[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 178 (Wednesday, September 15, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56070-56078]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23002]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-909]


Certain Steel Nails From the People's Republic of China: Notice 
of Preliminary Results and Preliminary Rescission, in Part, of the 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``Department'') is conducting the 
first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain 
steel nails (``nails'') from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'') 
for the period of review (``POR'') January 23, 2008, through July 31, 
2009. The Department has preliminarily determined that sales have been 
made below normal value (``NV'') with respect to certain exporters who 
participated fully and are entitled to a separate rate in this 
administrative review. If these preliminary results are adopted in our 
final results of this review, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs 
and Border Protection

[[Page 56071]]

(``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of 
subject merchandise during the POR. Interested parties are invited to 
comment on these preliminary results.

DATES: Effective Date: September 15, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emeka Chukwudebe or Matthew Renkey, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0219 or (202) 
482-2312, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case Timeline

    On September 22, 2009, the Department published in the Federal 
Register a notice of initiation of an administrative review of nails 
from the PRC, for 158 companies. See Initiation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation 
in Part, 74 FR 48224 (September 22, 2009) (``Initiation''). As 
explained in the memorandum from the Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Import Administration, the Department has exercised its discretion to 
toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal 
Government from February 5, through February 12, 2010. See Memorandum 
to the Record regarding ``Tolling of Administrative Deadlines As a 
Result of the Government Closure During the Recent Snowstorm,'' dated 
February 12, 2010. Thus, all deadlines in this segment of the 
proceeding have been extended by seven days. Also, on March 26, 2010, 
the Department published a notice extending the time period for issuing 
the preliminary results by 120 days to September 7, 2010. See Certain 
Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time 
Limit for the Preliminary Results of the First Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 75 FR 14568 (March 26, 2010).
    On July 23, 2010, the Department published a notice rescinding the 
administrative review with respect to 31 companies, due to withdrawals 
of requests for review. See Certain Steel Nails from the People's 
Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of the First 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 43149 (July 23, 2010) 
(``Partial Rescission Notice'').

Respondent Selection

    Section 777A(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``Act'') 
directs the Department to calculate individual dumping margins for each 
known exporter or producer of the subject merchandise. However, section 
777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the Department discretion to limit its 
examination to a reasonable number of exporters or producers if it is 
not practicable to examine all exporters or producers involved in the 
review.
    The Department initiated a review for the 158 companies for which 
it received a timely request for review. See Initiation, 74 FR 48224. 
On September 24, 2009, the Department released CBP data for entries of 
the subject merchandise during the POR under administrative protective 
order (``APO'') to all interested parties with access to the APO, 
inviting comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection. 
Between September 24, 2009, and October 26, 2009, Certified Products 
International, Inc. (``CPI''), Stanley \1\ and Petitioner \2\ submitted 
comments on the respondent selection process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Stanley Works (Langfang) Fastening Systems Co., Ltd. and 
the Stanley Works/Stanley Fastening Systems, LP (collectively 
``Stanley'').
    \2\ Mid Continent Nail Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After assessing its resources, the Department issued on November 6, 
2009, its respondent selection memorandum. In it, the Department 
determined that the number of companies (i.e., 158) was too large a 
number for individual reviews and that the Department could reasonably 
examine two exporters subject to this review. Pursuant to section 
777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, the Department selected Stanley and CPI as 
mandatory respondents, while noting that CPI had submitted evidence, 
arguing that it had no shipments of subject merchandise during the 
POR.\3\ On December 3, 2009, after receiving a no-shipments response 
from CPI and evaluating further comments submitted by CPI and 
Petitioner, the Department selected Tianjin Xiantong Material & Trade 
Co., Ltd. (``Tianjin Xiantong'') as a mandatory respondent in place of 
CPI, noting that we would continue to gather additional information to 
investigate CPI's claims that it had no shipments during the POR.\4\ On 
January 26, 2010, Tianjin Xiantong filed a letter stating that it would 
not be participating as an individually-examined respondent in this 
review.\5\ Also on January 26, 2010, Petitioner submitted additional 
comments regarding respondent selection. On February 4, 2010, the 
Department selected Shandong Minmetal Co., Ltd. (``Shandong Minmetal'') 
as a mandatory respondent in place of Tianjin Xiantong.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Office 9 Director, through 
Alex Villanueva, Office 9 Program Manager, from Matthew Renkey, 
Senior Case Analyst and Emeka Chukwudebe, Case Analyst, dated 
November 6, 2009, First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of 
Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''): 
Selection of Respondents for Individual Review (``First Respondent 
Selection Memo'').
    \4\ See Memorandum to the File, through Alex Villanueva, Office 
9 Program Manager, from Emeka Chukwudebe, Case Analyst, dated 
December 3, 2009, First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of 
Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''): 
Selection of Second Respondent for Individual Review (``Second 
Respondent Selection Memo'').
    \5\ The Department also rescinded the review of Tianjin Xiantong 
because Petitioner withdrew its request for review with respect to 
this company. See Partial Rescission Notice.
    \6\ Memorandum to the File, through Alex Villanueva, Office 9 
Program Manager, from Emeka Chukwudebe, Case Analyst, dated December 
3, 2009, First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain 
Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''): 
Replacement of Respondent Selected for Individual Examination 
(``Third Respondent Selection Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 17, 2009, the Department issued its original 
antidumping duty questionnaire to Stanley. Between December 18, 2009, 
and July 12, 2010, Stanley submitted responses to the Department's 
original and supplemental questionnaires. On January 28, 2010, the 
Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to CPI regarding its no-
shipments status, and CPI responded on February 25, 2010. On February 
16, 2010, the Department issued its original antidumping duty 
questionnaire to Shandong Minmetal. Between March 18, 2010, and August 
20, 2010, Shandong Minmetal submitted responses to the Department's 
original and supplemental questionnaires.

