Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices 17427 

1See Galvanized Steel Wire from Mexico: 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination, 76 FR 68422 (November 4, 2011) 

(Preliminary Determination). 

2See Letter from Deacero, regarding ‘‘Galvanized 

Steel Wire from Mexico,’’ dated November 8, 2011. 

Petitioners did not comment on Deacero’s 

ministerial error allegations. 

3See Memorandum to Richard O. Weible, 

Director, Office 7, from Patrick Edwards and Ericka 

Ukrow, Case Analysts, through Angelica Mendoza, 

Program Manager, Office 7, entitled ‘‘Ministerial 

Error Allegation in the Preliminary Determination 

of the Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Galvanized Steel Wire from Mexico: Deacero S.A. 

de C.V.,’’ dated December 5, 2011 (Ministerial Error 

Memorandum). 

4See Deacero’s Fourth Supplemental 

Questionnaire Response, dated December 8, 2011. 

5The Petitioners in this investigation are Davis 

Wire Corporation, Johnston Wire Technologies, 

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

Standard, LLC, and Oklahoma Steel & Wire 

Company, Inc. (collectively, Petitioners). 

6 Deacero, also on December 5, 2011, requested to 

participate in a hearing in the event that another 

party requested a hearing. 

7See Memorandum to the File from Christopher 

J. Zimpo and Frederick W. Mines, Case 

Accountants, through Theresa C. Deeley, Lead 

Accountant, and Neal M. Halper, Director, Office of 

Accounting, entitled ‘‘Verification of the Cost of 

Production and Constructed Value Data Submitted 

by Deacero S.A. de C.V. in the Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Galvanized Steel Wire from 

Mexico,’’ dated January 13, 2012 (Deacero Cost 

Verification Report); Memorandum to the File from 

Frederick W. Mines and Christopher J. Zimpo, Case 

Accountants, through Theresa C. Deeley, Lead 

Accountant, and Neal M. Halper, Director, Office of 

Accounting, entitled ‘‘Verification of the Cost 

Response of Aceros Camesa S.A. de C.V. in the 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of Galvanized 

Steel Wire from Mexico,’’ dated January 13, 2012 

(Camesa Cost Verification Report); Memorandum to 

the File from Christopher J. Zimpo and Frederick 

W. Mines, Case Accountants, through Theresa C. 

Deeley, Lead Accountant, and Neal M. Halper, 

Director, Office of Accounting, entitled 

‘‘Verification of the Further Manufacturing Data 

Submitted by Deacero S.A. de C.V. for Deacero USA 

Inc. and Stay-Tuff Fence Manufacturing, Inc. in the 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of Galvanized 

Steel Wire from Mexico,’’ dated January 27, 2012 

(Deacero Further-Manufacturing Verification 

Report); Memorandum to the File from Patrick 

Edwards, Case Analyst, through Angelica Mendoza, 

Program Manager, Office 7, entitled ‘‘Verification of 

the Sales Responses of Aceros Camesa, S.A. de C.V. 

in the Antidumping Duty Investigation on 

Galvanized Steel Wire from Mexico,’’ dated 

February 13, 2012 (Camesa Verification Report); 

Memorandum to the File from Ericka Ukrow and 

Patrick Edwards, Case Analysts, through Angelica 

L. Mendoza, Program Manager, Office 7, entitled 

‘‘Verification of the Sales Response of Deacero USA 

Inc. (Deacero USA) and Stay-Tuff Fence 

Manufacturing, Inc. (Stay-Tuff) in the Antidumping 

Duty Investigation of Galvanized Steel Wire from 

Mexico,’’ dated February 15, 2012 (Deacero CEP 

Verification Report); Memorandum to the File from 

Patrick Edwards and Ericka Ukrow, Case Analysts, 

through Angelica Mendoza, Program Manager, 

Office 7, entitled ‘‘Verification of the Sales 

Responses of Deacero S.A. de C.V. in the 

Continued 

2. Zeroing in Average-to-Transaction 

Comparisons 

Company-Specific Issues 

LGEMM 

3. Application of MNC Provision 

4. Lump Sum and Sell-Out Rebates on U.S. 

Sales 

5. Non-Product-Specific Accrual Rebates on 

U.S. Sales 

6. Warehouse-to-Customer U.S. Inland 

Freight Expenses 

7. Billing Adjustments on U.S. Sales 

8. Interest Rate for U.S. Inventory Carrying 

Costs 

9. Payment Dates on Certain U.S. Sales 

10. Payment Dates on Certain Canadian Sales 

11. Lump Sum and Sell-Out Rebates on 

Canadian Sales 

12. Direct Advertising Expense Ratio for 

Canadian Sales 

13. Conversion Cost Allocation Error 

14. Research and Development Costs 

15. Global Costs 

16. Affiliated Party Input Purchases 

Samsung 

17. Corrections Presented at Start of Sales 

Verifications 

18. U.S. Rebates 

19. CEP Offset 

20. The Denominator for Certain Selling 

Expense Ratios 

21. U.S. Indirect Selling Expenses 

22. Classification of Certain Costs as 

Packaging or Packing 

23. Treatment of Payments for Defective 

Merchandise 

24. Unreported Bank Charges 

25. Comparison Market Viability 

26. Calculation of CV Selling Expenses and 

Profit 

27. Research and Development Costs 

28. Certain Affiliated Party Purchases 

29. Affiliated Party Compressors Purchases 

30. Erroneously Reported Input Quantities 

31. General and Administrative Expense 

Ratio 

32. Interest Expense Offset 

33. Understatement of Input Freight Costs 

34. Critical Circumstances 

Mabe 

35. Costs Excluded From Cost of Production 

36. Fees Related to Agreements Between 

Mabe and GEA 

37. U.S. Indirect Selling Expenses 

38. U.S. Rebates 

39. U.S. Advertising Expenses 

40. Cost Verification Corrections 

41. Home Market Rebate Identified at 

Verification 

Electrolux 

42. Verification Findings 

[FR Doc. 2012–7271 Filed 3–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–201–840] 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Galvanized 

Steel Wire From Mexico 

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 its preliminary 

determination in the investigation of 

sales at less than fair value of galvanized 

steel wire (galvanized wire) from 

Mexico.1

The Department has determined that 

galvanized wire from Mexico is being, 

or is likely to be, sold in the United 

States at less than fair value, as 

provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (the Act). The final 

margins of sales at less than fair value 

are listed below in the section entitled 

‘‘Final Determination of Investigation.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patrick Edwards or Ericka Ukrow, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–8029 or (202) 482– 

0405, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The preliminary determination in this 

investigation was published on 

November 4, 2011. See Preliminary 

Determination. We invited parties to 

comment on the Preliminary 

Determination. On November 8, 2011, 

we received timely-filed allegations 

from Deacero S.A. de C.V. (Deacero) that 

the Department made several ministerial 

errors in calculating its dumping margin 

for the preliminary determination.2

On November 10 and 23, 2011, the 

Department issued Deacero 

supplemental questionnaires. 

On December 5, 2011, the Department 

released its memorandum addressing 

Deacero’s ministerial error allegations, 

finding that no amendment to the 

preliminary determination was 

warranted. See Ministerial Error 

Memorandum.3

On December 5, 2011, Deacero 

submitted its response to the November 

23, 2011, questionnaire.4 Also on 

December 5, 2011, Petitioners 5 and 

respondent Aceros Camesa S.A. de C.V. 

(Camesa) timely filed a request for a 

public hearing.6

We conducted cost and sales 

verifications of the responses submitted 

by Deacero and Camesa (collectively, 

respondents).7 All verification reports 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
17428 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of Galvanized 

Steel Wire from Mexico,’’ dated February 16, 2012 

(Deacero Verification Report); and Memorandum to 

the File from Ericka Ukrow and Patrick Edwards, 

Case Analysts, through Angelica L. Mendoza, 

Program Manager, entitled ‘‘Verification of Sales 

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

and WireCo World Group, Inc. (WireCo) in the 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of Galvanized 

Steel Wire from Mexico,’’ dated February 16, 2012 

(Camesa CEP Verification Report). 

8See Letters from Angelica L. Mendoza, Program 

Manager, Office 7, to Deacero S.A. de C.V., dated 

February 21, 2012, and February 22, 2012; Letter 

from Angelica L. Mendoza, Program Manager, 

Office 7, to Aceros Camesa S.A. de C.V., dated 

February 21, 2012. 

are on file and available 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. 

Based on the Department’s findings at 

verification, as well as the minor 

corrections presented by Deacero and 

Camesa at the start of their respective 

verifications, we requested respondents 

to submit revised sales databases.8 On 

February 27, 2012, as requested, 

Deacero and Camesa submitted their 

revised sales databases. 

Subsequent to the release of the 

verification reports in this investigation, 

parties timely filed case and rebuttal 

briefs. We received a case brief from 

Petitioners, Deacero, and Camesa on 

February 23, 2012; Petitioners and 

Deacero filed rebuttal briefs on February 

28, 2012. No public hearing was held 

because all requests for a hearing were 

withdrawn. 

On March 2, 2012, at the 

Department’s request, respondents in 

the companion galvanized wire 

investigations involving the People’s 

Republic of China (both antidumping 

and countervailing duty) filed on the 

record of this investigation certain scope 

comments that were raised in those 

proceedings’ case and rebuttal briefs. 

We allowed a period of time for parties 

in the instant proceeding to comment on 

those submissions, and we received no 

comments. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties to this 

antidumping investigation are 

addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Final 

Determination of the Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Galvanized Steel Wire 

from Mexico’’ (Decision Memorandum) 

from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul 

Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, dated March 19, 2012, 

which is hereby adopted by this notice. 

A list of the issues which parties have 

raised and to which we have responded, 

all of which are in the Decision 

Memorandum, is attached to this notice 

as an appendix. Parties can find a 

complete discussion of all issues raised 

in this investigation and the 

corresponding recommendations in the 

Decision Memorandum which is on file 

and available electronically via IA 

ACCESS, which is accessible in the 

CRU, room 7046 of the main 

Department of Commerce building. In 

addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly on the Web at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

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, 

and 7217.90.10 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, 

Petitioners, respondents, and other 

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 Memorandum. See Decision 

Memorandum at Comments 3 and 4. As 

a result of considering these comments, 

we have clarified the scope language to 

include not only circular cross section 

material, but also out-of-round material 

that meets the circular tolerances. Id. at 

Comment 3. We have also included an 

additional HTSUS subheading as part of 

the scope description. Id. at Comment 4. 

In addition, and as referenced in the 

‘‘Background’’ section above, certain 

parties in the companion galvanized 

wire antidumping duty investigation 

involving the People’s Republic of 

China provided scope comments. These 

comments have been addressed in the 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less than Fair Value: Galvanized 

Steel Wire from the People’s Republic of 

China, signed concurrently with this 

notice, and the accompanying Issues 

and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 3. 

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. 

For the final, 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. See Preliminary Determination, 

76 FR at 68425. 

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation (POI) is 

January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2010. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 58 / Monday, March 26, 2012 / Notices 17429 

9See also Memorandum from Ericka Ukrow to 

The File, entitled ‘‘Galvanized Steel Wire from 

Mexico—Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value Analysis Memorandum for Deacero S.A. 

de C.V.,’’ dated March 19, 2012 (Deacero Analysis 

Memo), and Memorandum from Patrick Edwards to 

The File, entitled ‘‘Galvanized Steel Wire from 

Mexico—Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value Analysis Memorandum for Aceros 

Camesa S.A. de C.V.,’’ dated March 19, 2012 

(Camesa Analysis Memo); Memorandum from 

Christopher J. Zimpo to Neal M. Halper, entitled 

‘‘Cost of Production, Constructed Value, and 

Further Manufacturing Cost Calculation 

Adjustments for the Final Determination: Deacero 

S.A. de C.V.,’’ dated March 19, 2012 (Deacero Cost 

Memo). 

10When there are only two relevant weightedaverage dumping margins available to determine 

the ‘‘all-others’’ rate, the Department may use a 

simple average so as to avoid disclosure of business 

proprietary information. See Seamless Refined 

Copper Pipe and Tube From Mexico: Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 75 

FR 60723, 60724 (October 1, 2010). However, in this 

final determination, the Department has determined 

an ‘‘all-others’’ rate using Deacero’s and Camesa’s 

ranged, public U.S. sales quantities, which also 

avoids disclosure of business proprietary 

information. See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof 

From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United 

Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews, Final Results of ChangedCircumstances Review, and Revocation of an Order 

in Part, 75 FR 53661 (September 1, 2010), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 1. 

This period corresponds to the four 

most recent fiscal quarters prior to the 

month of the filing of the Petition. See 

19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act and noted above, we verified the 

information submitted by the 

respondents for use in our final 

determination. We used standard 

verification procedures, including 

examination of relevant accounting and 

production records, and original source 

documents provided by the 

respondents. 

Changes Since the Preliminary 

Determination 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received and our findings at 

verification, we have made certain 

changes to the margin calculation for 

both Deacero and Camesa. For a 

discussion of these changes, see 

Decision Memorandum at Comments 1, 

2, 7, 8, 9, and 11.9 Additionally, 

subsequent to the Preliminary 

Determination, the Department revised 

its margin calculation program to ensure 

that it accurately reflected the 

methodological choices made in that 

determination. These revisions to the 

programming, had they been included 

in the preliminary determination, would 

not have altered the weighted average 

dumping margins calculated there. See 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 10; 

see also, Deacero Analysis Memo and 

Camesa Analysis Memo at Attachments 

I–VIII. 

All Others Rate 

Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act 

provides that the estimated ‘‘all others’’ 

rate shall be an amount equal to the 

weighted average of the estimated 

weighted average dumping margins 

established for exporters and producers 

individually investigated, excluding any 

zero or de minimis margins and any 

margins determined entirely under 

section 776 of the Act. Deacero and 

Camesa are the only respondents 

selected for individual examination in 

this investigation and, for each 

company, the Department has 

calculated a company-specific rate that 

is not zero or de minimis. Therefore, for 

purposes of determining the ‘‘all others’’ 

rate, and pursuant to section 

735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we are using the 

weighted average of the dumping 

margins calculated for Deacero and 

Camesa for the ‘‘all others’’ rate, as 

referenced in the ‘‘Continuation of 

Suspension of Liquidation’’ section 

below, i.e., 22.43 percent, as indicated 

in the ‘‘Final Determination of 

Investigation’’ section below.10

Final Determination of Investigation 

We determine that the following 

weighted-average dumping margins 

exist for the period January 1, 2010, 

through December 31, 2010: 

Manufacturer or exporter 

WeightedAverage 

margin 

(percent) 

Deacero S.A. de C.V .................. 20.89 

Aceros Camesa S.A. de C.V ...... 37.69 

All-Others .................................... 22.43 

Continuation of Suspension of 

Liquidation 

Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b)(1), we will 

instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend 

liquidation of all entries of subject 

merchandise from Mexico entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after November 4, 

2011, the date of the publication of the 

Preliminary Determination, for all 

producers/exporters. We will instruct 

CBP to require a cash deposit or the 

posting of a bond equal to the weightedaverage margin, as indicated in the chart 

above, as follows: (1) The rate for the 

respondents will be the rates we have 

determined in this final determination; 

(2) if the exporter is not a firm identified 

in this investigation but the producer is, 

the rate will be the rate established for 

the producer of the subject 

merchandise; (3) the rate for all other 

producers or exporters will be 22.43 

percent. These suspension-ofliquidation instructions will remain in 

effect until further notice. 

International Trade Commission 

Notification 

In accordance with section 735(d) of 

the Act, we have notified the 

International Trade Commission (ITC) of 

our final determination. As our final 

determination is affirmative and in 

accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the 

Act, the ITC will determine, within 45 

days, 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 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/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 is issued and 

published pursuant to sections 735(d) 

and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: March 19, 2012. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix 

Deacero S.A. de C.V. (Deacero) 

Comment 1: Conversion of U.S. Packing 

Expenses from Mexican Pesos to U.S. 

Dollars 

Comment 2: Correction of Ministerial 

Errors 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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