U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4098 August 2009

Washington, DC 20436

Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving

and Racks From China

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-458 and 731-TA-1154 (Final)
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS

Shara L. Aranoff, Chairman 

Daniel R. Pearson, Vice Chairman 

Deanna Tanner Okun 

Charlotte R. Lane 

Irving A. Williamson 

Dean A. Pinkert

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Robert A. Rogowsky

Director of Operations

Joanna Lo, Investigator

Ruben Mata, Industry Analyst

Clark Workman, Economist

Justin Jee, Financial Analyst/Auditor

David Fishberg, Attorney

Lemuel Shields, Statistician

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

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4098 August 2009

Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving

and Racks From China

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-458 and 731-TA-1154 (Final)

i

CONTENTS

Page

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

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

Dissenting Views of Vice-Chairman Daniel R. Pearson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

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-4

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

Subsidies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Sales at LTFV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

The subject merchandise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

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

Tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

The domestic like product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

Physical characteristics and uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

Manufacturing process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

Interchangeability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

Customer and producer perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

Channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

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

U.S. market characteristics and channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1

Supply and demand considerations ................................................ II-1

U.S. supply ............................................................... II-1

U.S. demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-3

Substitutability issues .......................................................... II-4

Factors affecting purchasing decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-5

Comparisons of domestic products and subject imports and nonsubject imports .......... II-6

Elasticity estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-8

U.S. supply elasticity ........................................................ II-8

U.S. demand elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-8

Substitution elasticity ....................................................... II-8

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

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

U.S. capacity, production, and capacity utilization ................................... III-3

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

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

U.S. producers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-5

U.S. producers’ employment, wages, and productivity ................................ III-6
ii

CONTENTS

Page

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

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

U.S. imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-2

U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-2

Negligibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-3

Apparent U.S. consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-3

Ratio of imports to U.S. production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-4

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-2

Pricing data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3

Price trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-5

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

Lost sales and lost revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-6

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

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

Operations on KASAR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1

Capital expenditures and research and development expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-4

Assets and return on investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-4

Capital and investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-5

Actual negative effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-5

Anticipated negative effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-5

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

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

U.S. importers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-5

Antidumping and countervailing duty orders in third-country markets .................... VII-5

Information on nonsubject sources ................................................ VII-6

Appendixes

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

B. Hearing witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

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

 Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun recused herself to avoid any conflict of interest or appearance of a conflict.

 3

 The Commission finds two domestic industries, one producing refrigeration shelving and one producing oven

racks.

 4

 Vice Chairman Daniel R. Pearson, dissenting with regard to imports of certain oven racks from China, finds that

the oven racks industry in the United States is neither materially injured nor threatened with material injury by

reason of imports from China.

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation Nos. 701-TA-458 and 731-TA-1154 (Final)

CERTAIN KITCHEN APPLIANCE SHELVING AND RACKS FROM CHINA

DETERMINATIONS

On the basis of the record1

 developed in the subject investigations, the United States International

Trade Commission (Commission) determines,2

 pursuant to sections 705(b) and 735(b) of the Tariff Act of

1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1671d(b) and 1673d(b)) (the Act), that the refrigeration shelving industry in the

United States is materially injured and the oven racks industry in the United States is threatened with

material injury by reason of imports from China of certain kitchen appliance shelving and racks,3 4

provided for in subheadings 7321.90.50, 7321.90.60, 8418.99.80, and 8516.90.80 of the Harmonized

Tariff Schedule of the United States, that have been found by the Department of Commerce (Commerce)

to be subsidized by the Government of China and sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). 

In addition, the Commission determines that it would not have found material injury with regard to

imports of oven racks from China but for the suspension of liquidation.

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted these investigations effective July 31, 2008, following receipt of a

petition filed with the Commission and Commerce by Nashville Wire Products Inc., Nashville, TN, SSW

Holding Company, Inc., Elizabethtown, KY, the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber,

Manufacturing, Energy, Allied-Industrial and Service Workers International Union, and the International

Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge 6, Clinton, IA. The final phase of the

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

Commerce that imports of certain kitchen appliance shelving and racks from China were being subsidized

within the meaning of section 703(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1671b(b)) and being sold at LTFV within

the meaning of section 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 of April 21, 2009 (74 FR 18249). 

The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on July 16, 2009, and all persons who requested the

opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel.

 1

 Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun has recused herself from these investigations.

 2

 Vice Chairman Pearson joins in the majority through Section VI of this opinion, concurring in the view that the

industry manufacturing refrigeration shelving is materially injured by imports from China which Commerce has

determined were sold at LTFV in the United States. However, Vice Chairman Pearson dissents from the majority

and finds instead that an industry producing oven racks is not threatened with material injury.

 3

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 4

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 5

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10).

3

VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

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

producing certain refrigeration shelving is materially injured by reason of subject imports of certain

refrigeration shelving from China that the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) has found to be

sold in the United States at less than fair value and imports of certain refrigeration shelving from China

that Commerce has found to be subsidized by the Government of China. We also determine that the

domestic industry producing certain oven racks is threatened with material injury by reason of subject

imports of certain oven racks from China that Commerce has found to be sold in the United States at less

than fair value and imports of certain oven racks that Commerce has found to be subsidized by the

Government of China.1 2

I. BACKGROUND

The petitions in these investigations were filed on July 31, 2008. The petitioners are Nashville

Wire Products Inc. (“Nashville”) and SSW Holding Company Inc. (“SSW”), the two largest domestic

producers of certain kitchen appliance shelving and racks (“KASAR”), and United Steelworkers and

International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (“IAMAW”), District Lodge 6 (Clinton,

IA), unions representing workers in the domestic industry producing KASAR (collectively,

“Petitioners”). Respondent Electrolux Home Products, Inc. (“Electrolux”), filed both prehearing and

posthearing briefs, and representatives from Electrolux appeared at the hearing. Respondents General

Electric Company (“GE”) and Whirlpool Corporation (“Whirlpool”), importers and purchasers of

KASAR, filed a joint prehearing brief but did not appear at the hearing.

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

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

 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.”4

 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.”5

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
 6

 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).

 7

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

 8

 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.”).

 9

 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).

 10 Hosiden Corp. v. Advanced Display Mfrs., 85 F.3d 1561, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (the 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 the Commission’s determination defining six like products in investigations in

which Commerce found five classes or kinds).

4

characteristics and uses” on a case-by-case basis.6 No single factor is dispositive, and the Commission

may consider other factors it deems relevant based on the facts of a particular investigation.7

 The

Commission looks for clear dividing lines among possible like products and disregards minor variations.8

Although the Commission must accept Commerce’s determination as to the scope of the imported

merchandise that is subsidized or sold at less than fair value,9

 the Commission determines what domestic

product is like the imported articles Commerce has identified.10

B. Product Description

Commerce has defined the imported merchandise within the scope of the investigations as

follows:

shelving and racks for refrigerators, freezers, combined refrigerator-freezers, other

refrigerating or freezing equipment, cooking stoves, ranges, and ovens (“certain kitchen

appliance shelving and racks” or “the subject merchandise”). Certain kitchen appliance

shelving and racks are defined as shelving, baskets, racks (with or without extension

slides, which are carbon or stainless steel hardware devices that are connected to

shelving, baskets, or racks to enable sliding), side racks (which are welded wire support

structures for oven racks that attach to the interior walls of an oven cavity that does not

include support ribs as a design feature), and subframes (which are welded wire support

structures that interface with formed support ribs inside an oven cavity to support rack

assemblies utilizing extension slides) with the following dimensions:

– shelving and racks with dimensions ranging from 3 inches by 5 inches by 0.10 inch to 28 inches

by 34 inches by 6 inches; or
 11 74 Fed. Reg. 36656, 36657-58 (July 24, 2009) and 74 Fed. Reg. 37012, 37013 (July 27, 2009).

 12 Hearing Tr. at 35 (Cannon).

 13 Hearing Tr. at 163 (Jaffe).

 14 In its preliminary determinations, the Commission stated that, if respondents wished to argue in the final phase

investigations for an expansion of the domestic like product to include products outside the scope, they should

identify the specific products for expansion in their written comments on the Commission’s draft questionnaires. 

See Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks from China, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-458 and 731-TA-1154 (Prelim.),

USITC Pub. 4035 at 10 n.43 (Sept. 2008). No party presented any comments on this issue.

 15 CR at I-12-I-13; PR at I-10.

5

– baskets with dimensions ranging from 2 inches by 4 inches by 3 inches to 28 inches by 34

inches by 16 inches; or

– side racks from 6 inches by 8 inches by 0.1 inch to 16 inches by 30 inches by 4 inches; or

– subframes from 6 inches by 10 inches by 0.1 inch to 28 inches by 34 inches by 6 inches.

The subject merchandise is comprised of carbon or stainless steel wire ranging in thickness from 0.050

inch to 0.500 inch and may include sheet metal of either carbon or stainless steel ranging in thickness

from 0.020 inch to 0.2 inch. The subject merchandise may be coated or uncoated and may be formed

and/or welded. Excluded from the scope of this investigation is shelving in which the support surface is

glass.11

C. Like Product Analysis

In the preliminary phase investigations, the Commission found that there are two domestic

products “like” the subject KASAR as defined by the scope of these investigations: (1) certain

refrigeration shelving and baskets for refrigerators, freezers, combination refrigerator/freezers and other

refrigerating or freezing equipment; and (2) certain oven racks, side racks, and subframes for cooking

stoves, ranges, and ovens. Petitioners continue to support the Commission’s like product definitions.12

Respondent Electrolux states that it does not challenge the definitions of the like products made by the

Commission in its preliminary determinations.13 Although GE/Whirlpool argued in the preliminary phase

of these investigations that the Commission should expand the like product beyond the scope to include

all wire kitchen appliance shelving and cooking racks, it did not present any argument in the final phase

that the like product definitions adopted by the Commission in its preliminary determinations should be

changed.14 For the reasons discussed below, we find two domestic like products: certain refrigeration

shelving and baskets for refrigerators, freezers, combination refrigerator/freezers and other refrigerating

or freezing equipment; and certain oven racks, side racks, and subframes for cooking stoves, ranges, and

ovens, as we did in the preliminary phase investigations.

Whether certain refrigeration shelving and certain oven racks are separate like products

Physical characteristics and uses

All KASAR share certain physical characteristics. All are made from carbon or stainless steel

wire that is straightened and cut according to product specifications.15 Refrigeration parts and oven parts,

however, have different coatings, based on the functions of the appliance into which each will go. For
 16 CR at I-12; PR at I-11.

 17 CR at I-13; PR at I-11.

 18 CR at I-12-I-13; PR I-10.

 19 CR at I-14; PR at I-12.

 20 CR at I-14; PR at I-12.

 21 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 22 CR at I-11-I-13; PR at I-10-11.

 23 CR at I-15; PR at I-12.

 24 Petitioners’ Prehearing Brief at 6. 

6

example, for refrigeration shelving, the coating is most often electrostatic powder paint.16 For oven racks,

the coating process most often consists of a nickel plating process, but may also include porcelain or other

coatings that can withstand high temperatures inside a cooking appliance.17 Although both types of

KASAR provide physical support for items that are placed within or on a particular piece of equipment,

refrigeration shelving and oven racks are used in products that serve totally different functions –

refrigeration and cooking.18

Interchangeability

Refrigeration shelving and oven racks are designed and produced for specific original equipment

manufacturer (“OEM”) kitchen appliance producers for specific model applications.19 Petitioners and

respondents agree that kitchen refrigeration shelves are not interchangeable with oven racks.20

Common manufacturing facilities, production processes, and production employees

Petitioners, who accounted for over *** percent of the reported domestic production of KASAR

in 2008, produce refrigeration shelving and oven racks in separate facilities using dedicated fabrication

and finishing equipment.21 The production processes for refrigerator shelving and oven parts are similar –

obtaining wire rod, straightening it, then forming and/or welding, followed by pretreating or coating

(although, as described above, the coatings used for refrigerator shelving and oven parts are different).22

Channels of distribution

All domestically produced KASAR are produced specifically for and sold to end users, which are

all OEMs of kitchen appliances.23

Customer and producer perceptions

In the preliminary phase of these investigations, GE/Whirlpool argued that OEM customers for

KASAR view KASAR producers as comprising a single industry and organize their sourcing operations

accordingly. Petitioners assert, and the record indicates that customers perceive refrigeration shelving

and oven racks to be different, as each item is designed to meet the size requirements of the specific

appliance into which it will go, each is coated to serve the specific function of the appliance, and neither

producers nor customers perceive the products to be interchangeable.24 Petitioners also note that the
 25 Petitioners’ Prehearing Brief at 6.

 26 GE/Whirlpool’s Postconference Brief at 11.

 27 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 28 In the preliminary phase of these investigations, the Commission found that *** were related parties because

they imported oven racks from China during the POI, but that appropriate circumstances did not exist to exclude

either from the domestic industry producing oven racks. The record in the final phase of these investigations

continues to show that *** imported and/or purchased oven racks from China. See CR/PR at Table III-12, 19 U.S.C.

§ 1677(4)(B) (no related party issue was raised for the refrigeration shelving industry). We therefore consider

whether appropriate circumstances exist to exclude either of these companies from the domestic industry producing

certain oven racks as a related party. No party has argued for the exclusion of ***.

(continued...)

7

OEMs have their own separate, dedicated facilities for assembling and manufacturing the appliances in

which the subject merchandise is used.25

Price

There is a limited amount of information on the record of these investigations regarding relative

prices of refrigeration shelving and oven racks. The record indicates that there is substantial overlap

among prices for different sizes and types of KASAR.26

Conclusion

In the final phase of these investigations, no party has argued that the Commission should alter

the like product definition used in the preliminary phase investigations. The record indicates that, despite

certain physical similarities, refrigeration shelving and oven racks have different uses. They also receive

different coatings based on the function of the appliance into which they will go, which precludes

interchangeability. Refrigeration shelving and oven racks are made in separate manufacturing facilities,

using different employees and equipment. Moreover, customers have their own separate, dedicated

facilities for assembling or manufacturing the two types of appliances into which refrigeration shelving

and oven racks are incorporated. This lack of overlap, as well as the lack of interchangeability between

the products, supports the argument that customers perceive these products as different. 

On balance, and in the absence of any contrary argument by the parties, the Commission

continues to find two domestic like products: (1) certain refrigeration shelving and baskets for

refrigerators, freezers, combination refrigerator/freezers and other refrigerating or freezing equipment

(hereinafter “refrigeration shelving”); and (2) certain oven racks, side racks, and subframes for cooking

stoves, ranges, and ovens (hereinafter “oven racks”), as it did in the preliminary 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.”27 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 finding that there are two separate like products, we find two domestic industries consisting

of the following: (1) all producers of certain refrigeration shelving and baskets for refrigerators, freezers,

combination refrigerator/freezers, and other refrigerating or freezing equipment; and (2) all producers of

certain oven racks, side racks, and subframes for cooking stoves, ranges, and ovens.28 29 30
 28 (...continued)

*** is a *** in these investigations and had imports of subject merchandise equivalent to *** percent of its

*** production in 2006, *** percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008, *** percent in interim 2008, and *** percent in

interim 2009. CR/PR at Table III-12. The company explained that it imported ***. CR/PR at Table III-12, n.1.

*** is a *** in these investigations and had imports of subject merchandise equivalent to *** percent of its

domestic production throughout the POI. CR/PR at Table III-12. *** also purchased *** imports of certain oven

racks in 2008. CR/PR at Table IV-1, n.1. Its purchases of subject merchandise were equivalent to ***] percent of

its *** production in 2006, *** percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008, *** percent in interim 2008, and *** percent

in interim 2009. CR/PR at Table III-12. The company explained that in 2003 it acquired ***, which was already

engaged in the process of importing oven racks; as ***. CR at III-3, n.4; PR at III-2, n.4.

We find that appropriate circumstances do not exist to exclude *** from the domestic industry producing

certain oven racks. Both are *** in these investigations, and their interests lie more with domestic production than

with importing. Their volumes of imports and/or purchases were *** compared with their domestic production. 

Moreover, their U.S. operations do not appear to have benefitted financially from their relatively low volumes of

imports and purchases, because their financial results ***. CR/PR at Table VI-4.

 29 Consistent with her practice in past investigations and reviews, Chairman Aranoff does not rely on individualcompany operating income margins, which reflect a domestic producer’s financial operations related to production

of the 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. She finds that

appropriate circumstances do not exist to exclude *** or *** from the domestic industry producing certain oven

racks.

 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 C.I.T. 1861, 1865-1867 (2004).

 31 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(b), 1673d(b).

 32 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 . . . [a]nd explain in full its relevance to the determination.” 19

U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B).

 33 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(A).

 34 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

 35 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

8

IV. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. In General

In the final phase of antidumping or 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.31 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 like product, but only in the context of U.S. production operations.32

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

unimportant.”33 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.34 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.”35
 36 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(b)(1), 1673d(b)(1).

 37 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’g 944 F. Supp. 943, 951 (Ct. Int’l Trade

1996).

 38 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).

 39 SAA at 851-52 (“{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 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.

 40 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, Inv. 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,’

(continued...)

9

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

“materially injured by reason of” or threatened with material injury by reason of unfairly traded imports,36

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.37 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.38

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 nonsubject

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.39 In performing its examination, however, the Commission need not

isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by unfairly traded imports.40 Nor does the
 40 (...continued)

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.”). 

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

 42 See Nippon Steel Corp., 345 F.3d at 1381 (“an affirmative material-injury [sic] 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.”).

 43 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.

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

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

present material injury in certain circumstances, to undertake a particular kind of analysis of nonsubject imports. 

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.

 45 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.”).

10

“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 nonsubject

imports, which may be contributing to overall injury to an industry.41 It is clear that the existence of

injury caused by other factors does not compel a negative determination.42

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.”43 44 Indeed, the

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

adherence to a specific formula.”45

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

 47 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).

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

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

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

 49 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 nonsubject countries that

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

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 nonsubject imports.

 50 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.”).

 51 We provide in the discussion of impact in sections VI.C. and VII.C. below a full analysis of other factors

alleged to have caused any material injury experienced by the domestic industry.

 52 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(i).

11

imports.46 The additional “replacement/benefit” test looked at whether nonsubject 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 nonsubject imports or other factors to subject imports.47 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 nonsubject 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.48 49

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.50 51

B. Material Injury by Reason of 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.”52

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 –
 53 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(ii).

 54 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.”). The statute additionally

instructs the Commission to consider the “magnitude of the dumping margin” in an antidumping investigation as part

of its consideration of the impact of imports. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii)(V).

 55 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).

 56 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii).

 57 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii).

 58 These factors are as follows:

(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

(continued...)

12

 (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.53

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.”54 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.”55

C. Threat of Material Injury by Reason of Subject Imports

Section 771(7)(F) of the Tariff Act directs the Commission to determine whether the U.S.

industry 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.”56 The Commission may not make

such a determination “on the basis of mere conjecture or supposition,” and considers the threat factors “as

a whole” in making its determination whether dumped or subsidized imports are imminent and whether

material injury by reason of subject imports would occur unless an order is issued.57 In making our

determination, we consider all statutory threat factors that are relevant to these investigations.58
 58 (...continued)

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,

(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),

and (V) 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. Although some Chinese

producers produce wire products using the same equipment used to make KASAR, no argument has been asserted in

these investigations that statutory threat factor (VI) concerning product shifting is applicable to production of oven

racks. There was also 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).

 59 CR at II-4; PR at II-3. Seasonally adjusted monthly housing starts and completions have both declined since

2006. CR/PR at Figure II-1.

 60 CR at II-4-II-5; PR at II-3. Petitioners noted that demand has declined for a number of reasons, including a

downturn in the housing market, the recession, and the fact that some OEMs have shifted their manufacturing to

other countries. Hearing Tr. at 119-120 (Cannon). Electrolux stated that the decline in demand is primarily due to

the corresponding decrease in U.S. demand for durable consumer goods caused by the current economic recession,

including the ongoing housing slump. Electrolux’s Prehearing Brief at 2 & Hearing Tr. at 189-190 (Market). 

GE/Whirlpool also stated that there was increased production by OEMs in other countries. GE/Whirlpool’s

Prehearing Brief at 3.

 61 CR/PR at Table C-2.

 62 CR/PR at Table C-2.

13

V. CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION AND THE BUSINESS CYCLE

Several conditions of competition are pertinent to our analysis of both industries in the final phase

of these investigations.

A. Demand Conditions

Demand for refrigeration shelving and oven racks is closely related to the U.S. housing market.59

The parties, as well as the majority of market participants, agree that demand for refrigeration shelving

and oven racks has declined since 2006 due primarily to declines in the housing market and the economic

recession.60

Apparent U.S. consumption of refrigeration shelving declined steadily, from *** units in 2006 to

*** units in 2007 and *** units in 2008, an overall decline of *** percent.61 Apparent U.S. consumption

of refrigeration shelving was *** percent lower in interim (January to March) 2009, at *** units, than in

interim 2008, at *** units.62
 63 CR/PR at Table C-3.

 64 CR/PR at Table C-3.

 65 CR/PR at III-1, I-3 n.3. In addition to the questionnaire responses from Nashville and SSW, two small

producers, ***, submitted partial questionnaire responses. CR/PR at III-1 n.2.

 66 CR/PR at Tables C-2 and C-3 & II-2.

 67 CR/PR at Table C-2.

 68 CR/PR at Table C-2. 

 69 CR/PR at Table C-2.

 70 Subject imports’ share of the U.S. market for refrigeration shelving, by quantity, increased from *** percent in

2006 to *** percent in 2007 and *** percent in 2008; it was *** percent in interim 2008 and *** percent in interim

2009. CR/PR at Table C-2. Nonsubject imports accounted for *** percent or less of the U.S. market over the

period. CR/PR at Table C-2. ***. CR at IV-4, n.4.; PR at IV-2, n.4.

 71 CR/PR at Table C-3.

 72 CR/PR at Table C-3. The majority of U.S. producers’ oven rack production is of standard nickel-plated oven

racks, but they also produce “slide” oven racks and racks coated with porcelain. CR at I-13; PR at I-11. Hearing Tr.

at 72 (Kara). The porcelain-coated racks and slide oven racks are higher valued than the standard nickel oven racks,

but the markets for these products are limited. CR at VI-8; PR at VI-3; Hearing Tr. at 72-73 (Kara). Chinese

producers currently produce the standard nickel-plated oven racks as well as slide oven racks, but they do not

produce the porcelain-coated oven racks. Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief at 15 & n.15, and Exhibit 17; Hearing Tr. at

109 (Gritton). Throughout this opinion, our references to nickel-plated oven racks include only the standard nickelplated oven racks and not the higher value slide oven racks, which may also be nickel-plated. 

 73 CR/PR at Table C-3.

 74 See CR/PR at Table C-3.

14

Apparent U.S. consumption of oven racks declined steadily, from *** units in 2006 to *** units

in 2007 and *** units in 2008, an overall decline of *** percent.63 Apparent U.S. consumption of oven

racks was *** percent lower in interim 2009, at *** units, than in interim 2008, at *** units.64 

B. Supply Conditions

The Commission received questionnaire responses from four U.S. producers, which are believed

to account for the *** of U.S. production of refrigeration shelving and oven racks in 2008.65 The

capacities of both domestic industries exceeded apparent U.S. consumption for their respective products

throughout the period examined, and both have *** unused capacity that could be used to increase

production.66

The domestic refrigeration shelving industry’s capacity decreased by *** percent from 2006 to

2008. Capacity was unchanged in interim 2009 from interim 2008.67 Production dropped dramatically by

*** percent from 2006 to 2008 and was *** percent lower in interim 2009 than in interim 2008.68 The

industry’s share of the U.S. market, by quantity, declined from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in

2007 and *** percent in 2008; it was *** percent in interim 2008 and *** in interim 2009.69 70

The domestic oven rack industry’s capacity increased by *** percent from 2006 to 2007, then

remained constant.71 Its production dropped by *** percent from 2006 to 2008 and was *** percent

lower in interim 2009 than in interim 2008.72 The industry’s share of the U.S. market, by 

quantity, increased from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007, before declining to *** percent in

2008; it was *** percent in interim 2008 and *** percent in interim 2009.73 Subject imports accounted

for the remainder of the U.S. market because there were *** nonsubject imports of oven racks during the

period.74
 75 Hearing Tr. at 28 (Gritton).

 76 CR at II-8-II-10; PR at II-7. As a Whirlpool representative stated during the preliminary staff conference, “Our

specifications don’t change from where the part is produced. The suppliers are expected to meet our specifications. 

You wouldn’t be able to ascertain whether one was made in China or whether one was made in the United States.” 

Conf. Tr. at 127 (Wessendorf).

 77 CR/PR at Table II-4. 

 78 CR/PR at Table II-5.

 79 Hearing Tr. at 27-28 (Gritton).

 80 Electrolux’s Prehearing Brief at 5 & Hearing Tr. at 143-144 (Market) (discussing the five factors Electrolux

examines when making its purchasing decisions for oven racks).

 81 CR/PR at II-8, n.10 & Electrolux’s Prehearing Brief at 6.

 82 CR/PR at Table II-6.

 83 CR/PR at Table II-7.

 84 When asked to list the top three factors considered when choosing among suppliers of refrigeration shelving

and oven racks, 5 of 9 purchasers ranked “price” as their first or second most important factor, behind only “quality,”

which 8 of 9 purchasers ranked as their first or second most important factor. CR/PR at Table II-2. Eight of 10

purchasers ranked “price” as a “very important” factor used in making purchasing decisions. CR/PR at Table II-3.

 85 No party argues that negligibility is an issue in these investigations. Subject imports from China of certain

refrigeration shelving far exceeded the negligibility threshold during the most recent 12-month period for which data

(continued...)

15

C. Interchangeability and Other Conditions of Competition

Refrigeration shelving and oven racks are generally produced to specific OEM design

requirements. The record indicates that multiple Chinese producers have been qualified by OEMs to meet

their manufacturing requirements for these products.75 Once they are qualified, there is a high degree of

interchangeability between domestically produced products and the subject imports.76 All reporting U.S.

producers and importers, as well as one purchaser, found domestically produced refrigeration shelving

always to be interchangeable with the subject merchandise, while one purchaser reported that they were

never interchangeable.77 All reporting U.S. producers and purchasers found that domestically produced

oven racks always were interchangeable with subject merchandise, one U.S. importer found that they

were frequently interchangeable, and only one importer found that they were never interchangeable.78

Petitioners indicate that, once a producer becomes qualified, the determining factor in purchasing

decisions is price.79 Electrolux acknowledges that price is a factor in its purchasing decisions regarding 

oven racks, but claims that “many other factors compare in importance, or may be even more important,”

including quality, delivery capability, reliability of supply, and strategic business decisions.80 Electrolux

also states that non-price factors, including dual sourcing strategies, loyalty to long-term suppliers, and

assurance of product and supply consistency, play decisive roles in purchasing decisions for oven racks.81

All reporting U.S. producers and one importer indicated that differences other than price were

either “never” or “sometimes” a significant factor in their firm’s sales of refrigeration shelving, while one

importer reported that differences other than price were “frequently” a significant factor.82 All reporting

U.S. producers and one importer indicated that differences other than price were “never” a significant

factor in their firms’ sales of oven racks, while one importer reported that differences other than price

were “frequently” a significant factor.83 Accordingly, we find that price is an important consideration,

although not the only consideration, when purchasers are choosing among competing suppliers of

refrigeration shelving and oven racks.84 

VI. MATERIAL INJURY BY REASON OF IMPORTS OF CERTAIN REFRIGERATION

SHELVING FROM CHINA85
 85 (...continued)

are available preceding the filing of the petition. CR at IV-11; PR at IV-3. Consequently, we find that the subject

imports of refrigeration shelving are not negligible under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24).

 86 Because refrigeration shelving is imported in basket categories in the HTS, official import statistics are not

available for use in these investigations. CR/PR at IV-1. As a result, all import statistics are compiled from data

gathered in response to Commission questionnaires.

 87 CR/PR at Table IV-3. We evaluate volume by quantity rather than value in these investigations. We typically

rely on quantity-based measures of volume because value-based measures can be skewed by changes in the product

mix and the fact that, for subject imports, the merchandise is sold at LTFV. The variations in the product mix in the

scope of this case do not warrant a departure from past practice.

 88 CR/PR at Table IV-3.

 89 CR/PR at Tables IV-3 and C-2.

 90 CR/PR at Table IV-9.

 91 CR/PR at Table IV-12.

 92 See CR at II-9-11; PR at II-6-7; and CR/PR at Table II-2.

 93 CR at V-28; PR at V-6-7; and CR/PR at Table V-8. (*** agreed with all four of the lost sales allegations in

which it was involved, totaling ***, although it stated that the prices that were alleged for the imports from China

(continued...)

16

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 certain refrigeration shelving from China that 

Commerce has found are subsidized and sold in the United States at LTFV.

A. Volume of Subject Imports86

The volume of subject imports declined from *** units in 2006 to *** units in 2007, then

increased to *** units in 2008.87 Subject import volume was *** units in interim 2008 and *** units in

interim 2009.88 Although subject import volume increased *** percent between 2006 and 2008, and was

*** percent higher in interim 2009 than in interim 2008, apparent consumption declined by *** percent

between 2006 and 2008 and was *** percent lower in interim 2009 than in interim 2008.89

Subject imports gained *** percentage points of market share between 2006 and 2008 and ***

percentage points of market share between the interim periods. These gains came *** at the expense of

the domestic industry, which lost *** percentage points of market share between 2006 and 2008 and ***

percentage points of market share between the interim periods.90 As subject imports displaced domestic

refrigeration shelving in the U.S. market, the ratio of subject imports to domestic production increased

significantly, from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007 and *** percent in 2008, and was ***

percent in interim 2008 and *** percent in interim 2009.91

Accordingly, we conclude that subject import volume is significant, both in absolute terms and

relative to consumption and production in the United States, and that the increase in subject import

volume and market share is also significant.

B. Price Effects of the Subject Imports

As addressed in section V.C. above, the record indicates that, once the suppliers are qualified by a

purchaser, there is a high degree of interchangeability between subject imports and the domestic like

product and that price is an important purchasing consideration.92 We note that one purchaser, when

queried by Commission staff about domestic producer allegations of lost sales and lost revenues,

confirmed that it switched its purchases from the domestic like product to subject imports due to price.93 
 93 (...continued)

were about 50 percent lower than the prices that it actually paid).

