17430 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices 

1See Galvanized Steel Wire From the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement 

of Final Determination, 76 FR 68407 (November 4, 

2011) (‘‘Preliminary Determination’’). 

2See Galvanized Steel Wire From the People’s 

Republic of China: Amended Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 76 

FR 73589 (November 29, 2011) (‘‘Amended 

Preliminary Determination’’). 

3See Letter to the Department from Baozhang; Re: 

Letter Electing Not To Participate in Verification, 

dated November 4, 2011. 

4See Letter to the Department from Honbase; Re: 

Galvanized Steel Wire from the People’s Republic 

of China, dated November 9, 2011. 

5See ‘‘Memorandum to the File from Kabir 

Archuletta, re: Galvanized Steel Wire Sample 

Viewing,’’ dated November 9, 2011. 

6 Davis Wire Corporation, Johnstown Wire 

Technologies, Inc., Mid-South Wire Company, Inc., 

National Standard, LLC and Oklahoma Steel & Wire 

Company, Inc. (hereinafter collectively referred to 

as ‘‘Petitioners’’). 

7 In this case, Huayuan refers to the collective 

group of affiliated companies comprised of Tianjin 

Huayuan Metal Wire Products Co., Ltd., Tianjin 

Tianxin Metal Products, Co., Ltd., Tianjin Huayuan 

Times Metal Products Co., Ltd., and Tianjin 

Meijiahua Trade Co., Ltd. 

8See Letter to the Department from Huayuan; Re: 

Galvanized Steel Wire from the People’s Republic 

of China: Withdrawal of Request for a Hearing, 

dated December 15, 2011. 

Comment 3: Whether Oval Galvanized 

Steel Wire is Outside the Scope of the 

Investigation 

Comment 4: Whether PVC-Coated 

Galvanized Steel Wire is Outside the 

Scope of the Investigation 

Comment 5: Whether To Apply Adverse 

Facts Available to Deacero’s Inland 

Freight Expenses for Certain Home 

Market Sales 

Comment 6: Whether To Apply Adverse 

Facts Available to Deacero’s U.S. 

Repacking Expenses 

Comment 7: Deacero’s Reporting of Costs 

for Further Manufacturing 

Comment 8: Deacero’s Reporting of Inland 

Freight Charges for Certain U.S. Sales 

Comment 9: Deacero’s Reporting of Cost of 

Production and Constructed Value 

Aceros Camesa S.A. de C.V. (Camesa) 

Comment 10: Whether the Department 

Used an Average-to-Average Comparison 

Methodology 

Comment 11: Whether the U.S. Inventory 

Carrying Costs Were Calculated Properly 

[FR Doc. 2012–7213 Filed 3–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–975] 

Galvanized Steel Wire 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: March 26, 2012. 

SUMMARY: On November 4, 2011, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

‘‘Department’’) published the 

Preliminary Determination of sales at 

less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) in the 

antidumping investigation of galvanized 

steel wire from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘PRC’’).1 On November 29, 2011, 

the Department published an Amended 

Preliminary Determination.2 The period 

of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is July 1, 2010, 

through December 31, 2010. Based on 

our analysis of the comments received, 

we have made changes to our 

Preliminary Determination and 

Amended Preliminary Determination. 

The Department continues to find that 

galvanized steel wire from the PRC is 

being, or is likely to be, sold in the 

United States at LTFV, as provided in 

section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’). The estimated 

margins of sales at LTFV are shown in 

the ‘‘Final Determination Margins’’ 

section of this notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Irene Gorelik, Katie Marksberry or Kabir 

Archuletta, AD/CVD Operations, Office 

9, Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC, 20230; telephone: (202) 482–6905, 

(202) 482–7906, or 482–2593, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On November 4, 2011, Shanghai Bao 

Zhang Industry Co., Ltd., Anhui Bao 

Zhang Metal Products Co., Ltd., and 

B&Z Galvanized Wire Industry 

(collectively, ‘‘Baozhang’’), one of the 

three respondents selected for 

individual examination in this 

investigation, notified the Department 

that it would not participate in any the 

scheduled verifications.3 On November 

9, 2011, Tianjin Honbase Machinery 

Manufactory Co., Ltd. (‘‘Honbase’’), 

another respondent selected for 

individual examination in this 

investigation, also notified the 

Department that it would not participate 

in any scheduled verifications.4

On November 2, 2011, Qingdao Ant 

Hardware Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘AHM’’), one of the non-individually 

examined exporters that received a 

separate rate, placed on the record 

samples of products which it believes 

should be excluded from the scope of 

the investigation. On November 9, 2011, 

the Department notified all interested 

parties that it would allow any 

interested parties to physically view the 

samples.5

Between December 9 and 14, 2011, we 

received case and rebuttal briefs from 

Petitioners,6 AHM, Tianjin Huayuan 

Metal Wire Products Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Huayuan’’),7 and Baozhang. The 

Department did not hold a public 

hearing, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d), 

as the hearing requests made by 

interested parties were withdrawn.8

On March 2, 2012, at the 

Department’s request, interested parties 

in the companion galvanized wire 

investigations involving Mexico filed on 

the record of this investigation certain 

scope comments that were raised in that 

proceeding’s case and rebuttal briefs. 