Preliminary Partial Rescission of Administrative Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we have preliminarily determined 
that the following companies made no shipments of subject merchandise 
during the POR: Besco Machinery Industry (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd.; CPI; CYM 
(Nanjing) Nail Manufacture Co., Ltd., (``CYM Nanjing''); Dagang Zhitong 
Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Hebei Super Star Pneumatic Nails Co., Ltd.; 
Hong Kong Yu Xi Co., Ltd.; Senco-Xingya Metal Products (Taicang) Co., 
Ltd.; Shanghai Chengkai Hardware Product Co., Ltd.; Shanghai March 
Import & Export Company Ltd.; Shaoxing Chengye Metal Production Co., 
Ltd.; Suzhou Yaotian Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Chentai 
International Trading Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Jurun Metal Products Co., Ltd. 
(``Tianjin Jurun''); Tianjin Longxing (Group) Huanyu Imp. & Exp. Co., 
Ltd.; Tianjin Port Free Trade Zone Xiangtong Intl. Industry & Trade 
Corp.; Tianjin

[[Page 56072]]

Shenyuan Steel Production Group Co., Ltd.; Wuhu Shijie Hardware Co., 
Ltd. (``Wuhu Shijie''); and Wuxi Chengye Metal Products Co., Ltd., 
(collectively, the ``No Shipments Respondents''). The Department 
received no-shipment certifications from the aforementioned companies.
    The Department also issued no-shipment inquiries to CBP, asking it 
to provide any information contrary to our preliminary findings of no 
entries of subject merchandise for merchandise manufactured and shipped 
by the aforementioned companies. For most companies, we did not receive 
any response from CBP, thus indicating that there were no entries of 
subject merchandise into the United States exported by these companies. 
CBP did indicate potential entries of nails during the POR for those 
companies, so the Department requested CBP entry packages for such 
instances. For a more detailed explanation of our preliminary no-
shipments determinations, which concludes that neither CPI, CYM 
Nanjing, Tianjin Jurun, nor Wuhu Shijie had POR shipments of subject 
merchandise to the United States, see Memorandum to James C. Doyle, 
Office 9 Director, through Alex Villanueva, Office 9 Program Manager, 
from Matthew Renkey, Senior Case Analyst and Emeka Chukwudebe, Case 
Analyst, dated September 7, 2010, First Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review of Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China 
(``PRC''): Partial Rescission of the First Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review (``No Shipments Rescission Memo''). Consequently, 
as none of the above companies had shipments of subject merchandise to 
the United States during the POR, we are preliminarily rescinding the 
reviews with respect to the No Shipments Respondents.
    Yitian Nanjing Hardware Co., Ltd. (``Yitian Nanjing'') also 
reported that it had no shipments of subject merchandise during the 
POR. However, the Department has noted that CBP entry documentation 
indicates that Yitian Nanjing did in fact have POR shipments of subject 
merchandise to the United States. Therefore, we are not preliminarily 
rescinding this review with respect to Yitian Nanjing. Furthermore, as 
Yitian Nanjing submitted only a no-shipments response and did not 
submit a separate rate application or certificate certification, we 
consider it part of the PRC-wide entity for these preliminary results. 
See Memorandum to the File, from Emeka Chukwudebe, Case Analyst, dated 
September 7, 2010, First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of 
Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''): CBP 
Entry Documentation for Yitian Nanjing Hardware Co., Ltd. However, 
given that we have not yet released the CBP entry documentation to 
Yitian Nanjing, we will provide Yitian Nanjing with an opportunity to 
address the CBP entry documentation in a post-preliminary supplemental 
questionnaire.

Surrogate Country and Surrogate Value Data

    On April 1, 2010, the Department sent interested parties a letter 
inviting comments on surrogate country selection and surrogate value 
data. No parties provided comments with respect to selection of a 
surrogate country. On June 15, 2010, the Department received surrogate 
value information from Petitioner, and on June 25, 2010, certain 
separate rate respondents filed rebuttal comments on Petitioner's 
surrogate value information. All the surrogate values placed on the 
record were obtained from sources in India. Between August 10, 2010, 
and August 24, 2010, parties submitted additional arguments and data 
regarding the selection and calculation of the surrogate values.

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by this order includes certain steel nails 
having a shaft length up to 12 inches. Certain steel nails include, but 
are not limited to, nails made of round wire and nails that are cut. 
Certain steel nails may be of one piece construction or constructed of 
two or more pieces. Certain steel nails may be produced from any type 
of steel, and have a variety of finishes, heads, shanks, point types, 
shaft lengths and shaft diameters. Finishes include, but are not 
limited to, coating in vinyl, zinc (galvanized, whether by 
electroplating or hot-dipping one or more times), phosphate cement, and 
paint. Head styles include, but are not limited to, flat, projection, 
cupped, oval, brad, headless, double, countersunk, and sinker. Shank 
styles include, but are not limited to, smooth, barbed, screw threaded, 
ring shank and fluted shank styles. Screw-threaded nails subject to 
this proceeding are driven using direct force and not by turning the 
fastener using a tool that engages with the head. Point styles include, 
but are not limited to, diamond, blunt, needle, chisel and no point. 
Finished nails may be sold in bulk, or they may be collated into strips 
or coils using materials such as plastic, paper, or wire. Certain steel 
nails subject to this proceeding are currently classified under the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') subheadings 
7317.00.55, 7317.00.65 and 7317.00.75.
    Excluded from the scope of this proceeding are roofing nails of all 
lengths and diameter, whether collated or in bulk, and whether or not 
galvanized. Steel roofing nails are specifically enumerated and 
identified in ASTM Standard F 1667 (2005 revision) as Type I, Style 20 
nails. Also excluded from the scope of this proceeding are corrugated 
nails. A corrugated nail is made of a small strip of corrugated steel 
with sharp points on one side. Also excluded from the scope of this 
proceeding are fasteners suitable for use in powder-actuated hand 
tools, not threaded and threaded, which are currently classified under 
HTSUS 7317.00.20 and 7317.00.30. Also excluded from the scope of this 
proceeding are thumb tacks, which are currently classified under HTSUS 
7317.00.10.00. Also excluded from the scope of this proceeding are 
certain brads and finish nails that are equal to or less than 0.0720 
inches in shank diameter, round or rectangular in cross section, 
between 0.375 inches and 2.5 inches in length, and that are collated 
with adhesive or polyester film tape backed with a heat seal adhesive. 
Also excluded from the scope of this proceeding are fasteners having a 
case hardness greater than or equal to 50 HRC, a carbon content greater 
than or equal to 0.5 percent, a round head, a secondary reduced-
diameter raised head section, a centered shank, and a smooth 
symmetrical point, suitable for use in gas-actuated hand tools.
    While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and 
customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this 
investigation is dispositive.

Non-Market Economy (``NME'') Country Status

    In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the 
PRC has been treated as an NME country. 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 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 proceeding have contested such treatment. Accordingly, the 
Department calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, 
which applies to NME countries.

[[Page 56073]]

Surrogate Country

    When the Department reviews imports from an NME country and the 
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 
factors of production (``FOPs'') to the extent possible in one or more 
market-economy 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 has 
determined that India, Philippines, Indonesia, Ukraine, Thailand, and 
Peru are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of economic 
development. See April 1, 2010, Letter to All Interested Parties, 
regarding ``Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Steel 
Nails from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Country List,'' 
attaching February 16, 2010, Memorandum to Alex Villanueva, Program 
Manager, Office 9, AD/CVD Operations, from Kelly Parkhill, Acting 
Director, Office for Policy, regarding ``Request for List of Surrogate 
Countries for an Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on 
Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China'' (``Surrogate 
Country List'').
    Based on publicly available information placed on the record, 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 
comparable merchandise, and has publicly available and reliable data 
with which to value FOPs. Furthermore, all the surrogate values placed 
on the record by the parties were obtained from sources in India. 
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, there is a rebuttable 
presumption that all companies within the country are subject to 
government control and thus should be assessed a single antidumping 
duty rate. See, e.g., Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip 
from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 55039, 55040 (September 24, 2008) (``PET 
Film''). Exporters can demonstrate this independence through the 
absence of both de jure and de facto government control over export 
activities. Id. The Department analyzes each entity exporting the 
subject merchandise under a test arising from the Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the 
People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588, 20589 (May 6, 1991) 
(``Sparklers''), as 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, 22586-87 (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 not necessary to determine whether it is independent 
from government control. See, e.g., PET Film. In addition to the two 
mandatory respondents, Stanley and Shandong Minmetal, the Department 
received separate rate applications (``SRAs'') or certifications 
(``SRCs'') from 26 companies (``Separate-Rate Applicants'').\7\ Because 
Stanley is wholly foreign-owned, a separate-rate analysis is not 
necessary to determine whether it is independent from government 
control, so we preliminarily grant Stanley a separate rate. 
Additionally, because Shandong Minmetal and the Separate-Rate 
Applicants have all stated that they are either joint ventures between 
Chinese and foreign companies, or are wholly Chinese-owned companies, 
the Department must analyze whether these companies can demonstrate the 
absence of both de jure and de facto governmental control over export 
activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Those companies include: (1) Aironware (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.; 
(2) Chiieh Yung Metal Ind. Corp.; (3) China Staple Enterprise 
(Tianjin) Co., Ltd.; (4) Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products Co., Ltd.; 
(5) Faithful Engineering Products Co., Ltd.; (6) Hengshui Mingyao 
Hardware & Mesh Products Co., Ltd.; (7) Huanghua Jinhai Hardware 
Products Co., Ltd.; (8) Huanghua Xionghua Hardware Products Co., 
Ltd.; (9) Jisco Corporation; (10) Koram Panagene Co., Ltd.; (11) 
Nanjing Yuechang Hardware Co., Ltd.; (12) Qidong Liang Chyuan Metal 
Industry Co., Ltd.; (13) Qingdao D & L Group Ltd.; (14) Rizhao 
Handuk Fasteners Co., Ltd.; (15) Romp (Tianjin) Hardware Co., Ltd.; 
(16) Shandong Dinglong Import & Export Co., Ltd.; (17) Shanghai Jade 
Shuttle Hardware Tools Co., Ltd.; (18) Shouguang Meiqing Nail 
Industry Co., Ltd.; (19) Tianjin Jinchi Metal Products Co., Ltd.; 
(20) Tianjin Jinghai County Hongli Industry & Business Co., Ltd.; 
(21) Tianjin Zhonglian Metals Ware Co., Ltd.; (22) Wintime Import & 
Export Corporation Limited of Zhongshan; (23) Wuxi Qiangye Metalwork 
Production Co., Ltd.; and (24) Zhejiang Gem-Chun Hardware Accessory 
Co., Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) 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 at 20589.
    The evidence provided by Shandong Minmetal and the Separate-Rate 
Applicants supports a preliminary finding of de jure absence of 
governmental control based on the following: (1) An absence of 
restrictive stipulations associated with the individual exporter's 
business and export licenses; (2) applicable legislative enactments 
decentralizing control of the companies; and (3) other formal measures 
by the government decentralizing control of companies, i.e., each 
company's SRA, SRC, and/or Section A response, dated October 22, 2010, 
through March 18, 2010, where each individually-reviewed or separate-
rate respondent stated that it had no relationship with any level of 
the PRC government with respect to ownership, internal management, and 
business operations.

2. Absence of De Facto Control

    Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating 
whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of 
its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or are 
subject to the approval of a governmental agency; (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 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 at 22586-87; 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, 
22545 (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.
    We determine that, for the individually-reviewed respondents and 
Separate-Rate Applicants, the evidence on the record supports a 
preliminary finding of de facto absence of

[[Page 56074]]

governmental control based on record statements and supporting 
documentation showing the following: (1) Each exporter sets its own 
export prices independent of the government and without the approval of 
a government authority; (2) each exporter retains the proceeds from its 
sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits 
or financing of losses; (3) each exporter has the authority to 
negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; and (4) each 
exporter has autonomy from the government regarding the selection of 
management. See, e.g., each company's SRA, SRC, and/or Section A 
response, dated October 22, 2010, through March 18, 2010.
    The evidence placed on the record of this investigation by the 
individually-reviewed respondents and the Separate Rate Applicants 
demonstrates an absence of de jure and de facto government control with 
respect to each of the exporter's exports of the merchandise under 
investigation, in accordance with the criteria identified in Sparklers 
and Silicon Carbide. As a result, we have preliminarily determined that 
it is appropriate to grant the Separate Rate Applicants a margin based 
on the experience of the individually-reviewed respondents. In 
calculating this margin, for the purposes of this preliminary 
determination we are excluding any de minimis or zero rates or rates 
based on total adverse facts available (``AFA'').

Calculation of Separate Rate

    The statute and our regulations do not address directly how we 
should establish a rate to apply to imports from companies which we did 
not select for individual examination in accordance with section 
777A(c)(2) of the Act in an administrative review. Generally, we have 
used section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for 
calculating the all-others rate in an investigation, as guidance when 
we establish the rate for respondents not examined individually in an 
administrative review. See Notice of Final Results and Partial 
Rescission Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Frozen 
Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of China, 75 FR 49460 
(August 13, 2010); Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice of Final Results of 
the Twelfth Administrative Review, 75 FR 6352 (February 9, 2010), and 
the accompanying I&D Memo at Comment 2. 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, * * *''
    Because using the weighted-average margin based on the calculated 
net U.S. sales values for Stanley and Shandong Minmetal would allow 
these two respondents to deduce each other's business-proprietary 
information and thus cause an unwarranted release of such information, 
we cannot assign to the separate rate companies the weighted-average 
margin based on the calculated net U.S. sales values from these two 
respondents.
    For these preliminary results, we determine that using the ranged 
total U.S. sales values Stanley and Shandong Minmetal reported in the 
public versions of their Section A responses (dated August 25, 2010) to 
our request for information concerning the quantity and value of their 
exports to the United States, is more appropriate than applying a 
simple average. These publicly available figures provide the basis on 
which we can calculate a margin which is the best proxy for the 
weighted-average margin based on the calculated net U.S. sales values 
of Stanley and Shandong Minmetal. We find that this approach is more 
consistent with the intent of section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act and our 
use of section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act as guidance when we establish 
the rate for respondents not examined individually in an administrative 
review.
    Because the calculated net U.S. sales values for Stanley and 
Shandong Minmetal are business-proprietary figures, we find that 13.31 
percent, which we calculated using the publicly available figures of 
U.S. sales values for these two firms, is the best reasonable proxy for 
the weighted-average margin based on the calculated net U.S. sales 
values of Stanley and Shandong Minmetal. See Memorandum to the File 
from Emeka Chukwudebe, to the File: Calculation of Separate Rate, dated 
September 7, 2010.

PRC-Wide Entity

    As discussed above, in this administrative review we limited the 
selection of respondents using CBP import data. See First, Second and 
Third Respondent Selection Memos at Attachment I. In this case, we made 
available to the companies who were not selected, the separate rates 
application and certification, which were put on the Department's Web 
site. See Initiation. Because some parties for which a review was 
requested did not apply for separate rate status, the PRC-Wide entity 
is considered to be part of this review. The following companies did 
not apply for separate rates and will continue to be part of the PRC-
wide entity:
(1) Beijing Daruixing Global Trading Co., Ltd.
(2) Beijing Tri-Metal Co., Ltd.
(3) Beijing Yonghongsheng Metal Products Co., Ltd.
(4) Cana (Tiajin) Hardware Ind., Co., Ltd.
(5) China Silk Trading & Logistics Co., Ltd.
(6) Chongqing Hybest Nailery Co., Ltd.
(7) Dingzhou Ruili Nail Production Co. Ltd.
(8) Dong'e Fuqiang Metal Products Co., Ltd.
(9) Haixing Hongda Hardware Production Co., Ltd.
(10) Haixing Linhai Hardware Products Factory
(11) Handuk Industrial Co., Ltd.
(12) Hilti (China) Limited
(13) Huadu Jin Chuan Manufactory Co., Ltd.
(14) Huanghua Huarong Hardware Products Co., Ltd.
(15) Huanghua Jinhai Metal Products Co., Ltd.
(16) Huanghua Shenghua Hardware Manufactory Factory
(17) Huanghua Xinda Nail Production Co., Ltd.
(18) Huanghua Yufutai Hardware Products Co., Ltd.
(19) Jinding Metal Products Ltd.
(20) Joto Enterprise Co., Ltd.
(21) Kyung Dong Corp.
(22) Maanshan Longer Nail Product Co., Ltd.
(23) Nanjing Dayu Pneumatic Gun Nails Co., Ltd.
(24) Qingdao Denarius Manufacture Co. Limited
(25) Qingdao International Fastening Systems Inc.
(26) Qingdao Sino-Sun International Trading Company Limited
(27) Qingyuan County Hongyi Hardware Products Factory
(28) Qingyun Hongyi Hardware Factory
(29) Rizhao Changxing Nail-Making Co., Ltd.
(30) Rizhao Qingdong Electric Appliance Co., Ltd.
(31) Shandong Minimetals Co., Ltd.
(32) Shandong Oriental Cherry Hardware Group, Ltd.
(33) Shanghai Curvet Hardware Products Co., Ltd.
(34) Shanghai Nanhui Jinjun Hardware Factory
(35) Shanghai Tengyu Hardware Tools Co., Ltd.
(36) Sinochem Tianjin Imp & Exp Shenzhen Corp
(37) Tianjin Baisheng Metal Products Co., Ltd.
(38) Tianjin Bosai Hardware Tools Co., Ltd.

[[Page 56075]]

(39) Tianjin City Dagang Area Jinding Metal Products Factory
(40) Tianjin City Daman Port Area Jinding Metal Products Factory
(41) Tianjin City Jinchi Metal Products Co., Ltd.
(42) Tianjin Dagang Dongfu Metallic Products Co., Ltd.
(43) Tianjin Dagang Hewang Nail Factory
(44) Tianjin Dagang Hewang Nails Manufacture Plant.
(45) Tianjin Dagang Huasheng Nailery Co., Ltd.
(46) Tianjin Dagang Jingang Nail Factory
(47) Tianjin Dagang Jingang Nails Manufacture Plant.
(48) Tianjin Dagang Linda Metallic Products Co., Ltd.
(49) Tianjin Dagang Longhua Metal Products Plant.
(50) Tianjin Dagang Shenda Metal Products Co., Ltd.
(51) Tianjin Dagang Yate Nail Co., Ltd.
(52) Tianjin Foreign Trade (Group) Textile & Garment Co., Ltd.
(53) Tianjin Hewang Nail Making Factory
(54) Tianjin Huapeng Metal Company
(55) Tianjin Huachang Metal Products Co., Ltd.
(56) Tianjin Huasheng Nails Production Co., Ltd.
(57) Tianjin Jieli Hengyuan Metallic Products Co., Ltd.
(58) Tianjin Jietong Hardware Products Co., Ltd.
(60) Tianjin Jin Gang Metal Products Co., Ltd.
(61) Tianjin Jishili Hardware Co., Ltd.
(62) Tianjin JLHY Metal Products Co., Ltd.
(63) Tianjin Kunxin Hardware Co., Ltd.
(64) Tianjin Kunxin Metal Products Co., Ltd.
(65) Tianjin Linda Metal Company
(66) Tianjin Qichuan Metal Products Co., Ltd.
(67) Tianjin Ruiji Metal Products Co., Ltd.
(68) Tianjin Shishun Metal Product Co., Ltd.
(69) Tianjin Shishun Metallic Products Co., Ltd.
(70) Tianjin Xiantong Fucheng Gun Nail Manufacture Co., Ltd.
(71) Tianjin Xinyuansheng Metal Products Co., Ltd.
(72) Tianjin Yihao Metallic Products Co., Ltd.
(73) Tianjin Yongchang Metal Product Co., Ltd.
(74) Tianjin Yongxu Metal Products Co., Ltd.
(75) Tianjin Yongyi Standard Parts Production Co., Ltd.
(76) Unicatch Industrial Co., Ltd.
(77) Wuqiao County Huifeng Hardware Products Factory
(78) Wuqiao County Xinchuang Hardware Products Factory
(79) Wuqiao Huifeng Hardware Production Co., Ltd.
(80) Wuxi Baolin Nail-Making Machinery Co., Ltd.
(81) Zhangjiagang Longxiang Packing Materials Co., Ltd.
(82) Zhongshan Junlong Nail Manufactures Co., Ltd.

Date of Sale

    The date of sale is generally the date on which the parties agree 
upon all substantive terms of the sale, which normally includes the 
price, quantity, delivery terms and payment terms. See Carbon and Alloy 
Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago: Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 62824 (November 7, 2007) and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1; see also 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 
Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from Turkey, 65 
FR 15123 (March 21, 2000) and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 2.
    19 CFR 351.401(i) states that, ``{i{time} n identifying the date of 
sale of the merchandise under consideration or foreign like product, 
the Secretary normally will use the date of invoice, as recorded in the 
exporter or producer's records kept in the normal course of business. 
The Secretary may use a date other than the date of invoice if the 
Secretary is satisfied that a different date better reflects the date 
on which the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of 
sale.'' See 19 CFR 351.401(i); see also Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. 
United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 1090-1092 (CIT 2001) (``Allied 
Tube''). However, as noted by the Court of International Trade 
(``CIT'') in Allied Tube, a party seeking to establish a date of sale 
other than invoice date bears the burden of establishing that `` `a 
different date better reflects the date on which the exporter or 
producer establishes the material terms of sale.' '' See Allied Tube, 
132 F. Supp. 2d at 1090 (quoting 19 CFR 351.401(i)).
    Shandong Minmetal reported that its date of sale was determined by 
the invoice issued by it to the unaffiliated United States customer. In 
this case, as the Department found no evidence contrary to Shandong 
Minmetal's claims that invoice date was the appropriate date of sale 
upon which all substantive terms of sale were agreed upon, the 
Department used invoice date as the date of sale for these preliminary 
results. See, e.g., Shandong Minmetal's August 9, 2010 submission at 1.
    Stanley reported that the earlier of invoice date or shipment date 
is the appropriate date of sale. See, e.g., Stanley's December 18, 2009 
submission at 23-24. As the Department found no evidence on the record 
contrary to Stanley's claims, for these preliminary results, the 
Department used the invoice date as the date of sale. For those sales 
where shipment date preceded invoice date, the Department used the 
shipment date as the date of sale.

Fair Value Comparison

    In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act, to determine 
whether sales of nails to the United States by Stanley or Shandong 
Minmetal were made at less than normal value, we compared the export 
price (``EP'') or constructed export price (``CEP''), as appropriate, 
to NV, as described in the ``U.S. Price,'' and ``Normal Value'' 
sections of this notice.

U.S. Price

A. EP

    For Shandong Minmetal, in accordance with section 772(a) of the 
Act, we based the U.S. price for certain sales on EP because the first 
sale to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States was made prior 
to importation, and the use of CEP was not otherwise warranted. In 
accordance with section 772(c) of the Act, we calculated EP by 
deducting the applicable movement expenses and adjustments from the 
gross unit price. We based these movement expenses on surrogate values 
where a PRC company provided the service and was paid in Renminbi 
(``RMB'') (see ``Factors of Production'' section below for further 
discussion). For details regarding our EP calculations, see Memorandum 
to the File, through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, from 
Emeka Chukwudebe, Analyst, ``First Antidumping Duty Administrative of 
Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China: Shandong 
Minmetal Co., Ltd.,'' dated concurrently with this notice (``Shandong 
Minmetal Prelim Analysis Memo'').

B. CEP

    In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we based the U.S. 
price for Stanley's sales on CEP because the first sale to an 
unaffiliated customer was made by Stanley's U.S. affiliate. In 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we calculated CEP by 
deducting the applicable expenses from the gross unit price charged to 
the first

[[Page 56076]]

unaffiliated customer in the United States. Further, in accordance with 
section 772(d)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402(b), where appropriate, 
we deducted from the starting price the applicable selling expenses 
associated with economic activities occurring in the United States. In 
addition, pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we made an 
adjustment to the starting price for CEP profit. We based movement 
expenses on either surrogate values or actual expenses, where 
appropriate. For details regarding our CEP calculations, and for a 
complete discussion of the calculation of the U.S. price for Stanley, 
see Memorandum to the File, through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, 
Office 9, from Matthew Renkey, Senior Analyst, ``First Antidumping Duty 
Administrative of Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of 
China: Stanley,'' dated concurrently with this notice (``Stanley Prelim 
Analysis Memo'').

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine NV using a FOP methodology if the merchandise is exported 
from an NME and the 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. The Department bases NV on FOPs 
because the presence of government controls on various aspects of NMEs 
renders price comparisons and the calculation of production costs 
invalid under the Department's normal methodologies. See, e.g., 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative 
Critical Circumstances, In Part, and Postponement of Final 
Determination: Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's Republic 
of China, 71 FR 19695, 19703 (April 17, 2006) (``CLPP'') unchanged in 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and 
Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part: Certain Lined Paper 
Products From the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 53079 (September 8, 
2006).

Factor Valuation Methodology

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on FOP data reported by the respondents. To calculate NV, we 
multiplied the reported per-unit factor-consumption rates by publicly 
available surrogate values. In selecting surrogate values, the 
Department is tasked with using the best available information on the 
record. See section 773(c) of the Act. To satisfy this statutory 
requirement, we compared the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity 
of the potential surrogate value data. See, e.g., Fresh Garlic From the 
People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New 
Shipper Review, 67 FR 72139 (December 4, 2002) and accompanying Issues 
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6; and Final Results of First New 
Shipper Review and First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: 
Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 
31204 (June 11, 2001) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 
at Comment 5.
    The Department's practice is to select, to the extent practicable, 
surrogate values which are: publicly available; representative of non-
export, broad market average values; contemporaneous with the POI; 
product-specific; and exclusive of taxes and import duties. See, e.g., 
Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 
Negative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances and 
Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned 
Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 
42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from 
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004). As 
appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including freight costs to 
make them delivered prices. Specifically, we added to the surrogate 
values derived from Indian Import Statistics 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 
where appropriate. This adjustment is in accordance with the Court of 
Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in Sigma Corp. v. United 
States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407-08 (Fed. Cir. 1997). For a detailed 
description of all surrogate values selected in this preliminary 
determination, see Memorandum to the File through Alex Villanueva, 
Program Manager, Office 9, from Tim Lord, Analyst, ``First Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review of Certain Steel Nails from the People's 
Republic of China: Surrogate Values for the Preliminary Results,'' 
dated concurrently with this notice (``Surrogate Values Memo'').
    For these preliminary results, we concluded that data from Indian 
Import Statistics and other publicly available Indian sources 
constitute the best available information on the record for the 
surrogate values for respondents' raw materials, packing, by-products, 
energy, and the surrogate financial ratios. The record shows that data 
in the Indian Import Statistics, as well as those from the other 
publicly available Indian sources, are contemporaneous with the POI, 
product-specific, tax-exclusive, and represent a broad market average. 
See Surrogate Values Memo. In those instances where we could not obtain 
publicly available information contemporaneous with the POI, consistent 
with our practice, we adjusted the surrogate values using, where 
appropriate, the Indian Wholesale Price Index (``WPI'') as published in 
the International Financial Statistics of the International Monetary 
Fund. See, e.g., Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews, 69 FR 46498, 
46500 (August 3, 2004).
    As a consequence of the CAFC's ruling in Dorbest Limited et. al. v. 
United States, 2009-1257, -1266, CAFC (May 14, 2010), the Department is 
no longer relying on the regression-based wage rate described in 19 CFR 
351.408(c)(3). The Department is continuing to evaluate options for 
determining labor values in light of the recent CAFC decision. For 
these preliminary results, we have calculated an hourly wage rate to 
use in valuing respondents' 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. To 
calculate the hourly wage rate we used the International Labor 
Organization (``ILO'') wage rate data. Specifically, we averaged the 
ILO wage rate data from the following countries found to be 
economically comparable to the PRC: Albania, Ecuador, Egypt Arab Rep., 
El Salvador, Fiji, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, India, Indonesia, 
Jordan, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand, 
and Ukraine. For a further explanation of the Department's calculation 
of the surrogate value for labor, see the Surrogate Values Memo.
    In accordance with the OTCA 1988 legislative history, 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.\8\ In this regard, the Department 
has previously found that it is appropriate to disregard such prices 
from e.g.,

[[Page 56077]]

Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand, because we have determined that 
these countries maintain broadly available, non-industry specific 
export subsidies.\9\ Based on the existence of these subsidy programs 
that were generally available to all exporters and producers in these 
countries at the time of the POI, the Department finds that it is 
reasonable to infer that all exporters from Indonesia, South Korea and 
Thailand may have benefitted from these subsidies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, Conf. Report 
to Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. Rep. No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess. 
(1988) (``OTCA 1988'') at 590.
    \9\ 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 Decision 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 Decision 
Memorandum at page 4; See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 
Products from the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Countervailing 
Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 2512 (January 15, 2009) and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at pages 17, 19-20; See 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, we disregarded prices from NME countries. Finally, 
imports that were labeled as originating from an ``unspecified'' 
country were excluded from the average value, because the Department 
could not be certain that they were not from either an NME country or a 
country with general export subsidies.

Currency Conversion

    Where necessary, the Department made currency conversions into U.S. 
dollars, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the 
exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified 
by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Preliminary Results of Review

    The Department preliminarily determines that the following 
weighted-average dumping margins exist:

         Certain Steel Nails From the People's Republic of China
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted  average
                Manufacturer/exporter                  margin  (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) The Stanley Works (Langfang) Fastening Systems                  6.48
 Co., Ltd............................................
(2) Shandong Minmetal Co., Ltd.......................              51.25
(3) Aironware (Shanghai) Co., Ltd....................              13.31
(4) Chiieh Yung Metal Ind. Corp......................              13.31
(5) China Staple Enterprise (Tianjin) Co., Ltd.......              13.31
(6) Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products Co., Ltd........              13.31
(7) Faithful Engineering Products Co., Ltd...........              13.31
(8) Hengshui Mingyao Hardware & Mesh Products Co.,                 13.31
 Ltd.................................................
(9) Huanghua Jinhai Hardware Products Co., Ltd.......              13.31
(10) Huanghua Xionghua Hardware Products Co., Ltd....              13.31
(11) Jisco Corporation...............................              13.31
(12) Koram Panagene Co., Ltd.........................              13.31
(13) Nanjing Yuechang Hardware Co., Ltd..............              13.31
(14) Qidong Liang Chyuan Metal Industry Co., Ltd.....              13.31
(15) Qingdao D & L Group Ltd.........................              13.31
(16) Rizhao Handuk Fasteners Co., Ltd................              13.31
(17) Romp (Tianjin) Hardware Co., Ltd................              13.31
(18) Shandong Dinglong Import & Export Co., Ltd......              13.31
(19) Shanghai Jade Shuttle Hardware Tools Co., Ltd...              13.31
(20) Shouguang Meiqing Nail Industry Co., Ltd........              13.31
(21) Tianjin Jinchi Metal Products Co., Ltd..........              13.31
(22) Tianjin Jinghai County Hongli Industry &                      13.31
 Business Co., Ltd...................................
(23) Tianjin Zhonglian Metals Ware Co., Ltd..........              13.31
(24) Wintime Import & Export Corporation Limited of                13.31
 Zhongshan...........................................
(25) Wuxi Qiangye Metalwork Production Co., Ltd......              13.31
(26) Zhejiang Gem-Chun Hardware Accessory Co., Ltd...              13.31
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    PRC-Wide Rate....................................             118.04
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure and Public Hearing

    The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed 
in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b).
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results 
of this administrative review, interested parties may submit publicly 
available information to value FOPs within 20 days after the date of 
publication of these preliminary results. Interested parties must 
provide the Department with supporting documentation for the publicly 
available information to value each FOP. Additionally, in accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final results of this administrative 
review, interested parties may submit factual information to rebut, 
clarify, or correct factual information submitted by an interested 
party less than ten days before, on, or after, the applicable deadline 
for submission of such factual information. However, the Department 
notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1) permits new information only insofar as 
it rebuts, clarifies, or corrects information recently placed on the 
record. The Department generally cannot accept the submission of 
additional, previously absent-from-the-record alternative surrogate 
value information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). See Glycine from 
the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Final Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809 
(October 17, 2007) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 2.
    Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments 
no later

[[Page 56078]]

than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results 
of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to 
written comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments 
may be filed no later than five days after the deadline for filing case 
briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). The Department urges interested parties 
to provide an executive summary of each argument contained within the 
case briefs and rebuttal briefs.
    The Department will issue the final results of this administrative 
review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised 
in any such comments, within 120 days of publication of these 
preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Assessment Rates

    Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, 
and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries 
covered by this review. The Department intends to issue assessment 
instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final 
results of this review excluding any reported sales that entered during 
the gap period. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated 
exporter/importer (or customer)-specific assessment rates for the 
merchandise subject to this review. Because we do not have entered 
values for all U.S. sales, we calculated an ad valorem assessment rate 
by aggregating the antidumping duties due for all U.S. sales to each 
importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total quantity 
sold to that importer (or customer). See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). To 
determine whether the duty assessment rates are de minimis, in 
accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we 
calculated importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem ratios based on 
the estimated entered value. Where an importer (or customer)-specific 
ad valorem rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to 
liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. See 
19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).

Cash Deposit Requirements

    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 exporter 
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 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 118.04 percent; and (3) for all non-PRC 
exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own 
rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC 
exporters that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit 
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further 
notice.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    These preliminary results are issued and published in accordance 
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.221(b)(4).

    Dated: September 7, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-23002 Filed 9-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P