 94 Not all firms reported prices for all products for all quarters.

 95 CR at V-6; PR at V-4.

 96 CR/PR at V-6; PR at V-4.

 97 We have not compared prices charged to importers of subject merchandise with prices charged to purchasers

for delivered domestic product, because the two types of transactions are arguably at different stages in the chain of

distribution. CR at V-26, n.14; PR at V-6, n.14.

 98 The direct pricing comparisons were limited to pricing products 1, 9, and 10, and all involved price

comparisons for the last quarter of 2006 and the first two quarters of 2007. CR/PR at Tables V-1, V-9, V-10.

 99 CR at V-26, n.14; PR at V-6, n.14. Three purchasers have also reported that the Chinese provide tooling at

discounted prices to their customers, which is another way, besides lower prices, to undercut domestic sales

negotiations. CR at V-5; PR at V-3.

 100 See CR/PR at Tables V-1-4, V-8-10. For Product 8, only two quarterly comparisons of U.S. delivered

purchase prices, involving limited quantities, were available. CR/PR at Table V-8.

 101 CR/PR at Table C-2.

17

The Commission obtained quarterly data on U.S. f.o.b. sales prices, delivered import prices,

delivered U.S. purchase prices, and delivered Chinese purchase prices with respect to seven refrigeration

shelving products, specifically Products 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, and 10.94 *** domestic producers and ***

importers provided usable quarterly net U.S. f.o.b. selling price data for these products.95 Pricing data on

refrigerator shelving reported for 2006-2008 and January-March 2009 accounted for 16.1 percent of U.S.

producer shipments and 13.6 percent of shipments of imports from China.96 There were no pricing data,

however, that allowed direct comparisons between domestic f.o.b. sales prices and importer f.o.b. sales

prices for subject merchandise. Accordingly, we have only compared prices charged to purchasers for

delivered subject merchandise with prices charged to purchasers for delivered domestic like product.97

These direct price comparisons were limited to three pricing products (of the seven total refrigeration

shelving products) and nine quarterly comparisons, due mainly to the fact that the industry is highly

concentrated, with two U.S. producers accounting for about 90 percent of sales and three OEM

purchasers accounting for about 90 percent of all purchases. These OEM purchasers are often the direct

importers of the subject merchandise. Moreover, because refrigeration shelving is designed by specific

OEM kitchen appliance producers for specific model applications, the seven pricing products that were

selected for price comparisons account for only a small percentage of total sales.98 Subject imports

undersold the domestic like product in *** of the available comparisons.99 Accordingly, we find subject

import underselling of the domestic like product to be significant.

We have considered trends in refrigeration shelving prices over the period of investigation. The

U.S. delivered purchase prices for all products but Product 8 were higher in the last quarter for which the

Commission has data than in the first quarter.100 Accordingly, we do not find that subject import

underselling depressed prices for the domestic like product to a significant degree.

We have also considered the degree to which lower-priced subject imports prevented price

increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a significant degree. The domestic industry’s cost of

goods sold (“COGS”) as a share of net sales remained relatively stable throughout the period of

investigation, at *** percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007, and *** percent in 2008. COGS as a share of

net sales, however, was *** percent in interim 2008 and *** percent in interim 2009.101 The rise in the

domestic industry’s COGS/sales ratio to its highest point in interim 2009 coincided with the highest levels

of market penetration by subject imports over the period examined, which provides some evidence that by

the end of the period the domestic producers were unable to raise their prices sufficiently to cover

increased costs due to the significant volumes of lower-priced subject imports entering the U.S. market. 
 102 Commissioner Williamson does not join this paragraph. He finds that, while the industry's COGS/sales ratio

was fairly steady from 2006 to 2008, there is some indication that lower-priced subject imports suppressed domestic

prices to a significant degree toward the end of the period. The COGS/sales ratio was *** percent in 2006, ***

percent in 2007, and *** percent in 2008; however, it was *** percent in interim 2009 as compared to *** percent in

interim 2008. The rise in this ratio to its highest point in interim 2009 coincided with the highest levels of market

penetration by subject imports over the period examined, which indicates that by the end of the period the domestic

producers were unable to raise their prices sufficiently to cover increased costs due to the significant volumes of

lower-priced subject imports.

 103 We have considered the magnitude of the dumping margins found by Commerce. Commerce did not

differentiate between refrigeration shelving and oven racks in defining the scope of the subject products. In its

antidumping investigation concerning subject imports from China, Commerce found a 44.77 percent dumping

margin for New King Shan (Zhu Hai) Co., Ltd., Leader Metal Industry Co., Ltd. (a/k/a Marmon Retail Services

Asia), Hangzhou Dunli Industry Co., Ltd., and Jiangsu Weizi Group Co.; a 95.99 percent dumping margin for

Guangdong Wireking Housewares & Hardware Co., Ltd.; and a 95.99 percent PRC-wide rate. 74 F.R. at 36656. 

The Commission has also considered the magnitude of the countervailable subsidies found by Commerce. 19 U.S.C.

§ 1677(7)(C)(iii). Commerce found a subsidy rate of 170.82 percent for Asber Enterprises, Co., Ltd.; 149.91 percent

for Changzhou Yixiong Metal Products, Co., Ltd., Foshan Winleader Metal Products Co., Ltd., Kingsun Enterprises

Group Co., Ltd., Yuyao Hanjun Metal Work Co./Yuyao Hanjun Metal Products Co., Ltd., and Zhongshan Iwatani

Co., Ltd.; and 13.30 percent for Guangdong Wireking Housewares & Hardware Co., Ltd. (formerly known as

Foshan Shunde Wireking Housewares & Hardware Co., Ltd.) and all others. 73 Fed. Reg. at 37012.

 104 CR/PR at Table C-2.

 105 CR/PR at Table C-2.

 106 CR/PR at Table C-2.

18

Nevertheless, because the domestic industry’s COGS as a share of net sales remained stable from 2006

through 2008, we find that subject imports did not suppress domestic price increases to a significant

degree during the period examined.102

In sum, the record indicates significant underselling by subject imports during the period

examined. Moreover, the confirmed lost sales of refrigeration shelving to lower priced subject imports

demonstrate that underselling by subject imports contributed significantly to the *** percentage points in

market share that subject imports gained at the expense of the domestic industry between 2006 and 2008

and the further *** percentage points in market share in interim 2009 relative to interim 2008 that subject

imports gained at the expense of the domestic industry. Accordingly, we find that subject imports have

had significant adverse effects on domestic prices during the period of investigation.

C. Impact of the Subject Imports103

We have examined the performance indicators in the trade and financial data for the domestic

industry producing refrigeration shelving. These data declined throughout the period examined, with the

steepest declines occurring in 2008 and interim 2009.

The domestic industry’s market share declined by *** percentage points from 2006 to 2008 and

was *** percentage points lower in interim 2009 than in interim 2008. The industry’s share of apparent

U.S. consumption by quantity declined from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007 and *** percent

in 2008; it was *** percent in interim 2008 and *** percent in interim 2009.104 At the same time, its U.S.

shipments declined *** percent between 2006 and 2008, from *** units in 2006 to *** units in 2007 and

*** units in 2008; it was *** units in interim 2008 and *** units in interim 2009.105 The domestic

industry’s net sales quantity declined *** percent between 2006 and 2008, from *** units in 2006 to ***

units in 2007 and *** units in 2008; it was *** units in interim 2008 and *** units in interim 2009.106

The domestic industry’s production, capacity, and capacity utilization all declined *** over the

period examined. Specifically, capacity declined by *** percent between 2006 and 2008, from *** units
 107 CR/PR at Table C-2.

 108 CR/PR at Table C-2.

 109 CR/PR at Table C-2.

 110 CR/PR at Table C-2. The average number of production workers declined from *** in 2006 to *** in 2008

and was *** in interim 2008 and *** in interim 2009. Hours worked decreased from *** in 2006 to *** in 2008;

they were *** in interim 2008 and *** in interim 2009. Wages paid decreased from $*** in 2006 to $*** in 2008;

they were $*** in interim 2008 and $*** in interim 2009. Productivity declined from *** units per hour in 2006 to

*** units per hour in 2008 and was *** units per hour in interim 2008 as compared to *** units per hour in interim

2009. CR/PR at Table C-2.

 111 CR/PR at Table C-2. Unit labor costs rose from $*** in 2006 to $*** in 2008.

 112 CR/PR at Table C-2. Hourly wages increased from $*** in 2006 to $*** in 2008, and were $*** in interim

2008 as compared to $*** in interim 2009.

 113 CR/PR at Table C-2.

 114 CR/PR at Table C-2.

 115 CR/PR at Table C-2.

 116 CR/PR at Table C-2.

 117 CR/PR at Table C-2.

 118 See GE/Whirlpool’s Prehearing Brief at 5.

19

in 2006 to *** units in 2007 and *** units in 2008, and remained level between the interim periods at ***

units,107 while production declined *** percent, from *** units in 2006 to *** units in 2007 and *** units

in 2008, and was *** units in interim 2008 and *** units in interim 2009.108 Despite declining capacity,

capacity utilization declined from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007 and *** percent in 2008; it

was *** percent in interim 2008 and *** percent in interim 2009.109

A number of employment-related indicators, including the average number of production-related

workers, hours worked, wages paid, and productivity, declined each year from 2006 to 2008 and between

the interim periods.110 The domestic industry’s average unit labor costs rose by *** percent from 2006 to

2008 and were *** percent higher in interim 2009 than in interim 2008.111 Hourly wages increased by

*** percent from 2006 to 2008 and by *** percent between the interim periods.112

Almost all of the domestic industry’s financial performance indicators deteriorated during the

period examined. The industry’s net sales value declined *** percent over the period, from $*** in 2006

to $*** in 2007 and $*** in 2008; it was $*** in interim 2008 and $*** in interim 2009.113 As discussed

previously, the COGS/sales ratio increased irregularly during the period and was at its highest level in

interim 2009 at *** percent.114

The domestic industry’s operating income and operating margins were both *** throughout the

period. Operating income declined from *** in 2006 to *** in 2007, but improved *** to *** in 2008; it

was *** in interim 2008 and *** in interim 2009.115 The industry’s ratio of operating income to net sales

declined from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007 and *** percent in 2008; it was *** percent in

interim 2008 and *** percent in interim 2009.116 The industry’s capital expenditures fell *** by ***

percent between 2006 and 2008 and were *** percent lower in interim 2009 than in interim 2008.117

Respondents GE/Whirlpool argue that any harm to the domestic industry was not caused by

subject imports, but by the downturn in demand for refrigeration shelving due to the economic recession

and the general decline of the U.S. housing and construction sectors.118 We reject that argument. We find

that, although the decline in apparent U.S. consumption during the period examined had a negative

impact on the domestic industry, that impact was exacerbated by significant volumes of low-priced

subject imports entering the market and displacing domestic sales. In addition, the percentage drop in

domestic producers’ shipments and net sales exceeded the decline in apparent consumption. Finally,
 119 We note that nonsubject imports were not a significant factor in the U.S. market during the period examined --

the absolute volume of nonsubject imports decreased over the period of investigation and, at its highest level,

accounted for only *** percent of the U.S. market. CR/PR at Table C-2.

 120 With respect to the analysis required by the Federal Circuit in Bratsk and Mittal, Commissioner Pinkert notes

that, although refrigerator shelving is a highly customized product, purchasers report that refrigerator shelving from

different suppliers is highly substitutable. It may therefore constitute a commodity product for purposes of this

analysis. CR/PR at II-9-10 & n.11; PR at II-6, & n.11, CR/PR at Table II-4, Table II-6. He finds, however, that

price-competitive nonsubject imports are not a significant factor in the U.S. market. Nonsubject imports decreased

over the period of investigation and, at their highest level, accounted for only *** percent of the market. CR/PR at

Table IV-2, Table C-2.

 121 No party argues that negligibility is an issue in these investigations. Subject imports of certain oven racks

from China far exceeded the negligibility threshold during the most recent 12-month period for which data are

available preceding the filing of the petition. CR at IV-11; PR at IV-3. Consequently, we find that the subject

imports of certain oven racks are not negligible under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24).

 122 Vice Chairman Pearson joins Sections VII.A.1, B.1., and C.1. in finding no material injury by reason of

subject imports of certain oven racks from China. However, Vice Chairman Pearson does not join in Sections

VII.A.2., B.2., or C.2. and, instead, finds no threat of material injury.

20

concurrent with declining demand, subject imports increased significantly, capturing significant market

share directly from the domestic industry. Thus, declining domestic consumption does not sufficiently

explain the negative trends in industry performance.119 120

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we find that the domestic industry producing certain refrigeration

shelving is materially injured by reason of subject imports of certain refrigeration shelving from China

found by Commerce to be sold in the United States at less than fair value and subsidized by the

Government of China.

VII. THREAT OF MATERIAL INJURY BY REASON OF IMPORTS OF CERTAIN OVEN

RACKS FROM CHINA121

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

United States is threatened with material injury by reason of imports of certain oven racks from China

that Commerce has found are subsidized and sold in the United States at LTFV.122
 123 Since certain oven racks are imported in basket categories in the HTS, official import statistics are not

available for use in these investigations. CR/PR at IV-1. As a result, all import statistics are compiled from data

gathered in response to Commission questionnaires.

 124 CR/PR at Table IV-4. Consistent with our customary practice, we have relied on quantity-based measures of

volume in these investigations. We typically rely on quantity-based measures of volume because (1) value-based

measures can be skewed by changes of product mix and (2) for subject imports, the unit values are of merchandise

sold at LTFV. Electrolux argues that we should rely principally on value-based measurements of volume in light of

the potential distortions from variations in configuration and value of oven racks. See Electrolux’s Posthearing Brief

at 10. Although the Commission has relied on value-based measurements in rare instances in past investigations,

those investigations involved variations in value among articles within the scope and/or domestic like product that

were much larger than those present here. See Ball Bearings from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-989 (Final), USITC Pub.

3593 at 11 (Apr. 2003); Outboard Engines from Japan, Inv. No. 731-TA-1069 (Final), USITC Pub. 3752 at 24-27 &

n.175 (Feb. 2005); Pneumatic Directional Control Valves from Japan, Inv. No. 731-TA-988 (Preliminary), USITC

Pub. 3491 at 12 n.87 and I-4 (Mar. 2002); but see Color Televisions from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1034 (Final),

USITC Pub. 3695 at 7 n.36 (May 2004).

 125 CR/PR at Table C-3. Provisional countervailing duties were imposed on January 7, 2009; provisional

antidumping duties were imposed on March 5, 2009. See Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks 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 Fed. Reg. 683, 693 (January 7,

2009) and Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 74 FR 9591, 9603

(March 5, 2009).

 126 CR/PR at Table C-3.

 127 CR/PR at Table IV-13. The ratio of subject imports to U.S. production increased irregularly from *** percent

in 2006 to *** percent in 2008 and was *** percent in interim 2008 and *** percent in interim 2009.

21

A. Volume of the Subject Imports123

1. Analysis of Material Injury by Reason of Subject Imports

The volume of subject imports rose irregularly from 2006 to 2008. Subject imports decreased

from *** units in 2006 to *** units in 2007 before increasing to *** units in 2008.124

Because apparent U.S. consumption declined from 2006 to 2008, subject import market share

increased notably. Apparent U.S. consumption declined by *** percent from 2006 to 2008, while U.S.

shipments of subject imports increased by *** percent. Consequently, subject import market share

increased irregularly from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2008. Even in the face of decreased

demand and the imposition of provisional duties, subject import market share went from *** percent in

interim 2008 to *** percent in interim 2009.125 There were no nonsubject imports in the U.S. market and

thus all of the market share gained by the subject imports was lost by the domestic industry. The

domestic industry’s share of the U.S. market fell by *** percentage points from 2006 to 2008, from ***

percent to *** percent. Thus, although the domestic industry gained *** percentage points of market

share in 2007, it lost a striking *** percentage points of market share in 2008. The domestic industry’s

share of the U.S. market was *** percentage points lower in interim 2009 than in interim 2008.126 Subject

imports also increased over the period examined relative to domestic production.127

Based on the above information, we find the increase in subject imports, both on an absolute basis

and relative to apparent U.S. consumption and production, to be significant.
 128 Vice Chairman Pearson does not join this section. See Dissenting Views of Vice Chairman Daniel R. Pearson.

 129 We have taken into consideration the nature of the subsidies Commerce found to be countervailable, pursuant

to statutory threat factor (I). Commerce found that the exemption/benefit provided by the income tax reduction for

export-oriented Foreign-Invested Enterprises (“FIEs”) and the exemption from local income taxes for productive

and/or export-oriented FIEs were contingent on export performance and therefore specific under section 771(5A)(B)

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. 74 Fed. Reg. 37012 (July 27, 2009) (Commerce Decision Memorandum

dated July 20, 2009). We note that there are no countervailing duty or antidumping duty orders or investigations

concerning the subject merchandise in third-country markets. CR at VII-10, PR at VII-5.

 130 CR/PR at Table C-3.

 131 Petitioners argue that Chinese capacity and excess capacity are greater than reflected in the Commission’s data

because not all Chinese producers responded to the Commission’s questionnaires. Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief at

14-15. Electrolux responds that qualification requirements limit the number of Chinese producers that can export

oven racks to the United States and that qualification of a producer can take up to a year. Electrolux’s Posthearing

Brief at 12. Electrolux qualified and purchased oven racks from *** Chinese producers during 2006-2008. CR at

VII-4, n.7; PR at VII-4, n.7. Six producers of oven racks responded to the Commission’s questionnaire, namely

Guangdong Wireking, Hangzhou Dunli, Jiangsu Weixi, New King Shan, Marmon, and Yuyao Hanjun. Two of

those firms, Guangdong Wireking and Yuyao Hanjun, did not participate in the preliminary phase of these

investigations. Two other firms (***) that responded to the preliminary questionnaires did not submit questionnaires

in the final phase of these investigations, so their data are not in our final staff report. Thus, the data regarding the

industry in China are likely somewhat understated. CR at VII-2-3, n.4; PR at VII-2, n.4. We also recognize,

however, that qualification requirements may limit imminent additional suppliers of Chinese oven racks. Given

these considerations, we have relied on the available data on the Chinese industry in these investigations. We note

that the 2008 exports to the United States of *** units reported by the six responding Chinese firms are comparable

to the reported 2008 U.S. imports from China of *** units. Compare CR/PR Table IV-4 (imports) with Table VII-4

(exports).

 132 CR/PR at Table VII-4 (data on Chinese industry) and Table IV-10 (apparent U.S. consumption). As the

Chinese producers added capacity over the period of investigation, the industry’s capacity utilization rate declined

sharply from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2008; capacity utilization was *** percent in interim 2008 and

*** percent in interim 2009. CR/PR at Table VII-4.

 133 CR/PR at Table VII-4.

22

2. Analysis of Threat of Material Injury by Reason of Subject Imports128 129

As explained below, we find that imports of the subject merchandise into the United States, in the

absence of antidumping and countervailing duty orders, will continue to increase their market penetration

at the expense of the domestic industry and despite declining apparent U.S. consumption. 

At the outset, we note that subject imports grew rapidly on both an absolute and a relative basis

from 2006 to 2008. In interim 2009, despite the imposition of provisional duties and although subject

import volume declined in absolute terms as demand declined significantly, subject import market share

continued to climb to its highest level of the period.130

The reporting Chinese producers have substantial production capacity, specifically *** units in

2008, which is an increase from *** units in 2006.131 With capacity utilization in 2008 of only ***

percent, Chinese producers had unused production capacity of *** units, equivalent to *** percent of

apparent U.S. consumption that year. The Chinese oven rack industry’s capacity utilization rate fell

during the period of investigation and was lower in interim 2009 than in interim 2008.132 These data

indicate that the Chinese oven rack industry can increase production and exports.

The Chinese oven rack industry has demonstrated a strong and growing interest in the U.S.

market. Exports to the United States increased from *** oven racks in 2006 to *** in 2008, while exports

to all other markets declined from *** to *** over the same period.133 As a share of total Chinese

producer shipments, exports to the United States increased from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in
 134 CR/PR at Table VII-4.

 135 CR/PR at Table VII-4 & n. 1. Although the reporting producers project lower capacity and exports to the

United States in 2009 and 2010, we have not placed much weight on those data. First, two of the four producers,

***, revised their projected data to zero ***. These data are therefore not indicative of what would happen in the

U.S. market in the imminent future in the absence of antidumping or countervailing duties. The statute, 19 U.S.C. §

1677(7)(F)(ii), indicates that the basis for our determination is whether "material injury by reason of subject imports

would occur unless an order is issued," not what would happen if suspension of liquidation continues. The statute

contemplates that the pendency of the investigation may have effects on behavior in the marketplace, and those

effects may be discounted by the Commission. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(I). Further, these projections are

inconsistent with the data showing increasing exports to the United States over the period examined. Finally, the

group of responding Chinese producers in the preliminary phase of these investigations (which differed somewhat

from the group of producers that responded in the final phase) projected 2009 exports to the United States at levels

that were *** units), but comparable to, those in 2008 (*** units). CR/PR at Table VII-3, Preliminary Confidential

Staff Report, Memorandum INV-FF-113 (Sept. 8, 2008). The projection for 2008 provided in the preliminary phase

was lower than the actual data obtained in this final phase, which showed exports of *** units in 2008. CR/PR at

Table VII-4.

 136 CR/PR at Table II-1. This trend was especially pronounced in the lower-cost, higher-volume portion of the

market.

 137 Hearing Tr. at 50 (Hudgens).

 138 Hearing Tr. at 109 (Gritton).

 139 Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief, Responses to Commissioner Questions at 14.

 140 CR/PR at Table III-3.

 141 Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief, Responses to Commissioner Questions at 14. SSW’s sales of porcelain racks 

increased from *** units in 2006 to *** units in 2007, before declining to *** units in 2008. SSW’s sales of nickelplated racks fell steadily during the period from *** units in 2006 to *** units in 2007 and *** units in 2008. Id.

 142 Hearing Tr. at 101-102 (Rosenthal).

 143 Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief at 15& n.15, and Exhibit 17.

23

2008.134 Although exports to the United States were somewhat lower in interim 2009 than in interim

2008, this decrease may be at least in part due to the filing of the petitions, given that two of the

responding Chinese producers reported that their U.S. sales had been affected by the imposition of

provisional duties.135 Thus, the record indicates that the Chinese industry has a strong and generally

growing interest in the U.S. market.

Apparent U.S. consumption was *** percent lower in interim 2009 than in interim 2008. 

Although weak demand may dampen increases in subject import volume in absolute terms in the

imminent future, we find that subject imports are likely to increase relative to apparent U.S. consumption,

as they did from 2006 to 2008 and from interim 2008 to interim 2009. 

Subject imports increasingly captured sales from the domestic industry over the full years of the

period.136 Most of the lost sales were of nickel-plated oven racks, which have lower unit values than

porcelain or slide racks.137 Chinese producers do not sell porcelain racks,138 and ***.139 SSW, which

accounted for *** percent of U.S. oven rack production in 2008,140 did produce porcelain oven racks, and

***.141 Accordingly, SSW’s ***. The market for the higher-value porcelain racks, however, is

limited.142 As discussed in greater detail in our pricing analysis, subject imports recently have begun to

compete for sales in the slide rack segment of the U.S. market. Although slide racks represent a small

segment of the market, they command a higher price than standard nickel-plated racks.143

In light of these patterns, we find that the Chinese producers of subject merchandise are likely to

continue to displace domestic sales of nickel-plated oven racks. Notwithstanding lower apparent U.S.

consumption in interim 2009, we find that the Chinese producers’ increasing interest in the U.S. market,

their low capacity utilization, their increasing concentration on the U.S. market, and their interest in
 144 U.S. importers’ inventories of subject imports increased irregularly *** from 2006 to 2008 and were lower in

interim 2009 than in interim 2008. CR/PR at Table VII-8. Inventories of the subject merchandise held by the

subject producers were at relatively modest levels relative to production and shipments throughout the period of

investigation. CR/PR at Table VII-4.

 145 CR/PR at II-1, n.4.

 146 CR at II-8, n.10; PR at II-6, n.10. Petitioners provide at least two examples in which Electrolux did not dualsource a product. Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief, Responses to Commissioners’ Questions, Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 7. 

Electrolux representatives stated in a meeting that the reason they moved business from SSW to China was price. 

Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief, Responses to Commissioners’ Questions, Exhibits 7 and 8.

 147 CR at V-6; PR at V-4.

 148 We have not compared prices charged to importers of subject merchandise to prices charged to purchasers for

delivered domestic product because the two types of transactions are arguably at different stages in the chain of

distribution. CR at V-26, n.14; PR at V-6, n.14. 

 149 With respect to Product 5, subject imports were priced higher than the domestic like product in two instances. 

For Product 6, with respect to f.o.b. sales prices, there were two instances of underselling by subject imports in the

last quarter of 2007 and the first quarter of 2008. Also for Product 6, delivered purchase prices of subject imports

were higher than delivered purchase prices for the domestic like product in six comparisons in 2006 and 2007 and

were lower than domestic prices in all four available comparisons in 2008. For Product 7, delivered purchase prices

for the subject imports were higher than the delivered domestic purchase prices in five comparisons and lower than

the delivered domestic purchase prices in four instances. There were no direct price comparisons available with

respect to Product 11. For Product 12, subject imports were priced higher than the domestic like product in seven

comparisons. CR/PR at Figures V-5, V-6, V-7, V-11, and V-12 (all comparing prices for nickel-plated oven racks).

 150 CR/PR at Figures V-5, V-6, V-7, V-11, and V-12 (all comparing prices for nickel-plated oven racks).

24

expanding into the U.S. market for higher-value oven racks demonstrate that they will continue to capture

additional market share in the imminent future.144

B. Price Effects of the Subject Imports

1. Analysis of Material Injury by Reason of Subject Imports

As explained above in the discussion of conditions of competition, the domestic like product and

the subject imports are generally interchangeable, and price is an important consideration in purchasing

decisions. Oven racks are produced for specific OEM models,145 and purchasers tend to buy a given rack

from only a few qualified suppliers. One of the major purchasers, Electrolux, maintains that it prefers to

dual-source every component it purchases.146

The Commission gathered quarterly data on U.S. f.o.b. sales prices, delivered import prices,

delivered U.S. purchase prices, and delivered Chinese purchase prices with respect to five oven rack

products (Products 5, 6, 7, 11, and 12). The pricing data accounted for 19 percent of U.S. producers’ U.S.

shipments of oven racks and 28.6 percent of U.S. shipments of oven racks imported from China during

2006-2008 and January-March 2009.147 Price comparisons were limited in several categories. Therefore,

we have considered comparisons of both f.o.b. sales prices and delivered purchase prices of U.S. and

Chinese oven racks.148

The price comparisons all involved nickel-plated oven racks, not the higher-value slide or

porcelain oven racks. Subject imports undersold the domestic like product in 10 out of 30 available price

comparisons. All of the comparisons in which subject imports were priced lower than the domestic like

product were in the last two quarters of 2007 or in 2008.149 Subject imports undersold the domestic like

product in 7 out of 11 comparisons in 2008.150 Electrolux tacitly acknowledged the existence of

underselling by subject imports in 2008 by arguing at the hearing that the domestic producers kept their
 151 Hearing Tr. at 149 (Hyde and Schaefer). Electrolux’s Posthearing Brief at 3.

 152 CR at V-5; PR at V-3. The record also shows that, in order to obtain sales, U.S. producers have *** See

Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief at Exhibit 1, p. 9 and Exhibit 11.

 153 CR/PR at Figures V-5, V-6, V-7, V-11, and V-12.

 154 CR/PR at Table VI-3. The principal raw material used in producing oven racks (as well as refrigeration

shelving) is carbon or stainless steel wire. The cost of wire rod, which is used to make wire, increased irregularly

from $495 per short ton in January 2005 to a peak of $956 per short ton in August 2008, and then decreased to $525

per short ton in April 2009. CR/PR at V-1. Respondents argue that the domestic industry should have reduced its

prices when wire rod prices began to decrease in September 2008. Hearing Tr. at 149 (Hyde and Schaefer). The

statute focuses on whether the subject imports are having significant adverse effects on domestic prices. It does not

authorize the Commission to assume there are benchmark prices that the domestic industry may not exceed. We also

note that the domestic industry was unprofitable throughout the period of investigation and that it has acknowledged

a business strategy of ceding market share in order to maintain price. CR/PR at Table C-2 & Hearing Tr. at 49

(Hudgens).

 155 CR at VI-7-8; PR at VI-2-3.

 156 Vice Chairman Pearson does not join this section. See Dissenting Views of Vice Chairman Daniel R. Pearson.

 157 Hearing Tr. at 71 (Rosenthal)

25

prices too high after wire rod costs declined in 2008 and by stating that, to the extent there was

underselling, it was limited to 2008.151

Although the evidence is somewhat mixed, the record shows that tooling costs and credit terms

are increasingly the subject of negotiation between buyers and sellers. Three purchasers have reported

that Chinese producers provide tooling at discounted prices to their customers, which is another way,

besides lower per unit prices, to undercut domestic prices.152 

We find that there was mixed underselling and overselling of the domestic like product by the

subject imports and that the underselling occurred primarily toward the end of the period examined, when

subject import volume and market share increased. 

Prices for both the domestic like product and the subject imports generally increased over the

period.153 Consequently, we conclude that the subject imports did not have significant price-depressing

effects. 

The domestic industry’s ratio of COGS to net sales was at or close to 100 percent throughout the

period of investigation. The ratio was *** percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008, ***

percent in interim 2008, and *** percent in interim 2009.154

As import volume increased in 2008, the domestic industry increasingly relied on sales of highervalue oven racks that were not supplied by the Chinese producers, resulting in higher unit sales values

overall for domestic producers’ sales and an improved COGS/sales ratio. *** sold increased volumes of

higher-value porcelain oven racks and decreased volumes of lower-value nickel racks.155 In light of these

facts, the record does not support a conclusion that the subject imports significantly suppressed prices

during the period of investigation.

2. Analysis of Threat of Material Injury by Reason of Subject Imports156

The record indicates that, as subject imports gain market share in the imminent future, the

domestic industry will be unable to sustain its strategy of ceding market share to maintain price levels.157

The Chinese industry will continue to compete on the basis of price to increase its market share in the

U.S. market, even if apparent U.S. consumption remains depressed. The trend toward price underselling

by subject imports seen in 2008 will likely continue in the imminent future. Thus, as explained below, we

find that low prices for subject imports will likely negatively affect prices for the domestic like product by

suppressing them to a significant degree.
 158 Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief, Responses to Commissioners Questions at 14.

 159 Hearing Tr. at 51 (Hudgens). 

 160 Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief, Responses to Commissioner Questions, Exhibit 17. ***.