We allowed a period of time for parties 

in the instant proceeding to comment on 

those submissions. We received no 

comments. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties to this 

investigation are addressed in the 

‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Galvanized Steel Wire from the People’s 

Republic of China: Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Final 

Determination’’ (‘‘Decision Memo’’), 

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 

Decision Memo, are attached to this 

notice as Appendix I. The Decision 

Memo is a public document and is on 

file electronically via Import 

Administration’s Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Centralized 

Electronic Service System (‘‘IA 

ACCESS’’). Access to IA ACCESS is 

available in the Central Records Unit 

(‘‘CRU’’), room 7046 of the main 

Department of Commerce building. In 

addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memo can be accessed directly 

on the internet at http://www.trade.gov/ 

ia/. The signed Decision Memo and the 

electronic versions of the Decision 

Memo 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 regarding Honbase 

and Baozhang for the final 

determination. Specifically, for the final 

determination, we have applied total 

adverse facts available (‘‘AFA’’) for 

Honbase’s and Baozhang’s failure to 

participate and their subsequent 

inclusion as part of the PRC-wide entity. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices 17431 

9See Decision Memo at Comment 3. 

10These comments have been addressed in the 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Galvanized Steel Wire from Mexico, 

signed concurrently with this notice and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comments 3 and 4. 

11See id., at Comment 3. 

12See id., at Comment 4. 

13See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Sparklers from the People’s Republic of 

China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’), as 

amplified by Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the 

People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 

1994) (‘‘Silicon Carbide’’), and 19 CFR 351.107(d). 

14See Decision Memo at Comment 1; see also 

‘‘Memorandum to the File from Irene Gorelik, 

Senior Case Analyst: Program Analysis for the 

Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Galvanized Steel Wire from the 

People’s Republic of China: Tianjin Huayuan Metal 

Wire Products Co., Ltd.,’’ dated October 27, 2011 

(‘‘Huayuan Prelim Analysis Memo’’) at Exhibit 1. 

Scope of Investigation 

The scope of this investigation covers 

galvanized steel wire which is a colddrawn carbon quality steel product in 

coils, of circular or approximately 

circular, solid cross section with any 

actual diameter of 0.5842 mm (0.0230 

inch) or more, plated or coated with 

zinc (whether by hot-dipping or 

electroplating). 

Steel products to be included in the 

scope of this investigation, regardless of 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) definitions, 

are products in which: (1) Iron 

predominates, by weight, over each of 

the other contained elements; (2) the 

carbon content is two percent or less, by 

weight; and (3) none of the elements 

listed below exceeds the quantity, by 

weight, respectively indicated: 

—1.80 percent of manganese, or 

—1.50 percent of silicon, or 

—1.00 percent of copper, or 

—0.50 percent of aluminum, or 

—1.25 percent of chromium, or 

—0.30 percent of cobalt, or 

—0.40 percent of lead, or 

—1.25 percent of nickel, or 

—0.30 percent of tungsten, or 

—0.02 percent of boron, or 

—0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 

—0.10 percent of niobium, or 

—0.41 percent of titanium, or 

—0.15 percent of vanadium, or 

—0.15 percent of zirconium. 

Specifically excluded from the scope 

of this investigation is galvanized steel 

wire in coils of 15 feet or less which is 

pre-packed in individual retail 

packages. The products subject to this 

investigation are currently classified in 

subheadings 7217.20.30, 7217.20.45, 

and7217.90.1000 of the HTSUS which 

cover galvanized wire of all diameters 

and all carbon content. Galvanized wire 

is reported under statistical reporting 

numbers 7217.20.3000, 7217.20.4510, 

7217.20.4520, 7217.20.4530, 

7217.20.4540, 7217.20.4550, 

7217.20.4560, 7217.20.4570, 

7217.20.4580, and 7217.90.1000. These 

products may also enter under HTSUS 

subheadings 7229.20.0015, 

7229.20.0090, 7229.90.5008, 

7229.90.5016, 7229.90.5031, and 

7229.90.5051. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and Customs purposes, the 

written description of the merchandise 

is dispositive. 

Scope Comments 

In their case and rebuttal briefs, 

interested parties provided comments 

on the scope and merchandise that is to 

be covered under the scope. We have 

discussed these comments fully in the 

Decision Memo.9 In addition, and as 

referenced in the ‘‘Background’’ section 

above, certain parties in the companion 

galvanized wire investigation involving 

Mexico provided scope comments.10 As 

a result of considering these comments, 

we have made a slight modification of 

the scope to clarify that galvanized steel 

wire of circular or approximately 

circular, solid cross section is included 

within the scope.11 We have also 

included an additional HTSUS 

subheading as part of the scope 

description.12

In addition, in the Preliminary 

Determination, we responded to scope 

comments provided by Tree Island Wire 

(USA), Inc. and Preferred Wire 

Products, Inc., and we preliminarily 

determined that galvanized wire with a 

diameter less than one millimeter is 

subject to the scope of the investigation. 

No additional comments were made on 

this issue in the case or rebuttal briefs. 

Thus, for the final determination, we 

have made no changes on this 

determination from the Preliminary 

Determination and continue to find, 

specifically, that galvanized wire with a 

diameter less than one millimeter but 

equal to or greater than 0.5842 

millimeters is covered by the scope. 

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.13 In the Preliminary 

Determination, we found that 

Shijiazhuang Kingway Metal Products 

Co., Ltd.; Shanxi Yuci Broad Wire 

Products Co., Ltd.; Huanghua Jinhai 

Hardware Products Co., Ltd.; Huanghua 

Jinhai Import & Export Trading Co., 

Ltd.; Guizhou Wire Rope Incorporated 

Company; Hebei Minmetals Co., Ltd.; 

Shandong Minmetals Co., Ltd.; Fasten 

Group Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd.; Qingdao 

Ant Hardware Manufacturing Co., Ltd.; 

Suntec Industries Co., Ltd.; M & M 

Industries Co., Ltd.; Shaanxi New Mile 

International Trade Co., Ltd.; Hebei 

Cangzhou New Century Foreign Trade 

Co., Ltd.; Dezhou Hualude Hardware 

Products Co., Ltd.; Shanghai SETI 

Enterprise International Co., Ltd.; and 

Xi’an Metals and Minerals Import and 

Export Co., Ltd., demonstrated their 

eligibility for, and were hence assigned, 

separate rate status. 

