Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 14, 2010 / Notices 55759 

percent, no cash deposit will be 

required for that company); (2) for 

previously investigated or reviewed PRC 

and non–PRC exporters not listed above 

that have separate rates, the cash 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

exporter–specific rate published for the 

most recent period; (3) for all PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise which 

have not been found to be entitled to a 

separate rate, the cash deposit rate will 

be the PRC–wide rate of 157.68 percent 

(see Amended Final and Order); and (4) 

for all non–PRC exporters of subject 

merchandise which have not received 

their own rate, the cash deposit rate will 

be the rate applicable to the PRC 

exporters that supplied that non–PRC 

exporter. These deposit requirements, 

when imposed, shall remain in effect 

until publication of the final results of 

the next administrative review. 

Public Comment 

The Department will disclose 

calculations performed in connection 

with the preliminary results of this 

review within five days of the date of 

publication of this notice in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested 

party may request a hearing within 30 

days of publication of this notice in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

Any hearing will be held 37 days after 

the publication of this notice, or the first 

workday thereafter unless the 

Department alters the date pursuant to 

19 CFR 351.310(d). Individuals who 

wish to request a hearing must submit 

a written request within 30 days of the 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Room 1870, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230. Requests for a 

public hearing should contain: (1) the 

party’s name, address, and telephone 

number; (2) the number of participants; 

and (3) to the extent practicable, an 

identification of the arguments to be 

raised at the hearing. 

Unless otherwise notified by the 

Department, interested parties may 

submit case briefs within 30 days of the 

date of publication of this notice in 

accordance with 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(1)(ii). As part of the case 

brief, parties are encouraged to provide 

a summary of the arguments and a table 

of authorities cited in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.309(c)(2). Rebuttal briefs, 

which must be limited to issues raised 

in the case briefs, must be filed within 

five days after the case brief is filed in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(d). If a 

hearing is held, an interested party may 

make an affirmative presentation only 

on arguments included in that party’s 

case brief and may make a rebuttal 

presentation only on arguments 

included in that party’s rebuttal brief in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

Parties should confirm by telephone the 

time, date, and place of the hearing 

within 48 hours before the scheduled 

time. The Department will issue the 

final results of this review, which will 

include the results of its analysis of 

issues raised in the briefs, not later than 

120 days after the date of publication of 

this notice in accordance with section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.213(h)(1). 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding 

the reimbursement of antidumping 

duties prior to liquidation of the 

relevant entries during these review 

periods. Failure to comply with this 

requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

These preliminary results of 

administrative review are issued and 

this notice is published in accordance 

with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of 

the Act. 

Dated: September 7, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22893 Filed 9–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–888] 

Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing 

Tables and Certain Parts Thereof From 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to requests from 

interested parties, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) is 

conducting an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on floorstanding, metal-top ironing tables and 

certain parts thereof from the People’s 

Republic of China (PRC). The period of 

review (POR) is August 1, 2007 through 

July 31, 2008. We have preliminarily 

determined that respondent Since 

Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. (Since 

Hardware) has made sales to the United 

States of the subject merchandise at 

prices below normal value. We invite 

interested parties to comment on these 

preliminary results. Parties filing 

comments are requested to submit with 

each argument (1) a statement of the 

issue and (2) a brief summary of the 

argument(s). 

DATES: Effective Date: September 14, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael J. Heaney or Robert James, 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) 482–4475 or (202) 482– 

0649, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On August 6, 2004, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order regarding floorstanding, metal-top ironing tables and 

certain parts thereof (ironing tables) 

from the PRC. See Notice of Amended 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty 

Order: Floor-Standing, Metal-Top 

Ironing Tables and Certain Parts 

Thereof From the People’s Republic of 

China, 69 FR 47868 (August 6, 2004) 

(Amended Final and Order). 

On August 1, 2008, the Department 

published a notice of opportunity to 

request an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on, inter alia, 

ironing tables from the People’s 

Republic of China. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Review, 73 

FR 44966 (August 1, 2008). On August 

29, 2008, Home Products International 

(the Petitioner in this proceeding) 

requested, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(b)(1), an administrative review 

of this order for Since Hardware. Since 

Hardware’s request for an 

administrative review of its sales 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2) 

followed on September 2, 2008. (The 

deadline for filing a request for review, 

August 31, 2008, fell on a weekend; 

Since Hardware’s request was timely 

filed on the first business day 

thereafter.) In its request for review, 

Since Hardware also requested that the 

Department defer initiation of the 

administrative review for one year, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(c). 