 161 CR/PR at Table C-3.

 162 We have considered the magnitude of the dumping margins found by Commerce. Commerce did not

differentiate between refrigeration shelving and oven racks in defining the subject products. In its antidumping

investigation concerning subject imports from China, Commerce found a 44.77 percent dumping margin for New

King Shan (Zhu Hai) Co., Ltd., Leader Metal Industry Co., Ltd. (a/k/a Marmon Retail Services Asia), Hangzhou

Dunli Industry Co., Ltd., and Jiangsu Weizi Group Co.; a 95.99 percent dumping margin for Guangdong Wireking

Housewares & Hardware Co., Ltd.; and a 95.99 percent PRC-wide rate. 74 F.R. at 36656. We also considered the

magnitude of countervailable subsidies. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii). Commerce found a subsidy rate of 170.82

percent for Asber Enterprises, Co., Ltd.; 149.91 percent for Changzhou Yixiong Metal Products, Co., Ltd., Foshan

Winleader Metal Products Co., Ltd., Kingsun Enterprises Group Co., Ltd., Yuyao Hanjun Metal Work Co./Yuyao

Hanjun Metal Products Co., Ltd., and Zhongshan Iwatani Co., Ltd.; and 13.30 percent for Guangdong Wireking

Housewares & Hardware Co., Ltd. (formerly known as Foshan Shunde Wireking Housewares & Hardware Co.,

Ltd.) and all others. 73 Fed. Reg. at 37012.

 163 The domestic industry’s capacity increased from *** oven racks in 2006 to *** oven racks in 2007. ***. ***.

26

The domestic industry increasingly relied on sales of higher-value porcelain oven racks to avoid

direct subject import competition.158 The market for those products, however, is limited.159 Accordingly,

the domestic industry will not be able to continue to improve total net sales value by substituting highervalue sales for losses to subject imports at the low end of the market. Further, there is evidence on the

record that Chinese producers have begun to price aggressively to win sales of higher-value slide oven

racks.160 The loss of those sales will put pressure on domestic producers’ net sales, which is already

evident in the interim 2009 data. Even with higher unit values, total net sales (by value) were *** percent

lower in interim 2009 than in interim 2008, in contrast to an increase in total net sales of *** percent from

2006 to 2008.161

As the net sales value and domestic sales volume decline, the industry is likely to experience

rising cost/sales ratios and rising per-unit costs. The domestic industry will not be able to raise prices to

meet the increases in per-unit costs and will thus be exposed to significant price suppression by way of a

cost-price squeeze.

We conclude that, in the imminent future, the aggressive price competition demonstrated by

subject imports in 2008 in both nickel-plated racks and in higher valued slide racks will continue. As

domestic sales deteriorate and per-unit costs increase, the domestic industry will experience significant

price suppression. 

C. Impact of the Subject Imports on the Domestic Industry162

1. Analysis of Material Injury by Reason of Subject Imports

Over the period examined, the domestic industry was faced with price-based competition from

subject imports in a severely declining market. The trends in the domestic industry’s financial

performance reflect sharply lower output and market share as well as improved – but still negative –

operating margins. 

Notwithstanding increased capacity from 2006 to 2007, the industry’s output declined sharply

during the period of investigation.163 Production decreased from *** units in 2006 to *** units in 2007
 164 CR/PR at Table III-7.

 165 CR/PR at Table III-7.

 166 CR/PR at Table III-11, Table C-3. Domestic producers’ U.S. shipments were *** in 2006. 

 167 CR/PR at Table III-11.

 168 CR/PR at Table III-15.

 169 CR/PR at Table VI-3.

 170 CR/PR at Table C-3.

 171 CR/PR at Table C-3.

 172 CR/PR at Table C-3.

 173 Purchases of domestic oven racks fell from *** units in 2006 to *** units in 2008, while purchases of subject

imports increased from *** units in 2006 to *** units in 2008. CR/PR at Table II-1.

 174 Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief, Exhibit 2.

 175 Hearing Tr. at 49 (Hudgens)

 176 Vice Chairman Pearson does not join the majority in its finding that pricing pressures caused declines in the

domestic industry’s market share and lost sales. See Dissenting Views of Vice Chairman Daniel R. Pearson at

Section I.B.

 177 The number of production and related workers increased from *** in 2006 to *** in 2007, and then declined

to *** in 2008; it was *** in interim 2008 and *** in interim 2009. CR/PR at Table III-18.

27

and *** units in 2008.164 Capacity utilization declined from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007

and *** percent in 2008.165

The industry’s U.S. shipments and total shipments fell during each year of the period of

investigation. The most significant decrease in the domestic industry’s shipment levels was from 2007 to

2008, when shipments to the U.S. market declined by *** percent from *** in 2007 to *** in 2008.166

Unit values of U.S. shipments and exports increased over the period of investigation.167 U.S. producers’

inventories declined irregularly from 2006 to 2008 on an absolute basis, but increased slightly relative to

production and shipments.168 Net sales measured by quantity decreased from 2006 to 2008 and were

lower in interim 2009 than in interim 2008.169

The combination of declining shipments and sales by the domestic industry and rising volumes of

subject imports caused the industry’s market share to decline irregularly from *** percent in 2006 to ***

percent in 2008.170 The domestic industry lost *** percentage points of market share in 2008, when

underselling was most prevalent and subject import volume increased.171 Its market share was ***

percent in interim 2008 and *** percent in interim 2009.172

The declines in the domestic industry’s market share were caused by pricing and volume pressure

from subject imports. The data on increases in purchases of subject imports in place of domestically

produced oven racks,173 as well as evidence on the record characterizing domestic prices as too high,174

reflect the price pressure that caused the domestic industry to lose market share to subject imports. Given

faltering demand, limited customers, and the tendency of purchasers to buy from only a few suppliers at a

time, this pricing pressure was enough to cause purchasers to switch to subject imports, which resulted in

lost sales and market share for the domestic industry. The record indicates that although the domestic

industry was able to sustain or even raise its prices, it did so at the expense of market share.175 176

Although the domestic industry’s output was deteriorating, employment indicators were generally

stable from 2006 to 2008, with the exception of productivity. The number of production and related

workers increased slightly from 2006 to 2008; it decreased between interim 2008 and interim 2009.177

Hourly wages increased from 2006 to 2007, before decreasing slightly in 2008; they increased between
 178 CR/PR at Table III-18.

 179 CR/PR at Table III-18.

 180 CR/PR at Table VI-3.

 181 The domestic industry’s operating *** was lower in interim 2009 (*** than in interim 2008 (***). CR/PR at

Table VI-3.

 182 We have also examined capital expenditures and research and development expenses; both categories of

expenditures *** over the period of investigation and were *** in interim 2009 than in interim 2008. CR/PR at

Table VI-9.

 183 SSW reports that its *** for oven racks increased from 2007 to 2008 because it sold a larger share of ***. CR

at VI-7-8; PR at VI-2-3. The data provided by the domestic industry are consistent with SSW’s assertions. ***

shipments of nickel-plated racks decreased from *** racks in 2006 to *** racks in 2007, a decline of *** percent,

before decreasing to *** in 2008, a decline of *** percent. At the same time, *** of porcelain racks remained

relatively stable, fluctuating between *** and *** racks. Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief, Responses to Commissioner

Questions at 14.

The domestic industry’s unit net sales value increased from $*** in 2006 to $*** in 2007 and $*** in

2008; the significant increase from 2007 to 2008 was driven by the increase in SSW’s unit sales in that period from

$*** to $***. CR/PR at Table VI-6.

 184 Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief at 15 & n.15, and Exhibit 17.

 185 Respondent Electrolux argues that the domestic industry’s poor financial performance is due to its own failure

to control an *** in SG&A expenses and its *** in a bad economy. We find that the increase in per-unit SG&A

expenses resulted primarily from ***. CR at VI-12; PR at VI-3.

 186 Vice Chairman Pearson does not join this section. See Dissenting Views of Vice Chairman Daniel R. Pearson.

28

interim 2008 and interim 2009.178 Productivity declined steadily from 2006 to 2008 and decreased

between interim 2008 and interim 2009.179

The domestic industry ***, although the *** over the period. The industry’s operating income

margin improved from *** in 2006 to *** in 2007 and *** percent in 2008. It was *** in interim 2008

and *** in interim 2009.180 The industry’s absolute *** were *** in 2006, *** in 2007, and *** in

2008.181

The domestic industry’s improved operating performance over the period examined is a function

of higher unit values. The industry was able to obtain higher prices, albeit on lower quantities of sales.182

The higher prices reflected increased sales of higher-value products, porcelain oven racks and slide racks,

while the lower quantities reflected decreased sales of lower-value nickel oven racks.183 We find that

SSW shifted its product mix away from nickel-plated oven racks because of pressure from subject

imports but note that the Chinese industry has begun to compete on price in order to gain sales of certain

higher-value oven racks.184

In light of the foregoing, we do not find the causal link necessary to make a determination that the

subject imports are currently having a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry.185

2. Analysis of Threat of Material Injury by Reason of Subject Imports 186

We find the domestic industry to be vulnerable to the effects of further market penetration by

subject imports. In the imminent future, exporters of the subject product will likely significantly increase

their market share by offering nickel oven racks at prices lower than domestic industry prices. Further,

the domestic industry is now facing price competition from China with respect to ***. The resulting

increase in subject import market share will accelerate the adverse trends the domestic industry

experienced during the latter part of the period examined with respect to production, shipments, market
 187 In particular, given the limited size of the porcelain market, *** will no longer have the option of focusing on

higher-value product to increase revenue in the face of declining market share. *** will continue to lose substantial

sales of its nickel oven racks, and its unit values will not increase as they did during the period of investigation. In

addition, the Chinese producers have begun to compete for sales of certain higher-value oven racks.

 188 Hearing Tr. at 57 (Gritton).

 189 CR/PR at Table III-7.

 190 We have not attributed to subject imports effects from nonsubject imports or the decline in the housing market

and the general economic recession. As noted above, there were no nonsubject imports of certain oven racks during

the period. Moreover, although we note that the declining housing market and the recession affected the domestic

industry, and there is no record evidence that these trends are likely to reverse in the imminent future, we also note

that the decline in domestic producers’ shipments and net sales exceeded the decline in demand over the period. 

Moreover, during this period of declining demand for certain oven racks, subject imports increased significantly,

capturing significant market share directly from the domestic industry. As explained above, we find that these trends

are likely to continue in the imminent future.

 191 CR/PR at I-1.

29

share, capacity utilization, and employment levels, and it will deepen the losses incurred by the

industry.187

The domestic industry’s strategy of ceding market share for price and focusing on higher-value

porcelain or slide oven racks was “a very temporary development” and it cannot be sustained.188 It is

likely that, in the imminent future, subject imports will be priced aggressively, as they were in 2008, and

continue to gain market share. The domestic industry has been unprofitable throughout the period of

investigation. Capacity utilization was already at a *** level (***) in interim 2009.189 If, as we have

found, the industry cannot fully recover increases in its costs in the imminent future and it loses sales to

subject imports, its operating losses will deepen and its financial performance will deteriorate

significantly.

We conclude that, unless antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders are issued, significant

volumes of dumped and subsidized imports will gain additional U.S. market share in the imminent future

and material injury by reason of subject imports will occur. Accordingly, we determine that the domestic

industry is threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports from China.190

We further determine, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(b)(4)(B) and 1673d(b)(4)(B), that we

would not have made a present material injury determination in the event that Commerce had not

suspended liquidation of subject imports in January and March 2009.191 Our negative present material

injury determination hinges on the fact that we did not find that the subject imports are currently having a

significant adverse impact on the domestic industry, and we did not make such a finding in large part

because of a strategy adopted by the domestic producers that was temporarily successful and enabled the

domestic producers to increase their operating margins and operating income during 2008. Accordingly,

the suspension of liquidation during the first quarter of 2009 did not materially affect our present injury

analysis.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the domestic industry producing oven racks is

threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports of certain oven racks from China found by

Commerce to be sold in the United States at less than fair value and subsidized by the Government of

China.

 1

 For a discussion of the legal standards to be used in threat determinations, see Section V.C. of the Majority

Views.

 2

 U.S. shipments of subject imports of oven racks initially decreased from *** units in 2006 to *** units in 2007,

before increasing to *** units in 2008, an overall increase of *** percent. U.S. shipments of subject imports of oven

racks decreased to *** units in interim 2009, compared with *** units in interim 2008. CR/PR at Table C-3.

 3

 The share of U.S. shipments of subject imports in apparent U.S. consumption of oven racks initially decreased

from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007, before increasing to *** percent in 2008, an overall increase of ***

percentage points. U.S. shipments of subject imports of oven racks increased to *** percent in interim 2009,

compared with *** percent in interim 2008. CR/PR at Table C-3.

 4

 CR/PR at II-1 n.2. These three OEMs produce 90 percent of kitchen appliances produced in the United States. 

Id. Also, of the *** importers of oven racks, ***. CR/PR at Table IV-7. *** instead supplied small quantities to

distributors. CR at V-7 n.13; PR at V-5 n.13.

31

DISSENTING VIEWS OF VICE CHAIRMAN DANIEL R. PEARSON

I concur with the majority’s discussions of the domestic like product in Section II, of the

domestic industry in Section III, of the conditions of competition and the business cycle in Section IV,

and of the applicable legal standards in Section V. I further concur with Section VI of the majority’s

views that finds that a domestic industry producing refrigeration shelving is materially injured by reason

of subject imports of certain refrigeration shelving from China found by Commerce to be sold in the

United States at less than fair value and subsidized by the Government of China. With respect to the

domestic industry producing certain oven racks, I concur with the majority’s determination that the

domestic industry producing oven racks is not materially injured by reason of subject imports of oven

racks from China and so join Sections VII.A.1., B.1., and C.1. However, I dissent from the majority’s

determination that the domestic industry producing certain oven racks is threatened with material injury

by reason of subject imports of oven racks from China and I instead find that the domestic industry is not

threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports of oven racks from China. As such, I do not

join Sections VII.A.2., B.2., or C.2. of the majority’s views and instead provide the following dissenting

views.

I. NO THREAT OF MATERIAL INJURY BY REASON OF IMPORTS OF CERTAIN

OVEN RACKS FROM CHINA

I find that there is not a threat of material injury to a domestic industry producing oven racks by

reason of subject imports from China.1

A. Volume of the Subject Imports

Despite the fact that U.S. shipments subject imports of certain oven racks grew rapidly late in the

period, both absolutely2

 and in terms of market share,3 I do not expect that, in the absence of antidumping

and countervailing duty orders, that subject import volumes will increase substantially.

I base this conclusion on market factors within the United States, primarily on the activities of the

few U.S. purchasers and the demand conditions during this recession. Of primary importance in my

analysis is the fact that demand for oven racks is derived from the demand for ovens, of which there are

three domestic producers, GE, Whirlpool, and Electrolux, all of which have provided data in this final

phase investigation.4

 Because there are so few purchasers and because they all provided complete

responses, understanding U.S. demand factors is relatively straightforward.
 5

 CR/PR at Table IV-7. Between 2007 and 2008, at the same time that total U.S. shipments of subject imports of

oven racks increased from *** units to *** units, or by *** units, *** U.S. shipments of subject imports increased

from *** units to *** units, or by *** units, representing *** percent of the total increase in U.S. shipments of

subject imports. Id.

 6 *** U.S. shipments of subject imports declined steadily from *** units in 2006 to *** units in 2008. *** U.S.

shipments of subject imports declined irregularly from *** units in 2006 to *** units in 2008. CR/PR at Table IV-7.

 7

 Respondent Electrolux’s Post-Hearing Brief at 13. As petitioners note, in 2008 *** Petitioners’ Post-Hearing

Brief at 13. This leads me to believe that there is not much opportunity for *** to increase further its subject imports

from China while still maintaining its sourcing strategy. Tr. at 182-83 (Market); CR at II-8 n.10; PR at II-6 n.10.

 8

 Id. (alteration in original). I note that although *** had fewer U.S. shipments of subject imports in interim

2009, when compared with interim 2008, *** began importing directly in interim 2009, resulting in higher total U.S.

shipments of subject imports (both direct and indirect) for *** in interim 2009, *** units, than in interim 2008, ***

units. CR/PR at Table IV-7. Given that this was only a 3-month interim period, I do not find this to be necessarily

inconsistent with ***’s statements. See Respondent Electrolux’s Post-Hearing Brief, Responses to Questions Asked

by the Commission, at 8 (including as an exhibit a ***).

 9

 CR/PR at Table IV-7. Between 2006 and interim 2009, *** was directly responsible for *** units in U.S.

shipments of subject imports and *** was directly responsible for *** units in U.S. shipments of subject imports, for

a total of *** units. Over the same period, *** imported, directly and indirectly, *** units in U.S. shipments of

subject imports. Id. There is insufficient information on the record to determine the volumes of indirect subject

imports *** to the three OEM purchasers.

 10 CR/PR at Tables III-12 & IV-4 (own calculation). In quantity terms, the subject imports entered by or on

behalf of the petitioners, after initially declining from *** units in 2006 to *** units in 2007, increased slightly to

*** units in 2008. Id. I attribute the imports of *** indirectly to petitioner ***, as noted in the Commission’s staff

report. CR/PR at Tables III-12 n.2 & IV-7 n.1.

 11 CR at II-4 & Figure II-1. I note that the recessionary pressures were particularly strong in interim 2009, the QI

2009, as evidenced by the *** percent decline in apparent U.S. consumption of oven racks when compared with

(continued...)

32

The record in these investigations shows that *** percent of the increase in U.S. shipments of

subject imports between 2007 and 2008 came from increased imports by ***5

 U.S. shipments of subject

imports by other oven producers, *** over the period,6

 indicating that the factors influencing ***

purchases were not factors of widespread applicability across purchasers. Electrolux stated that the

increase in subject imports in 2008 was “a temporary imbalance” that has already “self-corrected.”7

Electrolux further stated that “SSW and Nashville Wire are essential elements of Electrolux’s 2+1

strategy” and that “{purchases} will be more in the United States this calendar year.”8

 Because ***,

which, over the period examined, was responsible for ***,9

 expects that it will purchase more from U.S.

producers in the imminent future, and because other U.S. OEM purchasers have reduced their subject

imports over the period examined, I find that, as a group, U.S. OEM purchasers will not contribute

significantly to increased demand for subject imports.

I also note that the petitioners themselves were responsible, directly or indirectly, for a *** of

subject imports over the period examined. In 2006, petitioners were responsible for *** percent of all

subject imports, declining to *** percent in 2007, and declining further to *** percent in 2008.10 Because

*** of U.S. demand for subject imports remains within the control of petitioners, and because they would

be likely to maintain stable demand for subject imports, I conclude that overall demand for subject

imports will be stable and there will be no imminent substantial increase in subject imports.

In addition to the factors associated with individual U.S. purchasers and importers of oven racks,

I also note that the current recessionary environment has created conditions that favor neither an

imminent substantial increase in demand nor a substantial increase in subject imports. Demand for oven

racks declined steadily by *** percent over the period and a key driving factor for demand for ovens, new

housing construction, continued to decline throughout the period examined.11
 11 (...continued)

interim 2008. CR/PR at Table C-3. One factor in the decline for U.S. demand of refrigeration shelving, foreign

production of refrigerators for import into the United States, was apparently not a significant factor in the oven racks

sector. Compare Tr. at 117-19 (Rosenthal) with Tr. at 180-81 (Market).

 12 CR/PR at Table VII-4. I note that inventories of subject imports held by U.S. importers, while they increased

irregularly over the period examined, represented only *** percent of U.S. shipments of subject imports in 2008 and

*** percent of subject imports in interim 2009. CR/PR at Table VII-8. I find that inventories of subject imports

held by U.S. importers do not pose an imminent threat of material injury to the domestic industry producing oven

racks.

 13 Majority Views (business confidential version) at 32-33 nn.131 & 135.

 14 CR/PR at VII-4 n.7.

 15 I have taken into consideration the nature of the subsidies Commerce found to be countervailable, pursuant to

statutory threat factor (I). Commerce found that the exemption/benefit provided by the income tax reduction for

export-oriented Foreign-Invested Enterprises (“FIEs”) and the exemption from local income taxes for productive

and/or export-oriented FIEs were contingent on export performance and therefore specific under section 771(5A)(B)

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. 74 Fed. Reg. 37012 (July 27, 2009) (Commerce Decision Memorandum

dated July 20, 2009).

 16 CR/PR at Tables V-5, V-6, V-7, V-11, & V-12. Because of disagreements among the parties regarding the

importance of tooling costs, I base my determination solely on the pricing data contained in the Commission’s staff

report. CR at V-4 to V-5; PR at V-3. As a matter of microeconomic theory, I would not expect that fixed costs

(continued...)

33

While unused capacity in China is unquestionably large and growing,12 I do not put much weight

on the Chinese production capacity data or on production capacity forecasts offered by the Chinese

producers, primarily due to issues already noted by the majority.13 These investigations do not involve a

multitude of anonymous Chinese producers exporting to many U.S. purchasers. Because the Commission

has the complete responses of all three U.S. OEM purchasers of oven racks, and because the Chinese

producers that they import from must be qualified by the U.S. purchasers in advance of any purchases,14

the overall supply conditions in the Chinese industry are of secondary importance to me in these

investigations.

To summarize, I find that: (1) because the increase in subject imports in 2008 originated largely

from the increased imports of *** the conditions that led to the increased demand for subject imports in

2008 did not appear to be widespread within the industry; (2) the *** that was largely responsible for the

increase in subject imports has stated on this record that it would purchase more oven racks from U.S.

producers this year and has provided evidence that it *** doing this; (3) petitioners, who were responsible

for ***, would likely maintain stable demand for subject imports; and (4) despite the conditions of supply

in China, demand for oven racks by U.S. OEM purchasers, about which we do have a well-developed

record, will not increase, largely due to recessionary pressures, and this will act to limit subject imports. 

These findings allow me to conclude that no substantial increase in subject import volume is imminent.15

B. Price Effects of the Subject Imports

In a majority of the quarterly price comparisons, in 20 of 30 available pairings, subject imports

oversold the U.S.-produced oven racks. In none of the five priced oven rack products is there an

indication that subject imports would enter at prices that are likely to have a significant depressing or

suppressing effect on domestic prices. One priced product, product 11, has no available quarterly price

comparisons and two other priced products, products 5 and 12, show subject import ***. For product 6,

there are *** of quarterly pricing comparisons showing subject import underselling and overselling and

for product 7, *** available quarterly comparisons show subject import underselling.16 It is noteworthy
 16 (...continued)

would have a significant impact on prices as, in an environment of perfect competition, price will equal marginal

cost.

 17 CR/PR at Tables V-6 & V-7; see Respondent Electrolux’s Post-Hearing Brief at 3-4.

 18 CR/PR at V-1 & Figure V-1.

 19 Between QI 2008 and QIII 2008, the:

1. price of product 5 increased steadily from $*** to $*** (China delivered purchase price);

2. price of product 6 increased from $*** to $*** (U.S. delivered purchase price), increased

steadily from $*** to $*** (China delivered purchase price), and increased from $*** to $***

(China f.o.b. sales price); 

3. price of product 7 increased from $*** to $*** (China delivered purchase price);

4. price of product 11 increased from $*** to $*** (China delivered import price); and

5. price of product 12 increased from $*** to $*** (U.S. delivered purchase price), increased

steadily from $*** to $*** (U.S. f.o.b. sales price), and increased from $*** to $*** (China

delivered purchase price). CR/PR at Tables V-5, V-6, V-7, V-11, & V-12.

 20 See Respondent Electrolux’s Post-Hearing Brief, Responses to Questions Asked by the Commission, at 6-8

(describing how prices for *** oven racks during this period). Cf. Petitioners’ Post-Hearing Brief, Responses to

Commission Questions at 18 (stating that a “lag occurs as rod prices fluctuate sharply, either if prices are increasing

or decreasing.”).

 21 See Respondent Electrolux’s Post-Hearing Brief, Responses to Questions Asked by the Commission, at 8

(indicating that *** has recently signed a contract ***).

 22 Id.

34

that, of the *** quarterly comparisons showing subject import underselling in these two products, ***

occurred during the final quarter of 2007 or in 2008,17 a period when raw material costs were fluctuating

greatly.

After moving in a relatively narrow range during the previous three years, the price of steel wire

rod increased from about $600 per short ton at the end of 2007 to a peak of $956 per short ton in August

2008, an increase of nearly 60 percent; this price spike was followed by a collapse of almost equal

magnitude, with steel wire rod prices returning to near $600 per short ton by the end of 2008.18 That this

rapid increase in raw material costs had an immediate impact on oven rack prices is evident from the

pricing data. During the period of the most rapid raw material cost increases, between QI 2008 and QIII

2008, the prices of all five priced oven rack products (both U.S. and Chinese-produced) uniformly

increased, irrespective of the method of measurement.19 In an environment of rapidly rising, then falling,

raw material costs and uniformly rising oven rack prices, the presence of some mixed subject import

underselling does not indicate to me an imminent threat of subject imports entering with significant price

depressing or suppressing effects.20 There is evidence on the record that raw material costs have now

stabilized within their previous narrower range, which should also help to stabilize prices for oven racks.21

The lack of price suppressing effects from subject imports is evident from the drop in the ratio of

COGS to net sales, which initially increased from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007, before

falling to *** percent in 2008. The decline in the ratio of COGS to net sales between 2007 and 2008

indicates that U.S. producers were able to increase oven rack prices at a rate faster than the increase in

their COGS during this period when both subject import volumes and market share were increasing

substantially. Likewise, the ratio of COGS to net sales was lower in interim 2009, at *** percent, than in

interim 2008, when it was *** percent.22

Of the *** lost sales allegations involving *** oven racks, involving *** units and totaling $***,

*** involving *** units and totaling $*** on *** was described by *** as having been transacted with a
 23 Although *** would not agree that this was a “lost sale,” the subject import price they did provide was ***

provided by petitioners. CR at V-27 n.20; PR at V-7 n.20; CR/PR at Table V-8.

 24 CR at V-27 to V-28; PR at V-6 to V-7.

 25 Respondent Electrolux’s Post-Hearing Brief at 6.

 26 CR/PR at Table V-9.

 27 Majority Views (Business Confidential Version) at 42-43 & n.181.

 28 CR/PR at Table C-3. The improvement in operating margins was also seen at a disaggregated level in ***,

with *** operating margin improving from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2008, and with *** operating

margin improving steadily from *** percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2008. In interim 2009, *** operating margin

was *** percent and *** operating margin was ***; these *** improved over interim 2008, when *** had an

operating margin of *** percent and *** had an operating margin of *** percent. CR/PR at Table VI-6.

 29 See, e.g., Tr. at 50-51 (Hudgens).

 30 See Respondent Electrolux’s Post-Hearing Brief, Responses to Questions Asked by the Commission, at 2. 

35

Chinese supplier at a price lower than the domestic price.23 This *** represents *** of subject import

volume. For *** either stated that the alleged Chinese price was incorrectly quoted, and that the Chinese

price was actually equal to or higher than the U.S. price, or that ***.24 Thus, while *** alleged lost sales

did result in the purchase of Chinese subject imports, respondent *** stated that petitioners did not lose

these sales “to the Chinese supplier because of price.”25 *** lost revenue allegations were made

involving oven racks.26

To summarize, I find that: (1) the relatively small number of quarters of subject import

underselling occurred during a time of great market instability and that price trends appear to have

stabilized; (2) subject imports did not have either a price depressing or a price suppressing effect on

domestic prices during the period examined and that the trend in the ratio of COGS to net sales was in a

direction opposite from one that would indicate increasing cost-price pressures; and (3) that there was ***

evidence of lost sales or lost revenues. Because of these findings, I determine that there is no imminent

threat of subject imports entering with significant price depressing or suppressing effects.

C. Impact of the Subject Imports on the Domestic Industry

Because, as I have stated above, I find neither an imminent threat of significantly increased

volumes of subject imports nor an imminent threat that subject imports will be entering at significantly

price-depressing or price-suppressing prices, I therefore find that there is no imminent threat of a negative

impact by reason of subject imports on the domestic industry producing oven racks.

My confidence in a finding of no imminent threat of a negative impact is strengthened by the

observation, made in Section VII.C.1. of the majority’s views,27 that even when subject imports did enter

in significant quantities, as they did in 2008, not only was there not a negative impact on the domestic

industry’s operating income, but the domestic industry’s operating income noticeably improved.28 This

strong reverse correlation argues against a causality that is based on subject imports.

The domestic industry has argued that it is threatened with negative impact because it has had to

shift some of its production away from basic nickel-plated racks and toward higher value-added niche

products.29 I find this to be unpersuasive. The domestic industry producing oven racks has *** by

pursuing a strategy of greater innovation and high-quality production, which seems to be a clear example

of moving up the value chain.30 It is not clear that a return by the domestic industry to its previous

business strategy of producing lower-value oven racks would lead to an increase in profitability. There is
 31 Tr. at 59 (Rosenthal) (“[T]hey’re improving their financial performance by selling lower volumes of product

that they were losing money on.”); Tr. at 97-98 (Rosenthal) (“What you saw is lower volumes of domestic sales,

which meant, since they’re losing money on every sale it meant that by selling less they were losing less.”).

 32 Tr. at 57 (Gritton); Tr. at 70 (Kara); Tr. at 72-73 (Kara); Tr. at 73 (Gritton); Tr. at 101 (Rosenthal).

 33 Tr. at 109 (Gritton) (replying that Chinese producers “do not sell the porcelain coated [oven racks]”).

 34 See Petitioners’ Post-Hearing Brief at 15 n.15 (pointing to Exhibit 17). Exhibit 17 in petitioners’ post-hearing

brief contains *** Petitioners’ Post-Hearing Brief at Exhibit 17. This is not sufficient to support a finding that any

imports of higher value-added slide racks have entered, or are likely to enter, the United States from China.

36

record evidence indicating that production of lower-value oven racks was not profitable during at least a

portion of the period examined.31

Finally, I find that the evidence provided to support the proposition that subject imports are now

encroaching on the higher value-added niche products is less than compelling. Several statements were

made at the hearing regarding the loss, by domestic producers, of higher value-added product sales to

subject imports, a so-called “third wave” of subject import competition.32 It was well established that the

Chinese producers do not make porcelain oven racks33 and the documentation provided post-hearing to

support the proposition that the Chinese were now producing slide racks was not well-suited to proving

the point.34

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, I determine that an industry producing oven racks in the United

States is not materially injured nor threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports from

China that have been found by Commerce to be sold in the United States at less than fair value.
 1

 See the section entitled “The Subject Merchandise” in Part I of this report for a complete description of the

merchandise subject to these investigations.

