchangeably

and that channels of distribution are similar for all domestically produced wire decking. Based on these

similarities, and in the absence of clear dividing lines between different types of wire decking, the

Commission found a single domestic like product, consisting of all wire decking, that is co-extensive with

the scope of the investigations.20

The evidence collected in the final phase of these investigations does not warrant a departure

from the Commission’s like product finding in the preliminary phase. Petitioners support finding one

domestic like product that is coextensive with the scope of the investigations, and no party has objected to

that domestic like product definition. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our determinations in the

preliminary phase of these investigations, we find a single domestic like product, consisting of all wire

decking, that is co-extensive with the scope of these investigations.

III. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY

The domestic industry is defined as the domestic “producers as a whole of a domestic like

product, or those producers whose collective output of a domestic like product constitutes a major

proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”21 In defining the domestic industry, the

Commission’s general practice has been to include in the industry producers of all domestic production of

the like product, whether toll-produced, captively consumed, or sold in the domestic merchant market. 

Based on our definition of the domestic like product, we define the domestic industry as all domestic

producers of wire decking. 

We must determine whether any producer of the domestic like product should be excluded from

the domestic industry pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B). Subsection 1677(4)(B) allows the

Commission, if appropriate circumstances exist, to exclude from the domestic industry producers that are

related to an exporter or importer of subject merchandise or which are themselves importers.22 Exclusion

of such producers is within the Commission’s discretion based upon the facts presented in each

investigation. In these investigations, two U.S. producers, Nashville Wire and J&L, reported that they

imported subject wire decking during the period examined.23 Thus, they may be excluded from the

industry if appropriate circumstances exist.24

 Nashville Wire is the largest domestic producer of wire decking, accounting for *** percent of

domestic production in 2009.25 Its imports of subject merchandise were equivalent to *** percent of its

 20 Wire Decking from China, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-466, 731-TA-1162 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 4092 (Jul. 2009) at

7.

 21 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 22 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B). 

 23 CR/PR at Table III-4.

 24 Petitioners argue that neither Nashville Wire nor J&L should be excluded from the domestic industry.

Petitioners’ Postconference Brief, Exhibit 1 at 4. Respondents also have stated that they do not believe exclusion of

Nashville Wire or J&L from the domestic industry is warranted. Respondents’ Postconference Brief at 15. 

 25 CR/PR at Table III-1.

6
production in 2006, *** percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008, and *** percent in 2009.26 Nashville Wire

reported that it imported subject merchandise “in an attempt to remain competitive with the low prices

offered by Chinese producers” and prevent erosion of its market share.27 Because it is the largest

domestic producer, is a petitioner in these investigations, and its importations were fairly small relative to

its domestic production, we conclude that Nashville Wire’s primary interest lies in domestic production

rather than importation. The performance of Nashville Wire on operations was ***.28 However, its

importations were fairly small relative to its domestic production, suggesting that any benefit from its

imports was minimal.29 30 Accordingly, we find that appropriate circumstances do not exist to exclude

Nashville Wire from the domestic industry.

 J&L accounted for *** percent of domestic production in 2009.31 J&L’s imports of subject

merchandise were equivalent to only *** percent of its production in 2006, *** percent in 2007, and ***

percent in 2008 and 2009.32 J&L ***.33 In addition, J&L is a petitioner in these investigations.34 Based

on this evidence, we conclude that J&L’s primary interest is in domestic production rather than

importation. The performance of J&L on operations was ***,35 indicating that it did not derive any

concrete benefits, or operate in a manner that was different from other domestic producers, as a result of

its importations. We therefore find that appropriate circumstances do not exist to exclude J&L from the

domestic industry. 

For the reasons stated above, we define the domestic industry to include all domestic producers of

wire decking.

IV. LEGAL STANDARDS

In the final phase of antidumping and countervailing duty investigations, the Commission

determines whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material

injury by reason of the imports under investigation.36 In making this determination, the Commission must

consider the volume of subject imports, their effect on prices for the domestic like product, and their

impact on domestic producers of the domestic like product, but only in the context of U.S. production

 26 CR/PR at Table III-4.

 27 CR at III-6, PR at III-5.

 28 CR at Tables VI-2, C-1. 

 29 Consistent with her practice in past investigations and reviews, Commissioner Aranoff does not rely on

individual-company operating income margins, which reflect a domestic producer’s financial operations related to

production of the domestic like product, in assessing whether a related party has benefitted from importation of

subject merchandise. Rather, she determines whether to exclude a related party based principally on its ratio of

subject imports to domestic production and whether its primary interests lie in domestic production or importation.

 30 Commissioner Pinkert does not rely upon companies’ financial performance as a factor in determining whether

there are appropriate circumstances to exclude them from the domestic industry in these investigations. The record

is not sufficient to infer from their profitability on U.S. operations whether they have derived a specific benefit from

importing. See Allied Mineral Products v. United States, 28 CIT 1861, 1865-67 (2004). 

 31 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 32 CR/PR at Table III-4, Conference Transcript (Rudolph) at 39.

 33 CR/PR at Table III-4 n.1. 

 34 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 35 CR at Table VI-2. 

 36 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(b), 1673d(b).

7
operations.37 The statute defines “material injury” as “harm which is not inconsequential, immaterial, or

unimportant.”38 In assessing whether the domestic industry is materially injured by reason of subject

imports, we consider all relevant economic factors that bear on the state of the industry in the United

States.39 No single factor is dispositive, and all relevant factors are considered “within the context of the

business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”40

Although the statute requires the Commission to determine whether the domestic industry is

“materially injured by reason of” unfairly traded imports,41 it does not define the phrase “by reason of,”

indicating that this aspect of the injury analysis is left to the Commission’s reasonable exercise of its

discretion.42 In identifying a causal link, if any, between subject imports and material injury to the

domestic industry, the Commission examines the facts of record that relate to the significance of the

volume and price effects of the subject imports and any impact of those imports on the condition of the

domestic industry. This evaluation under the “by reason of” standard must ensure that subject imports are

more than a minimal or tangential cause of injury and that there is a sufficient causal, not merely a

temporal, nexus between subject imports and material injury.43

In many investigations, there are other economic factors at work, some or all of which may also

be having adverse effects on the domestic industry. Such economic factors might include non-subject

imports; changes in technology, demand, or consumer tastes; competition among domestic producers; or

management decisions by domestic producers. The legislative history explains that the Commission must

examine factors other than subject imports to ensure that it is not attributing injury from other factors to

the subject imports, thereby inflating an otherwise tangential cause of injury into one that satisfies the

statutory material injury threshold.44 In performing its examination, however, the Commission need not

 37 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)( i). The Commission “may consider such other economic factors as are relevant to the

determination” but shall “identify each {such} factor ... and explain in full its relevance to the determination.” 

19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B).

 38 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(A).

 39 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

 40 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

 41 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(a), 1673d(a).

 42 Angus Chemical Co. v. United States, 140 F.3d 1478, 1484-85 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“{T}he statute does not

‘compel the commissioners’ to employ {a particular methodology}.”), aff’d, 944 F. Supp. 943, 951 (Ct. Int’l Trade

1996).

 43 The Federal Circuit, in addressing the causation standard of the statute, observed that “{a}s long as its effects

are not merely incidental, tangential, or trivial, the foreign product sold at less than fair value meets the causation

requirement.” Nippon Steel Corp. v. USITC, 345 F.3d 1379, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2003). This was further ratified in

Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States, 542 F.3d 867, 873 (Fed. Cir. 2008), where the Federal Circuit, quoting

Gerald Metals, Inc. v. United States, 132 F.3d 716, 722 (Fed. Cir. 1997), stated that “this court requires evidence in

the record ‘to show that the harm occurred “by reason of” the LTFV imports, not by reason of a minimal or

tangential contribution to material harm caused by LTFV goods.’” See also Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States,

458 F.3d 1345, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Ass’n v. USITC, 266 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed.

Cir. 2001).

 44 Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”) on Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”), H.R. Rep. 103-

316, Vol. I at 851-52 (1994) (“{T}he Commission must examine other factors to ensure that it is not attributing

injury from other sources to the subject imports.”); S. Rep. 96-249 at 75 (1979) (the Commission “will consider

information which indicates that harm is caused by factors other than less-than-fair-value imports.”); H.R. Rep. 96-

317 at 47 (1979) (“in examining the overall injury being experienced by a domestic industry, the ITC will take into

account evidence presented to it which demonstrates that the harm attributed by the petitioner to the subsidized or

dumped imports is attributable to such other factors;” those factors include “the volume and prices of nonsubsidized

imports or imports sold at fair value, contraction in demand or changes in patterns of consumption, trade restrictive

(continued...)

8
isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by unfairly traded imports.45 Nor does the

“by reason of” standard require that unfairly traded imports be the “principal” cause of injury or

contemplate that injury from unfairly traded imports be weighed against other factors, such as non-subject

imports, which may be contributing to overall injury to an industry.46 It is clear that the existence of

injury caused by other factors does not compel a negative determination.47

Assessment of whether material injury to the domestic industry is “by reason of” subject imports

“does not require the Commission to address the causation issue in any particular way” as long as “the

injury to the domestic industry can reasonably be attributed to the subject imports” and the Commission

“ensure{s} that it is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject imports.”48 49 Indeed, the

 44 (...continued)

practices of and competition between the foreign and domestic producers, developments in technology and the

export performance and productivity of the domestic industry”); accord Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 877.

 45 SAA at 851-52 (“{T}he Commission need not isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by

unfair imports.”); Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Ass’n v. USITC, 266 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“{T}he

Commission need not isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by unfair imports ... . Rather, the

Commission must examine other factors to ensure that it is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject

imports.” (emphasis in original)); Asociacion de Productores de Salmon y Trucha de Chile AG v. United States, 180

F. Supp. 2d 1360, 1375 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002) (“{t}he Commission is not required to isolate the effects of subject

imports from other factors contributing to injury” or make “bright-line distinctions” between the effects of subject

imports and other causes.); see also Softwood Lumber from Canada, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-414 and 731-TA-928

(Remand), USITC Pub. 3658 at 100-01 (Dec. 2003) (Commission recognized that “{i}f an alleged other factor is

found not to have or threaten to have injurious effects to the domestic industry, i.e., it is not an ‘other causal factor,’

then there is nothing to further examine regarding attribution to injury”), citing Gerald Metals, Inc. v. United States,

132 F.3d 716, 722 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the statute “does not suggest that an importer of LTFV goods can escape

countervailing duties by finding some tangential or minor cause unrelated to the LTFV goods that contributed to the

harmful effects on domestic market prices.”).

 46 S. Rep. 96-249 at 74-75; H.R. Rep. 96-317 at 47.

 47 See Nippon Steel Corp., 345 F.3d at 1381 (“an affirmative material-injury determination under the statute

requires no more than a substantial-factor showing. That is, the ‘dumping’ need not be the sole or principal cause of

injury.”).

 48 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 877-78; see also id. at 873 (“While the Commission may not enter an affirmative

determination unless it finds that a domestic industry is materially injured ‘by reason of’ subject imports, the

Commission is not required to follow a single methodology for making that determination ... {and has} broad

discretion with respect to its choice of methodology.”) citing United States Steel Group v. United States, 96 F.3d

1352, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1996) and S. Rep. 96-249 at 75.

 49 Commissioner Pinkert does not join this paragraph or the following three paragraphs. He points out that the

Federal Circuit, in Bratsk, 444 F.3d 1369, and Mittal, held that the Commission is required, in certain circumstances

relating to present material injury, to undertake a particular kind of analysis of non-subject imports, albeit without

reliance upon presumptions or rigid formulas. Mittal explains as follows:

What Bratsk held is that “where commodity products are at issue and fairly traded, price-competitive, nonsubject imports are in the market,” the Commission would not fulfill its obligation to consider an important

aspect of the problem if it failed to consider whether non-subject or non-LTFV imports would have

replaced LTFV subject imports during the period of investigation without a continuing benefit to the

domestic industry. 444 F.3d at 1369. Under those circumstances, Bratsk requires the Commission to

consider whether replacement of the LTFV subject imports might have occurred during the period of

investigation, and it requires the Commission to provide an explanation of its conclusion with respect to

that factor.

542 F.3d at 878.

9
Federal Circuit has examined and affirmed various Commission methodologies and has disavowed “rigid

adherence to a specific formula.”50

The Federal Circuit’s decisions in Gerald Metals, Bratsk, and Mittal Steel all involved cases

where the relevant “other factor” was the presence in the market of significant volumes of pricecompetitive non-subject imports. The Commission interpreted the Federal Circuit’s guidance in Bratsk as

requiring it to apply a particular additional methodology following its finding of material injury in cases

involving commodity products and a significant market presence of price-competitive non-subject

imports.51 The additional “replacement/benefit” test looked at whether non-subject imports might have

replaced subject imports without any benefit to the U.S. industry. The Commission applied that specific

additional test in subsequent cases, including the Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad

and Tobago determination that underlies the Mittal Steel litigation.

Mittal Steel clarifies that the Commission’s interpretation of Bratsk was too rigid and makes clear

that the Federal Circuit does not require the Commission to apply an additional test nor any one specific

methodology; instead, the court requires the Commission to have “evidence in the record” to “show that

the harm occurred ‘by reason of’ the LTFV imports,” and requires that the Commission not attribute

injury from non-subject imports or other factors to subject imports.52 Accordingly, we do not consider

ourselves required to apply the replacement/benefit test that was included in Commission opinions

subsequent to Bratsk.

The progression of Gerald Metals, Bratsk, and Mittal Steel clarifies that, in cases involving

commodity products where price-competitive non-subject imports are a significant factor in the U.S.

market, the Court will require the Commission to give full consideration, with adequate explanation, to

non-attribution issues when it performs its causation analysis.53 54

The question of whether the material injury threshold for subject imports is satisfied

notwithstanding any injury from other factors is factual, subject to review under the substantial evidence

standard. Congress has delegated this factual finding to the Commission because of the agency’s

institutional expertise in resolving injury issues.55 56

 50 Nucor Corp. v. United States, 414 F.3d 1331, 1336, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at

879 (“Bratsk did not read into the antidumping statute a Procrustean formula for determining whether a domestic

injury was ‘by reason’ of subject imports.”).

 51 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 875-79.

 52 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 873 (quoting from Gerald Metals, 132 F.3d at 722), 875-79 & n.2 (recognizing the

Commission’s alternative interpretation of Bratsk as a reminder to conduct a non-attribution analysis).

 53 Commissioner Lane also refers to her dissenting views in Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip

from Brazil, China, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-1131 to 1134 (Final), USITC Pub.

4040 (Oct. 2008), for further discussion of Mittal Steel.

 54 To that end, after the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Bratsk, the Commission began to present published

information or send out information requests in final phase investigations to producers in non-subject countries that

accounted for substantial shares of U.S. imports of subject merchandise (if, in fact, there were large non-subject

import suppliers). In order to provide a more complete record for the Commission’s causation analysis, these

requests typically seek information on capacity, production, and shipments of the product under investigation in the

major source countries that export to the United States. The Commission plans to continue utilizing published or

requested information in final phase investigations in which there are substantial levels of non-subject imports.

 55 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 873; Nippon Steel Corp., 458 F.3d at 1350, citing U.S. Steel Group, 96 F.3d at 1357;

S. Rep. 96-249 at 75 (“The determination of the ITC with respect to causation is ... complex and difficult, and is a

matter for the judgment of the ITC.”).

 56 Commissioners Lane and Williamson do not join in the remainder of these views. See Dissenting Views of

Commissioners Charlotte R. Lane and Irving A. Williamson. 

10
V. CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION AND THE BUSINESS CYCLE

The following conditions of competition inform our analysis of whether there is material injury or

threat of material injury by reason of subject imports.

A. Demand Conditions

Because wire decking is used in rack storage systems in industrial and commercial warehouses,

demand for wire decking is derived primarily from demand for such rack systems, which in turn is related

to the economy’s level of industrial output and, in particular, investment in capital expenditures,

construction of warehouses, and construction of commercial real estate.57 The parties agree that demand

for wire decking tends to follow activity in nonresidential construction with a variable lag, at least to

some extent.58 Available data show that nonresidential construction activity slumped through February

2010, while industrial production bottomed out in mid-2009.59 

When measured by apparent domestic consumption, demand for wire decking decreased over the

period examined, with the decline accelerating in 2009. Apparent U.S. consumption of wire decking

declined from *** pounds in 2006 to *** pounds in 2007, *** pounds in 2008, and *** pounds in 2009. 

Thus, as a result of the accelerated decline in 2009, apparent U.S. consumption decreased by *** percent

from 2008 to 2009 alone, and declined overall during the period examined by *** percent.60

 B. Supply Conditions

The domestic industry is the largest source of supply in the U.S. market. Domestic producers’

market share was *** percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008, and *** percent in

2009.61 U.S. producers’ production capacity exceeded domestic demand during the period examined.62

Seven domestic producers accounted for 99 percent of U.S. wire decking production in 2008, with three

of those producers – Nashville Wire, ITC, and AWP – accounting for approximately *** of total

domestic production.63 One domestic producer, Adrian Fabricators, which did business as Cargotainer

and accounted for *** percent of domestic production in 2009, ceased production and exited the domestic

industry in January 2010.64 J&L, ITC, Nashville Wire, and Nucor are “integrated” producers that draw

wire rod into the wire they use in decking production rather than purchasing the wire. AWP and

Wireway are non-integrated firms that purchase the wire used as the input in their decking production.65

The market share of subject imports fluctuated in a narrow range over the period examined, from

a low of *** percent in 2006 to a high of *** percent in 2007.66 Atlas Material Handling, Inc. (“Atlas”)

was the largest reporting U.S. importer of subject wire decking from China during the period examined,

 57 CR at II-10, PR at II-6.

 58 Petitioners’ Prehearing Brief at 11; Hearing Transcript at 88 (Caldwell), 89 (Rudolph).

 59 CR/PR at Figure II-1.

 60 CR/PR at Tables IV-4, C-1.

 61 CR/PR at Tables IV-4. 

 62 In 2009, the domestic producers’ production capacity was equal to *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption. 

CR at III-2. Domestic producers’ capacity was 495.4 million pounds in 2006, 515.4 million pounds in 2007 and

2008 and 500.4 million pounds in 2009. CR/PR at Table III-2.

 63 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 64 CR/PR at Table III-1 n.1.

 65 CR at III-4 n.4, PR at III-2 n.4. 

 66 CR/PR at Table IV-4.

11
accounting for *** percent of reported subject imports in 2009. Atlas was the exclusive North American

importer and distributor of wire decking from the Chinese producer Eastfound.67 Atlas reported that it

expanded its sales and distribution operations in 2006 and 2007. Then, as demand declined beginning in

2008, Atlas ceased operations at its San Francisco, Minneapolis, and Atlanta facilities and reduced the

sales and warehouse staff at its Chicago facility. Atlas ceased operations in February 2010. Atlas’s

parent company sold Atlas’s remaining assets, consisting of distribution facilities in Chicago, IL, San

Bernardino, CA, and Dallas, TX to Victor Kedaitis, the former president and general manager of Atlas,

who created Worldwide. Worldwide states that it has not imported wire decking from China since the

commencement of its operations.68 As discussed above, Nashville Wire, the largest U.S. producer of wire

decking, also imported wire decking during the period examined, accounting for *** percent of total

subject imports in 2009.69 

Petitioners and respondents agree that nonsubject imports, which account for approximately five

percent of total imports, were not a significant factor in the U.S. wire decking market during the period

examined.70

C. Substitutability

There is a high degree of substitutability between the domestic like product and subject imports. 

Nearly all responding domestic producers and importers reported that the domestic like product, subject

imports, and nonsubject imports are always interchangeable.71 A majority of responding purchasers

similarly reported that the domestic like product, subject imports, and nonsubject imports are always or

frequently interchangeable.72 A majority of responding purchasers also reported that the U.S. product and

subject imports always or usually meet purchasers’ minimum quality specifications.73 Purchasers

reported that price is an important consideration in their purchasing decisions.74 A majority of domestic

producers reported that differences other than price among the domestic like product, subject imports, and

nonsubject imports are never significant, and a majority of importers reported that such differences are

only sometimes or never significant, while a slim majority of purchasers (9 of 17) reported that

differences other than price were always or frequently significant.75

 67 CR at IV-1-2, PR at IV-1.

 68 CR at IV-2-3 PR at IV-1-2.

 69 CR/PR at Tables III-4, IV-2. J&L also imported subject merchandise ***. Id.

 70 CR/PR at Table IV-2; Petitioners’ Postconference Brief at 36; Respondents’ Postconference Brief at 4 n.1.

 71 CR/PR at Table II-7 (only one responding producer and one responding importer reported that the U.S. product

is frequently interchangeable, rather than always interchangeable, with wire decking from China; none of the

responding producers compared the Chinese product with nonsubject imports). 

 72 CR/PR at Table II-7. 

 73 CR/PR at Table II-4.

 74 Nearly all responding purchasers identified price as very important in their purchasing decisions. CR/PR at

Table II-5. Price was also the factor most frequently identified by purchasers as the number one factor in their

purchasing decisions. CR/PR at Table II-3. 

 75 CR/PR at Table II-8. 

12
Several products can be substituted for wire decking in some shelving applications.76 Because

substitute products exist, the aggregate demand for wire decking is moderately elastic and, thus, prices for

wire decking can be increased only to a limited extent before some purchasers will purchase substitute

products.77 

D. Other Conditions

The domestic industry is a relatively high variable/low fixed cost industry, and raw material costs

account for most of the industry’s total cost of goods sold (“COGS”).78 The main raw materials used in

the production of wire decking are hot-rolled sheet steel and steel wire rod. Prices for both of these steel

inputs fluctuated in 2006 and 2007, increased significantly during the first half of 2008, peaked in July

2008, decreased substantially through mid-2009, and increased irregularly thereafter. The share of the

industry’s COGS accounted for by steel and other raw materials increased from 68.4 percent in 2006 to

73.7 percent in 2008, but declined to 63.7 percent in 2009.79 

VI. NO MATERIAL INJURY BY REASON OF SUBJECT IMPORTS80

Based on the record in the final phase of these investigations, we find that an industry in the

United States is not materially injured by reason of imports of wire decking from China that Commerce

has found are sold in the United States at less than fair value and subsidized by the Government of

China.81

 76 CR at II-8, II-12; PR at II-5, II-7. Although a witness testified that insurance and building codes preclude

substitutes (CR at II-12 n.31, PR at II-7 n.31), two of six responding producers, three of four responding importers,

and 16 of 22 responding purchasers reported that there are substitute products for wire decking. CR at II-12. The

substitute products they identified included pallet rack supports, warehouse shelving, non-supported wire mesh,

wood (plywood and particle board) shelving, metal/steel decking, cross bars, expended metal corrugated decking,

bard grading, and rack dex-perforated decking. CR at II-12, PR at II-7.

 77 CR II-8, II-21; CR at II-5, II-14; see also CR at II-12, PR at II-8 (an importer and a purchaser reported that

changes in the prices of substitute products affect the prices for wire decking).

 78 CR/PR at Table VI-3.

 79 CR/PR at V-1, Table VI-3. The unit cost of raw materials was $0.34 per pound in 2006 and 2007, $0.44 per

pound in 2008, and $0.34 per pound again in 2008. CR/PR at Table VI-3. 

 80 Negligibility under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24) is not an issue in these investigations. Based on questionnaire

response data and estimates by petitioners and respondents, U.S. imports of wire decking from China were

approximately 95 percent of total U.S. imports of wire decking for the entire period examined. CR at IV-6, PR at

IV-4. Thus, the volume of subject imports is well above the statute’s three percent negligibility level. 

 81 As noted above, Commissioners Lane and Williamson determine that the domestic industry is materially

injured by reason of subject imports. See Dissenting Views of Commissioners Charlotte R. Lane and Irving A.

Williamson.

13
A. Volume of the Subject Imports

Section 771(7)(C)(i) of the Act provides that the “Commission shall consider whether the volume

of imports of the merchandise, or any increase in that volume, either in absolute terms or relative to

production or consumption in the United States, is significant.”82

As noted above, apparent U.S. consumption of wire decking declined over the period examined

and fell precipitously toward the end of it. Apparent U.S. consumption fell from *** pounds in 2006 to

*** pounds in 2007 and *** pounds in 2008. In 2009, apparent consumption fell to *** pounds, a

decline of *** percent from 2008. We evaluate the data on the volume of subject imports in the context

of this declining trend in apparent U.S. consumption. 

U.S. shipments of subject imports increased from *** pounds in 2006 to *** pounds in 2007

before declining to *** pounds in 2008. U.S. shipments of subject imports then declined to *** pounds

in 2009, for a decline of *** percent from their 2008 level.83 The market share of subject imports

fluctuated in a narrow range over the period examined and was at *** percent in 2006, *** percent in

2007, *** percent in 2008, and *** percent in 2009.84 The much lower absolute volume of U.S.

shipments of subject imports in 2009 coincides with the sharp decline in U.S. demand in that year.85

Based on these data, we find the volume of subject imports to be significant both in absolute terms and as

a share of apparent U.S. consumption. We do not, however, find the increase in market share of subject

imports by only *** percentage points from 2006 to 2009, even though largely at the expense of the

domestic product, to be significant. 

Petitioners argue that not all importers of subject wire decking from China responded to the

Commission’s importer questionnaire and that, therefore, record data on the volume of subject imports

over the period examined are understated.86 Petitioners contend that the volume of subject imports based

on questionnaire responses – although understated – is nonetheless significant.87 They ask the

Commission to supplement those data with petitioners’ estimate of the volume of subject imports by

importers that did not respond to the questionnaire.88

In these investigations, we based the volume and value of both subject imports and U.S.

shipments of subject imports on responses to the Commission’s importer questionnaires because official

import statistics are based on basket categories of the HTS that are too broad to provide import data

specifically for wire decking. Based on the sworn statements of responding importers, we find that the

importer questionnaire responses we received account for the great majority of subject imports during the

 82 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(i).

 83 CR/PR at Tables IV-3, C-1. U.S. shipments of subject imports in 2009 included a substantial drawdown of

importers’ inventories of subject imports. CR/PR at Table VII-2. Accordingly, the decline in imports was even

greater in 2009 than was the decline in U.S. shipments of such imports. Specifically, after increasing slightly from

*** pounds in 2006 to *** pounds in 2007, subject imports declined to *** pounds in 2008 and *** pounds in 2009,

for a decline of *** percent between 2008 and 2009. CR/PR at Table IV-2, C-1.

 84 CR/PR at Tables IV-4, C-1. The ratio of subject imports to U.S. production increased from *** percent in 2006

to *** percent in 2007 before declining to *** percent in 2008 and *** percent in 2009, for an overall decline of ***

percentage points. CR/PR at Table IV-5. 

 85 Petitioners argue that the decline in subject imports coincides with the pendency of these investigations (e.g.,

Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief, Exhibit 1 at 37-42). Subject imports began declining in 2008, however, long before

the petitions were filed. CR/PR at Table C-1. Although petitioners further argue that subject imports largely ceased

early in 2010 and that the condition of the industry improved thereafter (id.), we note that our data series, which ends

with calendar year 2009, does not reflect any such decline mirrored by improvement in the industry’s condition.

 86 Petitioners’ Prehearing Brief at 24-34.

 87 Petitioners’ Prehearing Brief at 25.

 88 Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief at 5 & Exhibit 6.

14
period examined and have determined that this data series is the most reliable. Moreover, although

petitioners are correct that not all importers responded to the questionnaire,89 this is not unusual in our

investigations. Indeed, as our reviewing courts have held, there is no legal requirement that the

Commission receive a one hundred percent response rate before it can use questionnaire response data in

its determinations.90 91

The questionnaire data upon which we rely are certified as accurate by firms accounting for the

majority of imports92 and include data on U.S. shipments of subject imports as well as on subject imports

themselves. Both the volume of subject imports and the volume of shipments of subject import are

important in calculating apparent U.S. consumption and market shares and assessing the significance of

subject imports.93 Unlike the questionnaire response data, the import estimates constructed by petitioners

do not distinguish between imports and import shipments, a distinction that petitioners themselves

recognize as significant in these investigations, given that shipments of subject imports from inventories 

 89 Petitioners emphasize that three importers that provided responses to the Commission’s importer questionnaire

in the preliminary phase of these investigations (***) did not respond to the Commission’s importer questionnaire in

the final phase of the investigations. Petitioners’ Prehearing Brief at 30. In the preliminary phase of these

investigations, however, these companies accounted for only *** percent of subject imports from China. CR/PR at

IV-1 n.2.

 90 19 U.S.C. 16777e(a) (“if necessary information is not available on the record . . . the Commission “shall . . .

use. . . the facts otherwise available when reaching [its] determination”). See also Committee for Fair Coke Trade v.

United States, 28 CIT 1140 (2004), in which the court stated as follows:

Plaintiffs’ main complaint is that the questionnaire responses collected by the ITC do not cover

100% of imports. Although the ITC concedes its information was not complete, e.g., that 20% of

U.S. imports from China were not accounted for by the questionnaire responses, the ITC “is not

required to gather 100% coverage in the questionnaire responses before it can make a

determination.” United States Steel Group v. United States, 18 CIT 1190, 1203, 873 F. Supp. 673,

688 (1994) (in context of final determination); Torrington Co. v. United States, 16 CIT 220,

223-24, 790 F. Supp. 1161, 1166 (1992), aff'd 991 F.2d 809 (Fed.Cir.1993) (finding in the context

of a preliminary determination that the ITC did not abuse its discretion by using questionnaire

responses that “represented a substantial majority of domestic production”).

28 CIT at 1163. 

 91 Commissioner Okun notes that the statute authorizes the Commission to take adverse inferences but such

authorization does not relieve the Commission of its obligation to consider the record evidence as a whole in making

its determination. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e. She generally gives credence to the facts supplied by the participating

parties and certified by them as true, but bases her decision on the evidence as a whole, and does not automatically

accept participating parties’ suggested interpretations of the record evidence. Regardless of the level of

participation, the Commission is obligated to consider all evidence relating to each of the statutory factors and may

not draw adverse inferences that render such analysis superfluous. “In general, the Commission makes

determinations by weighing all of the available evidence regarding a multiplicity of factors relating to the domestic

industry as a whole and by drawing reasonable inferences from the evidence it finds most persuasive.” Statement of

Administrative Action (“SAA”) on Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”), H.R. Rep. 103-316, Vol. I at 869

(1994).

 92 Subject imports reported in importer questionnaire responses account for a majority of total subject imports

even under the alternative calculation proffered by petitioners. E.g., Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief at Exhibit 6.

 93 “[S]ince import shipment data would record only that portion of imports that actually enters the market (rather

than being stored in inventory) its use for purposes of assessing injury is reasonable.” Committee for Fair Coke

Trade v. United States, 28 CIT at 1161-62. 

15
caused the volume of U.S. shipments of subject imports to be substantially higher than the volume of

subject imports in 2009.94 95 

Further, as noted above, official import statistics, which are based on a “basket category” of the

HTS that includes other products, do not provide an accurate measure of subject imports, and there are no

other available sources that provide data on wire decking imports alone.96 In the absence of import data

specific to wire decking, we have no means by which to corroborate petitioners’ estimates. Thus,

although petitioners are correct that there is some missing import volume information, we do not deem

petitioners’ estimates to be sufficiently reliable to constitute a proxy for those missing volumes or to call

into question our use of the data derived from the questionnaires. Instead, as is our normal practice, we

rely on the certified importer questionnaire responses, the accuracy of which (as opposed to their

completeness) is not in dispute, which appear to account for a substantial majority of subject imports. 

Based on those data, we find subject imports to be significant in absolute terms and as a share of domestic

consumption.97 98

 94 See Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief at 6 n.14 (objecting to respondents’ reliance on imports rather than import

shipments in calculating market shares); see also CR/PR at Tables IV-2 (imports), IV-3 (import shipments), and VII2 (importers’ end-of-period inventories, which declined from *** million pounds in 2008 to *** million pounds in

2009). 

 95 Petitioners contend that taking into account their estimates of imports in addition to the import data provided in

certified questionnaire responses is necessary to show accurate trends over the period examined. They explain that

certain entities that had previously only purchased imports from Atlas began importing directly in 2008 and 2009

and, therefore, their direct imports were not reflected in the data for Atlas. Respondents point out, however, that

although the firms that purchased subject wire decking from Atlas were sometimes identified as consignees on U.S.

entry documentation, none ever imported the merchandise and Atlas remained the importer of record on those

importations. Hearing Transcript at 159-160 (Kedaitis); see also Respondents’ Posthearing Brief at 7 & Appendix 2

at 14-16 (list of alleged U.S. importers that are Atlas customers). Accordingly, the importations for which Atlas’s

customers were simply the consignees and not the importers are included in the import data provided in Atlas’s

importer questionnaire response. A large share of the import volume data that petitioners claim are missing relate to

two firms, ***. Respondents provided evidence that *** has always been a customer of Atlas (and Nashville Wire)

and was never an importer of record. Respondents’ Posthearing Brief, Appendix 2 at 14. They further testify that

***. Id. at 14-15. Finally, with respect to two other firms identified by petitioners, *** likely no longer exists. Id. 

 96 Petitioners acknowledge that they attempted to construct supplemental import estimates because neither official

import data nor other available sources provide data specific to wire decking imports. Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief,

Exhibit 1 at 33. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e (“when . . . the Commission relies on secondary information . . . [it] shall, to

the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that are reasonably at [its] disposal”). 