No parties commented on the above 

companies’ eligibility for separate rate 

status. Consequently, for the final 

determination, we continue to find that 

these companies demonstrated both a de 

jure and de facto absence of government 

control with respect to their exports of 

the merchandise under investigation, 

and are eligible for separate rate status 

for the final determination. 

The Department received comments 

from Huayuan and Petitioners regarding 

the Department’s preliminary 

determination with respect to 

Huayuan’s separate rate status. The 

Department has addressed the 

arguments in Comment 1 of the 

Decision Memo. For the final 

determination, we continue to find that 

Huayuan has not overcome the 

presumption of government control 

with respect to its exports of the 

merchandise under investigation.14

Thus, we continue to find that Huayuan 

is not eligible for a separate rate and 

remains part of the PRC-wide entity. 

Additionally, as discussed in the 

‘‘PRC-wide Entity and Facts Available’’ 

section below and in Comment 2 of the 

Decision Memo, Honbase and Baozhang 

failed to demonstrate their eligibility for 

a separate rate by preventing the 

Department from verifying the accuracy 

of their information and will, therefore, 

be considered part of the PRC-wide 

entity for this final determination. 

Calculation of Separate Rate 

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

calculated a weighted-average separate 

rate based on the margins calculated for 

Honbase and Baozhang and their 

submitted publicly ranged sales 

quantities. However, none of the 

mandatory respondents are receiving a 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
17432 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices 

15See section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act. 

16See Petitions for the Imposition of 

Antidumping Duties on Galvanized Steel Wire from 

Mexico and Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duties on Galvanized Steel Wire from the People’s 

Republic of China filed on March 31, 2011 (the 

‘‘Petition’’). 

17See Galvanized Steel Wire from the People’s 

Republic of China and Mexico: Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Investigations, 76 FR 23548, 

23552 (April 27, 2011) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’); see 

also Decision Memo at Comment 7. 

18See, e.g., Aluminum Extrusions from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 76 FR 18524, 18525 

(April 4, 2011) (‘‘For the final determination, we 

have assigned the 29 separate rate applicants to 

whom we are granting a separate rate a dumping 

margin of 32.79 percent, based on the simple 

average of the margins alleged in the petition 

* * *’’); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Final 

Determination of Critical Circumstances: Circular 

Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People’s 

Republic of China, 73 FR 31970, 31971–31972 (June 

5, 2008) (‘‘* * * we have assigned to the separate 

rate companies the simple average of the margins 

alleged in the petition.’’); Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sodium 

Hexametaphosphate from the People’s Republic of 

China, 73 FR 6479, 6480–6481 (February 4, 2008) 

(‘‘Specifically, we have assigned an average of the 

margins calculated for purposes of initiation as the 

separate rate for the final determination.’’). 

19See Preliminary Determination, 76 FR at 

68415–68416. 

20See id. 

21See id., 76 FR at 68413; see also ‘‘Memorandum 

to Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, Office 9, 

from Irene Gorelik, Senior International Trade 

Analyst, Office 9: Antidumping Duty Investigation 

of Galvanized Steel Wire from the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Affiliation and 

Single Entity Determinations for Tianjin Huayuan 

Metal Wire Products Co., Ltd.,’’ dated October 27, 

2011 (‘‘Huayuan Affiliation Memo’’); and Huayuan 

Prelim Analysis Memo. 

22See Decision Memo at Comment 1A, 1B, and 

1C. 

23See Transcom, Inc. v. United States, 182 F.3d 

876, 883 (CAFC 1999) (citing Sigma Corp v. United 

States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1405- 06. (CAFC 1997)). 

separate rate for this final 

determination. If the estimated 

weighted-average margins for all 

individually investigated respondents 

are de minimis or based entirely on facts 

available (‘‘FA’’), the Department may 

use any reasonable method to determine 

the separate rate margin.15 Therefore, 

pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) and (B) 

of the Act, we have, for the final 

determination, determined the separate 

rate margin using a reasonable method 

that is consistent with our established 

practice. Specifically, we have assigned 

to the separate rate companies the 

simple average of all of the margins 

alleged in the Petition,16 as revised in 

the Initiation Notice,17 which is 194.00 

percent.18

The PRC-Wide Entity and Facts 

Available 

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department found that: 

information on the record of this 

investigation indicates that there were more 

exporters of galvanized steel wire from the 

PRC than those indicated in the response to 

our request for Q&V information during the 

POI * * * Although all producers/exporters 

were given an opportunity to provide Q&V 

information, not all producers/exporters 

provided a response to the Department’s Q&V 

letter.19

Furthermore, the Department did not 

grant a separate rate to Tianjin Jinghai 

Yicheng Metal Products Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Tianjin Jinghai’’) because it withdrew 