On October 29, 2008, the Department 

published its notice of deferral of the 

administrative review for one year with 

respect to Since Hardware, pursuant to 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
55760 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 14, 2010 / Notices 

19 CFR 351.213(c). (This notice of 

deferral was inadvertently omitted from 

our September 30th notice of initiation). 

See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Deferral of Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 64305 (October 29, 2008) 

In accordance with the deferral of 

administrative review, on September 22, 

2009, the Department initiated an 

administrative review of Since 

Hardware for the period of review of 

August 1, 2007 through July 31, 2008. 

See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Requests for Revocation in 

Part, 74 FR 48224 (September 22, 2009). 

On February 16, 2010, the Department 

issued a memorandum that tolled the 

deadlines for all Import Administration 

cases by seven calendar days due to the 

recent Federal Government closure. See 

Memorandum for the Record from 

Ronald Lorentzen, DAS for Import 

Administration, regarding Tolling of 

Administrative Deadlines as a Result of 

the Government Closure During the 

Recent Snowstorm, dated February 12, 

2010. 

On April 28, 2010, in accordance with 

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 

351.213(h)(2), the Department extended 

the deadline for the preliminary results 

of review until September 7, 2010. See 

Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing 

Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Extension of the Time Limit for the 

Preliminary Results of the 

Administrative Review, 75 FR 22371 

(April 28, 2010). 

The Department issued its original 

antidumping questionnaire to Since 

Hardware on September 29, 2009. Since 

Hardware timely filed its response to 

Section A of the questionnaire on 

October 29, 2009; Since Hardware’s 

Sections C and D responses followed on 

November 19, 2009 and December 1, 

2009 respectively. Petitioner filed 

comments on Since Hardware’s sections 

A, C, and D responses on December 7, 

2009. 

The Department subsequently issued 

supplemental questionnaires to Since 

Hardware on February 24, 2010, and 

May 5, 2010. Since Hardware timely 

responded to each of the Department’s 

supplemental requests for information 

on March 25, 2010, April 9, 2010 and 

June 3, 2010. On April 9, 2010, 

Petitioner filed additional comments on 

the original and supplemental sections 

A, C, and D responses submitted by 

Since Hardware. On August 26, 2010, 

Petitioner filed comments concerning 

the Department’s verification of Since 

Hardware. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the 

Act, we verified the information 

submitted by Since Hardware upon 

which we have relied in these 

preliminary results of review. We 

conducted our verification from June 21, 

through June 25, 2010. The 

Department’s verification report is on 

the record of this review in the Central 

Records Unit, Room 1117 of the main 

Department building. We used standard 

verification procedures, including 

examination of relevant accounting and 

production records, as well as source 

documentation provided by Since 

Hardware. See August 23, 2010 

Verification of the Sales and Factors 

Response of Since Hardware 

(Guangzhou) Co. Ltd. in the 

Antidumping Review of Floor Standing, 

Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain 

Parts Thereof from the People’s 

Republic of China (PRC) (Since 

Hardware 2007–2008 Verification 

Report). 

Surrogate Country and Surrogate Value 

Data 

On July 13, 2010, the Department sent 

interested parties a letter inviting 

comments on surrogate country 

selection and surrogate value data. See 

the Department’s Letter to All Interested 

Parties; Administrative Review of FloorStanding, Metal-Top, Ironing Tables and 

Parts Thereof from the People’s 

Republic of China (PRC): Surrogate 

Country List, dated July 13, 2010 

(Surrogate Country List). On August 17, 

2010, the Department received 

information to value factors of 

production (FOP) from Since Hardware 

and the Petitioner. With the exception 

of the surrogate value data to value labor 

rates, all of the surrogate values placed 

on the record were obtained from 

sources in India. 

Scope of the Order 

For purposes of this order, the 

product covered consists of floorstanding, metal-top ironing tables, 

assembled or unassembled, complete or 

incomplete, and certain parts thereof. 