 97 See Committee for Fair Coke Trade v. United States, 28 CIT 1140, 1163 (2004) (“as the ITC had actual

[importer questionnaire response] data, there was no need to rely on unverified estimates [by a domestic industry

institute], and the ITC acted within the bounds of its discretion in not relying on [the industry’s estimated] data”).

 98 Commission staff worked with petitioners to assure a broad response to the Commission’s importer

questionnaire. In the preliminary phase of these investigations, importer questionnaires were sent to all 60 firms

included in petitioners’ list of possible importers, which included all firms that imported any of the products

encompassed within the basket HTS classifications that included wire decking. The list of 36 importers that

received importer questionnaires in the final phase of these investigations was compiled by deleting from the

preliminary phase list those firms that answered in the preliminary phase that they did not import wire decking,

updating contact information for firms that had responded, and retaining on the list those firms that did not respond

to the questionnaire in the preliminary phase. On April 7, 2010, after the deadline for questionnaire responses had

passed, Commission staff, at the request of petitioners, again sent importer questionnaires to three importers that

petitioners deemed to be particularly significant (***). These firms did not respond to the questionnaire. 

Respondents provided evidence that *** purchased subject imports from Atlas but did not import directly and that

*** is out of business. Respondents’ Posthearing Brief, Appendix 2 at 14. 

16
C. Price Effects of the Subject Imports

 Section 771(C)(ii) of the Act provides that, in evaluating the price effects of subject imports, 

the Commission shall consider whether – 

(I) there has been significant price underselling by the imported merchandise as

compared with the price of domestic like products of the United States, and

(II) the effect of imports of such merchandise otherwise depresses prices to a

significant degree or prevents price increases, which otherwise would have

occurred, to a significant degree.99

As already noted, there appears to be a high degree of interchangeability between the domestic

like product and the subject imports.100 The record indicates that price is an important factor in

purchasing decisions.101 Several products can be substituted for wire decking in shelving systems and,

thus, demand for wire decking is moderately elastic.102

The Commission collected quarterly pricing data for six wire decking products.103 Usable pricing

data were provided by six domestic producers, accounting for *** percent of domestic producers’

shipments during the period examined, and six importers, accounting for *** percent of shipments of

subject imports during the period.104 Subject imports undersold the domestic like product in 85 of 93

quarterly pricing comparisons by margins ranging from 0.9 percent to 54.4 percent.105 Accordingly, we

find that underselling was significant during the period examined.106

We do not find significant price suppressing effects by the subject imports. The domestic

industry’s unit cost of goods sold (“COGS”) fluctuated over the period examined and ended up only

slightly higher in 2009 than in 2006.107 Although the ratio of COGS to net sales increased between 2006

and 2009,108 the record does not establish that subject imports prevented price increases that otherwise

would have occurred. We note in this regard that demand for wire decking was declining during the

period examined and that there are substitutes for wire decking in some applications. The decline in

demand made it more difficult for domestic producers to raise prices; purchasers had less need for wire

 99 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(ii).

 100 CR/PR at Table II-3, II-5.

 101 CR/PR at Tables II-3, II-5, II-8. 

 102 CR at II-12, II-21; PR at II-7, II-14. 

 103 CR at V-3, PR at V-2.

 104 CR at V-3, PR at V-2.

 105 CR/PR at Table V-8. 

 106 Only a limited number of lost sales and lost revenue allegations were confirmed. CR at V-18, PR at V-7;

CR/PR at Tables V-9, V-10 ($*** of $*** in lost sales allegations and $*** of $*** in lost revenue allegations were

confirmed). *** and *** reported that they experienced lost sales and lost revenues, but did not provide specific

data, and *** and *** claimed to have reduced prices to avoid losing sales to subject imports, but did not make any

specific lost sales or revenue allegations.

 107 The industry’s unit COGS per pound was $0.49 in 2006, $0.48 in 2007, $0.60 in 2008, and $0.53 in 2009. 

CR/PR at Table C-1. 

 108 The industry’s COGS to net sales ratio increased from 87.1 percent in 2006 to 87.2 percent in 2007, 92.6

percent in 2008, and 93.5 percent in 2009. CR/PR at Table C-1. 

17
decking and were therefore less willing to pay higher prices.109 The existence of substitute products,

which made the aggregate demand for wire decking moderately elastic,110 limited the extent to which wire

decking prices could be raised to offset increased COGS.111 We note, further, that domestic producers

were able to raise prices to cover a large share of the increase in unit COGS in 2008 that resulted from

increased raw material costs. They also were able to cover a large share of COGS in 2009 as demand

declined steeply.112 Thus, we are unable to find that subject imports, which declined with the downturn in

demand and maintained a relatively steady share of the market, played a significant role in the increase in

the industry’s COGS/sales ratio. Accordingly, we do not find that subject imports significantly

suppressed prices for the domestic like product. 

With regard to price depression, prices for both the domestically produced wire decking and

subject imports rose or remained steady over the period examined. Prices fluctuated during 2006 and

2007 with no apparent trend, increased in 2008 when raw material prices and total COGS peaked, and

then declined in 2009 to levels similar to those in 2006 and 2007. We find that the decline in prices in

2009 to the levels experienced earlier in the period examined was a result of the declining cost of raw

materials and declining demand. Therefore, we do not find that the subject imports had a significant

depressing effect on prices for the domestic like product.

Accordingly, although subject imports undersold the domestic product, the record does not

indicate that subject imports had any significant price suppressing or depressing effects.113 Thus, we

conclude that subject imports did not have a significant effect on domestic prices during the period

examined. 

D. Impact of the Subject Imports114

Section 771(7)(C)(iii) provides that the Commission, in examining the impact of the subject

imports on the domestic industry, “shall evaluate all relevant economic factors which have a bearing on

 109 The decline in demand had the effect of limiting the volume of domestic producers’ sales across which fixed

costs could be allocated, thus increasing the fixed cost component of unit COGS. For instance, the industry’s unit

factory overhead was $0.10 per pound in 2006, $0.09 in 2007, and $0.10 in 2008, then increased to $0.14 in 2009,

when demand and domestic production volumes dropped. CR/PR at Table VI-3, CR/PR at VI-3. 

 110 CR at II-21, PR at II-14. As noted above, a substantial share of producers, importers, and purchasers reported

that there are substitute products for wire decking in some applications. CR at II-12, PR at II-7. As also noted, an

importer and a purchaser reported that changes in the prices of substitute products affect the prices for wire decking.

Id. 

 111 Id.

 112 For instance, as unit COGS increased from $0.48 per pound in 2007 to $0.60 per pound in 2008, the unit sales

value increased virtually commensurately in absolute terms, from $0.55 per pound in 2007 to $0.65 per pound in

2008. CR/PR at Table C-1. 

 113 A majority of purchasers indicated that non-price factors were always or frequently significant in their

purchasing decisions. CR/PR at Table II-8. We find that non-price factors, therefore, also imposed some limitation

on the significance of underselling. 

 114 The statute instructs the Commission to consider the “magnitude of the dumping margin” in an antidumping

proceeding as part of its consideration of the impact of imports. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii)(V). In its final

determination of sales at less than fair value, Commerce found the following weighted-average dumping margins: 

17.75 percent for Dalian Huameilong Metal Products Co., Ltd.; 14.24 percent for Dalian Eastfound Metal Products

Co., Ltd. and Dalian Eastfound Material Handling Products Co., Ltd.; 16.00 percent for Globsea Co., Ltd., Dalian

Yutiein Storage Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Dalian Xingbo Metal Products Co., Ltd., Ningbo Xinguang Rack Co.,

Ltd., and Dandong Riqian Logistics Equipment Co., Ltd.; and 143.00 percent for all others (PRC-wide). CR at I-5,

PR at I-4.

18
the state of the industry.”115 These factors include output, sales, inventories, capacity utilization, market

share, employment, wages, productivity, profits, cash flow, return on investment, ability to raise capital,

research and development, and factors affecting domestic prices. No single factor is dispositive and all

relevant factors are considered “within the context of the business cycle and conditions of competition

that are distinctive to the affected industry.”116

Indicators of domestic industry performance generally declined during the period examined. The

industry’s capacity to produce wire decking increased overall by 1.0 percent between 2006 and 2009,

while production declined by 50.0 percent.117 Capacity utilization, therefore, declined by 31.0 percentage

points between 2006 and 2009.118 The domestic industry’s net sales decreased by 51.1 percent, and U.S.

producers’ shipments declined 50.9 percent between 2006 and 2009.119 The industry’s market share

declined *** percentage points from 2006 to 2009.120

During 2006-2009, domestic producers’ ending inventories of wire decking increased by ***

percent and rose by *** percentage points relative to the quantity of total shipments.121

 The number of production related workers (“PRWs”) decreased by 44.6 percent from 2006 to

2009.122 Between 2006 and 2009, hours worked by PRWs fell by 49.5 percent,123 productivity declined

by 1.0 percent,124 and wages paid to PRWs declined by 47.7 percent.125 

The domestic industry’s operating income declined from $11.3 million in 2006 to a negative $4.7

million in 2009. The industry’s operating income margin declined from 6.3 percent in 2006 to a negative

5.3 percent in 2009.126 Its capital expenditures decreased from $3.6 million in 2006 to $1.3 million in

2009.127

 115 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii); see also SAA at 851 and 885 (“In material injury determinations, the Commission

considers, in addition to imports, other factors that may be contributing to overall injury. While these factors, in

some cases, may account for the injury to the domestic industry, they also may demonstrate that an industry is facing

difficulties from a variety of sources and is vulnerable to dumped or subsidized imports.”). SAA at 885.

 116 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii); see also SAA at 851, 885; Live Cattle from Canada and Mexico, Inv. Nos. 701-

TA-386, 731-TA-812-813 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3155 at 25 n.148 (Feb. 1999).

 117 The industry’s capacity increased from 495.4 million pounds in 2006 to 515.4 million pounds in 2007 and

2008, then declined to 500.4 million pounds in 2009. Domestic production declined from 304.5 million pounds in

2006 to 300.3 million pounds in 2007, 274.1 million pounds in 2008, and 152.3 million pounds in 2009. CR/PR at

Tables III-2, C-1. 

 118 Capacity utilization declined from 61.5 percent in 2006 to 30.4 percent in 2009. CR/PR at Tables III-2, C-1.

 119 Domestic producers’ net sales decreased from 318.0 million pounds in 2006 to 155.6 million pounds in 2009,

and their shipments decreased from 307.7 million pounds in 2006 to 151.2 million pounds in 2009. CR/PR at Tables

VI-1, C-1.

 120 Domestic producers’ market share declined irregularly from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2009. 

CR/PR at Tables IV-4, C-1.

 121 Ending inventories decreased irregularly from 45.3 million pounds in 2006 to 28.6 million pounds in 2009. 

Ending inventories as a share of domestic shipments increased irregularly from 14.7 percent in 2006 to 18.9 percent

in 2009. CR/PR at Table III-5.

 122 The number of production workers declined from 652 in 2006 to 361 in 2009. CR/PR at Table C-1.

 123 Hours worked declined from 1.3 million in 2006 to 681,000 in 2009. CR/PR at Table C-1. 

 124 Productivity decreased from 225.8 pounds per hour in 2006 to 223.5 pounds per hour in 2009. CR/PR at Table

C-1.

 125 Wages paid declined from $21.7 million in 2006 to $11.4 million in 2009. CR/PR at Table C-1.

 126 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 127 CR/PR at Table C-1.

19
Notwithstanding these trends, the domestic industry’s poor and declining performance during the

period was not due in any significant degree to the presence of subject imports. Although the subject

imports had a significant presence in the market, they were not responsible for the decline in domestic

producers’ sales volume in 2008 and the *** decline in 2009. Indeed, the volume of U.S. shipments of

subject imports declined at a rate comparable to the rate at which domestic producers’ shipments declined

over the period examined, and subject imports, the market share of which remained generally steady over

the period examined, did not take significant market share from the domestic industry.

Instead, the declines in the domestic industry’s sales volumes and revenues are largely explained

by declining demand over the period examined. The industry’s poor and declining operating performance

was caused by *** declining sales revenues (reflecting a decline in demand and moderate demand

elasticity) and concomitant increases in the COGS/sales ratio. As explained above, these revenue

declines were not a function of the subject imports, which did not cause significant price effects. Instead,

as with the declines in production, shipments, and sales, they are attributable to declines in demand.

Accordingly, although indicators of the industry’s condition are generally unfavorable, the factors

described above indicate that the subject imports are not contributing significantly to the domestic

industry’s poor financial condition. Therefore, we find that the record does not demonstrate the requisite

causal nexus between the subject imports and the condition of the domestic industry. For these reasons

we find that subject imports are not having a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry. 

VII. NO THREAT OF MATERIAL INJURY BY REASON OF THE CUMULATED SUBJECT

IMPORTS

Section 771(7)(F) of the Act directs the Commission to determine whether an industry in the

United States is threatened with material injury by reason of the subject imports by analyzing whether

“further dumped or subsidized imports are imminent and whether material injury by reason of imports

would occur unless an order is issued or a suspension agreement is accepted.”128 The Commission may

not make such a determination “on the basis of mere conjecture or supposition,” and considers the threat

factors “as a whole.”129 In making our determination, we have considered all factors that are relevant to

these investigations.130

 128 19 U.S.C. §§ 1677d(b) and 1677(7)(F)(ii).

 129 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii). An affirmative threat determination must be based upon “positive evidence

tending to show an intention to increase the levels of importation.” Metallverken Nederland B.V. v. United States,

744 F. Supp. 281, 287 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1990), citing American Spring Wire Corp. v. United States, 590 F. Supp.

1273, 1280 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1984); see also Calabrian Corp. v. United States, 794 F. Supp. 377, 387-88 (Ct. Int’l

Trade 1992), citing H.R. Rep. No. 98-1156 at 174 (1984).

 130 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F). The Commission must consider, in addition to other relevant economic factors, the

following statutory factors in its threat analysis:

(I) if a countervailable subsidy is involved, such information as may be presented to it by the administering

authority as to the nature of the subsidy particularly as to whether the countervailable subsidy is a subsidy

described in Article 3 or 6.1 of the Subsidies Agreement and whether imports of the subject merchandise

are likely to increase,

(II) any existing unused production capacity or imminent, substantial increase in production capacity in the

exporting country indicating the likelihood of substantially increased imports of the subject merchandise

into the United States, taking into account the availability of other export markets to absorb any additional

exports,

(III) a significant rate of increase of the volume or market penetration of imports of the subject merchandise

indicating the likelihood of substantially increased imports,

(IV) whether imports of the subject merchandise are entering at prices that are likely to have a significant

(continued...)

20
Based on the indicators of the industry’s performance discussed above, we find that the industry

is currently in a weakened state and is vulnerable to material injury. For the reasons discussed below,

however, we determine that the domestic industry is not threatened with material injury by reason of

subject imports from China.131

As discussed above, U.S. shipments of subject imports increased from *** pounds in 2006 to ***

pounds in 2007 before declining to *** pounds in 2008 and *** pounds in 2009.132 Thus, the volume of

subject import shipments began declining in 2008, before the petitions in these investigations were filed

and in a manner reflecting the early softening of demand. They declined further in 2009 in response to a

rapid decline in demand. Accordingly, the market share of subject imports remained fairly steady at ***

percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008, and *** percent in 2009, and we see no reason

 130 (...continued)

depressing or suppressing effect on domestic prices and are likely to increase demand for further imports,

(V) inventories of the subject merchandise,

(VI) the potential for product-shifting if production facilities in the foreign country, which can be used to

produce the subject merchandise, are currently being used to produce other products,

(VII) in any investigation under this subtitle which involves imports of both a raw agricultural product

(within the meaning of paragraph (4)(E)(iv)) and any product processed from such raw agricultural product,

the likelihood that there will be increased imports, by reason of product shifting, if there is an affirmative

determination by the Commission under section 1671d(b)(1) or 1673d(b)(1) of this title with respect to

either the raw agricultural product or the processed agricultural product (but not both),

(VIII) the actual and potential negative effects on the existing development and production efforts of the

domestic industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of the domestic like

product, and

(IX) any other demonstrable adverse trends that indicate the probability that there is likely to be

material injury by reason of imports (or sale for importation) of the subject merchandise (whether or not it

is actually being imported at the time).

19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(i). To organize our analysis, we discuss the applicable statutory threat factors using the

same volume/price/impact framework that applies to a material injury analysis. Statutory threat factors (I), (II), (III),

(V), and (VI) are discussed in the analysis of subject import volume. Statutory threat factor (IV) is discussed in the

price effects analysis, and statutory threat factor (IX) is discussed in the impact analysis. Statutory threat factor

(VII) is inapplicable, as no imports of agricultural products are involved in these investigations. There was no

argument that the industry is currently engaging or will imminently engage in any efforts to develop a derivative or

more advanced version of the domestic like product, which would implicate statutory threat factor (VIII).

 131 In its final countervailing duty determination, Commerce found the following eleven programs to be

countervailable: provision of wire rod for less than adequate remuneration (“LTAR”), provision of hot-rolled steel

for LTAR, provision of land for LTAR, provision of electricity for LTAR, ‘‘Two Free, Three Half’’ Program,

income tax benefits for foreign-invested enterprises based on geographic location, income tax exemption for

investors in designated geographical regions within Liaoning Province, import tariff and VAT exemptions for

foreign invested entities and certain domestic enterprises using imported equipment in encouraged industries, VAT

refunds for foreign-invested enterprises purchasing domestically produced equipment, international market

exploration fund, and income tax credits for foreign invested entities on purchases of domestically produced

equipment. CR at I-6, PR at I-5-6. Commerce found the following net subsidy rates: 3.55 percent for Dalian

Eastfound Metal Products Co., Ltd. and Dalian Eastfound Material Handling Products Co., Ltd.; 1.52 percent for

Dalian Huameilong Metal Products Co., Ltd.; 437.11 percent for non-cooperative Chinese firms; and 2.54 percent

for all others (PRC-wide). Id. 

 132 CR/PR at Tables IV-3, C-1. U.S. shipments of subject imports in 2009 included a substantial drawdown of

importers’ inventories of subject imports. CR/PR at Table VII-2. As a result, the decline in subject imports was

even greater in 2009 than the decline in subject import shipments. Specifically, after increasing slightly from ***

pounds in 2006 to *** pounds in 2007, subject imports declined to *** pounds in 2008 and *** pounds in 2009, for

a 2008-2009 decline of *** percent. CR/PR at Table IV-2.

21
to find that this pattern will not continue.133 Consequently, we find that the volume and market share of

subject imports are not likely to increase substantially in the imminent future. 

We acknowledge that Chinese producers are export oriented, exporting all of their wire decking

production, and that the United States was the destination for a large share of their exports during the

period examined. Exports to the United States as a share of Chinese producers’ total exports, however,

had already begun to decline in 2008 as Chinese exports of wire decking to third country markets

accounted for an increasing share of total Chinese exports. The share exported to the United States

continued to decline in 2009, as exports to third countries continued to account for an increasing share of

total exports notwithstanding the slowdown of the global economy.134

Although there appears to be substantial capacity to produce wire decking in China, Chinese

capacity declined over the period examined and was already declining before the petitions in these

investigations were filed and before demand in the United States dropped steeply in 2009.135 136 Further,

there appears to be only limited excess capacity to increase production of wire decking in China. Chinese

producers were producing *** throughout the period examined and had a capacity utilization rate of ***

percent at the end of the period.137 138

Importers’ inventories of subject imports are currently at a relatively *** compared with

inventories in prior years and, as a ratio to total import shipments, are at the *** period examined.139

Chinese producers’ ending inventories fluctuated over the period examined but declined overall.140 Two

 133 CR/PR at Tables IV-4, C-1. The ratio of subject imports to U.S. production increased from *** percent in

2006 to *** percent in 2007 before declining to *** percent in 2008 and *** percent in 2009, for an overall decline

of *** percentage points. CR/PR at Table IV-5. 

 134 Subject producers’ exports to the United States accounted for *** percent of their total exports in 2006, ***

percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008, and *** percent in 2009. CR/PR at Table VII-1.

 135 After increasing from *** pounds in 2006 to *** pounds in 2007, Chinese producers’ wire decking capacity

declined to *** pounds in 2008 and *** pounds in 2009. CR/PR at Table VII-1. See also CR at VII-4 n.6, PR at

VII-3 n.6 (the largest Chinese producer, Eastfound, reports that it closed one of its two wire decking facilities in

February 2009, that the facility and its equipment were “quite old,” and that to restart it would take a substantial

investment of time and money). 

 136 Petitioners contend, as they did with respect to questionnaire response data from importers, that the Chinese

producers/exporters that responded to the Commission’s foreign producer questionnaire accounted for a smaller

share of total Chinese production of wire decking than was reported by the responding producers. As noted above,

however, it is frequently the case that the Commission receives less than 100 percent cooperation in response to its

questionnaires. We find that the response rate here, even if smaller than the estimates reported, accounts for a

substantial majority of Chinese production and Chinese exports of wire decking to the United States in 2009 (CR at

VII-3), and is similar to the rates the Commission has achieved in other investigations. The shares of Chinese

production and Chinese exports to the United States accounted for by the responding producers/exporters are taken

from questionnaire responses of the Chinese producers, which is the best available record source for information

regarding the Chinese industry.

 137 CR/PR at Table VII-1. Respondents explain that the Chinese producers exceeded their normal *** capacity

when ***. Respondents’ Posthearing Brief, Appendix 1 at 18.

 138 Chinese producers’ capacity utilization was as high as *** percent during the period examined, suggesting that

they ***. CR/PR at Table VII-1.

 139 Importers’ inventories were above *** pounds in 2006, 2007, and 2008, and were *** pounds in 2009. As a

ratio to U.S. import shipments, importers’ inventories were *** percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007, *** percent in

2008, and *** percent in 2009. CR/PR at Table VII-2. 

 140 Chinese producers’ end of period inventories were *** million pounds in 2006, *** million pounds in 2007,

*** million pounds in 2008, and *** million pounds in 2009. As a ratio to total Chinese producers’ shipments,

Chinese producers’ end of period inventories were *** percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008,

(continued...)

22
of the subject producers reported that they produce other products using the same equipment and workers

used to produce wire decking.141 There is no indication, however, that the ability to shift production from

other products to wire decking was a significant factor in subject producers’ production or export trends

during the period examined. Nor is there any indication that they would rely on product shifting to

increase exports to the United States in the imminent future. Moreover, wire decking is not the subject of

any import relief investigations or findings in any other country.

Based on the above, we conclude that there is no likelihood of substantially increased imports of

subject merchandise, particularly not as a share of apparent U.S. consumption, in the imminent future.

Moreover, as discussed above, the largest U.S. importer of subject wire decking during the period

examined ceased operations, dismantled a large share of its operations and facilities, and sold its

remaining assets to Worldwide in 2010. Worldwide reports that to date it has not imported subject

merchandise and that wire decking is not the sole focus of its sales and service operations.142 We find that

this evolution in the wire decking importation infrastructure is an additional factor weighing against the

likelihood of significantly increasing subject imports in the imminent future. 

Accordingly, we find it is not likely that subject imports will increase to a level that would be

injurious to the domestic industry in the imminent future. 

We find, moreover, that subject imports are not entering at prices that are likely to have a

significant depressing or suppressing effect on domestic prices. We observe that underselling by subject

imports did not adversely affect domestic producers’ prices during the period examined. Nothing on the

record indicates that conditions of competition in the U.S. market or importers’ pricing practices will

change significantly from those during the period examined to such an extent that the likely volume of

subject imports would have a significant adverse effect on domestic producers’ prices in the imminent

future.

There is also no evidence, notwithstanding the industry’s vulnerability, that subject imports will

have significant negative effects on the performance of the domestic industry. There is simply no

indication that the conditions of competition prevailing during the period examined will change

significantly in the imminent future. Given our conclusion that subject imports will not imminently

increase substantially above the non-injurious market shares they held during the period examined and

will not likely have significant adverse price effects, we find that subject imports will not likely have a

significant adverse impact on the performance of the domestic industry. Therefore, we find that material

injury by reason of subject imports will not occur absent issuance of an antidumping duty order or

countervailing duty order against subject imports. Accordingly, we conclude that the domestic wire

decking industry is not threatened with material injury by reason of imports of wire decking from China.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, we determine that an industry in the United States is not materially

injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of wire decking from China that have been

found by the Department of Commerce to be sold in the United States at less than fair value and

subsidized by the Government of China.

 140 (...continued)

and *** percent in 2009. Id. 

 141 CR at II-6, PR at II-4.

 142 CR at IV-2-3, PR at IV-1-2.

23

DISSENTING VIEWS OF COMMISSIONERS 

CHARLOTTE R. LANE AND IRVING A. WILLIAMSON

Based on the record in the final phase of these investigations, we find that an industry in the

United States is materially injured by reason of imports of wire decking from China that have been found

by the Department of Commerce to be subsidized and sold in the United States at less than fair value.

We join with the majority Commission views with regard to: I. Background, II. Domestic Like

Product, III. Domestic Industry, and IV. Legal Standards. We write separately, however, with regard to

material injury by reason of subject imports.

V. MATERIAL INJURY BY REASON OF SUBJECT IMPORTS 1

A. Conditions of Competition and the Business Cycle

The following conditions of competition inform our analysis of whether there is material injury or

threat of material injury by reason of subject imports.

1. Demand Conditions

Wire decking is used in pallet rack systems that are found in industrial and commercial

warehouses. Consequently, demand for wire decking is derived primarily from demand for such rack

systems, which in turn is related to the economy’s industrial output level and, in particular, nonresidential construction.2

When measured by apparent U.S. consumption, wire decking demand declined from *** pounds

of decking in 2006 to *** pounds of decking in 2007, *** pounds in 2008 and *** pounds in 2009, for a

*** percent decrease from 2006 to 2009 and a decrease of *** percent between 2008 and 2009.3

2. Supply Conditions

The domestic industry is the largest source of supply in the U.S. market, but lost market share to

subject imports over the period of investigation. Domestic producers’ market share was *** percent in

2006, *** percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008 and *** percent in 2009.4

 From 2006 to 2007, U.S.

producers lost *** percentage points of market share based on quantity and *** percentage points based

on value. However, from 2007 to 2009, U.S. producers gained *** percentage points based on quantity

and *** percentage points based on value. All of the U.S. industry’s market share gains and losses came

 1 Negligibility under 19 U.S.C§. 1677(24) is not an issue in these investigations. Based on questionnaire

response data and estimates by petitioners and respondents, U.S. imports of wire decking from China were

approximately 95 percent of total U.S. imports of wire decking for the entire period examined. CR at IV-5, PR at V4, CR/PR Table IV-2.

 2

 CR at II-9, PR at II-6 . 

 3

 CR/PR at Table IV-3. The higher demand for wire decking early in the period examined reportedly resulted in

significant part from the growth of big-box retailers, such as Home Depot, Lowe’s, and Wal-Mart, whose

consumption is reported to have dropped off beginning in the fourth quarter of 2008. E.g., Hearing transcript at 126-

27 (Kedaitis). 

 4

 CR/PR at Tables IV-4, C-1.

25
at the expense or gain of U.S. imports from China as U.S. imports from non-subject countries accounted

for approximately 5 percent of total U.S. imports during the period of investigation. 5

U.S. producers’ production capacity substantially exceeded domestic demand throughout the

period of investigation.6

 In 2009, the domestic producers’ production capacity was equivalent to ***

percent of apparent U.S. consumption. Domestic producers’ capacity was 495.4 million pounds of

decking in 2006, 515.4 million pounds of decking in 2007 and 2008, and 500.4 million pounds of decking

in 2009. 

The market share of subject imports fluctuated between years but increased overall, rising from

*** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007, falling to *** percent in 2008, and rising again to *** percent

in 2009.7

 Atlas was the largest reporting U.S. importer of subject wire decking, accounting for *** of

reported subject imports throughout the period of investigation, and *** percent of reported subject

imports from China in 2009. Atlas was the exclusive North American importer and distributor of wire

decking from the Chinese producer Eastfound.8

 Atlas has purchased wire decking from U.S. producers in

the past and reported that it purchased the domestic product when it could not obtain wire decking from

China, when domestic producers offered shorter lead times, or when a domestic product was priced below

subject imports.9

 Nashville Wire, the largest U.S. producer of wire decking, also imported wire decking. 

It accounted for *** percent of total subject imports in 2008 and then dropped to *** percent in 2009.10

3. Substitutability and Other Factors

Subject imports and domestic products are highly substitutable.11 All responding domestic

producers and importers, and 16 of 20 responding purchasers of wire decking reported that the U.S.

product and the subject imports are always or frequently interchangeable.12

Wire decking is a commodity product, sold largely on the basis of price. Six of 8 responding

domestic producers reported that there are never significant differences other than price between U.S.

product and subject imports. Responses from importers and purchasers varied, but the most frequent

response from both importers and purchasers was that there are only sometimes significant differences

other than price between wire decking produced in the United States and the subject imports.13 Price is

reported to be very important to purchasing decisions. According to 23 of 25 responding purchasers and

13 of 20 responding purchasers, price is the most important factor in the purchasing decision.14

Throughout the period of investigation, the majority of U.S. shipments by both domestic

producers and importers of subject product were to distributors.15 The majority of reporting purchasers

reported that their customers are only “sometimes” or “rarely” aware of or interested in the country of

 5 CR at IV-8, PR at IV-5. 

 6

 CR/PR at III-2 , Table III-2, C-1.

 7

 CR/PR at Tables IV-4, C-1.

 8 Respondents’ Postconference Brief at 1.

 9

 Conference Transcript at 123, 126, 176 (Kedaitis); Petitioners’ Postconference Brief at 25

 10 CR/PR at Tables III-4, IV-2.

 11 CR at II-8, PR at II-4.

 12 CR/PR at Table II-7. Further, 7 of 8 U.S. producers, 6 of 7 importers, and 9 of 20 purchasers reported that the

U.S. product and the subject imports are always interchangeable.

 13 CR/PR at Table II-8.

 14 CR/PR at Table II-5 and Table II-3.

 15 CR/PR at Table II-1. 

26
origin of wire decking.16 All responding domestic producers and 3 of 7 responding importers reported

selling wire decking nation-wide. Two importers serve the Midwest, one the Southeast, and one the

Central Southwest, the Pacific Coast and the Mountain Region.17

There are few viable substitutes for wire decking. Although 2 of 6 producers, 3 of 4 importers,

and 16 of 22 responding purchasers reported that there are substitutes for wire decking, only *** and ***

of 31 responding purchasers reported that changes in the prices of substitute products affected the price of

wire decking.18 Domestic producers argued that although there are products that could be substituted for

wire decking there are no real practical substitutes for wire decking in the U.S. market.19 The industry

indicated that wire decking is required by insurance companies for commercial storage systems and that it

is the “standard” for industrial and commercial storage.20 This lack of viable substitutes in the U.S.

market contributes to the relatively low price elasticity of demand of -.25 to -.75 for wire decking

estimated in the Commission’s Final Report.21

Raw materials account for a large share of the cost of production of wire decking. For domestic

producers of wire decking, raw materials accounted for 68.4 percent of the cost of goods sold (COGS) in

2006. The share of COGS accounted for by raw materials increased to 69.6 percent in 2007, 73.7 percent

in 2008, and declined to 63.7 percent in 2009.22 Because of volatility in raw materials costs, wire decking

is typically sold on a spot basis or on short-term contracts, with about half of sales taking place on a spot

basis.23

B. Volume of the Subject Imports

In evaluating the volume of subject imports, section 771(7)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act provides that

the “Commission shall consider whether the volume of imports of the merchandise, or any increase in that

volume, either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States, is

significant.”24

We find that the volume of subject imports was significant, both in absolute terms, and relative to

production and consumption in the United States. The volume of subject imports increased from ***

pounds in 2006 to *** pounds in 2007 and then declined to *** pounds in 2008 and *** pounds in

2009.25 The market share of subject imports increased by *** percent over the period of investigation. 

Subject import market share increased from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007, declined to ***

percent in 2007, and finally increased to *** percent in 2009.26 Subject imports’ market share reached a

maximum of *** percent in the first quarter of 2009, as a decline in demand for wire decking reduced

 16 CR at II-16, PR at II- 11. 

 17 CR/PR at II-1. 

 18 One additional purchaser, *** was reported to have identified a substitute for wire decking, but the product,

***, is an input into *** wire decking, not a substitute product. 

 19 Hearing transcript at 16 (Rollins).

 20 Hearing transcript at 17 (Rollins) (“The open mesh design provides a low weight, high strength design that

permits light and water from an overhead sprinkler system to pass through, a very important feature for fire

protection. For these reasons, wire decking is duly required by insurance companies and building codes for use in

commercial storage systems. Wire decking is now the standard for industry and commercial storage.”)

 21 CR at II-21, PR at II-14.

 22 CR/PR at Table VI-3.

 23 CR at V-2, PR at V-1; Hearing transcript 61-66 (Mack, Rollins, Chamberlin, and Young).

 24 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(i).

 25 CR/PR at Table IV-2.

 26 CR/PR at Table IV-4.

27
overall U.S. consumption.27 The ratio of the quantity of subject imports to U.S. production increased

from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007 and then declined to *** percent in 2008, and ***

percent in 2009.28

The record data on the volume of subject imports over the period examined is understated, as not

all importers of subject wire decking from China responded to the Commission's importer questionnaire. 

The Commission sent out 36 importer questionnaires in this final investigation, but received only seven

usable importer responses and five responses indicating the companies did not import. Of the 24

unresponsive importers, petitioners assert that twelve accounted for a significant volume of subject

imports. Petitioners further assert that the under-reporting of subject import volume and market share

increased over the period of investigation, as distributors that purchased wire decking from Atlas in 2006

and 2007 began bypassing master distributors like Atlas and importing directly in 2008 and 2009.29

The respondents, on the other hand, assert that the existence of significant non-responding

importers is overstated. Nevertheless, the respondent ***.30

We find that the decline in the reported subject import market share in 2008 was due in large part

to the domestic industry’s strategy of keeping its prices low in order to meet import competition.31 As

explained during the hearing, domestic producers increased prices in 2008 by less than their increases in

cost, in order to regain market share. This strategy contributed to the increase in the ratio of COGS to net

sales in 2008.32 Absent the domestic producers’ aggressive response to the subject imports, the volume of

subject import shipments in 2008 likely would have been higher and the domestic industry likely would

have lost more sales and market share.

We also evaluate the volume of the subject imports in the context of a market experiencing

declining apparent U.S. consumption. As discussed below with respect to price effects, the subject

imports significantly undersold the domestic product, leading to declines in the domestic industry’s sales

and shipments beyond what would have otherwise occurred in a shrinking market. Additionally, despite

the decrease in the volume of subject imports in 2009, the subject imports maintained a significant

presence in the declining U.S. market, particularly in light of the price effects described below.

Based on the foregoing, we find that the volume of subject imports is significant, both in absolute

terms and relative to consumption and production in the United States.

C. Price Effects of the Subject Imports

In evaluating the price effects of the subject imports, section 771(7)(C)(ii) of the Tariff Act

provides that the Commission shall consider whether –

 (I) there has been significant price underselling by the imported merchandise as

compared with the price of domestic like products of the United States, and

 (II) the effect of imports of such merchandise otherwise depresses prices to a significant

degree or prevents price increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a significant

degree.33

 27 Preliminary CR/PR at Table IV-5. 

 28 CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 29 Hearing transcript at 57 (Cannon). 

 30 Petitioners’ Final Comments, page 4. 

 31 Hearing transcript at 46 (Beck) and 53 (Cannon).

 32 CR/PR Table VI-1. 

 33 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(ii).

28
For product specific price comparisons, the Commission examined six different products. The

Commission obtained pricing comparisons for products one through five in all sixteen quarters of 2006

through 2009.34 The Commission obtained pricing comparisons for product six in thirteen of the sixteen

quarters of 2006 through 2009.35 Out of 93 total quarterly pricing comparisons, the imported subject

product undersold the domestic product in 85 quarters, or in 91 percent of the quarters for which pricing

information was gathered. The average margins of underselling were significant, ranging from ***

percent for product six to *** percent for product one.36 The average margin of underselling for all

pricing comparisons was *** percent.37 

The domestic industry reported a significant number of instances of lost sales and lost revenue

attributed to subject imports from China. The lost sales allegations totaled *** and the lost revenue

allegations totaled ***. Staff contacted 64 purchasers that had been mentioned in lost sales or lost

revenue allegations and received responses from 28 of those purchasers. Lost sales of *** (approximately

***) were confirmed. Of the lost revenue allegations, *** (approximately ***) were confirmed.38 The

Commission received neither confirmation nor denial of a significant share of the lost sales and lost

revenue allegations. Of the total lost sales allegations, approximately *** percent were neither confirmed

nor denied. Out of the total lost revenue allegations, approximately *** were neither confirmed nor

denied. 

Based on the data for the products examined, weighted average prices for domestically produced

wire decking were relatively flat from January 2006 through 2007. The prices then increased to mid-2008

and declined during the remainder of 2008 and 2009 to levels similar to 2006.39 Prices for imports from

China closely followed this pattern but were consistently lower than the prices for domestically produced

decking. The trend in prices in the pricing products is consistent with the trend in the annual average unit

value of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, which dropped from $0.56 per pound in 2006 to $0.55 per

pound in 2007, increased to $0.65 per pound in 2008 and then fell back to $0.57 per pound in 2009.40

While there is some evidence of price depression in the data, such evidence is mixed since the domestic

industry was able to increase prices to some degree during the period of investigation. However, there is

clear and consistent evidence of price suppression. The cost of goods sold for the domestic industry

dropped from $0.49 cents per pound in 2006 to $0.48 cents per pound in 2007, increased to $0.60 per

pound in 2008 before dropping to $0.53 cents per pound in 2009.41 A comparison of the changes in the

unit value of sales to the unit COGS demonstrates price suppression as the domestic industry was unable

to increase prices to equal the increase in the COGS in 2008, and reduced prices by more than the decline

in its COGS in 2009. The ratio of COGS to net sales moved against the domestic industry throughout the

period of investigation. This ratio increased in every year from 2006 through 2009, going from 87.1

percent in 2006 to 93.5 percent in 2009.42 The domestic industry attributed its inability to hold price

levels or to increase prices to cover increased costs to competition from low-priced subject imports.43

 34 CR/PR at Tables V-1 through V-5.

 35 CR/PR at Table V-6.

 36 CR/PR at Table V-8.

 37 CR/PR at Table V-8.

 38 CR at V-18. PR at V-7

 39 CR at V-16. PR at V-IV-2.

 40 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 41 Id.

 42 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 43 Hearing transcript at 91-92 (Wagner) and 92-93 (Selhorst). 

29
In sum, we find that subject imports undersold the domestic like product and suppressed prices to

a significant extent.

D. Impact of the Subject Imports on the Domestic Industry44

In examining the impact of subject imports, section 771(7)(C)(iii) of the Tariff Act provides that

the Commission “shall evaluate all relevant economic factors which have a bearing on the state of the

industry.”45 These factors include output, sales, inventories, ability to raise capital, research and

development, and factors affecting domestic prices. No single factor is dispositive and all relevant factors

are considered “within the context of the business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive

to the affected industry.”46

The industry exhibited significant indicia of material injury during the period of investigation. 

The trade, operations and financial data for the domestic industry throughout the period of investigation

point to a decline which accelerated near the end of the period of investigation. We recognize that this

performance coincided with a period of declining demand and a shift in the U.S. economy to an

unprecedented recessionary economic collapse in late 2008 through 2009. However, we must carefully

consider to what extent the declines in operating and financial indicia of performance for the domestic

industry are due to competition from subject imports, and whether subject imports contributed to the poor

performance of the domestic industry in more than a minimal or tangential way. 

The U.S. industry's capacity was relatively stable throughout the period of investigation, from

495.4 million pounds in 2006 to 500.4 million pounds in 2009.47 Production, on the other hand, declined

significantly; falling from 304.6 million pounds in 2006 to 274.1 million pounds in 2008, and 152.3

million pounds in 2009, or by 50 percent.48 As a result of this decline in production, capacity utilization

declined steadily from 2006 to 2009, from 61.5 percent in 2006 to 30.4 percent in 2009.49 Net sales

quantities of domestic product showed similar declines, falling from 318.0 million pounds in 2006 to

155.6 million pounds in 2009.50

Since the absolute declines in production and sales are closely associated with the large drop in

U.S. consumption over the period of review, a clearer picture of the performance of domestic producers

relative to the market can be derived by looking at changes in market shares relative to U.S. consumption. 

The market share held by domestic producers dropped from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2009

on a volume basis. On a value basis, the market share of domestic producers dropped from *** percent in

2006 to *** percent in 2009. The market share for subject imports from China increased over the period

of investigation, going from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2009 on a volume basis and from ***

 44 We have considered the magnitude of the dumping margins found by Commerce. In its final determinations of

sales at LTFV, Commerce found a weighted-averaged dumping margin of 17.75 percent for Dalian Huameilong;

14.24 percent for Dalian Eastfound; 16.00 percent for Globsea Co., Dalian Yutein, Dalian Xingbo, Ningbo

Xinguang, and Dandong Riqian; and 143.00 percent for all others. CR at I-5, PR at I-4.

 45 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii); see also SAA at 851 and 885 (“In material injury determinations, the Commission

considers, in addition to imports, other factors that may be contributing to overall injury. While these factors, in

some cases, may account for the injury to the domestic industry, they also may demonstrate that an industry is facing

difficulties from a variety of sources and is vulnerable to dumped or subsidized imports.”). 

 46 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii); see also SAA at 851, 885; Live Cattle from Canada and Mexico, Inv. Nos. 701-

TA-386, 731-TA-812-813 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3155 at 25 n.148 (Feb. 1999).

 47 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 48 Id.

 49 Id.

 50 Id.

30
percent to *** percent on a value basis. Non subject imports made up the balance of market share at a

relatively stable and small share of less than *** percent and were not a significant factor in the market.51

The number of production related workers declined during the period of investigation from 652 to

361, or a 44.6 percent decrease. Wages paid declined even more, dropping by 47.7 percent. Productivity

remained relatively flat, dropping by only 1 percent from 2006 to 2009, from 225.8 pounds per hour

worked to 223.5 pounds per hour worked. Average unit labor cost changes did not contribute to declining

financial performance of the domestic industry as it held at a steady $0.07 per pound of production.52 

Domestic industry capital expenditures and R&D expenses declined substantially. Capital

expenditures dropped by 63.5 percent between 2006 and 2009, going from $3.6 million down to $1.3

million. R&D expenses dropped by *** percent, falling from *** to ***.53

Other important financial indices reflect a domestic industry that was performing poorly

throughout the period of investigation. Operating income declined from a positive $11.3 million in 2006

to a loss of $4.7 million in 2009. The ratio of operating income to sales declined from 6.3 percent in 2006

to a negative 5.3 percent in 2009.54 The ratio of operating income to total assets dropped from 8.7 percent

in 2006 to a negative 4.6 percent in 2009.55 Cash flow similarly declined, from a positive $15.2 million in

2006 to a negative $1.9 million in 2009.56 

The Commission received financial data from seven domestic producers for the period of

investigation. Of those, three reported operating losses in 2006, four reported operating losses in 2007

and 2008 and five reported operating losses in 2009. In all cases, the net operating income ratio to sales

declined from the beginning to the end of the period of investigation. Companies reporting positive ratios

of operating income to sales in 2006 all showed declines through the period of investigation and

companies that reported losses in 2006 reported even greater relative losses into 2009.57 

It is clear that the domestic industry suffered material injury during the period of investigation. 

However, it is necessary to determine the extent to which the injury can be attributed to subject imports.

In order to determine whether more than an incidental portion of the material injury experienced

by the domestic industry is attributable to subject imports it is necessary to consider the likely effects on

the domestic industry if subject imports had been fairly traded in the U.S. market. In order to determine

the likely effect on the domestic industry we consider the conditions of competition as they relate to the

ability of the U.S. industry to beneficially increase gross revenue, net operating income and employment,

through some combination of increased sales volumes and/or prices, if subject imports had been traded at

higher prices reflecting their fair value in the U.S. market. 

Supply conditions provide an indication of how producers can respond to opportunities to

increase production if there is an opportunity to increase sales. Whether, and to what extent, producers

can respond to increased sales opportunities depends on their existing excess capacity, their ability to

divert product from export markets back into the domestic market, the magnitude of inventory levels

which are available for sale in the domestic market, or their ability to divert production from other

product(s). In this case, the excess capacity of the domestic industry was the most significant supply

condition indicating the ability to take advantage of sales opportunities. 

The domestic industry's rate of capacity utilization was low, and declining, throughout the period

of investigation. Capacity utilization ranged from a high of 61.5 percent in 2006 to a low of 30.4 percent

 51 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 52 Id.

 53 CR/PR at Table VI-5.

 54 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 55 CR/PR at Table VI-7.

 56 CR/PR at Table VI-1.

 57 Id.

31
in 2009. The unused capacity available to increase production in response to more favorable sales

opportunities that would have been created if subject imports had been fairly traded ranged from a low of

*** pounds in 2006 to *** pounds in 2009. These data indicate that the domestic industry had significant

amounts of unused capacity with which it could have increased production in the event of favorable

market conditions.

 An analysis of the domestic supply factors indicates that the elasticity of domestic supply of wire

decking is relatively high, due to high levels of unused capacity. This finding is consistent with the

Commission Staff's Final Report which suggests a domestic supply elasticity in the range of 3 to 5.58 If

anything, this is a conservative range and the unused capacity of the domestic industry even at its lowest

level would indicate a supply elasticity at the high end of that range, or above.

An analysis of demand conditions considers options that are available to purchasers and how they

are likely to respond to changes in market conditions, such as increased prices. The price that purchasers

are willing and able to pay for wire decking will depend on a number of factors including the cost of

decking relative to the value of the products or processes that use decking, the availability of substitute

products, and purchasers' collective market power to resist price increases.

It is likely that changes in the price level of wire decking would result in a small change in the

quantity demanded. There are some, but limited, alternative products that can be substituted for wire

decking in the U.S. market. Moreover, although wire decking may represent a relatively high portion of

the cost of shelving units that the decking is used for, the wire decking component of total costs is not

likely to be a significant portion of the warehousing and commercial storage operations that use wire

decking. The Commission Final Report confirms this analysis and suggests a “moderate demand

elasticity” in the range of -0.25 to -0.75.59 Although the term “moderate demand elasticity” is used in the

Report, we note that when the price elasticity of demand is less than unity (1.0) elasticity is usually said to

be inelastic or relatively inelastic, as a change in price will lead to a relatively smaller change in the

quantity demanded.

An important substitution factor unrelated to the ability of purchasers to substitute alternate

products for wire decking is the ability of purchasers to substitute imported wire decking for domestic

decking. If purchasers place a premium on price, a high elasticity of substitution for imported product

would indicate that purchasers would be likely to move to lower-priced imports in response to increases

in domestic price. This factor is important in two respects. One, to determine whether any imports,

including subject imports, would be an important factor in holding down domestic price increases, and

two, to determine whether increases in prices of subject imports would result in shifts to domestic

decking, non-subject imports, or both. 

In response to Commission questionnaires, price was reported by 20 out of 22 responding

purchasers as being either the first, second, or third most important factor affecting purchasing decisions. 

This price sensitivity is important because it indicates that, although there is a low price elasticity of

demand for this product, purchasers are still likely to seek the lowest prices available.

In addition to price, purchasers also place a premium on product availability, delivery times,

consistency, quality, and reliability of supply. These factors were identified as "very important" the

greatest number of times by purchasers. Domestic producers, importers and purchasers generally

considered U.S. product and Chinese subject product to be either always or frequently interchangeable. 

Domestic producers and importers had a similar view of non-subject imports, whereas purchasers were

mixed on whether non-subject decking was interchangeable with U.S. decking. Overall, the record

indicates that there is a relatively high degree of substitutability between domestic wire decking, subject

imports and non-subject imports. This finding is consistent with the Commission Staff's Final Report

 58 CR at II-21, PR at II-14.

 59 Id.

32
which suggests a relatively high substitution elasticity in the range of 3 to 5 between domestic wire

decking and imported wire decking.60

Overall, the record indicates that lower priced subject imports were being substituted for higher

priced domestic wire decking from 2006 through 2009. The record further indicates that non-subject

imports were not a significant factor in the market and, to some degree, may be less substitutable for the

domestic product. It is likely that if subject import prices had increased to levels where they would have

been considered to be fairly traded, the response would have been higher prices for all suppliers in the

U.S. market which would have been offset by only a relatively small change in the quantity demanded. 

Given the range of domestic supply elasticity, price elasticity, and substitution elasticities, along

with the importance of price in purchasing decisions, the data supports a finding that the shift in demand

away from subject imports that would have occurred if subject imports had been fairly traded would have

resulted in reduced market share for the subject imports and an increase in market share for domestic wire

decking. In addition to increased market share, the domestic industry would have benefitted from the

ability to increase prices if subject imports had been fairly traded. Several domestic producers noted that

competition from low-priced subject imports had suppressed prices in the U.S. market over the POI, and

that since the filing of these cases there had been a decline in sales of low-priced subject imports such that

domestic producers had been able to increase prices in order to pass on raw materials cost increases.61

Even though the domestic industry was experiencing declining financial results due to a general

economic decline that started in late 2008 and continued through 2009, it is clear that the significant

volume of low priced, unfairly traded, subject imports contributed to the injury to the domestic industry. 

Considering the relatively inelastic demand, the elastic domestic supply, the importance of price in

purchasing decisions and the relatively high substitution elasticity between domestic and Chinese wire

decking, the increased volumes and prices that would have been achieved by the domestic industry if

subject imports had been fairly traded would not have been inconsequential or trivial. Since the domestic

industry was unable to compete for these increased volumes and increased prices in the face of unfairly

traded subject imports, we find that the injury caused by those imports was not minimal or tangential. 

While there may have been other causes of injury affecting the domestic industry we find that subject

imports in and by themselves were a significant contributor to the injury experienced by the domestic

industry.

CONCLUSION

Based on the record in these final phase investigations, we conclude that subject imports had an

adverse impact on the condition of the domestic industry during the period of investigation. In particular,

we find that the absolute and relative volumes of subject imports were significant and that subject imports

consistently and significantly undersold the domestic product. The magnitude of the volume captured by

unfairly traded imports and price effects of those imports, which suppressed domestic prices, has

contributed to the poor financial performance of the domestic industry over the period of investigation. 

The record indicates that prices in the U.S. market would have been higher in the absence of unfairly

traded subject imports. The data also confirms that a shift in demand away from subject imports would

have occurred if those imports had been fairly traded and that the decline in sales by subject imports

would have predominately benefitted domestic producers of wire decking. Thus, if subject imports had

been fairly traded there would have been a beneficial impact on the domestic industry, either in price

increases, volume increases, or both. For these reasons, we find that an industry in the United States is

materially injured by reason of imports of wire decking from China that have been found by Commerce to

be sold in the United States at less than fair value and subsidized by the Government of China. 

 60 Id.

 61 Hearing transcript at 34-35 (Chamberlin), 43-44 (Young), 62 (Mack), 93 (Selhorst). 

33

PART I: INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

These investigations result from a petition filed on June 5, 2009, by AWP Industries, Inc.

(“AWP”) of Frankfort, KY; ITC Manufacturing, Inc. (“ITC”) of Phoenix, AZ; J&L Wire Cloth, Inc.

(“J&L”) of St. Paul, MN; Nashville Wire Products Mfg. Co., Inc. (“Nashville Wire”) of Nashville, TN;

and Wireway Husky Corp. (“Wireway”) of Denver, NC, alleging that an industry in the United States is

materially injured and is threatened with continued material injury by reason of imports from China of

wire decking1

 that are allegedly sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”) and subsidized

by the Government of China. Information relating to the background of these investigations is provided

below.2

Effective date Action

June 5, 2009 Petition filed with Commerce and the Commission; Commission institutes investigations

(74 FR 27823, June 11, 2009)

July 2, 2009 Initiation of countervailing duty investigation by Commerce (74 FR 31700)

July 2, 2009 Initiation of antidumping investigations by Commerce (74 FR 31691)

July 27, 2009 Commission’s preliminary determinations (74 FR 38229, July 31, 2009)

November 9, 2009 Commerce’s preliminary countervailing duty determination (74 FR 57629)

January 12, 2010 Commerce’s preliminary antidumping duty determination (75 FR 1597)

January 25, 2010 Commission’s scheduling of its final phase investigations (75 FR 4584, January 28, 2010)

May 27, 2010 Commission’s hearing1

June 10, 2010 Commerce’s final antidumping (75 FR 32905) and countervailing duty (75 FR 32902)

determinations

July 1, 2010 Commission’s vote

July 26, 2010 Commission’s determinations and views transmitted to Commerce

 1

 App. B contains a list of witnesses who appeared at the hearing.

 1 A complete description of the imported product subject to these investigations is presented in the section

entitled The Subject Product located in Part I of this report.

 2 Federal Register notices cited in the tabulation, which were published subsequent to January 25, 2010, are

presented in app. A.

I-1
STATUTORY CRITERIA AND ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

Statutory Criteria

Section 771(7)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the “Act”) (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)) provides that in

making its determinations of injury to an industry in the United States, the Commission–

shall consider (I) the volume of imports of the subject

merchandise, (II) the effect of imports of that merchandise on

prices in the United States for domestic like products, and (III)

the impact of imports of such merchandise on domestic

producers of domestic like products, but only in the context of

production operations within the United States; and . . . may

consider such other economic factors as are relevant to the

determination regarding whether there is material injury by

reason of imports.

Section 771(7)(C) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)) further provides that--

In evaluating the volume of imports of merchandise, the

Commission shall consider whether the volume of imports of the

merchandise, or any increase in that volume, either in absolute

terms or relative to production or consumption in the United

States is significant.

. . .

In evaluating the effect of imports of such merchandise on

prices, the Commission shall consider whether . . . (I) there has

been significant price underselling by the imported merchandise

as compared with the price of domestic like products of the

United States, and (II) the effect of imports of such merchandise

otherwise depresses prices to a significant degree or prevents

price increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a

significant degree.

. . .

In examining the impact required to be considered under

subparagraph (B)(i)(III), the Commission shall evaluate (within

the context of the business cycle and conditions of competition

that are distinctive to the affected industry) all relevant

economic factors which have a bearing on the state of the

industry in the United States, including, but not limited to

. . . 

(I) actual and potential declines in output, sales, market share,

profits, productivity, return on investments, and utilization of

capacity, (II) factors affecting domestic prices, (III) actual and

potential negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment,

wages, growth, ability to raise capital, and investment, (IV)

actual and potential negative effects on the existing development

and production efforts of the domestic industry, including efforts

to develop a derivative or more advanced version of the domestic

like product, and (V) in {an antidumping investigation}, the

magnitude of the margin of dumping.

I-2
Organization of the Report

Information on the subject merchandise, alleged margins of dumping and subsidies, and domestic

like product is presented in Part I. Information on conditions of competition and other relevant economic

factors is presented in Part II. Part III presents information on the condition of the U.S. industry,

including data on capacity, production, shipments, inventories, and employment. The volume and pricing

of imports of the subject merchandise are presented in Parts IV and V, respectively. Part VI presents

information on the financial experience of U.S. producers. Information obtained for use in the

Commission’s consideration of the question of threat of material injury is presented in Part VII.

U.S. MARKET SUMMARY

The U.S. market for wire decking totaled *** pounds and approximately *** in 2009. Currently,

eleven firms produce wire decking in the United States. Five of these firms are the petitioners and consist

of AWP, ITC, J&L, Nashville Wire, and Wireway. At least seven firms have reported importing wire

decking from China since 2006, although Atlas Material Handling, Inc. (“Atlas”) accounted for the

majority of these imports throughout the period of investigation.

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of wire decking totaled 151 million pounds valued at $85 million

in 2009, and accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity (*** percent by value). 

U.S. shipments of imports from China totaled *** pounds valued at $*** in 2009, and accounted for ***

percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity (*** percent by value). U.S. shipments of imports

from all other sources combined are estimated to total *** pounds valued at $*** in 2009, and accounted

for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity (*** percent by value). Wire decking is

generally used in commercial and industrial storage (warehouse) systems and consists of a wire mesh self

supported by steel support crossbeams. Wire decking is purchased by material handling distributors,

industrial shelf rack manufacturers, and big-box retailers.

SUMMARY DATA AND DATA SOURCES

A summary of data collected in these investigations is presented in appendix C, table C-1. U.S.

industry data are based on the questionnaire responses of the seven firms that accounted for virtually all

U.S. production of wire decking in 2009. Data for U.S. imports from China are compiled using responses

to U.S. importer questionnaires. Data for U.S. imports from nonsubject countries are estimated to be

approximately 5 percent of total U.S. imports.3

 Data regarding the Chinese industry are based on 4

foreign producer questionnaires which collectively accounted for approximately *** percent of Chinese

exports to the United States in 2009. One producer in China, Dalian Eastfound Material Handling

Products Co., Ltd and its related company, Dalian Eastfound Metal Products Co., Ltd. (collectively

“Eastfound”), reported that it accounted for approximately *** percent of Chinese export shipments to the

United States in 2009.4

 3 In the preliminary phase of these investigations, both petitioners and respondents agreed that during the period

of investigation, U.S. imports from nonsubject countries accounted for approximately 5 percent of total U.S. imports. 

As in the preliminary phase, ***. Thus, staff used the estimate of 5 percent of total U.S. imports for volume and

value of such imports.

 4

 Export shipments reported by responding Chinese producers were equivalent to *** percent of reported U.S.

imports from China in 2009. Eastfound accounted for *** percent of total reported export shipments to the United

States in 2009.

I-3
PREVIOUS AND RELATED INVESTIGATIONS

Wire decking has not been the subject of any prior antidumping or countervailing duty

investigations in the United States.

NATURE AND EXTENT OF SALES AT LTFV

On June 10, 2010, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register setting forth its final

determination with regard to its antidumping investigations on wire decking from China.5

 Commerce

determined that imports from China are being sold, or are likely to be sold, in the United States at less

than fair value. The weighted-average dumping margins (in percent ad valorem), as reported by

Commerce, are presented in the following tabulation.

Foreign producer/exporter Margin (percent ad valorem)

Dalian Huameilong Metal Products Co., Ltd. 17.75

Dalian Eastfound Metal Products Co., Ltd

Dalian Eastfound Material Handling Products Co., Ltd.

14.24

Globsea Co., Ltd.

Dalian Yutiein Storage Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

Dalian Xingbo Metal Products Co., Ltd.

16.00

Ningbo Xinguang Rack Co., Ltd. 16.00

Dandong Riqian Logistics Equipment Co., Ltd. 16.00

All other (PRC-Wide) 143.00

Source : Wire Decking from the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 75 FR

32905, June 10, 2010.

NATURE OF COUNTERVAILABLE SUBSIDIES

On June 10, 2010, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register setting forth its final

determination with regard to its countervailing duty investigation on wire decking from China.6

Commerce determined that the Government of China is providing countervailable subsidies to Chinese

producers of wire decking. The countervailable subsidy rates (in percent ad valorem), as reported by

Commerce, are presented in the following tabulation.

 5 Wire Decking from the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; 75

FR 32905, June 10, 2010.

 6 Wire Decking from the People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination; 75

FR 32902, June 10, 2010.

I-4
Foreign producer/exporter

Net subsidy rate (percent ad

valorem)

Dalian Eastfound Metal Products Co., Ltd

Dalian Eastfound Material Handling Products Co., Ltd.

3.55

Dalian Huameilong Metal Products Co., Ltd. 1.52

Non-cooperative Chinese firms1 437.11

All other (PRC-Wide) 2.54

 1 Commerce applied adverse inferences to 74 companies in China that did not respond to its questionnaire. Commerce

acknowledged that its list of questionnaire recipients, which was provided by petitioners and derived from HTS numbers that

include many other products than wire decking, included “potential” producers and exporters. Therefore, many of these 74 firms

may not have produced or exported wire decking. For a list of the non-cooperative Chinese firms see Wire Decking from the

People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination; 75 FR 32902, June 10, 2010.

Commerce made the following final determinations regarding specific programs of the

Government of China alleged in the petition to have provided countervailable subsidies to producers of

wire decking in China:

1. Programs Determined to be Countervailable

A. Government Provision of Wire Rod for Less Than Adequate Remuneration (“LTAR”) 

B. Government Provision of Hot-Rolled Steel for LTAR 

C. Provision of Land for LTAR 

D. Provision of Electricity for LTAR 

E. “Two Free, Three Half” Program 

F. Income Tax Benefits for Foreign Invested Entities (“FIEs”) Based on Geographic Location 

G. Income Tax Exemption for Investors in Designated Geographical Regions within Liaoning 

 Province

H. Import Tariff and VAT Exemptions for FIEs and Certain Domestic Enterprises Using 

 Imported Equipment in Encouraged Industries 

I. VAT Refunds for FIEs Purchasing Domestically Produced Equipment 

J. International Market Exploration Fund (SME Fund)

K. Income Tax Credits for FIEs on Purchases of Domestically Produced Equipment

2. Programs Determined To Not Confer Benefits During the POI

A. Provision of Zinc for LTAR 

B. Export Incentive Payments Characterized as “VAT Rebates” 

3. Programs Determined To Be Not Used

A. Loan Programs

1. Honorable Enterprises Program 

2. Preferential Loans for Key Projects and Technologies 

3. Preferential Loans as Part of the Northeast Revitalization Program

4. Policy Loans for Firms Located in Industrial Zones in the City of Dalian in Liaoning

Province

I-5
B. Provision of Goods and Services for Less Than Adequate Remuneration (“LTAR”) 

1. Provision of Water for LTAR for Firms Located in Designated Geographical Areas 

in the City of Dailan in Liaoning Province 

C. Income and Other Direct Taxes 

1. Income Tax Credits for Domestically Owned Companies Purchasing Domestically 

Produced Equipment 

2. Income Tax Exemption for Investment in Domestic “Technological Renovation” 

3. Preferential Income Tax Policy for Enterprises in the Northeast Region 

4. Forgiveness of Tax Arrears for Enterprises in the Old Industrial Bases of Northeast

China 

D. Indirect Tax and Tariff Exemption Programs 

1. Value Added Tax (“VAT”) Deductions on Fixed Assets 

2. VAT Exemptions for Newly Purchased Equipment in the Jinzhou District 

E. Grant Programs 

1. “Five Points, One Line” Program 

2. Export Interest Subsidies 

3. The State Key Technology Project Fund

4. Subsidies for Development of Famous Export Brands and China World Top Brands 

5. Sub-Central Government Programs To Promote Famous Export Brands and China 

World Top Brands 

6. Exemption of Fees for Firms Located in Designated Geographical Areas in the 

City of Dailan in Liaoning Province 

F. Preferential Income Tax Subsidies for Foreign Invested Entities (“FIEs”) 

1. Income Tax Exemption Program for Export-Oriented FIEs 

2. Local Income Tax Exemption and Reduction Programs for “Productive” FIEs

3. Preferential Tax Programs for FIEs Recognized as High or New Technology

Enterprises 

THE SUBJECT PRODUCT

Commerce’s Scope

Commerce has defined the scope of these investigations as follows:

The scope of these investigations 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

I-6
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 (“HTS”). U.S. Customs and Border

Protection has issued a ruling (NY F84777) that wire decking is to be classified under

HTS 9403.90.8040. Wire decking has also been entered under HTS 7217.10, 7217.20,

7326.20, 7326.90, 9403.20.0020 and 9403.20.0030. While HTS subheadings are

provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the written description of the scope of

the investigations is dispositive.

Tariff Treatment

During the period of investigation, wire decking has been classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (“HTS”) under subheading 9403.90.80 (statistical reporting number

9403.90.8040). This HTS subheading is a residual or “basket” subheading covering wire decking and

many other products. Petitioners observed that Customs has issued a ruling (NY F84777) which stated

that wire decking is properly imported under HTS 9403.90.8040, but contend that wire decking may have

also entered the United States under HTS 7217.10, 7217.20, 7326.20, 7326.90, 9403.20.0020, and

9403.20.0030 during the period of investigation.7

 Table I-1 depicts the HTS subheading under which

wire decking is classified and its tariff treatment.

 7 See petition, exh. General-2. In the preliminary phase of these investigations, Atlas, the largest U.S. importer

of wire decking from China, reported that ***.

I-7
Table I-1

Wire decking: Tariff treatment, 2010

HTS provision Article description

General1 Special Column 22

Rates (percent ad valorem)

9403 

 9403.90

 9403.90.80

 9403.90.8040

Other furniture and parts thereof:

 Parts:

 Other......................................

 Of metal.............................

Free 45.0%

 1

 Normal trade relations, formerly known as the most-favored-nation duty rate. 

 2

 Applies to imports from a small number of countries that do not enjoy normal trade relations duty status.

Source: Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2010).

Description and Applications

The subject product, wire decking, is a fabricated decking assembly used to form a shelf surface

in a rack storage system in warehouse, commercial, or industrial storage installations. The purpose is to

provide a surface upon which to place materials that may be on pallets, in containers, or in some other

form.

A decking section comprises a steel wire mesh shelf with attached reinforcing supports ready for

installation on supporting rack framing (Figure I-1) . The wire mesh used for decking is usually 2 inches

by 4 inches or 2 1⁄2 inches by 4 1⁄2 inches. The reinforcing supports are normally roll-formed, hot-rolled

steel supports having a “U” or “V” shape. However, decking sections with other forms of support, such

as tube or solid bar would be included within

the scope. The decking supports are

designed to rest on the front and rear support

beams of the rack framing. There are two

types of support beams commonly used in

storage rack systems: step beams and box

beams. A step beam has two horizontal

surfaces, with the lower, inside surface

providing a support surface for the

reinforcing members of the wire decking

section, whereas a box beam is a simple

rectangular tube with only the top as a

support surface. 

The support members of the wire

decking are of either a type suitable for only

rack systems having step beams, (Figure I-2)

or of a flanged design suitable for rack

systems having box beams (Figure I-3).8

Common wire decking sizes range from 24 to 60 inches in depth and from 34 to 60 inches in width.9

 The

most common size, estimated to represent 35 to 60 percent of the market, is 42 inches in depth by 46

 8 Flanged channel support beams may be used with either box or step beams, and are sometimes referred to as

“universal” support beams for that reason.

 9

 Petitioners state that the domestic industry produces decking as small as 8 inches in depth. Petition, Vol. I, p. 8.

I-8
inches in width.10 Two wire decking sections

of that size are used to shelve an 8-foot wide

bay between upright supports in a storage rack,

and accommodate two standard pallets.11

 Wire decking is produced in a number

of styles. The most common, waterfall, has a

wire mesh deck surface that extends in the

front and back across the top of the rack

support beams and is formed downward in a 90

degree bend to cover about 1.5 inches of the

outside of the support beams. The waterfall

feature helps to hold the decking in position

and minimizes the potential for accidental

displacement of the decking. Other designs,

used with step beams, have a wire mesh

surface that ends inside the step of the beam

and is flush with the upper surface of the beam

(Figure I-4). Such a design might be chosen if

the user wanted an unobstructed front on the

beams for the placement of labels, or wanted a

slightly lighter and less costly decking. 

Another alternative is an upward bend at the

back of the wire mesh surface to provide a

stop, preventing material from being pushed

too far onto the shelf or from accidentally

falling off the shelf.

The size and spacing of the wire used

in the mesh, as well as the number and

characteristics of the support members,

determine the load-bearing capacity of the

decking. For the common 42 inch by 46 inch

decking size mentioned above, the capacity

may range from 2,000 pounds to 3,500 pounds. 

The weight of a single section of decking in the

42 inch by 46 inch size may be from 24 pounds

to 30 pounds.

Another feature of steel decking is the

finish, which affects the appearance and the

corrosion resistance of the product. The

product may be coated with a baked-on enamel

paint or a baked-on spray-powder finish or be

fabricated from galvanized (zinc-coated)

products, or be hot-dipped or electroplated

with zinc after fabrication. According to

petitioners, the zinc electroplated (after

welding) finish is common for Chinese wire

 10 Petition, Vol. I, p. 8.

 11 Petition, Vol. I, p. 8.

I-9
decking, whereas U.S. producers generally use a painted or powder-coated finish.12 Petitioners state that

the finish is irrelevant to customers for the vast majority of sales; nonetheless, all finishes are available

from the U.S. industry.13

Finished wire decking is commonly stacked flat on a wooden pallet for shipping. U.S.

manufacturers of wire decking maintain inventory of common items in warehouses at their manufacturing

locations and in other locations for the purpose of providing quick delivery. Major importers of wire

decking from China also maintain inventory in selectively-located warehouses. 

Wire decking is purchased by big-box retailers for their own stores and warehouses, systems

integrators (companies that equip warehouses and commercial storage spaces and provide all materials

handling needs, including storage racks and decking), catalogue companies, and storage rack

manufacturers. 

Manufacturing Processes

The wire mesh surface of wire decking is produced from steel wire and the support members are

produced from steel sheet. The weight of steel wire is about 60 percent and that of steel sheet is about 40

percent of the total steel used to manufacture wire decking.14

Steel wire in coil form15 is processed through a straighten-and-cut machine to produce individual,

straight wires of the lengths required for the cross wires of the wire mesh decking. Wire is fed from

multiple reels into a wire mesh welding machine and individual cross wires are joined by electricresistance welding at each intersection. Individual sections of decking are cut from the continuously

feeding wire mesh.

Hot-rolled sheet for the support members is received in coil of the required width, typically about

3.5 inches in width and 0.083 inches in thickness. The coiled material is processed through a roll-forming

machine to produce the “U” or “V” section for the support members. Individual support members are cut

to required length as the roll-formed section exits from the roll-forming machine. To produce flanged

support sections, individual support members are formed in a press to the required shape. The support

members and the formed wire mesh deck are placed in a fixture and electric-resistance welded at each

intersection of the support members with the cross wires. The waterfall and/or backstop features are

formed in a press.

After welding, the decking is coated with either a baked-on enamel or a baked-on powder

coating. Decking sections are transported by conveyor through a coating process. An enamel coating

line comprises a cleaning section to remove any residues from the surface, a heat drying oven, a cooling

section, a paint dip section, and a final curing section. A powder coating line comprises a cleaning

section, a drying section, an electrostatic powder spraying section,16 and a final heat curing section. Two

U.S. producers produce galvanized wire decking with a zinc rather than an enamel or powder coated

 12 Petition, Vol. II, p. 5.

 13 Petitioners’ post-conference brief, p. 15.

 14 Conference transcript, p. 94 (Wagner); Hot-dip galvanized decking is reportedly superior in corrosionresistence and is used almost exclusively for outdoor garden centers or warehouse-type refrigeration applications.

Staff field trip report, Nashville Wire Products, March 25, 2010.

 15 Some manufacturers purchase wire from independent wire drawing firms whereas other manufacturers

purchase wire rod and draw the wire to the required diameter as a part of the manufacture of wire decking. Those

manufacturers that draw wire may have other uses for drawn wire, including direct sale of wire, and fabricated

products such as wire mesh, baskets and others. See Conference transcript, pp. 54–59 (Rudolph, Caldwell, Wagner,

Chamberlin, Brandon, Selhorst).

 16 Coating powder is sprayed using an apparatus that causes individual particles of powder to be electrostatically

charged and to be attracted to, and cling to the cleaned decking.

I-10
finish by utilizing galvanized wire and galvanized sheet.17 U.S. producers also have the ability to supply

zinc-electroplated (electrogalvanized) or hot-dip galvanized (after fabrication) wire decking through

outsourcing.18

The process for producing steel decking in China is believed to be essentially the same as that in

the United States, except that the operations are, in general, not as fully automated. Many Chinese

producers do not have painting or powder-coating lines; as a result, much Chinese product is electroplated

with zinc after fabrication, often by a toll-processing electroplater. 

DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT ISSUES

In both the preliminary and final phases of these investigations, no party raised an issue with

respect to the definition of the domestic like product. The petitioners proposed that the Commission

define the domestic like product as all wire decking co-extensive with the scope of these investigations, as

defined by Commerce and that there exists a single domestic industry producing wire decking.19 In the

preliminary phase, respondents concurred with petitioners that all wire decking constituted one domestic

like product.20

In its preliminary determinations, the Commission did find one domestic like product and stated

“Because all wire decking has common physical characteristics and end uses, shares common channels of

distribution, is generally interchangeable, shares common production processes, facilities, and employees,

and appears to be perceived by producers and consumers to be the same product, we find that all wire

decking should be encompassed in a single domestic like product that is coterminous with the scope of

these investigations.”21 

 17 Wire decking produced from galvanized wire and galvanized sheet is not coated after welding.

 18 Petitioners’ postconference brief, Exhibit 9, p. 2.

 19 Petition, Vol. I, pp. 11 and 13.

 20 Conference transcript, p. 134 (Levinson).

 21 Wire Decking From China, Inv. Nos. 701-1-TA-466 and 731-TA-1162 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 4092,

July 2009, p. 7.

I-11

PART II: CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IN THE U.S. MARKET

U.S. MARKET CHARACTERISTICS

Wire decking is sold for use in pallet shelving systems found in warehouses and other locations

where palletized loads are to be stacked vertically such as garden centers and at stores that organize their

goods in warehouse-type manner. They could be typically found at big box stores such as Home Depot,

Wal-Mart, or Lowe’s.1

All eight responding U.S. producers reported selling wire decking nationwide, as did three of

seven responding importers. Of the remaining responding importers, two serve the Midwest, one serves

the South East, and one serves the Central Southwest, the Pacific Coast, and the Mountain region. 

CHANNELS OF DISTRIBUTION

Wire decking is sold to three types of customers: original equipment manufacturers (“OEMs”),

distributors, and end users such as big box stores (e.g., Home Depot, Lowe’s, and Wal-Mart).2

 OEMs

manufacture pallet rack systems that incorporate wire decking and, as such, act much like the other

material handling distributors, which sell a variety of products such as forklifts, conveyors, automated

systems, and other warehouse requirements. One petitioner estimated there to be 1,300 to 1,400 material

handling distributors in the United States.3

 Wire decking is then typically sold to a downstream end user,

and the end users’ requirements vary greatly. Wire decking could be part of an order for a new

warehouse complex, a replacement pallet rack system, or just a small number of replacement pieces. At

the conference during the preliminary phase, one petitioner testified that, “for a particular end user

project, we may get more than one inquiry from several different material handling distributors. The end

user seeks the best bid from a variety of material handling distributors, and each of those distributors or

resellers will seek a variety of bids from deck manufacturers and importers.”4

 

The majority of sales of domestic wire decking as well as sales of Chinese made wire decking 

are mostly to distributors. Since 2006, the proportion of domestic sales to distributors increased after

several years of decline due to the rapid growth in big box retailers earlier in the decade. One producer

reported that ***. For example, for a few years in this decade, Wal-Mart was the largest purchaser of

wire decking in the United States.5 A representative for producer ITC testified that big box stores

typically purchase larger orders and orders of standard-size wire decking.6 Mr. Kedaitis of importer Atlas

commented that the big box stores may be importing directly, but not the standard sizes which

compromise the bulk of sales of wire decking.7 He also testified that Atlas does not sell directly to big

box retailers, but reportedly avoids it. Instead, it sells mainly to firms that are downstream of big box

retailers, such as those in the “middle sized automotive, pharmaceuticals, specialty foods, footwear, and

children’s clothing” industries.8 The percentage of shipments from producers and importers reported

going to OEMs, distributors, and end users is presented in table II-1.

 1 Wire Decking from China, Investigations Nos. 701-TA-466 and 731-TA-1162 (Preliminary), USITC Publication

4092, July 2009.

 2

 Conference transcript, p. 28 (Mack).

 3

 Conference transcript, p. 32 (Chamberlin).

 4

 Conference transcript, p. 33 (Chamberlin).

 5

 Conference transcript, p. 137 (Kedaitis). 

 6

 Conference transcript, p. 61 (Selhorst).

 7

 Conference transcript, pp. 186 and 189 (Kedaitis). Atlas is *** importer of wire decking from China.

 8

 Conference transcript, p. 138 (Kedaitis).

II-1
The most-commonly required varieties of wire decking are held in inventory for quick order

fulfillment. Mr. Song of Eastfound, the exclusive supplier of Atlas, reported that nine types of wire

decking (of 4,200 that his firm produces in China) accounted for 85 percent of his firm’s shipments.9

Table II-1

Wire decking: U.S. producers’ and importers’ shares of reported U.S. shipments, by sources and

channels of distribution, 2006-09

Item

2006 2007 2008 2009

Share of reported shipments (percent)

Domestic producers’ shipments: 

 To OEMs 2.5 5.6 4.0 4.3

 To distributors 56.0 57.3 63.0 65.4

 To end users 41.5 37.2 33.1 30.3

Shipments of imports from China:

 To OEMs 4.6 3.2 10.5 3.9

 To distributors 88.4 88.6 79.5 86.9

 To end users 7.0 8.2 10.0 9.2

 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS

Supply

Domestic Production

Based on available information, U.S. producers have the ability to respond to changes in demand

with moderate to high changes in the quantity of shipments of U.S.-produced wire decking to the U.S.

market. The main factors contributing to the moderate-to-large degree of responsiveness of supply are the

availability of unused capacity, inventories, small levels of export shipments, and the existence of

production alternatives.

Industry capacity

Capacity utilization for U.S. producers decreased from 61.5 percent in 2006 to 53.2 percent in

2008, before dropping to 30.4 percent in 2009 (see table III-2). Accordingly, U.S. producers have ample

excess capacity with which they could increase production of wire decking. 

 9 Conference transcript, p. 164 (Song).

II-2
Alternative markets

Wire decking is reportedly used in Canada, Mexico, the Middle East, and Europe.10 U.S.

producers’ export shipments as a percent of total shipments declined irregularly from *** percent in 2006

to *** percent in 2009 (see table III-3). This level of exports during the period indicates that domestic

producers are somewhat constrained in their ability to shift shipments between the United States and other

markets in response to price changes. 

Inventory levels

U.S. producers’ inventories, as a ratio of their total wire decking shipments, fluctuated between

2006 and 2009, increasing irregularly from *** percent of their shipments in 2006 to *** in 2008 and ***

percent in 2009 (see table III-5). 

Production alternatives

Seven of eight responding producers reported that they produce other products using the same

equipment, machinery, and/or production and related workers that they use to produce wire decking. Six

of these producers reported that wire decking constitutes 90 percent or more of the production

capabilities. Alternative products include: concrete reinforcement mesh, mining mesh, stem/wire mesh,

wire mesh containers, wire partitions, wire lockers, mesh panels, dividers, and other miscellaneous mesh

products.11

Supply constraints

U.S. producers were asked if they refused, declined, or were unable to supply wire decking since

January 1, 2006. All seven responding producers reported that they did not have restrictions of any

variety in place since that time. Producer *** added that “***.”12 

Supply of Subject Imports from China

Based on available information, Chinese producers have the ability to respond to changes in

demand with moderate to high changes in the quantity of shipments of wire decking to the U.S. market. 

The main contributing factors to the fairly high degree of responsiveness are the existence of some

inventories and non-U.S. export markets sales, although the Chinese producers are somewhat constrained

by high capacity rates.

Industry capacity

Chinese producers’ reported capacity utilization rates for wire decking decreased irregularly from

*** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2009, and are projected to be *** percent in 2010 and *** percent

in 2011.13 Accordingly, it appears the Chinese producers are able to produce well above their capacity.

 10 Conference transcript, pp. 68 (Chamberlin) and 70 (Rollins).

 11 See page III-4.

 12 *** producer questionnaire response, question IV-19.

 13 Foreign producer EastFound reported that ***.” EastFound foreign producer questionnaire.

II-3
Alternative markets

Chinese foreign producers reported *** commercial shipments of wire decking to the home

market. The decrease in Chinese wire decking producers’ exports to the United States, as a percentage of

total shipments, from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2009, translated into an increase of Chinese

producers’ exports of wire decking to nonsubject markets, as a percentage of total shipments, from ***

percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2009. Principal alternative export markets identified by Chinese

producers and exporters include Asia, Australia, Canada, Guatemala, the EU, the Middle East, Papua

New Guinea, Poland, and the UK. Shipments to the Chinese home market comprised less than one

percent of total shipments for Chinese producers in each year of the period of study.14 Furthermore,

importer *** has reported that “China does not use wire deck.”15 These data indicate that Chinese

producers have the ability to shift shipments from alternative markets in response to ***.

Inventory levels

Available data indicate that Chinese wire decking producers’ inventories, as a percentage of total

shipments, increased from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2008, and then decreased to *** percent

in 2009. Inventories are projected to increase in 2010 to *** percent before declining to *** percent in

2011. These data indicate that subject producers may be somewhat limited in their ability to use

inventories as a means of increasing shipments of wire decking to the U.S. market.

Production alternatives

Two of three foreign producers reported that they produce wire containers and wire baskets using

the same equipment, machinery, and/or production and related workers that they use to produce wire

decking.

Supply Constraints

Importers of Chinese subject product were asked if they had refused, declined, or been unable to

supply wire decking since January 1, 2006. Two of five responding importers of Chinese subject product

reported that they had restrictions of some nature in place: importer *** reported that it had *** and

importer *** reported that ***.”16

General Supply Conditions

Both petitioners and respondents report that wire decking can be produced in a wide variety of

dimensions, forms, and finishes.17 

In the preliminary phase of these investigations, when asked if there had been any changes in the

product range or marketing of wire decking from January 2006 to March 2009, five of seven producers

and five of seven responding importers reported that there have not been any significant changes. 

Producer *** noted that there has been an increase in the availability of wire decking from China, and

 14 Mr. Song Bin, president of EastFound, reported that the Chinese home market for wire decking is very small

and disordered and uses wooden decking, not steel. Conference transcript, p. 135 (Song).

 15 *** importer questionnaire response, question III-14-b.

 16 *** and *** importer questionnaire response, question III-19.

 17 See, e.g., conference transcript, p. 131 (Song) and petitioners’ postconference brief, pp. 13-15.

II-4
producer *** described a decrease in advertising and marketing of wire decks. Importer *** reported a

large number of changes occurring in the wire decking market:

“***.” 

Within the wire decking industry, the Rack Manufacturers Institute began granting an “R-Mark”

to certify that certain companies’ products meet a number of certification requirements, and signify a

commitment to manufacture to ANSI MH26.6 design and capacity specifications.18 Petitioners reported

that each petitioning firm has some or all of their products certified with an R-mark,19 and Mr. Kedaitis of

Atlas testified that Atlas is a member of R-mark as well.20 Petitioners noted that Atlas’s testimony with

regard to quality concerns about the domestic manufacturers occurred before the period examined in these

investigations.21

Demand

Based on available information, it is likely that changes in the price level of wire decking will

result in a moderate change in the quantity of wire decking demanded. The price elasticity of demand for

wire decking is likely to be moderate given that there are substitutes for some applications and wire

decking often accounts for a substantial share of the final cost of products in which they are used as

inputs.

Demand Trends

Apparent U.S. consumption decreased slightly from 2006 and 2008 from *** million pounds to

*** million pounds, before dropping sharply to *** million pounds in 2009, only half of the apparent

consumption at the beginning of the period.

U.S. demand

Two of seven responding U.S. producers reported that U.S. demand had fluctuated and five

indicated that demand had decreased. The producers that reported fluctuating demand added that demand

increased or fluctuated in 2007-08, stabilized in the first half of 2008, and then decreased substantially

thereafter.22 The producers that reported decreased demand attributed it to decreased warehouses and

commercial real estate construction, as well as abundant foreign imports and the overall economic

downturn. 

 18 The R-mark is granted to a company’s individual deck, not the company itself. Petitioners’ postconference

brief, exh. 10. 

 19 Petitioners’ postconference brief, exh. 1, p. 9.

 20 Conference transcript, p. 171 (Kedaitis).

 21 Petitioners’ postconference brief, p. 11, referencing conference transcript, p. 123 (Kedaitis) (reference to

quality concerns in 1998 or earlier).

 22 Changes in wire decking demand lag the general economy about 8-12 months. Hearing transcript, p. 85

(Caldwell). The industry “was not really affected in 2008 as other industries were. The effects lagged . . . and didn’t

really hit the industry until 2009. Similarly now, looking out into 2010, we’re expecting any recover to lag what the

general economy might otherwise experience for the same reason.” Hearing transcript, p. 86 (Cannon). “There are

some signs of improvement, but they’re very tenuous and cautious.” Hearing transcript, p. 87 (Wager). The

respondents reported that according to Material Handling Industry of America Economic Series, “***. 

Manufacturing output should ***.” Petitioners’ Prehearing brief, p. 14. Moreover, “leading economic indicators

suggest that the industry is in recovery and new conditions of competition - including the removal of Cargotainer,

Atlas, and Eastfound Metal from the market - suggest a positive outlook for the domestic industry.” Petitioners’

Posthearing brief, p. 5. 

II-5
Three of six responding importers indicated that demand for wire decking has fluctuated since

2006,23 and the other three firms reported that demand had decreased. Similar to the U.S. producers’

responses, most of these firms indicated that demand had decreased because of the overall economic

downturn that translated into less spending on capital equipment especially in 2008. 

Purchasers that are end users of wire decking were asked to describe how demand for their final

products incorporating wire decking has changed since January 2006. Three of 9 responding purchasers

reported that demand for their final products has fluctuated, three firms reported fluctuating demand that

followed the overall market demand, two firms reported no change in demand, and one firm reported that

demand has increased. The latter responding purchaser, ***, also reported that ***.”24

Purchasers were asked whether their purchasing patterns for wire decking had changed since

2006. Ten purchasers reported that their purchasing patterns of wire decking have changed, and 

15 reported that their patterns remained the same. Several purchasers that reported changes in purchasing

patterns added that their purchases followed the changes in demand affected by the overall economic

slowdown. Purchaser *** noted that it ***.”25 Another purchaser, ***, reported that ***.”26

Demand outside the United States

Producers and importers were asked how demand outside the United States had changed since

January 1, 2006. Two responding producers reported that demand has decreased and one producer, ***,

reported fluctuating demand; it added that demand increased during 2007, then it leveled off in 2008 after

which it decreased, especially in 2009. Importer *** reported that demand fluctuated and added that,

while China does not use wire decking, the European countries decreased their consumption of wire

decking as the global economy slowed down.27 

Demand Characteristics

Wire decking is used in pallet rack systems in order to warehouse inventories and demand for

wire decking is directly related to the demand for pallet rack products.28 Thus, demand for wire decking

is derived primarily from the industrial output of the economy, and in particular investment in capital

expenditures, the construction of warehouses, and the construction of commercial real estate.29

Respondents also noted that the demand for wire decking is “driven by the demand for wire racking and

generally follows industrial output and non-residential construction activity.”30 Figure II-1 shows indices

of U.S. industrial production, wholesale inventories, and total construction for January 2006-February

2010.

 23 Demand fluctuated in 2006-07 and first half of 2008, after which it continued to decrease to present. 

 24 *** purchaser questionnaire response, question III-5.

 25 *** purchaser questionnaire response, question III-12.

 26 *** purchaser questionnaire response question III-12.

 27 *** importer questionnaire response, question VI-14.

 28 *** importer questionnaire response in the preliminary phase of the investigations.

 29 Conference transcript, p. 80 (Chamberlin), and producer questionnaire responses of ***.

 30 Respondents’ postconference brief, p. 3.

II-6
Figure II-1

Seasonally adjusted indices of U.S. industrial production, wholesale inventories, and nonresidential office, commercial, and manufacturing new construction for January 2006-February

2010

Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (industrial production), and Department of Commerce,

Bureau of the Census (total construction and wholesale inventories)

(http://www.federalreserve.gov/datadownload/Download.aspx?rel=G17&series=220ab3642210aba7081ef15fc2bb7ca

c&filetype=spreadsheetml&label=include&layout=seriescolumn&from=01/01/2006&to=04/30/2010,

http://www.census.gov/wholesale/, http://www.census.gov/const/www/totpage.html).

Business Cycle

Demand for wire decking tends to fluctuate from period to period and depends on the business

cycle of the general economy. All U.S. producers and the majority of responding importers and

purchasers reported that there is no specific cycle to the wire decking industry. Two of 6 responding

importers and 9 of 13 responding purchasers reported that there is a specific cycle to the wire decking

industry: the wire decking industry follows the trends in the material handling equipment market, which

in turn, follows the trends in industrial output. This in turn tracks and is affected by real estate investment

and occupancy levels. 

Substitute Products

Two of 6 responding producers, 3 of 4 responding importers, and 16 of 22 responding purchasers

reported that there were substitute products for wire decking31. Substitute products mentioned were pallet

rack supports, warehouse shelving, non-supported wire mash, wood (plywood) particle board, metal/steel

decking, cross bars, expended metal corrugated decking, bard grading, and rack dex-perforated decking. 

 31 Petitioners testified that “there are no practical substitutes for wire decking in the U.S. market. . . Wire decking

is duly required by insurance companies and building codes for use in commercial storage systems. Wire decking is

now the standard for industry and commercial storage.” Hearing transcript, p. 16-17 (Rollins). 

II-7
One responding importer, ***, and two of 31 responding purchasers, ***, indicated that changes in the

prices of substitute products have affected the price for wire decking.32

Cost Share

Depending on the end use, wire decking accounts for either 100 percent of the total cost or, if part

of a pallet rack, it accounts for 10-40 percent of the total cost of the final products. If the wire decking is

part of a rivet rack, it accounts for 70 percent of the final cost, and, if it is part of plant storage racking, it

accounts for 34 percent. 

SUBSTITUTABILITY ISSUES

The degree of substitution between domestic and imported wire decking depends upon such

factors as relative prices, quality (e.g., grade standards, reliability of supply, defect rates, etc.), and

conditions of sale (e.g., price discounts/rebates, lead times between order and delivery dates, payment

terms, product services, etc.). Based on available data, staff believes that there is a high degree of

substitutability between domestically-produced wire decking and Chinese-produced wire decking.33

Factors Affecting Purchasing Decisions

Table II-3 summarizes the purchasers’ responses concerning the top three factors they reported

considering in their purchasing decisions. As indicated in the table, price was cited most frequently as the

primary factor in buying decisions. Quality was the most frequently cited second factor, and both price

and quality were the most frequently cited third factor.

Table II-3

Wire decking: Ranking factors used in purchasing decisions by U.S. purchasers

Factor

Number of firms reporting

Number one factor Number two factor Number three factor

Price 13 3 4

Quality 57 4

Availability 2 6 1

Other1 2 5 11

 1 Other factors include safety certified product, specification compliance, service, location, capacity to supply,

delivery, traditional supplier, relationship with vendor, meet industry standards, and capacity/testing.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

All 22 responding purchasers reported that domestically-produced wire decking “always” or

“usually” meets minimum quality specifications (table II-4). Twelve of 18 responding purchasers

reported that the Chinese wire decking “always” or “usually” meets minimum quality specifications. 

 32 Importer *** and purchaser *** reported that ***.” Purchaser *** also reported that ***.” Importer

questionnaire answer, question III-13, and purchaser questionnaire answer, question III-6.

 33 Petitioners testified that “wired decking is a commodity product sold on price, and there’s very strong evidence

of underselling in over 90 percent of comparisons.” Hearing transcript, p. 79 (Cannon). However, the respondents

testified that “non-price factors set imports apart from decking offered by domestic producers in certain applications. 

. . . {S}ignificant qualitative differences exist between domestically-produced decks and Chinese-produced decks . .

. in addition . . . there are major differences in its customer base: . . . very limited competitive overlap between top

customer and U.S. producers and that of the largest importer.” Hearing transcript, p. 149 (Malashevich).

II-8
Table II-4

Wire decking: Ability to meet purchasers’ minimum quality specifications, by source

Country

Number of firms reporting1

Always Usually Sometimes Rarely or Never

 United States 13 9 0 0

 China 2 10 5 1

 1 Purchasers were asked how often domestically produced or imported wire decking meets minimum quality

specifications for their own or their customers’ uses. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Purchasers were also asked to rate the importance of 17 factors in their purchasing decisions 

(table II-5). Twenty-four purchasers rated reliability of supply as very important, 23 firm reported price

as very important, 22 rated quality meets industry standards as very important, and 21 rated product

consistency as very important. Other factors listed as very important by more than half the responding

purchasers include: availability (19), delivery time (17), discounts offered (15), and transportation 

costs (14).

Purchasers were asked for a country-by-country comparison of the same 17 factors (table II-6). 

For U.S.-produced product compared to Chinese product, most purchasers reported that the U.S. product

was superior with regard to delivery time, reliability of supply, availability, quality meets industry

standards, technical support/service, coating quality, and minimum quantity requirements. However,

most purchasers reported that U.S. product was comparable to product from China with regard to delivery

terms, discounts offered, extension of credit, packaging, product consistency, if the product is galvanized,

product range, quality exceeds industry standards, and U.S. transportation costs. Most purchasers

reported China was superior on price.

II-9
Table II-5

Wire decking: Importance of purchase factors, as reported by U.S. purchasers 

Factor

Very important Somewhat important Not important

Number of firms responding

Availability 19 6 0

Coating quality 11 13 1

Delivery terms 11 13 1

Delivery time 17 8 0

Discounts offered 15 10 0

Extension of credit 6 11 8

Price 23 2 0

Minimum quantity requirements 6 10 9

Packaging 4 15 6

Product consistency 21 3 1

Product is galvanized 5 14 6

Product range 9 11 5

Quality meets industry standards 22 3 0

Quality exceeds industry standards 11 9 5

Reliability of supply 24 1 0

Technical support/service 11 12 2

U.S. transportation costs 14 10 1

Note.--Not all purchasers responded for each factor.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

II-10
Table II-6

Wire decking: Comparisons between U.S.-produced and imported wire decking as reported by

U.S. purchasers

Factor

U.S. vs China

SC I

Availability 12 7 0

Coating quality 10 9 0

Delivery terms 8 10 1

Delivery time 14 3 2

Discounts offered 2 10 7

Extension of credit 4 15 0

Price1 1 7 11

Minimum quantity requirements 10 8 1

Packaging 5 14 0

Product consistency 8 11 0

Product is galvanized 3 12 3

Product range 8 11 0

Quality meets industry standards 11 8 0

Quality exceeds industry standards 8 11 0

Reliability of supply 13 6 0

Technical support/service 11 8 0

U.S. transportation costs1 5 12 2

 1 A rating of superior means that price/U.S. transportation cost is generally lower. For example, if a firm reported

“U.S. superior”, it meant that the price of the U.S. product was generally lower than the price of the imported

product.

Note.--S=first listed country’s product is superior; C=both countries’ products are comparable; I=first listed country’s

product is inferior. One firm provided more than one answer for a number of comparisons. These responses are

not included in the table. Not all purchasers responded for all factors. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

When asked if certain grades/types/sizes of wire decking were available from only a single

source, all but one of the responding purchasers reported “no.” The one purchaser that reported “yes”

mentioned that *** provides better quality. 

Purchasers were also asked if their customers are aware or interested in the country of origin of

wire decking. One purchaser indicated “always,” five indicated “usually,” nine indicated “sometimes,”

six reported “rarely,” and two reported “never.”

Eighteen of 21 responding purchasers reported that they contact two or more suppliers before

making a purchase. Two purchasers contact only one supplier, and another purchaser contacts 1-3

suppliers before making a purchase. Sixteen of 25 purchasers have not changed suppliers since 2006, and

8 of 25 purchasers are aware of new suppliers since 2006: (***).

Purchasers were asked if they require the product they purchase to be “R-Mark” certified. 

Fourteen of 19 responded purchasers reported “no,” two purchasers reported that *** purchases were

certified, two purchasers reported that *** percent of purchases in 2009 were certified, and one purchaser

reported that *** percent of 2009 purchases were “R-Mark” certified. One purchaser added that 

II-11
“R-Mark” certified products were not available ***, and another purchaser reported that *** “R-Mark”

certified products were not available. 

Purchasers were asked if they require their suppliers to become certified or prequalified with a

certification other than the “R-Mark” certification with respect to quality, chemistry, strength, or other

performance characteristics of the wire decking. Three of 21 responding purchasers reported that all

purchases are subject to other specifications such as specific quality assurance audits for quality, strength,

and chemistry, standardized testing for comparison to their specifications, or a supplier prequalification

process that includes safety standards, welders certificates, and product quality review. 

When purchasers were asked what characteristics they consider when determining the quality of

wire decking, purchasers mentioned: quality of engineering, ability to address any field issues, paint

finish, design, capacity, thickness of wire and supports, quality of welds, no sharp edges, meeting NDL

capable requirements, correct form/fit/function, structural integrity, size consistency, load ratings, finish

quality wire gage, channel support gage, strength testing, coating, weight of the galvanized finish, powder

coating, and appropriate packaging to ensure that the product arrives in good condition. 

Comparisons of Domestic Products and Subject Imports

In order to determine whether U.S.-produced wire decking can generally be used in the same

applications as imports from China and other countries, U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers were

asked whether the products can “always,” “frequently,” “sometimes,” or “never” be used interchangeably

(table II-7). All eight producers, all seven importers, and most responding purchasers reported that U.S.-

produced wire decking can “always” or “frequently” be used interchangeably with Chinese product. 

Producer *** also reported that ***.”34 Importer *** reported that ***.”35

Table II-7

Wire decking: U.S. firms’ perceived degree of interchangeability of products produced in the

United States, China, and nonsubject countries1

Country pair

Number of U.S. 

producers reporting

Number of U.S.

importers reporting

Number of U.S.

purchasers reporting

AFSNAFSNAFSN

U.S. vs. China 710061009740

U.S. vs. other countries 600060003020

China vs. other countries 000060003010

 1 Producers, importers, and purchasers were asked if wire decking produced in the United States and in other

countries is used interchangeably.

Note.--A = Always, F = Frequently, S = Sometimes, N = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

 34 *** producer questionnaire response, question IV-21.

 35 *** importer questionnaire response, question III-21.

II-12
Producers and importers were also asked to compare U.S.-produced products with imports from

China in terms of product differences other than price such as quality, availability, product range, and

technical support (table II-8). Seven of 8 responding producers, 4 of 6 responding importers, and 8 of 17

responding purchasers reported that differences other than price between wire decking produced in the

United States and China were “sometimes” or “never” a significant factor in their firm’s sales of the

products; one producer, one importer, and five purchasers reported that these differences were

“frequently” significant; and one importer and four purchasers reported that the differences were “always

significant.” Producer *** reported that ***.”36 Importer *** reported that ***.”37 Importer ***

reported that availability and transportation are very important: ***.”38

Table II-8

Wire decking: Perceived significance of differences other than price between products produced

in the United States, China, and nonsubject countries1

Country pair

Number of U.S. 

producers reporting

Number of U.S.

importers reporting

Number of U.S.

purchasers reporting

AFSNAFSNAFSN

U.S. vs. China 0 1 1 6 1 1 3 1 4 5 6 2

U.S. vs. other countries 001510111110

China vs. other countries 001510111110

 1 Producers and importers were asked if wire decking produced in the United States and in other countries had

significant differences other than price.

Note.--A = Always, F = Frequently, S = Sometimes, N = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Comparisons of Domestic Products and Nonsubject Imports

Responding producers and importers unanimously indicated that wire decking produced in the

United States and nonsubject countries is “always” used interchangeably (table II-7). Three of the

responding purchasers indicated that wire decking produced in the United States and nonsubject countries

were “always” used interchangeably and two responding purchasers reported that wire decking produced

in the United States and nonsubject countries were “sometimes” used interchangeably. 

All six responding producers, two responding importers, and one of three responding purchasers

reported that differences other than price were “sometimes” or “never” significant between U.S.-

produced and nonsubject wire decking (table II-8).

Comparisons of Subject Imports and Nonsubject Imports

The six responding importers and three of the responding purchasers indicated that wire decking

produced in China and nonsubject countries were “always” used interchangeably (table II-7). 

All six responding producers, two of three responding importers, and one of three responding

purchasers reported that differences other than price were “sometimes” or “never” significant between 

wire decking produced in China and nonsubject wire decking (table II-8). 

 36 *** producer questionnaire response, question IV-22.

 37 *** importer questionnaire response, question III-22.

 38 *** importer questionnaire response, question III-22.

II-13
ELASTICITY ESTIMATES

This section discusses elasticity estimates. Parties are encouraged to provide comments in their

prehearing briefs. No parties provided comments.

U.S. Supply Elasticity

The domestic supply elasticity for wire decking measures the sensitivity of the quantity supplied

by the U.S. producers to changes in the U.S. market price for wire decking. The elasticity of domestic

supply depends on several factors, including the level of excess capacity, the existence of inventories, and

the availability of alternate markets for U.S.-produced wire decking. Previous analysis of these factors

indicates that the U.S. industry has a moderate to high ability to increase or decrease shipments to the

U.S. market based on unused capacity and production flexibilities. An estimate in the range of 3 to 5 is

suggested.

U.S. Demand Elasticity

The U.S. demand elasticity for wire decking measures the sensitivity of the overall quantity

demanded to a change in the U.S. market price of wire decking. This estimate depends on factors

discussed earlier such as the existence, availability, and commercial viability of substitute products, as

well as the component share of wire decking in the final cost of end-use products in which it is used. 

Because of existence of accepted substitutes, it is likely that the aggregate demand for wire decking is

moderately elastic, with suggested values ranging between -0.25 to -0.75. 

Substitution Elasticity

The elasticity of substitution depends upon the extent of product differentiation between domestic

and imported wire decking. Product differentiation, in turn, depends upon such factors as quality and

condition of sale (availability, delivery, etc.). Based on available information indicating that the domestic

and imported products can frequently be used interchangeably, the elasticity of substitution between U.S.-

produced wire decking and imported wire decking is likely to be in the range of 3 to 5. 

II-14
PART III: U.S. PRODUCERS’ PRODUCTION, SHIPMENTS, AND

EMPLOYMENT

Information presented in this section of the report is based on (except as noted) the questionnaire

responses of seven firms which accounted for the vast majority of U.S. production of wire decking in

2009. 

U.S. PRODUCERS

The Commission sent producer’s questionnaires to 10 firms identified as U.S. producers of wire

decking by the petitioners. Eight U.S. producers submitted responses.1

 None of the U.S. producers are

related to foreign producers or U.S. importers of the subject merchandise. In addition, as discussed in

greater detail below, two U.S. producers, J&L and Nashville Wire, directly imported the subject

merchandise. One U.S. producer, Cargotainer, ceased manufacturing operations in January 2010 and its

creditor took control of its assets in February 2010.2

 The firm cited ***.3 Table III-1 presents the list of

U.S. producers with each company’s U.S. production location, share of U.S. production in 2009, and

position on the petition.

 1 Petitioners estimated that the seven firms that submitted usable data accounted for approximately 99 percent of

U.S. production of wire decking in 2008. Petition, p. 5 and exh. General-1.

The three non-responding U.S. producers include: (1) Complex Steel & Wire (Complex) of Wayne, MI,

which petitioners estimated produced *** pounds of wire decking in 2008; (2) Equipto, Inc. (Equipto) of Tatamy,

PA, which petitioners described as a *** U.S. producer of wire decking; and (3) Salco Engineering & Manufacturing

Co. (Salco) of Jackson, MI, which petitioners estimated produced *** pounds of wire decking in 2008. Complex

and Equito, although not responding to ITC’s questionnaire, did supply petitioners’ counsel with affidavits

expressing support for the petition. Petitioners’ postconference brief, p. 6.

One U.S. producer, ***.

 2 “Cargotainer Now Under Bank Control,” The Daily Telegram, February 17, 2010. 

http://www.lenconnect.com/news/x1715241553/Cargotainer-now-under-bank-control, retrieved March 24, 2010.

 3

 U.S. producer’s questionnaire response of Cargotainer, section III, question III-15. Petitioners’ posthearing

brief, exh. 14. Respondents claim that Cargotainer’s difficulties stem from a ***. Respondents’ posthearing brief,

app. 1, p. 8.

III-1
Table III-1

Wire decking: U.S. producers, U.S. production locations, shares of U.S. production in 2009, and

positions on the petition

Firm Production location

Share of

production

(percent)

Position on the 

petition

AWP Frankfort, KY *** Petitioner

Cargotainer1 Adrian, MI *** ***

Folding Guard Bedford Park, IL (2)***

ITC Phoenix, AZ *** Petitioner

J&L3 St. Paul, MN *** Petitioner

Nashville Wire Nashville, TN *** Petitioner

Nucor Wire4 New Salem, PA *** Support

Wireway Denver, NC *** Petitioner

 1 ***.

 2

 ***.

 3

 ***.

 4

 ***.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. CAPACITY, PRODUCTION, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION

Data on U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization are presented in table III-2. 

Total U.S. capacity increased from 2006 to 2009 by 1.0 percent but decreased between 2008 and 2009 by

2.9 percent. ***. U.S. capacity volume accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption of wire

decking in 2009. Total U.S. production of the subject product decreased by 50.0 percent from 2006 to

2009. Total U.S. production decreased by 10.0 percent from 2006 to 2008, and then decreased by 44.4

percent between 2008 and 2009.4

 Capacity utilization ranged from 30.4 percent in 2009 to 61.5 percent

in 2006. 

*** of the eight U.S. producers reported events that occurred during the period of investigation

that would have materially affected its production or capacity. As mentioned above, Cargotainer reported

that it ceased manufacturing operations in January 2010.5

 Nashville Wire reported that it closed its

Clarksville, TN manufacturing facility in 2009, resulting in a decrease of ***.6

 ***. 

*** of the eight U.S. producers reported that they produced other products using the same

manufacturing equipment and/or production employees that were used to produce wire decking. ***.

 4 U.S. producers of wire decking are both “integrated and non-integrated.” J&L, ITC, Nashville Wire, and Nucor

are integrated as they purchase steel rod and within their production process draw it into wire. These firms reported

that drawing rod into wire allowed them some economies of scale and cost savings. Conference transcript, p. 59

(Caldwell). AWP and Wireway are non-integrated firms as they purchase the downstream wire. Other than this

starting point of rod or wire, U.S. producers stated that much of their production processes are similar. Petitioners’

postconference brief, p. 5; Conference transcript, pp. 53-59 (Rudolph, Caldwell, Wagner, Chamberlin, Young, and

Brandon). 

 5

 The remaining U.S. producers stated that the removal of Cargotainer’s production capacity would have very

little effect on the U.S. market. Hearing transcript, p. 117 (Rollins) (“it’s not really going to move the needle

significantly for anyone”) and p. 126 (Chamberlain).

 6

 Hearing transcript, p. 18 (Rollins); U.S. questionnaire response of Nashville Wire, question II-9.

III-2
Table III-2

Wire decking: U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2006-2009

Item

Calendar year

2006 2007 2008 2009

Capacity (1,000 pounds)

AWP *** *** *** ***

Cargotainer *** *** *** ***

ITC *** *** *** ***

J&L *** *** *** ***

Nashville Wire *** *** *** ***

Nucor Wire *** *** *** ***

Wireway *** *** *** ***

 Total 495,433 515,433 515,433 500,433

Production (1,000 pounds)

AWP *** *** *** ***

Cargotainer *** *** *** ***

ITC *** *** *** ***

J&L *** *** *** ***

Nashville Wire *** *** *** ***

Nucor Wire *** *** *** ***

Wireway *** *** *** ***

 Total 304,553 300,268 274,147 152,300

Capacity utilization (percent)

AWP *** *** *** ***

Cargotainer *** *** *** ***

ITC *** *** *** ***

J&L *** *** *** ***

Nashville Wire *** *** *** ***

Nucor Wire *** *** *** ***

Wireway *** *** *** ***

 Average 61.5 58.3 53.2 30.4

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

III-3
U.S. PRODUCERS’ U.S. SHIPMENTS AND EXPORT SHIPMENTS

As detailed in table III-3, the volume of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of wire decking

decreased by 50.9 percent from 2006 to 2009 and decreased by 43.0 percent between 2008 and 2009. 

The value of U.S. shipments also decreased by 50.7 percent and 50.3 percent, respectively, during the

same time periods. ***. ***, reported export shipments ***. Other export markets reported include ***. 

Export shipments from U.S. producers remained steady from 2006 to 2008, but decreased by *** percent

from 2008 to 2009.

Table III-3

Wire decking: U.S. producers’ shipments, by types, 2006-2009

Item

Calendar year

2006 2007 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

U.S. commercial shipments 307,724 290,572 265,233 151,231

Export shipments *** *** *** ***

 Total shipments *** *** *** ***

Value ($1,000)

1

U.S. commercial shipments 173,280 161,018 171,982 85,477

Export shipments *** *** *** ***

 Total shipments *** *** *** ***

Unit value (per pound)

U.S. commercial shipments 0.56 0.55 0.65 0.57

Export shipments *** *** *** ***

 Average *** *** *** ***

Share of shipment quantity (percent)

U.S. commercial shipments *** *** *** ***

Export shipments *** *** *** ***

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1 F.o.b. U.S. point of shipment.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

III-4
U.S. PRODUCERS’ IMPORTS AND PURCHASES OF IMPORTS

Two of the eight U.S. producers, J&L and Nashville Wire, reported that they directly imported

wire decking from China during the period of investigation. Nashville Wire stated that it imported wire

decking from China “in an attempt to remain competitive with the low prices offered by Chinese

producers,” and prevent erosion of its market share, but claimed that its primary interest lies with

domestic production.7

 Nashville Wire stated that after the imposition of preliminary duties in these

investigations it ceased importation of wire decking from China.8

 Table III-4 presents these firms’ direct

imports of subject product from China, their U.S. production, and the ratio of their U.S. imports to their

U.S. production.

Table III-4

Wire decking: U.S. producers’ imports of subject imports, 2006-2009

Item 2006 2007 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 pounds); ratio to production (percent)

J&L:1

Production (quantity) *** *** *** ***

Imports from China (quantity) *** *** *** ***

Imports from China (ratio to production) *** *** *** ***

Nashville Wire:2

Production (quantity) *** *** *** ***

Imports from China (quantity) *** *** *** ***

Imports from China (ratio to production) *** *** *** ***

 1 ***.

 2

 ***.

 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

 7 U.S. Producer’s questionnaire response of Nashville Wire, p. 5; Petitioners’ prehearing brief, p. 9; Conference

transcript, p. 24 (Rollins) and p. 39 (Rudolph); Hearing transcript, p. 108 (Rollins). Respondents stated that they did

not believe these U.S. producers’ U.S. imports were of sufficient magnitude to exclude them from the U.S. industry. 

Respondents, however, argued that Nashville Wire’s imports should not be considered competing with, or negatively

impacting, the U.S. industry. Respondents’ prehearing brief, p. 4.

 8

 Hearing transcript, p. 109 (Rollins).

III-5
U.S. PRODUCERS’ INVENTORIES

Data on end-of-period inventories of wire decking for the period of investigation are presented in

table III-5. Inventories as a share of production, U.S. and total shipments increased irregularly from 2006

to 2008 and increased in 2009 compared with 2008 as producers decreased production. The volume of

U.S. producers’ inventories decreased by 37.3 percent from 2008 to 2009 as U.S. producers cut

production and drew down inventories.

Table III-5

Wire decking: U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories, 2006-2009

Item

Calendar year

2006 2007 2008 2009

Inventories (1,000 pounds) 45,278 35,842 45,509 28,552

Ratio to production (percent) 14.9 11.9 16.6 18.7

Ratio to U.S. shipments (percent) 14.7 12.3 17.2 18.9

Ratio to total shipments (percent) *** *** *** ***

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, AND PRODUCTIVITY

Data provided by U.S. producers on the number of production and related workers (“PRWs”)

engaged in the production of wire decking, the total hours worked by such workers, and wages paid to

such PRWs during the period for which data were collected in these investigations are presented in table

III-6. From 2006 to 2009, the number of PRWs decreased by 44.6 percent, hours worked decreased by

49.5 percent, wages paid decreased by 47.7 percent, hourly wages increased by 3.5 percent, productivity

decreased by 1.0 percent, and unit labor costs increased by 4.6 percent.

ITC reported that it had undertaken temporary shutdowns and reductions in its workforce during

the period of investigation. In 2008 and 2009, it permanently laid off 42 employees. With the closure of

Cargotainer, 130 PRWs were permanently laid off.9

 9 U.S. producer’s questionnaire responses of ***, section II, question II-4. ***. U.S. producers’ questionnaire

responses, section II, question II-9.

III-6
Table III-6

Wire decking: Average number of production and related workers producing wire decking, hours

worked, hours worked per worker, wages paid to such employees, and hourly wages, productivity,

and unit labor costs, 2006-2009

Item

Calendar year

2006 2007 2008 2009

PRWs (number) 652 611 550 361

Hours worked (1,000) 1,349 1,185 1,115 681

Hours worked per worker 2,070 1,939 2,028 1,888

Wages paid ($1,000) 21,718 19,297 18,209 11,356

Hourly wages $16.10 $16.29 $16.33 $16.66

Productivity (pounds per hour) 225.8 253.5 245.8 223.5

Unit labor costs (per pound) $0.07 $0.06 $0.07 $0.07

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

III-7

PART IV: U.S. IMPORTS, APPARENT CONSUMPTION, AND

MARKET SHARES

U.S. IMPORTERS

The Commission sent importer questionnaires to 36 firms believed to be U.S. importers of wire

decking, as well as to all ten U.S. producers.1

 Usable questionnaire responses were received from seven

firms, which accounted for what is believed to be the majority of U.S. imports from China.2

 Data for U.S.

imports from China are compiled using the U.S. importer questionnaire responses received by the

Commission. 

By far the largest reporting U.S. importer, Atlas, accounted for *** percent of all reported U.S.

imports from China in 2009, and for the *** of reported U.S. imports from China throughout the period

of investigation. Atlas was the exclusive North American distributor and importer of wire decking from

the Chinese producer Eastfound.3

 Atlas reported that in ***. However, in 2008, as an economic

downturn became evident and demand for wire decking declined, Atlas ceased operations at the San

Francisco, CA, Jersey City, NJ, Minneapolis, MN, and Atlanta, GA facilities due to a significant decline

in demand as a result of the recession. In late 2008, it further decreased 40 percent of its sales staff and

60 percent of its warehouse staff at its Chicago, IL location. In February 2010, Atlas ceased commercial

operations and terminated its entire workforce.4

 In March 2010, the remaining assets of Atlas, three

distribution facilities in Chicago, IL, San Bernardino, CA, and Dallas, TX were sold to Worldwide

 1 Petitioners claim that a number of U.S. importers of wire decking did not respond to the Commission’s

questionnaire; and therefore, the volumes of U.S. imports from China are understated, especially for 2008 and 2009. 

Petitioners’ posthearing brief, p. 5 and exh. 6 (estimate of missing U.S. import volumes). Petitioners believe that a

number of firms, which were previously purchasing U.S. imports from Atlas, started to import directly from China in

2008 and 2009. Petitioners’ posthearing brief, p. 5. 

In the preliminary and final phases of these investigations, respondents stated that they believed the

universe of actual U.S. importers of wire decking to be substantially smaller and testified in the preliminary phase

that three U.S. importers accounted for approximately 90 percent of U.S. imports from China during the period of

investigation. These importers, listed from largest to smallest, are: (1) Atlas, (2) Nashville Wire, and (3) Mighty

Lift. Respondents claim that the majority of the firms alleged by petitioners to be U.S. importers were in fact

purchasers from Atlas and not directly importing from China. Respondents explained that many of Atlas’ customers

arranged their own ocean freight from China, and therefore may appear as consignees on U.S. entry documentation.

Atlas, however, remained the U.S. importer of record. Hearing transcript, pp. 159-160 (Kedaitis); Respondents’

posthearing brief, p. 7 and app. 2, pp. 14-16 (List of alleged U.S. importers that are Atlas customers). Respondents

also claim that a number of alleged U.S. importers are no longer going concerns. Respondents’ posthearing brief,

app. 2, pp. 14-16 (***). 

 2

 In addition to the seven usable responses (those respondents are shown in table IV-1), the Commission also

received five responses from firms indicating that they did not import wire decking during the period examined.

These firms included: ***. The big-box retailers, ***, reported that *** of the subject product. 

Three small importers that provided U.S. importers questionnaires in the preliminary phase of these

investigations did not provide responses in the final phase. These firms included: ***. In the preliminary phase of

these investigations, collectively, these firms accounted for *** percent of U.S. imports from China. ***.

 3

 Respondents’ postconference brief, p. 1.

 4

 Atlas Lift Truck and Sales, Inc., the parent corporation of Atlas, decided to exit this segment of the material

handling business and focus on what it considered its core business, namely the sale of forklift trucks and other

mechanized material handling equipment. Atlas Lift Truck and Sales, Inc. sold the remaining assets to Victor

Kedaitis, the former vice president and general manager of Atlas, who created Worldwide. Hearing transcript, p.

143 (Kedaitis).

IV-1
Material Handling Products, LLC (“Worldwide”).5

 Worldwide stated at the Commissions’ hearing that

its business model is dramatically different then the one employed by Atlas. It stated that it has not

imported wire decking from China since the commencement of its operations.6

 It stated that it is a much

smaller company with approximately 25 percent of the distribution capacity that Atlas once had.7

Worldwide also stated that it has diversified its offered products and services to go beyond wire decking

to include sales of new and used pallet rack components and aftermarket equipment repair and

maintenance services.8

U.S. importers submitting questionnaire responses to the Commission did not report any U.S.

imports from nonsubject countries during the period of investigation. During the preliminary phase of the

these investigations, petitioners and respondents agreed that U.S. imports from nonsubject countries were

approximately 5 percent of total U.S. imports throughout the period of investigation. Therefore, data for

U.S. imports from nonsubject countries are based on a 5 percent estimate of total U.S. import volume and

value. 

Table IV-1 lists all responding U.S. importers of wire decking from China, their U.S. locations,

and their quantities of imports, by source, in 2009.

 5 Hearing transcript, pp. 142-143 (Kedaitis); U.S. importer’s response of Atlas, app. 1; Worldwide Material

Handling Products, LLC reported that it did not import wire decking during the period of investigation. It

commenced commercial operations on March 1, 2010 and subsequently has purchased wire decking from U.S.

producers, ***. Hearing transcript, p. 202 (Kedaitis); U.S. purchaser questionnaire response of Worldwide Material

Handling Products, LLC, section 1, question I-2.

 6

 Hearing transcript, p. 202 (Kedaitis); Worldwide reported that ***. Respondents’ posthearing brief, app. 2, p. 2.

Petitioners claim that Worldwide is still very much focused on the wire decking business and will ***. 

Petitioners’ posthearing brief, p. 15.

 7

 Hearing transcript, pp. 143 and 202 (Kedaitis).

 8

 Hearing transcript, p. 169 (Kedaitis). Wire decking accounted for approximately *** percent of Atlas’ sales. 

Worldwide reported that under its new business model, wire decking would account for approximately *** percent

of sales. Respondents’ posthearing brief, app. 2, pp. 2-3. 

Worldwide stated that it would be impossible for it to “resurrect” the Atlas business model in the

foreseeable future because the “Atlas model required a tremendous amount of capital and incurred high fixed costs

to establish and maintain the nationwide network . . .” Hearing transcript, p. 144 (Kedaitis).

IV-2
Table IV-1

Wire decking: Reported U.S. imports, by importers and by sources of imports, 2009

Importer U.S. location

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

China Nonsubject Total

Atlas1 Schiller Park, IL *** *** ***

Cayuga2 Park Ridge, IL *** *** ***

J&L3 St. Paul, MN *** *** ***

Mighty Lift Houston, TX *** *** ***

Nashville Wire4 Nashville, TN *** *** ***

Stel-Win Ashland, VA *** *** ***

Vestil Angola, IN *** *** ***

 Total *** *** ***

 1 ***.

 2 ***.

 3 ***.

 4

***. After the imposition of preliminary duties in these investigations, Nashville ceased importation of wire decking from

China and closed these warehouses. Hearing transcript, p. 109 (Rollins). 

 Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. IMPORTS

Table IV-2 shows that the volume of U.S. imports of wire decking from China remained steady

from 2006 to 2007 and then decreased by *** percent from 2008 to 2009. From 2006 to 2009, the

volume of U.S. imports decreased by *** percent. The value of U.S. imports from China increased by

*** percent from 2006 to 2008, but decreased by *** percent between 2008 and 2009. Based on an

estimate, upon which during the preliminary phase of these investigations petitioners and respondents

mutually agreed, the volume and value of U.S. imports from nonsubject countries remained steady at

approximately 5 percent of total U.S. imports throughout the period of investigation.9

Table IV-2

Wire decking: U.S. imports, by sources, 2006-2009

* * * * * * *

 9 Petitioners’ prehearing brief, p. 23; Respondents’ postconference brief, p. 4 fn. 1 (“It is apparent that imports of

wire decking from countries other than China are insignificant and have not been included in respondents’

analysis.”). Petitioners reported that they believe three firms (2 in Canada and 1 in Mexico) account for all of the

U.S. imports from countries other than China. These firms include: ***. Petitioners’ postconference brief, exh. 1,

p. 3.

IV-3
NEGLIGIBILITY

The Tariff Act of 1930 provides for the termination of an investigation if imports of the subject

product from a country are less than 3 percent of total imports, or, if there is more than one such country,

their combined share is less than or equal to 7 percent of total imports, during the most recent 12 months

for which data are available preceding the filing of the petition.10 The share (in percent) of the total

quantity of U.S. imports from China for the entire period of investigation approximated 95 percent of

total U.S. imports based on U.S. import data compiled from the Commission’s questionnaire responses

and estimates agreed upon by petitioners and respondents, and thus, well above the 3 percent negligibility

threshold .

APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION

Data on apparent U.S. consumption of wire decking are presented in table IV-3. The quantity of

apparent U.S. consumption of the subject product decreased by *** percent from 2006 to 2009 and

decreased *** percent between 2008 and 2009. The value of apparent U.S. consumption decreased by

*** percent from 2006 to 2009 and decreased by *** percent between 2008 and 2009. Petitioners and

respondents agreed that U.S. consumption of wire decking is tied closely to total U.S. industrial output

and the growth of big-box retailing and that the current recession has certainly dampened these

activities.11

 10 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24)(A)(ii).

 11 Petitioners’ prehearing brief, pp. 10-11; Respondents’ prehearing brief, pp. 5-6.

IV-4
Table IV-3

Wire decking: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments and apparent

U.S. consumption, 2006-2009

Item

Calendar year

2006 2007 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 307,724 290,572 265,233 151,231

U.S. importers‘ U.S. shipments

 from--

 China *** *** *** ***

 All other countries *** *** *** ***

 Total import shipments *** *** *** ***

Apparent U.S. consumption *** *** *** ***

Value ($1,000)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 173,280 161,018 171,982 85,477

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments

 from--

 China *** *** *** ***

 All other countries *** *** *** ***

 Total import shipments *** *** *** ***

Apparent U.S. consumption *** *** *** ***

Source: U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments and U.S. imports from China are compiled from data submitted in response to

Commission questionnaires. U.S. imports from nonsubject countries are compiled using an estimate which both petitioners and

respondents agree to be approximately 5 percent of total U.S. imports.

U.S. MARKET SHARES

Data on U.S. market shares for wire decking are presented in table IV-4. From 2006 to 2007,

U.S. producers lost *** percentage points of market share based on quantity and *** percentage points

based on value. However, from 2007 to 2009, U.S. producers gained *** percentage points of market

share based on quantity and *** percentage points based on value. All of the U.S. industry’s market

share gains and losses came at the expense or gain of U.S. imports from China as both petitioners and

respondents during the preliminary phase of these investigations attested that U.S. imports from

nonsubject countries approximated 5 percent of total U.S. imports during the period of investigation.

Table IV-4

Wire decking: Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares, 2006-2009

* * * * * * *

IV-5
RATIO OF IMPORTS TO U.S. PRODUCTION

Data on the ratio of imports to U.S. production of wire decking are presented in table IV-5.

Table IV-5

Wire decking: U.S. production, U.S. imports, and ratios of imports to production, 2006-2009

Item

Calendar year

2006 2007 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

U.S. production 304,553 300,268 274,147 152,300

U.S. imports from--

 China *** *** *** ***

 All other countries *** *** *** ***

 Total imports *** *** *** ***

Ratio of imports to U.S. production (percent)

U.S. imports from--

 China *** *** *** ***

 All other countries *** *** *** ***

 Total imports *** *** *** ***

Source: U.S. production and U.S. imports from China are compiled from data submitted in response to Commission

questionnaires. U.S. imports from nonsubject countries are compiled using an estimate which both petitioners and respondents

agree to be approximately 5 percent of total U.S. imports.

IV-6
PART V: PRICING AND RELATED INFORMATION

FACTORS AFFECTING PRICES

 Raw Material Costs

The main raw materials used in the production of wire decking are hot-rolled sheet steel and

drawn steel wire rod. Prices of steel wire rod and hot-rolled steel fluctuated until the second half of 2007,

and began to increase rapidly in the beginning of 2008 (figure V-1). Prices for both peaked in July 2008,

decreased precipitously to November 2008, then more steadily to mid-2009. Prices subsequently

increased irregularly until the last month for which data are available (April 2010).

1

 Steel and other raw

materials accounted for 68.4 percent of COGS in 2006, increased to 69.6 percent in 2007 and 73.7

percent in 2008, then fell to 63.7 percent in 2009 (see Part VI).

Figure V-1

Hot-rolled coil prices: Spot prices, monthly, January 2006-April 2010

* * * * * * *

U.S. Inland Transportation Costs

Seven of eight responding producers and three of six responding importers indicated that their

firm generally arranges for transportation to the customers’ locations. Both U.S. producers and importers

estimated their U.S. inland transportation costs were between 3 and 30 percent. 

PRICING PRACTICES

Pricing Methods

Wire decking is sold primarily on a spot basis. Six producers reported that the majority of their

sales were on a spot basis and two producers reported that the majority of their sales are on a short-term

contract basis. Similarly, all six importers reported that the majority of their sales were on a spot basis,

and reported that approximately 40 percent of sales were made using short-term contracts. Most

responding producers indicated that their prices were determined using two or more pricing methods: six

producers determined prices on a transaction-by-transaction basis, five firms used contracts, and two

producers used price lists. All six responding importers determined prices on a transaction-by-transaction

basis.

 Sales Terms and Discounts

 Six of seven responding producers and four of six responding importers reported using certain

quantity discounts for their sales of wire decking. Four of the responding producers and one responding

importer reported that the majority of their sales are made to order, while four producers and four

importers reported that the majority of their sales are from inventory.

 1 “There was a huge spike in raw material costs between” 2007-2008, “so we were forced to increase our prices.” 

Hearing transcript, p. 80 (Mack). “We were able to recover 10 cents of that, but we were not able to recover our

entire raw materials costs. That is why in 2008 you would see a higher selling price because of raw material driving

it.” Hearing transcript, p. 80 (Rudolph).

V-1
 Producers reported lead times of 1 to 7 days from inventory or 1 to 6 weeks for made-to-order

products. Similarly, importers reported lead times of one week or less from inventory, and 1 to 8 weeks

for made-to-order products.

PRICE DATA

The Commission requested U.S. producers and importers to provide quarterly data on the total

quantity and f.o.b. value for sales of the following six wire decking products sold to distributors during

January 2006-December 2009. 

Product 1.—Wire decking, 42”(depth) x 46”(width), flanged channel, 3 channels, 4 to 6

gauge wire, 2” to 2.5” by 4” to 4.5” grid spacing, coated with zinc or zinc oxide

Product 2.—Wire decking, 42”(depth) x 46”(width), flanged channel, 3 channels, 4 to 6

gauge wire, 2” to 2.5” by 4” to 4.5” grid spacing, uncoated or coated with a substance

other than zinc or zinc oxide

Product 3.—Wire decking, 42”(depth) x 46”(width), step channel, 3 channels, 4 to 6

gauge wire, 2” to 2.5” by 4” to 4.5” grid spacing, coated with zinc or zinc oxide 

Product 4.—Wire decking, 42”(depth) x 46”(width), step channel, 3 channels, 4 to 6

gauge wire, 2” to 2.5” by 4” to 4.5” grid spacing, uncoated or coated with a substance

other than zinc or zinc oxide

Product 5.—Wire decking, 48”(depth) x 46”(width), flanged channel, 3 channels, 4 to 6

gauge wire, 2” to 2.5” by 4” to 4.5” grid spacing, coated with zinc or zinc oxide 

Product 6.—Wire decking, 48”(depth) x 46”(width), flanged channel, 3 channels, 4 to 6

gauge wire, 2” to 2.5” by 4” to 4.5” grid spacing, uncoated or coated with a substance

other than zinc or zinc oxide

Six U.S. producers (***) provided usable pricing data for sales of the requested wire decking

products, although not all firms reported pricing for all products and for all quarters. Price data reported

by these firms accounted for *** percent of U.S. producers’ commercial shipments of wire decking

during January 2006-December 2009. Six importers (***) provided usable pricing data for imports from

China in the final phase of these investigations. Price data reported included in tables V-1 to V-6 and

figure V-2 accounted for *** percent of commercial shipments of wire decking from China during

January 2006-December 2009. 

V-2
Table V-1

Wire decking: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 1,1

and margins of underselling, January 2006-December 2009

Period

United States China

Price Quantity Price Quantity Margin

per unit units per unit units percent

2006:

 January-March $*** *** $*** *** ***

 April-June *** *** *** *** ***

 July-September *** *** *** *** ***

 October-December *** *** 9.66 148,222 ***

2007:

 January-March *** *** *** *** ***

 April-June *** *** *** *** ***

 July-September *** *** 9.64 143,639 ***

 October-December *** *** 9.86 126,898 ***

2008:

 January-March *** *** 9.97 129,419 ***

 April-June *** *** 11.96 145,656 ***

 July-September *** *** 14.26 111,410 ***

 October-December *** *** 13.47 74,942 ***

2009:

 January-March *** *** 10.11 48,012 ***

 April-June *** *** *** *** ***

 July-September *** *** *** *** ***

 October-December 11.28 3,110 *** *** ***

 1 Wire decking, 42" (depth) x 46" (width), flanged channel, 3 channels, 4 to 6 gauge wire, 2" to 2.5" by 4" to 4.5"

grid spacing, coated with zinc or zinc oxide.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

V-3
Table V-2

Wire decking: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 2,1

and margins of underselling/(overselling), January 2006-December 2009

Period

United States China

Price Quantity Price Quantity Margin

per unit units per unit units percent

2006:

 January-March $11.47 91,756 $*** *** ***

 April-June 11.06 95,925 *** *** ***

 July-September *** *** *** *** ***

 October-December 11.57 79,843 *** *** ***

2007:

 January-March 10.98 95,271 *** *** ***

 April-June 10.70 108,640 *** *** ***

 July-September 10.88 110,008 *** *** ***

 October-December 11.10 85,878 *** *** ***

2008:

 January-March 11.30 127,559 *** *** ***

 April-June 13.41 107,196 *** *** ***

 July-September 17.78 67,325 *** *** ***

 October-December 15.22 70,316 *** *** ***

2009:

 January-March 11.95 55,523 *** *** ***

 April-June 11.53 64,808 *** *** ***

 July-September 10.65 51,091 *** *** ***

 October-December 10.39 57,890 *** *** ***

 1 Wire decking, 42" (depth) x 46" (width), flanged channel, 3 channels, 4 to 6 gauge wire, 2" to 2.5" by 4" to 4.5"

grid spacing, uncoated or coated with a substance other than zinc or zinc oxide.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

V-4
Table V-3

Wire decking: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 3,1

and margins of underselling (overselling), January 2006-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-4

Wire decking: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 4,1

and margins of underselling, January 2006-December 2009

Period

United States China

Price Quantity Price Quantity Margin

per unit units per unit units percent

2006:

 January-March $11.15 437,333 $*** *** ***

 April-June 11.23 427,443 *** *** ***

 July-September 11.48 458,260 *** *** ***

 October-December 11.43 426,053 *** *** ***

2007:

 January-March 10.96 442,043 *** *** ***

 April-June 10.71 449,044 *** *** ***

 July-September 11.21 399,041 *** *** ***

 October-December 10.94 364,042 *** *** ***

2008:

 January-March 11.18 537,525 *** *** ***

 April-June 13.41 469,802 *** *** ***

 July-September 16.93 288,585 *** *** ***

 October-December 15.22 274,259 *** *** ***

2009:

 January-March 12.17 202,477 *** *** ***

 April-June 10.70 185,293 *** *** ***

 July-September 9.90 253,798 *** *** ***

 October-December 9.92 214,652 *** *** ***

 1 Wire decking, 42" (depth) x 46" (width), step channel, 3 channels, 4 to 6 gauge wire, 2" to 2.5" by 4" to 4.5"

grid spacing, uncoated or coated with a substance other than zinc or zinc oxide.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

V-5
Table V-5

Wire decking: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 5,1

and margins of underselling/(overselling), January 2006-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-6

Wire decking: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 6,1

and margins of underselling/(overselling), January 2006-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure V-2

Wire decking: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of products 1-6, by country, 

January 2006-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Price Trends

Weighted-average prices for U.S.-produced wire decking generally fluctuated within a narrow

range during 2006 and 2007 with no apparent trend, then increased to mid-2008 and declined during the

remainder of 2008 and 2009 to levels similar to 2006. Prices for imports from China closely followed the

pattern of U.S. price trends during 2006-2009 but were generally lower than the U.S. prices.

Table V-7

Wire decking: Summary of weighted-average f.o.b. prices for products 1-6 from the United States

and China

* * * * * * *

When purchasers were asked if there was a price leader in the wire decking industry, 18

purchasers reported “yes,” with 8 firms citing importer *** and one or two U.S. producers such as ***. 

Most purchasers reported that these firms exhibited price leadership by being the first to announce

changes in price or being leaders in customer service, providing good quality, and on time delivery. 

Price Comparisons

As shown in table V-8, there were 93 instances where prices for domestic wire decking and

imported wire decking from China could be compared. U.S.-produced wire decking products were priced

higher than imports from China in 85 of the 93 possible comparisons.2

Table V-8

Wire decking: Summary of underselling/(overselling) by product from China, 

January 2006-December 2009

* * * * * * *

 2 Petitioners reported that “the financial declines of the wire decking industry in 2008 and 2009 correlate with the

increased underselling by significant volumes of subject imports.” Hearing transcript, p. 10 (Cannon). However, the

respondents reported that, “despite all the Petitioners’ claim of underselling and price competition, the record clearly

shows that imports neither depressed or suppressed prices.” Hearing transcript, p. 13 (Montalbine). Moreover, the

respondents testified that “underselling did not result in significant shifts towards lower-priced imports in relation to

total consumption.” Hearing transcript, p. 149 (Malashevich).

V-6
LOST SALES AND LOST REVENUES

The Commission requested that U.S. producers of wire decking report any instances of lost sales

and lost revenues experienced due to competition from imports from China since January 1, 2006. 

During the preliminary phase of these investigations, six producers reported having lost sales or

revenues because of subject imports during this time period. Also, three non-petitioners producers

reported that they had reduced prices and one had rolled back announced price increases, allegedly due to

imports from China. All three of these non-petitioner producers also alleged that they had lost sales due to

low-priced imports from China.3

 

During the final phase of the investigations, three U.S. producers, ***, reported lost sales and lost

revenues since January 1, 2006. U.S. producers *** and *** reported that they experienced many lost

sales and lost revenues since January 1, 2006, but had no records available. *** and *** reported that they

reduced prices to avoid losing sales to competitors selling wire decking from China, but did not report any

specific lost sales or revenues allegations. 

Staff contacted 64 listed purchasers, and 28 purchasers responded. The lost sales allegations

totaled $*** and the lost revenue allegations totaled $***.4

 The confirmed lost sales allegations totaled

$*** and the confirmed lost revenue allegations totaled $***. All of the lost sales and lost revenue

allegations are presented in tables V-9 and V-10. Additional information for some of the allegations

follows. 

Table V-9

Wire decking: U.S. producers’ lost sales allegations

* * * * * * *

Table V-10

Wire decking: U.S. producers’ lost revenue allegations

* * * * * * *

***

In addition, in the preliminary phase of the investigations, purchasers responding to lost sales and

lost revenue allegations were asked whether they shifted their purchases of wire decking from U.S.

producers to suppliers of wire decking from China since January 2006. Four of the 17 responding

purchasers (***) reported that they had shifted purchases of wire decking from U.S. producers to subject

imports since January 1, 2006; all of these purchasers reported that price was the reason for the shift. 

Purchasers *** and *** stated that, in addition to price, quality, delivery times, and service are all important

factors in their purchase decisions. Purchaser *** reported that it is often less expensive to purchase pallet

rack and wire decks from separate manufacturers due to specialization rather than manufacturers that

provide both pallet racks and wire decks.5

Also in the preliminary phase of the investigations, six of 15 responding purchasers (***) reported

that since January 1, 2006, U.S. producers reduced their prices in order to compete with the prices of

subject imports. Additionally, ***.”6

 The three purchasers responding that domestic producers had not

 3 Wire Decking from China, Investigations Nos. 701-TA-466 and 731-TA-1162 (Preliminary), USITC Publication

4092, July 2009.

 4

 The lost revenue and lost sales allegations were made by ***. 

 5 Wire Decking from China, Investigations Nos. 701-TA-466 and 731-TA-1162 (Preliminary), USITC Publication

4092, July 2009.

 6

 Fax from ***.

V-7
reduced prices in response to the pricing of imported Chinese wire decking stated why they responded

negatively: *** and *** reported that the falling prices were due to the falling prices in all steel products,

and *** stated that “the domestics are selling for the same or for less” than the imported wire decks.7 8

 7 Fax from ***.

 8 Wire Decking from China, Investigations Nos. 701-TA-466 and 731-TA-1162 (Preliminary), USITC Publication

4092, July 2009.

V-8
PART VI: FINANCIAL CONDITION OF U.S. PRODUCERS

BACKGROUND

Seven producers,1

 provided usable financial data for their operations on wire decking. These

firms accounted for the vast majority of the domestic industry’s production/sales volume during 2009. 

No internal consumption or related transfers were reported.

OPERATIONS ON WIRE DECKING

Results of operations of the U.S. producers on their wire decking operations are presented in table

VI-1, which includes data on a per-unit basis as well as operating income (loss) to net sales ratio. 

The financial results of the producers on their wire decking operations deteriorated over the

period data were gathered. Net sales quantities decreased by over 51.1 percent from 2006 to 2009. Net

sales values also decreased substantially by almost 50.8 percent during the same period. Operating

income decreased continuously and substantially, and the industry reported an operating loss of more than

$4.6 million in 2009 compared to an operating income of over $11.3 million in 2006. 

While net sales quantities decreased by moderate amounts (approximately six to eight percent) in

2007 and 2008, and net sales values decreased and then increased by about the same moderate amounts,

both measures declined precipitously in 2009. Operating income also declined substantially in 2009,

following an even larger decline in 2008. The decrease in the operating income in 2009, on the other

hand, was the result of per-unit net sales values decreasing by a larger amount ($0.09 per pound) than the

combined $0.05 per pound decrease in the unit cost of goods sold (“COGS”) (which decreased by $0.07

per pound (led primarily by the increase of raw material costs) and unit selling, general and administrative

(“SG&A”) expenses(which increased by $0.02 per pound). Five out of the seven producers experienced

operating losses in 2009, and of the two remaining producers reporting operating income, one reported

an operating income to net sales ratio of ***.

 1 The producers with a fiscal year end other than December are ***. However, the financial data of *** were

submitted on a calendar year basis. Cargotainer was permanently closed on January 22, 2010.

VI-1
Table VI-1

Wire decking: Results of operations of U.S. producers, fiscal years 2006-09

Item

Fiscal year

2006 2007 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Net sales 318,011 299,938 275,560 155,602

Value ($1,000)

Net sales 178,846 166,106 178,872 87,908

COGS 155,813 144,882 165,710 82,218

Gross profit 23,033 21,224 13,162 5,690

SG&A expenses 11,713 12,227 12,285 10,347

Operating income (loss) 11,320 8,997 877 (4,657)

Interest expense 1,846 2,096 1,491 801

Other expense 2,031 1,717 2,529 1,521

Other income 2,274 2,187 2,953 870

Net income (loss) 9,717 7,371 (190) (6,109)

Depreciation/amortization 5,531 4,817 4,696 4,213

Cash flow 15,248 12,188 4,506 (1,896)

Value (per pound)

Net sales $0.56 $0.55 $0.65 $0.57

COGS 0.49 0.48 0.60 0.53

Gross profit 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.04

SG&A expenses 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.07

Operating income (loss) 0.04 0.03 0.00 (1) (0.03)

Ratio to net sales (percent)

COGS 87.1 87.2 92.6 93.5

Gross profit 12.9 12.8 7.4 6.5

SG&A expenses 6.5 7.4 6.9 11.8

Operating income (loss) 6.3 5.4 0.5 (5.3)

Number of firms reporting

Operating losses 3 4 4 5

Data 7 7 7 7

 1 Positive, but less than $0.004.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

VI-2
Selected financial data, by firm, are presented in table VI-2. While four producers experienced

operating losses in 2008, five producers incurred operating losses in 2009. *** experienced substantial

operating losses in 2009, ***, respectively. 

*** raw material costs increased due to an increase of wire costs in 2008 and its per-unit factory

overhead and SG&A expenses increased in 2009 due to the decline in production/sales quantities. ***

increased, mainly due to *** in 2008 and 2009 compared to 2007 and 2008.2

 The per-unit raw material

costs of *** increased substantially in 2008, and the unit factory overhead of *** and unit SG&A

expenses of *** increased substantially in 2009, mainly due to *** in 2009 compared to 2008. ***.3

Table VI-2

Wire decking: Results of operations of U.S. producers, by firm, fiscal years 2006-09

* * * * * * *

.

Selected aggregate per-unit cost data of the producers on their operations, i.e., COGS and SG&A

expenses, are presented in table VI-3. Raw material costs (largely wire rod, wire, and hot-rolled steel and

slit sheet steel) increased *** from 2007 to 2008, which resulted in much higher COGS and total cost

(which included SG&A expenses),4

 and then fell from 2008 to 2009. Per-unit factory overhead and

SG&A expenses both increased *** from 2008 to 2009, the result of *** production/sales quantities for

the majority of producers.

Table VI-3

Wire decking: Per-unit costs of U.S. producers, fiscal years 2006-09

Item

Fiscal year

2006 2007 2008 2009

COGS: Value (per pound)

 Raw materials $0.34 $0.34 $0.44 $0.34

 Direct labor 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.06

 Factory overhead 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.14

 Total COGS 0.49 0.48 0.60 0.53

SG&A expenses 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.07

 Total cost 0.53 0.52 0.65 0.59

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

 2 E-mail from *** June 25, 2009. ***.

 3

 E-mails from ***, June 23, 24, 26, and July 1. When the utility of the goods in the ordinary course of business

is no longer as great as their cost, a departure from the cost principle of measuring the inventory is required. 

Whether the cause is obsolescence, physical deterioration, changes in price levels, or any other, the difference should

be recognized by a charge to income in the current period. This usually is accomplished by stating the goods at a

lower level designated as market (lower of cost or market principle) (ARB-43, Chapter 4, Statement 5). However,

another Generally Accepted Accounting Principle (“GAAP”), Financial Accounting Standard (FAS-151, Inventory

Costs; an amendment of ARB No.43, Chapter 4) requires that abnormal amounts be recognized as current-period

charges regardless of whether they meet the criterion of “so abnormal.”

 4

 E-mail from ***, June 25, 2009. Refer to footnote 3 in this section.

VI-3
A variance analysis showing the effects of prices and volume on the producers’ sales of wire

decking, and of costs and volume on their total cost, is shown in table VI-4. The analysis is summarized

at the bottom of the table. The analysis indicates that the decrease in operating income ($16 million)

between 2006 and 2009 was attributable mainly to the negative effects of increased costs/expenses ($10.6 

million) and decreased sales quantities ($5.8 million). The decrease in operating income in 2009 relative

to 2008 was attributable mainly to a negative price variance in conjunction with a favorable

costs/expenses variance. 

Table VI-4

Wire decking: Variance analysis of operations of U.S. producers, fiscal years 2006-09

Item

Between fiscal years

2006-09 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

Value ($1,000)

Net sales:

 Price variance 399 (2,576) 26,267 (13,097)

 Volume variance (91,337) (10,164) (13,501) (77,867)

 Total net sales variance (90,938) (12,740) 12,766 (90,964)

Cost of sales:

 Cost variance (5,979) 2,076 (32,604) 11,354

 Volume variance 79,574 8,855 11,776 72,138

 Total cost variance 73,595 10,931 (20,828) 83,492

Gross profit variance (17,343) (1,809) (8,062) (7,472)

SG&A expenses:

 Expense variance (4,616) (1,180) (1,052) (3,410)

 Volume variance 5,982 666 994 5,348

 Total SG&A variance 1,366 (514) (58) 1,938

Operating income variance (15,977) (2,323) (8,120) (5,534)

Summarized as:

 Price variance 399 (2,576) 26,267 (13,097)

 Net cost/expense variance (10,595) 896 (33,655) 7,944

 Net volume variance (5,781) (643) (731) (382)

Note.--Unfavorable variances are shown in parentheses; all others are favorable. The data are comparable to

changes in operating income as presented in table VI-1.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

VI-4
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES

The responding firms’ aggregate data on capital expenditures and research and development

(“R&D”) expenses are presented in table VI-5. *** accounted for a majority of the domestic industry’s

capital expenditures during the period for which data were collected. Capital expenditures decreased

from 2006 to 2007 due to *** and increased from 2007 to 2008 due mainly to ***. Four producers

reported R&D expenses. R&D expenses increased slightly and continuously between 2006 to 2008 and

decreased somewhat between 2008 and 2009. Capital expenditures, by firm, are presented in table VI-6.

Table VI-5

Wire decking: Capital expenditures and R&D expenses by U.S. producers, fiscal years 2006-09

* * * * * * *

Table VI-6

Wire decking: Capital expenditures by U.S. producers, by firms, fiscal years 2006-09

* * * * * * *

ASSETS AND RETURN ON INVESTMENT

U.S. producers were requested to provide data on their assets used in the production and sales of

wire decking during the period for which data were collected to assess their return on investment (“ROI”). 

Although ROI can be computed in different ways, a commonly used method is operating income earned

during the period divided by the total assets utilized for the operations. Therefore, ROI was calculated as

operating income divided by total assets used in the production and sales of wire decking. Data on the

U.S. producers’ total assets and their ROI are presented in table VI-7. 

The value of total assets continuously decreased between 2006 and 2009 as net accounts

receivable, inventories, and net book value of property, plant, and equipment (PPE) decreased over the

period. The trend of ROI over the period was the same as the trend of the operating loss margin to net

sales in table VI-1 over the same period.

VI-5
Table VI-7

Wire decking: Value of assets and return on investment of U.S. producers, fiscal years 2006-09

Item

At end of fiscal year

2006 2007 2008 2009

Value of assets: Value ($1,000)

1. Current assets:

 A. Cash and equivalents 714 2,859 1,911 1,047

 B. Trade receivables (net) 29,046 28,945 22,569 13,895

 C. Inventories 26,226 22,360 28,027 20,488

 D. All other current 577 524 306 374

 Total current 56,563 54,688 52,813 35,804

2. Non-current assets:

 A. Productive facilities1 120,434 118,251 116,582 115,068

 B. Productive facilities (net)2

 68,383 67,822 62,513 55,707

 C. Other non-current 4,938 5,133 8,770 9,116

 Total non-current 73,321 72,955 71,283 64,823

 Total assets 129,884 127,643 124,096 100,627

 Value ($1,000)

Operating income (loss) 11,320 8,997 877 (4,657)

Ratio of operating income to total assets (percent)

Return on investment 8.7 7.0 0.7 (4.6)

 1 Original cost of property, plant, and equipment (PPE).

 2

 Net book value of PPE (original cost less accumulated depreciation). 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

CAPITAL AND INVESTMENT

The Commission requested U.S. producers to describe any actual or potential negative effects on

their return on investment, or their growth, investment, ability to raise capital, existing development and

production efforts, or the scale of capital investments as a result of imports of wire decking from China. 

Their responses were in appendix D.

VI-6
PART VII: THREAT CONSIDERATIONS AND INFORMATION

ON NONSUBJECT COUNTRIES

Section 771(7)(F)(i) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(i)) provides that–

In determining whether an industry in the United States is threatened

with material injury by reason of imports (or sales for importation) of the

subject merchandise, the Commission shall consider, among other

relevant economic factors1

--

(I) if a countervailable subsidy is involved, such information as may be

presented to it by the administering authority as to the nature of the

subsidy (particularly as to whether the countervailable subsidy is a

subsidy described in Article 3 or 6.1 of the Subsidies Agreement), and

whether imports of the subject merchandise are likely to increase,

(II) any existing unused production capacity or imminent, substantial

increase in production capacity in the exporting country indicating the

likelihood of substantially increased imports of the subject merchandise

into the United States, taking into account the availability of other export

markets to absorb any additional exports,

(III) a significant rate of increase of the volume or market penetration of

imports of the subject merchandise indicating the likelihood of

substantially increased imports,

(IV) whether imports of the subject merchandise are entering at prices

that are likely to have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on

domestic prices, and are likely to increase demand for further imports,

(V) inventories of the subject merchandise,

(VI) the potential for product-shifting if production facilities in the

foreign country, which can be used to produce the subject merchandise,

are currently being used to produce other products,

(VII) in any investigation under this title which involves imports of both

a raw agricultural product (within the meaning of paragraph (4)(E)(iv))

and any product processed from such raw agricultural product, the

likelihood that there will be increased imports, by reason of product

shifting, if there is an affirmative determination by the Commission

 1 Section 771(7)(F)(ii) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii)) provides that “The Commission shall consider

{these factors} . . . as a whole in making a determination of whether further dumped or subsidized imports are

imminent and whether material injury by reason of imports would occur unless an order is issued or a suspension

agreement is accepted under this title. The presence or absence of any factor which the Commission is required to

consider . . . shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the determination. Such a determination

may not be made on the basis of mere conjecture or supposition.”

VII-1
under section 705(b)(1) or 735(b)(1) with respect to either the raw

agricultural product or the processed agricultural product (but not both),

(VIII) the actual and potential negative effects on the existing

development and production efforts of the domestic industry, including

efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of the domestic

like product, and

(IX) any other demonstrable adverse trends that indicate the probability

that there is likely to be material injury by reason of imports (or sale for

importation) of the subject merchandise (whether or not it is actually

being imported at the time).2

Information on the nature of the alleged subsidies was presented in Part I of this report;

information on the volume and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise is presented in Parts IV and

V; and information on the effects of imports of the subject merchandise on U.S. producers’ existing

development and production efforts is presented in Part VI. Information on inventories of the subject

merchandise; foreign producers’ operations, including the potential for “product-shifting;” any other

threat indicators, if applicable; and any dumping in third-country markets, follows.

THE INDUSTRY IN CHINA

The Commission requested data from 48 firms which were listed in the petition and believed to

produce wire decking in China during the period of investigation. The Commission received four

responses, including one from a large producer of wire decking in China, Dalian Eastfound Metal

Products Co., Ltd. and its related company Dalian Eastfound Material Handling Co., Ltd. (collectively

“Eastfound”).3

 Data regarding the Chinese industry are based on these four foreign producer

questionnaires, which are believed to account for approximately *** percent of Chinese production and

*** percent of Chinese export shipments to the United States in 2009.4

 Eastfound estimated that in 2009,

 2 Section 771(7)(F)(iii) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(iii)) further provides that, in antidumping

investigations, “. . . the Commission shall consider whether dumping in the markets of foreign countries (as

evidenced by dumping findings or antidumping remedies in other WTO member markets against the same class or

kind of merchandise manufactured or exported by the same party as under investigation) suggests a threat of material

injury to the domestic industry.”

 3

 The Commission also received a response from *** reporting that it did not export the subject product to the

United States during the period of investigation. ***.

 4

 Petitioners and Respondents disagree as to the number of firms in China that actually produce wire decking. 

Petitioners claim that there are a number of producers of wire decking in China, which account for a large share of

Chinese capacity, did not respond to the Commission’s questionnaire. Petitioners’ prehearing brief, pp. 65-72. 

Petitioners also claim that any wire fabricator in China could potentially produce wire decking with relatively little

time or equipment required for start up. Hearing transcript, p. 120 (Wagner). They further claim that these wire

fabricators in China possess a great deal of unused capacity. Id. at 19-20 (Rollins). 

Respondents claim that petitioners greatly exaggerate the number of firms producing wire decking in China

and that virtually all of the major producers of wire decking in China have submitted data to the Commission. 

Respondents’ posthearing brief, app. 2, pp. 6-13. See also Hearing transcript, p. 137 (Montalbine) (“there’s no

question that we have all the major producers of Chinese wire decking, and that in fact, Eastfound, our client, was

the major producer.”). Respondents claim that a number of Chinese firms may claim that they could produce wire

decking, especially in internet solicitations, but in fact are unable to produce wire decking. Respondents’

(continued...)

VII-2
it accounted for *** percent of total exports of wire decking to the United States and *** percent to ***

percent of total production of wire decking in China. Eastfound reported that *** percent of its 2009

exports to the United States were imported by ***. Dalian Huameilong Metal Products Co., Ltd.

(“Huameilong”) estimated that in 2009, it accounted for *** percent of total exports of wire decking to

the United States and *** percent of total production of wire decking in China. Huameilong reported that

*** percent of its 2009 exports to the United States were imported by ***. Dandong Riqian Logistics

Equipment Co., Ltd. (“Riqian”) estimated that in 2009, it accounted for *** percent of total exports of

wire decking to the United States and *** percent of total production of wire decking in China. Riqian

reported that *** percent of its 2009 exports to the United States were imported by ***. Dalian Xingbo

Metal Products Co., Ltd. (“Xingbo”) estimated that in 2009, it accounted for *** percent of total exports

of wire decking to the United States and *** percent of total production of wire decking in China.5

 The

tabulation below lists the responding Chinese producers of wire decking and their 2009 capacity,

production, capacity utilization, and export shipments to the United States.

Chinese producer

 Share of

reported

2009

production

in China

(percent)

Quantity (1,000 pounds); capacity utilization and share of total

shipments (percent)

Capacity Production

Capacity

utilization

Exports to

the U.S.

Share of

total

shipments

exported to

the U.S.

*** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Source: Compiled from data submitted in Commission questionnaire responses.

Table VII-1 presents data for capacity, production, and shipments of wire decking from all

reporting producers in China. Chinese producers’ capacity decreased by *** percent from 2006 to 2009.6

Capacity is projected to *** percent by 2011. The production of Chinese producers decreased by ***

 4 (...continued)

posthearing brief, app. 1., p. 35 and app. 2, pp. 6-14.

 5

 Foreign producer questionnaire responses of Eastfound, Huameilong, and Xingbo, questions II-3 and II-4.

 6

 Eastfound reported that on February 1, 2009, it closed one of its two wire decking manufacturing facilities and

since October of 2008 has laid off more than 500 PRWs. Respondents’ posthearing brief, p. 9; Foreign producer’s

questionnaire response of Eastfound, app. 1. It reported that at the time of the closing of the plant the production

facilities and equipment “were quite old,” and that it was “essentially mothballed and to restart it would take a

substantial investment in time and money.” Respondents posthearing brief, app. 1, p. 26. Further, Eastfound

reported that it has subsequently diversified the production of its remaining plant to focus on higher value added

wire products, such as wire baskets and roll containers, and has no incentive to switch production back to low value

added products such as wire decking. Respondents’ posthearing brief, p. 11 and app. 1, p. 37.

VII-3
percent from 2006 to 2009, but is projected to *** percent by 2011. Chinese producers reported capacity

utilization rates ranging from *** percent in 2007 to *** percent in 2006.7

Table VII-1

Wire decking: China’s reported production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories,

2006-2009 and projections for 2010 and 2011

* * * * * * *

Throughout most of the period of investigation, the majority of the Chinese producers’ shipments

went to the United States. Chinese producers’ volume of shipments to its home market are *** during the

period of investigation.8

 The volume of Chinese producers’ export shipments to the United States

decreased by *** percent from 2006 to 2009, and decreased as a share of China’s total shipments from

*** percent of their total shipments in 2006 to *** percent in 2009. From 2006 to 2009, Chinese

shipments to other countries increased by *** percent, and accounted for *** percent of total shipments

in 2006 and *** percent of total shipments in 2009. The largest reporting Chinese producer, Eastfound,

reported that *** are its principal export markets other than the United States.9

U.S. IMPORTERS’ INVENTORIES

Reported inventories held by U.S. importers of subject merchandise from China are shown in

table VII-2. No U.S. importer reported U.S. imports from countries other than China.

Table VII-2

Wire decking: U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of subject and nonsubject imports, by

sources, 2006-2009

* * * * * * *

U.S. IMPORTERS’ CURRENT ORDERS

The Commission requested U.S. importers to indicate whether they imported or arranged for the

importation of wire decking after December 31, 2009. *** of the seven reporting U.S. importers stated

that they had imported or arranged for importation since December 31, 2009. 

ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY ORDERS IN THIRD-COUNTRY MARKETS

There is no indication that wire decking has been the subject of any other import relief

investigations in any other countries.

 7 Respondents claim that Eastfound’s reported capacity utilization of *** percent is based on product mix issues

and ***. Hearing transcript, p. 171 (Malashevich); Respondents’ posthearing brief, app. 1, p. 18.

 8

 There is essentially no Chinese home market for wire decking as warehouses in China still generally use pallet

storage systems constructed with wood as opposed to steel decking. Conference transcript, p. 135 (Song);

Petitioners’ postconference brief, pp. 41-42.

 9

 Respondents’ posthearing brief, app. 1, p. 28.

VII-4
INFORMATION ON PRODUCERS IN NONSUBJECT COUNTRIES

In assessing whether the domestic industry is materially injured or threatened with material injury

“by reason of subject imports,” the legislative history states “that the Commission must examine all

relevant evidence, including any known factors, other than the dumped or subsidized imports, that may be

injuring the domestic industry, and that the Commission must examine those other factors (including nonsubject imports) ‘to ensure that it is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject imports.’”10

There is production of wire decking in both Canada and Mexico. Respondents describe the

producers in Canada and Mexico as “very small and low-volume producers.”11 In Mexico, Necochea

Internacional de Laminados, S.A. de C.V. (Necochea) produces wire decking at its plant in Gomez

Palacio, about 400 miles from Laredo TX.12 According to its web site, Necochea is a manufacturer and

integrator of rack storage and retrieval systems.13

In Canada, there are at least two significant producers of wire decking, both located in the

Province of Quebec. Premier Wire has a capacity of about *** decks per year; is currently running at

about *** percent of capacity and sells its decking ***.14 The total Canadian market is estimated by ***

decks per year.15 Petitioners reported that ***.16 The second significant producer, Forma Fil, has a

capacity of about *** decks per day, or *** decks per year.17 It is currently running at about *** percent

of capacity and sells its product ***, although it does ***.18 There are two other producers in Canada, but

their production is not significant.19

 10 Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 2007-1552 at 17 (Fed. Cir., Sept. 18, 2008), quoting

from Statement of Administrative Action on Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. 103-316, Vol. I at 851-52;

see also Bratsk Aluminum Smelter v. United States, 444 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

 11 Hearing transcript, p. 218 (Kedaitis).

 12 E-mail correspondence from ***, July 6, 2009.

 13 http://www.necochea.com.mx/cuerpo.html,, retrieved July 8, 2009.

 14 Staff interview with ***, July 8, 2009.

 15 Ibid.

 16 Petitioners’ prehearing brief, p. 23 n. 113.

 17 Staff interview with ***, July 7, 2009.

 18 Ibid.

 19 Staff interview with ***, July 8, 2009.

VII-5

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

A-1

4584 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 18 / Thursday, January 28, 2010 / Notices 

1For purposes of these investigations, the 

Department of Commerce has defined the subject 

merchandise as ‘‘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.’’ 

(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of 

section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended, an investigation be instituted 

to determine whether there is a 

violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of 

section 337 in the importation into the 

United States, the sale for importation, 

or the sale within the United States after 

importation of certain electronic 

devices, including mobile phones, 

portable music players, or computers 

that infringe one or more of claims 1– 

12 of U.S. Patent No. 6,714,091; claims 

1–6 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 6,834,181; 

claims 1, 3, 6–10, 14, and 16 of U.S. 

Patent No. 6,895,256; 1, 10–13, 16, 19, 

22, and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 6,518,957; 

claims 1, 3, 6, 8–10, 13, 17, and 19 of 

U.S. Patent No. 6,073,036; claims 1–3 

and 7–10 of U.S. Patent No. 6,262,735; 

and claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 

6,924,789, and whether an industry in 

the United States exists as required by 

subsection (a)(2) of section 337; 

(2) For the purpose of the 

investigation so instituted, the following 

are hereby named as parties upon which 

this notice of investigation shall be 

served: 

(a) The complainants are: 

Nokia Corporation, Keilalahdentie 4 

(P.O. Box 226), FIN–00045 Nokia 

Group, Espoo, Finland; 

Nokia Inc., 102 Corporate Park Drive, 

White Plains, New York. 

(b) The respondent is the following 

entity alleged to be in violation of 

section 337, and is the party upon 

which the complaint is to be served: 

Apple Inc., 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, 

California 95014. 

(c) The Commission investigative 

attorney, party to this investigation, is 

Rett Snotherly, Esq., Office of Unfair 

Import Investigations, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and 

(3) For the investigation so instituted, 

the Honorable Paul J. Luckern, Chief 

Administrative Law Judge, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, shall 

designate the presiding Administrative 

Law Judge. 

Responses to the complaint and the 

notice of investigation must be 

submitted by the named respondent in 

accordance with section 210.13 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 

19 CFR 201.16(d) and 210.13(a), such 

responses will be considered by the 

Commission if received not later than 20 

days after the date of service by the 

Commission of the complaint and the 

notice of investigation. Extensions of 

time for submitting responses to the 

complaint and the notice of 

investigation will not be granted unless 

good cause therefor is shown. 

Failure of the respondent to file a 

timely response to each allegation in the 

complaint and in this notice may be 

deemed to constitute a waiver of the 

right to appear and contest the 

allegations of the complaint and this 

notice, and to authorize the 

administrative law judge and the 

Commission, without further notice to 

the respondent, to find the facts to be as 

alleged in the complaint and this notice 

and to enter an initial determination 

and a final determination containing 

such findings, and may result in the 

issuance of an exclusion order or a cease 

and desist order or both directed against 

the respondent. 

Issued: January 25, 2010. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–1761 Filed 1–27–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–466 and 731– 

TA–1162 (Final)] 

Wire Decking From China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Scheduling of the final phase of 

countervailing duty and antidumping 

investigations. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of the final 

phase of countervailing duty 

investigation No. 701–TA–466 (Final) 

under section 705(b) of the Tariff Act of 

1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)) (the Act) and 

the final phase of antidumping 

investigation No. 731–TA–1162 (Final) 

under section 735(b) of the Act (19 

U.S.C. 1673d(b)) to determine whether 

an industry in the United States is 

materially injured or threatened with 

material injury, or the establishment of 

an industry in the United States is 

materially retarded, by reason of 

subsidized and less-than-fair-value 

imports from China of wire decking, 

provided for in subheadings 9403.90.80, 

7217.10, 7217.20, 7326.20, 7326.90, and 

9403.20.00 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States.1

For further information concerning 

the conduct of this phase of the 

investigations, hearing procedures, and 

rules of general application, consult the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207). 

DATES: Effective Date: January 12, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christopher J. Cassise (202–708–5408), 

Office of Investigations, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. 

Hearing-impaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these investigations may be viewed on 

the Commission’s electronic docket 

(EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—The final phase of 

these investigations is being scheduled 

as a result of affirmative preliminary 

determinations by the Department of 

Commerce that certain benefits which 

constitute subsidies within the meaning 

of section 703 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1671b) are being provided to 

manufacturers, producers, or exporters 

in China of wire decking, and that such 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 18 / Thursday, January 28, 2010 / Notices 4585 

products are being sold in the United 

States at less than fair value within the 

meaning of section 733 of the Act (19 

U.S.C. 1673b). The investigations were 

requested in a petition filed on June 5, 

2009, by AWP Industries, Inc., 

Frankfort, KY; ITC Manufacturing, Inc., 

Phoenix, AZ; J&L Wire Cloth, Inc., St. 

Paul, MN; and Nashville Wire Products 

Mfg. Co., Inc., Nashville, TN. 

Participation in the investigations and 

public service list.—Persons, including 

industrial users of the subject 

merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in the final phase of these 

investigations as parties must file an 

entry of appearance with the Secretary 

to the Commission, as provided in 

section 201.11 of the Commission’s 

rules, no later than 21 days prior to the 

hearing date specified in this notice. A 

party that filed a notice of appearance 

during the preliminary phase of the 

investigations need not file an 

additional notice of appearance during 

this final phase. The Secretary will 

maintain a public service list containing 

the names and addresses of all persons, 

or their representatives, who are parties 

to the investigations. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and BPI service list.—Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

gathered in the final phase of these 

investigations available to authorized 

applicants under the APO issued in the 

investigations, provided that the 

application is made no later than 21 

days prior to the hearing date specified 

in this notice. Authorized applicants 

must represent interested parties, as 

defined by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are 

parties to the investigations. A party 

granted access to BPI in the preliminary 

phase of the investigations need not 

reapply for such access. A separate 

service list will be maintained by the 

Secretary for those parties authorized to 

receive BPI under the APO. 

Staff report.—The prehearing staff 

report in the final phase of these 

investigations will be placed in the 

nonpublic record on May 12, 2010, and 

a public version will be issued 

thereafter, pursuant to section 207.22 of 

the Commission’s rules. 

Hearing.—The Commission will hold 

a hearing in connection with the final 

phase of these investigations beginning 

at 9:30 a.m. on May 27, 2010, at the U.S. 

International Trade Commission 

Building. Requests to appear at the 

hearing should be filed in writing with 

the Secretary to the Commission on or 

before May 20, 2010. A nonparty who 

has testimony that may aid the 

Commission’s deliberations may request 

permission to present a short statement 

at the hearing. All parties and 

nonparties desiring to appear at the 

hearing and make oral presentations 

should attend a prehearing conference 

to be held at 9:30 a.m. on May 25, 2010, 

at the U.S. International Trade 

Commission Building. Oral testimony 

and written materials to be submitted at 

the public hearing are governed by 

sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), and 

207.24 of the Commission’s rules. 

Parties must submit any request to 

present a portion of their hearing 

testimony in camera no later than 7 

business days prior to the date of the 

hearing. 

Written submissions.—Each party 

who is an interested party shall submit 

a prehearing brief to the Commission. 

Prehearing briefs must conform with the 

provisions of section 207.23 of the 

Commission’s rules; the deadline for 

filing is May 19, 2010. Parties may also 

file written testimony in connection 

with their presentation at the hearing, as 

provided in section 207.24 of the 

Commission’s rules, and posthearing 

briefs, which must conform with the 

provisions of section 207.25 of the 

Commission’s rules. The deadline for 

filing posthearing briefs is June 4, 2010; 

witness testimony must be filed no later 

than three days before the hearing. In 

addition, any person who has not 

entered an appearance as a party to the 

investigations may submit a written 

statement of information pertinent to 

the subject of the investigations, 

including statements of support or 

opposition to the petition, on or before 

June 4, 2010. On June 24, 2010, the 

Commission will make available to 

parties all information on which they 

have not had an opportunity to 

comment. Parties may submit final 

comments on this information on or 

before June 28, 2010, but such final 

comments must not contain new factual 

information and must otherwise comply 

with section 207.30 of the Commission’s 

rules. All written submissions must 

conform with the provisions of section 

201.8 of the Commission’s rules; any 

submissions that contain BPI must also 

conform with the requirements of 

sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission’s 

rules do not authorize filing of 

submissions with the Secretary by 

facsimile or electronic means, except to 

the extent permitted by section 201.8 of 

the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 

FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Even 

where electronic filing of a document is 

permitted, certain documents must also 

be filed in paper form, as specified in II 

(C) of the Commission’s Handbook on 

Electronic Filing Procedures, 67 FR 

68168, 68173 (November 8, 2002). 

Additional written submissions to the 

Commission, including requests 

pursuant to section 201.12 of the 

Commission’s rules, shall not be 

accepted unless good cause is shown for 

accepting such submissions, or unless 

the submission is pursuant to a specific 

request by a Commissioner or 

Commission staff. 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, 

each document filed by a party to the 

investigations must be served on all 

other parties to the investigations (as 

identified by either the public or BPI 

service list), and a certificate of service 

must be timely filed. The Secretary will 

not accept a document for filing without 

a certificate of service. 

Authority: These investigations are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.21 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: January 25, 2010. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–1744 Filed 1–27–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Office of Workers’ Compensation 

Programs 

Proposed Extension of the Approval of 

Information Collection Requirements 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as 

part of its continuing effort to reduce 

paperwork and respondent burden, 

conducts a pre-clearance consultation 

program to provide the general public 

and Federal agencies with an 

opportunity to comment on proposed 

and/or continuing collections of 

information in accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This 

program helps to ensure that requested 

data can be provided in the desired 

format, reporting burden (time and 

financial resources) is minimized, 

collection instruments are clearly 

understood, and the impact of collection 

requirements on respondents can be 

properly assessed. Currently, the Office 

of Workers’ Compensation Programs is 

soliciting comments concerning the 

proposal to extend OMB approval of the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

32902 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 2010 / Notices 

Dated: May 3, 2010. 

Christopher Cassel, 

Director, Subsidies Enforcement Office, 

Import Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13975 Filed 6–9–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–570–950] 

Wire Decking from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Affirmative 

Countervailing Duty Determination 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) determines that 

countervailable subsidies are being 

provided to producers and exporters of 

wire decking from the People’s Republic 

of China (the PRC). For information on 

the estimated subsidy rates, see the 

‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section of 

this notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 10, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kristen Johnson and John Conniff, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 3, Operations, 

Import Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Room 4014, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–4793 and (202) 482–1009, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

This investigation covers 32 programs 

and the following producers/exporters: 

Dalian Eastfound Metal Products Co., 

Ltd. (Eastfound Metal) and its affiliate 

Dalian Eastfound Material Handling 

Products Co., Ltd. (Eastfound Material) 

(collectively, the Eastfound Companies) 

and Dalian Huameilong Metal Products 

Co., Ltd. (DHMP). The petitioners in this 

investigation are AWP Industries, Inc., 

ITC Manufacturing, Inc., J&L Wire 

Cloth, Inc., Nashville Wire Products 

Mfg., Co., Inc., and Wireway Husky 

Corporation (collectively, the 

petitioners). In addition, the Nucor 

Corporation is participating as a 

domestic interested party. 

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation (the POI) 

for which we are measuring subsidies is 

January 1, 2008, through December 31, 

2008, which corresponds to the PRC’s 

most recently completed fiscal year at 

the time we initiated this investigation. 

See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2). 

Case History 

The following events have occurred 

since the Department announced the 

Preliminary Determination on 

November 9, 2009. See 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) (Preliminary 

Determination). 

From November 17, 2009, through 

December 23, 2009, we issued 

supplemental questionnaires to the 

Government of the PRC (the GOC), the 

Eastfound Companies, and DHMP. From 

December 1, 2009, through January 5, 

2010, the GOC, the Eastfound 

Companies, and DHMP submitted 

supplemental questionnaire responses. 

On December 4 and 8, 2009, the GOC 

and the Eastfound Companies submitted 

requests for a public hearing. From 

January 8 through January 20, 2010, the 

Department issued verification outlines 

to the GOC, the Eastfound Companies, 

and DHMP. The Department conducted 

verification of the questionnaire 

responses submitted by the GOC on 

January 27 and 29, 2010. The 

Department conducted verification of 

the questionnaire responses submitted 

by the Eastfound Companies from 

February 1 through February 4, 2010. 

The Department conducted verification 

of the questionnaire responses 

submitted by DHMP from January 25 

through 27, 2010. From February 17 

through February 24, 2010, the 

Department released verification reports 

for the GOC, the Eastfound Companies, 

and DHMP. Interested parties submitted 

the case and rebuttal briefs on March 9 

and March 19, respectively. On March 

19, 2010, and April 6, 2010, the GOC 

and the Eastfound Companies withdrew 

their requests for a public hearing, 

respectively. No other interested party 

requested a hearing. As such, the 

Department did not hold a public 

hearing in this investigation. 

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. 

Thus, all deadlines in this segment of 

the proceeding have been extended by 

seven days. The revised deadline for 

this countervailing duty (CVD) 

investigation is now June 3, 2010. See 

Memorandum to the Record from 

Ronald K Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, 

regarding ‘‘Tolling of Administrative 

Deadlines As a Result of the 

Government Closure During the Recent 

Snowstorm,’’ dated February 12, 2010. 

Scope of 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 (CBP) 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 the following 

HTSUS subheadings: 


cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 2010 / Notices 32903 

1 In the Preliminary Determination, we presented 

in the scope, certain HTSUS categories that wire 

decking is also entered under, as a six–digit 

category number (i.e., 7217.10, 7217.20, 7326.20, 

and 7326.90). Since the Preliminary Determination, 

we found that CBP required a 10–digit format for 

these HTSUS categories. Thus, for the final 

determination, we have determined that wire 

decking’s scope HTSUS categories will be presented 

in their full 10–digit format. 

7217.10.1000, 7217.10.2000, 

7217.10.3000, 7217.10.4030, 

7217.10.4090, 7217.10.5030, 

7217.10.5090, 7217.10.6000, 

7217.10.7000, 7217.10.8010, 

7217.10.8020, 7217.10.8025, 

7217.10.8030, 7217.10.8045, 

7217.10.8060, 7217.10.8075, 

7217.10.8090, 7217.10.9000, 

7217.20.1500, 7217.20.3000, 

7217.20.4510, 7217.20.4520, 

7217.20.4530, 7217.20.4540, 

7217.20.4550, 7217.20.4560, 

7217.20.4570, 7217.20.4580, 

7217.20.6000, 7217.20.7500, 

7326.20.0010, 7326.20.0020, 

7326.20.0070, 7326.90.1000, 

7326.90.2500, 7326.90.3500, 

7326.90.4500, 7326.90.6000, 

7326.90.8505, 7326.90.8510, 

7326.90.8530, 7326.90.8535, 

7326.90.8545, 7326.90.8560, 

7326.90.8575, 7326.90.8576, 

7326.90.8577, 7326.90.8588, 

9403.20.0020, and 9403.20.0030.1

While HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and Customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

scope of the investigation is dispositive. 

Injury Test 

Because the PRC is a ‘‘Subsidies 

Agreement Country’’ within the meaning 

of section 701(b) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act), the 

International Trade Commission (the 

ITC) is required to determine whether 

imports of the subject merchandise from 

the PRC materially injure, or threaten 

material injury to, a U.S. industry. On 

July 31, 2009, the ITC published its 

preliminary determination in which it 

found that there is a reasonable 

indication that an industry in the 

United States is materially injured by 

reason of imports of wire decking from 

the PRC. See Wire Decking From China, 

Investigation Nos. 701–TA–466 and 

731–TA–1162 (Preliminary), 74 FR 

38229 (July 31, 2009). 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties to this 

investigation are addressed in the 

Decision Memorandum. Attached to this 

notice as an Appendix is a list of the 

issues that parties raised and to which 

we have responded in the Decision 

Memorandum. Parties can find a 

complete discussion of all issues raised 

in this investigation and the 

corresponding recommendations in this 

public memorandum, which is on file in 

the Department’s Central Records Unit. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly on the Internet at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Suspension of Liquidation 

In accordance with section 

705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, we have 

calculated individual rates for the 

Eastfound Companies and DHMP. For 

the non–cooperative companies, 

pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) 

of the Act, we have based their CVD 

rates on facts otherwise available. 

Section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act 

states that for companies not 

investigated, we will determine an all– 

others rate equal to the weighted 

average countervailable subsidy rates 

established for exporters and producers 

individually investigated, excluding any 

zero and de minimis countervailable 

subsidy rates, and any rates determined 

entirely under section 776 of the Act. 

Notwithstanding the language of 

section 705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, we 

have not calculated the all–others rate 

by weight averaging the rates of the 

Eastfound Companies and DHMP, 

because doing so risks disclosure of 

proprietary information. Therefore, for 

the all–others rate, we have calculated 

a simple average of the two responding 

firms’ rates. 

Producer/Exporter Net Subsidy Ad Valorem Rate 

Dalian Eastfound Metal 

Products Co., Ltd. 

(Eastfound Metal) and 

its affiliate Dalian 

Eastfound Material 

Handling Products 

Co., Ltd. (Eastfound 

Material) (collectively, 

the Eastfound Companies) ...................... 3.55% 

Dalian Huameilong 

Metal Products Co., 

Ltd. (DHMP) .............. 1.52% 

Aceally (Xiamen) Technology Co., Ltd. ......... 437.11% 

Alida Wire Mesh &Wire 

Cloth Mfg. .................. 37.11% 

Anping Ankai Hardware 

& Mesh Products Co., 

Ltd ............................. 437.11% 

Anping County Jincheng 

Metal Products Co., 

Ltd. ............................ 437.11% 

Anping County 

Yuantong Hardware 

Net Industry Co., Ltd. 437.11% 

Producer/Exporter Net Subsidy Ad Valorem Rate 

Anping Ruiqilong Wire 

Mesh Co., Ltd. .......... 437.11% 

Anping Web Wire Mesh 

Co., Ltd. .................... 437.11% 

Anping Yilian Metal 

Products Co., Ltd. ..... 437.11% 

Aplus Industrial (HK) 

Ltd. ............................ 437.11% 

Beijing Jiuwei Storage 

Equipment Co., Ltd. .. 437.11% 

Dalian Aipute Industry & 

Trade Co., Ltd. .......... 437.11% 

Dalian Best Metal Products Co., Ltd. ............. 437.11% 

Dalian Jianda Metal 

Products Co., Ltd. ..... 437.11% 

Dalian Litainer Logistic 

Equipment Co., Ltd. .. 437.11% 

Dalian Litainer Metal 

Products Co., Ltd. ..... 437.11% 

Dalian Pro Metal Co., 

Ltd. ............................ 437.11% 

Dalian Traction Motor 

Co., Ltd. .................... 437.11% 

Dalian Yutiein Storage 

Manufacture Co., Ltd. 437.11% 

Dalian Zengtian Metal– 

Net Production Co., 

Ltd. ............................ 437.11% 

Dandong Riqian Equipment Co., Ltd. ........... 437.11% 

Deyoma Wire Decking 

Factory ...................... 437.11% 

Global Storage Equipment Manufacturer 

Ltd.(Huade Industries) 437.11% 

Hebei Dongshengyuan 

Trading Co., Ltd. ....... 437.11% 

Hebei Tengyue Trading 

Co., Ltd. .................... 437.11% 

High Hope Int’l Group 

Jiangsu Native 

Produce Imp &Exp 

Corp. Ltd. .................. 437.11% 

Imex China Ltd. ............ 437.11% 

Jiangdong Xinguang 

Metal Product Co. ..... 437.11%5 

Jiangsu Nova Logistics 

System Co., Ltd. ....... 437.11% 

Jiangsu Sainty 

Shengtong Imp & Exp 

Co. ............................. 437.11% 

JP Metal Works Processing Factory ........... 437.11% 

Kule (Dalian) Co., Ltd. .. 437.11% 

Kunshan Maxshow Industry Trade Co., Ltd. 437.11% 

Lanxuan Metal Product 

Co., Ltd. .................... 437.11% 

Longkou Forever Developed Metal Product 

Co., Ltd. .................... 437.11% 

Nanjing Better Metallic 

Products Co., Ltd. ..... 437.11% 

Nanjing Better Storage 

Equipment Manufacturing Co., Ltd. .......... 437.11% 

Nanjing Dongtuo Logistics Equipment Co., 

Ltd. ............................ 437.11% 

Nanjing Ebil Metal Products Co., Ltd. ............. 437.11% 


cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
32904 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 2010 / Notices 

Producer/Exporter Net Subsidy Ad Valorem Rate 

Nanjing Huade Storage 

Equipment Manufacture Co., Ltd. ............. 437.11% 

Nanjing Jiangrui International Logistics Co. 437.11% 

Nanjing Jiangrui Metal 

Products Co., Ltd. ..... 437.11% 

Nanjing Jiangrui 

Racking Manufacture 

Co., Ltd. .................... 437.11% 

Nanjing Youerda Logistic Equipment Engineering Co. Ltd ......... 437.11% 

Nanjing Youerda Metallic Products Co., Ltd. 437.11% 

National Sourcing Co., 

Ltd. ............................ 437.11% 

Ningbo Beilun Songyi 

Storage Equipment 

Manufacturer Co., 

Ltd. ............................ 437.11% 

Ningbo Huixing Metal 

Product, Co., Ltd. ...... 437.11% 

Ningbo Telingtong Metal 

Products Co., Ltd. ..... 437.11% 

Ningbo United Group 

Imp & Exp Co. Ltd. ... 437.11% 

Pinghu Dong Zhi Metal 

Products .................... 437.11% 

Schenker International 

China Ltd. (Dalian 

Branch) ...................... 437.11% 

Shanghai Boracs Logistics Equipment Manufacturing Co., Ltd. ..... 437.11% 

Shanghai Bright Imp & 

Exp Co., Ltd. ............. 437.11% 

Shanghai Flory Industries Co., Ltd. ............ 437.11% 

Shanghai Hesheng 

Hardware Products 

Co. ............................. 437.11% 

Shanghai Jingxing Storage Equipment Engineering Co., Ltd. (formerly Shanghai 

Jinxing Rack Factory) 437.11% 

Shanghai Yibai Int’l 

Trading Co. ............... 437.11% 

Summit Storage Systems Ltd. ................... 437.11% 

Suzhou (China) Sunshine Hardware 

Equipment Imp &Exp 

Co., Ltd. .................... 437.11% 

Suzhou Jinta Metal 

Working Co., Ltd. ...... 437.11% 

Suzhou Z–TAK Metal 

and Technology Co., 

Ltd. ............................ 437.11% 

Tianjin Dingxing Furniture Company ......... 437.11% 

Tianjin Machinery Imp & 

Exp Corp. .................. 437.11% 

Tianjin Mandarin Import 

& Export Co., Ltd. ..... 437.11% 

Tianjin Zhonglian Metals 

Ware Co., Ltd. ........... 437.11% 

TMC Logistic Products 437.11% 

Vida Logistics System 

Co., Ltd. .................... 437.11% 

Wuxi Puhui Metal Products Co., Ltd. ............. 437.11% 

Producer/Exporter Net Subsidy Ad Valorem Rate 

Wuyi Tianchi Mechanical & Electrical Manufacture Co., Ltd. ...... 437.11% 

Xiamen E–Soon Machinery Co., Ltd. ........ 437.11% 

Xiamen GaoPing Co., 

Ltd. ............................ 437.11% 

Xiamen Luckyroc Industry Co., Ltd. ............... 437.11% 

Xiangshan Ningbo General Steel Metal 

Structure Co., Ltd. ..... 437.11% 

Yuyao Sanlian Goods 

Shelves Manufacture 

Co., Ltd. .................... 437.11% 

All Others ...................... 2.54% 

As a result of our Preliminary 

Determination and pursuant to section 

703(d) of the Act, we instructed CBP to 

suspend liquidation of all entries of 

subject merchandise from the PRC 

which were entered or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

November 9, 2009, the date of the 

publication of the Preliminary 

Determination in the Federal Register. 

In accordance with section 703(d) of the 

Act, we subsequently issued 

instructions to CBP to discontinue the 

suspension of liquidation for CVD 

purposes for subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

on or after March 9, 2010, but to 

continue the suspension of liquidation 

of all entries from November 9, 2009, 

through March 8, 2010. 

We will issue a CVD order and 

reinstate the suspension of liquidation 

under section 706(a) of the Act if the 

ITC issues a final affirmative injury 

determination, and will require a cash 

deposit of estimated CVDs for such 

entries of merchandise in the amounts 

indicated above. If the ITC determines 

that material injury, or threat of material 

injury, does not exist, this proceeding 

will be terminated and all estimated 

duties deposited or securities posted as 

a result of the suspension of liquidation 

will be refunded or canceled. 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 705(d) of 

the Act, we will notify the ITC of our 

determination. In addition, we are 

making available to the ITC all non– 

privileged and non–proprietary 

information related to this investigation. 

We will allow the ITC access to all 

privileged and business proprietary 

information in our files, provided the 

ITC confirms that it will not disclose 

such information, either publicly or 

under an administrative protective order 

(APO), without the written consent of 

the Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Return or Destruction of Proprietary 

Information 

In the event that the ITC issues a final 

negative injury determination, this 

notice will serve as the only reminder 

to parties subject to an APO of their 

responsibility concerning the 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 

written notification of the return/ 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and terms of an 

APO is a violation which is subject to 

sanction. 

This determination is published 

pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of 

the Act. 

Dated: June 3, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

APPENDIX 

List of Comments and Issues in the 

Decision Memorandum 

Comment 1:Whether the Department 

May Apply the CVD Law to an NME 

Country 

Comment 2:Whether Producer A 

Constitutes a GOC Authority Capable of 

Providing a Financial Contribution As 

Defined by the Act 

Comment 3: Whether Producer B 

Constitutes a GOC Authority Capable of 

Providing a Financial Contribution As 

Defined by the Act 

Comment 4:Whether Producer C 

Constitutes a GOC Authority Capable of 

Providing a Financial Contribution As 

Defined by the Act 

Comment 5:Whether DHMP’s Zinc 

Supplier(s) Is a GOC Authority 

Comment 6:Whether Actual Wire Rod 

and HRS Market Prices in the PRCAre 

Appropriate Benchmarks 

Comment 7:Whether Benchmark 

Prices Should Include Freight 

Comment 8:Whether Benchmark 

Prices Should Include Insurance Costs 

Comment 9:Whether the GOC and 

DHMP Withheld Information 

Concerning the Location of DHMP’s 

Facilities and Whether Information 

They Submitted is Reliable 

Comment 10:Whether DHMP Is 

Located In an Industrial Zone Thereby 

Making Its Purchase of Land from the 

GOC Regionally Specific Under the Act 

Comment 11:Whether DHMP 

Benefitted from an Interest–Free 

Deferral of its Land–Use Rights Payment 


cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 2010 / Notices 32905 

1Mandatory respondents are Dalian Huameilong 

Metal Products Co., Ltd. (‘‘DHMP’’) and Dalian 

Eastfound Material Handling Products Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Eastfound Material’’) and its affiliate Dalian 

Eastfound Metal Products Co., Ltd. (‘‘Eastfound 

Metal’’) (collectively ‘‘Eastfound’’). 

Comment 12:Whether the Eastfound 

Material’s Land Acquisitions Are 

Countervailable 

Comment 13:Whether the Department 

Should Countervail Eastfound 

Material’s Alleged Unreported Land 

Payment Refund Discovered at 

Verification 

Comment 14:Whether the Department 

Should Countervail Eastfound Metal’s 

Land–Use 

Comment 15:Whether the Department 

Should Use Year 2001 as the Cut–off 

Date or Use the AUL Methodology to 

Value Subsidies 

Comment 16:Whether the GOC 

Terminated the Income Tax Exemption 

for Investors In Designated Geographical 

Regions Within Liaoning Program 

Comment 17:Whether the GOC 

Terminated the Income Tax Benefits for 

FIEs Based on Geographic Location 

Comment 18:Whether the GOC 

Terminated the VAT Exemptions for 

FIEs and Certain Domestic Enterprises 

Using Imported Equipment Program 

Comment 19:Whether the GOC 

Terminated the Import Tariff and VAT 

Exemptions for FIEs and Certain 

Domestic Enterprises Using Imported 

Equipment in Encouraged Industries 

Program 

Comment 20:Whether the Department 

Should Initiate an Investigation of the 

PRC’s Currency Manipulation 

Comment 21:Benefit Calculation 

Under the Two Free, Three Half Income 

Tax Program 

Comment 22:Whether DHMP received 

a Subsidy Under the Income Tax Credits 

for FIES on Purchases of Domestically 

Produced Equipment Program 

Comment 23:Whether DHMP Failed 

To Report VAT Deductions on Fixed 

Assets 

[FR Doc. 2010–13971 Filed 6–9–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–949] 

Wire Decking from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 10, 2010 

SUMMARY: On January 12, 2010, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) published its 

preliminary determination of sales at 

less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) in the 

antidumping investigation of wire 

decking from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘PRC’’). We invited interested 

parties to comment on our preliminary 

determination of sales at LTFV. Based 

on our analysis of the comments we 

received, we have made changes to our 

margin calculations for the mandatory 

respondents. The final dumping 

margins for this investigation are listed 

in the ‘‘Final Determination Margins’’ 

section below. 

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. 

Final Determination 

We determine that wire decking from 

the PRC is being, or is likely to be, sold 

in the United States at LTFV, as 

provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). The 

estimated margins of sales at LTFV are 

shown in the ‘‘Final Determination 

Margins’’ section of this notice. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case History 

The Department published its 

preliminary determination of sales at 

LTFV on January 12, 2010. See 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, 75 FR 1597 (January 12, 

2010) (‘‘Preliminary Determination’’). 

On January 19, 2010, the Department 

issued post–Preliminary Determination 

supplemental questionnaires to DHMP 

and Eastfound1 and received responses 

to these supplemental questionnaires on 

January 25, 2010. From February 1 

through 12, 2010, the Department 

conducted verifications of DHMP, and 

Eastfound and released its verification 

reports for these companies on March 

26, 2010, and April 14, 2010, 

respectively. See the ‘‘Verification’’ 

section below for additional 

information. On February 12, 2010, 

DHMP and Eastfound filed timely 

requests for a public hearing. 

On February 16, 2010, in response to 

a request filed by DHMP, the 

Department extended the deadline for 

submission of publicly available 

information to March 12, 2010. On 

March 12, 2010, AWP Industries, Inc., 

ITC Manufacturing, Inc., J&L Wire 

Cloth, Inc., Nashville Wire Products 

Mfg. Co., Inc., and Wireway Husky 

Corporation (‘‘Petitioners’’), DHMP, and 

Eastfound submitted surrogate value 

information for the record, and each 

party submitted rebuttal comments to 

this information on March 22, 2010. On 

April 22, 2010, case briefs were filed by 

Petitioners, Nucor Corporation 

(‘‘Nucor’’), a domestic interested party, 

DHMP, Eastfound, and the Government 

of China (‘‘GOC’’). On April 30, 2010, 

Petitioners, Nucor, Eastfound, and the 

GOC each filed the final version of their 

rebuttal briefs, and on May 3, 2010, 

DHMP filed the final version of its 

rebuttal brief. The Department held a 

public hearing on May 5, 2010. On May 

10, 2010, the Department rejected 

Nucor’s case brief, but provided Nucor 

an opportunity to correct and resubmit 

its case brief. On May 11, 2010, Nucor 

filed its corrected case brief. 

Tolling of Administrative Deadlines 

The Department postponed the 

deadline for the final determination to 

not later than 135 days after publication 

of the Preliminary Determination, (i.e., 

May 27, 2010). See Preliminary 

Determination, 75 FR at 1599. However, 

as explained in the memorandum from 

the Deputy Assistant Secretary (‘‘DAS’’) 

for Import Administration, the 

Department exercised its discretion to 

toll deadlines for the duration of the 

closure of the Federal Government, 

February 5, through February 12, 2010. 

Thus, all existing deadlines associated 

with this investigation were postponed 

by seven days. See Memorandum to the 

Record from Ronald Lorentzen, DAS for 

Import Administration, regarding 

‘‘Tolling of Administrative Deadlines As 

a Result of the Government Closure 

During the Recent Snowstorm,’’ dated 

February 12, 2010. Accordingly, the 

revised deadline for this final 

determination is June 3, 2010. 

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). 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, we verified the information 

submitted by DHMP and Eastfound for 

use in our final determination. See the 

Department’s verification reports on the 

record of this investigation in the 

Central Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’), Room 

1117 of the main Department building, 


cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 2010 / Notices 32905 

1Mandatory respondents are Dalian Huameilong 

Metal Products Co., Ltd. (‘‘DHMP’’) and Dalian 

Eastfound Material Handling Products Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Eastfound Material’’) and its affiliate Dalian 

Eastfound Metal Products Co., Ltd. (‘‘Eastfound 

Metal’’) (collectively ‘‘Eastfound’’). 

Comment 12:Whether the Eastfound 

Material’s Land Acquisitions Are 

Countervailable 

Comment 13:Whether the Department 

Should Countervail Eastfound 

Material’s Alleged Unreported Land 

Payment Refund Discovered at 

Verification 

Comment 14:Whether the Department 

Should Countervail Eastfound Metal’s 

Land–Use 

Comment 15:Whether the Department 

Should Use Year 2001 as the Cut–off 

Date or Use the AUL Methodology to 

Value Subsidies 

Comment 16:Whether the GOC 

Terminated the Income Tax Exemption 

for Investors In Designated Geographical 

Regions Within Liaoning Program 

Comment 17:Whether the GOC 

Terminated the Income Tax Benefits for 

FIEs Based on Geographic Location 

Comment 18:Whether the GOC 

Terminated the VAT Exemptions for 

FIEs and Certain Domestic Enterprises 

Using Imported Equipment Program 

Comment 19:Whether the GOC 

Terminated the Import Tariff and VAT 

Exemptions for FIEs and Certain 

Domestic Enterprises Using Imported 

Equipment in Encouraged Industries 

Program 

Comment 20:Whether the Department 

Should Initiate an Investigation of the 

PRC’s Currency Manipulation 

Comment 21:Benefit Calculation 

Under the Two Free, Three Half Income 

Tax Program 

Comment 22:Whether DHMP received 

a Subsidy Under the Income Tax Credits 

for FIES on Purchases of Domestically 

Produced Equipment Program 

Comment 23:Whether DHMP Failed 

To Report VAT Deductions on Fixed 

Assets 

[FR Doc. 2010–13971 Filed 6–9–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–949] 

Wire Decking from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 10, 2010 

SUMMARY: On January 12, 2010, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) published its 

preliminary determination of sales at 

less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) in the 

antidumping investigation of wire 

decking from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘PRC’’). We invited interested 

parties to comment on our preliminary 

determination of sales at LTFV. Based 

on our analysis of the comments we 

received, we have made changes to our 

margin calculations for the mandatory 

respondents. The final dumping 

margins for this investigation are listed 

in the ‘‘Final Determination Margins’’ 

section below. 

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. 

Final Determination 

We determine that wire decking from 

the PRC is being, or is likely to be, sold 

in the United States at LTFV, as 

provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). The 

estimated margins of sales at LTFV are 

shown in the ‘‘Final Determination 

Margins’’ section of this notice. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case History 

The Department published its 

preliminary determination of sales at 

LTFV on January 12, 2010. See 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, 75 FR 1597 (January 12, 

2010) (‘‘Preliminary Determination’’). 

On January 19, 2010, the Department 

issued post–Preliminary Determination 

supplemental questionnaires to DHMP 

and Eastfound1 and received responses 

to these supplemental questionnaires on 

January 25, 2010. From February 1 

through 12, 2010, the Department 

conducted verifications of DHMP, and 

Eastfound and released its verification 

reports for these companies on March 

26, 2010, and April 14, 2010, 

respectively. See the ‘‘Verification’’ 

section below for additional 

information. On February 12, 2010, 

DHMP and Eastfound filed timely 

requests for a public hearing. 

On February 16, 2010, in response to 

a request filed by DHMP, the 

Department extended the deadline for 

submission of publicly available 

information to March 12, 2010. On 

March 12, 2010, AWP Industries, Inc., 

ITC Manufacturing, Inc., J&L Wire 

Cloth, Inc., Nashville Wire Products 

Mfg. Co., Inc., and Wireway Husky 

Corporation (‘‘Petitioners’’), DHMP, and 

Eastfound submitted surrogate value 

information for the record, and each 

party submitted rebuttal comments to 

this information on March 22, 2010. On 

April 22, 2010, case briefs were filed by 

Petitioners, Nucor Corporation 

(‘‘Nucor’’), a domestic interested party, 

DHMP, Eastfound, and the Government 

of China (‘‘GOC’’). On April 30, 2010, 

Petitioners, Nucor, Eastfound, and the 

GOC each filed the final version of their 

rebuttal briefs, and on May 3, 2010, 

DHMP filed the final version of its 

rebuttal brief. The Department held a 

public hearing on May 5, 2010. On May 

10, 2010, the Department rejected 

Nucor’s case brief, but provided Nucor 

an opportunity to correct and resubmit 

its case brief. On May 11, 2010, Nucor 

filed its corrected case brief. 

Tolling of Administrative Deadlines 

The Department postponed the 

deadline for the final determination to 

not later than 135 days after publication 

of the Preliminary Determination, (i.e., 

May 27, 2010). See Preliminary 

Determination, 75 FR at 1599. However, 

as explained in the memorandum from 

the Deputy Assistant Secretary (‘‘DAS’’) 

for Import Administration, the 

Department exercised its discretion to 

toll deadlines for the duration of the 

closure of the Federal Government, 

February 5, through February 12, 2010. 

Thus, all existing deadlines associated 

with this investigation were postponed 

by seven days. See Memorandum to the 

Record from Ronald Lorentzen, DAS for 

Import Administration, regarding 

‘‘Tolling of Administrative Deadlines As 

a Result of the Government Closure 

During the Recent Snowstorm,’’ dated 

February 12, 2010. Accordingly, the 

revised deadline for this final 

determination is June 3, 2010. 

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). 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, we verified the information 

submitted by DHMP and Eastfound for 

use in our final determination. See the 

Department’s verification reports on the 

record of this investigation in the 

Central Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’), Room 

1117 of the main Department building, 


cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
32906 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 2010 / Notices 

2See the Department’s memorandum entitled, 

Investigation of Wire Decking from the People’s 

Republic of China: Analysis of the Final 

Determination Margin Calculation for Dalian 

Huameilong Metal Products Co., Ltd., dated 

concurrently with this notice (‘‘DHMP’s Final 

Analysis Memo’’). 

3See the Department’s memorandum entitled, 

Investigation of Wire Decking from the People’s 

Republic of China: Analysis of the Final 

Determination Margin Calculation for Dalian 

Eastfound Metal Products Co., Ltd. and Dalian 

Eastfound Material Handling Products Co., Ltd., 

dated concurrently with this notice (‘‘Eastfound’s 

Final Analysis Memo’’). 

with respect to these entities. For all 

verified companies, we used standard 

verification procedures, including 

examination of relevant accounting and 

production records, as well as original 

source documents provided by 

respondents. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties to this 

investigation are addressed in the 

‘‘Investigation of Wire Decking from the 

People’s Republic of China: Issues and 

Decision Memorandum,’’ dated 

concurrently with this notice and 

hereby adopted by this notice (‘‘Issues 

and Decision Memorandum’’). A list of 

the issues which parties raised and to 

which we respond in the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum is attached to 

this notice as Appendix I. The Issues 

and Decision Memorandum is a public 

document on file in the CRU and 

accessible on the Web at ia.ita.doc.gov/ 

frn. The paper copy and electronic 

version of the memorandum are 

identical in content. 

Changes Since the Preliminary 

Determination 

• Financial statements – In the 

Preliminary Determination, we 

calculated financial ratios based on 

three Indian producers’ financial 

statements (i.e., Bansidhar Granites 

Private Limited, Bedmutha Wire 

Com. Ltd., and Mekins Agro 

Products Ltd.), each covering the 

fiscal period ending March 31, 

2008. For the final determination, 

we have determined to use the 

Indian financial statements of 

Rajratan Global Wire Limited, 

Visakha Wire Ropes Limited, and 

Nasco Steels Private Limited for the 

fiscal period ending March 31, 

2009. See the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 2. 

• For DHMP: 

» We used DHMP’s commercial 

invoice date as the date of sale, as 

opposed to the shipment date used 

in the Preliminary Determination. 

See the Department’s Memorandum 

entitled, ‘‘Verification of the Sales 

and Factors Response of Dalian 

Huameilong Metal Products Co., 

Ltd. in the Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Wire Decking from 

the People’s Republic of China,’’ 

dated March 26, 2010 (‘‘DHMP’s 

Verification Report’’). See also the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum 

at Comment 10. 

» At verification, we determined the 

distances from DHMP to its 

unaffiliated hot–dip galvanizing 

toller and its affiliated galvanizing 

electroplating supplier. For the final 

determination, we applied a 

freight–in expense to those 

CONNUMs that indicated they were 

galvanized under either of these 

operations, as opposed to the 

distance from DHMP to the port for 

the unaffiliated toller and no 

distance for the affiliated supplier 

used in the Preliminary 

Determination. See DHMP’s 

Verification Report; see also 

DHMP’s Final Analysis Memo.2

» We valued DHMP’s hot–rolled steel 

strip FOP using Indian import data 

under harmonized tariff schedule 

(‘‘HTS’’) category 7211.19.50 from 

the World Trade Atlas (‘‘WTA’’) 

($0.60247 per kilogram). See the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum 

at Comment 5; see also DHMP’s 

Final Analysis Memo. 

» At verification, we found that 

DHMP’s reported per–unit billing 

adjustments had been incorrectly 

reported in DHMP’s sales database. 

DHMP had reported the full amount 

of the adjustment, instead of the 

per–unit billing adjustment. For the 

final determination, in the 

Department’s margin program for 

DHMP, we changed DHMP’s 

reported billing adjustment to the 

actual per–unit billing adjustment. 

See DHMP’s Verification Report at 

pages 4 and 22 through 25; see also 

DHMP’s Final Analysis Memo. 

• For Eastfound: 

» We made the following changes to 

Eastfound’s factors–of-production 

(‘‘FOP’’) data: 1) we used facts 

available and adjusted the 

consumption for all inputs for 

certain CONNUMs by the percent 

difference between the bill of 

material (‘‘BOM’’) steel weight and 

Eastfound’s reported FOP 

consumption of steel; 2) we used 

facts available and set the actual 

weight reported for certain 

CONNUMs in Eastfound’s U.S. 

sales data file equal to the 

corresponding BOM weight for 

steel; and 3) we used facts available 

and adjusted consumption for all 

inputs for certain CONNUMs by the 

percent difference between the 

amount of unreported hot–rolled 

steel found at verification and the 

total steel from the BOM. See the 

Department’s Memorandum 

entitled, ‘‘Verification of the Sales 

and Factors Response of Dalian 

Eastfound Metal Products Co., Ltd., 

and Dalian Eastfound Material 

Handling Products Co., Ltd. in the 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Wire Decking from the People’s 

Republic of China,’’ dated April 14, 

2010 (‘‘Eastfound’s Verification 

Report’’); see also the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at 

Comments 7 and 8, and see 

Eastfound’s Final Analysis Memo.3

» We have capped the amount of 

Eastfound’s freight revenue by the 

surrogate value amount deducted 

for ocean freight in the 

Department’s U.S. net price 

calculation. See the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 

6; see also Eastfound’s Final 

Analysis Memo. 

» We are not granting Eastfound a by– 

product offset. See the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 

7. See also Eastfound’s Verification 

Report; see also Eastfound’s Final 

Analysis Memo. 

» We valued Eastfound’s unreported 

galvanizing tolling FOPs using the 

galvanizing cost from Galrebars 

(8,000 Rupees per metric ton). See 

the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 9; see 

also Eastfound’s Final Analysis 

Memo. 

Scope of 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 


cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 2010 / Notices 32907 

4 In the Preliminary Determination, we presented 

in the scope, certain HTSUS categories that wire 

decking is also entered under, as a six-digit category 

number (i.e., 7217.10, 7217.20, 7326.20, and 

7326.90). Since the Preliminary Determination, we 

found that U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(‘‘CBP’’) requires a 10-digit format for these HTSUS 

categories. Thus, for the final determination, we 

have determined that wire decking’s scope HTSUS 

categories will be presented in their full 10-digit 

format. 

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 

7217.10.1000, 7217.10.2000, 

7217.10.3000, 7217.10.4030, 

7217.10.4090, 7217.10.5030, 

7217.10.5090, 7217.10.6000, 

7217.10.7000, 7217.10.8010, 

7217.10.8020, 7217.10.8025, 

7217.10.8030, 7217.10.8045, 

7217.10.8060, 7217.10.8075, 

7217.10.8090, 7217.10.9000, 

7217.20.1500, 7217.20.3000, 

7217.20.4510, 7217.20.4520, 

7217.20.4530, 7217.20.4540, 

7217.20.4550, 7217.20.4560, 

7217.20.4570, 7217.20.4580, 

7217.20.6000, 7217.20.7500, 

7326.20.0010, 7326.20.0020, 

7326.20.0070, 7326.90.1000, 

7326.90.2500, 7326.90.3500, 

7326.90.4500, 7326.90.6000, 

7326.90.8505, 7326.90.8510, 

7326.90.8530, 7326.90.8535, 

7326.90.8545, 7326.90.8560, 

7326.90.8575, 7326.90.8576, 

7326.90.8577, 7326.90.8588, 

9403.20.0020, and 9403.20.0030.4 While 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and Customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of these 

investigations is dispositive. 

Surrogate Country 

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

stated that we had selected India as the 

appropriate surrogate country to use in 

this investigation for the following 

reasons: (1) it is a significant producer 

of comparable merchandise; (2) it is at 

a level of economic development 

comparable to that of the PRC, pursuant 

to section 773(c)(4) of the Act; and (3) 

we have reliable data from India that we 

can use to value the FOPs. See 

Preliminary Determination, 75 FR at 

1599–1600. For the final determination, 

we received no comments on surrogate 

country selection and made no changes 

to our findings with respect to the 

selection of a surrogate country. 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving non–marketeconomy (‘‘NME’’) countries, the 

Department begins with a rebuttable 

presumption that all companies within 

the country are subject to government 

control and, thus, should be assigned a 

single antidumping duty deposit rate. It 

is the Department’s policy to assign all 

exporters of merchandise subject to an 

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. See 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 

amplified by 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’’), and 

19 CFR 351.107(d). 

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

found that Eastfound Material, 

Eastfound Metal, DHMP, Dandong 

Riqian Logistics Equipment Co. Ltd. 

(‘‘Riqian’’), Globsea Co., Ltd. (‘‘Globsea’’), 

and Ningbo Xinguang Rack Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Ningbo Xinguang’’) demonstrated their 

eligibility for separate–rate status. For 

the final determination, we continue to 

find that the evidence placed on the 

record of this investigation by Eastfound 

Material, Eastfound Metal, DHMP, 

Riqian, Globsea, and Ningbo Xinguang 

demonstrate both a de jure and de facto 

absence of government control, with 

respect to their respective exports of the 

merchandise under investigation, and, 

thus are eligible for separate–rate status. 

See Preliminary Determination, 75 FR at 

1600–01. 

Companies Not Receiving a Separate 

Rate 

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

found that Dalian Xingbo Metal 

Products Co. Ltd. (‘‘Dalian Xingbo’’) did 

not qualify for a separate rate because 

Dalian Xingbo did not export wire 

decking to the United States during the 

POI. See 75 FR at 1601. For the final 

determination, we continue to find that 

the evidence placed on the record of 

this investigation by Dalian Xingbo 

demonstrate that Dalian Xingbo did not 

export wire decking to the United States 

and, therefore, is not eligible for 

separate rate status. 

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

found that Brynick Enterprises Limited 

(‘‘Brynick’’) and Shanghai Hesheng 

Hardware Products Co. (‘‘Hesheng’’) 

were not eligible for a separate rate 

because neither company submitted a 

separate rate application and, thus, were 

treated as part of the PRC–wide entity. 

See 75 FR at 1601–02. For the final 

determination, we continue to find that 

Brynick and Hesheng are part of the 

PRC–wide entity and, thus, are not 

eligible for separate–rate status. 

Facts Available and the PRC–wide 

Entity 

Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act 

provide that the Department shall apply 

‘‘facts otherwise available’’ if, inter alia, 

necessary information is not on the 

record, or an interested party: (A) 

withholds information requested by the 

Department, (B) fails to provide such 

information by the deadline, or in the 

form or manner requested, (C) 

significantly impedes a proceeding, or 

(D) provides information that cannot be 

verified, as provided by section 782(i) of 

the Act. 

Where the Department determines 

that a response to a request for 

information does not comply with the 

request, section 782(d) of the Act 

provides that the Department will so 

inform the party submitting the 

response and will, to the extent 

practicable, provide that party the 

opportunity to remedy or explain its 

deficiency. If the party fails to remedy 

the deficiency within the applicable 

time limits, subject to section 782(e) of 

the Act, the Department may disregard 

all or part of the original and subsequent 

responses, as appropriate. Pursuant to 

section 782(e) of the Act, the 

Department shall not decline to 


cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
32908 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 2010 / Notices 

5See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 

Less than Fair Value: Static Random Access 

Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 

8932 (February 23, 1998). 

6See Brake Rotors From the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 

Seventh Administrative Review; Final Results of the 

Eleventh New Shipper Review, 70 FR 69937, 69939 

(November 18, 2005); See also, SAA at 870. 

7See, e.g., Certain Cased Pencils from the 

People’s Republic of China; Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 

Intent to Rescind in Part, 70 FR 76755, 76761 

(December 28, 2005) unchanged in final, 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 10. 

8See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Quality 

Steel Products from the People’s Republic of China, 

65 FR 34660 (May 21, 2000), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at ‘‘Facts 

Available.’’ 

9See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Sodium Hexametaphosphate From the 

People’s Republic of China, 73 FR 6479, 6481 

(February 4, 2008); see also, SAA at 870. 

10See id. 

11See id. 

12See Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand 

From the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 75 

FR 28560, 28562-63 (May 21, 2010). 

13See the Department’s memorandum entitled, 

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 January 4, 2010. 

consider submitted information if all of 

the following requirements are met: (1) 

The information is submitted by the 

established deadline; (2) the information 

can be verified; (3) the information is 

not so incomplete that it cannot serve as 

a reliable basis for reaching the 

applicable determination; (4) the 

interested party has demonstrated that it 

acted to the best of its ability; and (5) 

the information can be used without 

undue difficulties. 

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department 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 treated these PRC producers/ 

exporters as part of the PRC–wide entity 

because they did not apply for a 

separate rate. As a result, we found that 

the use of facts available (‘‘FA’’) was 

appropriate to determine the PRC–wide 

rate pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of 

the Act. See Preliminary Determination 

at 75 FR at 1602. 

Thus, in the Preliminary 

Determination, the Department 

determined that, in selecting from 

among the facts available, an adverse 

inference is appropriate because the 

PRC–wide entity failed to cooperate by 

not acting to the best of its ability to 

comply with requests for information. 

See Id. As adverse facts available 

(‘‘AFA’’), we preliminarily assigned to 

the PRC–wide entity a rate of 289.00 

percent, the highest calculated rate from 

the petition. See id; see also Statement 

of Administrative Action accompanying 

the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103–316, vol. 

1, at 870 (1994) (‘‘SAA’’). 

There have been no changes to the 

information on the record concerning 

the PRC–wide entity. Therefore, we 

have made no changes in our analysis 

for the final determination. 

Consequently, we determine that the 

use of AFA for the PRC–wide entity is 

warranted for the final determination. 

Selection of the Adverse Facts 

Available Rate 

In deciding which facts to use as 

AFA, section 776(b) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.308(c)(1) provide that the 

Department may rely on information 

derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final 

determination in the investigation, (3) 

any previous review or determination, 

or (4) any information placed on the 

record. In selecting a rate for AFA, the 

Department selects a rate that is 

sufficiently adverse ‘‘as to effectuate the 

purpose of the facts available rule to 

induce respondents to provide the 

Department with complete and accurate 

information in a timely manner.’’5 It is 

also the Department’s practice to select 

a rate that ensures ‘‘that the party does 

not obtain a more favorable result by 

failing to cooperate than if it had 

cooperated fully.’’6

Generally, the Department finds 

selecting the highest rate in any segment 

of the proceeding as AFA to be 

appropriate.7 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.8 In the instant 

investigation, as AFA, we have assigned 

to the PRC–wide entity the highest 

petition rate on the record of this 

proceeding that can be corroborated. See 

Wire Decking From the People’s 

Republic of China: Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Investigation, 74 FR 

31691, 31694 (July 2, 2009) (‘‘Initiation 

Notice’’). The Department determines 

that this information is the most 

appropriate from the available sources 

to effectuate the purposes of AFA. 

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 facts available, it must, 

to the extent practicable, corroborate 

that information from independent 

sources reasonably at its disposal. 

Secondary information is described as 

‘‘information derived from the petition 

that gave rise to the investigation or 

review, the final determination 

concerning merchandise subject to this 

investigation, or any previous review 

under section 751 concerning the 

merchandise subject to this 

investigation.’’9 To ‘‘corroborate’’ means 

simply that the Department will satisfy 

itself that the secondary information to 

be used has probative value.10

Independent sources used to corroborate 

may include, for example, published 

price lists, official import statistics and 

customs data, and information obtained 

from interested parties during the 

particular investigation.11 To 

corroborate secondary information, the 

Department will, to the extent 

practicable, examine the reliability and 

relevance of the information used.12

At the Preliminary Determination, in 

accordance with section 776(c) of the 

Act, we corroborated our AFA margin 

by comparing the highest CONNUM– 

specific margin from the two mandatory 

respondents to the petition margins.13

Similarly, for the final determination, 

we compared the highest CONNUM– 

specific margin from the two mandatory 

respondents to the petition margins. We 

conclude that using the highest 

CONNUM–specific margin as a 

reference point, the highest petition 

margin that can be corroborated within 

the meaning of the statute is 143.00 

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 Final 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 143.00 percent is 

corroborated within the meaning of 

section 776(c) of the Act. 

The PRC–wide rate applies to all 

entries of the merchandise under 

investigation except for entries from 

Eastfound, DHMP, Riqian, Globsea, and 

Ningbo Xinguang as they have 

demonstrated eligibility for a separate 

rate. These companies and their 

corresponding antidumping duty cash 

deposit rates are listed below in the 

‘‘Final Determination’’ section of this 

notice. Accordingly, we find that the 

rate of 143.00 percent is corroborated 

within the meaning of section 776(c) of 

the Act. 


cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 2010 / Notices 32909 

14See Preliminary Determination, 75 FR at 1606. 

15See Memorandum entitled ‘‘Separate-Rates 

Practice and Application of Combination Rates in 

Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market 

Economy Countries’’ dated April 5, 2005, available 

at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/index.html. 

16See, 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, 

2004). 

17Normally, 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 nonindividually 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 the CVD companion case 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. 

Combination Rates 

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department stated that it would 

calculate combination rates for 

respondents that are eligible for a 

separate rate in this investigation.14 This 

practice is described in the Separate 

Rate Policy Bulletin.15

Final Determination 

The weighted–average dumping 

margin percentages are as follows: 

Exporter Producer Percent 

Margin 

Dalian Huameilong Metal Products Co., Ltd. ............................................ Dalian Huameilong Metal Products Co., Ltd. 17.75% 

Dalian Eastfound Metal Products Co., Ltd. / Dalian Eastfound Material 

Handling Products Co. Ltd ..................................................................... Dalian Eastfound Metal Products Co., Ltd., or Dalian 

Eastfound Material Handling Products Co. Ltd. 

14.24% 

Globsea Co., Ltd ........................................................................................ Dalian Yutiein Storage Manufacturing Co. Ltd., or Dalian 

Xingbo Metal Products Co. Ltd. 

16.00% 

Ningbo Xinguang Rack Co., Ltd. ............................................................... Ningbo Xinguang Rack Co., Ltd. 16.00% 

Dandong Riqian Logistics Equipment Co. Ltd. ......................................... Dandong Riqian Logistics Equipment Co. Ltd. 16.00% 

PRC–Wide Entity* ...................................................................................... ............................................................................................ 143.00% 

* 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 within five days of the date 

of publication of this notice to parties in 

this proceeding in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.224(b). 

Continuation of Suspension of 

Liquidation 

In accordance with section 

735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing 

CBP to continue to suspend liquidation 

of all imports of subject merchandise 

entered or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the date of 

publication of the Preliminary 

Determination in the Federal Register. 

We will instruct CBP to continue to 

require a cash deposit or the posting of 

a bond for all companies based on the 

estimated weighted–average dumping 

margins shown above. 

Where the product under 

investigation is also subject to a 

concurrent countervailing duty 

investigation, we instruct CBP to require 

a cash deposit or posting of a bond 

equal to the amount by which the 

normal value exceeds the export price, 

less the amount of the countervailing 

duty determined to constitute an export 

subsidy.16 Accordingly, for cash deposit 

purposes for Eastfound, we will subtract 

from the antidumping applicable cash 

deposit rate that portion of the rate 

attributable to the export subsidies 

found in the affirmative countervailing 

duty determination (i.e., 0.01 percent). 

See the final notice for the concurrent 

CVD investigation of wire decking from 

the PRC, dated concurrently with this 

notice. After the adjustment for the 

export subsidies, the resulting cash 

deposit rate will be 14.23 percent for 

Eastfound.17

The suspension of liquidation 

instructions will remain in effect until 

further notice. 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 735(d) of 

the Act, we have notified the 

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) 

of our final determination of sales at 

LTFV. As our final determination is 

affirmative, in accordance with section 

735(b)(2) of the Act, within 45 days the 

ITC will determine whether the 

domestic industry in the United States 

is materially injured, or threatened with 

material injury, by reason of imports or 

sales (or the likelihood of sales) for 

importation of the subject merchandise. 

If the ITC determines that material 

injury or threat of material injury does 

not exist, the proceeding will be 

terminated and all securities posted will 

be refunded or canceled. If the ITC 

determines that such injury does exist, 

the Department will issue an 

antidumping duty order directing CBP 

to assess antidumping duties on all 

imports of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the effective 

date of the suspension of liquidation. 

Notification Regarding APO 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to the parties subject to administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely 

notification of return or destruction of 

APO materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and the terms of an APO is a 

sanctionable violation. 

This determination and notice are 

issued and published in accordance 

with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act. 

Dated: June 3, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I – List of Issues 

Case Issues: 

Comment 1: Double Remedy 

Comment 2: Selection of Financial 

Statements 

Comment 3: Valuation of Electricity 

Comment 4: Valuation of Wire Rod 

Comment 5: Valuation of Flat Rolled 

Steel 

Comment 6: Eastfound’s US Price and 

Freight Charges 

Comment 7: Eastfound’s Consumption 

factors 

Comment 8: Eastfound’s Wire Rod 

Correction from Verification 

Comment 9: Galvanization 

A. Whether to Reject Galvanizing 


cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
32910 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 111 / Thursday, June 10, 2010 / Notices 

1On January 30, 2007, at the direction of U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection, the Department 

added the following HTSUS classifications to the 

antidumping duty/countervailing duty module for 

tissue paper: 4802.54.3100, 4802.54.6100, and 

4823.90.6700. However, we note that the six-digit 

classifications for these numbers were already listed 

in the scope. 

Information Submitted by 

Eastfound at Verification 

B. Whether the Department Should 

Use a Surrogate Value for 

Galvanizing 

C. Whether the Department Should 

Revise the Surrogate Value for 

Galvanizing 

Comment 10: DHMP’s Date of Sale 

Comment 11: Value of Sulfuric Acid, 

Thiourea, Caustic Soda, Zinc Oxide, 

Nitric Acid 

[FR Doc. 2010–13977 Filed 6–9–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–894] 

Certain Tissue Paper Products from 

the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of Expedited Sunset Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On February 1, 2010, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) initiated a sunset review of 

the antidumping duty order on certain 

tissue paper products from the People’s 

Republic of China (PRC) pursuant to 

section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (the Act). The Department 

conducted an expedited (120–day) 

sunset review of this order. As a result 

of this sunset review, the Department 

finds that revocation of the antidumping 

duty order would be likely to lead to the 

continuation or recurrence of dumping. 

The dumping margins are identified in 

the Final Results of Review section of 

this notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 10, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brian Smith or Brandon Farlander, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–1766 or (202) 482– 

0182, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background: 

On February 1, 2010, the Department 

published the notice of initiation of the 

sunset review of the antidumping duty 

order on certain tissue paper products 

from the PRC pursuant to section 751(c) 

of the Act. See Initiation of Five–year 

(‘‘Sunset’’) Review, 75 FR 5042, February 

1, 2010. The Department received a 

Notice of Intent to Participate from the 

following domestic tissue paper 

producers: Seaman Paper Company of 

Massachusetts, Inc., Eagle Tissue LLC, 

Flower City Tissue Mills Co., Garlock 

Printing & Converting, Inc., and Putney 

Paper Co., Ltd. (collectively the 

domestic interested parties), within the 

deadline specified in 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(1)(i). The domestic 

interested parties claimed interested 

party status under section 771(9)(C) of 

the Act, as producers of a domestic like 

product in the United States. We 

received an adequate substantive 

response from the domestic interested 

parties within the 30–day deadline 

specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). We 

received no substantive responses from 

any respondent interested parties. As a 

result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department 

conducted an expedited (120–day) 

sunset review of the order. 

Scope of the Order 

The tissue paper products covered by 

the order are cut–to-length sheets of 

tissue paper having a basis weight not 

exceeding 29 grams per square meter. 

Tissue paper products subject to the 

order may or may not be bleached, dye– 

colored, surface–colored, glazed, surface 

decorated or printed, sequined, 

crinkled, embossed, and/or die cut. The 

tissue paper subject to the order is in the 

form of cut–to-length sheets of tissue 

paper with a width equal to or greater 

than one–half (0.5) inch. Subject tissue 

paper may be flat or folded, and may be 

packaged by banding or wrapping with 

paper or film, by placing in plastic or 

film bags, and/or by placing in boxes for 

distribution and use by the ultimate 

consumer. Packages of tissue paper 

subject to the order may consist solely 

of tissue paper of one color and/or style, 

or may contain multiple colors and/or 

styles. 

The merchandise subject to the order 

does not have specific classification 

numbers assigned to them under the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS). Subject 

merchandise may be under one or more 

of several different subheadings, 

including: 4802.30, 4802.54, 4802.61, 

4802.62, 4802.69, 4804.31.1000, 

4804.31.2000, 4804.31.4020, 

4804.31.4040, 4804.31.6000, 4804.39, 

4805.91.1090, 4805.91.5000, 

4805.91.7000, 4806.40, 4808.30, 

4808.90, 4811.90, 4823.90, 4802.50.00, 

4802.90.00, 4805.91.90, 9505.90.40. The 

tariff classifications are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes; 

however, the written description of the 

scope of the order is dispositive.1

Excluded from the scope of the order 

are the following tissue paper products: 

(1) tissue paper products that are coated 

in wax, paraffin, or polymers, of a kind 

used in floral and food service 

applications; (2) tissue paper products 

that have been perforated, embossed, or 

die–cut to the shape of a toilet seat, i.e., 

disposable sanitary covers for toilet 

seats; (3) toilet or facial tissue stock, 

towel or napkin stock, paper of a kind 

used for household or sanitary 

purposes, cellulose wadding, and webs 

of cellulose fibers (HTSUS 

4803.00.20.00 and 4803.00.40.00). 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in this review are 

addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Final Results of 

the Expedited Sunset Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Certain 

Tissue Paper Products from the People’s 

Republic of China’’ (Decision Memo), 

which is hereby adopted by this notice. 

The issues discussed in the Decision 

Memo include the likelihood of the 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

and the magnitude of the margins likely 

to prevail if the order were to be 

revoked. Parties can find a complete 

discussion of all issues raised in this 

review and the corresponding 

recommendations in this public 

memorandum which is on file in the 

Central Records Unit, room 1117 of the 

main Commerce building. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memo can be accessed directly 

on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/ 

index.html. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Decision Memo 

are identical in content. 

Final Results of Review 

We determine that revocation of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 


cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
APPENDIX B

LIST OF HEARING WITNESSES

B-1

CALENDAR OF PUBLIC HEARING

Those listed below appeared as witnesses at the United States International Trade Commission’s

hearing:

Subject: Wire Decking from China

Inv. Nos.: 701-TA-466 and 731-TA-1162 (Final)

Date and Time: May 27, 2010 - 9:30 a.m.

Sessions were held in connection with these investigations in the Main Hearing Room (room 101),

500 E Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.

OPENING STATEMENTS:

Petitioners: Kathleen W. Cannon, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP

Respondents: Marc E. Montalbine, deKieffer & Horgan

IN SUPPORT OF THE IMPOSITION OF ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTIES:

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

AWP Industries, Inc.

ITC Manufacturing, Inc.

J&L Wire Cloth, Inc.

Nashville Wire Products Mfg. Co.

Wireway/Husky Corp. 

Craig Chamberlin, President and CEO, AWP Industries, Inc.

Rob Rollins, Division Manager, Material Handling Division, Nashville Wire Products

Manufacturing Co.

John Caldwell, President, ITC Manufacturing, Inc.

Todd Mack, General Manager, ITC Manufacturing, Inc.

Tim Selhorst, President, J&L Wire Cloth, Inc.

Jim Rudolph, General Sales Manager, J&L Wire Cloth, Inc.

Ron Young, President, Wireway/Husky Corp.

B-3
IN SUPPORT OF THE IMPOSITION OF ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTIES

(CONTINUED):

Kara Oberlander, General Manager of Operations, AWP Industries, Inc.

Steve Wagner, Division Operations Manager, Material Handling Division, Nashville

Wire Products Manufacturing Co.

Gina Beck, Economic Consultant, Georgetown Economic Services

Kathleen W. Cannon )

) – OF COUNSEL

R. Alan Luberda )

IN OPPOSITION TO THE IMPOSITION OF ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING

DUTIES:

deKieffer & Horgan

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Dalian Eastfound Metal Products Co., Ltd.

Dalian Eastfoud Material Handling Products Co., Ltyd.

Worldwide Material Handling Products, LLC

Victor A. Kedaitis, President and CEO, Worldwide Material Handling Products, LLC

Bruce Malashevich, President, Economic Consulting Services, LLC

Alexander Cook, Economist, Economic Consulting Services, LLC

Marc E. Montalbine )

) – OF COUNSEL

Gergory S. Menegaz )

CLOSING STATEMENTS:

Petitioners: Kathleen W. Cannon, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP

Respondents: Marc E. Montalbine, deKeiffer & Horgan

B-4
APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA

C-1

Table C-1

Wire decking: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2006-09

(Quantity=1,000 pounds, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per pound; 

period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

Item 2006 2007 2008 2009 2006-09 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. import shipments from:

 China:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . 495,433 515,433 515,433 500,433 1.0 4.0 0.0 -2.9

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . 304,553 300,268 274,147 152,300 -50.0 -1.4 -8.7 -44.4

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . 61.5 58.3 53.2 30.4 -31.0 -3.2 -5.1 -22.8

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307,724 290,572 265,233 151,231 -50.9 -5.6 -8.7 -43.0

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173,280 161,018 171,982 85,477 -50.7 -7.1 6.8 -50.3

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.56 $0.55 $0.65 $0.57 0.4 -1.6 17.0 -12.8

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 45,278 35,842 45,509 28,552 -36.9 -20.8 27.0 -37.3

 Inventories/total shipments (1 14.2 11.9 16.5 18.3 4.1 -2.3 4.6 1.8

 Production workers . . . . . . . . 652 611 550 361 -44.6 -6.2 -10.0 -34.4

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . 1,349 1,185 1,115 681 -49.5 -12.2 -5.8 -38.9

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . 21,718 19,297 18,209 11,357 -47.7 -11.1 -5.6 -37.6

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . $16.10 $16.29 $16.33 $16.66 3.5 1.2 0.2 2.1

 Productivity (pounds per hour 225.8 253.5 245.8 223.5 -1.0 12.3 -3.0 -9.1

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . $0.07 $0.06 $0.07 $0.07 4.6 -9.9 3.3 12.3

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318,011 299,938 275,560 155,602 -51.1 -5.7 -8.1 -43.5

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178,846 166,106 178,872 87,908 -50.8 -7.1 7.7 -50.9

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.56 $0.55 $0.65 $0.56 0.5 -1.5 17.2 -13.0

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . 155,813 144,882 165,710 82,218 -47.2 -7.0 14.4 -50.4

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . 23,033 21,224 13,162 5,690 -75.3 -7.9 -38.0 -56.8

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . 11,713 12,227 12,285 10,348 -11.7 4.4 0.5 -15.8

 Operating income or (loss) . . 11,320 8,997 877 (4,658) (3) -20.5 -90.3 (3)

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . 3,570 1,358 2,420 1,303 -63.5 -62.0 78.2 -46.2

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.49 $0.48 $0.60 $0.53 7.8 -1.4 24.5 -12.1

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . $0.04 $0.04 $0.04 $0.07 80.5 10.7 9.4 49.2

 Unit operating income or (loss $0.04 $0.03 $0.003 ($0.03) (3) -15.7 -89.4 (3)

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . 87.1 87.2 92.6 93.5 6.4 0.1 5.4 0.9

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 5.4 0.5 (5.3) -11.6 -0.9 -4.9 -5.8

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Not available/not applicable.

 (3) Undefined.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis.

Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. (U.S. imports from China are compiled from data submitted in response to Commission

questionnaires; U.S. imports from nonsubject countries are estimated, as petitioners and respondents agree that these imports are approximately 5 percent of total U.S. imports).

C-3

APPENDIX D

ALLEGED EFFECTS OF IMPORTS ON U.S. PRODUCERS’ EXISTING

DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCTION EFFORTS, GROWTH, INVESTMENT,

AND ABILITY TO RAISE CAPITAL

D-1

The Commission requested U.S. processors to describe any actual or potential negative effects

since January 1, 2006, on their return on investment, growth, investment, ability to raise capital, existing

development and production efforts (including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version

of the product), or the scale of capital investments as a result of imports of wire decking from China. The

Commission further requested U.S. producers to indicate the average length of time between the purchase

and use of raw materials. Their responses are as follows:

Actual Negative Effects

AWP.–***

Cargotainer.–***

ITC.–***

J&L.–***

Nashville Wire.–***

Nucor.–***

Wireway.–***

Anticipated Negative Effects

AWP.–***

Cargotainer.–***

ITC.–***

J&L.–***

Nashville Wire.–***

Nucor.–***

Wireway.–***

D-3
Average Length of Time between the Purchase and Use of Raw Materials

AWP.–***

Cargotainer.–***

ITC.–***

J&L.–***

Nashville Wire.–***Nucor.–***

Wireway.–***

D-4