its participation from this investigation 

as a selected mandatory respondent, 

having never provided any evidence 

demonstrating an absence of 

government control both in law and in 

fact. As such, the Department 

preliminarily determined that there 

were PRC producers/exporters of 

galvanized steel wire during the POI 

that did not respond to the Department’s 

request for information. We treated 

these PRC producers/exporters as part of 

the PRC-wide entity because they did 

not qualify for a separate rate.20

Further, as stated above, in the 

Preliminary Determination, the 

Department did not grant a separate rate 

to Huayuan because it did not overcome 

the presumption of government 

control.21 The Department has 

addressed this issue at length in the 

Decision Memo, based on comments 

received from Huayuan and 

Petitioners.22 However, because the 

Department begins with the 

presumption that all companies within 

an NME country are subject to 

government control, and because only 

the separate rate recipients have 

overcome that presumption, because 

Huayuan did not qualify for a separate 

rate, the Department is applying the 

PRC-wide entity rate to Huayuan and its 

affiliates. Despite Huayuan’s submission 

of sales and factor of production data, 

because Huayuan did not receive a 

separate rate and was found to be part 

of the PRC-wide entity, we have not 

used this data to calculate a separate 

antidumping duty margin for Huayuan. 

Rather, we have assigned to Huayuan 

the rate assigned to the PRC-wide entity. 

This is consistent with our longstanding practice of assigning a countrywide rate to NME companies that do not 

qualify for a separate rate, and has been 

affirmed by the court.23

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) of the Act, 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. 

Information on the record of this 

investigation indicates that the PRCVerDate Mar<15>2010 19:32 Mar 23, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26MRN1.SGM 26MRN1

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices 17433 

24See section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act. 

25See, 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, 25707 

(May 3, 2000). 

26These companies are: Shijiazhuang Kingway 

Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Shanxi Yuci Broad Wire 

Products Co., Ltd.; Huanghua Jinhai Hardware 

Products Co., Ltd.; Huanghua Jinhai Import & 

Export Trading Co., Ltd.; Guizhou Wire Rope 

Incorporated Company; Hebei Minmetals Co., Ltd.; 

Shandong Minmetals Co., Ltd.; Fasten Group Imp. 

& Exp. Co., Ltd.; Qingdao Ant Hardware 

Manufacturing Co., Ltd.; Suntec Industries Co., Ltd.; 

M & M Industries Co., Ltd.; Shaanxi New Mile 

International Trade Co., Ltd.; Hebei Cangzhou New 

Century Foreign Trade Co., Ltd.; Dezhou Hualude 

Hardware Products Co., Ltd.; Shanghai SETI 

Enterprise International Co., Ltd.; and Xi’an Metals 

and Minerals Import and Export Co., Ltd. 

27See Decision Memo at Comments 1A, 1B, and 

1C; see also Preliminary Determination, 76 FR at 

68413. 

28See Preliminary Determination, 76 FR at 68416. 

29See id. 

30See id.; see also Statement of Administrative 

Action accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 

103–316, vol. 1, at 870 (1994) (‘‘SAA’’). 

31See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled FlatRolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products from the 

Russian Federation, 65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 

2000). See also SAA at 870. 

32See SAA at 870. 

33See id. 

wide entity was unresponsive to the 

Department’s requests for information. 

Certain companies: (1) Did not respond 

to our questionnaires requesting 

quantity and value (‘‘Q&V’’) 

information; or (2) withdrew 

participation from the investigation. As 

a result, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) 

of the Act, we found that the use of facts 

available is appropriate to determine the 

PRC-wide rate. 

Since the Preliminary Determination, 

Honbase and Baozhang, the two 

mandatory respondents for which we 

calculated preliminary antidumping 

duty margins, both withdrew their 

participation from their respective, 

scheduled on-site verifications. By 

ceasing to participate in the verification 

of their questionnaire responses, 

Honbase and Baozhang prevented the 

Department from verifying the accuracy 

of their information as provided by 

section 782(i) of the Act, and thus, 

failed to demonstrate their eligibility for 

a separate rate.24 Therefore, for the final 

determination, the Department finds 

that Honbase and Baozhang are 

considered to be part of the PRC-wide 

entity (along with Tianjin Jinghai, the 

companies unresponsive to the Q&V 

questionnaires and Huayuan). Because 

the PRC-wide entity, which now also 

includes Honbase and Baozhang, 

significantly impeded the Department’s 

proceeding pursuant to sections 

776(a)(2)(C) of the Act, by failing to 

provide the requested information and 

by refusing to allow verification of their 

data, we find that the PRC-wide entity 

withheld information requested by the 

Department pursuant to section 

776(a)(2)(A) of the Act. Based on the 

foregoing, we have determined that the 

PRC-wide entity failed to act to the best 

of its ability by not providing the 

requested information and by ceasing 

their participation in the proceeding. 

Therefore, we continue to find that 

when selecting from among the FA, an 

adverse inference is warranted for the 

PRC-wide entity, including Honbase 

and Baozhang, pursuant to section 

776(b) of the Act. 

The PRC-Wide Entity Rate 

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 (i.e., 

the PRC-wide rate) to all other exporters 

of the merchandise under consideration. 

These other companies did not 

demonstrate entitlement to a separate 

rate.25 The PRC-wide rate applies to all 

entries of the merchandise under 

consideration except for entries from the 

companies receiving a separate rate.26

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department determined that there were: 

(1) Exporters/producers of the 

merchandise subject to the investigation 

during the POI from the PRC that did 

not respond to the Department’s request 

for information; (2) exporters that 

withdrew from participation from the 

review; and (3) exporters that did not 

overcome the presumption of 

government control (specifically 

Huayuan 27). Further, we treated these 

PRC producers/exporters as part of the 

PRC-wide entity because they did not 

qualify for a separate rate. Finally, we 

found that the use of FA was 

appropriate to determine the PRC-wide 

rate pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of 

the Act.28

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department also determined that, in 

selecting from among the FA, an adverse 

inference is appropriate because the 

PRC-wide entity failed to cooperate by 

not acting to the best of its ability to 

comply with requests for information.29

As AFA, we preliminarily assigned to 

the PRC-wide entity a rate of 235.00 

percent, the highest calculated rate from 

the Petition.30

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides 

that, if an interested party (A) withholds 

information requested by the 

Department, (B) fails to provide such 

information by the deadline, or in the 

form or manner requested, (C) 

significantly impedes a proceeding, or 

(D) provides information that cannot be 

verified, the Department shall use, 

subject to sections 782(d) and (e) of the 

Act, facts otherwise available in 

reaching the applicable determination. 