 2 Federal Register notices cited in the tabulation are presented in app. A.

I-1

PART I: INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

These investigations result from a petition filed with the U.S. Department of Commerce

(“Commerce”) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (“USITC” or “Commission”) by Nashville

Wire Products Inc. (“Nashville”), Nashville, TN, SSW Holding Company, Inc. (“SSW”), Elizabethtown,

KY, the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied-Industrial and Service

Workers International Union, and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,

District Lodge 6, Clinton, IA, on July 31, 2008, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially

injured and threatened with material injury by reason of subsidized and less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”)

imports of certain kitchen appliance shelving and racks (“KASAR”)1

 from China. Information relating to

the background of these investigations is provided below.2

Effective date Action

July 31, 2008 Petition filed with Commerce and the Commission; institution of Commission

investigations

August 26, 2008 Commerce’s notice of countervailing duty initiation

August 27, 2008 Commerce’s notice of antidumping duty initiation

September 24, 2008 Commission’s preliminary determinations 

January 7, 2009 Commerce’s preliminary CVD determination

March 5, 2009 Commerce’s preliminary antidumping determination

April 15, 2009 Scheduling of final phase of Commission investigations (74 FR 18249, April

21, 2009)

July 16, 2009 Commission’s hearing1

July 24, 2009 Commerce’s final antidumping determination (74 FR 36656)

July 27, 2009 Commerce’s final CVD determination (74 FR 37012)

August 18, 2009 Commission’s vote

August 31, 2009 Commission’s determinations to Commerce

 1 A list of the witnesses appearing at the hearing is presented in appendix B.
I-2

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.
 3

 Petition, exh. 1.

 4

 ***. 

I-3

Organization of the Report

Part I of this report presents information on the subject merchandise, subsidy and dumping

margins, and domestic like product. Part II of this report presents information on conditions of

competition and other relevant economic factors. Part III presents information on the condition of the

U.S. industry, including data on capacity, production, shipments, inventories, and employment. Parts IV

and V present the volume and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise, respectively. Part VI

presents information on the financial experience of U.S. producers. Part VII presents the statutory

requirements and information obtained for use in the Commission’s consideration of the question of threat

of material injury as well as information regarding nonsubject countries.

U.S. MARKET SUMMARY

KASAR are used inside refrigeration and cooking appliances. Currently, seven firms are

believed to produce KASAR in the United States, with the two petitioning firms, Nashville and SSW,

accounting for over *** percent of reported U.S. production.3

 At least eight firms have imported KASAR

from China since 2006, with four U.S. importers *** accounting for 81.5 percent of reported subject

imports from China in 2008. One U.S. importer, *** reported imports of KASAR from a nonsubject

source during the period of investigation.4

 

Apparent U.S. consumption of KASAR totaled approximately *** million units ($*** million) in

the U.S. market in 2008. U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of KASAR totaled *** million units ($***

million) in 2008, and accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and ***

percent by value. U.S. imports from China totaled approximately *** million units ($*** million) in

2008 and accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and *** percent by value. 

The only nonsubject U.S. imports were from Mexico, totaling approximately *** thousand units ($***

million) in 2008 and accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and *** percent

by value. 

Refrigeration shelving are used inside refrigerators, freezers, combined refrigerator/freezers, and

other refrigeration or freezing equipment. Currently, at least seven firms are believed to produce

refrigeration shelving in the United States, with the two petitioning firms, Nashville and SSW, accounting

for over *** percent of reported U.S. production. At least three firms have imported refrigeration

shelving from China since 2006. One U.S. importer, *** reported imports of refrigeration shelving from

a nonsubject source during the period of investigation. 

Apparent U.S. consumption of refrigeration shelving totaled approximately *** million units

($*** million) in the U.S. market in 2008. U.S. producers' U.S. shipments of refrigeration shelving

totaled *** million units ($*** million) in 2008, and accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S.

consumption by quantity and *** percent by value. U.S. imports from China totaled approximately ***

million units ($*** million) in 2008 and accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption by

quantity and *** percent by value. The only nonsubject U.S. imports were from Mexico, totaling

approximately *** thousand units ($*** million) in 2008 and accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S.

consumption by quantity and *** percent by value. 

Oven racks are used inside cooking stove, ranges and ovens. Currently, at least seven firms are

believed to produce oven racks in the United States, with the two petitioning firms, Nashville and SSW, 

accounting for the *** of U.S. production. At least eight firms have imported oven racks from China

since 2006. No U.S. importer reported any imports of oven racks from a nonsubject source during the

period of investigation. 
 5

 Table C-1 presents the combined data for both refrigeration shelving and oven racks in the U.S. market; table C2 presents data for presents data for refrigeration shelving; and C-3 presents data for oven racks in the U.S. market.

 6 Certain Kitchen Shelving and Racks from the People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing

Duty Determination, 74 FR 37012, July 27, 2009. Commerce did not differentiate between refrigeration shelving

and oven racks in its scope definition of the subject products. 

I-4

Apparent U.S. consumption of oven racks totaled approximately *** million units ($*** million)

in the U.S. market in 2008. U.S. producers' U.S. shipments of oven racks totaled *** million units ($***

million) in 2008, and accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and ***

percent by value. U.S. imports from China totaled approximately *** million units ($*** million) in

2008 and accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and *** percent by value. 

SUMMARY DATA AND DATA SOURCES

A summary of data collected in these investigations is presented in appendix C, tables C-1, C-2,

and C-3.5

 U.S. industry data are based on questionnaire responses of four U.S. producers (see Part III of

this report). U.S. import data are based on questionnaire responses of eight U.S. importers (see Part IV of

this report). Information on the KASAR industry in China is based on questionnaire responses from six

producers/exporters of KASAR in China (see Part VII of this report). 

NATURE AND EXTENT OF SUBSIDIES AND SALES AT LTFV

Subsidies

On July 27, 2009, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register of its final determination

of countervailable subsidies for producers and exporters of KASAR from China.6

 Table 

I-1 presents Commerce’s findings of subsidization of KASAR in China.

Table I-1

KASAR: Commerce’s final subsidy determination with respect to imports from China

Entity

Final countervailable subsidy

margin (percent)

Asber Enterprises Co., Ltd. (China) 170.82

Changzhou Yixiong Metal Products Co., Ltd. 149.91

Foshan Winleader Metal Products Co., Ltd. 149.91

Guangdong Wireking Housewares & Hardware Co., Ltd. (formerly known

as Foshan Shunde Wireking Housewares & Hardware Co., Ltd.). 13.30

Kingsun Enterprises Group Co., Ltd. 149.91

Yuyao Hanjun Metal Work Co./Yuyao Hanjun Metal Products Co., Ltd. 149.91

Zhongshan Iwatani Co., Ltd . 149.91

All others 13.30

Source: 74 FR 37012, July 27, 2009.
 7 Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks From the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 74 FR 36656, July 24, 2009. Commerce did not differentiate between refrigeration

shelving and oven racks in its scope definition of the subject products. 

I-5

Sales at LTFV

On July 24, 2009, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register of its final determination

of sales at LTFV with respect to imports from China.7

 Tables I-2 presents Commerce’s dumping margins

with respect to imports of KASAR from China.

Table I-2

KASAR: Commerce’s final weighted-average LTFV margins with respect to imports from China

Exporter Producer

Final dumping

margin (percent)

Guangdong Wireking Housewares & Hardware

Co., Ltd. (a/k/a Foshan Shunde Wireking

Housewares & Hardware Co., Ltd.)

Guandong Wireking Housewares &

Hardware Co., Ltd.

95.99

New King Shan (Zhu Hai) Co., Ltd. New King Shan (Zhu Hai) Co., Ltd. 44.77

Marmon Retail Services Asia Leader Metal Industry Co., Ltd.

(a/k/a Marmon Retail Services Asia)

44.77

Hangzhou Dunli Import & Export Co., Ltd. Hangzhou Dunli Industry Co., Ltd. 44.77

Jiangsu Weixi Group Co. Jiangsu Weixi Group Co. 44.77

PRC-wide Entity (including Asber Enterprise Co., Ltd. (China) 95.99

Source: 74 FR 36656, July 24, 2009.
 8 Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks From the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 74 FR 36656, July 24, 2009. 

 9

 Effective July 1, 2009, the statistical reporting number for 8516.90.8000 is now 8516.90.8010 and

8516.90.8050.

I-6

THE SUBJECT MERCHANDISE

Commerce’s Scope

Commerce has defined the scope of these investigations as follows:

Certain kitchen appliance shelving and racks are shelving and racks for refrigerators,

freezers, combined refrigerator/freezers, other refrigerating or freezing equipment,

cooking stoves, ranges, and ovens (‘‘certain kitchen appliance shelving and racks’’ or

‘‘the subject merchandise’’). Certain kitchen appliance shelving and racks are defined

as shelving, baskets, racks (with or without extension slides, which are carbon or

stainless steel hardware devices that are connected to shelving, baskets, or racks to

enable sliding), side racks (which are welded wire support structures for oven racks that

attach to the interior walls of an oven cavity that does not include support ribs as a

design feature), and subframes (which are welded wire support structures that interface

with formed support ribs inside an oven cavity to support oven rack assemblies utilizing

extension slides) with the following dimensions: shelving and racks with dimensions

ranging from 3 inches by 5 inches by 0.10 inch to 28 inches by 34 inches by 6 inches; or

baskets with dimensions ranging from 2 inches by 4 inches by 3 inches to 28 inches by 34

inches by 16 inches; or side racks from 6 inches by 8 inches by 0.1 inch to 16 inches by

30 inches by 4 inches; or subframes from 6 inches by 10 inches by 0.1 inch to 28 inches

by 34 inches by 6 inches. The subject merchandise is comprised of carbon or stainless

steel wire ranging in thickness from 0.050 inch to 0.500 inch and may include sheet metal

of either carbon or stainless steel ranging in thickness from 0.020 inch to 0.2 inch. The

subject merchandise may be coated or uncoated and may be formed and/or welded. 

Excluded from the scope of this investigation is shelving in which the support surface is

glass. The written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.8

Tariff Treatment

Certain KASAR is classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”)

under subheadings 7321.90.50, 7321.90.60, 8418.99.80, and 8516.90.80, and reported for statistical

purposes under 7321.90.5000, 7321.90.6090, 8418.99.8050, 8418.99.8060, and 8516.90.8000.9

 All of

these statistical reporting numbers are residual or “basket” categories and contain a number of other

products besides certain KASAR. Table I-3 presents current tariff rates for KASAR.
I-7

Table I-3

KASAR: Tariff rates, 2009

HTS

provision Article description

General1 Special2

Column

23

Rates (percent ad valorem)

7321

7321.90.50

 00

7321.90.60

 90

8418

8418.99.80

 50

 60

8516

8516.90.80

 

 10

 50

Stoves, ranges, grates, cookers (including those with

subsidiary boilers for central heating), barbecues, braziers,

gas rings, plate warmers and similar nonelectric domestic

appliances, and parts thereof, of iron or steel:

 Other parts of articles in subheading 7321.11.30 .........

 Other parts of gas cooking appliances and plate warmers

 Other......................................................................

Refrigerators, freezers and other refrigerating or freezing

equipment, electric or other; heat pumps, other than the air

conditioning machines of heading 8415; parts thereof: 

 Other parts: 

 Parts of combined refrigerator-freezers fitted with

 separate external doors and parts of household type

 refrigerators.............................................................

 Other......................................................................

Electric instantaneous or storage water heaters and

immersion heaters; electric space heating apparatus

and soil heating apparatus; electrothermic hairdressing

apparatus (for example, hair dryers, hair curlers, curling

tong heaters) and hand dryers; electric flatirons; other

electrothermic appliances of a kind used for domestic

purposes; electric heating resistors, other than those of

heading 8545; parts thereof:

 Other:

 Shelving and racks for cooking stoves and ranges....

 Other..........................................................................

 

Free

Free

Free

Free

Free

Free

45%

45%

35%

35%

35%

35%

 1 Normal trade relations, formerly known as the most-favored-nation duty rate. 

 2

 Special rates not applicable when General rate is free. China is ineligible for special duty rate treatment.

 3

 Applies to imports from a small number of countries that do not enjoy normal trade relations duty status.

 4

 General note 3(c)(i) defines the special duty program symbols enumerated for this provision. 

Source: Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (July 1, 2009).
 10 Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks from China, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-458 and 731-TA-1154

(Preliminary), USITC Publication 4035, September 2008, p. 6.

 11 Petitioners note that “no party has challenged the like product definition in this final phase of the

investigation.” Hearing transcript, pp. 34-35 (Cannon), and Petitioners’ posthearing brief, exh. 1. p. 1 and p. 33.

 12 In the preliminary phase of these investigations, respondents GE and Whirlpool argued that the Commission

should find a single like product consisting of "all wire kitchen appliance shelving and cooking racks, defined as

shelving and racks made from carbon or stainless steel wire for refrigerators, refrigerated display case freezers,

refrigerator-freezers, cook-tops, ranges, ovens and grills, regardless of whether such wire shelving and cooking racks

are intended for use in commercial or residential equipment" with one domestic industry producing those products. 

The Commission stated in its preliminary views that “should Respondents wish to argue for an expansion of the

domestic like product to include products outside of the scope in the final phase investigations, we ask them to

identify the specific products for expansion in their written comments to the Commission’s questionnaires.” Certain

Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks from China, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-458 and 731-TA1154 (Final), USITC

Publication 4035, September 2008, p. 10, fn. 43. Respondents GE and Whirlpool did not submit party comments

regarding draft questionnaires, did not appear at the hearing, and did not submit a posthearing brief in these final

phase investigations; however, they did submit a prehearing brief, but did not comment on the like product issue.

 13 Respondent Electrolux’s posthearing brief, p. 17.

 14 Electrolux did state that the Commission should also determine that refrigeration shelving is not materially

injured, nor threatened with material injury, by reason of subject imports of refrigeration shelving from China, but

did not present any arguments for its claim. Respondent Electrolux’s prehearing brief, p. 1, fn. 1. 

I-8

THE DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT

 The Commission’s decision regarding the appropriate domestic product(s) that are “like” the

subject imported product is based on a number of factors including: (1) physical characteristics and uses;

(2) common manufacturing facilities and production employees; (3) interchangeability; (4) customer and

producer perceptions; (5) channels of distribution; and (6) price. Information regarding these factors is

discussed below.

In its preliminary determinations, the Commission found two domestic like products coextensive

with the scope of these investigations: (1) certain refrigeration shelving and baskets for refrigerators,

freezers, combination refrigerator/freezers, and other refrigerating or freezing equipment, and (2) certain

oven racks, side racks, and subframes for cooking stoves, ranges and ovens.10 11 12 Respondent Electrolux

agrees with Petitioners that “none of the parties has challenged the existence of two domestic like

products -- refrigerator shelving and oven racks -- in this proceeding.”13 All of Electrolux’s arguments in

these investigations is with regard to oven racks.14

Physical Characteristics and Uses

KASAR consist of certain shelving and baskets for refrigerators, freezers, combined refrigeratorfreezers, and other refrigerating or freezing equipment and racks (with or without extension slides, which

are carbon or stainless steel hardware devices that are connected to shelving, baskets, or racks to enable

sliding), side racks (which are welded wire support structures for oven racks that attach to the interior

walls of an oven cavity that does not include support ribs as a design feature), and subframes (which are

welded wire support structures that interface with formed support ribs inside an oven cavity to support

oven rack assemblies utilizing extension slides) for cooking stoves, ranges, and ovens. Shelving and

baskets are used by OEMs of residential and recreational vehicle refrigerators, freezers, and

refrigerator/freezers. Oven racks are used by OEMs of residential and recreational vehicle appliances of

freestanding ranges and wall ovens. Figures I-1 through I-6 present various refrigerator shelving and

baskets and oven racks.
I-9

Figure I-1

Open end freezer shelf

Source: SSW Holding Co.

Figure I-2

Refrigerator--Freezer basket

Source: SSW Holding Co.

Figure I-3 

Refrigerator--Freezer basket #2

Source: SSW Holding Co.

Figure I-4

Refrigerator--Freezer shelf

Source: SSW Holding Co.
 15 Petition, p. 9.

 16 Staff field trip to SSW plant, Fort Smith, AR, Aug. 12, 2008.

 17 Hearing transcript, p. 14 (Kara).

 18 Hearing transcript, p. 26 (Gritton).

 19 Refrigeration shelving in which the support surface consists of glass is excluded from these investigations.

 20 Staff field trip to SSW plant, Fort Smith, AR, Aug. 12, 2008.

I-10

Manufacturing Processes

The production processes of KASAR originate with straightening and cutting of low carbon steel

wire according to product specifications. The wire is then transferred to a dedicated wire drawing and

cutting machine area.15 Automatic spot welding machines are utilized to form and/or weld the steel

frames.16 Refrigeration shelving and oven racks are produced in different production facilities using

dedicated fabrication, tooling, and finishing equipment to produce parts to OEM specifications, and exact

dimensional appearance. These parts are not generally interchangeable among different models and by

the various OEMs. Production of certain refrigeration shelving and freezer baskets and oven racks are

customized for each specific model of each major appliance OEM producer.17 OEM producers account

for approximately 90 percent of the U.S. kitchen appliance market.18

Refrigeration Shelving19

The production of refrigeration shelving begins with wire being straightened and cut according to

product specifications. A high-speed turret lathe milling machine is used to spin and shape the wire.20

The forming and welding operations may be manual, semi-automatic, or automatic depending on the part

complexity and volume. These operations may be completed in multiple steps. Automatic welding

machines are employed to form the metal frames, welding of mats, joining of the frames and mats and

Figure I-5

Fixed Refrigerator--Freezer shelf

Source: SSW Holding Co.

Figure I-6

Oven Rack

Source: SSW Holding Co.
 21 Petition, p. 9.

 22 Hearing transcript, p. 25 (Rollins).

 23 Petition, pp. 9-10. 

 24 Hearing transcript, p. 27 (Gritton).

I-11

forming of the frame/mat assembly, among others. During the welding operations, other metal

components may be added to the wire to form an assembly, depending on part design. The shelving parts

are then manually loaded onto a finishing system where the shelving parts are sent through a cleaning,

pretreatment, and coating process.21 For refrigeration shelving, the coating is typically applied

electrostatically and is then cured under heat to allow it to flow and form a “skin.” The application of

powder paint employs filtered, compressed air, typically at 20 to 30 psi, which pushes the powder out of

the spray paint gun past the electrode which then provides the powder a positive charge. The coating is

most often electrostatic powder paint, but it can include a range of other finishes. Finishing system

requirements are specified by OEM customers and typically include appearance as well as the ability to

withstand corrosion and abrasion requirements.

Oven Racks

The production of oven racks is capital intensive.22 Like the production of refrigerator shelving,

the production of oven racks begins with wire being straightened and cut according to product

specifications. Wire drawing and cutting machines cut the wire and put it through forming and/or

automatic welding machines and other machinery that is dedicated to the production of oven racks. The

forming/welding operations may be manual, semi-automatic, or automatic depending on the part

complexity and volume. These operations may be completed in multiple steps. These steps may include

forming and welding of frames, welding of mats, joining of the frames and mats and forming of the

frame/mat assembly, among others. During the welding operations other metal components may be

added to the wire to form an assembly, depending on part design. The racks are then manually loaded

onto a finishing system where the metal racks are cleaned and coated. The coating process is most often a

nickel plating process, but may also include porcelain or other coatings with the ability to withstand

temperatures present inside a cooking appliance. In the nickel plating process, racks are sent through a

caustic bath containing nickel compounds. An electric charge occurs in the bath and nickel coating is

then deposited on the part. The metal racks are then sent through a series of rinses and a post dip sealer

before being subjected to the final drying stage. The cleaning and coating process may be completed in

multiple steps. Most racks are then packaged and moved to a staging area for shipment to OEM

customers. Some racks may require further assembly. These assemblies are then packaged and moved to

a staging area for shipment to customers.23 Because refrigeration shelving and oven racks are products

made to OEM specifications, it is relatively unimportant to the OEMs whether they use the product of one

manufacturer or another or whether the product is produced domestically or by a Chinese manufacturer.24
 25 Hearing transcript, p. 15 (Kara).

 26 Conference transcript at 119-120 (Metzger).

 27 Conference transcript, p. 11 (Trossevin), pp. 37-38 (Hudgens), and pp. 62-64 (Gritton).

 28 Conference transcript, p. 62 (Gritton) and p. 65 (Rollins).

 29 “Quality is a piece of it; delivery capability is a piece of it; price or cost is a piece of it; technology is a piece of

it, whether or not we have an advantage over, because of a technology advantage; then the fifth tenet is what we call

a strategic business decision, whether a supplier relocates to one of our facilities.” Hearing transcript, pp. 142-143

(Market).

 30 Conference transcript, p. 134 (Metzger) and pp. 134-134 (Wessendorf).

 31 Each of the two like products are sold for different uses, either for refrigeration or cooking appliances, but not

both. Petitioners’ postconference brief, p. 6.

I-12

Interchangeability

Refrigerator shelving and oven racks are designed and produced for specific OEM kitchen

appliance producers for specific model applications.25 Petitioners and respondents agree kitchen

refrigeration shelving is not interchangeable with oven racks because each product is produced to a

particular OEM’s specifications.26 Because refrigeration shelving and oven racks are products made to

OEM specifications, it is relatively unimportant to the OEMs whether they use the product of one

manufacturer or another or whether the product is produced domestically or by a Chinese manufacturer.

Customer and Producer Perceptions

Petitioners and respondents have indicated that quality standards for KASAR are very high for

both U.S. and Chinese producers with both being required to become qualified to produce product and

supply product at the same levels of quality.27 In light of the capability of both U.S. and Chinese to

produce to the same quality standards, petitioners believe that the determining factor in purchase

decisions in the awarding and placement of business is price.28 Respondent Electrolux claims that price is

one of five tenets involved in its decision-making once a supplier is qualified.29 Respondents GE and

Whirlpool indicated that while price is a consideration, quality is a more important factor in their

purchasing decisions.30

Channels of Distribution

All domestically produced KASAR are produced specifically for and sold to end users, which are

all OEMs of kitchen appliances.31 Additional details regarding the channel structure of domestically

produced and imported KASAR are presented in Part II of this report, Conditions of Competition in the

U.S. Market.

Price

In general, prices for refrigeration shelving is lower than prices for oven racks. Details for

pricing practices and prices reported for domestically produced and imported KASAR in response to the

Commission’s questionnaires are presented in Part V of this report, Pricing and Related Information.
 1

 Petition, p. 15 and Respondents’ postconference brief, p. 11.

 2

 Three OEMs, GE, Whirlpool, and Electrolux account for approximately 90 percent of the U.S. kitchen appliance

market. Hearing TR, pp. 26- 27, (Rollins ).

 3

 The three importers are ***, primarily import KASAR for final products, although they do sell very small

quantities to their replacement customers. 

 4

 Refrigeration shelving and oven racks are designed and produced for specific model applications. Hearing TR,

p. 14 (Kara). Petitioners reported that there is no inventory held, even for higher volume product. Hearing TR p.

113 (Kara and Gritton). 

II-1

PART II: CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IN THE U.S. MARKET

U.S. MARKET CHARACTERISTICS AND CHANNELS OF DISTRIBUTION

KASAR is sold to OEM manufacturers of kitchen appliances.1

 Producer and importer

questionnaire responses indicate that all U.S. shipments of U.S.-produced certain refrigerator shelving and

imports from China were made to end users during 2006-08 and January-March 2009.2 In the case of

certain oven racks, all shipments by U.S. producers went to end users during 2006-08 and January-March

2009 and most imports from China went to end users. For imports from China, shipments to distributors

accounted for 2.2 percent of the total in 2006, 1.7 percent in 2007 and 0.4 percent in 2008. During

January-March 2009, all importer shipments of certain oven racks from China went to end users. 

U.S.- produced KASAR was sold in all areas of the continental United States during 2008, while

sales of imports from China were limited to specific areas. Among responding producers, two firms

reported that they sell nationally, one reported that it sells in the Midwest, one reported that it sells on the

West Coast, and one reported that it sells in the Southeast. Among the three importers that sell KASAR,

one reported sales in the Southeast, one reported sales in the Southwest, and one reported that its sales

were in Tennessee.3

 All reported shipments of KASAR by both producers and importers went to end

users during 2006-08 and January-March 2009. 

Most of the KASAR sold by U.S. producers and importers is produced to order rather than sold

from inventories.4

 Reported delivery lead times range from 1 day to 6 weeks for responding producers

and from 1 to 7 weeks for importers. All OEM purchasers reported that all of their suppliers must be

certified or prequalified with respect to quality, chemistry, or other performance characteristics for the

KASAR that is sold to their firm. The qualification process often involves extensive testing and can

require periods of as little as 30 days to as much as 2 years. 

SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS

U.S. Supply

Domestic Production

Based on available information, U.S. KASAR producers have the ability to respond to changes in

demand with moderate to large changes in the quantity of shipments of U.S.-produced KASAR to the

U.S. market. The main contributing factors to the relatively high degree of responsiveness of supply for

KASAR are the availability of unused capacity and the ability to produce alternate products. 

Industry capacity

U.S. producers’ capacity utilization rates for KASAR ranged from a low of *** percent in 2008

to a high of *** percent in 2006. During January-March 2009, the capacity utilization rate was ***
II-2

percent. These data indicate that there is *** unused capacity which could be used to increase production

of KASAR.

Alternative markets

Producers’ export shipments, as a percentage of total shipments, were relatively ***, accounting

for *** percent in 2006 and 2007, and *** percent in 2008. During January-March 2009, exports

accounted for *** percent of total shipments.

Inventory levels

The ratio of U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories to their total shipments ranged from a low

of *** percent in 2006 to a high of *** percent in 2009. During January-March 2009, the ratio was ***

percent.

Production alternatives

Three of the four responding producers reported that they make other products in the facilities

used to produce KASAR. Items mentioned included guards, barbeque grills, laundry suspension rods,

and point of purchase store fixtures.

Subject Imports from China

Based on available information, Chinese producers have the ability to respond to changes in

demand with moderate to large changes in the quantity of shipments of KASAR to the U.S. market. The

main contributing factors to the relatively high degree of responsiveness of supply are the availability of

unused capacity, the existence of alternate markets, and the ability to produce alternate products. 

Industry capacity

Combined questionnaire responses by Chinese producers indicate that the Chinese industry may

have potential for expanding exports to the United States due to its *** excess capacity. The Chinese

industry reported a capacity-utilization rate of *** percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007, and *** percent

in 2008. The estimated capacity-utilization rate is *** percent in 2009 and *** percent 2010.

Alternative markets

China’s exports to the United States, as a percentage of its total shipments, increased from ***

percent in 2006 to *** percent in 2007 and to *** in 2008. They are projected to account for *** percent

in 2009 and *** percent in 2010. China’s shipments to the home market and to export markets other than

the United States consistently accounted for between *** and *** percent of its total shipments annually

during 2006-08. These shipments are projected to account for *** percent of the total annually in 2009

and *** percent in 2010.

Inventory levels

China’s inventories, relative to its total shipments, were *** percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007,

and *** percent in 2008. Ratios of inventories to shipments were projected to be *** percent in 2009 and

*** percent in 2010.
 5

 Conference transcript, p. 20 (Kara).

 6

 Petitioners noted at the hearing that demand has declined for a number of reasons, including a downturn in the

housing market, the recession, and the fact that some of the OEMs have shifted there base to other countries. 

Hearing TR, pp. 119-120 (Cannon). 

 7

 At the hearing, Electrolux stated that the housing market, the financial crisis, and consumer confidence have all

had a large impact on the KASAR business. Hearing TR, pp. 189-90 (Market).

II-3

Production alternatives

In addition to KASAR, four of six Chinese producers reported producing other wire products

using the same equipment and machinery used to produce KASAR. The other reported products included

barbeque accessories, dishwasher racks, fan guards/grills for air conditioners, furniture racks and pet

cages. 

U.S. Demand

Demand Characteristics

There is evidence that the demand for KASAR is strongly related to activity in the U.S. housing

industry.5

 As shown in figure II-1, which presents seasonally adjusted monthly housing starts and

completions from January 2005 through April 2009, both series have declined since early 2006.

The demand for KASAR (as measured by apparent consumption) decreased from 40.9 million units in

2006 to 28.6 million units in 2008. During January-March 2009 U.S. apparent consumption was 5.2

million units, as compared to 7.8 million units in January-March 2008. 

Producers and importers were asked whether demand for KASAR had changed since January 1

2006, and end user purchasers were asked whether the demand for their firms final products incorporating

KASAR has changed since January 1, 2006. Among five responding producers, three reported that

demand had decreased and two reported that it was unchanged.6

 Among six responding 

importers, four reported that demand had decreased, one reported that demand was unchanged, and one

reported that demand had fluctuated, increasing in 2006 after the hurricane Katrina disaster, and declining

later as a result of the housing slump.7

 Among the five responding purchasers, four reported that demand

had decreased and one reported that there was no change. Firms reporting decreases in demand generally

attributed the decreases to problems in the housing industry or the recession in general.

 

Substitute Products

When asked whether other products can be substituted for KASAR, the majority of questionnaire

respondents answered no. None of the U.S. producers listed any substitutes. However, some importers 

and purchasers listed substitutes including glass, plastic and porcelain and plastic bins. None of these

firms reported that changes in the prices of these substitutes influence the prices of the subject products.

Cost Share

When asked to estimate the cost of KASAR as a percentage of the cost of kitchen appliances,

questionnaire respondents consistently estimated that the costs are relatively small. One U.S. producer

estimated that the cost of KASAR in both oven ranges and refrigerators is 2.5 percent for both end use

products. Another producer estimated that KASAR accounts for less than 2.0 percent of the total cost of

these products. Overall among producers, importers and purchasers, cost share estimates for refrigerators
 8

 One purchaser, ***, has also ***.

II-4

and freezers ranged from 0.6 percent to 3.0 percent, while estimates for ovens ranged from 1.5 to 4.0

percent.

Figure II-1

Housing data: Housing starts and housing completions, seasonally adjusted annual rate, monthly,

January 2005 to April 2009

Source: US Bureau of the Census, Mining, Manufacturing, and Construction Statistics,

http://www.census.gov/const/www/newresconstindex.html.

SUBSTITUTABILITY ISSUES

The degree of substitutability between domestic products and subject imports, between domestic

products and nonsubject imports, and between subject and nonsubject imports is examined in this section. 

Much of the discussion is based on information obtained from questionnaire responses.

Of the eleven purchasers that submitted questionnaires, seven reported purchasing both

refrigerator shelving and oven racks, three reported purchasing only oven racks, and one reported

purchasing only refrigerator shelving. Seven of the purchasers are OEM’s; one functions both as an OEM

and distributor; two are distributors, and one reported that it is a reseller. Five of the firms have only

purchased from U.S. producers since 2006, four have purchased from both the United States and China,

and two do not know the country of origin of their purchases.8

 Reported purchase quantities for

refrigerator shelving and oven racks are presented in the table below.
 9

 Among the three largest KASAR purchasers, ***. 

II-5

Table II-1

KASAR: Reported purchases by source by responding U.S. purchasers, by country sources 2006-

08 and January-March 2009

Item 2006 2007 2008 JanuaryMarch 2009

Quantity (1,000 units)

Purchases of refrigerator shelving: 

United States 22,556 16,488 15,625 2,506

China 229 1,899 2,357 446

Total 22,785 18,387 17,982 2,952

Purchases of certain oven racks

United States 10,391 8,305 6,872 1,339

China 1,399 1,625 4,883 969

Total 11,790 9,930 11,755 2,308

Source: Complied from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Purchasers were asked to report whether their purchases of KASAR from different sources have

changed during the past three years, and if so, to state the reason for the change. The four purchasers that

have bought both U.S.-produced and imported products from China all reported some shifting during this

period. One firm reported that it reduced its purchases from a U. S. source due to a requested *** percent

price increase and thus it decided to increase its purchases from China. Another purchaser reported that it

increased purchases from China and reduced purchases from the United States to balance the risk of sole

sourcing and because of the lower landed-duty cost from China. Another purchaser reported that it

reduced purchases from a U.S. source during 2006-08 and increased purchases from a China source in

order to diversify its supplier base. However, this purchaser reported that in 2009 it increased its

purchases of U.S.-produced KASAR and reduced its purchases of Chinese-produced KASAR due to

changing market conditions. Another purchaser reported that it increased U.S. purchases and reduced

purchases from China as a result of a shift in supplier choice.

Factors Affecting Purchasing Decisions

 Purchasers were asked to rank the top three factors that they consider when making purchasing

decisions. As indicated in table II-2, quality and price or cost, and followed by availability and supply

and then delivery were ranked as the leading factors in purchasing decisions.9
 10 While not noted in the table, Electrolux reported that having multiple sources of supply is an important factor in

its purchasing decisions. Electrolux stated that its intention is to dual source for every component that it buys. 

Hearing TR, p. 140 (Market).

 11 Petitioners noted that “because refrigeration shelving and oven racks are products made to OEM specifications,

it is relatively unimportant to the OEMs whether they use the product of one manufacturer or another or whether it is

produced domestically or by a Chinese manufacturer.” Hearing TR, p. 27 (Gritton). 

II-6

Table II-2

KASAR: Ranking of factors used in purchasing decisions as reported by U.S. purchasers

Factor

Number of firms reporting

Number one factor Number two factor Number three factor

Availability & supply 0 2 1

Price or cost 3 2 4

Quality 4 4 0

Delivery 0 0 3

Other1 21 1

1

 Other factors include prearranged contracts and reliability.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

In order to obtain more information on purchasing decisions, firms were asked whether

purchasing decisions are based mainly on price. Purchasers were instructed to answer “always,”

“usually,” “sometimes,” or “never.” Six purchasers answered “usually,” one answered “sometimes,” and

four answered “never.” No firm answered “always.”

Purchasers were also asked to report whether the factors shown in table II-3 are “very important,”

“somewhat important,” or “not important” in their purchasing decisions. The factors firms cited most

often as “very important” were product consistency (10 firms), quality meeting industry standards (9

firms), reliability of supply (9 firms), delivery time (9 firms), price (8 firms), and availability (8 firms). 

Quality exceeding industry standards was also cited as “very important” by the majority of purchasers.10

Comparisons of Domestic Products and Subject Imports and Nonsubject Imports

To determine whether U.S.-produced certain refrigerator shelving and certain oven racks

generally can be used in the same applications as imports from China and nonsubject sources, producers,

importers, and purchasers were asked whether the product can “always,” “frequently,” “sometimes,” or

“never” be used interchangeably. The results are shown in table II-4 and II-5. The majority of

questionnaire respondents reported that refrigerator shelving and oven racks produced in the United States

and imported from China can be used interchangeably.11 One firm that is both an importer and purchaser

reported that China-origin oven racks are frequently but not always interchangeable with U.S.-origin oven

racks. The one purchaser that reported that U. S.-produced and Chinese-produced refrigeration shelving

are never interchangeable stated that ***. ***. One purchaser reported that if racks are made to the same

tolerances, they should be interchangeable. Another firm that is an importer and purchaser *** reported

that when it orders specific models of shelving and racks, it expects that the parts will be interchangeable

regardless of the supplier.
II-7

Table II-3

KASAR: Importance of purchasing factors, as reported by U.S. purchasers

Factor

Very important

Somewhat

important Not Important

Number of firms responding

Availability 8 2 0

Delivery terms 5 5 0

Delivery time 9 1 0

Discounts offered 3 7 0

Extension of credit 1 6 3

Finance terms 2 8 0

Price 8 2 0

Minimum quantity requirements 4 6 0

Packaging 5 5 0

Product consistency 10 0 0

Quality meets industry standards 9 1 0

Quality exceeds industry standards 6 4 0

Product range 0 9 1

Reliability of supply 9 1 0

Technical support/service 4 6 0

Tooling costs 4 5 1

U.S. transportation costs 5 5 0

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Table II-4

REFRIGERATOR SHELVING: Perceived degree of interchangeability of product produced in the

United States and in other countries1

* * * * * * *

Table II-5

OVEN RACKS: Perceived degree of interchangeability of product produced in the United States

and in other countries1

* * * * * * *

In addition to questions concerning interchangeability, producers and importers were also asked

to compare U.S.-produced products with imports from China and nonsubject imports in terms of product

differences other than price such as quality, availability, product range, and other characteristics, as a

factor in their sales of certain refrigerator shelving and certain oven racks. Responses are shown in tables

II-6 and II-7.

Table II-6

Certain REFRIGERATOR SHELVING: U.S. producers’ and importers’ perceived importance of

factors other than price in sales of products produced in the United States and in other countries1

* * * * * * *
 12 A supply function is not defined in the case of a non-competitive market.

 13 The substitution elasticity measures the responsiveness of the relative U.S. consumption levels of the subject

imports and the domestic like products to changes in their relative prices. This reflects how easily purchasers switch

from the U.S. product to the subject products (or vice versa) when prices change.

II-8

Table II-7

Certain OVEN RACKS: U.S. producers’ and importers’ perceived importance of factors other than

price in sales of products produced in the United States and in other countries1

* * * * * * *

Purchasers also were asked to compare U.S.-produced and imported KASAR from

China and nonsubject imports with regard to the 17 selected characteristics listed in table II-8, noting

whether the domestic product was superior, comparable, or inferior to the imported products. Seven

purchasers provided comparisons for the selected categories with respect to China. The U.S. product was

rated superior to imports from China in terms of delivery time and was rated inferior to China in tooling

costs by a majority of purchasers. For all other categories, there was no clear-cut advantage for either the

United States or China. In the comparisons between the U.S. product and nonsubject imports by a single

purchaser; this firm reported that the products were ***. Also, in the comparisons between the China and

nonsubject imports made by one firm, the Chinese and nonsubject product were ***.

ELASTICITY ESTIMATES

This section discusses elasticity estimates; parties were encouraged to comment on these

estimates in their briefs. However, no party submitted any comments.

U.S. Supply Elasticity12

The domestic supply elasticity for KASAR measures the sensitivity of the quantity supplied by

U.S. producers to changes in the U.S. market price of KASAR. The elasticity of domestic supply

depends on several factors including the level of excess capacity, the ease with which producers can alter

capacity, producers’ ability to shift to production of other products, the existence of inventories, and the

availability of alternate markets for U.S.-produced KASAR. Analysis of these factors, including the large

amount of excess capacity indicates that the elasticity is likely to be relatively high. A range of 5 to 10 is

suggested. 

U.S. Demand Elasticity

The U.S. demand elasticity for KASAR measures the sensitivity of the overall quantity

demanded to a change in the U.S. market price of KASAR. 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 the KASAR in the production of any downstream products. Since there are no close

substitutes for these products, and since they account for a relatively small percentage of the price of final

products, it is likely that the demand is inelastic; an elasticity range of -0.1 to -0.5 is suggested. 

Substitution Elasticity

The elasticity of substitution depends upon the extent of product differentiation between the

domestic and imported products.13 Product differentiation, in turn, depends upon such factors as quality

(e.g., chemistry, appearance, etc.) and conditions of sale (availability, sales terms/discounts/promotions,
II-9

etc.). Based on available information, the elasticity of substitution between U.S.-produced KASAR and

imported KASAR is likely to be in the range of 4 to 6.

Table II-8

KASAR: Comparisons between U.S.-produced and subject products from China, and subject and

nonsubject products as reported by U.S. purchasers

Factor

U.S. vs. China

U.S. vs.

nonsubject 

China vs.

nonsubject

S C I S C I SC I

Number of responses 

Availability 2 5 0 *** *** *** *** *** ***

Delivery terms 2 4 1 *** *** *** *** *** ***

Delivery time 4 3 0 *** *** *** *** *** ***

Discounts offered 0 6 1 *** *** *** *** *** ***

Extension of credit 0 6 1 *** *** *** *** *** ***

Lower price1 1 3 3 *** *** *** *** *** ***

Finance terms 1 4 2 *** *** *** *** *** ***

Minimum quantity requirements 2 5 0 *** *** *** *** *** ***

Packaging 1 6 0 *** *** *** *** *** ***

Product consistency 2 5 0 *** *** *** *** *** ***

Quality meets industry standards 2 5 0 *** *** *** *** *** ***

Quality exceeds industry standards 1 5 0 *** *** *** *** *** ***

Product range 1 6 0 *** *** *** *** *** ***

Reliability of supply 1 6 0 *** *** *** *** *** ***

Technical support/service 2 5 0 *** *** *** *** *** ***

Tooling costs 0 3 4 *** *** *** *** *** ***

Lower U.S. transportation costs1 1 6 0 *** *** *** *** *** ***

 1A rating of superior on price and U.S. transportation costs indicates that the first country generally has lower prices/U.S.

transportation costs than the second country.

Note.--S=first listed country’s product is superior; C=both countries’ products are comparable; I=first listed country’s product

is inferior.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

 1

 The two petitioning firms, Nashville and SSW, account for *** percent of the domestic production of KASAR. 

Two small U.S. producers, *** and ***, also submitted producer questionnaire responses.

 2

 Two additional producers submitted partial responses to the Commission’s questionnaires. ***. ***. 

III-1

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 four firms which are believed to account for over *** percent of U.S. production of KASAR

in 2008.1

U.S. PRODUCERS

The Commission sent producer questionnaires to the seven firms identified in the petition as

domestic producers of KASAR. The Commission received usable producer questionnaire responses from

four producers.2

 Table III-1 presents reporting U.S. producers’ positions on the petition, plant locations,

production of KASAR, and shares of total reported U.S. production of KASAR in 2008. Table III-2

presents reporting U.S. producers’ positions on the petition, plant locations, production of refrigeration

shelving, and shares of total U.S. production of refrigeration shelving in 2008 and table III-3 presents

reporting U.S. producers’ positions on the petition, plant locations, production of oven racks, and shares

of total U.S. production of oven racks in 2008.

Table III-1

KASAR: U.S. producers, positions on the petition, plant locations, and shares of total reported

U.S. production, 2008

Firm 

Position on

petition

U.S. plant 

location(s)

U.S. production

Quantity

(1,000 units)

Share 

(percent)

Matrix Support Auburn, AL *** ***

Nashville Petitioner Nashville, TN *** ***

SSW1

 Petitioner Clinton, IA 

Evansville, IN2

Fort Smith, AR

Ludington, MI

Madison, TN

Newport, TN

*** ***

*** *** *** *** ***

Total *** 100.0

 1 ***.

 2

 Facility closed in April 2007.

 3

 Less than 0.05 percent.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 3

 ***. 

 4

 ***.

III-2

Table III-2

REFRIGERATION SHELVING: U.S. producers, positions on the petition, plant locations, and

shares of total reported U.S. production, 2008

Firm 

Position on

petition

U.S. plant 

location(s)

U.S. production

Quantity

(1,000 units)

Share 

(percent)

Matrix Support Auburn, AL *** ***

Nashville Petitioner Nashville, TN *** ***

SSW1 Petitioner Clinton, IA 

Evansville, IN2

Fort Smith, AR

Ludington, MI

*** ***

*** *** *** *** ***

Total *** 100.0

 1 ***.

 2

 Facility closed in April 2007.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Table III-3

OVEN RACKS: U.S. producers, positions on the petition, plant locations, and shares of total

reported U.S. production, 2008

Firm 

Position on

petition

U.S. plant 

location(s)

U.S. production

Quantity

(1,000 units)

Share 

(percent)

Matrix Support Auburn, AL *** ***

Nashville Petitioner Nashville, TN *** ***

SSW1 Petitioner Madison, TN

Newport, TN

*** ***

*** *** *** *** ***

Total *** 100.0

 1 ***.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

As indicated in table III-1, no U.S. producer is affiliated with Chinese producers of the subject

merchandise or affiliated with U.S. importers of the subject merchandise.3 4

 In addition, as discussed in

greater detail in table III-12, two U.S. producers directly import the subject merchandise and one also 

purchases the subject merchandise from U.S. importers.
 5

 ***.

 6

 ***.

 7

 Nashville is the only responding U.S. producer to report an expansion of production capacity during the period

of investigation. ***. Petitioners contend that this increase was a direct result of Nashville’s attempt to satisfy

Electrolux’s production requirements, Petitioners posthearing brief, p. 16.

III-3

Table III-4 presents information on U.S. producers’ lists of other products produced on the same

equipment in 2008.5 6

Table III-4

KASAR: U.S. producers’ lists of other products produced on the same equipment, 2008

* * * * * * *

U.S. CAPACITY, PRODUCTION, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION

U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization data for KASAR are presented in

table III-5. These data show a 10.4 percent decline in the capacity to produce KASAR and a larger

decline of 39.5 percent in the actual production of KASAR from 2006 to 2008. Capacity utilization also

fell by 17.0 percentage points from 2006 to 2008.

Table III-5

KASAR: U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2006-08, January-March

2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Tables III-6 and III-7 present data on U.S. producers’ production, capacity, and capacity

utilization for refrigeration shelving and oven racks, respectively. Table III-8 presents data on shares of

U.S. production by each product type. During the period for which data were collected, capacity and

production for refrigeration shelving decreased while capacity for oven racks7

 increased as production

decreased. Production and capacity utilization decreased for both refrigeration shelving and oven racks

during the period examined.

Table III-6

REFRIGERATION SHELVING: U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2006-

08, January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table III-7

OVEN RACKS: U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2006-08, JanuaryMarch 2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *
III-4

Table III-8

KASAR: Shares of U.S. production by product type, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and JanuaryMarch 2009

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCERS’ SHIPMENTS

Table III-9 presents information on U.S. producers’ shipments of KASAR from 2006 to 2008,

January-March (interim) 2008, and January-March (interim) 2009. The quantity of U.S. producers’ U.S.

shipments fell from 2006 to 2008 and also fell in interim 2009 when compared with interim 2008. U.S.

producers’ exports of KASAR rose irregularly from 2006 to 2008 but declined in interim 2009 when

compared with interim 2008. All U.S. shipments are commercial shipments with no internal consumption

reported by responding producers.

Table III-9

KASAR: U.S. producers’ shipments, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table III-10 presents data on U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of refrigeration shelving. Both U.S.

shipments and export shipments of refrigeration shelving declined over the period examined.

Table III-10

REFRIGERATION SHELVING: U.S. producers’ shipments, by types, 2006-08, January-March 2008,

and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table III-11 presents data on U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of oven racks. U.S. producers

experienced an increase in export shipments of oven racks during the period examined, but U.S.

shipments of oven racks declined from 2006 to 2008. U.S. shipments and exports both declined in

interim 2009 when compared with interim 2008. 

Table III-11

OVEN RACKS: U.S. producers’ shipments, by types, 2006-09, January-March 2008, and JanuaryMarch 2009

* * * * * * *
 8

 ***.

 9

 U.S. producers noted that they do not maintain large inventories to meet purchasers’ orders. “Typical

expectation is that we're making just-in-time shipments. So there's no inventory that's held at our customer other

than maybe a day or two of product, and we're making daily shipments. And the expectation typically for us would

be that our finished goods inventory would be somewhere in the range of three to six weeks probably on average.” 

Hearing transcript, p. 113 (Rollins) and “in the case of higher volume products for example we wouldn't even have

that amount of inventory. We often ship to daily or even multiple times in a day releases,” Hearing transcript, p. 113

(Gritton).

III-5

U.S. PRODUCERS’ IMPORTS AND PURCHASES

For refrigeration shelving, ***8

 For oven racks, the ***, imported and/or purchased subject oven

racks from China. Table III-12 presents information on U.S. producers’ production, subject imports, and

subject purchases of oven racks.

Table III-12

OVEN RACKS: U.S. producers' U.S. production, U.S. subject imports, purchases of subject

imports, ratio of subject imports to production, and ratio of subject purchases to production, 2006-

08, January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCERS’ INVENTORIES

Tables III-13, III-14, and III-15 present end-of-period inventories and the ratio of these

inventories to U.S. producers’ production, U.S. shipments, and total shipments for KASAR, as well as for

refrigeration shelving and for oven racks over the period examined. Inventories for refrigeration shelving

increased slightly throughout the period examined, while inventories for oven racks decreased from 2006

to 2008.9

Table III-13

KASAR: U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and JanuaryMarch 2009

* * * * * * *

Table III-14

REFRIGERATION SHELVING: U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories, 2006-08, January-March

2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table III-15

OVEN RACKS: U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and

January-March 2009

* * * * * * *
III-6

U.S. PRODUCERS’ EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, AND PRODUCTIVITY

Tables III-16, III-17, and III-18 present data on U.S. producers’ employment-related indicators on

KASAR, refrigeration shelving, and oven racks. Employment of production related workers in the U.S.

KASAR industry declined by *** percent from 2006 to 2008 with all of the decline being accounted for

by producers and related workers producing refrigeration shelving. The largest employer in this industry

was ***, accounting for *** percent of all KASAR employees in 2008. 

Table III-16

KASAR: U.S. producers’ employment-related indicators, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and

January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table III-17

REFRIGERATION SHELVING: U.S. producers’ employment-related indicators, 2006-08, JanuaryMarch 2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table III-18

OVEN RACKS: U.S. producers’ employment-related indicators, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and

January-March 2009

* * * * * * *
 1

 The Commission sent questionnaires to those firms identified in the petition. Data provided by U.S. Customs

and Border Protection (“Customs”) are not usable in identifying additional importers of KASAR due to imports of

KASAR being classified in the HTS by “basket” categories.

 2

 Petitioners believe that the importer data supplied by importers questionnaire responses are understated ***,

Petitioners’ prehearing brief, footnote 24. Respondent Electrolux noted ***, Respondent Electrolux’s posthearing

brief, exh. 1, p. 5.

 3

 ***.

IV-1

PART IV: U.S. IMPORTS, APPARENT CONSUMPTION, AND

MARKET SHARES

U.S. IMPORTERS

Importer questionnaires were sent to twelve firms believed to be importers of subject KASAR, as

well as to all U.S. producers of KASAR.1

 U.S. import data presented in this report are based on

questionnaire responses of eight U.S. importers of the subject product, with four U.S. importers ***

accounting for 81.5 percent of reported subject imports from China in 2008.2

 Table IV-1 lists all

responding U.S. importers of KASAR from China,3

 their locations, and their shares of U.S. imports, in

2008.

Table IV-1

KASAR: U.S. importers, Location, Type of KASAR imported, U.S. imports from China, and share of U.S.

imports from China, 2008

Importer Location

Type of KASAR U.S. imports

Refrigeration

shelving

Oven racks Quantity

(1,000 units)

Share 

(percent)

Eagletech International, Inc.1 Fremont, CA U *** ***

Electrolux Home Products, Inc.2 Springfield, TN

St. Cloud, MN U U *** ***

GE Consumer & Industrial3 Louisville, KY

Decatur, AL

Bloomington, IN

La Fayette, GA U U *** ***

King Shan LLC4 Elk Grove Village, IL U *** ***

Nashville Wire Products Nashville, TN U *** ***

RFC Wire Ontario, CANADA U *** ***

SSW Holding Co., Inc. Elizabethtown, KY U *** ***

Whirlpool Corp.5 Benton Harbor, MI U U *** ***

Total *** ***

 1 ***. 

 2

 Owned by AG Electrolux, Stockholm, Sweden.

 3

 Owned by General Electric Company. GE owns *** percent of Mabe Mexico in Puebla, Mexico.

 4

 Affiliated with New King Shan Co. Ltd., Guangdong, China. King Shan is the importer of record, with Electrolux as the

consignee. ***.

 5

 Owns Maytag Corp.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 4

 ***. No other firms reported any nonsubject imports during the period of investigation.

 5

 ***. No other firms reported any nonsubject imports during the period of investigation.

IV-2

U.S. IMPORTS

Table IV-2 presents data on U.S. imports of KASAR during the period examined. Imports from a

nonsubject source were reported by one U.S. importer, ***.4

 Subject imports increased irregularly in

both quantity and value from 2006 to 2008. In interim 2009 subject imports increased when compared

with interim 2008. Unit values of subject imports increased irregularly from 2006 to 2008 and also rose

in interim 2009 when compared to the same period in 2008.

Table IV-2

KASAR: U.S. imports by source, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table IV-3 presents data on U.S. imports of refrigeration shelving during the period examined. 

For refrigeration shelving, subject imports declined from 2006 to 2007, but increased from 2007 to 2008

in quantity, value, and unit value. Subject imports also increased in quantity, value, and unit value in

interim 2009 when compared with interim 2008. Imports from a nonsubject source were reported by one

U.S. importer, ***.5

 

Table IV-3

REFRIGERATION SHELVING: U.S. imports by source, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and JanuaryMarch 2009

* * * * * * *

Table IV-4 presents data on U.S. imports of oven racks during the period examined. For oven

racks, subject imports declined between 2006 and 2007 in quantity, value, and unit value, but increased in

quantity, value, and unit value from 2007 to 2008. Quantity, value, and unit value for oven racks all

declined in interim 2009 when compared with interim 2008. No importer reported any imports of oven

racks from nonsubject sources.

Table IV-4

OVEN RACKS: U.S. imports by source, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

U.S. IMPORTERS’ U.S. SHIPMENTS OF IMPORTS

Table IV-5 presents data on U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of KASAR over the period

examined. Table IV-6 presents data on U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of refrigeration shelving and table

IV-7 presents data on U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of oven racks over the period examined.

Table IV-5

KASAR: U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments, by importer, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and JanuaryMarch 2009

* * * * * * *
 6

 Petitioners estimate that imports from China of merchandise under HTS statistical annotation 8418.99.8050

accounted for 29.5 percent of all merchandise imported into the United States from June 2007 to May 2008 under

that statistical annotation and that imports from China of merchandise under HTS statistical annotation

7321.90.50.00 and 8516.90.80.00 accounted for 39.6 percent of all merchandise imported into the United States from

June 2007 to May 2008 under those statistical annotations. Petition, pp. 16-17. 

IV-3

Table IV-6

REFRIGERATION SHELVING: U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments, by importer, 2006-08, JanuaryMarch 2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table IV-7

OVEN RACKS: U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments, by importer, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and

January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

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. The share (in percent) of the total

quantity of U.S. imports from China for the period of July 2007 to June 2008 using petitioners’

methodology for the computation of U.S. imports was well above the 3 percent negligibility threshold.6

APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION

Table IV-8 presents data on apparent U.S. consumption and U.S. market shares during the period

examined for all KASAR, table IV-9 presents data on U.S. apparent consumption and U.S. market shares

for refrigeration shelving, and table IV-10 presents data on U.S. apparent consumption and U.S. market

shares for oven racks. For KASAR, U.S. apparent consumption decreased by *** percent in quantity

from 2006 to 2008. In interim 2009, U.S. apparent consumption of KASAR also decreased by ***

percent in quantity when compared with interim 2008.

For refrigeration shelving, U.S. apparent consumption decreased by *** percent in quantity from

2006 to 2008, and decreased by *** percent in interim 2009 when compared with interim 2008. For oven

racks, U.S. apparent consumption decreased by *** percent in quantity from 2006 to 2008, and decreased

by *** percent in interim 2009 when compared with interim 2008. 

Table IV-8

KASAR: Apparent U.S. consumption and U.S. market shares, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and

January-March 2009

* * * * * * *
IV-4

Table IV-9

REFRIGERATION SHELVING: Apparent U.S. consumption and U.S. market shares, 2006-08,

January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table IV-10

OVEN RACKS: Apparent U.S. consumption and U.S. market shares, 2006-08, January-March 2008,

and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

RATIO OF IMPORTS TO U.S. PRODUCTION

Table IV-11 presents data on the ratio of imports to U.S. production of KASAR. Table IV-12

presents data on the ratio of imports to U.S. production of refrigeration shelving and table IV-13 presents

data on the ratio of imports to U.S. production of oven racks. 

Table IV-11

KASAR: U.S. production, imports, and ratios of imports to production, 2006-08, January-March 

2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table IV-12

REFRIGERATION SHELVING: U.S. production, imports, and ratios of imports to production, 2006-

08, January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table IV-13

OVEN RACKS: U.S. production, imports, and ratios of imports to production, 2006-08, JanuaryMarch 2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *
 1

 Petition, p. 14.

V-1

PART V: PRICING AND RELATED INFORMATION

FACTORS AFFECTING PRICES

Raw Material Costs

 Raw materials constitute an important part of the final cost of KASAR. Raw material costs

accounted for *** percent of the cost of goods sold in 2006, *** percent in 2007, and *** percent in 2008

and *** percent during January-March 2009. The principal raw material used for producing KASAR in

the United States is carbon or stainless steel wire.1 As shown in figure V-1, the cost of wire rod, used in

making wire increased irregularly from $495 per short ton in January 2005 to a peak of $956 per short ton

in August 2008, and then decreased to $525 per short ton in April 2009. 

Figure V-1

Wire rod prices: Imported wire rod, monthly, January 2005 to April 2009

So

urce: American Metal Market LLC.

U.S. Inland Transportation Costs

U.S. inland transportation costs account for a relatively small share of the delivered price of

KASAR . In some cases, questionnaire respondents could not provide estimates because transportation is

arranged by purchasers. Among producers, estimates ranged from less than 1.0 percent to less than 5.0

percent. One importer estimated that U.S. inland transportation accounted for 3.8 percent of the delivered

price. For U.S. producers, approximately 43 percent of their sales involved shipping distances of less

than 100 miles; 51 percent involved distances of 101 to 1,000 miles; and 6 percent were to distances of
 2

 Prices of KASAR are quoted on either an f.o.b. or delivered basis. All four responding U.S. producers reported

that they quote prices on an f.o.b. basis. One responding importer reported that it quotes prices on a delivered, duty

unpaid basis.

 3

 In its posthearing brief, Electrolux submitted copies of its contracts with *** for 2009. These contracts ***. 

Electrolux posthearing brief Exhibits 2 and 3.

 4

 Hearing transcript, p. 32 (Gritton).

 5

 Ibid, p. 88 (Rollins). Petitioner submitted *** Petitioners’ posthearing brief, exhibit 11, p. 6.

 6

 Ibid, p. 151 (Hyde).

V-2

over 1,000 miles. Among importers, one firm estimated that all of its sales occurred within 100 miles of

its facilities and another reported that all of its sales occurred more than 1,000 miles from its facility.

PRICING PRACTICES

Several methods of arriving at prices of KASAR were discussed in questionnaire responses.2

Two U.S. producers reported that prices are determined principally by transaction-by-transaction

negotiations. Another producer reported that prices are determined by a combination of transaction-bytransaction negotiations and contracts for multiple shipments. Another producer reported that it submits a

quotation letter that lists parts and prices for each part. Among importers, one firm reported that prices

are determined by transaction by transaction negotiations. Another importer reported that it quotes prices

on imports from China on a cost-plus margin basis. Its customer then counters and negotiates to arrive at

a final price. Another importer reported that prices are fixed from six months to one year depending on

the customer. 

KASAR are sold by both U.S. producers and importers on both a contract and a spot basis. 

Among five responding producers, one sells entirely on a short-term contract basis, one sells on both

aspot and short-term contract basis, and the other three sell entirely on a spot basis. The short term

contracts are for periods of one month to one year and prices are fixed during the contract period. The

producers reported that there are no meet-or-release provisions in their contracts.3

 Among the three

responding importers, one sells entirely on a spot basis and the other two sell on a contract basis. The

contracts for importers range from six months to one year. One importer reported that prices are fixed

during the contract period and the contracts contain meet-or-release provisions, while the other importer

reported that its prices are not fixed, and meet-or-release provisions do not apply. 

Discount policies among responding producers and importers are widely varied. Just one of the

four responding U.S. producers reported that it provides quantity discounts. Another producer reported

that it does not have a discount policy, but may negotiate a discount when arriving at a price. Among the

three responding importers of KASAR from China, one firm reported that it provides quantity discounts,

while the other two firms do not offer discounts. 

With regard to credit terms, petitioners argue that Chinese KASAR manufacturers offer longer

credit terms (i.e., as long as 90 days or more) and that these beneficial credit terms reflect a price benefit

to the OEM.4

 Petitioners also stated that there has been pressure to compete against what's being offered

in terms of credit terms and that their credit terms have been extended further out in order to compete.5

On the other hand, Electrolux stated that with respect to oven racks, the credit terms it has with domestic

suppliers and with off-shore suppliers are identical and/or very similar. In response to a question as to

whether or not differences in credit terms would be enough to affect its purchasing patterns, Electrolux

reported that, while they are a factor in the total cost, they are not something that would deter us from

sourcing domestic and/or off-shore, because they are similar.6

 ***.
 7

 Hearing transcript, pp. 32-33 (Gritton).

 8

 ***.

 9

 Electrolux posthearing brief, p. 7.

 10 Electrolux posthearing brief, exhibit 4. These data present the tooling costs as a percent of the price and does

so over the life span of the product.

