[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 11, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21744-21748]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8727]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-570-942]


Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks From the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results of the Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Review

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') has completed 
its administrative review of the countervailable duty order on certain 
kitchen appliance shelving and racks (``Kitchen Racks'') from the 
People's Republic of China (``PRC'') for the period January 7, 2009, 
through December 31, 2009.\1\ On October 7, 2011, we published the 
preliminary results of this review.\2\ We provided interested parties 
with an opportunity to comment on the Preliminary Results. Our analysis 
of the comments submitted as well as incorporation of our post-
preliminary analyses led to a change in the net subsidy rates. This 
review covers multiple exporters/producers, two of which are being 
individually reviewed as mandatory respondents. We find that the 
mandatory respondents, Guangdong Wireking Housewares & Hardware Co., 
Ltd. (``Wireking'') and New King Shan (Zhu Hai) Co., Ltd. (``NKS''), 
received countervailable subsidies during the POR. Their countervailing 
duty (``CVD'') rates have been used to calculate the rate applied to 
other firms subject to this review, as listed below in the section 
entitled ``Final Results of Review.''

    \1\ For further explanation of this period, see ``Period of 
Review'' section of this notice.
    \2\ See Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks from the 
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Countervailing 
Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 62364 (October 7, 2011) 
(``Preliminary Results'').

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: April 11, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Meek or Nancy Decker, Office 
of AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import

[[Page 21745]]

Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 
20230; telephone: (202) 482-2778 and (202) 482-0196, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Following the Preliminary Results, the Department requested 
additional information from the Government of the PRC (``GOC'') and 
Wireking on certain subsidy programs. The Department sent a 
supplemental questionnaire to Wireking and two supplemental 
questionnaires to the GOC. Wireking submitted its timely response on 
November 21, 2011, and the GOC submitted timely responses on November 
28, 2011, and January 4, 2012. The Department released its post-
preliminary analysis on March 2, 2012. See Memorandum from the Team to 
Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, entitled 
``Post-Preliminary Analysis Memorandum'' (March 2, 2012) (``Post-
Preliminary Analysis'').
    In the Preliminary Results, we invited interested parties to submit 
briefs. We received case briefs from Nashville Wire Products Inc. and 
SSW Holding Company, Inc. (collectively ``Petitioners''), Wireking, 
NKS, and the GOC on March 13, 2012. We received rebuttal briefs from 
NKS, the GOC, and Petitioners on March 19, 2012.

Scope of the Order

    The scope of the order 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 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 sub-frames (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:
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> Baskets with dimensions ranging from 2 inches by 4 inches 
by 3 inches to 28 inches by 34 inches by 16 inches; or
    <bullet> Side racks from 6 inches by 8 inches by 0.10 inch to 16 
inches by 30 inches by 4 inches; or
    <bullet> Sub-frames 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 
the order is shelving in which the support surface is glass.
    The merchandise subject to the order is currently classifiable in 
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') 
statistical reporting numbers 8418.99.80.50, 7321.90.50.00, 
7321.90.60.40, 7321.90.60.90, 8418.99.80.60, 8419.90.95.20, 
8516.90.80.00, and 8516.90.80.10. Although the HTSUS subheadings are 
provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description 
of the scope of the order is dispositive.

Period of Review

    We are conducting our analysis in this review on an annual basis, 
i.e., for the entire calendar year 2009. However, the duties calculated 
will be applied as follows: for refrigeration shelving duties will be 
applied to entries from January 7, 2009, through May 6, 2009, and 
September 9, 2009, through December 31, 2009; for oven racks duties 
will apply to entries from September 9, 2009, through December 31, 
2009.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Entries of certain refrigeration shelving occurring during 
the period May 7, 2009, through September 8, 2009, were not 
suspended for CVD purposes due to the termination of provisional 
measures. Entries of certain oven racks occurring before September 
9, 2009, were liquidated at the time of the CVD order because the 
International Trade Commission (``ITC'') found threat of material 
injury on certain oven racks. See Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving 
and Racks From the People's Republic of China: Countervailing Duty 
Order, 74 FR 46973, 46974-75 (September 14, 2009) (``CVD Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the GOC's, Petitioners', Wireking's and NKS' 
briefs are addressed in the Memorandum from Gary Taverman, Acting 
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import 
Administration, entitled ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final 
Results of the Countervailing Duty Administrative Review of Certain 
Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks from the People's Republic of 
China,'' (April 4, 2012) (``Issues and Decision Memorandum''), which is 
hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues raised is attached 
to this notice as Appendix I. The Issues and Decision Memorandum 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, room 7046 of the main Department 
of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and 
Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the 
electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical 
in content.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences

    Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(``the Act''), provide that the Department shall apply ``facts 
otherwise available'' if necessary information is not on the record or 
if an interested party or any other person: (A) Withholds information 
that has been requested; (B) fails to provide information within the 
deadlines established, or in the form and manner requested by the 
Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 of the 
Act; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding; or (D) provides 
information that cannot be verified as provided by section 782(i) of 
the Act.
    Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may 
use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when 
a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its 
ability to comply with a request for information.
    For purposes of these final results, we have continued to rely on 
facts available and to draw an adverse inference, in accordance with 
sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, for the below issues. For a full 
discussion of these issues, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
``Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences'' section.

1. Non-Cooperative Companies

    As explained in the Preliminary Results, two companies in this 
review, Asia Pacific CIS (Wuxi) Co., Ltd. (``Asia Pacific CIS'') and 
Jiangsu Weixi Group Co. (``Jiangsu Weixi''), did not provide a response 
to the Department's quantity and value (``Q&V'') questionnaire issued

[[Page 21746]]

during the respondent selection process. See Preliminary Results, 76 FR 
at 62365. We continue to find that these non-cooperating companies 
withheld requested information and significantly impeded this 
proceeding. Specifically, by not responding to requests for information 
concerning the Q&V of their sales, the companies impeded the 
Department's ability to select the most appropriate respondents in this 
review. Thus, we are continuing to base the CVD rate for these non-
cooperating companies on facts otherwise available, pursuant to 
sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act.
    We further determine that an adverse inference is warranted, 
pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. By failing to submit responses 
to the Department's Q&V questionnaire, these companies did not 
cooperate to the best of their ability in this review. Accordingly, we 
continue to find that an adverse inference is warranted to ensure that 
the non-cooperating companies will not obtain a more favorable result 
than had they fully complied with our request for information.
    Consistent with our practice, we have computed the total adverse 
facts available (``AFA'') rate for these non-cooperating companies 
using program-specific rates calculated for the cooperating respondents 
in the instant review or prior reviews of instant case, or calculated 
in prior CVD cases involving the country under review, in this case the 
PRC. See Preliminary Results, 76 FR at 62366. We continue to find this 
information to be corroborated in accordance with section 776(c) of the 
Act. To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the 
extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the 
information to be used. As stated in the Preliminary Results, the rates 
used by the Department as AFA are reliable because they were calculated 
in this review or in a recent final CVD determination using information 
about the same or similar programs and are relevant because they are 
actual calculated subsidy rates for programs from which the non-
cooperating companies could have received a benefit. Id. at 62366-67. 
In the absence of record evidence because of the non-cooperative 
companies' decision not to participate in the review, the Department 
has corroborated the AFA rates that it has selected to the extent 
practicable as required by section 776(c) of the Act.

2. GOC--Wire Rod

    The Department sought information from the GOC about the producers 
of the wire rod purchased by Wireking and NKS. In particular, for any 
of the wire rod producers that are not majority-owned by the GOC, the 
GOC was asked, inter alia, to trace back the ownership to the ultimate 
individual or state owners. See the Department's Original Questionnaire 
(January 28, 2011) at Section II/Appendix 3. The GOC provided 
information indicating that several wire rod producers were owned in 
whole or in part by other companies but failed to provide the ownership 
of those other companies. For one wire rod producer, the GOC failed to 
provide any ownership information. For another wire rod producer, the 
GOC did provide ownership information, but the information provided 
concerning the owners' status as officials of the Communist Party of 
the PRC was incomplete.
    Consistent with our findings in the Post-Preliminary Analysis, we 
determine that the GOC has withheld necessary information that was 
requested of it and, thus, that the Department must rely on ``facts 
available'' pursuant sections 776(a)(1) and (a)(2)(A) of the Act in 
making our final determination. See Post-Preliminary Analysis at 4-8. 
Moreover, we determine that the GOC has failed to cooperate by not 
acting to the best of its ability to comply with our request for 
information. Consequently, an adverse inference is warranted in the 
application of facts available under section 776(b) of the Act. See 
Post-Preliminary Analysis at 7-8. In these final results, we continue 
to apply the adverse inference that the producers of the wire rod used 
by Wireking and NKS are government authorities that provided a 
financial contribution as described under section 771(5)(D)(iv) of the 
Act. Id.

3. GOC--Steel Strip

    The Department sought information from the GOC about the producers 
of the steel strip purchased by Wireking and NKS to determine whether 
the steel strip suppliers are ``authorities'' within the meaning of 
section 771(5)(B) of the Act. The GOC stated that the producer from 
which NKS sourced steel strip is majority-owned by the GOC, but, 
despite multiple requests, refused to provide ownership information of 
the producers that supplied Wireking. See Post-Preliminary Analysis at 
2-4.
    Consistent with our findings in the Post-Preliminary Analysis, we 
determine that the GOC has withheld necessary information that was 
requested of it and, thus, that the Department must rely on ``facts 
available'' pursuant sections 776(a)(1) and (a)(2)(A) of the Act for 
these final results. Id. at 4. Moreover, we determine that the GOC has 
failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply 
with our request for information. Despite being given multiple 
opportunities, the GOC declined to provide the requested ownership 
information for Wireking's suppliers. Id. at 4-5. Consequently, an 
adverse inference is warranted in the application of facts available 
under section 776(b) of the Act. In these final results, we continue to 
apply the adverse inference that the steel strip suppliers in question 
are ``authorities'' within the meaning of section 771(5)(B) of the Act. 
Id.

4. GOC--Zhuhai Farmer Training Subsidy Program

    The GOC provided a partial response to the questions regarding this 
program, which was discovered in the course of this administrative 
review. Specifically, the GOC did not respond to the usage questions 
included in the questionnaire. See the Department's Supplemental 
Questionnaire (December 28, 2011) at 3 (referencing the Department's 
Original Questionnaire at questions G.1.(d) through G.2.(d) in Section 
II of Appendix 1).
    Consistent with our findings in the Post-Preliminary Analysis, we 
determine that the GOC has withheld necessary information that was 
requested of it and, thus, that the Department must rely on ``facts 
available'' for these final results pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of 
the Act. See Post-Preliminary Analysis at 4. We further determine that 
an adverse inference is warranted, pursuant to section 776(b) of the 
Act. By failing to submit usage information, the GOC did not cooperate 
to the best of its ability in this review. Id. at 4. We are continuing 
to apply the adverse inference that the program is de facto specific 
within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Act. Id.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    The Department has made the following changes in its determination 
since the
Preliminary Results
    1. In the Post-Preliminary Analysis, we found the Zhuhai Farmer 
Training Subsidy Program to be countervailable. See Post-Preliminary 
Analysis at 12-13. This program was used by NKS, and we added the 
amount we calculated for this program to NKS's overall subsidy rate. We 
have continued this treatment in these final results. See Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at ``GOC--

[[Page 21747]]

Zhuhai Farmer Training Subsidy Program.''
    2. In the Post-Preliminary Analysis, we found an additional 
supplier of wire rod to Wireking to be an authority within the meaning 
of section 771(5)(B) of the Act. Id. at 12. We have continued this 
treatment in these final results. Thus, we have recalculated Wireking's 
rates under the GOC's provision of wire rod for less than adequate 
remuneration (``LTAR''). See Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Provision of Wire Rod for LTAR, and Comments 4 and 5.
    3. In the Post-Preliminary Analysis, we found the GOC's provision 
of steel strip for LTAR to be countervailable. Id. at 9-11. This 
program was used by NKS and Wireking, and we added the amounts we 
calculated for this program to NKS's and Wireking's respective overall 
subsidy rates. We have continued this treatment in these final results. 
See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Provision of Steel Strip for 
LTAR, and Comments 4 and 6.
    4. We have added Japanese wire rod export prices sourced from the 
World Bank to the calculated average of the wire rod prices used as the 
wire rod benchmark price in the Preliminary Results calculations. See 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Provision of Wire Rod for LTAR, and 
Comments 4 and 5.
    For a full discussion of these changes, see the Post-Preliminary 
Analysis and the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

Final Results of Review

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5), we calculated individual 
ad valorem subsidy rates for mandatory respondents, Wireking and NKS.
    For the non-selected respondents which responded to our requests 
for Q&V information for purposes of respondent selection (i.e., Leader 
Metal Industry Co., Ltd. (aka Marmon Retail Services Asia) (``Leader 
Metal''), Hangzhou Dunli Import and Export Co., Ltd./Hangzhou Dunli 
Industry Co., Ltd. (``Hangzhou Dunli'') and Hengtong Hardware 
Manufacturing (Huizhou) Co., Ltd. (``Hengtong'')), we have followed the 
Department's practice, which is to base the margin on an average of the 
margins calculated for those companies selected for individual review, 
excluding de minimis rates or rates based entirely on AFA. See, e.g., 
Certain Pasta From Italy: Preliminary Results of the 13th (2008) 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 18806, 18811 (April 
13, 2010), unchanged in Certain Pasta from Italy: Final Results of the 
13th (2008) Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 37386 
(June 29, 2010). Therefore, we have assigned to Leader Metal, Hangzhou 
Dunli, and Hengtong the simple average of the rates calculated for 
Wireking and NKS. We have used a simple average rather than a weighted 
average because weight averaging the rates of the mandatory respondents 
risks disclosure of proprietary information.
    For the non-selected respondents which did not respond to our 
requests for Q&V information (i.e., Jiangsu Weixi and Asia Pacific 
CIS), we are applying an AFA rate, as described above.
    We find the net subsidy rate for the producers/exporters under 
review to be as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Net subsidy
                    Producer/Exporter                     rate (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guangdong Wireking Housewares & Hardware Co., Ltd.......           21.48
New King Shan (Zhu Hai) Co., Ltd........................            7.85
Leader Metal Industry Co., Ltd. (aka Marmon Retail                 12.35
 Services Asia).........................................
Hangzhou Dunli Import and Export Co., Ltd./Hangzhou                12.35
 Dunli Industry Co., Ltd................................
Hengtong Hardware Manufacturing (Huizhou) Co., Ltd......           12.35
Jiangsu Weixi Group Co..................................          264.09
Asia Pacific CIS (Wuxi) Co., Ltd........................          264.09
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

    The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions 
directly to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') 15 days after 
publication of these final results of review.

Oven Racks

    For certain oven racks from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse for consumption from September 9, 2009, through December 31, 
2009, the Department will instruct CBP to assess CVDs at the rates 
applicable to each company shown above and to liquidate such entries. 
Entries of certain oven racks occurring before September 9, 2009, were 
already liquidated at the time of the CVD order due to the ITC's 
finding of threat of material injury on certain oven racks. See CVD 
Order, 74 FR at 46974-75.

Refrigeration Shelving

    For certain refrigeration shelving from the PRC entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption from January 7, 2009, through 
May 6, 2009, and September 9, 2009, through December 31, 2009, the 
Department will instruct CBP to assess CVDs at the rates applicable to 
each company shown above and to liquidate such entries. Entries of 
certain refrigeration shelving occurring during the period May 7, 2009, 
through September 8, 2009, were not suspended for CVD purposes due to 
the termination of provisional measures. See CVD Order, 74 FR at 46974-
75.

Cash Deposit Instructions

    The Department also intends to instruct CBP to collect cash 
deposits of estimated CVDs in the amounts shown above. For all non-
reviewed firms, we will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash 
deposits of estimated CVDs at the most recent company-specific or all-
others rate applicable to the company. These rates shall apply to all 
non-reviewed companies until a review of a company assigned these rates 
is requested and completed. These cash deposit requirements, when 
imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

Administrative Protective Order

    This notice 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(a)(3). Timely written 
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.
    We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.


[[Page 21748]]


    Dated: April 4, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix--List of Comments and Issues in the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum

General Issues

    1. Legal Authority to Apply the CVD Law to the PRC.
    2. Whether the Final Results Must Account for the Imposition of 
Double Remedies.
    3. Whether the Department's Investigation of the Provision of 
Wire Rod and Steel Strip for LTAR Met the Initiation Standard.
    4. Whether Application of AFA for the Wire Rod and Steel Strip 
LTAR Programs Is Supported by the Record and Consistent with U.S. 
International Obligations.
    5. Benchmark Used for Wire Rod.

Company-Specific Issues

    6. Whether CVDs Should Apply to Wireking's Purchases of Steel 
Strip, Which is Not Consumed in the Production of the Subject 
Merchandise.
    7. Whether Cash Deposit and Liquidation Should Reflect Names and 
Translations of Names Used by NKS for Exportation of Goods to the 
United States.
    8. Whether the Department Should Have Found NKS Received a 
Subsidy from City Maintenance and Construction Taxes and Education 
Fee Surcharges/

[FR Doc. 2012-8727 Filed 4-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P