The subject tables are designed and 

used principally for the hand ironing or 

pressing of garments or other articles of 

fabric. The subject tables have fullheight leg assemblies that support the 

ironing surface at an appropriate (often 

adjustable) height above the floor. The 

subject tables are produced in a variety 

of leg finishes, such as painted, plated, 

or matte, and they are available with 

various features, including iron rests, 

linen racks, and others. The subject 

ironing tables may be sold with or 

without a pad and/or cover. All types 

and configurations of floor-standing, 

metal-top ironing tables are covered by 

this review. 

Furthermore, this order specifically 

covers imports of ironing tables, 

assembled or unassembled, complete or 

incomplete, and certain parts thereof. 

For purposes of this order, the term 

‘‘unassembled’’ ironing table means a 

product requiring the attachment of the 

leg assembly to the top or the 

attachment of an included feature such 

as an iron rest or linen rack. The term 

‘‘complete’’ ironing table means product 

sold as a ready-to-use ensemble 

consisting of the metal-top table and a 

pad and cover, with or without 

additional features, e.g., iron rest or 

linen rack. The term ‘‘incomplete’’ 

ironing table means product shipped or 

sold as a ‘‘bare board’’—i.e., a metal-top 

table only, without the pad and cover— 

with or without additional features, e.g., 

iron rest or linen rack. The major parts 

or components of ironing tables that are 

intended to be covered by this order 

under the term ‘‘certain parts thereof’’ 

consist of the metal top component 

(with or without assembled supports 

and slides) and/or the leg components, 

whether or not attached together as a leg 

assembly. The order covers separately 

shipped metal top components and leg 

components, without regard to whether 

the respective quantities would yield an 

exact quantity of assembled ironing 

tables. 

Ironing tables without legs (such as 

models that mount on walls or over 

doors) are not floor-standing and are 

specifically excluded. Additionally, 

tabletop or countertop models with 

short legs that do not exceed 12 inches 

in length (and which may or may not 

collapse or retract) are specifically 

excluded. 

The subject ironing tables are 

currently classifiable under Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(HTSUS) subheading 9403.20.0011. The 

subject metal top and leg components 

are classified under HTSUS subheading 

9403.90.8040. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and for Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) purposes, the 

Department’s written description of the 

scope remains dispositive. 

Non-Market-Economy Status 

In every case conducted by the 

Department involving the PRC, the PRC 

has been treated as a non-market 

economy (NME). In accordance with 

section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any 

determination that a foreign country is 

an NME country shall remain in effect 

until revoked by the administering 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 14, 2010 / Notices 55761 

authority. See, e.g., Brake Rotors from 

the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results and Partial Rescission of the 

2004/2005 Administrative Review and 

Notice of Rescission of 2004/2005 New 

Shipper Review, 71 FR 66304 

(November 14, 2006). None of the 

parties to this administrative review has 

contested such treatment. Accordingly, 

we calculated normal value (NV) in 

accordance with section 773(c) of the 

Act, which applies to NME countries. 

Surrogate Country 

When the Department investigates 

imports from an NME country and 

available information does not permit 

the Department to determine NV 

pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act, 

then, pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the 

Act, the Department bases NV on an 

NME producer’s FOP’s to the extent 

possible, in one or more marketeconomy countries that (1) are at a level 

of economic development comparable to 

that of the NME country, and (2) are 

significant producers of comparable 

merchandise. The Department 

determined India, the Philippines, 

Indonesia, Thailand, Ukraine and Peru 

are countries comparable to the PRC in 

economic development for purposes of 

this administrative review. (See 

Memorandum to Richard Weible from 

Carole Showers Request for a List of 

Surrogate Countries for an 

Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Order on Floor Standing 

Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain 

Parts (‘‘Ironing Tables’’) from the 

People’s Republic of China dated July 8, 

2010 (Surrogate Country List).) 

Based on publicly available 

information placed on the record by 

interested parties (e.g., production data), 

the Department determines India to be 

a reliable source for surrogate values 

because India is at a comparable level of 

economic development pursuant to 

section 773(c)(4) of the Act, is a 

significant producer of the subject 

merchandise, and has publicly available 

and reliable data. Accordingly, the 

Department has selected India as the 

surrogate country for purposes of 

valuing the FOPs because it meets the 

Department’s criteria for surrogate 

country selection. 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving NME 

countries, the Department has a 

rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within the country are 

subject to government control and, thus, 

should be assigned a single 

antidumping duty rate. It is the 

Department’s policy to assign all 

exporters of subject merchandise in an 

NME country this single rate unless an 

exporter can demonstrate that it is 

sufficiently independent so as to be 

entitled to a separate rate. See Policy 

Bulletin 05.1: Separate Rates Practice 

and Application of Combination Rates 

in Antidumping Investigations 

involving Non-Market Economy 

Countries, available at http:// 

ia.ita.gov.policy/bull05-1.pdf. Exporters 

can demonstrate this independence 

through the absence of both de jure and 

de facto governmental control over 

export activities. The Department 

analyzes each entity exporting the 

subject merchandise under a test arising 

from the Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from 

the People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 

20588 at Comment 1 (May 6, 1991) 

(Sparklers). This test was further 

developed in 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). 

However, if the Department determines 

that a company is wholly foreign-owned 

or located in a market economy, then a 

separate rate analysis is unnecessary to 

determine whether it is independent 

from government control. 

Accordingly, we have considered 

whether Since Hardware is independent 

from government control, and therefore 

eligible for a separate rate. The 

Department’s separate-rate test to 

determine whether the exporters are 

independent from government control 

does not consider, in general, 

macroeconomic/border-type controls, 

e.g., export licenses, quotas, and 

minimum export prices, particularly if 

these controls are imposed to prevent 

dumping. See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Preserved 

Mushrooms from the People’s Republic 

of China, 63 FR 72255, 72256 

(December 31, 1998). The test focuses, 

rather, on controls over the investment, 

pricing, and output decision-making 

process at the individual firm level. See, 

e.g., Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain 

Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from 

Ukraine, 62 FR 61754, 61758 (November 

19, 1997); see also Tapered Roller 

Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished 

and Unfinished, From the People’s 

Republic of China; Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 

17, 1997). 

Since Hardware provided complete 

separate-rate information in its 

responses to our original and 

supplemental questionnaires. 

Accordingly, we performed a separaterates analysis to determine whether 

Since Hardware is independent from 

government control. 

Absence of De Jure Control 

The Department considers the 

following de jure criteria in determining 

whether an individual company may be 

granted a separate rate: (1) An absence 

of restrictive stipulations associated 

with an individual exporter’s business 

and export licenses; (2) any legislative 

enactments decentralizing control of 

companies; and (3) other formal 

measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies. See 

Sparklers, 56 FR 20588 at Comment 1. 

The evidence provided by Since 

Hardware supports a finding of de jure 

absence of control based on the 

following: (1) An absence of restrictive 

stipulations associated with its business 

and export licenses, (2) applicable 

legislative enactments decentralizing 

control of companies; and (3) formal 

measures (e.g., the Foreign Trade Law) 

decentralizing control of companies, 

See, e.g., Since Hardware October 29, 

2009 questionnaire response at pages A– 

3–A–5. 

Absence of De Facto Control 

Typically, the Department considers 

four factors in evaluating whether a 

respondent is subject to de facto 

government control of its export 

functions: (1) Whether the export prices 

are set by, or subject to, the approval of 

a government authority; (2) whether the 

respondent has authority to negotiate 

and sign contracts and other 

agreements; (3) whether the respondent 

has autonomy from the government in 

making decisions regarding the 

selection of its management; and (4) 

whether the respondent retains the 

proceeds of its export sales and makes 

independent decisions regarding 

disposition of profits or financing of 

losses. See Silicon Carbide 59 FR 22857; 

see also Notice of Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Furfuryl Alcohol from the People’s 

Republic Of China, 60 FR 22544 (May 

8, 1995) The Department has 

determined that an analysis of de facto 

control is critical in determining 

whether respondents are, in fact, subject 

to a degree of governmental control, 

which would preclude the Department 

from assigning separate rates. 

The evidence provided by Since 

Hardware supports a preliminary 

finding of de facto absence of 

government control based on the 

following: (1) The absence of evidence 

that the export prices are set by or are 

subject to the approval of a government 

agency, (2) Since Hardware has 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
55762 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 14, 2010 / Notices 

authority to negotiate and sign contracts 

and other agreements, (3) Since 

Hardware has autonomy from 

government in making decisions 

regarding the selection of management, 

and (4) Since Hardware retains the 

proceeds of its export sales and make 

independent decisions regarding 

disposition of profits or financing of 

losses. See Since Hardware October 29, 

2010 Section A questionnaire response 

at A–5 through A–8. 

In accordance with the criteria 

identified in Sparklers and Silicon 

Carbide, the evidence placed on the 

record of this review by Since Hardware 

demonstrates an absence of de jure and 

de facto government control with 

respect to Since Hardware’s exports of 

the subject merchandise. Accordingly, 

we have determined that Since 

Hardware has demonstrated eligibility 

for a separate rate. 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether Since 

Hardware’s sales of the subject 

merchandise to the United States were 

made at prices below normal value 

(NV), we compared its United States 

prices to NV, as described in the ‘‘U.S. 

Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of 

this notice. See section 773(a) of the 

Act. 

U.S. Price 

We based U.S. price for Since 

Hardware on export price (EP) in 

accordance with section 772(a) of the 

Act, because the first sale to an 

unaffiliated purchaser was made prior 

to importation, and constructed export 

price (CEP) was not otherwise 

warranted by the facts on the record. We 

calculated EP based on the packed price 

from the exporter to the first unaffiliated 

customer in the United States. We 

deducted foreign inland freight, and 

foreign brokerage and handling 

expenses from the starting price (gross 

unit price), in accordance with section 

772(c) of the Act. Where appropriate, we 

made an addition to U.S. price for 

billing adjustments. 

Since Hardware incurred foreign 

inland freight and foreign brokerage and 

handling expenses from PRC service 

providers. We therefore valued these 

services using Indian surrogate values 

(see ‘‘Factors of Production’’ section 

below for further discussion). 

Normal Value 

Factors of Production (FOP) 

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides 

that the Department shall determine NV 

using an FOP methodology if the 

merchandise is exported from an NME 

country and the Department finds that 

the available information does not 

permit the calculation of NV using 

home-market prices, third-country 

prices, or constructed value under 

section 773(a) of the Act. When 

determining NV in an NME context, the 

Department will base NV on FOPs 

because the presence of government 

control on various aspects of these 

economies renders price comparisons 

and the calculation of production costs 

invalid under our normal 

methodologies. The Department’s 

questionnaires required Since Hardware 

to provide information regarding the 

weighted-average FOP. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(1), the Department will 

normally use publically available 

information to find an appropriate SV to 

value FOPs, but when a producer 

sources an input from a market 

economy and pays for it in marketeconomy currency, the Department may 

value the factor using the actual price 

paid for the input. See 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(1); see also Shakeproof 

Assembly Components, Div. of Ill. Tool 

Works, Inc. v. United States, 268 F. 3rd 

1376, 1382–1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001) 

(affirming the Department’s use of 

market-based prices to value FOPs). 

During the POR, Since Hardware 

purchased a certain packing material 

from a market economy supplier. 

Because Since Hardware purchased 

more than 33 percent of its total volume 

of this material from a market economy 

supplier, we used the market economy 

price of that material to value this input. 

See Since Hardware December 1, 2009 

Section D response at Appendix D–6. 

We calculated NV based on FOPs in 

accordance with section 773(c)(3) and 

(4) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c). 

The FOPs include but are not limited to: 

(1) Hours of labor required; (2) 

quantities of raw material employed; (3) 

amounts of energy and other utilities 

consumed; and (4) representative capital 

costs. The Department used FOPs 

reported by Since Hardware for 

materials, energy, labor, by-products, 

and packing. To calculate NV, we 

multiplied the reported unit factor 

quantities by publicly available values 

in the surrogate country, India. 

In addition, Since Hardware reported 

by-product sales. Consistent with the 

Department’s determination in the 

investigation of Diamond Sawblades 

from the PRC, we will deduct the 

surrogate value of the by-product from 

NV because the surrogate financial 

statements on the record of this 

administrative review contain no 

references to the treatment of byproducts, and because Since Hardware 

provided evidence that it sold its byproducts. See Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final 

Partial Affirmative Determination of 

Critical Circumstances: Diamond 

Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the 

People’s Republic of China, 71 FR 29303 

(May 22, 2006) (Diamond Sawblades 

from the PRC), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 9, unchanged in Notice of 

Amended Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Diamond 

Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the 

People’s Republic of China, 71 FR 35864 

(June 22, 2006). This is consistent with 

accounting principles based on a 

reasonable assumption that if a 

company sells a by-product, the byproduct necessarily incurs expenses for 

overhead, SG&A, and profit. Id. 

In selecting the surrogate Indian 

values, we considered the quality, 

specificity, and contemporaneity of the 

data, in accordance with our practice. 

See, e.g., Electrolytic Manganese 

Dioxide from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 2. The 

Department adjusted input prices by 

including freight costs to make them 

delivered prices, as appropriate. 

Specifically, the Department added to 

Indian import SVs a surrogate freight 

cost using the shorter of the reported 

distance from the domestic supplier to 

the factory or the distance from the 

nearest seaport to the factory of 

production. This adjustment is in 

accordance with the decision of the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

(Federal Circuit) in Sigma Corp. v. 

United States, 117 F. 3rd 1401, 1407–08 

(Fed. Cir. 1997). A detailed description 

of all SVs used to value Since 

Hardware’s FOPs may be found in the 

September 7, 2010 Memorandum to the 

File through Robert James, Program 

Manager, Office 7 from Michael J. 

Heaney International Trade Analyst: 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Floor-Standing, Metal Top 

Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof 

from the People’s Republic of China, 

dated September 7, 2010 (Factors 

Valuation Memorandum.) 

The Department calculated SVs for 

the majority of reported FOPs purchased 

from NME sources using the 

contemporaneous, weighted average 

unit import value derived from the 

Ministry of Commerce of India (Indian 

Import Statistics) for the POR. The 

Department used Indian import data 

from the Global Trade Atlas (GTA) 

published by Global Trade Information 

Services, Inc. (GTIS) which is sourced 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 14, 2010 / Notices 55763 

from the Directorate General of 

Commercial Intelligence & Statistics, 

Indian Ministry of Commerce, to 

determine the surrogate values for most 

raw materials, by-products and packing 

material inputs. The Department has 

disregarded statistics from NMEs, 

countries with generally available 

export subsidies, and undetermined 

countries, in calculating average value. 

In accordance with the Omnibus Trade 

and Competiveness Act of 1988, Conf. 

Report to Accompany HR. 3, HR Rep. 

No., 100th Cong., 2nd Session (1988), 

the Department continues to apply its 

long-standing practice of disregarding 

surrogate values if it has a reason to 

believe or suspect the source data may 

be subsidized. In this regard, the 

Department has previously found that it 

is appropriate to disregard such prices 

from India, Indonesia, South Korea and 

Thailand because we have determined 

that these countries maintain broadly 

available, non-industry specific export 

subsidies. See, e.g. Expedited Sunset 

Review of the Countervailing Duty Order 

on Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from 

India, 75 FR 13257 (March 19, 2010), 

and accompanying Issues and Decisions 

Memorandum at pages 4–5; Expedited 

Sunset Review of the Countervailing 

Duty Order on Certain Cut-To Length 

Carbon Quality Steel Plate from 

Indonesia, 70 FR 45692 (August 8, 

2005), and accompanying Issues and 

Decisions Memorandum at page 4; 

Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 

Products from Thailand: Final Results 

of Countervailing Duty Determination, 

66 FR 50410 (October 3, 2001), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at page 23. For a detailed 

description of all surrogate values used 

for Since Hardware, see the Factors 

Valuation Memorandum. 

In past cases, it has been the 

Department’s practice to value various 

FOPs using import statistics of the 

primary selected surrogate country from 

the World Trade Atlas (WTA), as 

published by GTIS. See, e.g., Certain 

Preserved Mushrooms from the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Results 

of Antidumping Duty New Shipper 

Review, 74 FR 50946, 50950 (October 2, 

2009). However, in October 2009, the 

Department learned that Indian import 

data obtained from the WTA, as 

published by GTIS, began identifying 

the original reporting currency for India 

as the U.S. dollar. The Department then 

contacted GTIS about the change in the 

original reporting currency for India 

from the Indian rupee to the U.S. dollar. 

Officials at GTIS explained that while 

GTIS obtains data on imports into India 

directly from the Ministry of Commerce, 

Government of India, as denominated 

and published in Indian rupees, the 

WTA software is limited with regard to 

the number of significant digits it can 

manage. Therefore, GTIS made a 

decision to change the official reporting 

currency for Indian data from the Indian 

rupee to the U.S. dollar in order to 

reduce the loss of significant digits 

when obtaining data through the WTA 

software. GTIS explained that it 

converts the Indian Rupee to the U.S. 

dollar using the monthly Federal 

Reserve exchange rate applicable to the 

relevant month of the data being 

downloaded and converted. See, Certain 

Oil Country Tubular Goods from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, Affirmative Final 

determination of Critical Circumstances, 

and Final Determination of Targeted 

Dumping, 75 FR 20335 (April 19, 2010), 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 4. 

However, the data reported in the 

GTA software report import statistics, 

such as data from India, in the original 

reporting currency and thus these data 

correspond to the original currency 

value reported by each country. 

Additionally, the data reported in GTA 

software are reported to the nearest digit 

and thus there is not a loss of data by 

rounding, as there is with the data 

reported by the WTA software. 

Consequently, the Department will now 

obtain import statistics from GTA for 

valuing FOPs because the GTA import 

statistics are in the original reporting 

currency of the country from which the 

data are obtained and have the same 

level of accuracy as the original data 

released. 

The Department valued electricity 

using the updated electricity price data 

for small, medium, and large industries, 

as published by the Central Electricity 

Authority, an administrative body of the 

Government of India, in its publication 

titled Electricity Tariff & Duty and 

Average Rates of Electricity Supply in 

India, dated March 2008. These 

electricity rates represent actual, 

country-wide, publically available 

information on tax-exclusive electricity 

rates charged to small, medium, and 

large industries in India. We did not 

inflate this value because utility rates 

represent current rates, as indicated by 

the effective dates listed for each of the 

rates provided. See Factors Valuation 

Memorandum at page 6. 

The Department valued water using 

data from the Maharashtra Industrial 

Development Corporation (MDIC) as it 

includes a wide range of industrial 

water tariffs. To value water, we used 

the average rate for industrial use from 

MDIC water rates at http:// 

www.midcindia.org. See Factors 

Valuation Memorandum at page 6. 

We valued diesel fuel using the rates 

provided by the OECD’s International 

Energy Agency’s publication: Key World 

Energy Statistics from 2004 and 2005. 

The prices are based on 2004 and 2005 

first quarter prices of automotive diesel 

fuel retail prices. See Factor Valuation 

Memorandum at page 6. 

For direct, indirect, and packing 

labor, pursuant to a recent decision by 

the Federal Circuit, we have calculated 

an hourly wage rate to use in valuing 

Since Hardware’s reported labor input 

by averaging earnings and/or wages in 

countries that are economically 

comparable to the PRC and that are 

significant producers of comparable 

merchandise. See Dorbest Ltd. v. United 

States, 2009–1257 at 20 (Fed. Cir. 2010). 

Because this wage rate does not separate 

labor rates into different skill levels or 

types of labor, the Department has 

applied the same wage rate to all skill 

levels and types of labor reported by 

Since Hardware. See Factors Valuation 

Memorandum at page 5. 

Since Hardware claimed that it 

utilized hot rolled steel as a production 

input of the subject merchandise. 

However, Since Hardware’s supporting 

documentation provided to department 

officials at verification did not 

demonstrate Since Hardware purchased 

hot-rolled steel in sizes of less than 1.1 

millimeters. See Since Hardware 2007– 

2008 Verification Report at pages 25–27. 

We, therefore, assigned the surrogate 

value of cold-rolled steel to value this 

production input. 

The Department valued truck freight 

expenses using a per-unit average rate 

calculated from data on the Infobanc 

Web site: http://www.infobanccom/ 

logistics/logtruck.htm. The logistics 

section of this Web site contains inland 

freight truck rates between many large 

Indian cities. Since this value is not 

contemporaneous with the POR, the 

Department deflated the rate using the 

Wholesale Price Index of India. See 

Factors Valuation Memorandum at 

page 7. 

The Department valued brokerage and 

handling using a price list of export 

procedures necessary to export a 

standardized cargo of goods in India. 

The price list is compiled based on a 

survey case study of the procedural 

requirements for trading a standard 

shipment of goods by ocean transport in 

India that is published in Doing 

Business 2010: India, by the World 

Bank. 

To value factory overhead, selling, 

general and administrative (SG&A) 

expenses, and profit the Department 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
55764 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 14, 2010 / Notices 

used the audited financial statement of 

2005–2006 Infiniti Modules Pvt. Ltd. 

(Infiniti Modules). 

We are preliminarily granting an 

offset to Since Hardware for its scrap 

steel sales. See Factors Valuation 

Memorandum at page 3. 

Currency Conversion 

Where necessary, the Department 

made currency conversions into U.S. 

dollars, in accordance with section 

773(A) of the Act, based on the 

exchange rates in effect on the date of 

the U.S. sale, as certified by the Federal 

Reserve Board. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

We preliminarily determine that the 

following antidumping duty margins 

exist: 

Exporter Margin (percent) 

Since Hardware ............ 52.06 

Assessment Rates 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. The Department 

will issue appropriate assessment 

instructions directly to CBP 15 days 

after the date of publication of the final 

results of this review. For assessment 

purposes, where possible, we calculated 

importer-specific ad valorem assessment 

rates for ironing tables from the PRC 

based on the ratio of the total amount of 

the dumping duties calculated for the 

examined sales to the total entered 

value of those same sales. We will 

instruct CBP to assess antidumping 

duties on all appropriate entries covered 

by this review if any assessment rate 

calculated in the final results of this 

review is above de minimis. The final 

results of this review shall be the basis 

for the assessment of antidumping 

duties on entries of merchandise 

covered by the final results of these 

reviews and for future deposits of 

estimated duties, where applicable. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

administrative review for all shipments 

of the subject merchandise entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date, as provided for by section 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the 

exporters listed above, the cash deposit 

rate will be established in the final 

results of this review (except, if the rate 

is zero or de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 

percent, no cash deposit will be 

required for that company); (2) for 

previously investigated or reviewed PRC 

and non-PRC exporters not listed above 

that have separate rates, the cash 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

exporter-specific rate published for the 

most recent period; (3) for all PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise which 

have not been found to be entitled to a 

separate rate, the cash deposit rate will 

be the PRC-wide rate of 157.68 percent 

(see Amended Final and Order); and (4) 

for all non-PRC exporters of subject 

merchandise which have not received 

their own rate, the cash deposit rate will 

be the rate applicable to the PRC 

exporters that supplied that non-PRC 

exporter. These deposit requirements, 

when imposed, shall remain in effect 

until publication of the final results of 

the next administrative review. 

Public Comment 

The Department will disclose 

calculations performed in connection 

with the preliminary results of this 

review within five days of the date of 

publication of this notice in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested 

party may request a hearing within 30 

days of publication of this notice in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

Any hearing will be held 37 days after 

the publication of this notice, or the first 

workday thereafter unless the 

Department alters the date pursuant to 

19 CFR 351.310(d). Individuals who 

wish to request a hearing must submit 

a written request within 30 days of the 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Room 1870, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230. Requests for a 

public hearing should contain: (1) The 

party’s name, address, and telephone 

number; (2) the number of participants; 

and (3) to the extent practicable, an 

identification of the arguments to be 

raised at the hearing. 

Unless otherwise notified by the 

Department, interested parties may 

submit case briefs within 30 days of the 

date of publication of this notice in 

accordance with 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(1)(ii). As part of the case 

brief, parties are encouraged to provide 

a summary of the arguments and a table 

of authorities in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.309(c)(2). Rebuttal briefs, 

which must be limited to issues raised 

in the case briefs, must be filed within 

five days after the case brief is filed in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(d). If a 

hearing is held, an interested party may 

make an affirmative presentation only 

on arguments included in that party’s 

case brief and may make a rebuttal 

presentation only on arguments 

included in that party’s rebuttal brief in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

Parties should confirm by telephone the 

time, date, and place of the hearing 

within 48 hours before the scheduled 

time. The Department will issue the 

final results of this review, which will 

include the results of its analysis of 

issues raised in the briefs, not later than 

120 days after the date of publication of 

this notice in accordance with section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.213(h)(1). 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding 

the reimbursement of antidumping 

duties prior to liquidation of the 

relevant entries during these review 

periods. Failure to comply with this 

requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. These 

preliminary results of administrative 

review are issued and this notice is 

published in accordance with sections 

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

Dated: September 7, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22898 Filed 9–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–580–851] 

Dynamic Random Access Memory 

Semiconductors From the Republic of 

Korea: Preliminary Results of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

is conducting an administrative review 

of the countervailing duty order on 

dynamic random access memory 

semiconductors from the Republic of 

Korea for the period January 1, 2008, 

through August 10, 2008. We 

preliminarily find that Hynix 

Semiconductor, Inc. received 

countervailable subsidies during the 

period of review. If these preliminary 

results are adopted in our final results 

of this review, we will instruct U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection to assess 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES