[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 121 (Thursday, June 24, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35296-35312]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-14360]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-888]


Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof From 
the People's Republic of China

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

ACTION: Notice of final determination of sales at less than fair value.

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

DATES: Effective Date: June 24, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paige Rivas or Sam Zengotitabengoa, 
AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 4, Group II, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-0651 or (202) 482-4195, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Final Determination

    We determine that floor-standing, metal-top ironing tables and 
certain parts thereof (ironing tables) from the People's Republic of 
China (PRC) are being sold, or are likely to be sold, in the United 
States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 735 of 
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The estimated margins of 
sales at LTFV are shown in the ``Final Determination of Investigation'' 
section of this notice.

Case History

    On February 3, 2004, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the preliminary determination of sales at LTFV in the 
antidumping duty investigation of ironing tables from the PRC. See 
Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from 
the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 5127 (February 3, 2004) 
(Preliminary Determination). Since the preliminary determination, the 
following events have occurred.
    On February 3, 2004, Shunde Yongjian Housewares Co. Ltd. 
(Yongjian), a mandatory respondent in this investigation, requested a 
full postponement of the final determination. Accordingly, on February 
19, 2004, the Department published the postponement of the final 
determination from April 10, 2003, until June 13, 2004. See Floor-
Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof From the 
People's Republic of China: Postponement of Final Antidumping 
Determination, 69 FR 8625 (February 25, 2004). From February 23, 2004, 
through March 8, 2004, the Department conducted a sales and factors of 
production verification of Yongjian and Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., 
Ltd. (Since Hardware), the other mandatory respondent in this 
investigation. On March 4, 2004, the petitioner \1\ filed a request for 
a public hearing in this investigation, but then withdrew its request 
on May 5, 2004. Since Hardware and Yongjian filed publicly available 
surrogate value information and data on March 29, 2004. The respondents 
filed case briefs on April 29, 2004, and the petitioner filed its case 
brief on April 30, 2004. The respondents filed rebuttal briefs on May 
4, 2004, and the petitioner filed its rebuttal brief on May 5, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioner in this case is Home Products International, 
Inc. (HPI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to the unexpected closure of the main Commerce building on 
Friday, June, 11, 2004, the Department has tolled the deadline for this 
final determination by two days to June 15, 2004.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (POI) is October 1, 2002, through March 
31, 2003. This period corresponds to the two most recent fiscal 
quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition (i.e., June 
2003). See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).

Scope of Investigation

    For purposes of this investigation, the product covered consists of 
floor-standing, 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 full-
height 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 investigation.
    Furthermore, this investigation specifically covers imports of 
ironing

[[Page 35297]]

tables, assembled or unassembled, complete or incomplete, and certain 
parts thereof. For purposes of this investigation, 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 a 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 a 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 
investigation 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 investigation 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 counter top 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 were previously classified under 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 
9403.20.0010. Effective July 1, 2003, the subject ironing tables are 
classified under the new 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 customs purposes, the written description of the scope 
remains dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this proceeding, and to which we have responded, are listed in the 
Appendix to this notice and addressed in the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. See Memorandum from 
Holly A. Kuga, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 
Administration, Office II, to James Jochum, Assistant Secretary for 
Import Administration, ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final 
Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Floor-Standing, 
Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's 
Republic of China,'' dated concurrently with this notice, (Issues and 
Decision Memorandum) on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU) located 
in room B-099 of the Main Commerce Building.) and accessible on the 
Internet at http://ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper copy and electronic 
version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Non-Market Economy Country Status

    The Department has treated the PRC as a non-market economy (NME) 
country in all its past antidumping investigations. See Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Circular Welded 
Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 
36570, 36571 (May 24, 2002); and Notice of Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Structured Steel Beams from the People's 
Republic of China, 67 FR 35479, 35480 (May 20, 2000); and Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value Certain: Folding 
Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 
20090 (April 24, 2002). In accordance with section 771(18)(C) of the 
Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall 
remain in effect until revoked. No party to this investigation has 
sought revocation of the NME status of the PRC. Therefore, pursuant to 
section 771(18)(C) of the Act, the Department will continue to treat 
the PRC as an NME country. For further details, see the Preliminary 
Determination.

Separate Rates

    In our Preliminary Determination, we found that both mandatory 
responding companies, Since Hardware and Yongjian, and three of the 
four companies responding to Section A of the Department's 
questionnaire, Forever Holdings Ltd. (Forever Holdings), Gaoming Lihe 
Daily Necessities Co., Ltd. (Gaoming Lihe), and Harvest International 
Housewares Ltd. (Harvest International), met the criteria for the 
application of separate, company-specific antidumping duty rates. We 
have not received any other information since the preliminary 
determination which would warrant reconsideration of our separates 
rates determination with respect to these companies. For a complete 
discussion of the Department's determination that the respondents are 
entitled to a separate rate, see the Preliminary Determination.

The PRC-Wide Rate

    In all NME cases, the Department makes a rebuttable presumption 
that all exporters located in the NME country comprise a single 
exporter under common government control, the ``NME entity.'' See 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Bicycles From the People's Republic of China, 61 FR 19026, 19027 (April 
30, 1996) (Bicycles from the PRC). Although the Department provided all 
known PRC exporters of the subject merchandise with the opportunity to 
respond to our initial questionnaire, only Since Hardware, Yongjian, 
Forever Holdings, Gaoming Lihe, Harvest International, and Lerado 
responded. However, because other PRC companies did not submit a 
response to the Department's Section A quantity and value question, as 
discussed above in the ``Case History'' section of the Preliminary 
Determination, and did not demonstrate their entitlement to a separate 
rate, we have implemented the Department's rebuttable presumption that 
these exporters constitute a single enterprise under common control by 
the PRC government. Accordingly, we are applying adverse facts 
available to determine the single antidumping duty rate, the PRC-wide 
rate, applicable to all other PRC exporters comprising this single 
enterprise. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Synthetic Indigo from the People's Republic of China, 65 FR 
25706, 25707 (May 3, 2000).

Surrogate Country

    For purposes of the final determination, we continue to find that 
India remains the appropriate surrogate country for the PRC. For 
further discussion and analysis regarding the surrogate country 
selection for the PRC, see the Preliminary Determination.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the 
information submitted by the respondents for use in our final 
determination. We used standard verification procedures including 
examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original 
source documents provided by the respondents. For changes from the 
Preliminary Determination as a result of verification, see the 
``Changes Since the Preliminary Determination'' section below.

[[Page 35298]]

Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our findings at verification and on our analysis of the 
comments received, we have made adjustments to the calculation 
methodologies used in the preliminary determination. These adjustments 
are listed below and discussed in detail in the: (1) Issues and 
Decision Memorandum; (2) Memorandum from Sam Zengotitabengoa, 
International Trade Compliance Analyst, Group II, Office 4, to the 
File, ``Surrogate Country Factors of Production Values in the Final 
Determination of the Antidumping Duty Investigation on Floor-Standing, 
Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's 
Republic of China,'' dated concurrently with this notice, (Surrogate 
Factors Valuation Memo); and, (3) Memorandum from Sam Zengotitabengoa, 
International Trade Compliance Analyst, Group II, Office 4, to the 
File, ``Since Hardware's Margin Calculation Analysis for the Final 
Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Floor-Standing, 
Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's 
Republic of China,'' dated concurrently with this notice (Since 
Hardware's Calculation Memorandum), and Memorandum from Sam 
Zengotitabengoa, International Trade Compliance Analyst, Group II, 
Office 4, to the File, ``Yongjian's Margin Calculation Analysis for the 
Final Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Floor-
Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the 
People's Republic of China,'' dated concurrently with this notice 
(Yongjian's Calculation Memorandum).
    1. We revised the PRC labor rate. See Issues and Decision 
Memorandum, at Comment 2.
    2. We revised the calculation of inland truck freight. See Issues 
and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 3.
    3. We revised our surrogate value for PE septa. See Issues and 
Decision Memorandum, at Comment 4-B.
    4. We revised our surrogate value of stainless steel. See Issues 
and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 4-C.
    5. We revised our surrogate value of welding wire. See Issues and 
Decision Memorandum, at Comment 4-D.
    6. We revised our surrogate value of pigment. See Issues and 
Decision Memorandum, at Comment 4-E.
    7. We revised our surrogate value for silica gel parts. See Issues 
and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 4-F.
    8. We revised our surrogate value for cotton rope. See Issues and 
Decision Memorandum, at Comment 4-H.
    9. We revised our surrogate value for glue. See Issues and Decision 
Memorandum, at Comment 4-J.
    10. We revised our surrogate value for cotton fixing strips. See 
Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 4-K.
    11. We revised our surrogate value for cold rolled steel. See 
Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 6 and Comment 6-A.
    12. We revised our surrogate value for hot rolled steel. See Issues 
and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 6-B.
    13. We revised our surrogate value for steel wire rod. See Issues 
and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 6-C.
    14. We revised our surrogate value for powder coating. See Issues 
and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 6-F.
    15. We did not grant Since Hardware's billing adjustment. See 
Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 9.
    16. We revised the surrogate financial ratios for overhead, SG&A, 
and profit. See Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 10.
    17. We revised the data contained in Yongjian's factors of 
production database, based on our findings at verification. See Issues 
and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 11.
    18. We revised the inland freight distances for the materials whose 
values were either not reported or mis-reported at the preliminary 
determination. See Surrogate Factors Valuation Memo.

Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, we are 
directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue 
suspension liquidation of entries of subject merchandise from the PRC 
that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or 
after February 3, 2004 (the date of publication of the Preliminary 
Determination in the Federal Register). We will instruct CBP to require 
a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average 
amount by which NV exceeds the U.S. price, as indicated in the chart 
below. These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain in 
effect until further notice.

Final Determination of Investigation

    We determine that the following weighted-average percentage margins 
exist for the period October 1, 2002, through March 31, 2003:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
                   Manufacturer/exporter                        margin
                                                              (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd........................         6.60
Shunde Yongjian Housewares Co., Ltd........................       113.80
Forever Holdings Ltd.......................................        52.04
Gaoming Lihe Daily Necessities Co., Ltd....................        52.04
Harvest International Housewares Ltd.......................        52.04
PRC-Wide Rate..............................................       113.80
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of the subject merchandise 
except for entries from Since Hardware, Yongjian, Forever Holdings, 
Harvest International, and Gaoming Lihe.

International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the 
International Trade Commission (ITC) of our determination. As our final 
determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine, within 45 days, 
whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material 
injury to, the U.S. industry. If the ITC determines that material 
injury, or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding 
will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or 
cancelled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the 
Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP officials 
to assess antidumping duties on all imports of subject merchandise 
entered for consumption on or after the effective date of the 
suspension of liquidation.

Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return/
destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order 
is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the 
terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.


[[Page 35299]]


    Dated: June 15, 2004.
James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretary, for Import Administration.

Appendix--Issues and Decision Memorandum

Comment 1: Whether the Department Should Correct Alleged Ministerial 
Errors in the Preliminary Determination
Comment 2: Whether the Department Should Use the Most Current Wage 
Rate for China
Comment 3: Whether the Department Should Correct Surrogate Values 
for Inland Freight and Brokerage and Handling
Comment 4: Whether the Department Should Use Different Harmonized 
Tariff Classifications for Certain Material Inputs
Comment 5: Whether the Department Used the Best Available Data 
Source To Value Certain Material Inputs
Comment 6: Whether the Department Used Aberrant Surrogate Values for 
Certain Material Inputs
Comment 7: Whether the Department Should Accept Since Hardware's 
Market Economy Purchases That Were Not Verified by the Department
Comment 8: Whether the Department Should Use the Market Economy 
Price to Value Cold-Rolled Steel Inputs
Comment 9: Whether the Department Should Consider Billing 
Adjustments in the Calculation of Since Hardware's U.S. Price
Comment 10: Whether the Department Selected the Proper Data Source 
for its Calculation of Surrogate Overhead, SG&A, and Profit Ratios
Comment 11: Corrections Arising From Verification

A-570-888, Investigation, POI: 10/01/2002-3/31/2003, Public 
Document, GIIO4:SZ.
Memorandum to: James Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import 
Administration.
From: Holly A. Kuga, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 
Administration, Office II.
Subject: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination 
in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Floor-Standing, Metal-Top 
Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic 
of China.

    Summary: We have analyzed the comments and rebuttal comments of 
the interested parties in the antidumping duty investigation of 
floor-standing, metal-top ironing tables and certain parts thereof 
(ironing tables) from the People's Republic of China (PRC). As a 
result of our analysis of the preliminary determination, we have 
made changes in the margin calculations, including corrections of 
certain inadvertent errors. We recommend that you approve the 
positions we have developed in the ``Discussion of the Issues'' 
section of this memorandum for this final determination.
    Below is the complete list of issues in this investigation for 
which we received comments and rebuttal comments from Home Products 
International, Inc. (the petitioner), and the respondents, Since 
Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd., (Since Hardware), and Shunde 
Yongjian Housewares Co., Ltd. (Yongjian):

Comment 1: Whether the Department Should Correct Alleged Ministerial 
Errors in the Preliminary Determination
Comment 2: Whether the Department Should Use the Most Current Wage 
Rate for China
Comment 3: Whether the Department Should Correct Surrogate Values 
for Inland Freight and Brokerage and Handling
Comment 4: Whether the Department Should Use Different Harmonized 
Tariff Classifications for Certain Material Inputs
Comment 5: Whether the Department Used the Best Available Data 
Source to Value Certain Material Inputs
Comment 6: Whether the Department Used Aberrant Surrogate Values for 
Certain Material Inputs
Comment 7: Whether the Department Should Accept Since Hardware's 
Market Economy Purchases That Were Not Verified by the Department
Comment 8: Whether the Department Should Use the Market Economy 
Price To Value Cold-Rolled Steel Inputs
Comment 9: Whether the Department Should Consider Billing 
Adjustments in the Calculation of Since Hardware's U.S. Price
Comment 10: Whether the Department Selected the Proper Data Source 
for its Calculation of Surrogate Overhead, SG&A, and Profit Ratios
Comment 11: Corrections Arising From Verification

Background

    On February 3, 2004, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the preliminary determination in the less-than-fair-value 
investigation of ironing tables from the PRC. See Notice of 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Floor-
Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from 
the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 5127 (February 3, 2004) 
(Preliminary Determination). The products covered by this 
investigation are certain ironing tables. The period of 
investigation (POI) is October 1, 2002, through March 31, 2003.
    We invited parties to comment on the preliminary determination. 
The respondents filed case briefs on April 29, 2004, and the 
petitioner filed its case brief on April 30, 2004. The respondents 
filed rebuttal briefs on May 4, 2004, and the petitioner filed its 
rebuttal brief on May 5, 2004. On June 2, 2004, we received 
additional comments from Yongjian. On June 10, 2004, we returned the 
comments to Yongjian as untimely submitted and removed the 
submission from the official record. Based on our analysis of the 
comments received, as well as our findings at verification, we have 
changed the weighted-average margins from those presented in the 
preliminary determination.

Discussion of the Issues

Comment 1: Whether the Department Should Correct Alleged Ministerial 
Errors in the Preliminary Determination

    Since Hardware claims that in the Preliminary Determination, the 
Department made two ministerial errors in the margin calculation 
program that must be corrected for the final determination. See 
Comments from Adams C. Lee, Counsel to Since Hardware, to the 
Honorable Donald L. Evans, Secretary of Commerce, ``Since Hardware's 
Case Brief,'' dated April 29, 2004 (Since Hardware's Case Brief), at 
1-3.
    First, Since Hardware contends that, in calculating the 
deduction for domestic inland freight and brokerage and handling, 
the Department inadvertently added the weight for the pads and 
covers inputs to the reported WEIGHT variable. Since Hardware states 
that, at verification, the Department confirmed that the total 
weight of each product reported in the field WEIGHT includes both 
the weight of the material inputs used for the metal ironing board 
and, also, the inputs used to produce the ironing board pad and 
cover. See Since Hardware's Case Brief, at 2, citing to Since 
Hardware Factors of Production Verification Exhibits, Exhibit 5, 
page 1, including handwritten notes from the Department's verifier 
stating that the reported product weight for production code SFT28-
I-1454 is reported ``w/ pad, cover, string.'' Since Hardware urges 
that the Department correct this error for the purposes of the final 
determination.
    Second, Since Hardware and Yongjian allege that the Department 
improperly added the cost of packing materials to the total cost of 
manufacturing prior to the application of the surrogate overhead 
ratio. Since Hardware notes that it has been the Department's 
practice to add packing costs in its normal value calculation after 
the application of the surrogate financial ratios. See Since 
Hardware's Case Brief, at 2 and 3; See Rebuttal Comments from 
Francis J. Sailer, Counsel for Shunde Yongjian Housewares Co., Ltd., 
to the Honorable Donald L. Evans, Secretary of Commerce, 
``Yongjian's Rebuttal Brief,'' dated May 4, 2004 (Yongjian's 
Rebuttal Brief), at 3 and 4. Since Hardware and Yongjian urge that 
the Department correct this error for the purposes of the final 
determination.
    In rebuttal, the petitioner claims that various errors alleged 
by Since Hardware do not warrant correction by the Department. The 
petitioner notes that the Department was justified in adding pad and 
cover materials to Since Hardware's reported WEIGHT variable for 
purposes of calculating adjustments for domestic inland freight and 
brokerage and handling. The petitioner claims that the record does 
not show that Since Hardware included the pad and cover weights in 
the reported WEIGHT values. The petitioner points out that the only 
product unit weight reference by Since Hardware with respect to the 
factors of production data is the ``unit steel weight of each 
product'' used to derive a steel consumption ratio and recovered 
steel scrap figure. Id., at 45 and 46. Moreover, the petitioner 
states that the Since Hardware Cost Verification Report does not

[[Page 35300]]

support Since Hardware's claim that the reported total weights 
include the weight of pads and covers. In fact, the petitioner 
claims that, with respect to component weights (not the reported 
total product weight), the Since Hardware Cost Verification Report 
states that the verifiers ``took apart the selected ironing boards 
model * * * and weighed the actual weight of the above-mentioned 
materials and compared the weights to the weights reported * * *.'' 
Therefore, the petitioner argues, the materials were weighed 
separately and not included in the weight of the bare board. 
According to the petitioner, Since Hardware's allegation of double-
counting the pad and cover weights should be disregarded. See 
Comments from Roberta Kinsela Daghir, Counsel to Home Products 
International Inc., to the Honorable Donald L. Evans, Secretary of 
Commerce, ``Petitioner's Case Brief,'' dated April 30, 2004 
(Petitioner's Case Brief).
    Department's Position: We agree with the petitioner. In the 
Preliminary Determination, the Department (1) properly added pad and 
cover weights to Since Hardware's WEIGHT variable, in order to 
achieve a proper full weight for purposes of calculating adjustments 
for domestic inland freight and brokerage and handling, and (2) 
appropriately added packing to each of the respondent's total cost 
of manufacturing in the build up to normal value. Therefore, the 
Department did not make two ministerial errors in the margin 
calculation program.
    In order to calculate the deduction for domestic inland freight 
and brokerage and handling, the Department must use the total weight 
of the merchandise being transported and handled. The record 
indicates that ``Since Hardware has reported the weight of the bare 
board product (i.e. without pad and cover) * * *.'' See Since 
Hardware's Sections C and D Questionnaire Response, dated October 
14, 2003, at 5. For the calculation of Since Hardware's margin in 
the preliminary determination, the Department stated that Since 
Hardware's WEIGHT field represents the ``bare weight of the ironing 
board* * *.'' See Memorandum to the File from Sam Zengotitabengoa, 
Import Compliance Specialist, to the File, ``Since Hardware's Margin 
Calculation Analysis for the Preliminary Determination in the 
Antidumping Duty Investigation of Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing 
Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of 
China,'' dated January 26, 2004. As a result of Since Hardware's 
response that its WEIGHT variable includes only the bare weight of 
the ironing board, the Department added the pad, cover, and packing 
material weights to the WEIGHT variable. Therefore, by adding the 
weight of the pad, cover, and packing materials to the weight of the 
bare board weight reported in the field WEIGHT, the Department 
obtained the total weight of the ironing board, which is required in 
order to calculate the selling expense deductions for domestic 
inland freight and brokerage and handling.
    At verification, the Department's verifiers found no 
discrepancies in Since Hardware's questionnaire response with regard 
to the weight of the bare board reported in the field WEIGHT. See 
Memorandum from Paige Rivas and Sam Zengotitabengoa, Import 
Compliance Specialists, to Tom Futtner, Acting Office Director, 
``Report on the Verification of the Questionnaire Responses of Since 
Hardware,'' dated April 20, 2004. With respect to Since Hardware's 
allegation that the verifiers' handwritten note confirms that the 
weight reported in the field WEIGHT includes the pad and cover 
weight, we disagree. The handwritten note does not verify that Since 
Hardware's reported product weight for production code SFT28-I-1454 
includes ``* * *pad, cover, string.'' In this note, the verifiers 
were referring, instead, to the verifiers' methodology. The 
verifiers measured the reported WEIGHT of the bare board, as well as 
the other components associated with production code SFT28-I-1454. 
The verifiers' note indicates that the pad, cover, and string were 
also measured but the verified weights were not taken as an exhibit. 
As the final verification report indicates, the Department's 
verifiers noted no discrepancies in Since Hardware's bare board 
WEIGHT questionnaire response. Therefore, for this final 
determination, the Department will continue to calculate Since 
Hardware's adjustment for domestic inland freight and brokerage and 
handling by adding the pad and cover weights with the weight of the 
bare board reported in the field WEIGHT.
    Second, Since Hardware alleges that the Department mistakenly 
added packing costs to the normal value calculation before the 
application of the surrogate financial ratios. We disagree that this 
methodology is incorrect. In this case, the Department was not able 
to separately identify packing costs in the financial statements of 
Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Godrej), the company used to 
calculate the financial ratios used in our calculation of normal 
value. Because it is reasonable to assume that all expenses are 
included in any income statement, we know that packing costs are 
included in the Godrej data. Although packing is not presented as a 
separate line item within the Godrej's data, the primary line item 
used by the Department in calculating the cost of manufacture is 
``raw materials consumed.'' Furthermore, we note that Schedule T of 
the income statement provides a list of the items that constitute 
new materials consumed, one of which is titled ``others.'' Since 
companies frequently include packing materials in the cost of 
manufacturing, it is reasonable to assume that packing costs are 
included in this line item. In the Preliminary Determination 
calculation build up to normal value, the Department added the cost 
of packing materials to the cost of manufacturing prior to the 
application of the surrogate financial ratio in order to apply these 
ratios in a manner consistent with how the ratios were calculated. 
Therefore, for this final determination, the Department continues to 
add packing to the cost of manufacturing in the calculation build up 
to normal value.

Comment 2: Whether the Department Should Use the Most Current Wage Rate 
for China

    The petitioner contends that the data source used to derive the 
PRC's labor wage rate was last updated on May 14, 2003, subsequent 
to the Preliminary Determination. As such, for this final 
determination, the petitioner urges the Department to value the wage 
rate for the PRC by incorporating the most current and 
contemporaneous data available. See Petitioner's Case Brief, at 11.
    Department's Position: We agree with the petitioner. The 
Department will value the PRC's labor wage rate using the most 
current labor rate of USD 0.90/hr. See ``Expected Wages of Selected 
Non-market Economy Countries, 2001 Income Data,'' Revised September 
2003, as published by the Department at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/01wages/01wages.html.

Comment 3: Whether the Department Should Correct Surrogate Values for 
Inland Truck Freight and Brokerage and Handling

    Yongjian argues that the surrogates that the Department used to 
value inland truck freight and brokerage and handling in the 
Preliminary Determination are based on stale and unreliable data. 
For this final determination, Yongjian urges the Department to use 
the data it submitted in calculating the surrogate values for inland 
truck freight and brokerage and handling. See Comments from Francis 
J. Sailer, Counsel for Shunde Yongjian Housewares Co., Ltd., to the 
Honorable Donald L. Evans, Secretary of Commerce, ``Yongjian's Case 
Brief,'' dated April 29, 2004 (Yongjian's Case Brief), at 21 and 22.
    Yongjian contends that, for the final determination, the 
Department should value inland truck freight using data from 
InFreight.com, rather than the 17 Indian freight company quotes, for 
shipping tapered roller bearings, from November 1999 that were used 
in the Preliminary Determination. Yongjian notes that the data from 
InFreight.com were originally used by the Department in the 
preliminary determination of Carrier Bags from the PRC. See Notice 
of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Postponement of Final Determination: Polyethylene Retail Carrier 
Bags from the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 3544, 3546 (January 
26, 2004) (Carrier Bags Prelim).
    Yongjian also notes that, in the Preliminary Determination, the 
Department relied on data derived from Certain Stainless Steel Wire 
Rod from India: Final Results of Administrative Review and New 
Shipper Review, 64 FR 856 (January 6, 1999) (Indian Wire Rod) to 
calculate surrogate values for brokerage and handling. The surrogate 
value from Indian Wire Rod is from 1997 and was obtained from an 
Indian broker. Yongjian asserts there are two reasons to reject 
these data in the final determination: (1) They are stale compared 
to alternative and nearly contemporaneous data; and (2) they are 
improper for use in this case since they are premised on a high 
value product. Therefore, Yongjian urges the Department to use the 
data it submitted, which the Department used in Carrier Bags Prelim, 
to value brokerage and handling in the final determination. See 
Yongjian's Case Brief, at 22.
    Department's Position: We agree with Yongjian, in part.
    With regard to inland truck freight, we agree with Yongjian that 
the Department

[[Page 35301]]

should calculate the surrogate value using data obtained from 
InFreight.com. According to the InFreight.com Web site, we note that 
``InFreight.com is a privately held Limited Liability Company,'' 
which provides ``a vertical {business-to-business{time}  portal that 
covers all the critical aspects of the Indian road transport 
industry* * *.'' See http://InFreight.com/. InFreight.com provides 
publicly available Indian truck freight rates as a flat fee for 
transportation between specified cities. Based on an InFreight.com 
data query, we were able to obtain Indian inland freight rates from/
to six major Indian cities for the week of January 8, 2003. Because 
the POI is October 2002 to March 2003, we find InFreight.com data is 
contemporaneous with the POI whereas the 17 Indian freight company 
quotes from November 1999 are not. Furthermore, the inland truck 
freight surrogate value is used in our calculations to value the 
freight for many different raw material inputs, in addition to 
complete ironing boards. For this reason, we also find the truck 
freight surrogate value from InFreight.com, which is not limited to 
only a shipment of one product, to be the better surrogate value 
than the November 1999 Indian freight company quotes, which are only 
for shipments of tapered roller bearings. Therefore, for this final 
determination, the Department will rely on the data from 
InFreight.com to value inland freight. See ``Yongjian's Margin 
Calculation Analysis for the Final Determination in the Antidumping 
Duty Investigation of Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and 
Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China,'' dated 
June 15, 2004.
    With regard to brokerage and handling, we disagree with Yongjian 
that the Department should value brokerage and handling based on the 
surrogate value used in the Carrier Bags Prelim. In choosing the 
appropriate surrogate value for the final determination, we examined 
whether the surrogate data are both product-specific and 
contemporaneous. The surrogate value used for brokerage and handling 
in the Preliminary Determination is based on a 1997 brokerage and 
handling charge for a shipment of stainless steel wire rod. See 
Memorandum from Sam Zengotitabengoa, International Trade Compliance 
Analyst, to the File, ``Surrogate Country Factors of Production 
Values,'' dated January 26, 2004, at Exhibit 72, containing the 
original source documentation. In Yongjian's surrogate value 
submission, Yongjian suggests that the Department use the 1999-2000 
surrogate value for brokerage and handling from the Carrier Bags 
Prelim. However, in its submission, Yongjian did not include a copy 
of its source documents that support its brokerage and handling 
value. Without source documents that substantiate the surrogate 
value advocated by Yongjian (e.g., source documents that identify 
how the value was calculated and that confirm the reported units), 
we find the surrogate value used in the Preliminary Determination to 
be more reliable than Yongjian's suggested value. Furthermore, 
although Yongjian claims that the surrogate value used in the 
Preliminary Determination is inappropriate because it is based on 
brokerage and handling charges for a shipment of stainless steel 
wire rod, which is a high value product, Yongjian provided no 
evidence to demonstrate that the surrogate value is based on ad 
valorem charges. Therefore, we have continued to value brokerage and 
handling using brokerage and handling charges reported in Indian 
Wire Rod.

Comment 4: Whether the Department Should Modify Harmonized System 
Tariff Classifications for Certain Material Inputs

A. Muriate of Potash

    For the Preliminary Determination, the Department valued muriate 
of potash using HS 2815.2000, the subheading for potassium hydroxide 
(caustic potash). The petitioner alleges that potash muriate is 
actually defined as potassium chloride. Therefore, the petitioner 
urges the Department to value muriate of potash using HS 2827.3909, 
the classification for other chlorides, not elsewhere specified.
    In rebuttal, Since Hardware contends that there is no evidence 
on the record to support the view that potassium hydroxide (caustic 
potash) is not an appropriate surrogate for muriate of potash. Since 
Hardware states that although the Department did not specifically 
examine the type or grade of muriate of potash that it consumes in 
the ordinary course of business, it is reasonable to assume from the 
Department's overall verification findings that Since Hardware does 
consume muriate of potash, as reported. Therefore, the surrogate 
value used in the Preliminary Determination is a reasonable and 
accurate basis on which to value Since Hardware's consumption of 
muriate of potash for the final determination. See Rebuttal Comments 
from Adams C. Lee, Counsel to Since Hardware, to the Honorable 
Donald L. Evans, Secretary of Commerce, ``Since Hardware's Rebuttal 
Brief,'' dated May 4, 2004 (Since Hardware's Rebuttal Brief), at 4-
7.
    Department's Position: We agree with Since Hardware. We find 
that HS 2815.2000, the subheading which covers potassium hydroxide 
(caustic potash), is more appropriate for Since Hardware's 
production process than the petitioner's suggested subheading HS 
2827.3909, which covers other chlorides not elsewhere specified. 
Throughout this proceeding, Since Hardware has consistently reported 
HS 2815.2000 as the appropriate subheading to calculate the 
surrogate value for its input labeled muriate of potash. We find, 
via internet research, that one of the general uses of potassium 
hydroxide (caustic potash), which is covered under HS 2815.2000, is 
as a component of certain plating processes, which is consistent 
with Since Hardware's manufacturing process. See Memorandum from 
Paige Rivas to the File: ``Surrogate Valuation Research'' dated June 
15, 2004 (Research Memo). On the other hand, the petitioner's 
suggestion of HS 2827.3909, other chlorides, not elsewhere 
specified, is not specific enough for the Department to make a 
similar finding with respect to the general uses of the products 
covered under that subheading. Therefore, we continue to find that 
HS 2815.2000 is the most appropriate classification to value the 
muriate of potash consumed by Since Hardware during the POI.

B. PE Septa

    For the Preliminary Determination, the Department stated in the 
surrogate value memorandum that it used HS 3907.6000, which covers 
PE terephthalate (PET) in primary forms (limited to liquids and 
pastes, including dispersions and solutions, and blocks of irregular 
shape, lumps, powders, granules, flakes and similar bulk forms), to 
calculate the surrogate value for PE septa. The petitioner contends 
that PET in primary forms cannot serve as a septum or membrane. 
However, while the Department states that it used HS 3907.6000, the 
petitioner alleges that the Department based its calculations of the 
surrogate value for PE septa using data from HS 3920.1001, the 
classification for plastic sheets of PET. As such, the petitioner 
urges the Department to continue to value PE septa using HS 
3920.1001, the subheading for sheets of PE, for the final 
determination. See Petitioner's Case Brief, at 14.
    Since Hardware did not comment on this issue.
    Department's Position: We agree with the petitioner. In the 
Preliminary Determination, we mistakenly stated in the narrative of 
the surrogate value memorandum that we used HS 3907.6000, which 
covers PET in primary forms, to calculate the surrogate value for PE 
septa. See Memorandum from Sam Zengotitabengoa to the File: 
``Surrogate Country Factors of Production Values in the Preliminary 
Determination of the Antidumping Duty Investigation on Floor-
Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from 
the People's Republic of China,'' dated January 26, 2004 (Prelim 
Factors Memo). However, in Exhibit 25 of the Prelim Factors Memo, we 
actually used HS 3920.1001, which includes plates, sheets, film 
consisting of PET, to calculate the surrogate value for PE septa.
    In considering which HS subheading is appropriate, we find that 
the definition of septa is a thin membrane or sheet. Therefore, it 
is not appropriate to value PE septa with HS 3907.6000, which covers 
PET in primary forms. Instead, the Department finds that HS 
3920.1001, which covers other plates, sheets, film consisting of 
PET, is the appropriate surrogate value for PE septa. Therefore, for 
this final determination, we have continued to use HS 3920.1001 to 
value PE septa.

C. Stainless Steel

    For the Preliminary Determination, the Department classified 
stainless steel using HS 7210.1202, the subheading for flat-rolled 
products of iron or non-alloy steel, of a width of 600 mm or more, 
clad, plated or coated, with tin, of a thickness of less than 0.5 mm 
(tin plated stainless steel). The petitioner argues that there is no 
evidence on the administrative record indicating that the stainless 
steel used by the respondents is tin plated. Therefore, the 
petitioner urges the Department to value stainless steel using HS 
7220.1202, the subheading covering stainless steel in strips for 
making pipes and tubes. Alternatively, on the basis of material 
dimensions provided by Since Hardware and its chemical content, 
including nickel and chromium, the petitioner urges the Department 
to use the weighted average value for HS 7219.3401 and HS 7219.3402,

[[Page 35302]]

the subheadings covering flat-rolled products of stainless steel, of 
a width equal to or greater than 600 mm, cold-rolled, of a thickness 
equal to or greater than 0.5 mm but less than 1 mm. For the final 
determination, the petitioner urges the Department to revise the 
material input values according to the HS subheadings listed above. 
See Petitioner's Case Brief, at 14 and 15.
    In rebuttal, Since Hardware contends that there is no evidence 
on the record to suggest that tin-plated stainless steel is not an 
appropriate surrogate for stainless steel. In fact, Since Hardware 
states that although the Department did not specifically examine the 
type or grade of stainless steel that Since Hardware consumes in the 
ordinary course of business, it is reasonable to assume from the 
Department's overall verification findings that Since Hardware 
consumes the type or grade of stainless steel that it reported, 
which is close or identical to the stainless steel covered by HS 
7210.1202. For the final determination, Since Hardware stresses that 
the Department has no basis or justification for altering the 
Preliminary Determination's surrogate value used to value Since 
Hardware's consumption of stainless steel. See Since Hardware's 
Rebuttal Brief, at 5 and 6.
    Department's Position: We agree with the petitioner. A review of 
the record indicates that there is no evidence that Since Hardware's 
stainless steel input is plated. As a result, we find that a 
surrogate value calculated from HS 7219.34 better represents Since 
Hardware's stainless steel than subheading HS 7210.1202, which 
covers plated or coated material. Moreover, subheading HS 7219.34 
covers flat-rolled products of stainless steel, which are comparable 
to the description in Exhibit 7 of the input materials being valued 
in Since Hardware submission, dated January 12, 2004 (the actual 
product description is business proprietary information). Because 
there is no evidence on the record of the specific nickel and 
chromium content of Since Hardware's stainless steel input, we have 
not used a weighted-average of HS 7219.3401 and HS 7219.3402, as 
suggested by the petitioner. Instead, we find that the broader HS 
7219.34, which encompasses both HS 7219.3401 and HS 7219.3402, is 
more appropriate given the lack of information on the record 
concerning the chemical content of stainless steel. In addition, we 
have not used the petitioner's suggested stainless steel in strips 
subheading, HS 7220.1202, because it covers flat-rolled products of 
stainless steel of a width of less than 600 mm and does not match 
Since Hardware's product description of its stainless steel input. 
Therefore, for this final determination, we find that HS 7219.34 is 
appropriate to value the stainless steel consumed by Since Hardware 
during the POI.

D. Welding Wire

    For the Preliminary Determination, the Department classified 
welding wire under HS 7408.1902, the subheading for copper wire. 
However, the petitioner alleges that there is no evidence on the 
record indicating that the welding wire used by Since Hardware is 
made of copper. The petitioner urges the Department to value welding 
wire using HS 8311.2000, the classification covering cored wire of 
base metal for electric arc welding. For the final determination, 
the petitioner urges the Department to revise the material input 
values according to the HS subheadings provided. See Petitioner's 
Case Brief, at 15 and 16.
    In rebuttal, Since Hardware contends that there is no evidence 
on the record to suggest that welding wire of copper is not an 
appropriate surrogate for welding wire. In fact, Since Hardware 
states that although the Department did not specifically examine the 
type or grade of welding wire that Since Hardware consumes in the 
ordinary course of business, it is reasonable to assume from the 
Department's overall verification findings that Since Hardware 
consumes the type or grade of welding wire that it reported, which 
is close or identical to the welding wire covered by HS 7408.1902. 
As such, for the final determination, Since Hardware stresses that 
the Department has no basis or justification for altering the 
Preliminary Determination's surrogate value used to value Since 
Hardware's consumption of welding wire. See Since Hardware's 
Rebuttal Brief, at 6 and 7.
    Department's Position: We agree with the petitioner. A review of 
the record indicates that there is no evidence that Since Hardware 
uses welding wire made of copper. In fact, Since Hardware indicates 
that the welding wire it uses is made out of a material other than 
copper. See Since Hardware's fourth supplemental questionnaire 
response, dated February 11, 2004, at Exhibit 2 (Since Hardware's 
Fourth Supplemental). Based on that information, we find that HS 
8311.2000, the subheading for cored wire of base metal for electric 
arc welding, is more representative of Since Hardware's welding wire 
than HS 7408.1902, the subheading for copper wire. Therefore, for 
the final determination, we find that HS 8311.2000 is appropriate to 
value the welding wire consumed by Since Hardware during the POI.

E. Pigment

    For the Preliminary Determination, the Department classified 
pigment under HS 3801.9000, the subheading for other graphite-based 
preparations. However, Since Hardware alleges that this subheading 
does not reflect the physical characteristics of the pigment that 
Since Hardware consumes in the ordinary course of business. Instead, 
Since Hardware urges the Department to use HS 2803.0009, the 
subheading for carbon black, a form of pigment or dye used in common 
manufacturing applications, to value pigment in the final 
determination. See Since Hardware's Case Brief, at 3 and 4.
    The petitioner claims that Since Hardware's criticisms of the 
Department's choice of HS subheading for the valuation of pigment 
are unwarranted. The petitioner notes that Since Hardware's 
submissions, dated December 17, 2003, and January 12, 2004, 
indicated that HS 3801.9000 is the classification applicable to 
Since Hardware's pigment. In addition, the petitioner states that 
Since Hardware's submission on surrogate values, dated March 29, 
2004, was made subsequent to the Preliminary Determination. The 
petitioner notes that the data submitted by Since Hardware were not 
drawn from the period covered by the POI and were submitted with no 
explanation as to the material which Since Hardware considered them 
relevant.
    Department's Position: We agree with Since Hardware. We find, 
via internet research, that the carbon black covered under 
subheading HS 2803.0009 is considered a common pigment. In addition, 
our internet research indicates that graphite, which is covered by 
subheading 3801.9000, can be used in paints and pigments but is not 
used for its color. Instead, graphite is typically used as 
lubrication to spread the pigment more quickly. See Research Memo. 
In Since Hardware's Fourth Supplemental, Exhibit 1, Since Hardware 
includes a description of its inputs that is more consistent with 
carbon black (the specific product description is business 
proprietary information). Therefore, for the final determination, we 
have used HS 2803.0009 to value pigment using Indian import 
statistics.
    With respect to the petitioner's statement that Since Hardware's 
March 29, 2004, submission was made after the Department's 
Preliminary Determination, we note that Since Hardware's submission 
was timely and in accordance with the Department's regulations. 
According to section 351.301(c)(3)(i) of the Department's 
regulations, parties have until 40 days after the publication of the 
Preliminary Determination to submit publicly available information 
to value factors of production. Since Hardware's submission was 
within this 40 day time limit.

F. Silica Gel Parts

    For the Preliminary Determination, the Department valued silica 
gel parts using HS 2811.2200, the subheading for silicon dioxide. 
However, Since Hardware alleges that this subheading does not 
reflect the physical characteristics of the silica gel parts that 
Since Hardware consumes in the ordinary course of business. Instead, 
Since Hardware urges the Department to use HS 3824.9015 to value 
silica gel parts in the final determination. HS 3824.9015 is the 
subheading for mixed PE glycols, which Since Hardware alleges are 
chemicals commonly used in the production of rubber or plastic parts 
used in manufacturing and assembly operations. See Since Hardware's 
Case Brief, at 4.
    The petitioner did not comment on this issue.
    Department's Position: We agree with Since Hardware. We 
confirmed via internet research that silica gel, which is a form of 
silicon dioxide covered under HS 2811.2200, is commonly used as an 
absorbent. Mixed PE glycols, covered by HS 3824.9015, on the other 
hand, are materials that are used with plastic parts processing. See 
Research Memo. In fact, PE is specifically identified as a component 
of Since Hardware's plastic parts processing segment of its 
production process in the Production Flowchart in Since Hardware's 
section C and D questionnaire response at Exhibit 2, dated October 
14, 2003

[[Page 35303]]

(Since Hardware's October 14, 2003, response). Therefore, for the 
final determination, the Department will use HS 3824.9015 to value 
Since Hardware's consumption of silica gel parts.

G. Cotton Thread

    In the Preliminary Determination the Department valued cotton 
thread using HS 5204.1101, the subheading for cotton thread. Since 
Hardware claims that this subheading does not reflect the physical 
characteristics of the cotton thread that Since Hardware consumes in 
the ordinary course of business. Instead, Since Hardware urges the 
Department to use HS 5204.2009, the subheading for other cotton 
sewing thread offered for retail sale, to value cotton in the final 
determination. See Since Hardware's Case Brief, at 4.
    The petitioner claims that Since Hardware's criticisms of the 
Department's choice of HS subheading for cotton thread are lacking 
in merit. The petitioner states that the HS 5204.1101, the 
subheading used by the Department in the Preliminary Determination 
covers cotton sewing thread, containing 85 percent or more by weight 
of cotton, not offered for retail sale. The petitioner notes that 
the subheading advocated by Since Hardware as providing ``a more 
appropriate basis'' covers other cotton sewing thread offered for 
retail sale. The petitioner questions whether Since Hardware is 
acquiring its cotton thread in a configuration offered for retail 
sale, noting that the respondent has proffered no evidence to 
support such an improbable claim.
    Department's Position: We agree with the petitioner. We find 
that HS 5204.1101 identifies cotton thread, containing 85 percent or 
more of cotton, not offered for retail sale, to be an appropriate 
subheading in calculating the surrogate value for cotton thread. 
Since Hardware's suggested subheading, HS 5204.2009, covers other 
cotton sewing thread offered for retail sale. Because Since Hardware 
is a manufacturing company that purchases cotton thread as one of 
many inputs used to produce ironing boards, it is reasonable to 
assume that it purchases cotton thread in bulk from a wholesaler, 
rather than purchasing this material at retail. In addition, Since 
Hardware has provided no evidence that its reported cotton thread 
input contains less than 85 percent by weight of cotton and does not 
state why HS 5204.2009, the subheading for other cotton sewing 
thread offered for retail sale, better reflects Since Hardware's 
cotton thread input. Therefore, for the final determination, we 
continue to find that HS 5204.1101 is the appropriate subheading to 
value Since Hardware's consumption of cotton thread.

H. Cotton Rope

    For the Preliminary Determination, the Department classified 
cotton rope using HS 5604.9000, the subheading for other rubber 
thread and cord. However, Since Hardware alleges that this 
classification does not reflect the physical characteristics of the 
cotton rope that Since Hardware consumes in the ordinary course of 
business. Instead, Since Hardware urges the Department to use HS 
5607.9002, the subheading for cordage, cable ropes, and twine of 
cotton, to value cotton rope in the final determination. See Since 
Hardware's Case Brief, at 5.
    The petitioner claims that Since Hardware's criticisms of the 
Department's choice of HS subheading for cotton rope are 
unwarranted. The petitioner notes that Since Hardware's submissions, 
dated December 17, 2003, and January 12, 2004, indicated that HS 
5604.9000 is the subheading applicable to Since Hardware's cotton 
rope. This is the subheading that the Department applied in its 
Preliminary Determination. In addition, the petitioner states that 
Since Hardware's March 29, 2004, submission, was made subsequent to 
the Preliminary Determination. Furthermore, the petitioner notes 
that the data submitted by Since Hardware were not drawn from the 
period covered by the POI and were submitted with no explanation as 
to the material which Since Hardware considered them relevant.
    Department's Position: We agree with Since Hardware. The 
subheading HS 5604.9000 that the Department used in the Preliminary 
Determination covers rubber thread and cord, textile covered; 
textile yarn and strip and the like of headings 5404 and 5405 (which 
cover man-made materials), impregnated, coated, covered or sheathed 
with rubber or plastics. The materials under this subheading appear 
to be predominantly man-made. Item number HS 5607.9002, which covers 
cordage, cable ropes, and twine of cotton, includes materials more 
similar to the material reported by Since Hardware. As a result, we 
find that HS 5607.9002 is appropriate for the valuation of cotton 
rope in this final determination. For the timing of Since Hardware's 
submission, see the Department's Position under comment 4-E.

I. Zinc Galvanized Iron Clips

    For the Preliminary Determination, the Department valued zinc 
galvanized iron clips using HS 7318.2400, the subheading for non-
threaded cotters and cotter pins. However, Since Hardware alleges 
that this classification does not reflect the physical 
characteristics of the zinc galvanized iron clips that Since 
Hardware consumes in the ordinary course of business. Instead, Since 
Hardware urges the Department to use HS 7210.4900, the subheading 
for other products of iron/non-alloy steel otherwise plated/coated 
with zinc, to value zinc galvanized iron clips in the final 
determination. See Since Hardware's Case Brief, at 5.
    The petitioner claims that Since Hardware's criticisms of the 
Department's choice of HS subheading for galvanized iron clips are 
unwarranted. The petitioner notes that Since Hardware's submissions, 
dated December 17, 2003, and January 12, 2004, indicated that HS 
7318.2400 is the subheading applicable to Since Hardware's zinc 
galvanized iron clips. In addition, the petitioner states that Since 
Hardware's March 29, 2004, submission was made subsequent to the 
Preliminary Determination. Furthermore, the petitioner notes that 
the data submitted by Since Hardware were not drawn from a period 
covered by the POI and were submitted with no explanation as to the 
material which Since Hardware considered them relevant. The 
petitioner also states that in its January 15, 2004, submission, it 
provided explanatory information on ``circlips,'' which might 
describe the galvanized iron clips used by Since Hardware.
    Department's Position: We agree with the petitioner. We find 
that Since Hardware's surrogate value suggestion on HS 7210.4900 is 
not appropriate to value zinc galvanized iron clips because 
subheading HS 7210 refers to flat rolled steel products of iron or 
nonalloy steel, of a width of 600 mm or more, clad, plated, or 
coated. There is no indication that this subheading refers to any 
type of clip, or any article employed in a clip-like application, 
similar to that used in the production of ironing boards. In fact, 
the width of 600 mm or more indicates that it is not used in an 
application similar to a clip, but is much larger in size. HS 
subheading 7318.2400 is a more appropriate surrogate for zinc 
galvanized iron clips for the following reasons: (1) HS subheading 
73 is the subheading for articles of iron or steel, some plated and 
coated (a zinc galvanized iron clip is an article of iron); and (2) 
HS subheading 7318 refers to screws, nuts, bolts, coach screws, 
screw hooks, rivets, cotters, cotter pins, washers, and similar 
articles of iron and steel. Although zinc galvanized clips are not 
specifically mentioned, the above-listed items perform functions 
similar to the function a clip performs, or at least are more 
similar than a flat-rolled iron sheet. Therefore, the Department 
continues to value zinc galvanized iron clips using HS 7318.2400. 
For the timing of Since Hardware's submission, see the Department's 
Position under comment 4-E.

J. Glue

    For the Preliminary Determination, the Department valued glue 
using subheading HS 3214.1000, the subheading for glaziers putty, 
grafting putty, resin cements, and caulking. Since Hardware alleges 
that this subheading does not reflect the physical characteristics 
of the glue that Since Hardware consumes in the ordinary course of 
business. Instead, Since Hardware urges the Department to use HS 
3505.2000, the subheading for glues to value glue in the final 
determination. See Since Hardware's Case Brief, at 5.
    The petitioner claims that Since Hardware's criticisms of the 
Department's choice of HS subheading for glue are unwarranted. The 
petitioner notes that Since Hardware's submissions, dated December 
17, 2003, and January 12, 2004, indicated that HS 3214.1000 is the 
classification applicable to Since Hardware's glue. This is the 
classification that the Department applied in its Preliminary 
Determination. In addition, the petitioner states that Since 
Hardware's March 29, 2004, submission was made subsequent to the 
Preliminary Determination. Furthermore, the petitioner notes that 
the data submitted by Since Hardware were not drawn from the period 
covered by the POI and were submitted with no explanation as to the 
material which Since Hardware considered them relevant.
    Department's Position: We agree with Since Hardware. Upon 
further review of the HS subheadings, we find that the subheading

[[Page 35304]]

initially suggested by the respondent, HS 3214.1000, does not 
include glue or glue-like materials. The HS subheading suggested by 
Since Hardware in its last surrogate value submission, HS 3505.2000, 
however, does cover glue. Therefore, for the final determination, we 
find that subheading HS 3505.2000 is appropriate for calculating a 
surrogate value for glue. For the timing of Since Hardware's 
submission, see the Department's Position under comment 4-E.

K. Cotton Fixing Strips

    For the Preliminary Determination, the Department classified 
cotton fixing strips using HS 5604.9000, the subheading for other 
rubber thread and cord. Since Hardware alleges that this subheading 
does not reflect the physical characteristics of the cotton fixing 
strips that it consumes in the ordinary course of business. Instead, 
Since Hardware urges the Department to use for the final 
determination its market-economy purchase price for cotton fabric 
or, alternatively, the surrogate value that the Department used in 
the Preliminary Determination to value Yongjian's consumption of 
cloth strip, HS 5208.1901. Since Hardware argues that Yongjian's 
cloth strip is an input that is presumably identical to cotton 
fixing strips. See Since Hardware's Case Brief, at 6.
    The petitioner claims that Since Hardware's criticisms of the 
Department's choice of HS subheading for cotton fixing strips are 
unwarranted. The petitioner notes that Since Hardware's submissions, 
dated December 17, 2003, and January 12, 2004, indicated that HS 
5604.9000 is the subheading applicable to Since Hardware's cotton 
fixing strips. In addition, the petitioner states that Since 
Hardware's March 29, 2004, submission was made subsequent to the 
Preliminary Determination. Furthermore, the petitioner notes that 
the data submitted by Since Hardware were not drawn from the period 
covered by the POI and were submitted with no explanation as to the 
material which Since Hardware considered them relevant.
    Department's Position: We agree with Since Hardware, in part. 
Regarding Since Hardware's assertion that the Department should 
value cotton fixing strips with its reported market economy price of 
cotton fabric, Since Hardware does not claim that it uses the cotton 
fabric it purchases from a market economy supplier as cotton fixing 
strips. In fact, Since Hardware reports cotton fabric as a separate 
material input altogether. See Since Hardware's Fourth Supplemental 
at Exhibit 1. Therefore, we have not valued cotton fixing strips 
with the market economy price it reported for cloth fabric.
    However, with respect to Since Hardware's argument that we 
should value cotton fixing strips using HS 5208.1901, we agree. In 
the Preliminary Determination, the Department valued Since 
Hardware's cotton fixing strips using HS 5604.9000, which covers 
rubber thread and cord, textile covered; textile yarn and strip and 
the like of heading 5404 and 5405 (which cover man-made materials), 
impregnated, coated, covered or sheathed with rubber or plastics. 
The materials under this subheading are predominantly man-made. The 
name of the material input, cotton fixing strips, indicates that it 
is a strip made out of cotton. Item number HS 5208.1901 covers other 
fabrics of woven fabrics containing 85% or more by weight of cotton. 
As a result, we find that HS 5208.1901 is appropriate for the 
valuation of cotton fixing strips in this final determination. For 
the timing of Since Hardware's submission, see the Department's 
Position under comment 4-E.

Comment 5: Whether the Department Used the Best Available Data Source 
To Value Certain Material Inputs

    Yongjian notes that the Department relied on the Government of 
India, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Director General, Commercial 
Intelligence and Statistics data, published in the WTA, to calculate 
the values for hot-rolled steel, and cold-rolled steel. As an 
alternative, Yongjian submitted various data taken from 
InfodriveIndia.com that, according to Yongjian, reports official 
Indian government import statistics on an entry by entry basis. See 
Yongjian's Surrogate Value Submission, dated March 29, 2004. 
Yongijian states that the Department in other proceedings used 
certain data derived from InfodriveIndia.com. See, e.g., Memorandum 
from the Team to the File, ``Certain Color Television Receivers from 
the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination Factors 
Valuation Memorandum,'' dated November 21, 2003. Therefore, for the 
final determination, Yongjian urges the Department to use the data 
it submitted from InfodriveIndia.com to calculate surrogate values 
for certain material inputs. See Yongjian's Case Brief, at 2, 3, and 
8.
    The petitioner argues that Yongjian's position lacks merit and 
should be dismissed by the Department. The petitioner notes that 
Yongjian is the only party in this proceeding raising an objection 
to the Indian import statistics. The petitioner claims that the 
Department should continue to value Yongjian's material inputs on 
the basis of WTA data (also referred to as Indian import 
statistics). In addition, the petitioner states the only assistance 
that Yongjian offered the Department with respect to the surrogate 
valuation of inputs consisted of data based exclusively upon India's 
official import statistics. The petitioner argues that the values 
utilized by the Department in the Preliminary Determination have 
been available to Yongjian throughout this proceeding and yet the 
respondent offered no rebuttal to the petitioner's surrogate 
valuation submission dated October 24, 2003, nor did Yongjian submit 
any comment at any time in opposition to the WTA data.
    In addition, the petitioner argues that Yongjian provides no 
valid basis for a departure from surrogate valuation on the basis of 
WTA data. The petitioner states that the Department has previously 
used Indian import statistics published by the WTA for surrogate 
valuation purposes in numerous nonmarket economy (NME) cases. The 
petitioner argues that Yongjian provides no data that are superior 
in reliability, nor does it provide any data that are usable as 
benchmarks, which can be used to judge the WTA data. The petitioner 
claims that the WTA figures are official government statistics 
maintained by the Government of India, they are matched exactly to 
the POI, and are based upon commodity descriptions detailed to an 8-
digit level of specificity. In addition, the petitioner states that 
the WTA data are demonstrably internally consistent in terms of 
economic and commercial logic. According to the petitioner, the 
Department should continue to use the WTA data to value all of 
Yongjian's material inputs because the Indian import statistics meet 
the Department's criteria of availability, contemporaneity, 
specificity and reliability.
    The petitioner claims that Yongjian fails to demonstrate that 
the surrogate values based upon the Indian import statistics used by 
the Department are aberrant or unreliable. On the contrary, the 
petitioner argues that the data relied upon by Yongjian are 
inapposite or unreliable. The petitioner argues that Yongjian's 
comparison sources for cold-rolled steel, InfodriveIndia.com is an 
unofficial and non-governmental source and has been used only once 
for the surrogate valuation of inputs. The petitioner further states 
that, in that case, the Department states that its preferred source 
of surrogate value data continues to be the WTA data because it 
represents the best information available, but the Department would 
not be precluded from turning to InfodriveIndia.com data where the 
Indian import classification categories ``are overly broad.'' 
Concerning specificity, the petitioner argues that the HS categories 
are extremely precise with respect to the inputs at issue in this 
case.
    The petitioner argues that InfodriveIndia.com information 
submitted by Yongjian is not drawn from Indian customs entry forms 
but from commodity descriptions appearing on bills of lading and/or 
vessel manifests. The petitioner claims that these descriptions 
reflect exporter subjectivity and the HS classifications associated 
with them would be subject to no official verification and thus are 
inherently unreliable. For example, the petitioner points out that 
the InfodriveIndia.com printout identifies the ``Foreign Country'' 
only intermittently. According to the petitioner, Yongjian tells us 
that it is able to identify shipments that would be excluded as 
sourced from NME or export-subsidy countries on the basis of the 
name of the exporter. The petitioner adds that the Department may 
question whether such an approach is reliable or sustainable, or 
whether it may be subject to inconsistency.
    The petitioner contends that each of the values selected or 
concocted by Yongjian for purposes of demonstrating that the value 
used by the Department may be aberrant is: (1) Inapposite with 
respect to the input at issue (with respect to the input-specific 
value that Yongjian seeks to challenge), (2) inappropriate for the 
purposes of valuation, (3) unreliable or patently inaccurate, or (4) 
so generic as to have no utility in an input-specific context.
    Department's Position: We agree with the petitioner. In the 
Preliminary Determination, in accordance with past practice, we 
utilized WTA data (more specifically, Indian import statistics) in 
order to calculate surrogate values for many of Yongjian's material

[[Page 35305]]

inputs. In selecting the best available information for valuing 
factors of production, in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we selected values which 
are: (1) Non-export average values; (2) most contemporaneous with 
the POI; (3) product-specific; and (4) tax-exclusive. See Manganese 
Metal From the People's Republic of China; Final Results and Partial 
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 12441, 
12442 (Mar. 13, 1998). While we recognize that both Indian import 
statistics and InfodriveIndia.com: (1) Represents import data; (2) 
are contemporaneous with the POI; (3) are product-specific; and (4) 
are tax exclusive, we find that Indian import statistics represent 
the best available information in this case.
    With regard to Yongjian's assertion that the Department has used 
InfodriveIndia.com in previous cases, we note that the Department 
has used this source only once in a final determination. See Notice 
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative 
Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color 
Television Receivers From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 
20594 (April 16, 2004) (CTVs from the PRC). For the inputs valued 
using InfodriveIndia.com, we used this source because it provided 
the most product-specific information available and not because 
Indian import statistics were aberrational or unreliable. In 
addition, we clearly stated in this case our preference for Indian 
import statistics over InfodriveIndia.com except in instances where 
the HS categories are overly broad. See CTV's from the PRC, Issues 
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 9. In the current proceeding, 
there is no evidence on the record that the HS subheadings used by 
the Department to calculate surrogate values for cold-rolled steel 
coil and hot-rolled steel coil are overly broad.
    Regarding Yongjian's argument that the HS subheadings used to 
value its steel inputs are too broad, we note that there is no 
evidence on the record of this investigation to support that 
contention. With respect to cold-rolled steel, in its October 15, 
2003, section D questionnaire response, Yongjian states that it uses 
cold-rolled steel sheet with a thickness of 0.8 millimeters and 
cold-rolled steel sheet with a thickness of 1 mm to form meshes. In 
its case brief, Yongjian claims that HS 7209.1700 is too broad. HS 
7209.1700 covers flat-rolled products of iron or non-alloy steel, of 
a width of 600 mm or more, cold-rolled, (cold-reduced), not clad, 
plated or coiled; in coils, not further worked than cold-rolled 
(cold-reduced) of a thickness of 0.5 or more but not exceeding 1 mm. 
This description matches the cold-rolled steel characteristics of 
the material input that Yongjian reported in its questionnaire 
responses.
    With respect to hot-rolled steel, in its October 15, 2003, 
section D questionnaire response, Yongjian states that it uses hot-
rolled steel with a thickness ranging from 0.6 millimeters to 2.5 
millimeters. In its case brief, Yongjian claims that HS 7208.3900, 
used in the Preliminary Determination, is too broad. HS 7208.3900 
covers flat-rolled products of iron or non-alloy steel, of a width 
of 600 mm or more, hot-rolled, not clad, plated or coiled; in coils, 
of a thickness less than 3 mm. This description matches the hot-
rolled steel characteristics reported of the material input that 
Yongjian reported in its questionnaire responses.
    As a result of verification, we found that Yongjian used cold-
rolled steel coil and hot-rolled steel coil instead of the cold-
rolled and hot-rolled steel sheet it reported in its section D 
questionnaire responses. Therefore, for the final determination, we 
have valued Yongjian's cold-rolled steel coil using HS 7209.1700 and 
hot-rolled coil using HS 7208.3900. For additional discussion of 
this issue, see Comments 7 and 12.
    Although Yongjian states that the Department relied on data that 
``clearly included further processed products from those used in 
Yongjian's production * * *'' to calculate its surrogate value for 
cold-rolled steel coil and hot-rolled steel coil, Yongjian provided 
no information to indicate why it considered certain materials 
listed in InfodriveIndia.com to be inappropriate for comparison to 
the above-listed steel inputs. For example, for cold-rolled steel 
coil, Yongjian suggests that automotive steel blanks are not 
comparable to the steel coil used in ironing table production but 
does not justify that assertion with evidence or facts. See 
Yongjian's Case Brief at 24. With respect to hot-rolled steel coil, 
Yongjian generally states that much of the materials imported under 
HS 7208.3900, which the Department used to value hot-rolled steel 
coil in the final determination, is of a semi-finished or otherwise 
processed material. However, Yongjian fails to state in its case 
brief which specific materials are semi-finished and otherwise 
processed material and does not cite any evidence in support of its 
claim. In addition, even if semi-finished or otherwise processed 
materials are included in HS 7208.3900, Yongjian fails to 
demonstrate why such materials do not reflect the same steel used in 
Yongjian's production of ironing tables. The Department prefers to 
use surrogate values that are representative of a range of prices in 
effect during the period under consideration. Thus, using only a 
portion of the imports under HS 7209.1700 and HS 7208.3900 to 
calculate the surrogate values for cold-rolled and hot-rolled steel, 
respectively, without evidence to support this approach, is 
inconsistent with the criteria the Department uses to select 
surrogate values.
    As a result, the Department does not find that the HS 
subheadings used in the final determination are overly broad and 
continues to rely on WTA to calculate surrogate values for cold-
rolled and hot-rolled steel coil.

Comment 6: Whether the Department's Used Aberrant Surrogate Values for 
Certain Material Inputs

    Yongjian contends that it is Department practice that 
unreasonable and aberrational surrogate values will not be used in 
the calculation of normal value. See Refined Antimony Trioxide from 
the PRC: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 57 FR 
6801, 6803 (February 28, 1992). Yongjian argues that although the 
Department stated that ``the surrogate values employed in the 
valuation of the factors of production were selected because of 
their quality, specificity, and contemporaneity'' (See Preliminary 
Determination, at 5131), the record evidence demonstrates the 
aberrant nature of the surrogate values used in the Preliminary 
Determination. See Yongjian's Case Brief, at 3-5.

A. Cold-Rolled Steel

    For the Preliminary Determination, the Department relied upon 
WTA data to calculate the surrogate value for cold-rolled steel 
sheet. As discussed above, Yongjian asserts that the 
InfodriveIndia.com data demonstrate that the majority of cold-rolled 
steel imported under HS 7209.1700 is a semi-finished or otherwise 
processed material that does not reflect the input used in the 
production of ironing boards. Therefore, Yongjian contends that the 
Department's Preliminary Determination surrogate value of cold-
rolled steel sheet is based on aberrant data as compared with 
Yongjian's surrogate value filing of InfodriveIndia.com for cold-
rolled steel coil, Since Hardware's market value of cold-rolled 
steel coil, CRU Monitor export prices of cold-rolled steel coil, and 
the American Metal Market (AMM) price for cold-rolled steel coil. 
See Yongjian's Case Brief, at 9 and 10. In addition, Yongjian 
contends, in a footnote, that the surrogate value for cold-rolled 
steel used by the Department in the Preliminary Determination for 
Since Hardware also yields an aberrant value.
    The petitioner argues that it is not aberrational but entirely 
logical and predictable that cold-rolled steel coil would carry a 
lower average value than steel that has been subjected to a capital-
intensive slitting process, like cold-rolled steel sheet. The 
petitioner also notes that a comparison to Since Hardware's claimed 
market economy purchases reflects an apple to oranges approach 
because Since Hardware's inputs are vastly different from Yongjian's 
inputs. With respect to Yongjian's AMM prices, the petitioner argues 
that the sources provide no meaningful specificity whatsoever with 
respect to the commodity addressed in relation to the input valued 
by the Department and notes that Yonjian acknowledges the lack of 
utility these prices have for valuation purposes. In addition, the 
petitioner notes that the AMM does not disclose the quantities upon 
which the reported average prices are based, which makes it 
impossible to assess the breadth of the data sample.
    Department's Position: We agree with the petitioner. Consistent 
with the material reported in Yongjian's questionnaire responses, 
the Department used HS 7211.2300, or cold-rolled steel sheet, to 
calculate a surrogate value for Yongjian's cold-rolled steel inputs 
in the Preliminary Determination. In its case brief, Yongjian 
compares the cold-rolled sheet surrogate value to data using the 
prices of cold-rolled coil, which is either listed as HS 7209.1700 
or labeled cold-rolled steel coil to demonstrate that the sheet 
prices are aberrational. However, as discussed above, the Department 
found at verification that

[[Page 35306]]

Yongjian actually used cold-rolled coil in its production process 
instead of the cold-rolled sheet it previously reported. See 
Yongjian's sections C and D questionnaire response dated October 15, 
2003. See also, Comment 11.
    Consequently, for the final determination, we valued Yongjian's 
cold-rolled steel input based on HS 7209.1700. The appropriate HS 
subheading for cold-rolled steel coil is HS 7209.1700, and discussed 
in Comment 5, we do not believe this HS subheading is overly broad. 
However, we have re-examined the surrogate value data on the record 
of this investigation for this HS subheading in order to determine 
whether any of the data falling under this HS subheading are, in 
fact, aberrational.
    Based on this examination, we have excluded from our 
calculations certain imports under this HS subheading which we 
determined were aberrationally high in relation to the other Indian 
import data contained in this HS subheading. See the June 15, 2004, 
memorandum to the File from Sam Zengotitabengoa entitled, ``Final 
Determination Factors Valuation Memorandum'' (Final Factors Memo). 
Therefore, with these adjustments, for the final determination, we 
have continued to use HS 7209.1700 to value cold-rolled steel coil.

B. Hot-Rolled Steel

    For the Preliminary Determination, the Department relied on WTA 
data to calculate the surrogate value for hot-rolled steel. As 
discussed above, Yongjian asserts that the InfodriveIndia.com data 
demonstrate that the majority of hot-rolled steel imported under HS 
7208.3900 is a semi-finished or otherwise processed material that 
does not reflect the input used in the production of ironing boards. 
As such, Yongjian contends that the Department's Preliminary 
Determination valuation of hot-rolled steel is based on aberrant 
data as compared with Yongjian's surrogate value filing of 
InfodriveIndia.com, Since Hardware's market economy prices of hot-
rolled steel coil purchases, Essar Steel home market price of hot-
rolled steel coil, CRU export prices, and AMM price. See Yongjian's 
Case Brief, at 11 and 12.
    The petitioner states that Yongjian's comparison of hot-rolled 
steel values is faulty. The petitioner argues that Yongjian's 
summary of a database submitted in another case by a single 
respondent (Essar Steel) selected by Yongjian, providing only ranged 
price and quantity data for a sampling of home market sales in a 
non-contemporaneous period and for a product of undisclosed 
description or specification cannot be taken seriously. In addition, 
the petitioner states that Since Hardware's claimed market economy 
purchase prices do not relate to Yongjian's input; therefore they 
would not be appropriate for use in valuing Yongjian's inputs, while 
other suitable surrogate value information is available. In this 
instance, the petitioner continues, the Since Hardware value 
detracts directly from Yongjian's assertion that its comparison 
values represent ``export pricing that would have been available to 
Indian and Chinese importers.'' The petitioner notes that, if this 
were the case, and Yongjian's values had validity, one would expect 
that Since Hardware would have purchased at the InfodriveIndia price 
rather than at a higher cost.
    Department's Position: We agree with the petitioner. Consistent 
with the material reported in Yongjian's questionnaire responses, 
the Department used HS 7211.1900, the subheading for hot-rolled 
steel sheet, to calculate a surrogate value for Yongjian's hot-
rolled steel inputs in the Preliminary Determination. In its case 
brief, Yongjian compares the hot-rolled steel sheet surrogate value 
to data based on prices of hot-rolled steel coil, which is either 
listed as HS 7208.3900 or labeled hot-rolled steel coil to 
demonstrate that the sheet prices were aberrational. However, as 
discussed above, the Department found at verification that Yongjian 
actually used hot-rolled steel coil in its production process 
instead of the hot-rolled steel sheet it previously reported. See 
Yongjian's sections C and D questionnaire response dated October 15, 
2003. See also, Comment 11.
    Because the Department is using a surrogate value for hot-rolled 
steel coil in the final determination, we examined imports under the 
HS subheading to determine if any imports under this category were 
aberrational. We also examined whether the Department's surrogate 
value for hot-rolled steel coil, is aberrational as compared to 
Yongjian's alternative pricing data contained in its case brief. We 
find that the surrogate value used in final determination is not 
aberrationally high. For the final determination, we have calculated 
a surrogate value for hot-rolled coil of $.28/kg. In comparing the 
surrogate value calculated by the Department to the range of prices 
contained in Yongjian's case brief ($0.28/kg to $0.35/kg), we find 
that the Department's surrogate value for hot-rolled steel coil is 
appropriate for the final determination.

C. Steel Wire Rod

    For the Preliminary Determination, the Department relied on WTA 
data to calculate the surrogate value for steel wire.\1\ Yongjian 
contends that the valuation of steel wire is based on aberrant data 
as compared with the steel wire rod prices from InfodriveIndia.com, 
Since Hardware's market economy purchase price, P.T. Ispat Indo's 
home market price, and AMM prices. See Yongjian's Case Brief, at 12-
14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ We note that Yongjian reported steel wire in its section D 
questionnaire responses. However, at verification, we found that 
Yongjian consumed steel wire rod. For the final determination, we 
are valuing this input as steel wire rod.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to wire rod, the petitioner claims that Yongjian's 
comparison is not reliable because Since Hardware's claimed market 
economy purchase price of steel wire rod was at a price higher than 
Yongjian's comparison prices from InfodriveIndia.com and AMM prices. 
The petitioner contends that if such low prices of steel wire rod 
were available, Since Hardware would have purchased steel wire rod 
at that price. The petitioner also states that the comparison is not 
meaningful because the material used by Yongjian is substantially 
different from Since Hardware's steel wire rod input. In addition, 
the petitioner claims that Yongjian's use of another case, in which 
Yongjian summarized the public version of another respondent's home 
market database, to compare to the Department's surrogate value for 
steel wire rod in this investigation, is unacceptable because it 
abandons contemporaneity and involves products of undisclosed 
description and specification.
    Department's Position: We disagree with Yongjian and the 
petitioner. Consistent with the material reported in Yongjian's 
questionnaire responses, the Department used HS 7217.1001, the 
subheading for steel wire, to calculate a surrogate value for 
Yongjian's steel wire inputs in the Preliminary Determination. In 
its case brief, Yongjian compares the steel wire surrogate value to 
data using prices of steel wire rod, which is either listed as HS 
7217.1001 or labeled steel wire rod to demonstrate that the sheet 
prices are aberrational. However, as discussed above, the Department 
found at verification that Yongjian actually used steel wire rod in 
its production process instead of the steel wire it previously 
reported. See Yongjian's sections C and D questionnaire response 
dated October 15, 2003. See also Comment 11.
    Because the Department is using a surrogate value for steel wire 
rod in the final determination, we examined imports under the HS 
subheading to determine if any imports under this category were 
aberrational. Therefore, for the final determination, we have 
calculated a surrogate value for steel wire rod based on HS 
7213.9109.

D. Circular Pipe and Tube and Non-Circular (Rectangular) Pipe and 
Tube

    For the Preliminary Determination, the Department relied on WTA 
data to calculate the surrogate value for circular and non-circular 
(rectangular) cross-section pipe and tube. Yongjian contends that 
the Department's valuation of circular and non-circular 
(rectangular) pipe and tube in the Preliminary Determination is 
based on aberrant data compared with net prices contained in the 
home market databases for four companies that were respondents in 
U.S. antidumping duty proceedings involving certain types of pipe 
and tube from Mexico, Turkey, Thailand, and Taiwan. For circular 
pipe and tube, Yongjian used prices from the publicly ranged home 
market databases for two companies, Saha Thai from Thailand, and 
Yieh Hsing from Taiwan. For non-circular pipe and tube, Yongjian 
used prices from the publicly ranged home market databases from a 
Mexican company, Regiomontana, and a Turkish company, MMZ. See 
Yongjian's Case Brief, at 14 and 15. Although Yongjian provided the 
Department with pricing information as a benchmark, it did not 
suggest which surrogate value to use.
    The petitioner argues that Yongjian relies solely upon 
summarized, sampled data from selected respondents in other 
antidumping cases. The petitioner also claims that the data obtained 
from these other cases are not contemporaneous with the POI, and are 
from markets having no economic comparability to

[[Page 35307]]

the PRC. In addition, the petitioner asserts that Yongjian fails to 
explain how the respondents' production in these antidumping cases 
involves merchandise comparable to the material inputs for ironing 
tables.
    Department's Position: We agree with the petitioner. For both of 
these material inputs, we find that the WTA data used in the 
Preliminary Determination are reasonable to use in the final 
determination for the following reasons: (1) There is no evidence on 
the record that the merchandise in the other antidumping cases cited 
in Yongjian's case brief are more similar to the material inputs 
used in this investigation by Yongjian; (2) gross prices are more 
appropriate for comparison to Indian import statistics, not net 
prices; and (3) the other respondents' data are not contemporaneous 
to the POI.. We note that neither the respondents in this case nor 
the petitioner is arguing the Department used incorrect HS 
subheadings in the Preliminary Determination and we have no evidence 
on the record that indicates that HS 7306.300 (circular pipe and 
tube) or HS 7306.6000 (non-circular pipe and tube) are overly broad 
or otherwise inappropriate subheadings for these material inputs. In 
addition we examined imports under the HS subheading to determine if 
any imports under these categories were aberrational and we do not 
find that the information contained in these HS subheadings are 
aberrational. Since the HS is not overly broad and the Indian import 
statistics are not aberrant, we continue to find that the WTA data 
represent the best available information for calculating surrogate 
values for circular and non-circular pipe and tube for the final 
determination.

E. Powder Coating

    For the Preliminary Determination, the Department used WTA data 
for HS 3208.1009 to calculate the surrogate value for powder 
coating, the subheading for paints and varnishes (including enamels 
and laquers), based on polyesters. However, Yongjian alleges that 
this classification does not reflect the physical characteristics of 
the powder coating that it uses to produce subject merchandise. 
Instead, Yongjian asserts that the Department verified that the 
powder coating used by Yongjian is not in liquid form, like standard 
paint or varnish, but rather is in the form of a dry powder, and the 
powder coating is not solely based on polyesters, but rather on a 
1:1 mixture of polyester and epoxy resins. As such, for the final 
determination, Yongjian urges the Department to use HS 3907.3001 and 
HS 3907.9102 to value powder coating.
    The petitioner states that it agrees with Yongjian that Indian 
import statistics should be used to value powder coating but 
questions why the respondent provided import data covering the whole 
year rather than the POI. The petitioner argues that, in view of the 
respondent's failure to provide data contemporaneous to the POI, the 
Department should value powder coating as it did in the Preliminary 
Determination as the best information available.
    Department's Position: We agree with Yongjian. During 
verification, we found that the powder coating Yongjian uses is a 
dry mixture of polyester and epoxy resins. We are using HS 
3907.3001, the subheading for epoxide resins, and HS 3907.9102, the 
subheading for polyester resins, to calculate a surrogate value for 
powder coating. However, we find that it is not appropriate to 
calculate the surrogate value for this material input based on a 
full year's data, as suggested by Yongjian. Therefore, we have 
valued powder coating with surrogate values using data for the POI 
based on HS 3907.3001 and HS 3907.9102 for the purposes of the final 
determination. See Comment 11.

F. Cardboard Cartons

    For the Preliminary Determination, the Department relied on 
Indian import statistics for HS 4819.1009 to calculate the surrogate 
value for cardboard cartons. Yongjian contends that this value is 
aberrant compared with a domestic Indian price quote from Aakritee 
Packaging, which was cited in the Carrier Bags Prelim, and Since 
Hardware's market economy purchase price for cardboard cartons.
    Yongjian claims that the Department has expressed a preference 
for the use of domestic prices from the surrogate country rather 
than import values. See, e.g., Pure Magnesium from the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper 
Administrative Review, 63 FR 3085, 3087 (January 21, 1998) (Pure 
Magnesium). Moreover, Yongjian contends that the Department has 
rejected Indian import statistics in favor of domestic prices based 
on the relative specificity of the data to the input being valued. 
See Certain Non-Frozen Apple Juice Concentrate from the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results of 1999-2001 Administrative Review 
and Rescission of Review, 67 FR 68987 (November 14, 2002), Issues 
and Decision Memo at Comment 1. Therefore, Yongjian argues that 
where the Department has the choice between domestic and import 
prices, it should select the price derived from the source that is 
more reliable and product-specific. See Yongjian's Case Brief, at 
18-20.
    The petitioner argues that there is nothing to indicate error in 
the Department's valuation of this input. The petitioner contends 
that the data sources that are used by Yongjian confirm that the 
Indian import statistics are to be relied upon more heavily than 
domestic price quotations. In this instance, according to the 
petitioner, because the dimensions of the cardboard cartons are not 
appropriate for a product similar to ironing boards, the domestic 
sales price quote proposed by Yongjian could not have applied to an 
input of the same size that is used by Yongjian. Therefore, the 
Department should retain the surrogate value for cardboard cartons 
that it used for the Preliminary Determination. The petitioner 
states that Yongjian offers no valid reason to change the surrogate 
value and the Department should retain the surrogate value it 
employed for purposes of the Preliminary Determination.
    Department's Position: We agree with the petitioner. In the 
Preliminary Determination, we used HS 4909.1009, the subheading for 
cartons, boxes and cases of corrugated paper or paperboard, to 
calculate a surrogate value of cardboard cartons. There is no 
information on the record of this investigation that indicates that 
the domestic price from Aakritee Packaging \2\ is more reliable and 
specific to the product being valued than the surrogate value 
calculated using Indian import statistics. We acknowledge the fact 
that the Department may have in a particular case expressed a 
preference for domestic prices instead of Indian import statistics. 
However, this is a case-by-case determination. In Pure Magnesium, 
for example, the domestic prices that were selected were more 
representative and closer in time to the period of review than other 
sources. See Pure Magnesium. In this case, Yongjian does not provide 
any evidence that the cardboard cartons sold by Aarkritee Packing 
are the same or more similar to the type of cardboard carton used by 
ironing board manufacturers than the cartons imported under HS 
4909.1009. Therefore, we have continued to use the Indian import 
statistics in the final determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Furthermore, we note that the Department did not use the 
domestic price of Aakritee Packaging in the Carrier Bags Prelim. 
Instead, the Department used a weighted-average of HS subheadings 
4919.1001 and 4819.1009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Filler Pads

    For the Preliminary Determination, the Department calculated the 
surrogate value for filler pads using Indian import statistics for 
HS 4808.1000, which covers corrugated paper and paperboard, whether 
or not perforated. Yongjian contends that the Department's 
Preliminary Determination valuation of filler pads is based on 
aberrant data as compared with Yongjian's surrogate value derived 
from Indian import statistics under HS 4805.2901, which covered 
cardboard and was used in the Carrier Bags Prelim. Yongjian claims 
that the surrogate value calculated for HS 4805.2901 is corroborated 
by Since Hardware's market economy purchase price of corrugated 
paper. See Yongjian's Case Brief, at 20.
    The petitioner states that Yongjian offers no support for its 
claim that the filler pads are specific or even similar to the 
specific input that Since Hardware uses. Moreover, the petitioner 
argues that Yonjian selected the lower value, without justification, 
of the two HS subheadings used to value filler pads in the Carrier 
Bags Prelim. The petitioner states that Yongjian offers no valid 
reason to change this surrogate value and the Department should 
continue the surrogate value treatment it employed for purposes of 
the Preliminary Determination.
    Department's Position: We agree with the petitioner. Nowhere on 
the record of this investigation has Yongjian stated that the filler 
pads it used during the POI are similar to the separating corrugated 
paper reported by Since Hardware or the products covered under HS 
4805.2901, which the Department used in Carrier Bags from China to 
value cardboard inserts as cited in Yongjian's March 29, 2004, 
submission. Yongjian classifies filler pads as a part of its packing 
materials but does not fully explain their use. HS 4808.1000, which 
covers corrugated paper and paperboard, whether or not

[[Page 35308]]

perforated and HS 4805.2901, which covers cardboard, are two 
distinct products and there is no evidence on the record that 
indicates it is appropriate to compare the two products to determine 
if the price of one is aberrational. We note that Yongjian has not 
argued that the HS subheading that the Department used in the 
Preliminary Determination is inappropriate to calculate a surrogate 
value for filler pads. We have examined imports under the HS 
subheading to determine if any imports under this category were 
aberrational and found that they were not. Therefore, for the final 
determination, we have continued to use HS subheading 4808.1000 to 
calculate a surrogate value for filler pads.

H. Labels and Bar Code Labels

    For the Preliminary Determination, the Department relied on the 
Indian import statistics for HS 4821.9000, which covers paper labels 
(not printed), self-adhesive or not, to calculate the surrogate 
value for labels and bar code labels. However, Yongjian contends 
that the labels and bar code labels used by Yongjian are printed, 
some self-adhesive and some not. Yongjian contends that the 
Department's Preliminary Determination valuation of labels and bar 
code labels is excessive as compared with Yongjian's surrogate value 
derived from Indian import statistics for the four-digit HS 4821, 
which covers labels of paper or paperboard, printed or not. Yongjian 
states that the surrogate value of HS 4821 is in line with Since 
Hardware's ranged market economy purchase price for its manual 
labels. See Yongjian's Case Brief, at 20 and 21.
    Department's Position: We disagree with Yongjian. Despite 
Yongjian's assertion in its Case Brief, there is nothing on the 
record of this investigation that demonstrates that Yongjian uses 
labels other than the paper labels (not printed), self-adhesive or 
not, that are classified under HS 4821.9000. In addition, in stating 
that the Department's surrogate value for labels and bar code labels 
are aberrant compared to Since Hardware's market economy purchase 
price of manual labels, we note that Yongjian made no effort to 
document that the two types of labels are similar or are classified 
under the same HS number. In fact, Since Hardware itself 
distinguishes between the two types of labels that it purchases, one 
type is valued with a market economy price (i.e., manual labels), 
and the other type (i.e., marking label) is valued using the same HS 
number used to value Yongjian's labels and bar code labels, HS 
4821.9000. Therefore, for the final determination, the Department 
has continued to value Yongjian's labels and bar code labels using 
HS 4821.9000.

Comment 7: Whether the Department Should Accept Since Hardware's Market 
Economy Purchases That Were Not Verified by the Department

    The petitioner argues that for the Preliminary Determination the 
Department erred by using market-economy purchase prices for cold-
rolled steel coil and hot-rolled steel coil used by Since Hardware. 
See Petitioner's Case Brief, at 18-24. The petitioner states that it 
submitted pre-verification comments to the Department where it 
challenged the authenticity of certain market economy purchases 
because (1) the material input prices appeared to be inconsistent 
with regional commodity trends and (2) the HS codes submitted to 
Chinese customs do not represent the materials that Since Hardware 
claimed to have imported. These comments emphasized that all market 
economy transactions warranted close scrutiny by the Department 
during verification. The petitioner acknowledges that the Department 
verified market economy purchases made in December 2002, but notes 
that the Department did not verify transactions made in 2003. 
Therefore, the petitioner urges the Department to reject Since 
Hardware's 2003 purchase values of market economy materials as 
unverified and inherently unreliable. See Petitioner's Case Brief, 
at 18-24.
    In rebuttal, Since Hardware states that the Department should 
not revise any of the market-economy input pricing data reported by 
Since Hardware in the Preliminary Determination. See Since 
Hardware's Rebuttal Brief, at 9-11. Since Hardware contends that it 
is the Department's practice to verify information contained in a 
company's responses on the basis of the sampling of submitted data. 
Since Hardware states that the Court of International Trade (CIT) 
concluded that the Department ``has the discretion to choose which 
items it will verify, and so long as Commerce has not uncovered 
facts in the process of verification that point to an improper 
accounting * * *. Commerce is not compelled to search further.'' See 
PMC Specialities Group, Inc. v. United States, 20 C.I.T. 1130, 1134-
35 (1996). Since Hardware states that because the Department 
verified Since Hardware's market-economy material purchases of cold-
rolled steel coil and hot-rolled steel coil and noted no 
discrepancies, there was no evidence of improper accounting, or 
evasion, and there was no reason for the Department to search 
further. As such, Since Hardware urges the Department not to revise 
any of the market-economy input pricing data reported by Since 
Hardware for the final determination. See Since Hardware's Rebuttal 
Brief, at 9-11.
    Department's Position: We agree with Since Hardware. When 
conducting verification, the Department is not required to test 
every single sale or purchase reported by the respondent during the 
course of an investigation. To do so would be an almost impossible 
task. Instead, the Department verifies samples of submitted data. 
The CIT has affirmed this approach, observing:

Verification is like an audit, the purpose of which is to test 
information provided by a party for accuracy and completeness. 
Normally an audit entails selective examination rather than testing 
of an entire universe. Hence, evasion is a common possibility, but 
only when audits uncover facts indicating the actuality thereof are 
auditors compelled to search further * * * Commerce has the 
discretion in choosing which items it will verify, and so long as 
Commerce has not uncovered facts in the process of verification that 
point to an improper accounting * * * Commerce is not compelled to 
search further.''

    See PMC Specialities Group, Inc. v. United States, 20 CIT 1130, 
1134-35 (1996). See Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from 
Thailand, 65 FR 60910 (October 13, 2000).
    We note that the petitioner's pre-verification comments were 
extensive and voluminous. In the limited amount of time allotted to 
verification, the verifiers covered a vast portion of the 
petitioner's concerns while still completing a full and detailed 
verification following the procedures explained in the verification 
outline. At verification, we looked at a number of market economy 
purchases and found no discrepancies. For example, we examined cold-
rolled steel and hot-rolled steel market economy purchases. Based 
upon the information gathered at verification, the Department has no 
reason to question Since Hardware's reported market economy 
purchases. The Department found no discrepancies in Since Hardware's 
methodology in reporting market economy prices for its market 
economy purchases. 19 CFR 351.307(b) and (d) provide for flexibility 
in conducting verifications by permitting the examination of a 
sample of expenses, adjustments, and other topics that we consider 
relevant to factual information submitted. This reflects the fact 
that verification is like a sampling exercise and is not intended to 
be an exhaustive examination of every topic. See Certain Internal-
Combustion Industrial Forklift Trucks from Japan; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 5592, 5602 (February 
6, 1997). In this case, the Department followed its verification 
procedures and thoroughly examined the market economy purchases of 
cold-rolled and hot-rolled steel coil for certain months and found 
no discrepancies.
    However, we note that the petitioner's argument with respect to 
the market economy purchase price of cold-rolled steel coil is moot. 
For the final determination, we have continued to use a surrogate 
value for Since Hardware's cold-rolled steel coil input. See Comment 
8. With respect to Since Hardware's market economy purchase price 
for hot-rolled steel coil, we do not think that the purchase price 
is aberrationally low. According to Since Hardware's March 31, 2004 
public version of ranged prices for its hot-rolled steel coil 
purchases, Since Hardware's purchase price of hot-rolled steel coil 
is $0.32/kg. By comparing Since Hardware's publicly ranged price of 
$0.32/kg to the Department's surrogate value for hot-rolled steel 
coil of $.028/kg, the Department finds that Since Hardware's market 
economy purchase price is reasonable. Because Indian import 
statistics are based on the sum of all imports into India during the 
POI, we regard that figure as a reliable benchmark. Nowhere in this 
investigation has the petitioner suggested that the WTA data that 
the Department used in calculating the surrogate value for hot-
rolled steel coil is aberrational. Therefore, for the final 
determination, we have continued to use Since Hardware's market 
economy price to value hot-rolled steel coil.

[[Page 35309]]

Comment 8: Whether the Department Should Use the Market Economy Price 
To Value Cold-Rolled Steel Inputs

    Since Hardware urges the Department to use the actual market 
economy prices paid to a Hong Kong supplier to value Since 
Hardware's cold-rolled steel inputs. See Since Hardware's Case 
Brief, at 6-10. Citing section 351.408(c)(1) of the Department's 
regulations, Since Hardware states that ``where a factor is 
purchased from a market economy supplier and paid for in a market 
economy currency, the Secretary normally will use the price paid to 
the market economy supplier'' to value the factors of production. 
However, for the Preliminary Determination, Since Hardware alleges 
that the Department disregarded the actual prices paid by Since 
Hardware for Hong Kong purchases of cold-rolled steel. Instead, 
Since Hardware asserts that the Department indicated that it had 
``reason to believe or suspect that cold-rolled steel from the 
country in question {was{time}  being dumped,'' and thus the 
Department ``disregarded prices for cold-rolled steel from this 
country, and instead used the Indian surrogate value * * *.'' See 
Preliminary Determination, at 5131. See Since Hardware's Case Brief, 
at 6 and 7.
    Since Hardware argues that while the cold-rolled steel it 
purchased might have been manufactured in a country subject to a PRC 
antidumping duty order, Since Hardware did not purchase the cold-
rolled steel directly from that country. Instead, Since Hardware 
claims that it purchased the cold-rolled steel sheet directly from 
its Hong Kong reseller supplier, that, in turn, may have purchased 
the cold-rolled steel either directly or indirectly from a country 
subject to the PRC antidumping duty order. See Since Hardware's Case 
Brief, at 7 and 8.
    Furthermore, Since Hardware notes that, in CTVs from the PRC, 
the Department considered whether to accept the prices for inputs 
purchased through Hong Kong trading companies that originated in a 
country with broadly available non-industry-specific export 
subsidies that might be distorted due to subsidies. In comparing 
CTVs from the PRC to the current investigation, Since Hardware 
explains that its cold-rolled steel supplier is located in Hong 
Kong. Since Hardware states that this trading company was not 
subject to any PRC government dumping investigation, and cannot be 
presumed to have benefitted from any input price distortion caused 
by dumping. Therefore, Since Hardware concludes that the Department 
has no reason to believe or suspect that the sales prices from this 
Hong Kong supplier to Since Hardware are distorted. Because there is 
no record evidence that Since Hardware's Hong Kong supplier of cold-
rolled steel purchased the input at dumped prices, or that it 
``passed'' any distortion on to Since Hardware, Since Hardware 
contends that there is no reason for the Department to deviate from 
its normal practice of using the prices paid to a market economy 
supplier to value Since Hardware's factors of production. As such, 
for the final determination, Since Hardware urges the Department to 
follow its practice in CTVs from the PRC, and not reject prices of 
goods purchased in Hong Kong based on the country of origin of the 
goods. See Since Hardware's Case Brief, at 9 and 10.
    The petitioner argues that Since Hardware's purchases of cold-
rolled steel produced in the market economy country should be valued 
using surrogate prices. The petitioner states that Since Hardware's 
suggestion in its Case Brief that it was not certain of the origin 
of the cold-rolled steel that it purchased is hardly the case. The 
petitioner notes that in Since Hardware's own questionnaire 
response, Since Hardware acknowledged that it purchased the steel 
from the market economy country subject to the PRC dumping case. In 
addition, the petitioner points out that the sales confirmations, 
which ultimately complete the contract of sale, clearly record the 
country of origin of certain cold-rolled steel and it is undisputed 
that cold-rolled steel from its market economy country is subject to 
a Chinese antidumping order.
    The petitioner states that Since Hardware's argument that there 
is no evidence on the record to suggest that the prices paid by 
Since Hardware's Hong Kong supplier, or paid by Since Hardware to 
its Hong Kong supplier, for cold-rolled steel were distortive, 
ignores the body of authority squarely against its position. The 
petitioner argues that the existence of the PRC antidumping duty 
order alone provides the Department with a reason to believe or 
suspect that the input is being dumped and no formal investigation 
into costs or pricing is required. The petitioner states that it can 
in no way matter whether the dumped input is imported into the NME 
country directly from the country of origin or, indirectly, through 
a trading company in a third country: country of origin, not the 
country of exportation, determines whether a product is subject to 
an antidumping duty order.
    Additionally, the petitioner disagrees with Since Hardware's 
argument that the Department should accept its market economy prices 
for cold-rolled steel because the Department chose to accept the 
prices for inputs purchased through Hong Kong trading companies that 
originated in a country with broadly available, potentially price-
distorting non-industry-specific export subsidies. See CTVs from the 
PRC. The petitioner argues that CTVs from the PRC is directed 
specifically at subsidies (based on information regarding general 
availability), rather than at dumped inputs (based specifically on a 
Chinese antidumping duty order). The petitioner notes that the 
Department noted the difference between findings of dumping and 
countervailable subsidies and it stated that it will disregard 
market economy prices for imported inputs as dumped ``when the 
importing country has an antidumping duty order in effect for the 
products in question.'' See Final Determination of Sales at Less 
than Fair Value: Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's 
Republic of China, 67 FR 20090 (April 24, 2002) (Folding Metal 
Tables and Chairs). The petitioner points out that a subsidy finding 
may not necessarily be based on an action taken in the importing NME 
country, but could be based on a CVD order issued anywhere in the 
world, or even simply information tending to show the existence of 
generally available, non-industry specific export subsidies. See Id; 
See also Automotive Replacement Glass Windshield from the People's 
Republic of China, 67 FR 6482 (February 12, 2002). The petitioner 
argues that, in this case, the importing country, China, conducted 
an investigation and entered an antidumping order against the 
product and Since Hardware offers no evidence, nor does it even 
suggest that China would permit its trade remedies to be so easily 
circumvented by excluding products subject to a dumping order from 
dumping duties if they were shipped through a third country seller.
    Finally, the petitioner states that, while the existence of the 
Chinese antidumping duty order is sufficient to presume dumping or 
distorted prices of products covered by that order, the record 
contains evidence of distorted and aberrational pricing of the cold-
rolled steel purchased by Since Hardware. The petitioner claims that 
the prices reportedly paid by Since Hardware during the POI for 
cold-rolled steel from the market economy country are not comparable 
to the product imported into China or produced in China or other 
cold-rolled steel prices in the administrative record. The 
petitioner states that the record shows that the prices paid by 
Since Hardware are aberrational and unreliable and should not be 
considered by the Department. The petitioner argues that the 
Department should reject Since Hardware's alleged market economy 
prices for cold-rolled steel sheet from the market economy country, 
as it has done in the Preliminary Determination, and value this 
input based on surrogate prices from India.
    Department's Position: We agree with the petitioner. In this 
case, Since Hardware reported that it purchased from a Hong Kong 
reseller cold-rolled steel that was produced in the market economy 
country (the name of the market economy country is business 
proprietary information). See Since Hardware's Section C and D 
questionnaire response at Exhibit 4, dated October 14, 2003. 
However, in contrast to CTVs from the PRC, the Department has 
generally available public information indicating that the PRC 
government has imposed an antidumping duty order on cold-rolled 
steel originating in Kazakhstan, the Republic of Korea, Ukraine, 
Russia, and Taiwan (PRC Antidumping Order). See Memorandum from Sam 
Zengotitabengoa, International Trade Compliance Analyst, to the 
File, ``PRC AD Final Determination,'' dated January 26, 2003. The 
country and products covered by the PRC Antidumping Order correspond 
to the cold-rolled steel purchases made by Since Hardware during the 
POI. Thus, we know that Since Hardware purchased cold-rolled steel 
covered by a PRC Antidumping Order. The Department has said that 
when an importing country has an antidumping duty order in effect 
for the products in question, it will disregard the market economy 
prices for these imported inputs as dumped. See Synthetic Indigo 
From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 53711 (September 12, 2003) and 
accompanying Decision Memorandum at Comments 4 and 8.

[[Page 35310]]

    Regarding Since Hardware's argument that there is no evidence on 
the record to suggest that the prices it paid for cold-rolled steel 
were dumped or distorted, we find that no specific evidence is 
necessary. The Department only needs to have a reason to believe or 
suspect that this input is being dumped. See Final Determination for 
the 1998-99 Administrative Review of Tapered Roller Bearings and 
Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic 
of China, 66 FR 1953 (January 10, 2001), Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 1. In this case, the PRC Antidumping Order 
provides the Department with a reason to believe or suspect that 
cold-rolled steel produced in a covered market economy country may 
be dumped. Therefore, for the final determination, we have continued 
to use Indian import statistics to value Since Hardware's cold 
rolled steel coil input.

Comment 9: Whether the Department Should Consider Billing Adjustments 
in the Calculation of Since Hardware's U.S. Price

    The petitioner argues that for the Preliminary Determination the 
Department erred by granting Since Hardware a billing adjustment for 
extra inland freight and origin receiving charges (ORCs) incurred on 
behalf of Since Hardware's customers and for which Since Hardware 
was reimbursed. See Petitioner's Case Brief, at 17 and 18. The 
petitioner emphasizes that Since Hardware distinguishes these costs 
from the ``general inland freight and port handling charges for all 
sales of the subject merchandise.'' See Petitioner's Case Brief at 
17. The petitioner states that because ``these fixed charges are 
incurred at the request of the customer, are paid initially by Since 
Hardware but are reimbursed directly by the customer, and quite 
logically are not included in the price of the merchandise, there is 
no need for the Department to devise an adjustment to account for 
such ``extra costs''--but there also is no need for the extra costs 
to be added, as billing adjustments, to the sales price (since they 
are not any part of such price).'' See Petitioner's Case Brief, at 
18. Instead, the petitioner believes that these extra charges should 
be appropriately treated as a separate item, not affecting the price 
of the subject merchandise. As such, for the final determination, 
the petitioner urges the Department not to consider these extra 
costs for purposes of a billing adjustment in the calculation of 
Since Hardware's export value. See Petitioner's Case Brief, at 17 
and 18.
    In rebuttal, Since Hardware states that the Department should 
not adjust the treatment of Since Hardware's claimed and verified 
billing adjustment as incorporated in the Preliminary Determination. 
See Since Hardware's Rebuttal Brief, at 7-9. In justifying the 
billing adjustment, Since Hardware claims that the price used to 
establish export price and constructed export price shall be ``(1) 
increased by (A) when not included in such price, the cost of all 
containers and coverings and all other costs, charges, and expenses 
incident to placing the subject merchandise in condition packed 
ready for shipment to the United States.'' See section 772(c) of the 
Act. Since Hardware alleges that the Department has interpreted the 
``charges'' as requiring that U.S. price be increased by the amount 
of any freight, packing, and handling revenue that is charged to the 
U.S. customer. See, e.g., Ball Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller 
Bearings) and Parts Thereof, From Germany: Preliminary Results of 
New Shipper Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 4763, 4764 
(February 8, 1996). See, also, Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 
Products from the Netherlands: Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 68341, 68344 (December 8, 2003). 
See, also, Wax and Wax/Resin Thermal Transfer Ribbons From the 
Republic of Korea, 68 FR 71078, 71080 (December 22, 2003). In 
addition, Since Hardware claims that the Department noted that 
``where freight and movement charges are not included in the price, 
but are invoiced to the customer at the same time as the charge for 
the merchandise, the Department considers the transaction to be 
similar to a delivered price transaction since the seller may 
consider its return on both transactions in setting price.'' See 
Stainless Steel Wire Rod from the Republic of Korea: Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 19153 (April 12, 
2004) (Stainless Steel Wire Rod), at Issues and Decisions 
Memorandum, Comment 9. For this final determination Since Hardware 
urges the Department to add to the gross unit price Since Hardware's 
ORC revenue associated with each sale (reported in ``BILLADJU''), 
and subtract from the gross unit price the brokerage and handling 
expense incurred by Since Hardware to ship the subject merchandise 
to the United States. See Since Hardware's Rebuttal Brief, at 7-9.
    Department's Position: We agree with the petitioner. In the 
Preliminary Determination, the Department granted Since Hardware's 
billing adjustment by adding the billing adjustment to the U.S. 
gross unit price. At verification, the Department verified that 
Since Hardware did, indeed, charge certain U.S. customers for an 
expense incurred at the port called the ORC. This charge was 
reported as a billing adjustment. However, we disagree with Since 
Hardware's characterization of this expense as freight or handling 
revenue. The amount that Since Hardware charged the U.S. customer is 
merely a reimbursement for an expense Since Hardware incurred. In 
this case, the customer elects to bear this extra cost when it 
requests that Since Hardware ship merchandise out of certain ports 
where the ORC is assessed. Since Hardware initially pays for this 
expense on behalf of the customer and then charges the customer for 
the fixed amount as a separate line item on the invoice. It is not 
part of the negotiated price of the merchandise and there is no 
indication that it is part of the surrogate value for brokerage and 
handling.
    Additionally, we note that Since Hardware's reliance on 
Stainless Steel Wire Rod is misplaced. In Stainless Steel Wire Rod, 
the delivery terms were part of the terms of sale and, hence, can be 
expected to have a direct impact on the negotiated sales price. 
However, in this case, Since Hardware clearly indicated that the ORC 
charges are ``extra costs borne by Since Hardware's customers'' and, 
as extra costs, are not a part of the delivery terms and should have 
no impact on the negotiated sales price. Therefore, for the Final 
Determination, we have not included the billing adjustment in the 
calculation of export price.

Comment 10: Whether the Department Selected the Proper Data Source for 
its Calculation of Surrogate Overhead, SG&A, and Profit Ratios

    The petitioner contends that the administrative record does not 
contain information from a producer of merchandise identical or 
comparable to the producer of the subject merchandise. As such, the 
petitioner urges the Department to calculate the surrogate ratios 
for factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) 
expenses, and profit (collectively financial ratios) by using data 
published in the Reserve Bank of India Bulletin (RBI Bulletin). 
Specifically, the petitioner urges the Department to use the data 
for 997 companies, as published in the April 2004 RBI Bulletin, 
because these are the most contemporaneous data of companies that 
have a paid-up capital that are similar to the capitalization of the 
respondents. See HPI's Case Brief, at 2-11.
    Since Hardware contends that in the Preliminary Determination, 
the Department erred in using the data for 2,024 companies, as 
published in the October 2003 RBI Bulletin, to calculate the 
financial ratios. Since Hardware asserts that the Department will 
normally use non-proprietary information gathered from producers of 
identical or comparable merchandise in the surrogate country to 
calculate financial ratios. See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(4). Since Hardware 
alleges that the Department has a preference for using data from 
individual producers of identical or comparable merchandise rather 
than data having a more generalized industry-wide basis. See Notice 
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Non-
Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from the People's Republic of 
China, 68 FR 7765 (February 18, 2003), Issues and Decision 
Memorandum, at Comment 4. Moreover, Since Hardware suggests that the 
Department rely on Import Administration's Policy Bulletin 04.1, 
``Non-Market Economy Surrogate Country Selection Process'' 
(Surrogate Country Selection Policy Bulletin), dated March 1, 2004, 
as a guide to determine what is identical or comparable merchandise.
    Since Hardware states that Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co., 
Ltd. (Godrej) is a company that produces metal-fabricated cabinets, 
shelves, and wardrobes. Since Hardware contends that Godrej produces 
products that are comparable to the subject merchandise because: (1) 
They have similar physical characteristics, and use the same 
material inputs (e.g. steel/cold-rolled steel); (2) the production 
processes for ironing tables and the metal-fabricated shelving and 
cabinets are similar in that both involve relatively simple metal-
fabrication and assembly production processes; and (3) in terms of 
end uses, ironing tables are comparable to the metal-fabricated 
shelving

[[Page 35311]]

and cabinets in that both are finished consumer goods. Since 
Hardware contends that data published in the RBI Bulletin are based 
on a broad spectrum of Indian manufacturers, agricultural companies, 
and service providers. Moreover, Since Hardware claims that the 
Department has rejected RBI data when data from a producer of 
comparable merchandise were available. See, e.g., Lawn and Garden 
Fence Posts from the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 72141 
(December 4, 2002); Glycine from the People's Republic of China: 
Final Results of New Shipper Administrative Review, 66 FR 8383 
(January 31, 2001) (Glycine), 66 FR 8383 (January 31, 2001); and 
Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Certain Cased Pencils from the People's 
Republic of China, 67 FR 48,612 (July 25, 2002) (Cased Pencils), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 5. In 
addition, Since Hardware alleges that the CIT has acknowledged that 
the RBI data are not an appropriate surrogate value source because 
of their generalized nature. See Shanghai Foreign Trade Enterprises 
Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Pudong Malleable Iron Plant, v. the United 
States and Anvil International, Inc. and Ward Manufacturing, Inc., 
No. 03-00218, Slip Op. 04-33 (CIT April 9, 2004) (Non-Malleable 
Remand); and Yantai Oriental Juice Co. v. United States, Slip Op. 
02-56, at 27 (CIT June 18, 2002) (Yantai Oriental). Lastly, since 
the Department previously accepted Godrej financial data to 
calculate surrogate financial ratios in Folding Chairs, Since 
Hardware urges the Department to also accept the Godrej financial 
data in this investigation given the nearly identical physical 
characteristics shared by folding metal tables and chairs and 
ironing boards. As such, Since Hardware contends that the data 
published in the RBI Bulletin cannot be more appropriate than the 
Godrej data for purposes of calculating the financial ratios. As 
such, Since Hardware urges the Department to use the financial data 
from Godrej. See Since Hardware's Case Brief, at 10-15; See Since 
Hardware's Rebuttal Brief, at 1-4.
    Yongjian contends that the valuation of financial ratios needs 
to be based on the experience of market economy producers of 
``identical or comparable merchandise.'' See Section 351.408(c)(4) 
of the Department's regulations. Yongjian asserts that to determine 
whether merchandise is identical or comparable to the subject 
merchandise, the Department should consider ``whether the products 
have similar physical characteristics, end uses, and production 
processes. When evaluating production processes, the Department 
[should consider] the complexity and duration of the processes and 
types of equipment used in production.'' See Cased Pencils, Issues 
and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 5. Yongjian asserts that in 
Glycine the Department states that it is its ``practice to use 
financial data that are more narrowly limited to a producer of 
comparable merchandise than data based on a wider range of products 
when the former data are available. In addition, Yongjian claims 
that in the Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Bulk Aspirin from the People's Republic of China, 65 FR 33805 
(May 25, 2000) (Bulk Aspirin), Issues and Decision Memorandum, at 
Comment 4, the Department states that ``because we seek information 
that pertains as narrowly as possible to the subject merchandise, 
the Department, in most cases, has used the producer-specific data 
since industry-specific data available to the Department tends to be 
broad in terms of the merchandise included. This, however, does not 
mean that we would always prefer the producer-specific data, if we 
were presented with industry and producer data that were equally 
specific in terms of the merchandise produced.'' Id.
    Yongjian alleges that Godrej's fabricated metal merchandise and 
the subject merchandise are two slightly different classes of 
fabricated metal products that are comparable to one another because 
they are: (1) Made of steel sheet, flat steel products, metal 
fasteners and the like, probably steel pipe/tube (as garment hanging 
rods in wardrobes), various plastic and rubber components, and oven 
baked luster enamel coatings; and (2) joined together with the same 
general production process (i.e., welding and assembly of moving 
parts). Yongjian asserts that the data published in the RBI Bulletin 
are insignificantly impacted by the fabricated metal products 
companies. In addition, Yongjian points out that the gross profits 
and profits after tax in 2002-2003 were negative for the fabricated 
metal products industry. As such, Yongjian contends that, because 
the data published in the RBI Bulletin are too generic to withstand 
serious scrutiny in view of the Department's stated policy, its 
specific regulation, and recent and consistent pronouncements of the 
CIT, the Department should use the financial data from Godrej, that 
allegedly operates in the same fabricated metals industry as ironing 
table producers, to calculate the surrogate financial ratios. See 
Yongjian's Case Brief, at 25-32; Yongjian's Rebuttal Brief, at 2 and 
3.
    Yongjian summarizes that in the Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate from the 
People's Republic of China, 64 FR 71,204 (December 20, 1999) 
(Creatine Monohydrate), Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 
1, the Department ``eschewed'' the use of data published in the RBI 
where information relating to a narrower category of comparable 
products was available. As prior examples of how the Department 
analyzed comparability, Yongjian points to the following notices: 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Urea 
Ammonium Nitrate Solutions from the Russian Federation, 68 FR 9977 
(March 3, 2003) (Urea Ammonium Nitrate Solutions), Issues and 
Decision Memorandum, at Comment 6, where the Department considered 
ammonium nitrate and urea to be comparable to the urea ammonium 
nitrate solutions under investigation; Cased Pencils, Issues and 
Decision Memorandum, at Comment 5, where the Department considered 
wooden cabinets, doors, and handicrafts to be comparable to the 
cased pencils under review. In Cased Pencils, Yongjian cites that 
the Department ``did not have industry sector-specific RBI data for 
an industry more comparable to pencil production.'' Id.; Glycine, 
Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Issue f, where the Department 
considered phenylglycine to be comparable to the glycine under 
investigation, because the products appeared to have similar raw 
materials, similar production equipment, and similar production 
processes; Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Not Less Than 
Fair Value: Pure Magnesium in Granular Form from the Russian 
Federation, 66 FR 49,347 (September 27, 2001) (Pure Magnesium), 
Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 1, where the Department 
determined zinc to be comparable to the pure magnesium under 
investigation. See Yongjian's Case Brief, at 25 and 27; Synthetic 
Indigo from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 65 FR 25,706 (May 3, 
2000) (Synthetic Indigo), Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 
6, where Yongjian first states that the Department considered 
general chemical and hydrogen peroxide not to be comparable to the 
synthetic indigo under investigation (See Yongjian's Case Brief, at 
26, footnote 44) but then states that the Department found that 
phenylglycine and synthetic indigo used some of the same raw 
materials and had similar production processes (See Yongjian's Case 
Brief, at 28). See Yongjian's Case Brief, at 25 and 27-28.
    In rebuttal, the petitioner explains that Godrej is a 
conglomerate of companies that does not produce merchandise that is 
identical or comparable to the subject merchandise. Instead, the 
petitioner argues that Godrej's data are based upon so diverse a 
product mix that they cannot reflect data from a producer of ironing 
tables. The petitioner also contends that the Godrej financials are 
not as contemporaneous as the data published in the RBI Bulletin. 
Furthermore, the petitioner argues that Godrej's 2003 financial data 
is aberrational and distortive because of Godrej's changes in 
structure and operations, as well as changes in accounting methods 
that affect the surrogate financial ratios. Lastly, the petitioner 
contends that Godrej's 2002-2003 performance represents an extreme 
divergence from the preceding year and is an outlier with respect to 
all of the Godrej data on this record. Moreover, the petitioner 
argues that the data published in the RBI Bulletin represent a year-
to-year reliably stable source for surrogate financial ratios. 
Comparatively, the petitioner argues, Godrej's aggregate ratios vary 
widely, with year-to-year performances exceeding 10 percentage 
points between single years which can hardly be viewed as reliable. 
As such, the petitioner claims that the Department turned to data 
published in the RBI Bulletin well within its authority.
    In its rebuttal, Since Hardware argues that the Department's 
regulations and practice do not recognize the level of 
capitalization as a determinant for selecting appropriate surrogate 
value information. See Bulk Aspirin, Issues and Decision Memorandum, 
at Comment 4, (where the Department states that ``[r]egarding the 
petitioner's arguments

[[Page 35312]]

about capacity, we do not believe that size or capacity of the 
surrogate producer always poses a necessary consideration. In this 
case, unlike Sigma v. United States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1414 (Fed. Cir. 
July 7, 1997) (Sigma), we have no evidence demonstrating that 
overhead rates vary directly with the scale or capacity of Indian 
aspirin (or other chemical) producers.''). See Since Hardware's 
Rebuttal Brief, at 1-3.
    Department's Position: We agree with the respondents. The 
Department's regulations directs the Department to ``normally * * * 
use non-proprietary information gathered from producers of identical 
or comparable merchandise in the surrogate country.'' See 19 CFR 
351.408(c)(4). To determine whether merchandise is identical or 
comparable to the subject merchandise, the Department compares 
physical characteristics, end uses, and production processes between 
the merchandise produced by a company and the subject merchandise. 
See Cased Pencils, Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 5. If 
the record contains reliable and contemporaneous data from a company 
that produces merchandise that is identical or comparable to the 
subject merchandise, then the Department will use that company's 
financial data to calculate the surrogate financial ratios.
    In this instance, Godrej's 2002-2003 Annual Report indicates 
that Godrej manufactures a variety of products, a significant 
portion of which is steel furniture. See Information from Keir A. 
Whitson, to the Honorable Donald L. Evans, Secretary of Commerce, 
``Publicly Available Information,'' dated March 29, 2004, at exhibit 
2 ``Godrej's Annual Report & Accounts for the Year Ended 31st March, 
2003.'' We find that steel furniture is more comparable to ironing 
boards than the broad industry groupings provided in the RBI 
Bulletin, which reflect an unknown, but likely substantially 
smaller, portion of comparable merchandise. The Department uses 
broader industry averages as published in the RBI Bulletin when no 
usable financial data from producers of comparable merchandise are 
available. In this case, the Department does not need to rely upon 
surrogate information derived from broader industry groupings (i.e. 
data published in the RBI Bulletin) to calculate surrogate financial 
ratios. Instead, in accordance with section 351.408(c)(4) of the 
Department's regulations, we find that Godrej's 2002-2003 Annual 
Report provides non-proprietary information gathered from a producer 
of comparable merchandise in the surrogate country that is suitable 
for purposes of calculating surrogate financial ratios.
    In response to the petitioner's argument that Godrej's financial 
data is aberrational and distortive, we disagree. Godrej's 2002-2003 
Annual Report states that Godrej acquired two companies and 
accounted for them in accordance with ``auditing standards generally 
accepted in India * * * and relevant requirements under the 
Companies Act of 1956.'' See Godrej's 2002-2003 Annual Report, at 12 
and 29. Notwithstanding Godrej's acquisitions, the 2002-2003 Annual 
Report states that steel furniture sales increased significantly 
from the previous year, and that steel furniture sales remain at the 
top of Godrej's product mix. Therefore, although we recognize that 
Godrej did undergo a change in corporate structure, we find that the 
change did not substantially impact the production or sales of steel 
furniture.
    Because data published in the RBI Bulletin represents the 
average experience of companies from broad industry groupings, we 
find that Godrej's financial statements offer more product-specific 
financial information than RBI data. Although Grodrej manufactures 
other products besides steel furniture, we are able to discern that 
a significant portion of its production is devoted to steel 
furniture. In contrast, we are unable to find whether or not 
comparable merchandise represents a significant portion of the data 
published in the RBI Bulletin.
    Therefore, for the reasons mentioned above, and consistent with 
prior practice, the Department is relying on Godrej's 2002-2003 
financial information to calculate surrogate financial ratios.

Comment 11: Corrections to Yongjian's Database Presented at 
Verification

    Yongjian noted that at verification it presented the Department 
with a revised factors of production chart containing corrections 
and clarifications for cold-rolled steel, hot-rolled steel, steel 
wire, and powder coating. Yongjian states that these corrected 
materials should be used in the calculation of Yongjian's normal 
value. See Yongjian's Case Brief, at 6 and 7.
    The petitioner did not comment on this issue.
    Department's Position: On the first day of verification, 
Yongjian provided the Department with a list of minor corrections. 
During the course of verification, we reviewed these corrections and 
verified that they were accurately submitted. See Yongjian's FOP 
Verification Exhibits, Exhibit 1. Therefore, we have included 
Yongjian's corrections in the final determination.
    Recommendation: Based on our analysis of the comments received, 
we recommend adopting all of the above positions and adjusting all 
related margin calculations accordingly. If these recommendations 
are accepted, we will publish the final determination in this 
investigation and the final weighted-average dumping margins in the 
Federal Register.
Agree------------------------------------------------------------------
Disagree---------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: June 15, 2004.

James Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 04-14360 Filed 6-23-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P