Because the PRC-wide entity (now 

including Honbase and Baozhang) did 

not respond to our requests for 

information, withheld information 

requested by the Department, and did 

not allow their information to be 

verified, pursuant to sections 

776(a)(2)(A), (C), and (D) of the Act, we 

determine, as in the Preliminary 

Determination, that the use of facts 

otherwise available is appropriate to 

determine the PRC-wide rate. The PRCwide 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 FA is appropriate to determine 

the PRC-wide rate. As noted above, 

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.31 We find 

that, because the PRC-wide 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 

PRC-wide entity. 

Corroboration 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides 

that, when the Department relies on 

secondary information, rather than on 

information obtained in the course of an 

investigation as facts available, it must, 

to the extent practicable, corroborate 

that information from independent 

sources reasonably at its disposal. 

Secondary information is described in 

the SAA as ‘‘information derived from 

the petition that gave rise to the 

investigation or review, the final 

determination concerning subject 

merchandise, or any previous review 

under Section 751 concerning the 

subject merchandise.’’ 32 The SAA 

provides that to ‘‘corroborate’’ means 

simply that the Department will satisfy 

itself that the secondary information to 

be used has probative value.33 The SAA 

also states that independent sources 

used to corroborate may include, for 

example, published price lists, official 

import statistics and customs data, and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
17434 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices 

34See id. 35See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 

Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered 

Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside 

Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan; 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of 

Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 

(November 6, 1996), unchanged in Tapered Roller 

Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 

Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller 

Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, 

and Components Thereof, From Japan; Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825 

(March 13, 1997). 

36See Petition. 

37See Initiation Notice. 

38See id. 

39See ‘‘Memorandum to the File, from Irene 

Gorelik, Senior Analyst, re; Corroboration of the 

PRC-Wide Entity Rate for the Preliminary 

Determination in the Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Galvanized Steel Wire from the 

People’s Republic of China,’’ dated October 27, 

2011. 

40See Antidumping Investigation Initiation 

Checklist: Galvanized Steel Wire from the People’s 

Republic of China, dated April 20, 2011 (‘‘Initiation 

Checklist’’). 

41See id. 

42See Preliminary Determination, 76 FR at 

68410–68412. 

43See Decision Memo at Comment 4. 

information obtained from interested 

parties during the particular 

investigation.34 To corroborate 

secondary information, the Department 

will, to the extent practicable, examine 

the reliability and relevance of the 

information used.35

At the Preliminary Determination, as 

AFA the Department selected a rate of 

235.00 percent, the highest rate from the 

Petition,36 as recalculated by the 

Department in the Initiation Notice.37

Petitioners’ methodology for calculating 

the export price and normal value 

(‘‘NV’’) in the Petition is discussed in 

the Initiation Notice.38 To corroborate 

the AFA margin that we selected, we 

compared this margin to the modelspecific margins we found for the 

cooperating mandatory respondents. We 

found that the margin of 235.00 percent 

had probative value because it is within 

the range of the non-aberrational, 

model-specific margins that we 

preliminarily calculated for one of the 

mandatory respondents during the 

POI.39 Accordingly, we found that 

235.00 percent was a reliable and 

relevant rate, considering the record 

information, and thus, had probative 

value for the Preliminary Determination. 

For the final determination, because 

there were no margins calculated for the 

mandatory respondents, to corroborate 

the 235.00 percent margin used as AFA 

for the PRC-wide entity, to the extent 

appropriate information was available, 

we are affirming our pre-initiation 

analysis of the adequacy and accuracy 

of the information in the Petition.40

During our pre-initiation analysis, we 

examined evidence supporting the 

calculations in the Petition and the 

supplemental information provided by 

Petitioners prior to initiation to 

determine the probative value of the 

margins alleged in the Petition. During 

our pre-initiation analysis, we examined 

the information used as the basis of 

export price and NV in the Petition, and 

the calculations used to derive the 

alleged margins. Also during our preinitiation analysis, we examined 

information from various independent 

sources provided either in the Petition 

or, based on our requests, in 

supplements to the Petition, which 

corroborated key elements of the export 

price and NV calculations.41 Therefore, 

for the final determination, we have 

corroborated our AFA margin by 

affirming our pre-initiation analysis. 

Because no parties commented on the 

selection of the PRC-wide rate, we 

continue to find that the margin of 

235.00 percent has probative value. 

Accordingly, we find that the rate of 

235.00 percent is corroborated within 

the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act. 