 11 In their posthearing brief, the petitioners reported that tooling costs represent between *** percent and ***

percent of the total price of refrigeration shelving and oven racks based on the allocation of these costs over the

estimated annual usage of one year. Most often, tooling costs represent between *** percent of the U.S. producer

total cost (Petitioner’s posthearing brief, Exhibit 1, p. 7). However, the respondent has reported that tooling costs are

negligible over the expected life of the oven rack (Respondent’s post hearing brief, pp. 6 and 7. Tooling costs are not

included in the price of KASAR. 

V-3

Questionnaire respondents that purchased KASAR and/or imported KASAR from China that was

used internally were asked to compare credit terms for items purchased from China or imported directly

with credit terms for KASAR produced in the United States. Of the six responding purchasers, one

reported that the credit terms for U.S.-produced KASAR are better; four reported that the credit terms are

the same; and one reported that credit terms for the Chinese imports are better. 

Petitioners and Electrolux disagree on the importance of tooling costs in the KASAR industry. 

According to petitioners, there are significant tooling and design costs associated with the initial

production of new refrigerator shelving and oven rack designs. Petitioner has argued that the cost of

tooling has traditionally been incurred by the OEM; however, when Chinese suppliers entered the market,

they offered to undertake tooling and charged much lower prices for tooling than competing U.S.

producers could offer.7

 Petitioners further note that tooling costs have become an additional point of

negotiation in that not only do suppliers and purchasers negotiate the price of the KASAR, they also

negotiate the tooling costs.8

 On the other hand, Electrolux reports that “tooling costs are negligible over

the expected life of the oven rack.”9

 Electrolux provided data on tooling costs for various oven racks and

based on that data, tooling costs account for a “fraction of a cent per unit”.10 In addition, Electrolux also

noted that Chinese oven rack producers did not offer Electrolux discounted tooling costs.

Importers and purchasers were asked to compare tooling costs for KASAR imported from China

with KASAR produced in the United States.11 The question did not differentiate between refrigerator

shelving and oven racks. Among firms that responded to the question, one importer of the Chinese

product reported that the tooling costs for the U.S.-produced KASAR and Chinese-produced KASAR are

the same. Among purchasers, one firm reported that tooling costs vary greatly and that generalizations

cannot be made. However, three purchasers reported that tooling costs for imports from China are lower. 

One of these purchasers reported that the tooling costs were 75 percent lower in 2006, 2007, and 2008. 

Two other purchasers both reported that the Chinese tooling costs were 30 percent lower in 2008. 

PRICE DATA

The Commission requested that U.S. producers and importers of KASAR provide quarterly sales

and purchase data for the following products:

Product 1.–Open-end freezer shelf that is about 16.69 inches by 27.88 inches, consisting of 26

filler wires, a front and rear rail, an R-bar, a back and front bar, and a white powder coat finish. 

Part used in a Frigidaire/Electrolux manufactured upright freezer.

Product 2.– Freezer basket that is about 17.385 inches by 25.9997 inches by 6.9 inches,

consisting of 27 filler wires, a frame wire, and a white powder coat finish. Part used in a

Whirlpool manufactured bottom mount refrigerator/freezer.
V-4

 

Product 3.–Freezer shelf that is about 9.495 inches by 15.863 inches, consisting of 9 filler wires,

an R-bar, a frame wire, and a white powder coat finish. Part used in a Whirlpool manufactured

side by side refrigerator/freezer.

Product 4.–Freezer shelf that is about 9.7 inches by 12.7 inches, consisting of 19 filler wires, a

middle R-bar, a rear R-bar, two side arms and a roll form strip, and a white powder coat finish. 

Part used in a Whirlpool manufactured side by side refrigerator/freezer.

Product 5.–Nickel plated oven rack that is about 16.13 inches by 22.82 inches; consisting of 13 

filler wires, an R-bar, a frame wire, and has a nickel plated finish. Part used in a

Frigidaire/Electrolux manufactured freestanding range. 

Product 6.–Nickel plated oven rack that is about 24.2 inches by 15.9 inches; consisting of 1 

frame, 1 brace and 13 filler wires, and has a nickel plated finish. Part used in an Electrolux 

manufactured oven.

Product 7.–Heavy-duty nickel plated oven rack that is about 24.2 inches by 15.9 inches; 

consisting of 1 frame, 1 brace and 13 filler wires, and has a nickel plated finish. Part used in an

Electrolux manufactured oven.

Product 8.–Freezer basket that is about 17.385 inches by 20.589 inches by 6.9 inches, consisting

of 23 filler wires, a frame wire, and a white powder coat finish. Part used in a Whirlpool

manufactured bottom mount refrigerator/freezer. 

Product 9.–Open-end freezer shelf that is about 14.5 inches by 23.88 inches consisting of 22

filler wires, a front and a rear rail, an R-bar, a back and front bar, and a white powder coat finish. 

Part used in a Frigidaire/Electrolux manufactured upright freezer.

Product 10.–Open-end freezer shelf that is about 16.69 inches by 23.88 inches consisting of 22

filler wires, a front and a rear rail, an R-bar, a back and front bar, and a white powder coat finish. 

Part used in a Frigidaire/Electrolux manufactured upright freezer.

Product 11.–Nickel plated baking drawer rack that is about 22.5 inches by 15.5 inches; consisting

of 1 frame, 2 braces, 9 filler wires, 3 wire assemblies, and has a nickel plated finish. Part used in a

General Electric manufactured oven.

Product 12.–Nickel plated flat oven rack that is about 24.2 inches by 17.8 inches; consisting of 1

frame, 1 brace, and 13 filler wires, and has a nickel plated finish. Part used in an Electrolux

manufactured oven.

Three U.S. producers and four importers provided varying amounts of usable pricing data for

sales or direct imports of the requested products. Pricing data reported by these firms accounted for

approximately 18 percent of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of KASAR and 21 percent of U.S. shipments

of imports of KASAR from China during 2006-08 and January-March 2009.
 12 In their prehearing brief and in contacts with the staff, the petitioners argued that the prices reported by

Electrolux for purchases of imports of products *** were not accurate. The staff contacted the respondents, and

asked that they recheck the price data for these products. The revised data submitted by Electrolux for the four

products are included in this report.

 13 One purchaser, ***, reported small quantities of sales of products *** imported from China to its customers. 

However, these sales did not complete with sales by U.S. producers. Similarly, one importer, *** reported sales of

small quantities of product *** to distributors. Again, these sales did not compete with U.S. producers. 

V-5

Price Trends

Quarterly price data are presented for products 1-12 in tables V-1 through V-12 and figure V-2

for January-March 2006 through January-March 2009.12 The data include U.S. f.o.b. prices, delivered

purchase prices for U.S.-produced products and delivered import prices from China for all 12 products,

and delivered purchase prices of Chinese imports for most products. F.o.b. prices for sales of imports

from China were only available for product 6.13 While most product series are not complete, most data

indicate that prices of the U.S.-produced products and imports from China increased during the periods

where data were collected.

Table V-1

KASAR : Prices and quantities for product 1, January-March 2006-January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-2

KASAR : Prices and quantities for product 2, January-March 2006-January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-3

KASAR : Prices and quantities for product 3, January-March 2006-January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-4

KASAR : Prices and quantities for product 4, January-March 2006-January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-5

KASAR : Prices and quantities for product 5, January-March 2006-January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-6

KASAR : Prices and quantities for product 6 and margins of underselling/(overselling), JanuaryMarch 2006-January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-7

KASAR : Prices and quantities for product 7, January-March 2006-January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-8

KASAR : Prices and quantities for product 8, January-March 2006-January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-9
 14 For delivered purchase price comparisons for freezer products, the Chinese prices were ***. For delivered

purchase price comparisons for oven racks Chinese prices were ***. In comparing delivered purchase prices for

U.S.-produced KASAR and the delivered price of Chinese products imported directly, the Chinese products were

priced lower in 8 out of 10 instances. However, such comparisons are probably not as precise as those between

delivered U.S. and Chinese purchase prices. 

 15 In the case of products 1, 9, and 10, ***. 

 16 ** allegations concerned ***. 

V-6

KASAR : Prices and quantities for product 9, January-March 2006-January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-10

KASAR : Prices and quantities for product 10, January-March 2006-January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-11

KASAR : Prices and quantities for product 11, January-March 2006-January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-12

KASAR : Prices and quantities for product 12, January-March 2006-January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure V-2

KASAR: Prices of products 1-12, by quarters, January 2006-April 2009

* * * * * * *

Price Comparisons

In the two price comparisons between f.o.b. prices of U.S.-produced KASAR and imports from

China sold on an f.o.b. basis, the imported product was priced lower in both comparisons by margins of 

12.1 percent and 17.1 percent. Both of these comparisons concerned ***. In comparisons between

delivered purchase prices paid for U.S.-produced KASAR and imported KASAR from China, imports

were priced lower in 17 out of 37 comparisons.14 15

LOST SALES AND LOST REVENUES

The Commission requested that U.S. producers of KASAR report any instances of lost sales or

revenues they experienced due to competition from imports of KASAR from China since 2005. In their

petition, U.S. producers reported *** lost sales allegations totaling $*** and involving *** units of

KASAR and *** lost revenues allegations totaling $*** and involving *** units of KASAR. Staff

contacted the *** purchasers cited in the allegations and all of these purchasers responded. In the final

phase of the investigation *** additional lost sales allegations that involved *** units valued at $*** were

reported. The staff contacted the purchaser cited in the allegations and the purchaser responded. The

results are summarized in tables V-13 and V-14 and are discussed below.

*** disagreed with the *** lost sales allegations involving his firm.16 In each of these four

instances, *** provided revised competing import prices. In two instances ***, the import price reported
 17 ***. 

 18 ***.

 19 The discussion concerning these 10 allegations is revised from the discussion in the prehearing reported and is

based on the information presented in exhibit 5 of the respondents’s posthearing brief. *** of these allegations

concerned ***. 

 20 While Electrolux disagrees with this allegation, the Chinese purchase price of $***.

V-7

by Electrolux was higher than the rejected U.S. price alleged by **.17 In the other two instances ( the

allegations involving *** and *** units), the revised import price reported by *** was below the

domestic prices.18 *** indicated that sales were lost for a variety of reasons including better service,

payment terms, flexibility in negotiations, options for consignment, price, and diversification of supplier

base.

In addition to these allegations, *** also commented on 10 other lost sales allegations concerning

transactions on ***.19 *** disagreed with all five of the allegations of ***. For the transaction involving

an alleged Chinese import price lower than $*** per unit, *** reported that the Chinese price was $***

per unit. For the transaction involving an alleged Chinese price lower than $***, *** reported that the

Chinese price was $*** per unit. For the transaction involving an alleged Chinese price lower than $***

per unit, *** reported that the Chinese price was $*** per unit. For the transaction involving an alleged

Chinese price lower than $***, *** reported that the Chinese price was $*** per unit.20 

For the *** transaction involving an alleged U.S. price of $*** per unit, *** denied the

allegation, reporting that the U.S. price was $*** per unit. It also reported that the Chinese price was

$*** per unit. For the *** transaction involving an alleged Chinese price of $*** per unit, *** disagreed

with the allegation, reporting that ***.

For the *** transaction involving an alleged Chinese price of $*** per unit, ***disagreed with

the allegation, reporting that ***. For the other *** transaction involving an alleged Chinese price of

$*** per unit, *** disagreed with the allegation, ***. For the transaction of *** involving an alleged

Chinese price of $*** per unit, *** disagreed with the allegation, reporting that the Chinese price was

$***.

*** disagreed with all of the lost sales (***) and lost revenues (***) involving his firm. He

indicated that his company believes that there are numerous errors in the allegations, but did not identify

what parts of the allegations were in error nor provide correct information. He also indicated that there

are a host of factors which play a role in *** sourcing decisions, but did not identify any of these factors.

In the final phase of the investigations, *** agreed with all four of the lost

sales allegations. However, he said that the alleged prices for the imports from China were about ***

percent lower than the prices that they actually received.

Table V-8

KASAR: U.S. producers’ lost sales allegations

* * * * * * *

Table V-9

KASAR: U.S. producers’ lost revenue allegations

* * * * * * *

 1

 The producer with a fiscal year end other than December is SSW (June 30). However, the financial data of ***

were submitted on a calendar year basis. ***’s incomplete responses contain virtually no usable financial data.

VI-1

PART VI: FINANCIAL CONDITION OF U.S. PRODUCERS

BACKGROUND

The two petitioning producers, Nashville and SSW,1

 provided usable financial data for their

operations on KASAR. These firms accounted for the vast majority of the domestic industry’s

production/sales volume during 2008. No internal consumption or related transfers were reported for

either refrigerator shelving or oven racks.

The company records underlying the financial data of SSW were reviewed at Commission

offices. The office review adjustments were incorporated into this final report. The financial data of

SSW were revised for all periods to ***. The revisions resulted in ***. 

OPERATIONS ON KASAR

Results of operations of the U.S. producers on their KASAR operations (both refrigeration 

shelving and oven racks combined) are presented in table VI-1, which includes data on a per-unit basis as

well as operating income (loss) to net sales ratio. Results of the U.S. producers on their refrigeration

shelving operations are presented in table VI-2, and results of the U.S. producers on their oven racks

operations are separately shown in table VI-3. 

The financial results of the producers on their KASAR operations (table VI-1), lackluster to

begin with, deteriorated over the period data were gathered. Net sales quantities decreased by over *** 

percent from 2006 to 2008, and were *** percent lower in January-March (interim) 2009 compared to 

interim 2008. Net sales values were down by lesser degrees (*** percent between the full-year periods

and *** percent between the two interim periods), the result of increases in unit sales values, but were

still down by considerable amounts. There were operating and net losses every period. Such losses

unevenly lessened between the full-year periods and then increased relative to decreasing sales between

the interim periods. Unit sales values increased by *** per unit (*** percent) between the full-year

periods and were *** per unit (*** percent) higher in interim 2009 compared with interim 2008, but unit

total costs (COGS and SG&A expenses combined) increased by *** per unit between the full-year

periods and by *** per unit between the interim periods. Both producers reported *** every period.

The increases in the per-unit selling price and total cost are partially attributable to actual

increases in the per-unit selling price and total cost and also partially attributable to a change in the

product mix (see the discussion of *** that follows). Increases in per-unit COGS relative to per-unit

selling prices by both producers resulted in increased operating losses in interim 2009 ($***) compared to

interim 2008 ($***). Nonetheless, the operating margin (*** percent) was the worst during the entire

period of data collected and examined. 

The financial results of the producers on their operations producing refrigeration shelving (table

VI-2) were generally similar to the overall KASAR operations results, but were a bit worse. Net sales

quantities decreased by *** percent between 2006 and 2008, and were *** percent lower in interim 2009

compared with interim 2008. At the same time, net sales values were down by *** percent and *** 

percent, respectively. The absolute level of the operating loss was approximately the same from 2006 to

2008 (from $*** to $***), but increased as a ratio to net sales as the sales value plummeted; such loss

was larger on an absolute level in interim 2009 compared with interim 2008, and as a ratio to net sales

worsened to negative *** percent in interim 2009. Unit sales values increased every period, and were

*** per unit higher in interim 2009 than in 2006, but unit total costs were *** higher.
 2

 May 28, 2009 e-mail from ***.

 3

 June 8, 2009 e-mail from ***.

VI-2

On the other hand, the financial results of operations on oven racks (table VI-3) were somewhat 

better than the results of operations on both KASAR and refrigeration shelving. Net sales quantities were

down again (28.9 percent decrease between 2006 and 2008, and interim 2009 sales quantities were 28.8 

percent lower than interim 2008 data), but net sales values actually increased by 23.9 percent from 2006

to 2008 before being 19.9 percent lower in interim 2009 than in interim 2008. The absolute level of

operating losses decreased from period to period except for 2007, as did the ratio of operating loss to net

sales value. Operating loss decreased *** between 2006 and 2008 because the increase in per-unit selling

price (from *** per unit) was greater than the increase in per-unit total cost (from *** per unit). These

increases were largely due to a change in product mix by SSW (see discussion that follows). Unit sales

values increased every period, outpacing increases in unit total costs during the full-year periods and

keeping pace with them (per-unit sales prices and costs both increased by the same amount *** per unit)

between interim 2008 and interim 2009.

Table VI-1

KASAR: Results of U.S. producers on their combined refrigeration shelving and oven racks

operations, fiscal years 2006-08, January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table VI-2

REFRIGERATION SHELVING: Results of operations of U.S. producers, fiscal years 2006-08,

January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table VI-3

OVEN RACKS: Results of operations of U.S. producers, fiscal years 2006-08, January-March 2008,

and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

While per-unit average selling price and per-unit total cost of refrigeration shelving were

consistently higher compared to those of oven racks for all periods, total operating loss, per-unit operating

loss, and operating loss as a percentage of net sales value of refrigeration shelving were somewhat lower

than those of oven racks in 2006 and 2007, but much higher in the recent periods, 2008 and interim 2009.

Selected financial data, by firm, are presented in table VI-4 (both refrigeration shelving and oven

racks combined), table VI-5 (refrigeration shelving operations), and table VI-6 (oven racks operations). 

*** every period. Operating losses increased from 2006 to 2007 and then decreased from 2007 to 2008,

as *** experienced substantial operating losses in 2007. The producers reported somewhat ***

profitability in interim 2009 than in interim 2008. 

While the majority of Nashville’s sales were sales of *** (*** percent of its total net sales value

in 2008), SSW’s sales were more heavily focused on *** (*** percent in terms of sales value in 2008 and

*** percent in 2007, but only *** percent of interim 2009 sales value). Nashville’s refrigeration shelving

and oven rack per-unit sales price and total unit costs ***. In addition, Nashville’s ***.2

 Even though 

Nashville’s sales quantities of ***.3

 Comparing interim 2009 data with interim 2008 data, the company’s
 4

 June 15, 2009 e-mail from ***.

 5

 June 12, 2009 e-mail from ***.

 6

 June 2, 2009 e-mail from ***.

 7

 ***.

VI-3

unit sales and costs for refrigeration shelving and oven racks both increased, due partially to a change in

the product mix.4

 SSW’s per-unit selling price and per-unit total cost for refrigeration shelving were ***.

The company’s per-unit selling price and per-unit total cost for refrigeration shelving and oven

racks increased *** from interim 2008 to interim 2009. SSW explained that *** from 2007 to 2008

because of a change in product mix. SSW further explained that it sold a larger share of ***.5

 SSW’s

*** also increased, mainly due to *** in 2008 and interim 2009 compared to 2007 and interim 2008.6

Table VI-4

KASAR: Results of operations of U.S. producers, by firm, fiscal years 2006-08, January-March

2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table VI-5

REFRIGERATION SHELVING: Results of operations of U.S. producers, by firm, fiscal years 2006-

08, January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table VI-6

OVEN RACKS: Results of operations of U.S. producers, by firm, fiscal years 2006-08, JanuaryMarch 2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Selected aggregate per-unit cost data of the producers on their operations, i.e., COGS and SG&A

expenses, are presented in table VI-7. Raw material costs (largely wire rod and wire), and factory

overhead increased over the period and *** from 2007 to 2008 and again from interim 2008 to interim

2009 which resulted in much higher COGS and total cost (which included SG&A expenses). SG&A

expenses also increased *** from 2007 ($*** per unit) to 2008 ($*** per unit), the result of ***

production/sales quantities for both producers.7

Table VI-7

KASAR: Per-unit costs of U.S. producers, fiscal years 2006-08, January-March 2008, and JanuaryMarch 2009

* * * * * * *
 8

 ***.

 9

 ***.

VI-4

A variance analysis showing the effects of prices and volume on the producers’ sales of KASAR,

and of costs and volume on their total cost, is shown in table VI-8. The analysis is summarized at the

bottom of the table. The analysis indicates that the decrease in operating loss ($***) between 2006 and

2008 was attributable mainly to the positive effect of increased prices ($***) which was partially offset

by the negative effect of increased costs/expenses ($***). Even though sales volume declined ***, the

volume variance is positive because it is determined by multiplying the beginning period average unit

operating profit or (loss) by the change in volume from the first period to the last period. Since the

producers *** in 2006, and volume declined between 2006 and 2008, the volume variance is positive

because the producers made fewer sales of product on which they ***. The increase in *** in interim

2009 relative to interim 2008 was attributable to a negative cost/expense variance in conjunction with a

favorable price variance and a favorable volume variance. 

Table VI-8

KASAR: Variance analysis of operations of U.S. producers, fiscal years 2006-08, January-March

2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

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-9. *** accounted for a majority of the domestic industry’s

capital expenditures during the period for which data were collected.8

 *** reported R&D expenses.9

Capital expenditures decreased *** between 2006 and 2008 and again between the two interim periods. 

R&D expenses also decreased *** between 2006 to 2008 and between the two interim periods. Capital

expenditures, by firm, are presented in table VI-10. 

Table VI-9

KASAR: Capital expenditures and R&D expenses by U.S. producers, fiscal years 2006-08, JanuaryMarch 2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table VI-10

KASAR: Capital expenditures by U.S. producers, by firms, fiscal years 2006-08, January-March

2008, and January-March 2009 

* * * * * * *

ASSETS AND RETURN ON INVESTMENT

U.S. producers were requested to provide data on their assets used in the production and sales of

KASAR 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 income earned during the

period divided by the total assets utilized for the operations. Therefore, staff calculated ROI as operating

income divided by total assets used in the production and sales of KASAR. Data on the U.S. producers’

total assets and their ROI are presented in table VI-11. 
VI-5

The value of total assets decreased between 2006 and 2008 as net accounts receivable decreased

due to lower sales. The negative return on investment decreased from 2006 to 2008 since operating losses

decreased during 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.

Table VI-11

KASAR: Value of assets and return on investment of U.S. producers, fiscal years 2006-08

* * * * * * *

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 KASAR from China. Their

responses were as follows:

Actual Negative Effects

Nashville.–***

SSW.–*** 

Anticipated Negative Effects

Nashville.–***

SSW.–***

 1

 Section 771(7)(F)(ii) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii)) provides that “The Commission shall consider *** .

. . 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

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
 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

 Petition, exh. 3.

 4

 Two firms, ***, submitted foreign producer questionnaire responses in the preliminary phase investigations

only. *** were the two largest responding foreign producers based on data provided in the preliminary. Two firms

who did not participate in the preliminary, ***, submitted foreign producer questionnaire responses in the final phase

of these investigations. 

VII-2

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 subsidies was presented earlier in this report (Part I); 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. Also presented in this section of the

report is information obtained for consideration by the Commission on nonsubject countries and the

global market.

THE INDUSTRY IN CHINA

The petition in these investigations identified 12 foreign producers in China allegedly producing

KASAR.3

 The Commission sent foreign producer questionnaires to all firms that were identified and

received six usable foreign producer questionnaire responses.4

 Table VII-1 lists all responding Chinese

producers of KASAR, the type of KASAR production, production of KASAR, and shares of total

reported Chinese production of KASAR in 2008.
 5

 Responding exporters of KASAR in China accounted for an estimated *** percent of KASAR production in

China for 2008 and an estimated *** percent of 2008 Chinese exports of KASAR to the United States.

 6

 Other export markets reported by Chinese producers included: Australia, Brazil, Canada, European Union,

India, Italy, Japan, Korea Mexico, New Zealand, and Thailand. Foreign producer questionnaires, sections II-7, II-8,

and II-9.

VII-3

Table VII-1

KASAR: Chinese producers, type of KASAR production, production of KASAR, and shares of total

reported Chinese production, 2008

Firm 

Type of KASAR

production

Production

Refrigeration

shelving

Oven

racks

Quantity

(1,000 units)

Share 

(percent)

Guangdong Wireking U *** ***

Hangzhou Dunli Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd. (“Hangzhou

Dunli”) U *** ***

Jiangsu Weixi Group Co. (“Jiangsu Weixi”) U U *** ***

New King Shan (Zuhai) Co., Ltd. (“New King Shan”) U *** ***

Marmon Retail Services Asia (“Marmon”)1 U U *** ***

Yuyao Hanjun U *** ***

 Total *** ***

 1 Formerly known as Leader Metal Industry Co., Ltd.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

The exports to the United States of the responding Chinese firms accounted for more than 98

percent of the imports reported by U.S. importers of KASAR from China in 2008.5 6

 Chinese producers

increased capacity and production of KASAR during the period examined, but reported no future plans to

change capacity or production in China. Capacity for responding firms was based on a range of 40 to 80

hours per week, eight to 50 weeks per year. 

Table VII-2 presents information on the KASAR operations for the responding producers and

exporters in China. Exports of KASAR (in both refrigeration shelving and oven racks) to the United

States have grown markedly since 2006. Export sales were by far the largest component of shipments,

while home market sales as a share of total shipments declined from 2006 to 2007, but increased from

2007 to 2008, with an overall decrease from 2006 to 2008. As a share of total exports, the share of

exports destined for the United States increased dramatically from 2006 to 2008.

Table VII-3 presents information on responding Chinese producers’ and exporters’ production

and exports of refrigeration shelving. Exports of refrigeration shelving to the United States and other

export markets increased substantially from 2006 to 2008. Export sales were by far the largest

component of shipments, while home market sales as a share of total shipments declined from 2006 to

2008. As a share of total exports, the share of exports destined for the United States increased sharply

from 2006 to 2008 while the share of exports destined for other export markets decreased over the same

period. 
 7

 Petitioners argue that “China has increasing and excess capacity to produce oven racks” and that “the four 

responding subject producers have increased their capacity during the period of investigation” and that “the unused

capacity of these four producers alone in 2008 accounts for *** of U.S. consumption of oven racks,” Petitioners

posthearing brief, p. 14. Conversely, respondent Electrolux contends that “only few Chinese oven rack producers

qualify to manufacture and ship oven racks to U.S. purchasers, and of those few Chinese oven rack producers, only a

limited portion of their production capabilities have been qualified to manufacture oven racks for use in ovens

manufactured by U.S. purchasers in the United States. Electrolux has qualified and purchased oven racks from ***

Chinese producers during 2006-08. Respondent Electrolux’s posthearing brief, pp. 16-17.

VII-4

Table VII-4 presents information on responding Chinese producers’ and exporters’ production

and exports of oven racks.7

 Like refrigeration shelving, exports of oven racks to the United States

increased sharply from 2006 to 2008 as exports of oven racks to other export markets declined over the

same period. Export sales were over 90 percent of total shipments of oven racks, while home market

sales as a share of total shipments declined irregularly from 2006 to 2008. As a share of total exports, the

share of exports destined for the United States increased from 2006 to 2008 while the share of exports

destined for other export markets decreased from 2006 to 2008. 

Table VII-2

KASAR: Chinese producers’ operations, 2006-08, January-March 2008, January-March 2009, and

projected 2009-10

* * * * * * *

Table VII-3

REFRIGERATION SHELVING: Chinese producers’ operations, 2006-08, January-March 2008,

January-March 2009, and projected 2009-10

* * * * * * *

Table VII-4

OVEN RACKS: Chinese producers’ operations, 2006-08, January-March 2008, January-March

2009, and projected 2009-10

* * * * * * *

In addition to KASAR, four out of six Chinese producers reported producing nonsubject wire

products using the same equipment and machinery while the other two Chinese producers reported

devoting production exclusively to the subject products. Table VII-5 presents information on the types of

products produced using the same equipment and machinery by Chinese subject producers in 2008. 

Table VII-5

KASAR: Production of wire products using the same equipment and machinery in 2008, in percent

* * * * * * *
 8

 “Typically there are very large inventories of the imports built up and held here in the United States for

shipment to the OEM factories, so that supply chain is very long and there are huge inventories. Hearing transcript, 

p. 62 (Gritton).

VII-5

U.S. IMPORTERS’ INVENTORIES

Data collected in these investigations on U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of KASAR are

presented table VII-6.8

 Responding U.S. importers’ reported inventories from China increased from 2006

to 2008 and decreased from January to March 2009 when compared with the same period in 2008. One

U.S. importer, ***, reported imports and inventories from a nonsubject source of refrigeration shelving. 

Tables VII-7 and VII-8 present information on U.S. importers' end-of-period inventories of refrigeration

shelving and oven racks, respectively.

Table VII-6

KASAR: U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of imports, by source, 2006-08, January-March

2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table VII-7

REFRIGERATION SHELVING: U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of imports, by source,

2006-08, January-March 2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

Table VII-8

OVEN RACKS: U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of imports, by source, 2006-08, JanuaryMarch 2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *

ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY ORDERS 

IN THIRD-COUNTRY MARKETS

There are no known antidumping or countervailing duty orders on KASAR in third-country

markets.
 9

 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).

 10 Petitioners’ postconference brief, pp. 36-37 and hearing transcript, p. 6 (Rosenthal) and p. 103 (Cannon). 

Respondents offered no comment at the hearing or in their posthearing brief with respect to Bratsk issues.

VII-6

INFORMATION ON NONSUBJECT SOURCES

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.’”9

***. No other firm reported any nonsubject imports. Petitioners argued that there is no evidence

that nonsubject imports can replace the volume of subject imports at similar prices.10

Table VII-9 presents data on ***, the only source of reported nonsubject imports of KASAR

during the period of investigation, all of which were composed of ***. Its production accounted for an

estimated *** of total refrigeration shelving production in Mexico in 2008 and an estimated *** of total

exports to the United States for refrigeration shelving in 2008. *** reported no change in production

capacity since 2006 and capacity was based on operating *** hours per week, *** weeks per year. 

Tables VII-10 and VII-11 present data on ***’s operations of refrigeration shelving and oven racks,

respectively.

Table VII-9

KASAR: ***’s operations, 2006-08, January-March 2008, January-March 2009, and projected 2009-

10

* * * * * * *

Table VII-10

REFRIGERATION SHELVING: ***'s producers’ operations, 2006-08, January-March 2008, JanuaryMarch 2009, and projected 2009-10

* * * * * * *

Table VII-11

OVEN RACKS: ***’s operations, 2006-08, January-March 2008, January-March 2009, and projected

2009-10

* * * * * * *
A-1

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 21, 2009 / Notices 18249 

1For purposes of these investigations, the 

Department of Commerce has defined the subject 

merchandise as ‘‘shelving and racks for 

refrigerators, freezers, combined refrigeratorfreezers, other refrigerating or freezing equipment, 

cooking stoves, ranges, and ovens (‘‘certain kitchen 

appliance shelving and racks’’ or ‘‘the merchandise 

under investigation’’). Certain kitchen appliance 

shelving and racks are defined as shelving, baskets, 

racks (with or without extension slides, which are 

carbon or stainless steel hardware devices that are 

connected to shelving, baskets, or racks to enable 

sliding), side racks (which are welded wire support 

structures for oven racks that attach to the interior 

walls of an oven cavity that does not include 

support ribs as a design feature), and subframes 

(which are welded wire support structures that 

interface with formed support ribs inside an oven 

cavity to support oven rack assemblies utilizing 

extension slides) with the following dimensions: 

—Shelving and racks with dimensions ranging 

from 3 inches by 5 inches by 0.10 inch to 28 inches 

by 34 inches by 6 inches; or 

—Baskets with dimensions ranging from 2 inches 

by 4 inches by 3 inches to 28 inches by 34 inches 

by 16 inches; or 

—Side racks from 6 inches by 8 inches by 0.1 

inch to 16 inches by 30 inches by 4 inches; or 

—Subframes from 6 inches by 10 inches by 0.1 

inch to 28 inches by 34 inches by 6 inches. 

The merchandise under investigation is 

comprised of carbon or stainless steel wire ranging 

in thickness from 0.050 inch to 0.500 inch and may 

include sheet metal of either carbon or stainless 

steel ranging in thickness from 0.020 inch to 0.2 

inch. The merchandise under investigation may be 

coated or uncoated and may be formed and/or 

welded. Excluded from the scope of this 

investigation is shelving in which the support 

surface is glass. The merchandise subject to this 

investigation is currently classifiable in the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) statistical reporting numbers 

8418.99.8050, 8418.99.8060, 7321.90.5000, 

7321.90.6090, and 8516.90.8000. Although the 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience 

and customs purposes, the written description of 

the scope of this investigation is dispositive.’’ 

we published a Federal Register notice

(73 FR 50341) soliciting comments on 

the EDMAP component. The comment 

period for this notice closed on October 

27, 2008. We did not receive any 

comments in response to these notices. 

We again invite comments concerning 

this ICR on: (a) Whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the agency to perform its duties, 

including whether the information is 

useful; (b) the accuracy of the agency’s 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

collection of information; (c) ways to 

enhance the quality, usefulness, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 

burden on the respondents, including 

the use of automated collection 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology. 

Comments that you submit in 

response to this notice are a matter of 

public record. Before including your 

address, phone number, e-mail address 

or other personal identifying 

information in your comment, you 

should be aware that your entire 

comment including your personal 

identifying information, may be made 

publically available at anytime. While 

you can ask us in your comment to 

withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Dated: April 7, 2009. 

Randall Orndorff, 

Associate Program Coordinator, U.S. 

Geological Survey. 

[FR Doc. E9–9092 Filed 4–20–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4311–AM–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigations Nos. 701–TA–458 and 731– 

TA–1154 (Final)] 

Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving 

and Racks 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–458 (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–1154 (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 imports from China and lessthan-fair-value imports from China of 

certain kitchen appliance shelving and 

racks, provided for in subheadings 

8418.99.80, 7321.90.50, 7321.90.60, and 

8516.90.80 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: April 15, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joanna Lo (202–205–1888), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired 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 certain kitchen appliance 

shelving and racks (74 FR 683), and that 

imports from China 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) (74 FR 9591). The 

investigations were requested in a 

petition filed on July 31, 2008, by 

Nashville Wire Producers, Inc., 

Nashville, TN; SSW Holding Company 

Inc., Elizabethtown, KY; and the United 

Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, 

Manufacturing, Energy, AlliedIndustrial and Service Workers 

International Union, and the 

International Association of Machinists 

and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge 

6, Clinton, IA. 

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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

18250 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 21, 2009 / Notices 

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 July 1, 2009, 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 July 16, 2009, 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 July 10, 2009. 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 July 13, 2009, 

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 July 9, 2009. 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 July 23, 2009; 

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 

July 23, 2009. On August 6, 2009, 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 August 12, 2009, 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. 

Issued: April 15, 2009. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–9091 Filed 4–20–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Antitrust Division 

Notice Pursuant to the National 

Cooperative Research and Production 

Act of 1993—Distributed Sensor 

Technologies 

Notice is hereby given that, on March 

9, 2008, pursuant to section 6(a) of the 

National Cooperative Research and 

Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 

et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), Distributed Sensor 

Technologies has filed written 

notifications simultaneously with the 

Attorney General and the Federal Trade 

Commission disclosing (1) The 

identities of the parties to the venture 

and (2) the nature and objectives of the 

venture. The notifications were filed for 

the purpose of invoking the Act’s 

provisions limiting the recovery of 

antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages 

under specified circumstances. 

Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the 

identities of the parties to the venture 

are: Distributed Sensor Technologies, 

Inc., Santa Clara, CA; Redfern Integrated 

Optics, Inc., Santa Clara, CA; Optiphase, 

Inc., Van Nuys, CA; and University of 

Illinois, Chicago, Chicago, IL. The 

general area of Distributed Sensor 

Technologies’ planned activity is to 

develop and integrate technologies that 

can be used to measure civil structure 

condition monitoring. The method 

being developed is utilizing distributed 

fiber sensing technology. 

Patricia A. Brink, 

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust 

Division. 

[FR Doc. E9–8970 Filed 4–20–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–11–P 

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION 

ADMINISTRATION 

Sunshine Act; Notice of Matters To Be 

Deleted from the Agenda of a 

Previously Announced Agency 

Meeting 

TIME AND DATE: 10 a.m., Tuesday, April 

21, 2009. 

PLACE: Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 

7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 

22314–3428. 

STATUS: Open. 

MATTER TO BE DELETED: 1. Final Rule— 

Part 717, Subpart E, Sections 717.40– 

717.43, Appendix E of NCUA’s Rules 

and Regulations, Fair Credit Reporting. 

2. Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking—Part 717, Subpart E, 

Sections 717.40–717.43, Appendix E of 

NCUA’s Rules and Regulations, Fair 

Credit Reporting. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

36656 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 141 / Friday, July 24, 2009 / Notices 

• Dr. James Richardson, Texas A&M

University. 

• Chris Cogburn, National Sorghum 

Producers. 

• Robert Dismukes, Economic 

Research Service. 

• Greg Pompelli, Economic Research 

Service. 

Summary of Expert Reviews 

The Economic Research Service (ERS) 

reviews were similar and recommended 

no changes to current pricing 

methodology. ERS reviews revealed that 

grain sorghum and corn prices across all 

States and all years are highly 

correlated. 

Purdue University provided a 

methodology that proposed regression 

equations by State using National 

Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) 

cash price data at State level or if no 

State level NASS data were available, 

national level NASS price data. The 

model used data from 2004–2008. 

The National Sorghum Producers 

proposed a regression model based on 

published monthly NASS prices, 

exports and total use of grain sorghum 

to calculate a grain sorghum-corn ratio. 

The grain sorghum-corn ratio was then 

multiplied by the USDA corn price 

estimate for APH policies and for 

revenue policies the ratio was 

multiplied by the corn futures price. 

The model used data from 1990–2008. 

Texas A&M University proposed a 

regression model based on regional 

grain sorghum cash price data and corn 

futures price at the Chicago Board of 

Trade. Price elections were developed at 

the national level and the model uses 

data from 1979–2008. 

Proposed Methododogy Selected 

FCIC intends to implement the 

methodology submitted by Texas A&M 

University. This methodology met the 

requirements of the 2008 Farm Bill of 

being transparent and replicable. RMA 

determined that this methodology was 

the most accurate predictor of grain 

sorghum prices at harvest time. 

Details about this methodology as 

well as the other methodologies 

proposed by the expert reviewers can be 

found at http://www.rma.usda.gov. 

Signed in Washington, DC on July 20, 

2009. 

William J. Murphy, 

Manager, Federal Crop Insurance 

Corporation. 

[FR Doc. E9–17616 Filed 7–23–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Alpine County Resource Advisory 

Committee (RAC) 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Alpine County Resource 

Advisory Committee (RAC) will hold its 

third meeting. 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

September 2, 2009, and will begin at 6 

p.m. The meeting will be held in Alpine 

County at the Alpine Early Learning 

Center, 100 Foothill Road, Markleeville, 

CA 96120. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marnie Bonesteel, RAC Coordinator, 

USDA, Humboldt-Toiyabe National 

Forest, Carson Ranger District, 1536 S. 

Carson Street, Carson City, NV 89701 

(775) 884–8140; e-mail: 

mbonesteel@fs.fed.us. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda 

items to be covered include: (1) Vote on 

committee bylaws and elect a 

chairperson, (2) Vote on Title II projects, 

(3) Public Comment. The meeting is 

open to the public. Public input 

opportunity will be provided and 

individuals will have the opportunity to 

address the Committee at that time. 

Dated: July 16, 2009. 

Genny Wilson, 

Designated Federal Officer. 

[FR Doc. E9–17361 Filed 7–23–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE M 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Tuolumne County Resource Advisory 

Committee 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Tuolumne County 

Resource Advisory Committee will meet 

on August 10, 2009 at the City of Sonora 

Fire Department, in Sonora, California. 

The purpose of the meeting is to vote on 

projects, determine the need for an 

August 17th meeting, and schedule 

meetings and topics for 2010. 

DATES: The meeting will be held August 

10, 2009, from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the City of Sonora Fire Department 

located at 201 South Shepherd Street, in 

Sonora, California (CA 95370). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beth 

Martinez, Committee Coordinator, 

USDA, Stanislaus National Forest, MiWuk Ranger District, P.O. Box 100, MiWuk Village, CA 95346, (209) 586–3234; 

E-mail: bethmartinez@fs.fed.us. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Tuolumne County RAC plans to expand 

its geographic area to include Mariposa 

County and will be reviewing and 

recommending projects in both 

counties. Agenda items to be covered 

include: (1) Discussion and voting on 

projects; (2) determine need for an 

August 17 meeting; (3) schedule 

meetings/topics for 2010; (4) public 

comment on meeting proceedings. This 

meeting is open to the public. 

Dated: July 16, 2009. 

Timothy A. Dabney, 

Acting Deputy Forest Supervisor. 

[FR Doc. E9–17516 Filed 7–23–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–ED–M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–941] 

Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving 

and Racks 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. 

DATES: Effective Date: July 24, 2009. 

SUMMARY: On March 5, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) published its 

preliminary determination of sales at 

less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) in the 

antidumping duty investigation of 

certain kitchen appliance shelving and 

racks (‘‘kitchen racks’’) 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 from the Certain Kitchen 

Appliance Shelving and Racks from the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination, 74 FR 9591 (March 5, 

2009) (‘‘Preliminary Determination’’). 

The final dumping margins for this 

investigation are listed in the ‘‘Final 

Determination Margins’’ section below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia 

Hancock or Katie Marksberry, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 9, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 141 / Friday, July 24, 2009 / Notices 36657 

1 Nashville Wire Products Inc., SSW Holding 

Company, Inc., United Steel, Paper and Forestry, 

Rubber Manufacturing, Energy, Allied-Industrial 

and Service Workers International Union, and the 

International Association of Machinists & 

Aerospace Workers, District Lodge 6 (Clinton, IA) 

(hereafter referred to as the ‘‘Petitioners’’). 

2See Memorandum to the File through Catherine 

Bertrand, Program Manager, Office 9, from Julia 

Hancock, Senior Case Analyst: Verification of the 

Sales and Factors of New King Shan’s U.S. affiliate 

in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain 

Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks from the 

People’s Republic of China, (June 3, 2009) (‘‘New 

King Shan Affiliate Verification Report’’); 

Memorandum to the File through Catherine 

Bertrand, Program Manager, Office 9, from Julia 

Hancock, Senior Case Analyst, and Kathleen 

Marksberry, Case Analyst: Verification of the Sales 

and Factors of Guangdong Wireking Housewares & 

Hardware Co., Ltd. (‘‘Wireking’’) in the 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Kitchen 

Appliance Shelving and Racks from the People’s 

Republic of China, (June 8, 2009) (‘‘Wireking 

Verification Report’’); Memorandum to the File 

through Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, 

Office 9, from Julia Hancock, Senior Case Analyst, 

and Kathleen Marksberry, Case Analyst: 

Verification of the Sales and Factors of Zhu Hai) 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘New King Shan’’) in the Antidumping 

Duty Investigation of Certain Kitchen Appliance 

Shelving and Racks from the People’s Republic of 

China, (June 8, 2009) (‘‘New King Shan Zhuhai 

Verification Report’’); Memorandum to the File 

through Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, 

Office 9, from Julia Hancock, Senior Case Analyst, 

and Kathleen Marksberry, Case Analyst: 

Verification of the Responses of Hangzhou Dunli 

Import and Export Co., Ltd. (‘‘Hangzhou Dunli’’) in 

the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain 

Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks from the 

People’s Republic of China, (June 8, 2009); and 

Memorandum to the File through Catherine 

Bertrand, Program Manager, Office 9, from Julia 

Hancock, Senior Case Analyst, and Kathleen 

Marksberry, Case Analyst: Verification of the 

Responses of New King Shan (Zhu Hai) Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘New King Shan’’) in the Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving 

and Racks from the People’s Republic of China, 

(June 9, 2009) (‘‘New King Shan Taiwan 

Verification Report’’). 

telephone: (202) 482–1394 or (202) 482– 

7906, respectively. 

Final Determination 

We determine that kitchen racks from 

the PRC are being, or are likely to be, 

sold in the United States at LTFV as 

provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (‘‘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 March 5, 2009. See 

Preliminary Determination. The period 

of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is January 1, 

2008 to June 30, 2008. 

On March 10, 2009, Petitioners 1

submitted a letter requesting that the 

Department issue an amended 

Preliminary Determination for New 

King Shan (Zhuhai) Co., Ltd. (‘‘New 

King Shan’’) based on information 

obtained in New King Shan’s 

supplemental Section C Questionnaire 

response filed on February 27, 2009. On 

March 27, 2009, the Department issued 

a memorandum stating that the 

Department would not issue an 

amended preliminary determination but 

that all information submitted 

subsequent to the Preliminary 

Determination will be considered for 

final determination. 

Between April 13, 2009 and May 27, 

2009, the Department conducted 

verifications of Guangdong Wireking 

Housewares & Hardware Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Wireking’’), New King Shan (Zhu Hai) 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘New King Shan’’), and a 

separate rate respondent, Hangzhou 

Dunli Import & Export Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Hangzhou Dunli’’). See the 

‘‘Verification’’ section below for 

additional information. 

Upon the June 9, 2009, release of the 

fifth of the five verification reports,2 we 

invited parties to comment on the 

Preliminary Determination. On June 16, 

2009, Petitioners, New King Shan, 

Wireking, and the Government of China 

submitted case briefs. On June 24, 2009, 

Petitioners, Wireking, and New King 

Shan submitted rebuttal briefs. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties to this 

investigation are addressed in the 

‘‘Investigation of Certain Kitchen 

Appliance Shelving and Racks from the 

People’s Republic of China: Issues and 

Decision Memorandum,’’ (‘‘Issues and 

Decision Memorandum’’), dated 

concurrently with this notice and which 

is hereby adopted by this notice. 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 and is on file in the Central 

Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’), Room 1117, and 

is accessible on the World Wide Web at 

http://trade.gov/ia/index.asp. The paper 

copy and electronic version of the 

memorandum are identical in content. 

Changes Since the Preliminary 

Determination 

Based on our analysis of information 

on the record of this investigation, we 

have made changes to the margin 

calculations for the final determination 

for New King Shan and have 

determined that the application of total 

adverse facts available (‘‘AFA’’) is 

warranted in the case of Wireking. We 

have revalued certain surrogate values 

used in the Preliminary Determination. 

The values that were modified for this 

final determination are those for nickel 

anode and the surrogate financial ratios. 

For further details see Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comments 9 

and 10, and Memorandum to the File 

from Kathleen Marksberry, Case 

Analyst, through Catherine Bertrand, 

Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 9; Subject: Certain Kitchen 

Appliance Shelving and Racks from the 

People’s Republic of China: Surrogate 

Values for the Final Determination, date 

July 20, 2009 (‘‘Final Surrogate Value 

Memo’’). 

In addition, we have made some 

company-specific changes since the 

Preliminary Determination. Specifically, 

we have incorporated, where applicable, 

post-preliminary clarifications based on 

verification and corrected certain 

clerical errors for New King Shan. We 

have also applied partial AFA, where 

applicable, for various findings from the 

verification of New King Shan. For 

further details on these companyspecific changes, see Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comments 

17B, 17C, 17D, 17G, 17H, 17I, 17K, 17L, 

and 17M. See Memorandum to the File 

from Kathleen Marksberry, Case 

Analyst: Program Analysis for the Final 

Determination of Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Certain Kitchen 

Appliance Shelving and Racks from the 

People’s Republic of China: New King 

Shan (Zhuhai) Co., Ltd. (July 20, 2009) 

(‘‘New King Shan Final Analysis 

Memo’’). 

Scope of Investigation 

The scope of this investigation 

consists of shelving and racks for 

refrigerators, freezers, combined 

refrigerator-freezers, other refrigerating 

or freezing equipment, cooking stoves, 

ranges, and ovens (‘‘certain kitchen 

appliance shelving and racks’’ or ‘‘the 

merchandise under investigation’’). 

Certain kitchen appliance shelving and 

racks are defined as shelving, baskets, 

racks (with or without extension slides, 

which are carbon or stainless steel 

hardware devices that are connected to 

shelving, baskets, or racks to enable 

sliding), side racks (which are welded 

wire support structures for oven racks 

that attach to the interior walls of an 

oven cavity that does not include 

support ribs as a design feature), and 

subframes (which are welded wire 

support structures that interface with 

formed support ribs inside an oven 

cavity to support oven rack assemblies 

utilizing extension slides) with the 

following dimensions: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
36658 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 141 / Friday, July 24, 2009 / Notices 

3 The identity of this company is business 

proprietary information; for further discussion of 

this company, see Memorandum to Catherine 

Bertrand, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 9, from Julia Hancock, Senior Case Analyst, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: Preliminary 

Determination in the Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving 

and Racks from the People’s Republic of China: 

Affiliation Memorandum of Wireking, (February 26, 

2009) (‘‘Wireking Affiliation Memo’’). 

4 The identities of these companies are business 

proprietary; for further discussion of these 

companies, see Memorandum to the File from Katie 

Marksberry, Case Analyst: Preliminary 

Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation 

of Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks 

from the People’s Republic of China: Affiliation 

Memorandum of New King Shan (Zhuhai) Co., Ltd., 

(February 26, 2009) (‘‘New King Shan Affiliation 

Memo’’). 

—Shelving and racks with dimensions 

ranging from 3 inches by 5 inches by 

0.10 inch to 28 inches by 34 inches 

by 6 inches; or 

—Baskets with dimensions ranging from 

2 inches by 4 inches by 3 inches to 

28 inches by 34 inches by 16 inches; 

or 

—Side racks from 6 inches by 8 inches 

by 0.1 inch to 16 inches by 30 inches 

by 4 inches; or 

—Subframes from 6 inches by 10 inches 

by 0.1 inch to 28 inches by 34 inches 

by 6 inches. 

The merchandise under investigation 

is comprised of carbon or stainless steel 

wire ranging in thickness from 0.050 

inch to 0.500 inch and may include 

sheet metal of either carbon or stainless 

steel ranging in thickness from 0.020 

inch to 0.2 inch. The merchandise 

under investigation may be coated or 

uncoated and may be formed and/or 

welded. Excluded from the scope of this 

investigation is shelving in which the 

support surface is glass. 

The merchandise subject to this 

investigation is currently classifiable in 

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) statistical 

reporting numbers 8418.99.8050, 

8418.99.8060, 7321.90.5000, 

7321.90.6090, and 8516.90.8000. 

Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

scope of this investigation is dispositive. 

Affiliation 

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department determined that, based on 

the evidence on the record in this 

investigation and based on evidence 

presented in Wireking’s questionnaire 

responses, we preliminarily found that 

Wireking is affiliated with Company G,3

which was involved in Wireking’s sales 

process, and other companies, pursuant 

to sections 771(33)(E), (F) and (G) of the 

Act, based on ownership and common 

control. In addition to being affiliated, 

there is a significant potential for price 

manipulation based on the level of 

common ownership and control, shared 

management, shared offices, and an 

intertwining of business operations. See 

19 CFR 351.401(f)(1) and (2). 

Accordingly, we also found that 

Wireking and Company G should be 

considered as a single entity for 

purposes of this investigation. 

No other information has been placed 

on the record since the Preliminary 

Determination to contradict the above 

information upon which we based our 

finding that these companies constitute 

a single entity. Therefore, for the final 

determination, we continue to find that 

Wireking and Company G are a single 

entity pursuant to sections 771(33)(E), 

(F), and (G) of the Act, based on 

ownership and common control. We 

also continue to determine that they 

should be considered as a single entity 

for purposes of this investigation. See 19 

CFR 351.401(f). 

Additionally, in the Preliminary 

Determination, we found based on the 

evidence on the record in this 

investigation that New King Shan is 

affiliated with Company A, Company B, 

Company C, and Company D,4 pursuant 

to sections 771(33)(A), (E), (F), and (G) 

of the Act, based on ownership and 

common control. No other information 

has been placed on the record since the 

Preliminary Determination to contradict 

the above information upon which we 

based our finding that these companies 

constitute a single entity. Therefore, for 

the final determination, we continue to 

find that New King Shan is affiliated 

with Company A, Company B, Company 

C, and Company D, pursuant to sections 

771(33)(A), (E), (F), and (G) of the Act, 

based on ownership and common 

control. 

Use of Facts Available 

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides 

that if an interested party: (A) 

Withholds information that has been 

requested by the Department; (B) fails to 

provide such information in a timely 

manner or in the form or manner 

requested, subject to subsections 

782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act; (C) 

significantly impedes a determination 

under the antidumping statute; or (D) 

provides such information but the 

information cannot be verified, the 

Department shall, subject to subsection 

782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise 

available in reaching the applicable 

determination. 

Section 782(c)(1) of the Act provides 

that if an interested party ‘‘promptly 

after receiving a request from {the 

Department} for information, notifies 

{the Department} that such party is 

unable to submit the information in the 

requested form and manner, together 

with a full explanation and suggested 

alternative form in which such party is 

able to submit the information,’’ the 

Department may modify the 

requirements to avoid imposing an 

unreasonable burden on that party. 

Section 782(d) of the Act provides 

that, if the Department determines that 

a response to a request for information 

does not comply with the request, the 

Department will inform the person 

submitting the response of the nature of 

the deficiency and shall, to the extent 

practicable, provide that person the 

opportunity to remedy or explain the 

deficiency. If that person submits 

further information that continues to be 

unsatisfactory, or this information is not 

submitted within the applicable time 

limits, the Department may, subject to 

section 782(e), disregard all or part of 

the original and subsequent responses, 

as appropriate. 

Section 782(e) of the Act states that 

the Department shall not decline to 

consider information deemed 

‘‘deficient’’ under section 782(d) if: (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. 

Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act 

states that if the administering authority 

finds that an interested party has not 

acted to the best of its ability to comply 

with a request for information, the 

administering authority may, in 

reaching its determination, use an 

inference that is adverse to that party. 

The adverse inference may be based 

upon: (1) The petition, (2) a final 

determination in the investigation under 

this title, (3) any previous review under 

section 751 or determination under 

section 753, or (4) any other information 

placed on the record. 

Wireking 

Pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), 

and (C) of the Act, we are applying facts 

otherwise available to Wireking because 

the Department finds that the 

information necessary to calculate an 

accurate and otherwise reliable margin 

is not available on the record with 

respect to Wireking. Additionally, the 

Department finds that Wireking 

withheld information, failed to provide 

the information requested by the 

Department in a timely manner and in 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 141 / Friday, July 24, 2009 / Notices 36659 

5 Mitsubishi Heavy Indus. v. United States, 23 CIT 

326, 328 (1999) (‘‘Mitsubishi’’); Notice of Final 

Results of the Eleventh Administrative Review of 

the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain CorrosionResistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the 

Republic of Korea, 71 FR 7513 (February 13, 2006) 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 11. 

the form required, and significantly 

impeded the Department’s ability to 

calculate an accurate margin for 

Wireking. Specifically, in its 

questionnaire responses, Wireking 

reported that because it produces both 

subject-kitchen racks and non-subject 

products and that it does not maintain 

production records that trace 

consumption to a specific product, it 

could not report factors of production 

(‘‘FOPs’’) specific to subject-kitchen 

racks. Because Wireking had reported 

its FOPs broadly over all products, we 

issued numerous questionnaires to 

Wireking that asked detailed questions 

of the actual and standard production 

records maintained by the company, all 

efforts taken by Wireking to report more 

kitchen rack-specific FOPs, and 

provided sample allocation methods for 

how they might allocate their FOPs on 

a more specific basis. See the 

Department’s January 16, 2009, 

questionnaire; the Department’s January 

14, 2009, letter; and the Department’s 

March 16, 2009, questionnaire. Despite 

our efforts to obtain kitchen rackspecific FOPs, Wireking refused to 

comply with our requests and 

maintained that the most accurate 

method for reporting its FOPs was using 

a broad allocation over all products 

(both subject merchandise and nonsubject merchandise). However, at 

verification, we found for the first time 

that Wireking maintained a standard 

bill-of-materials and actual production 

notes, which are generated for each 

production run of a product. See 

Wireking’s Verification Report, at 18. 

These actual production notes identify 

the quantity of each product run and the 

quantity of steel wire, the intermediate 

product, records of which Wireking 

repeatedly stated that they do not 

maintain. See Wireking’s March 30, 

2009, submission at 25. The Department 

finds that if we had been notified of the 

existence of these records, we would 

have been able to obtain FOPs from 

Wireking on a more specific basis. 

However, because of Wireking’s refusal 

to answer the entirety of our questions 

and refusal to attempt to report FOPs on 

a kitchen rack-specific basis, we only 

have FOPs that are broadly allocated 

over both kitchen racks and non-kitchen 

rack products and do not accurately 

capture the cost of production of only 

subject-kitchen racks. Accordingly, the 

Department finds that the application of 

facts available is necessary in this case 

because Wireking’s broadly reported 

FOPs, which includes the most 

significant input, steel wire rod, and 

accounts for the majority of the normal 

value, are inaccurate and unreliable. 

Therefore, pursuant to sections 776(a)(1) 

and (2)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act, the 

Department is resorting to facts 

otherwise available. 

In addition, in accordance with 

section 776(b) of the Act, the 

Department is applying an adverse 

inference in selecting the facts available 

rate, as it has determined that Wireking 

did not act to the best of its ability to 

cooperate with the Department in this 

investigation because it did not disclose 

until verification that it had the 

production records that would have 

allowed the Department to obtain 

kitchen rack-specific FOPs. As AFA, we 

are applying the PRC-wide rate of 95.99 

percent. For further discussion, please 

see Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 16A and Memorandum to the 

File, through James C. Doyle, Director, 

Office 9, AD/CVD Operations, and 

Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, 

Office 9, AD/CVD Operations, from Julia 

Hancock, Senior Case Analyst, Office 9, 

AD/CVD Operations, Subject: 

Application of Adverse Facts Available 

for Guangdong Wireking Housewares & 

Hardware Co., Ltd. in the Final 

Determination of the Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Certain Kitchen 

Appliance Shelving and Racks from the 

People’s Republic of China, (July 20, 

2009) (‘‘Wireking AFA Memo’’). 

New King Shan 

For the final determination, in 

accordance with section 776(a)(1) of the 

Act, we have determined that the use of 

facts available (‘‘FA’’) is warranted for 

New King Shan’s indirect selling 

expenses for its affiliates. See Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 17I; 

New King Shan’s Taiwan Verification 

Report at VE 6; New King Shan’s 

Chicago Verification Report. We note 

that New King Shan has submitted 

indirect selling expenses for certain of 

its affiliates to the Department. 

However, because the submitted 

information from New King Shan 

regarding the total indirect selling 

expenses for New King Shan’s U.S. 

affiliate and the other affiliated 

companies includes indirect selling 

expenses for activity not associated with 

the U.S. sales, the Department finds that 

it does not have the necessary 

information to quantify the portion of 

the indirect selling expense associated 

with U.S. sales, pursuant to section 

776(a)(1) of the Act. Therefore, as FA, 

pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act, 

the Department will calculate the total 

indirect selling expenses incurred by 

New King Shan’s affiliated companies 

by multiplying total indirect selling 

expenses for each company by the ratio 

of total sales revenue of U.S. sales of 

subject-kitchen racks divided by total 

sales revenue of each company, and 

then multiplying the ratio of total 

indirect selling expenses for subjectkitchen racks divided by total sales 

revenue to the gross unit price of each 

sale.5 See New King Shan Final Analysis 

Memo. Additionally, in accordance with 

sections 773(c)(3)(B) of the Act, section 

776(a)(2)(A), (B) and (D) of the Act, and 

section 776(b) of the Act, we have 

determined that the use of partial AFA 

is warranted for New King Shan’s 

unverified U.S. duty calculation. See 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 17K; New King Shan’s 

Taiwan Verification Report at 23. As 

partial AFA, we are using the highest 

reported U.S. duty expense reported in 

New King Shan’s U.S. sales database 

and applying this as the AFA plug for 

U.S. duties to all sales. See New King 

Shan Final Analysis Memo. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, we verified the information 

submitted by mandatory respondents 

Wireking and New King Shan, and 

separate rate respondent Hangzhou 

Dunli for use in our final determination. 

See New King Shan Affiliate 

Verification Report, Wireking 

Verification Report, New King Shan 

Zhuhai Verification Report, Hangzhou 

Dunli Verification Report, and New 

King Shan Taiwan Verification Report. 

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. 

Surrogate Country 

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

stated that we 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 similar level of economic development 

pursuant to 773(c)(4) of the Act; and (3) 

we have reliable data from India that we 

can use to value the factors of 

production. See Preliminary 

Determination. For the final 

determination, we received no 

comments and made no changes to our 

findings with respect to the selection of 

a surrogate country. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
36660 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 141 / Friday, July 24, 2009 / Notices 

6Wireking Verification Report. 

7 See Memorandum to Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration from John M. Andersen, Acting 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Operations: Certain Kitchen 

Appliance Shelving and Racks from the People’s 

Republic of China: Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Final Determination (July 20, 

2009) (‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’). 8See Petition, at Volume II, Exhibit 14. 

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 

Section 351.107(d) of the Department’s 

regulations. 

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

found that New King Shan, Wireking, 

and the separate rate applicants 

(Marmon Retail Services Asia, Jiangsu 

Weixi Group Co., and Hangzhou Dunli, 

collectively, the ‘‘Separate Rate 

Applicants’’) demonstrated their 

eligibility for, and were hence assigned, 

separate-rate status. No party has 

commented on the eligibility of these 

companies for separate rate status. For 

the final determination, we continue to 

find that the evidence placed on the 

record of this investigation by these 

companies demonstrates both a de jure 

and de facto absence of government 

control with respect to their exports of 

the merchandise under investigation. 

Thus, we continue to find that they are 

eligible for separate rate status. 

Normally, the separate rate is 

determined based on the estimated 

weighted-average dumping margins 

established for exporters and producers 

individually investigated, excluding de 

minimis margins or margins based 

entirely on AFA. See section 

735(c)(5)(A) of the Act. 

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department assigned to the Separate 

Rate Applicants’ exporter/producer 

combinations that qualified for a 

separate rate a weighted-average margin 

based on the experience of the 

mandatory respondents, excluding any 

de minimis or zero rates or rates based 

on total AFA. See Preliminary 

Determination. For the final 

determination, we are granting Wireking 

a separate rate based on information that 

was verified.6 The Department is basing 

this rate for Wireking on total AFA.7

Therefore, the Department will assign 

New King Shan’s calculated rate as the 

separate rate for the Separate Rate 

Applicants’ exporter/producer 

combinations. See section 735(c)(5)(A) 

of the Act. 

The PRC-Wide Rate 

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department found that Asber Enterprise 

Co., Ltd. (China) and the PRC-wide 

entity did not respond to our requests 

for information. In the Preliminary 

Determination we treated PRC 

exporters/producers that did not 

respond to the Department’s request for 

information as part of the PRC-wide 

entity because they did not demonstrate 

that they operate free of government 

control. No additional information has 

been placed on the record with respect 

to these entities after the Preliminary 

Determination. The PRC-wide entity has 

not provided the Department with the 

requested information; therefore, 

pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the 

Act, the Department continues to find 

that the use of facts available is 

appropriate to determine the PRC-wide 

rate. Section 776(b) of the Act provides 

that, in selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available, the Department 

may employ an adverse inference if an 

interested party fails to cooperate by not 

acting to the best of its ability to comply 

with requests for information. See 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Certain ColdRolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel 

Products from the Russian Federation, 

65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000). 

See also, Statement of Administrative 

Action accompanying the URAA, H.R. 

Rep. No. 103–316, vol. 1, at 870 (1994) 

(‘‘SAA’’). We find that, because the PRCwide entity did not respond to our 

request for information, it has failed to 

cooperate to the best of its ability. 

Therefore, the Department finds that, in 

selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available, an adverse 

inference is appropriate for the PRCwide entity. 

Because we begin with the 

presumption that all companies within 

a NME country are subject to 

government control and because only 

the companies listed under the ‘‘Final 

Determination Margins’’ section below 

have overcome that presumption, we are 

applying a single antidumping rate—the 

PRC-wide rate—to all other exporters of 

subject merchandise from the PRC. Such 

companies did not demonstrate 

entitlement to a separate rate. See, e.g., 

Synthetic Indigo from the People’s 

Republic of China: Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, 65 FR 25706 (May 3, 2000). 

The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries 

of subject merchandise except for 

entries from New King Shan, Wireking, 

Marmon Retail Services Asia, Hangzhou 

Dunli, and Jiangsu Weixi Group Co., 

which are listed in the ‘‘Final 

Determination Margins’’ section below. 

Corroboration 

At the Preliminary Determination, in 

accordance with section 776(c) of the 

Act, we based the adverse facts available 

(‘‘AFA’’) rate on margins from the 

petition,8 and corroborated it using 

information submitted by certain 

respondents. Petitioners’ methodology 

for calculating the export price (‘‘EP’’) 

and NV in the petition is discussed in 

the initiation notice. See Certain 

Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigation, 73 FR 50596, 50598–99 

(August 27, 2008) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). 

In the final determination, only one 

mandatory respondent, New King Shan 

Co, received an individually calculated 

weighted-average margin. Thus, the 

Department had limited information 

from which to corroborate the selected 

AFA rate. To assess the probative value 

of the total AFA rate selected for the 

PRC-wide entity and the total AFA rate 

chosen for the other mandatory 

respondent, Wireking, we compared the 

transaction-specific rates calculated for 

New King Shan to the margins 

contained in the petition. The 

Department concludes that by using 

New King Shan’s highest transaction 

specific margin as a limited reference 

point, the highest petition margin that 

can be corroborated is 95.99 percent. 

Furthermore, we find that the rate of 

95.99 percent is corroborated within the 

meaning of section 776(c) of the Act. 

See Memorandum to the File: 

Corroboration of the PRC-Wide Facts 

Available Rate and Wireking’s AFA Rate 

for the Final Determination in the 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and 

Racks from the People’s Republic of 

China, (July 20, 2009) (‘‘Final 

Corroboration Memo’’). Thus, we 

determine that 95.99 percent is the 

single AFA antidumping rate for the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 141 / Friday, July 24, 2009 / Notices 36661 

PRC-wide entity, and that 95.99 percent 

is also the single AFA antidumping duty 

rate for Wireking for this final 

determination. 

Combination Rate 

In its Initiation Notice, the 

Department stated that it would 

calculate combination rates for certain 

respondents that are eligible for a 

separate rate in this investigation. See 

Initiation Notice. Therefore, for the final 

determination, we have assigned a 

combination rate to respondents that are 

eligible for a separate rate. 

Final Determination Margins 

We determine that the following 

percentage weighted-average margins 

exist for the POI: 

Exporter Producer WA 

margin 

Guangdong Wireking Housewares & Hardware Co., Ltd. (a/k/a 

Foshan Shunde Wireking Housewares & Hardware Co., Ltd.).

Guangdong Wireking Housewares & Hardware Co., Ltd ............... 95.99 

New King Shan (Zhu Hai) Co., Ltd ................................................. New King Shan (Zhu Hai) Co., Ltd ................................................. 44.77 

Marmon Retail Services Asia .......................................................... Leader Metal Industry Co., Ltd. (a/k/a Marmon Retail Services 

Asia).

44.77 

Hangzhou Dunli Import & Export Co., Ltd ...................................... Hangzhou Dunli Industry Co., Ltd ................................................... 44.77 

Jiangsu Weixi Group Co ................................................................. Jiangsu Weixi Group Co ................................................................. 44.77 

PRC-wide Entity (including Asber Enterprise Co., Ltd. (China)) ..... .......................................................................................................... 95.99 

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 

Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the 

Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to continue 

to suspend liquidation of all entries of 

subject merchandise from the PRC 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after March 5, 

2009, the date of publication of the 

Preliminary Determination. CBP shall 

continue to require a cash deposit or the 

posting of a bond equal to the estimated 

amount by which the normal value 

exceeds the U.S. price as shown above. 

These instructions suspending 

liquidation will remain in effect until 

further notice. 

In accordance with section 733(d) of 

the Act, we will instruct CBP to suspend 

liquidation of all entries of subject 

certain kitchen appliance shelving and 

racks from the PRC as described in the 

‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ section, 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption from Wireking, New 

King Shan, Marmon Retail Services 

Asia, Hangzhou Dunli Import & Export 

Co., Ltd., Jiangsu Weixi Group Co., and 

the PRC-wide entity on or after the date 

of publication of this notice in the 

Federal Register. We will instruct CBP 

to require a cash deposit or the posting 

of a bond for all entries of certain 

kitchen appliance shelving and racks 

from the People’s Republic of China. 

Additionally, the Department has 

continued to find in its Certain Kitchen 

Appliance Shelving and Racks From the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination, (July 20, 2009) (‘‘CVD 

Final’’) that the products under 

investigation, exported and produced by 

Wireking, benefitted from an export 

subsidy. The following export subsidies 

were determined in the CVD Final: 

Income Tax reduction for Export 

Oriented FIEs; countervailable subsidy 

of 0.94 percent; and Local Income Tax 

Reduction for ‘‘Productive’’ FIEs: 

Countervailable subsidy of 0.23 percent. 

In the CVD Final, Wireking’s rate was 

assigned to the All-Others rate as it was 

the only rate that was not zero, de 

minimis or based on total facts 

available. Accordingly, as the 

countervailing duty rate for New King 

Shan, Marmon Retail Services Asia, 

Hangzhou Dunli Import & Export Co., 

Ltd., and Jiangsu Weixi Group Co. is the 

All-Others rate, which includes two 

countervailable export subsidies, we 

will instruct CBP to require an 

antidumping duty cash deposit or the 

posting of a bond for each entry equal 

to the weighted-average margin 

indicated above for these companies 

adjusted for the countervailing duties 

imposed to offset export subsidies 

determined in the CVD Final. The 

adjusted cash deposit rate for New King 

Shan is 43.60 percent and, as the 

antidumping duty cash deposit rate 

assigned to the separate rate companies 

is New King Shan’s rate, the adjusted 

cash deposit rate for Marmon Retail 

Services Asia, Hangzhou Dunli Import & 

Export Co., Ltd., and Jiangsu Weixi 

Group Co. also is 43.60 percent. 

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. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
36662 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 141 / Friday, July 24, 2009 / Notices 

1See Notice of Amended Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Lined Paper 

Products from the People’s Republic of China; 

Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Lined 

Paper Products from India, Indonesia and the 

People’s Republic of China; and Notice of 

Countervailing Duty Orders: Certain Lined Paper 

Products from India and Indonesia, 71 FR 56949 

(September 28, 2006). 

Dated: July 20, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I—Changes From the 

Preliminary Determination 

General Issues 

Comment 1: Double Remedy: Antidumping 

Duties and CVD Duties 

Comment 2: New King Shan’s Antidumping 

Duty Margin 

Comment 3: Filing Issues Concerning 

Petitioners’ Submissions 

Comment 4: Rejection of New King Shan’s 

Minor Corrections 

Comment 5: Rejection of New Information in 

New King Shan’s Surrogate Value 

Rebuttal Submission 

Surrogate Values 

Comment 6: Wire Rod 

Comment 7: Hydrochloric Acid 

Comment 8: Sodium Triphosphate 

Comment 9: Nickel Anode 

Surrogate Financial Ratios 

Comment 10: Surrogate Financial Companies 

Comment 11: Treatment of Gratuity Benefits 

Comment 12: Treatment of Commissions 

Comment 13: Treatment of Advertising 

Comment 14: Treatment of Job Work Charges 

Comment 15: Treatment of Labor Expenses 

Company-Specific Issues 

Comment 16: Wireking 

A. Total Adverse Facts Available (‘‘AFA’’) 

for Wireking 

B. Partial AFA for Factors of Production 

(‘‘FOPs’’) 

C. Partial AFA for Labor 

D. Partial AFA for Underreported Weightper-Piece FOPs 

E. Partial AFA for Yield Loss 

F. Partial AFA for Market Economy 

Movement Expenses 

G. Facts Available (‘‘FA’’) for PVC Buffer 

H. Water 

I. Unreported U.S. Sales 

J. Distance from Factory to Port 

K. Name Correction 

Comment 17: New King Shan 

A. Total AFA for New King Shan 

B. Partial AFA for FOPs 

C. Yield Loss and Steel Scrap 

D. Allocation of Stainless Steel and Steel 

Plate Products 

E. Date of Sale 

F. Verification of Quantity and Value of 

U.S. Sales 

G. Interest Rate for Sale Expenses 

H. U.S. Warehousing 

I. U.S. Indirect Selling Expenses 

J. Credit Expenses 

K. U.S. Customs Duty 

L. Reporting of Ocean Freight 

M. Affiliate’s Market Economy (‘‘ME’’) 

Purchases 

N. Period for Credit Expenses 

[FR Doc. E9–17717 Filed 7–23–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–901] 

Certain Lined Paper Products From the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of 

Preliminary Results of the 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘the Department’’) is conducting the 

second administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain lined 

paper products (‘‘CLPP’’) from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) 

with respect to two companies: the 

Watanabe Group, which consists of 

Watanabe Paper Products (‘‘Shanghai’’) 

Co., Ltd., Watanabe Paper Products 

(‘‘Lingqing’’) Co., Ltd., and Hotrock 

Stationery (‘‘Shenzhen’’) Co., Ltd. 

(collectively, ‘‘the Watanabe Group’’) 

and Shanghai Lian Li Paper Products 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Lian Li’’). The period of 

review (‘‘POR’’) is September 1, 2007, 

through August 31, 2008. See Initiation 

of Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Reviews and 

Deferral of Administrative Review, 73 

FR 64305 (October 29, 2008) (‘‘Notice of 

Initiation’’). On June 4, 2009, the 

Department published its intent to 

rescind this administrative review in 

part with respect to Lian Li. See Certain 

Lined Paper Products From the People’s 

Republic of China: Notice of Intent to 

Rescind, In Part, Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Extension of 

Time Limits for Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 74 FR 26840 (June 4, 2009) 

(‘‘Notice of Intent to Rescind and Prelim 

Extension’’). If these preliminary results 

are adopted in our final results of this 

review, we will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries of subject merchandise during 

the POR. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

We intend to issue the final results no 

later than 120 days from the date of 

publication of this notice, pursuant to 

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). 

DATES: Effective Date: July 24, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joy 

Zhang or Victoria Cho, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 3, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–1168 or (202) 482– 

5075, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On September 28, 2006, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register an antidumping duty order on 

CLPP from the PRC.1 On September 2, 

2008, the Department published a notice 

of opportunity to request an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on CLPP from 

the PRC. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

To Request Administrative Review, 73 

FR 51272 (September 2, 2008). On 

September 30, 2008, the Association of 

American School Paper Suppliers, a 

domestic interested party and the 

petitioner in the underlying 

investigation (‘‘Petitioner’’), requested 

that the Department conduct an 

administrative review of the Watanabe 

Group and Lian Li. 

On October 29, 2008, the Department 

initiated this review with respect to 

both requested companies. See Notice of 

Initiation. On November 13, 2008, Lian 

Li submitted a letter certifying that it 

did not have any shipments of subject 

merchandise during the POR. On 

January 29, 2009, Lian Li submitted 

product samples of the merchandise it 

exported to the United States during the 

POR, which Lian Li claimed were nonsubject merchandise. On March 4, 2009, 

counsel for petitioner inspected Lian 

Li’s product samples. See Memorandum 

to the File from Joy Zhang titled 

‘‘Inspecting the Product Samples by 

Counsel for the Association of American 

School Paper Supplies,’’ dated March 4, 

2009. 

On June 4, 2009, the Department 

published a notice extending the 

deadline for the preliminary results for 

120 days to September 30, 2009. In this 

notice the Department also published its 

intent to rescind this administrative 

review in part with respect to Lian Li. 

See Notice of Intent to Rescind and 

Prelim Extension, 74 FR 26840 (June 4, 

2009). 

On December 2, 2008, the Department 

issued an antidumping questionnaire to 

the Watanbe Group. On January 8, 2009, 

the Watanbe Group submitted a letter 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
37012 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Notices 

(or customer)-specific ad valorem ratios 

based on the estimated entered value. 

Where an importer (or customer)- 

specific ad valorem rate is greater than 

de minimis, we will apply the 

assessment rate to the entered value of 

the importers’/customers’ entries during 

the POR. See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). 

Where an importer (or customer)- 

specific ad valorem rate is zero or de 

minimis, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate appropriate entries without 

regard to antidumping duties. See 19 

CFR 351.106(c)(2). 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

Further, the following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

NSR for all shipments of the subject 

merchandise entered, or withdrawn 

from warehouse, for consumption on or 

after the publication date, as provided 

for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) 

for the exporter/producer chain 

identified above, the cash deposit rate 

will be the chain–specific rate 

established in the final results of review 

(except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, 

a zero cash deposit will be required); (2) 

for previously investigated or reviewed 

PRC and non–PRC exporters not listed 

above that have separate rates, the cash 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

exporter–specific rate published for the 

most recent period; (3) for all PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise that 

have not been found to be entitled to a 

separate rate, the cash deposit rate will 

be the PRC–wide rate of 285.63 percent; 

and (4) for all non–PRC exporters of 

subject merchandise which have not 

received their own rate, the cash deposit 

rate will be the rate applicable to the 

PRC exporters that supplied that non– 

PRC exporter. These deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

This determination is issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: July 20, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–17869 Filed 7–24–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(C–570–942) 

Certain Kitchen Shelving and Racks 

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’’) has determined that 

countervailable subsidies are being 

provided to producers and exporters of 

kitchen shelving and racks from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). For 

information on the estimated 

countervailing duty rates, please see the 

‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section, 

below. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 27, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shane Subler or Scott Holland, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 1, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0189 or (202) 482– 

1279, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Petitioner 

Petitioners in this investigation are 

Nashville Wire Products., Inc., SSW 

Holding Company, Inc., United Steel, 

Paper and Forestry, Rubber, 

Manufacturing, Energy, Allied– 

Industrial and Service Workers 

International Union, and the 

International Association of Machinists 

and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge 

6 (Clinton, IA) (collectively, 

‘‘Petitioners’’). 

Period of Investigation 

The period for which we are 

measuring subsidies, or period of 

investigation, is January 1, 2007, 

through December 31, 2007. 

Case History 

The following events have occurred 

since the announcement of the 

preliminary determination published in 

the Federal Register on January 7, 2009. 

See Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving 

and Racks 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 683 (January 

7, 2009) (‘‘Preliminary Determination’’). 

The Department issued the third and 

fourth supplemental questionnaires to 

respondent Guangdong Wire King 

Housewares and Hardware Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Wire King’’) on December 29, 2008 

and March 17, 2009, respectively. We 

received responses from Wire King to 

the third supplemental questionnaire on 

January 22, 2009, and to the fourth 

supplemental questionnaire on April 3, 

2009. The Department also issued 

second, third, and fourth supplemental 

questionnaires to the Government of the 

PRC (‘‘GOC’’) on February 11, 2009, 

March 19, 2009, and March 25, 2009, 

respectively. We received responses 

from GOC to the second supplemental 

questionnaire on March 11, 2009, and to 

the third and fourth supplemental 

questionnaires on April 9, 2009. 

The GOC, Wire King, Petitioners, and 

interested parties also submitted factual 

information, comments, and arguments 

at numerous instances prior to the final 

determination based on various 

deadlines for submissions of factual 

information and/or arguments 

established by the Department 

subsequent to the Preliminary 

Determination. 

From May 5, 2009 to May 28, 2009, 

we conducted verification of the 

questionnaire responses submitted by 

GOC and Wire King. See Memorandum 

from Shane Subler and Scott Holland, 

International Trade Compliance 

Analysts, to Susan H. Kuhbach, Office 

Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, 

entitled ‘‘Verification Report: 

Guangdong Wireking Housewares and 

Hardware Co., Ltd.’’ (June 19, 2009); and 

Memorandum from The Verification 

Team to Susan H. Kuhbach, Office 

Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, 

entitled ‘‘Verification Report of the 

Foshan Municipal Government, Shunde 

District Government and the Guangdong 

Provincial Government of the People’s 

Republic of China’’ (June 19, 2009) 

(‘‘Verification Report’’). 

On May 8, 2009, we issued our post– 

preliminary analysis regarding the 

provision of electricity for less than 

adequate remuneration (‘‘LTAR’’). We 

addressed our preliminary findings in a 

May 8, 2009, memorandum to Ronald K. 

Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary 

for Import Administration, entitled 

‘‘Preliminary Findings Regarding 

Electricity Pricing in China: Kitchen 

Appliance Shelving and Racks from the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Notices 37013 

People’s Republic of China,’’ which is 

on file in the Central Records Unit. 

We received case briefs from the GOC, 

Wire King, and Petitioners on June 26, 

2009. The same parties submitted 

rebuttal briefs on July 1, 2009. A public 

hearing was not requested. 

Scope of the Investigation 

The scope of this investigation 

consists of shelving and racks for 

refrigerators, freezers, combined 

refrigerator–freezers, other refrigerating 

or freezing equipment, cooking stoves, 

ranges, and ovens (‘‘certain kitchen 

appliance shelving and racks’’ or ‘‘the 

subject merchandise’’). Certain kitchen 

appliance shelving and racks are 

defined as shelving, baskets, racks (with 

or without extension slides, which are 

carbon or stainless steel hardware 

devices that are connected to shelving, 

baskets, or racks to enable sliding), side 

racks (which are welded wire support 

structures for oven racks that attach to 

the interior walls of an oven cavity that 

does not include support ribs as a 

design feature), and subframes (which 

are welded wire support structures that 

interface with formed support ribs 

inside an oven cavity to support oven 

rack assemblies utilizing extension 

slides) with the following dimensions: 

• Shelving and racks with dimensions 

ranging from 3 inches by 5 inches 

by 0.10 inch to 28 inches by 34 

inches by 6 inches; or 

• Baskets with dimensions ranging 

from 2 inches by 4 inches by 3 

inches to 28 inches by 34 inches by 

16 inches; or 

• Side racks from 6 inches by 8 inches 

by 0.10 inch to 16 inches by 30 

inches by 4 inches; or 

• Subframes from 6 inches by 10 

inches by 0.10 inch to 28 inches by 

34 inches by 6 inches. 

The subject merchandise is comprised 

of carbon or stainless steel wire ranging 

in thickness from 0.050 inch to 0.500 

inch and may include sheet metal of 

either carbon or stainless steel ranging 

in thickness from 0.020 inch to 0.20 

inch. The subject merchandise may be 

coated or uncoated and may be formed 

and/or welded. Excluded from the scope 

of this investigation is shelving in 

which the support surface is glass. 

The merchandise subject to this 

investigation is currently classifiable in 

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) statistical 

reporting numbers 8418.99.80.50, 

7321.90.50.00, 7321.90.60.90, 

8418.99.80.60, and 8516.90.80.00. 

Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

scope of this investigation is dispositive. 

Scope Comments 

Since the Preliminary Determination, 

the Department added an additional 

HTSUS number to the scope of the 

investigation. On January 29, 2009, we 

added other refrigerator parts, HTSUS 

number 8418.99.80.60 to the scope of 

the investigation. See Memorandum to 

the File, dated January 29, 2009. 

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’’), 

section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to 

this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC 

must determine whether imports of the 

subject merchandise from the PRC 

materially injure, or threaten material 

injury to a U.S. industry. On September 

24, 2008, the U.S. International Trade 

Commission (‘‘ITC’’) issued its 

affirmative preliminary determination 

that there is a reasonable indication that 

an industry in the United States is 

materially injured by reason of allegedly 

subsidized imports of certain kitchen 

appliance shelving and racks from the 

PRC. See Certain Kitchen Appliance 

Shelving and Racks From China, 73 FR 

55132 (September 24, 2008); and 

Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and 

Racks from China (Preliminary), USITC 

Pub. 4035, Inv. Nos. 701–TA–458 and 

731–TA–1154 (Sept. 2008). 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties to this 

investigation are addressed in the 

Memorandum from John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, entitled ‘‘Issues and 

Decision Memorandum for the Final 

Determination in the Countervailing 

Duty Investigation of Certain Kitchen 

Appliance Shelving and Racks from the 

People’s Republic of China’’ (July 20, 

2009) (hereafter ‘‘Decision 

Memorandum’’), which is hereby 

adopted by this notice. Attached to this 

notice as an Appendix is a list of the 

issues that parties have 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 CRU. 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. 

Use of Adverse Facts Available 

For purposes of this final 

determination, we have continued to 

rely on facts available and have 

continued to use adverse inferences in 

accordance with sections 776(a) and (b) 

of the Act to determine the 

countervailable subsidy rates for Asber 

Enterprise Co. (‘‘Asber’’), which is one 

of the two companies selected to 

respond to our questionnaires. A full 

discussion of our decision to apply 

adverse facts available is presented in 

the Decision Memorandum in the 

section ‘‘Use of Facts Otherwise 

Available and Adverse Facts Available.’’ 

In a departure from the Preliminary 

Determination, the Department now 

finds that the use of ‘‘facts otherwise 

available’’ is warranted with regard to 

provision of electricity for LTAR 

because the Department was not able to 

verify, inter alia, the GOC’s 

questionnaire responses regarding the 

process for setting electricity rates and 

the relation of those rates to the 

electricity generation costs. See 

Decision Memorandum, at ‘‘Use of Facts 

Otherwise Available and Adverse Facts 

Available’’. Moreover, the GOC failed to 

cooperate to the best of its ability 

because it failed to provide requested 

documents, provided inconsistent 

responses regarding the availability of 

the documents, and because it did not 

disclose in its questionnaire responses 

that the electricity price adjustment 

process started from a National 

Development and Reform Commission– 

determined national price adjustment. 

In misrepresenting this information, the 

GOC did not provide the Department 

with full and complete answers. See 

Verification Report at 2–9. Accordingly, 

we find that an adverse inference is 

warranted, pursuant to section 776(b) of 

the Act. Specifically, we find that the 

GOC’s provision of electricity 

constitutes a financial contribution 

within the meaning of section 771(5)(D) 

of the Act and is specific within the 

meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the 

Act. We have also relied on an adverse 

inference in selecting a benchmark for 

determining the existence and amount 

of the benefit. 

Suspension of Liquidation 

In accordance with section 

705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Act, we have 

calculated individual rates for Wire 

King and Asber. 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
37014 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Notices 

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. 

Exporter/Manufacturer Net Subsidy Rate 

Guangdong Wire King 

Co., Ltd. (formerly 

known as Foshan 

Shunde Wireking 

Housewares & Hardware) ......................... 13.30 

Asber Enterprises Co., 

Ltd. (China) ............... 170.82 

Changzhou Yixiong 

Metal Products Co., 

Ltd. ............................ 149.91 

Foshan Winleader Metal 

Products Co., Ltd. ..... 149.91 

Kingsun Enterprises 

Group Co, Ltd. .......... 149.91 

Yuyao Hanjun Metal 

Work Co./Yuyao 

Hanjun Metal Products Co., Ltd. ............. 149.91 

Zhongshan Iwatani Co., 

Ltd. ............................ 149.91 

All–Others ..................... 13.30 

Also, in accordance with section 

703(d) of the Act, we instructed U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection to 

discontinue the suspension of 

liquidation for countervailing duty 

purposes for subject merchandise 

entered on or after May 7, 2009, but to 

continue the suspension of liquidation 

of entries made from January 7, 2009, 

through May 6, 2009. 

We will issue a countervailing duty 

order if the ITC issues a final affirmative 

injury determination, and will require a 

cash deposit of estimated countervailing 

duties 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 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 administrative 

protective order (‘‘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: July 20, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

APPENDIX 

List of Comments and Issues in the 

Decision Memorandum 

General Issues 

Comment 1 Application of CVD Law to 

a Country the Department treats as an 

NME in a Parallel AD Investigation 

Comment 2 Double Counting/ 

Overlapping Remedies 

Comment 3 Proposed Cutoff Date for 

Identifying Subsidies 

Program Specific Issues 

Comment 4 Certain Wire Rod Suppliers 

as Authorities 

Comment 5 Wire Rod Provided by 

Private Suppliers 

Comment 6 Wire Rod Provided by 

Trading Companies 

Comment 7 Application of Adverse 

Facts Available for Wire Rod Production 

Data 

Comment 8 Benchmarks for Wire Rod 

Comment 9 Adding the Cost of 

Insurance to the Wire Rod Benchmark 

Value 

Comment 10 Tying the Wire Rod 

Subsidy 

Comment 11 Provision of Electricity for 

LTAR 

Comment 12 FIE Tax Programs - 

Whether FIE Tax Programs are Specific 

[FR Doc. E9–17867 Filed 7–24–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN: 0648–XQ46 

New England Fishery Management 

Council; Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The New England Fishery 

Management Council’s (Council) 

Herring Oversight Committee will meet 

to consider actions affecting New 

England fisheries in the exclusive 

economic zone (EEZ). 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

Monday, August 24, 2009, at 9:30 a.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Holiday Inn By the Bay, 88 Spring 

Street, Portland, ME 04101; telephone: 

(207) 775–2311; fax: (207) 772–4017. 

Council address: New England 

Fishery Management Council, 50 Water 

Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

J. Howard, Executive Director, New 

England Fishery Management Council; 

telephone: (978) 465–0492. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The items 

of discussion in the committee’s agenda 

are as follows: 

Agenda 

1. Continue development of catch 

monitoring alternatives for inclusion in 

Amendment 5 to the Atlantic Herring 

Fishery Management Plan (FMP), which 

may include but are not limited to: 

specific monitoring and reporting 

requirements for herring vessels and 

processors, observer coverage and at-sea 

monitoring, shoreside/dockside 

monitoring and sampling, electronic 

reporting, video-based monitoring, 

maximized retention, catch monitoring 

and control plans, and vessel 

monitoring system (VMS) requirements; 

develop Herring Committee 

recommendations. 

2. Address other issues related to 

Amendment 5, as necessary. 

Although non-emergency issues not 

contained in this agenda may come 

before this group for discussion, those 

issues may not be the subject of formal 

action during this meeting. Action will 

be restricted to those issues specifically 

identified in this notice and any issues 

arising after publication of this notice 

that require emergency action under 

section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
B-1

APPENDIX B

HEARING WITNESSES

B-3

CALENDAR OF PUBLIC HEARING

Those listed below appeared as witnesses at the United States International Trade

Commission’s hearing:

Subject: Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks from China

Inv. Nos.: 701-TA-458 and 731-TA-1154 (Final)

Date and Time: July 16, 2009 - 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 REMARKS:

Petitioners (Paul C. Rosenthal, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP)

Respondents (Alexander H. Schaefer, Crowell & Moring LLP)

In Support of the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders:

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Nashville Wire Products and SSW Holidng Co.

Paul Kara, President and CEO, SSW Holding Co.

Mark A. Gritton, Sr., Vice President, Operations,

Sales & Marketing, SSW Holding Co.

Brad Nall, Director of Marketing, SSW Holding Co.

Steven Rollins, President, Nashville Wire Products

Brad Hudgens, Economist, Georgetown Economic Services

Paul C. Rosenthal )

) – OF COUNSEL

Kathleen W. Cannon )
B-4

In Opposition to the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders:

Crowell & Moring LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Electrolux Home Products, Inc. (“Electrolux”)

Don J. Market, Vice President, Global Steel, Electrolux

Griffin Hyde, Commodity Manager, Mechanical Components, Electrolux

John A. Heer, Assistant General Counsel, Electrolux

Matthew P. Jaffe )

) – OF COUNSEL

Alexander H. Schaefer )
C-1

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA

C-3

Appendix C Index

Page

Table C-1 Summary data on KASAR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-5

Table C-2 Summary data on REFRIGERATION SHELVING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-6

Table C-3 Summary data on OVEN RACKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-7
C-4
C-5

Table C-1

KASAR: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and

January-March 2009

* * * * * * *
C-6

Table C-2

REFRIGERATION SHELVING: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2006-08, January-March

2008, and January-March 2009

* * * * * * *
C-7

Table C-3

OVEN RACKS: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2006-08, January-March 2008, and

January-March 2009

* * * * * * *