Surrogate Country 

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

stated that we selected Thailand 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 Thailand that 

we can use to value the factors of 

production.42 For the final 

determination, we are not calculating 

any margins that require surrogate 

values from a surrogate country and, 

therefore, there is no need to consider 

comments with respect to the selection 

of a surrogate country.43

Final Determination Margins 

We determine that the below 

percentage margins exist for the 

following entities for the POI: 

Exporter Producer 

Weightedaverage 

margin 

(percent) 

Shijiazhuang Kingway Metal Products Co., Ltd ....................... Shijiazhuang Kingway Metal Products Co., Ltd ....................... 194.00 

Shanxi Yuci Broad Wire Products Co., Ltd .............................. Shanxi Yuci Broad Wire Products Co., Ltd .............................. 194.00 

Huanghua Jinhai Hardware Products Co., Ltd ........................ Huanghua Jinhai Hardware Products Co., Ltd ........................ 194.00 

Huanghua Jinhai Import & Export Trading Co., Ltd ................. Huanghua Jinhai Hardware Products Co., Ltd ........................ 194.00 

Guizhou Wire Rope Incorporated Company ............................ Guizhou Wire Rope Incorporated Company ............................ 194.00 

Hebei Minmetals Co., Ltd ......................................................... Huanghua Jinhai Hardware Products Co., Ltd ........................ 194.00 

Hebei Minmetals Co., Ltd ......................................................... Huanghua Huarong Hardware Co., Ltd ................................... 194.00 

Hebei Minmetals Co., Ltd ......................................................... Shandong Jining Lianzhong Hardware Products Co., Ltd ....... 194.00 

Shandong Minmetals Co., Ltd .................................................. Huanghua Jinhai Hardware Products Co., Ltd ........................ 194.00 

Shandong Minmetals Co., Ltd .................................................. Huanghua Xincheng Metal Products Co., Ltd ......................... 194.00 

Shandong Minmetals Co., Ltd .................................................. Tianjin Shi Dagangqu Yuliang XianCaichang .......................... 194.00 

Shandong Minmetals Co., Ltd .................................................. Tianjin Hengfeng Metal Wire Co., Ltd ...................................... 194.00 

Shandong Minmetals Co., Ltd .................................................. Tianjin Shi Jinghai Yicheng Hardware Products Co., Ltd ........ 194.00 

Fasten Group Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd ......................................... Jiangsu Fasten Stock Co., Ltd ................................................. 194.00 

Fasten Group Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd ......................................... Zhangjiagang Guanghua Communication Cable Materials 

Co., Ltd.

194.00 

Fasten Group Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd ......................................... Zhangjiagang Kaihua Metal Products Co., Ltd ........................ 194.00 

Qingdao Ant Hardware Manufacturing Co., Ltd ....................... Qingdao Ant Hardware Manufacturing Co., Ltd ....................... 194.00 

Suntec Industries Co., Ltd ........................................................ Tianjin Jinnan 4th Wire Factory ............................................... 194.00 

Suntec Industries Co., Ltd ........................................................ Tianjin Yinshan Manufacture & Trade Co., Ltd ....................... 194.00 

Suntec Industries Co., Ltd ........................................................ Tianjin Zhaohong Metal Products Co., Ltd .............................. 194.00 

Suntec Industries Co., Ltd ........................................................ Tianjin Wandai Metal Products Co., Ltd .................................. 194.00 

Suntec Industries Co., Ltd ........................................................ Tianjin Dagang Wire Factory ................................................... 194.00 

Suntec Industries Co., Ltd ........................................................ Tianjin Jinghai Yicheng Metal Products Co., Ltd ..................... 194.00 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices 17435 

44The PRC-wide entity includes: Tianjin Honbase 

Machinery Manufactory Co., Ltd.; Anhui Bao Zhang 

Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Bao Zhang 

Industry Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Huayuan Metal Wire 

Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Meijiahua Trade Co., 

Ltd.; Tianjin Huayuan Times Metal Products Co., 

Ltd.; Tianjin Tianxin Metal Products Co., Ltd.; 

Tianjin Jinghai Yicheng Metal Products Co., Ltd.; 

Anping Shuangmai Metal Products Co., Ltd.; 

Anping Xinhong Wire Mesh Co., Ltd.; Beijing Catic 

Industry Limited; Benxi Wasainuo Metal Packaging 

Production Co., Ltd.; China National Electronics 

Imp. & Exp. Ningbo Co., Ltd.; Easen Corp.; Ecms 

O/B Tianjin Huayuan Metal Wire; Hebei Dongfang 

Hardware And Mesh Co., Ltd.; Hebei Longda Trade 

Co., Ltd.; Huanghua Yufutai Hardware Products 

Co., Ltd.; Maccaferri (Changsha) Enviro-Tech Co.; 

Nantong Long Yang International Trade Co., Ltd.; 

Shandong Hualing Hardware & Tools Co. Ltd.; 

Shanghai Multi-development Enterprises; Shanghai 

Suntec Industries Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Jing Weida 

International Trade Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Pcss Trading 

Co., Ltd.; and Weifang Hecheng International Trade 

Co., Ltd. 

45See Galvanized Steel Wire from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing 

Duty Determination, dated concurrently with this 

notice. 

46See, e.g., Drill Pipe From the People’s Republic 

of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Critical Circumstances, 76 FR 1966, 

1970 (January 11, 2011). 

Exporter Producer 

Weightedaverage 

margin 

(percent) 

Suntec Industries Co., Ltd ........................................................ Tianjin Liquan Metal Products Co., Ltd .................................... 194.00 

Suntec Industries Co., Ltd ........................................................ Tianjin Huayuan Times Metal Products Co., Ltd ..................... 194.00 

Suntec Industries Co., Ltd ........................................................ Tianjin Fusheng Metal Products Co., Ltd ................................ 194.00 

M & M Industries Co., Ltd ........................................................ Tianjin Huayuan Times Metal Products Co., Ltd ..................... 194.00 

M & M Industries Co., Ltd ........................................................ Tianjin Huayuan Metal Wire Products Co., Ltd ........................ 194.00 

M & M Industries Co., Ltd ........................................................ Tianjin Tianxin Metal Products Co., Ltd ................................... 194.00 

M & M Industries Co., Ltd ........................................................ Tianjin Jinghai County Yongshun Metal Products Mill ............. 194.00 

M & M Industries Co., Ltd ........................................................ Huanghua Jinhai Hardware Products Co., Ltd ........................ 194.00 

Shaanxi New Mile International Trade Co., Ltd ....................... Tianjin Huayuan Metal Wire Products Co., Ltd ........................ 194.00 

Shaanxi New Mile International Trade Co., Ltd ....................... Tianjin Jinghai Yicheng Metal Products Co., Ltd ..................... 194.00 

Shaanxi New Mile International Trade Co., Ltd ....................... Tianjin Zhaohong Metal Products Co., Ltd .............................. 194.00 

Shaanxi New Mile International Trade Co., Ltd ....................... Tianjin Lianxing Metal Products Co., Ltd ................................. 194.00 

Shaanxi New Mile International Trade Co., Ltd ....................... Tianjin Beichen Gangjiaoxian Metal Products Co., Ltd., Fuli

Branch.

194.00 

Shaanxi New Mile International Trade Co., Ltd ....................... Shenzhou Hongli Metal Products Co., Ltd ............................... 194.00 

Hebei Cangzhou New Century Foreign Trade Co., Ltd ........... Tianjin Huayuan Metal Wire Products Co., Ltd ........................ 194.00 

Hebei Cangzhou New Century Foreign Trade Co., Ltd ........... Tianjin Randa Metal Products Factory ..................................... 194.00 

Hebei Cangzhou New Century Foreign Trade Co., Ltd ........... Tianjin Jinghai Yicheng Metal Products Co., Ltd ..................... 194.00 

Hebei Cangzhou New Century Foreign Trade Co., Ltd ........... Tianjin Jinghai Hongjiufeng Wire Products Co., Ltd ................ 194.00 

Hebei Cangzhou New Century Foreign Trade Co., Ltd ........... Huanghua Jinhai Hardware Products Co., Ltd ........................ 194.00 

Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products Co., Ltd ......................... Tianjin Jinghai Yicheng Metal Products Co., Ltd ..................... 194.00 

Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products Co., Ltd ......................... Tianjin Yinshan Industry and Trade Co., Ltd ........................... 194.00 

Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products Co., Ltd ......................... Tianjin Zhenyuan Industry and Trade Co., Ltd ........................ 194.00 

Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products Co., Ltd ......................... Dingzhou Xuri Metal Products Factory .................................... 194.00 

Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products Co., Ltd ......................... Huanghua Jinhai Hardware Products Co., Ltd ........................ 194.00 

Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products Co., Ltd ......................... Tianjin Dagang Wire Mill .......................................................... 194.00 

Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products Co., Ltd ......................... Tianjin Huayuan Industrial Company ....................................... 194.00 

Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products Co., Ltd ......................... Hebei Yongwei Metal Products Co., Ltd .................................. 194.00 

Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products Co., Ltd ......................... Tianjin Guanshun Metal Products Co., Ltd .............................. 194.00 

Shanghai SETI Enterprise International Co., Ltd ..................... Shanghai Xiaoyu Metal Products Co., Ltd ............................... 194.00 

Xi’an Metals and Minerals Import and Export Co., Ltd ............ Tianjin Jinyongtai Hardware Products Co., Ltd ....................... 194.00 

Xi’an Metals and Minerals Import and Export Co., Ltd ............ Tianjin Hengfeng Metal Wire Co., Ltd ...................................... 194.00 

Xi’an Metals and Minerals Import and Export Co., Ltd ............ Shenzhou City Hongli Hardware Manufacturing Co., Ltd ........ 194.00 

Xi’an Metals and Minerals Import and Export Co., Ltd ............ Tianjin Dagang Jinding Metal Products Factory ...................... 194.00 

PRC-Wide 44 ............................................................................. ................................................................................................... 235.00 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations 

performed within five days of the date 

of publication of this notice to parties in 

this proceeding in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.224(b). 

Continuation of Suspension of 

Liquidation 

In accordance with section 

735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(‘‘CBP’’) to continue to suspend 

liquidation of all imports of 

merchandise subject to the investigation 

entered or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption for the PRC-wide entity 

and the Separate Rate Recipients on or 

after November 4, 2011. We will instruct 

CBP to require a cash deposit or the 

posting of a bond equal to the weightedaverage amount by which the NV 

exceeds U.S. price, as follows: (1) The 

rate for the exporter/producer 

combinations listed in the chart above 

will be the rate we have determined in 

this final determination; (2) for all PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise which 

have not received their own rate, the 

cash-deposit rate will be the PRC-wide 

rate; and (3) 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 exporter/producer combination 

that supplied that non-PRC exporter. 

These suspension of liquidation 

instructions will remain in effect until 

further notice. 

Additionally, the Department found 

in its final determination for the 

companion countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) 

investigation that Baozhang’s 

merchandise benefited from export 

subsidies.45 However, as noted above, 

we have determined that Baozhang is 

part of the PRC-wide entity in this 

proceeding. With respect to the PRCwide entity, we have applied as AFA 

the highest rate from the Petition. 

Therefore, we will not instruct CBP to 

deduct any export subsidy from the 

PRC-wide entity’s cash deposit rate.46

With respect to M&M Industries Co., 

Ltd., a separate rate recipient in this 

case, but a mandatory respondent in the 

companion CVD case to which total 

AFA was assigned, the Department 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
17436 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices 

1See Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents 

from the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Postponement of Final Determination, 76 FR 68148 

(November 3, 2011) (‘‘Preliminary Determination’’). 

2See the ‘‘Verification’’ section below. 

3The Department rejected Transfar’s original case 

brief because it contained untimely information. 

See Letter from Robert Bolling, Program Manager, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, to Transfar, regarding 

Transfar’s submission of untimely information 

(January 10, 2012). Transfar submitted a revised 

version of its case brief on January 13, 2012. See 

Letter from Transfar to the Secretary of Commerce, 

‘‘Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from 

China’’ (January 13, 2012) (‘‘Transfar’s Case Brief’’); 

Letter from Transfar to the Secretary of Commerce, 

‘‘Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from 

China’’ (January 11, 2012) (‘‘Transfar’s Rebuttal 

Brief’’). 

4See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). 

5See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, 

‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final 

Determination in the Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Certain Stilbenic Optical 

Brightening Agents from the People’s Republic of 

calculated the AFA rate for M&M 

Industries using program-specific rates 

calculated for the cooperating 

respondents. Therefore, in the CVD 

investigation, because there was only 

one export subsidy rate calculated (for 

Baozhang, a cooperative respondent in 

the CVD investigation), the export 

subsidy portion of the AFA-rate for 

M&M Industries is equal to the export 

subsidy rate calculated for Baozhang 

(0.21%). In addition, Baozhang’s rate is 

the basis for the all-others rate in the 

CVD case. Therefore, we will instruct 

CBP to require a cash deposit or posting 

of a bond equal to the amount by which 

normal value exceeds U.S. price for the 

M&M Industries, reduced by the export 

subsidy rate (0.21%) found for all 

companies. 

Further, with respect to the other 

companies receiving a separate rate in 

the instant investigation, excluding 

M&M Industries Co., Ltd., these 

companies are subject to the all-others 

rate in the companion CVD 

investigation. Moreover, as noted above, 

all companies were found to have the 

same amount of export subsidies, the 

amount found for the cooperative 

respondent in the CVD case. Therefore, 

for companies receiving a separate rate, 

we will instruct CBP to require a cash 

deposit or posting of a bond equal to the 

amount by which normal value exceeds 

U.S. price for the separate rate 

recipients, as indicated above, reduced 

by the export subsidy rate (0.21%) 

found for all companies. 

Notification Regarding APO 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to the parties subject to administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely 

notification of return or destruction of 

APO materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and the terms of an APO is a 

sanctionable violation. 

This determination and notice are 

issued and published in accordance 

with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act. 

Dated: March 19, 2012. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I 

Company-Specific Issues 

Comment 1: The Department’s Preliminary 

Determination With Respect to Tianjin 

Huayuan Metal Wire Products Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Huayuan’’) 

A. Whether the Department Incorrectly 

Determined Huayuan’s Eligibility for a 

Separate Rate 

B. Whether the Department Should Have 

Applied Adverse Facts Available 

(‘‘AFA’’) to Huayuan 

C. Whether the Department Failed to Meet 

the Statutory Obligation to Verify 

Huayuan 

Comment 2: Whether the Department Should 

Assign AFA to Tianjin Honbase 

Machinery Manufactory Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Tianjin Honbase’’) and to Anhui Bao 

Zhang Metal Products Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Baozhang’’) 

General Issues 

Comment 3: Whether Hobby Wire is Within 

the Scope of the Investigation 

Comment 4: Surrogate Country Selection 

Comment 5: Whether Double-Remedies Have 

Been Applied 

Comment 6: Whether the NME Separate Rate 

Methodology is Contrary to Law and 

Should Be Eliminated 

Comment 7: Appropriate Separate Rate to 

Assign to Cooperative Non-Selected 

Companies 

[FR Doc. 2012–7212 Filed 3–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–972] 

Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening 

Agents 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: March 26, 2012. 

SUMMARY: On November 3, 2011, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

‘‘Department’’) published its 

preliminary determination of sales at 

less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) in the 

antidumping investigation of certain 

stilbenic optical brightening agents 

(‘‘stilbenic OBAs’’) from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’).1 The 

Department invited interested parties to 

comment on the Preliminary 

Determination. Based on the 

Department’s analysis of the comments 

received, the Department has made 

changes from the Preliminary 

Determination, and continues to find 

that stilbenic OBAs 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 (the ‘‘Act’’). The final 

dumping margins for this investigation 

are listed in the ‘‘Final Determination’’ 

section below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shawn Higgins or Maisha Cryor, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 4, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0679, or (202) 

482–5831, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department published its 

Preliminary Determination of sales at 

LTFV and postponement of the final 

determination on November 3, 2011. 

Between November 7, 2011, and 

November 18, 2011, the Department 

conducted verification of mandatory 

respondents Zhejiang Transfar Whyyon 

Chemical Co., Ltd. (‘‘Transfar’’) and 

Zhejiang Hongda Chemicals Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Hongda’’).2 Clariant Corporation 

(‘‘Petitioner’’), Transfar, and Hongda 

submitted case briefs on January 6, 

2012.3 On January 11, 2012, Petitioner 

and Transfar filed rebuttal briefs. The 

Department conducted a public hearing 

on February 1, 2012. 

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is 

July 1, 2010, through December 31, 

2010. This period corresponds to the 

two most recent fiscal quarters prior to 

the month of the filing of the petition, 

which was March 2011.4

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties to this 

investigation are addressed in the Issues 

and Decision Memorandum.5 A list of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES