[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 58 (Tuesday, March 25, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15726-15735]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-6079]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-918]


Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Steel 
Wire Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 25, 2008.
SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine that steel wire garment hangers 
(``hangers'') from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'') are being, 
or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value 
(``LTFV''), as provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (``the Act''). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown 
in the ``Preliminary Determination'' section of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irene Gorelik or Julia Hancock, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
6905 or 482-1394, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:

Initiation

    On July 31, 2007, the Department of Commerce (``Department'') 
received a petition on imports of hangers from the PRC filed in proper 
form by M&B Metal Products (``Petitioner'') on behalf of the domestic 
industry and workers producing hangers. This investigation

[[Page 15727]]

was initiated on September 10, 2007. See Steel Wire Garment Hangers 
from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty 
Investigation, 72 FR 52855 (September 17, 2007) (``Initiation 
Notice''). Additionally, in the Initiation Notice, the Department 
notified parties of the application process by which exporters and 
producers may obtain separate-rate status in non-market economy 
(``NME'') investigations. See Id. 72 FR 52858-59. The process requires 
exporters and producers to submit a separate-rate status application. 
See id.; Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and Application 
of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market 
Economy Countries, (April 5, 2005), (``Policy Bulletin 05.1'') 
available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov. However, the standard for 
eligibility for a separate rate (which requires a firm to demonstrate 
an absence of both de jure and de facto governmental control over its 
export activities) has not changed.
    On October 5, 2007, the United States International Trade 
Commission (``ITC'') issued its affirmative preliminary determination 
that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United 
States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by 
reason of imports from the PRC of steel wire garment hangers. The ITC's 
determination was published in the Federal Register on October 18, 
2007. See Investigation No. 731-TA-1123 (Preliminary), Steel Wire 
Garment Hangers from China, 72 FR 59112 (October 18, 2007).

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (``POI'') is January 1, 2007, through 
June 30, 2007. This period corresponds to the two most recent fiscal 
quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition (July 31, 
2007). See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).

Scope Comments

    The Department also set aside a 20-day period from the publication 
of the initiation for all interested parties to raise issues regarding 
product coverage. See Initiation Notice, 72 FR at 52855. The Department 
did not receive any comments from interested parties regarding product 
coverage during the 20-day period and subsequently, has not changed the 
scope as set forth in the Initiation Notice.

Respondent Selection and Quantity and Value

    In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that in recent NME 
investigations, it has been the Department's practice to request 
quantity and value information from all known exporters identified in 
the petition for purposes of mandatory respondent selection. See 
Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China and United Arab 
Emirates: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 72 FR at 38816, 
38821 (July 16, 2007); Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: 
Certain Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires from the People's Republic of 
China, 72 FR 43591, 43595 (August 6, 2007). However, for this 
investigation, because the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States (``HTSUS'') subheading 7326.20.00.20, as discussed below in the 
``Scope of the Investigation,'' provided comprehensive coverage of 
imports of steel wire garment hangers, the Department selected 
respondents in this investigation based on U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (``CBP'') data of U.S. imports under HTSUS subheading 
7326.20.0020 from the POI.
    On October 16, 2007, the Department selected Shanghai Wells Hanger 
Co., Ltd., (``Shanghai Wells'') and Shaoxing Gangyuan Metal 
Manufactured Co., Ltd. (``Shaoxing Gangyuan'') as mandatory respondents 
in this investigation. See Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 9, from Irene Gorelik and Julia Hancock, 
International Trade Compliance Analysts, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: 
Selection of Respondents for the Antidumping Investigation of Steel 
Wire Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China, (October 16, 
2007) (``Respondent Selection Memo'').

Surrogate Country Comments

    On October 2, 2007, the Department determined that India, 
Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, and Egypt are countries 
comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development. See Memorandum 
from Ron Lorentzen, Director, Office of Policy, to Alex Villanueva, 
Program Manager, China/NME Group, Office 9: Antidumping Investigation 
of Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China 
(PRC): Request for a List of Surrogate Countries, (October 2, 2007) 
(``Surrogate Country List'').
    On October 17, 2007, the Department requested comments on the 
selection of a surrogate country from the interested parties in this 
investigation. On December 31, 2007, Petitioner filed an extension 
request to submit surrogate country and factor valuation comments, 
which the Department extended until January 7, 2008. On January 7, 
2008, Petitioner submitted surrogate country comments requesting that 
India be selected as the appropriate surrogate country. No other 
interested parties commented on the selection of a surrogate country. 
For a detailed discussion of the selection of the surrogate country, 
see ``Surrogate Country'' section below.

Surrogate Value Comments

    On January 7, 2008, Petitioner, Shanghai Wells, and Shaoxing 
Gangyuan submitted surrogate factor valuation comments. On January 17, 
2008, Shaoxing Gangyuan submitted a rebuttal to Petitioner's surrogate 
factor value comments.

Separate-Rates Applications

    Between October 9, 2007, and November 9, 2007, we received 
separate-rate applications from sixteen companies.\1\ See the 
``Separate Rates'' section below for the full discussion of the 
treatment of the separate-rate applicants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The following companies filed separate-rate applications: 
Shaoxing Meideli Metal Hanger Co., Ltd.; Shaoxing Dingli Metal 
Clotheshorse Co., Ltd.; Shaoxing Liangbao Metal Manufactured Co., 
Ltd.; Shaoxing Zhongbao Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd.; Shaoxing 
Tongzhou Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd.; Shaoxing Andrew Metal 
Manufactured Co., Ltd.; Jiangyin Hongji Metal Products Co., Ltd.; 
Shangyu Baoxiang Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd.; Zhejiang Lucky Cloud 
Hanger Co., Ltd.; Pu Jiang County Command Metal Products Co.; 
Shaoxing Shunji Metal Clotheshorse Co., Ltd.; Ningbo Dasheng Hanger 
Ind. Co., Ltd.; Jiaxing Boyi Medical Device Co., Ltd.; Yiwu Ao-Si 
Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Shaoxing Guochao Metallic Products Co., 
Ltd.; and Tianjin Hongtong Metal Manufacture Co., Ltd., 
(collectively, ``SRAs'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questionnaires

    On September 10, 2007, the Department requested comments from all 
interested parties on proposed product characteristics and model match 
criteria to be used in the designation of control numbers (``CONNUMs'') 
to be assigned to the merchandise under consideration. The Department 
received comments from Petitioner and Shaoxing Gangyuan. On October 16, 
2007, the Department issued its section A portion of the NME 
questionnaire. On October 17, 2007, the Department issued its sections 
C and D portions of the NME questionnaire with product characteristics 
and model match criteria used in the designation of CONNUMs and 
assigned to the merchandise under consideration. The Department issued 
supplemental questionnaires to Shanghai Wells and Shaoxing Gangyuan 
between November 2007 and February 2008, and received responses between 
December 2007 and March 2008.
    On November 27, 2007, the Department conducted a domestic plant 
tour of Petitioner's facility in Leeds,

[[Page 15728]]

Alabama. See Memorandum to the File from Irene Gorelik, International 
Trade Compliance Analyst, Office 9, Import Administration, (November 
28, 2007).

Postponement of Preliminary Determination

    On December 31, 2007, Petitioner filed a request to postpone the 
issuance of the preliminary determination by 50 days. On January 8, 
2008, the Department informed all interested parties of its intent to 
postpone the preliminary determination pursuant to section 
733(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act by fifty days to March 18, 2008. On January 
11, 2008, the Department published a postponement of the preliminary 
antidumping duty determination on hangers from the PRC. See Steel Wire 
Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China: Notice of 
Postponement of Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty 
Investigation, 73 FR 2004 (January 11, 2008) (``Prelim Extension 
FR'').\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In the Prelim Extension FR, the Department incorrectly 
stated in footnote 2 that ``190 days from the initiation date is 
actually March 17, 2008.'' The Department intended to state that 190 
days from the initiation date of September 10, 2007, is March 18, 
2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of Investigation

    The merchandise that is subject to this investigation is steel wire 
garment hangers, fabricated from carbon steel wire, whether or not 
galvanized or painted, whether or not coated with latex or epoxy or 
similar gripping materials, and/or whether or not fashioned with paper 
covers or capes (with or without printing) and/or nonslip features such 
as saddles or tubes. These products may also be referred to by a 
commercial designation, such as shirt, suit, strut, caped, or latex 
(industrial) hangers. Specifically excluded from the scope of this 
investigation are wooden, plastic, and other garment hangers that are 
classified under separate subheadings of the HTSUS. The products 
subject to this investigation are currently classified under HTSUS 
subheading 7326.20.0020. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the 
merchandise is dispositive.

Non-Market-Economy Country

    For purposes of initiation, Petitioner submitted LTFV analyses for 
the PRC as an NME country. See Initiation Notice, 72 FR at 52857. The 
Department considers the PRC to be an NME country. In accordance with 
section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign 
country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the 
administering authority. See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Coated Free 
Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 30758, 30760 
(June 4, 2007), unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of 
China, 72 FR 60632 (October 25, 2007). In accordance with section 
771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is 
an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the 
administering authority. No party has challenged the designation of the 
PRC as an NME country in this investigation. Therefore, we continue to 
treat the PRC as an NME country for purposes of this preliminary 
determination.

Surrogate Country

    When the Department investigates imports from an NME, section 
773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base normal value (``NV''), in most 
circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of production (``FOP'') 
valued in a surrogate market-economy country or countries considered to 
be appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) 
of the Act, in valuing the FOPs, the Department shall utilize, to the 
extent possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in one or more market-
economy countries that are at a level of economic development 
comparable to that of the NME country and are significant producers of 
comparable merchandise. The sources of the surrogate values we have 
used in this investigation are discussed under the ``Normal Value'' 
section below.
    The Department's practice is explained in Policy Bulletin 04.1,\3\ 
which states that ``Per capita GNI\4\ is the primary basis for 
determining economic comparability.'' The Department considers the five 
countries identified in its Surrogate Country List as ``equally 
comparable in terms of economic development.'' Id. Thus, we find that 
India, Sri Lanka, Egypt, Indonesia, and Philippines are all at an 
economic level of development equally comparable to that of the PRC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Policy Bulletin 04.1: Non-Market Economy Surrogate 
Country Selection Process, (March 1, 2004), (``Policy Bulletin 
04.1'') available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov.
    \4\ GNI stands for gross national income, which comprises GDP 
plus net receipts of primary income (compensation of employees and 
property income) from nonresident sources. See, e.g., http://www.finfacts.com/ biz10/globalworldincomepercapita.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, Policy Bulletin 04.1 provides some guidance on identifying 
comparable merchandise and selecting a producer of comparable 
merchandise. Specifically, the Policy Bulletin 04.1 explains that ``in 
cases where identical merchandise is not produced, the team must 
determine if other merchandise that is comparable is produced.'' See 
Policy Bulletin 04.1 at 2. The Department obtained export data for 
steel wire garment hangers from the World Trade Atlas (``WTA'') and 
found that none of the countries on the Surrogate Country List produce 
or export identical merchandise. Thus, the Department determined which 
countries on the Surrogate Country List were producers of comparable 
merchandise.
    The Department obtained worldwide export data for steel wire 
products.\5\ Specifically, we reviewed export data from the WTA for the 
HTS heading 7326.20, ``Other Articles of Iron/Steel Wire,'' for 2006. 
The Department found that, of the countries provided in the Surrogate 
Country List, all five countries were exporters of comparable 
merchandise: steel wire products. Thus, all countries on the Surrogate 
Country List are considered as appropriate surrogates because each 
exported comparable merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Because the Department was unable to find production data, 
we relied on export data as a substitute for overall production data 
in this case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Policy Bulletin 04.1 also provides some guidance on identifying 
significant producers of comparable merchandise and selecting a 
producer of comparable merchandise. Further analysis was required to 
determine whether any of the countries which produce comparable 
merchandise are significant' producers of that comparable merchandise. 
The data we obtained shows that, in 2006, worldwide exports for HTS 
7326.20 from: India were approximately 4,884,412 kg; Indonesia were 
approximately 1,830,965 kg; Sri Lanka were approximately 244,223 kg; 
the Philippines were approximately 371,379 kg; and Egypt\6\ were 
approximately 89,850 kg. We note that although Sri Lanka, the 
Philippines, and Egypt are exporters of steel wire products, the 
quantities they exported do not qualify them as significant producers 
of the comparable merchandise.\7\ Thus, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, and 
Egypt are

[[Page 15729]]

not being considered as appropriate surrogate countries. Additionally, 
although Indonesia appears to be a significant producer of comparable 
merchandise, India's percentage of exports of comparable merchandise at 
66 percent of the total exports of the five countries far exceeds that 
of Indonesia's 25 percent. Finally, we have reliable data from India on 
the record that we can use to value the FOPs. Petitioner and both 
selected respondents submitted surrogate values using Indian sources, 
suggesting greater availability of appropriate surrogate value data in 
India.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The worldwide export data from Egypt was obtained from the 
Global Trade Atlas since Egyptian export statistics are not 
available on WTA.
    \7\ We note that, of the total export quantities obtained from 
world trade data, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, and Egypt account for 
five percent, three percent, and one percent, respectively, of the 
total exports of comparable merchandise of all five countries on the 
Surrogate Country List.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the Department only received surrogate country 
comments from Petitioners, who favored selection of India. The 
Department is preliminarily selecting India as the surrogate country on 
the basis that: (1) it is at a similar level of economic development 
pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act; (2) it is a significant 
producer of comparable merchandise; and (3) we have reliable data from 
India that we can use to value the FOPs. Thus, we have calculated NV 
using Indian prices when available and appropriate to value Shanghai 
Wells' and Shaoxing Gangyuan's FOPs. See Memorandum to the File from 
Julia Hancock, through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 9, and James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 9: Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of 
China: Surrogate Values for the Preliminary Determination, (March 18, 
2008) (``Surrogate Value Memorandum''). In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.301(c)(3)(i), for the final determination in an antidumping 
investigation, interested parties may submit publicly available 
information to value the FOPs within 40 days after the date of 
publication of the preliminary determination.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final 
determination of this investigation, interested parties may submit 
factual information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual 
information submitted by an interested party less than ten days 
before, on, or after, the applicable deadline for submission of such 
factual information. However, the Department notes that 19 CFR 
351.301(c)(1) permits new information only insofar as it rebuts, 
clarifies, or corrects information recently placed on the record. 
The Department generally cannot accept the submission of additional, 
previously absent-from-the-record alternative surrogate value 
information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). See Glycine from the 
People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Final Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809 
(October 17, 2007) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 
at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Affiliations

    Section 771(33) of the Act, provides that:
The following persons shall be considered to be `affiliated' or 
`affiliated persons':
(A) Members of a family, including brothers and sisters (whether by the 
whole or half blood), spouse, ancestors, and lineal descendants.
(B) Any officer or director of an organization and such organization.
(C) Partners.
(D) Employer and employee.
(E) Any person directly or indirectly owning, controlling, or holding 
with power to vote, 5 percent or more of the outstanding voting stock 
or shares of any organization and such organization.
(F) Two or more persons directly or indirectly controlling, controlled 
by, or under common control with, any person.
(G) Any person who controls any other person and such other person.
    Additionally, section 771(33) of the Act stipulates that: ``For 
purposes of this paragraph, a person shall be considered to control 
another person if the person is legally or operationally in a position 
to exercise restraint or direction over the other person.''
    Based on the evidence on the record in this investigation and based 
on the evidence presented in Shaoxing Gangyuan's questionnaire 
responses, we preliminarily find that Shaoxing Gangyuan is affiliated 
with Shaoxing Andrew Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd. (``Andrew''), 
Shaoxing Tongzhou Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd. (``Tongzhou''), and a 
fourth company,\9\ pursuant to sections 771(33)(E), (F), and (G) of the 
Act, based on ownership and common control. Furthermore, we find that 
they should be considered as a single entity for purposes of this 
investigation. See 19 CFR 351.401(f). In addition to being affiliated, 
they have production facilities for similar or identical products that 
would not require substantial retooling and there is a significant 
potential for manipulation of production based on the level of common 
ownership and control, shared management, and an intertwining of 
business operations. See 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1) and (2). For a detailed 
discussion of this issue, see Shaoxing Metal Companies Affiliation 
Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The identity of this company is business proprietary 
information; for further discussion of this company, see Memorandum 
to Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 
from Julia Hancock, Senior Case Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 
9: Preliminary Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation 
of Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China: 
Affiliations Memo of Shaoxing Gangyuan and its Affiliates, (March 
18, 2008)(``Shaoxing Metal Companies Affiliation Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the Department finds that Shaoxing Gangyuan and its 
affiliates are a single entity, the Department is utilizing the 
integrated FOP database Shaoxing Gangyuan provided for purposes of the 
preliminary determination, which includes the FOPs from Andrew, 
Tongzhou, and the fourth company. Hereinafter, Shaoxing Gangyuan and 
its affiliates will be referred to as the ``Shaoxing Metal Companies.''

Separate Rates

    Additionally, in the Initiation Notice, the Department notified 
parties of the application process by which exporters and producers may 
obtain separate-rate status in NME investigations. See Initiation 
Notice. The process requires exporters and producers to submit a 
separate-rate status application. See also Policy Bulletin 05.1: 
Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in 
Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market Economy Countries, 
(April 5, 2005), (``Policy Bulletin 05.1'') available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov.\10\ However, the standard for eligibility for a 
separate rate (which requires a firm to demonstrate an absence of both 
de jure and de facto governmental control over its export activities) 
has not changed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Policy Bulletin 05.1, states: ``{w{time} hile 
continuing the practice of assigning separate rates only to 
exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now assign in 
its NME investigations will be specific to those producers that 
supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note, 
however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the 
producers which supplied merchandise under consideration to it 
during the period of investigation. This practice applies both to 
mandatory respondents receiving an individually calculated separate 
rate as well as the pool of non-investigated firms receiving the 
weighted-average of the individually calculated rates. This practice 
is referred to as the application of combination 
rates because such rates apply to specific combinations 
of exporters and one or more producers. The cash-deposit rate 
assigned to an exporter will apply only to merchandise both exported 
by the firm in question and produced by a firm that supplied the 
exporter during the period of investigation.'' See Policy Bulletin 
05.1 at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department has a 
rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are 
subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single 
antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all 
exporters of merchandise subject to investigation in an NME country 
this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is 
sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. 
Exporters can demonstrate this independence through

[[Page 15730]]

the absence of both de jure and de facto governmental control over 
export activities. As discussed fully below, all but one of the SRAs 
have provided company-specific information to demonstrate that they 
operate independently of de jure and de facto government control and, 
therefore, satisfy the standards for the assignment of a separate 
rate.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ All separate-rate applicants receiving a separate rate are 
hereby referred to collectively as the ``PRC SR Recipients.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department analyzes each entity exporting the merchandise under 
consideration under a test arising from the Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers From the People's Republic of 
China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (``Sparklers''), as further developed 
in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Silicon Carbide From the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 
2, 1994) (``Silicon Carbide''). However, if the Department determines 
that a company is wholly foreign-owned or located in a market economy, 
then a separate rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether it 
is independent from government control.
A. Separate Rate Recipients

Wholly Foreign-Owned

    One separate rate company, Jiangyin Hongji Metal Products Co., Ltd. 
(``Hongji'') reported that it is wholly owned by individuals or 
companies located in a market economy in its separate-rate application. 
See ``PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION'' section below for the company marked 
with a `` [supcaret] `` designating this company as wholly foreign-
owned. Therefore, because it is wholly foreign-owned, and we have no 
evidence indicating that it is under the control of the PRC, a separate 
rates analysis is not necessary to determine whether this company is 
independent from government control. See Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate From the 
People's Republic of China, 64 FR 71104-71105 (December 20, 1999) 
(where the respondent was wholly foreign-owned, and thus, qualified for 
a separate rate). Accordingly, we have preliminarily granted a separate 
rate to this company.

Joint Ventures Between Chinese and Foreign Companies or Wholly Chinese-
Owned Companies

    Fifteen of the SRAs in this investigation stated that they are 
either joint ventures between Chinese and foreign companies or are 
wholly Chinese-owned companies. Therefore, the Department must analyze 
whether these companies can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and 
de facto governmental control over export activities.

a. Absence of De Jure Control

    The Department considers the following de jure criteria in 
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate 
rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an 
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative 
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal 
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See 
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
    The evidence provided by the PRC SR Recipients supports a 
preliminary finding of de jure absence of governmental control based on 
the following: (1) an absence of restrictive stipulations associated 
with the individual exporters' business and export licenses; (2) there 
are applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of the 
companies; and (3) and there are formal measures by the government 
decentralizing control of companies. See, e.g., Pu Jiang County Command 
Metal Products Co., Ltd., November 9, 2007, Separate Rate Application.

b. Absence of De Facto Control

    Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating 
whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of 
its export functions: (1) whether the export prices (``EP'') are set by 
or are subject to the approval of a governmental agency; (2) whether 
the respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other 
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government 
in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) 
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and 
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or 
financing of losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22587; see also 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 
22545 & n.3 (May 8, 1995). The Department has determined that an 
analysis of de facto control is critical in determining whether 
respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of governmental control 
which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates. The 
evidence provided by the PRC SR Recipients supports a preliminary 
finding of de facto absence of governmental control based on the 
following: (1) whether the EP is set by or are subject to the approval 
of a governmental agency; (2) whether the respondent has authority to 
negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; (3) whether the 
respondent has autonomy from the government in making decisions 
regarding the selection of management; and (4) whether the respondent 
retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent 
decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses. See, 
e.g., Shaoxing Meideli Metal Hanger Co., Ltd., October 9, 2007, 
Separate-Rate Application.
    The evidence placed on the record of this investigation by the PRC 
SR Recipients demonstrate an absence of de jure and de facto government 
control with respect to each of the exporters' exports of the 
merchandise under investigation, in accordance with the criteria 
identified in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. See ``PRELIMINARY 
DETERMINATION'' section below for companies marked with an `` [ast] `` 
designating these companies as joint ventures between Chinese and 
foreign companies or wholly Chinese-owned companies that have 
demonstrated their eligibility for a separate rate.

Companies Not Receiving a Separate Rate

    The Department is not granting a separate rate to the following SRA 
for the reasons discussed below.
    Tianjin Hongtong Metal Manufacture Co., Ltd. (``Hongtong'') was 
unable to demonstrate that it had sales of the merchandise under 
consideration to the United States. Upon reviewing Hongtong's separate-
rates application and supplemental questionnaire response, we noted 
that Hongtong's reported U.S. sales were in fact sales to another PRC 
entity, an export agent that invoiced and received payment for 
merchandise sold to the United States. In NME proceedings, we do not 
examine sales prices between NME entities (e.g., transaction prices 
between an NME producer of the merchandise under consideration and the 
NME exporter of the merchandise under consideration) as NME countries 
are presumed to ``not operate on market principles of cost or pricing 
structures so that the sales of merchandise in such countr{ies{time}  
do not reflect the fair value of the merchandise.'' See section 771(18) 
of the Act. Accordingly, non-exporting NME producers of the merchandise 
under consideration are not eligible for examination as respondents. 
Based on Hongtong's description of the sales chain for the merchandise 
it produces,

[[Page 15731]]

Hongtong was a producer and not an exporter of the merchandise under 
consideration during the POI and, therefore, is not eligible to receive 
a separate rate in this investigation.

Companies Receiving a Separate Rate

    The Department has determined that PRC SR recipients\12\ applying 
for a separate rate in this segment of the proceeding have demonstrated 
an absence of government control both in law and in fact and is, 
therefore, according separate rate status to these applicants. 
Additionally, because the Department has collapsed Andrew and Tongzhou, 
two of the SRAs with Shaoxing Gangyuan, their separate rate analysis 
will be conducted in conjunction with the analysis conducted for 
Shaoxing Gangyuan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ These companies are: Shaoxing Meideli Metal Hanger Co., 
Ltd., Shaoxing Dingli Metal Clotheshorse Co., Ltd., Shaoxing 
Liangbao Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd., Shaoxing Zhongbao Metal 
Manufactured Co., Ltd., Shangyu Baoxiang Metal Manufactured Co., 
Ltd., Zhejiang Lucky Cloud Hanger Co., Ltd., Pu Jiang County Command 
Metal Products Co., Shaoxing Shunji Metal Clotheshorse Co., Ltd., 
Ningbo Dasheng Hanger Ind. Co., Ltd., Jiaxing Boyi Medical Device 
Co., Ltd., Yiwu Ao-Si Metal Products Co., Ltd., and Shaoxing Guochao 
Metallic Products Co., Ltd. The Department also included Hongji in 
this list, though a separate rate analysis was not required (as 
stated above).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PRC-Wide Entity

    Information on the record of this investigation indicates that 
there are numerous producers/exporters of hangers in the PRC. As stated 
above, the Department collected CBP data to select respondents based on 
imports of hangers classified under HTSUS subheading 7326.20.00.20. See 
Respondent Selection Memo. The Department selected Shanghai Wells and 
the Shaoxing Metal Companies as mandatory respondents. Additionally, as 
stated above, sixteen companies, including the two companies collapsed 
with Shaoxing Gangyuan filed separate-rates applications, resulting in 
eighteen companies that are actively participating in this 
investigation. Upon receipt of the separate-rates applications, we 
examined the disaggregated\13\ CBP data and determined that a 
significant number of exporters of hangers from the PRC during the POI 
were neither selected for review nor filed separate-rate applications, 
thus not active participants in this investigation. Based upon our 
knowledge of the volume of imports of the merchandise under 
consideration from the PRC from CBP data, the volume of imports of the 
merchandise under consideration from Shanghai Wells, the Shaoxing Metal 
Companies, and the SRAs, while accounting for a significant share, do 
not account for all imports into the United States. Therefore, the 
Department preliminarily determines that there were PRC producers/
exporters of the merchandise under consideration during the POI that 
did not apply for separate rates, thus establishing that there is a 
PRC-Wide entity with respect to this product. Therefore, consistent 
with the presumption of government control, we preliminarily determine 
that some exports of subject merchandise are from entities under the 
control of the PRC-Wide entity. The Department's presumption that these 
entries were subject to government control has not been rebutted, thus 
we preliminarily determine that these entries should be assessed a 
single PRC-Wide antidumping duty rate. As the single PRC-Wide rate, we 
have taken the simple average of: (A) the weighted-average of the 
calculated rates of Shaoxing Metal Companies and Shanghai Wells and (B) 
the simple average of the petition rates that fell within the range of 
Shaoxing Metal Companies' and Shanghai Wells' individual transaction 
margins. Accordingly, we determine that the single rate applicable to 
the PRC-Wide entity is 221.05 [percnt]. The PRC-Wide rate applies to 
all entries of the merchandise under investigation with the exception 
of those entries from Shanghai Wells, the Shaoxing Metal Companies, and 
the PRC SR Recipients.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ In this case, disaggregated data refers to exporter names 
in the CBP data, which appear to be duplicates albeit not combined 
for purposes of respondent selection. As a result, the CBP data 
showed many companies exported hangers to the United States during 
the POI, although the actual number of companies may be lower due to 
duplicate names in the CBP data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate-Rate Calculation

    The Department received timely and complete separate-rates 
applications from the PRC SR Recipients, who are all exporters of 
hangers from the PRC, which were not selected as mandatory respondents 
in this investigation. Through the evidence in their applications, with 
the exception of Hongtong, these companies have demonstrated their 
eligibility for a separate rate, as discussed above in the ``Separate 
Rates'' section and in the Memorandum to the File, from Irene Gorelik, 
Senior Case Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: Preliminary 
Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Steel Wire 
Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China: Calculation of the 
Separate Rate Weighted-Average Margin, (March 18, 2008). Consistent 
with the Department's practice, as the separate rate, we have 
established a weighted-average margin for the PRC SR Recipients based 
on the rates we calculated for Shanghai Wells and the Shaoxing Metal 
Companies, excluding any rates that are zero, de minimis, or based 
entirely on adverse facts available (``AFA''). See, e.g., Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative 
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber 
from the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 77373, 77377 (December 26, 
2006) (``PSF'') unchanged in Final Determination. Companies receiving 
this rate are identified by name in the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' 
section of this notice.

Date of Sale

    Section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations states that, 
``in identifying the date of sale of the merchandise under 
consideration or foreign like product, the Secretary normally will use 
the date of invoice, as recorded in the exporter or producer's records 
kept in the normal course of business.'' However, the Secretary may use 
a date other than the date of invoice if the Secretary is satisfied 
that a different date better reflects the date on which the exporter or 
producer establishes the material terms of sale. See 19 CFR 351.401(i); 
See also Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 
1087, 1090-1092 (CIT 2001) (``Allied Tube''). The date of sale is 
generally the date on which the parties agree upon all substantive 
terms of the sale. This normally includes the price, quantity, delivery 
terms and payment terms. See Id., at 77377. In order to simplify the 
determination of date of sale for both the respondents and the 
Department and in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(i), the date of sale 
will normally be the date of the invoice, as recorded in the exporter's 
or producer's records kept in the ordinary course of business, unless 
the Department is satisfied that the exporter or producer establishes 
the material terms of sale on some other date. For instance, in Notice 
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Polyvinyl 
Alcohol From Taiwan, 61 FR 14064, 14067-14068 (March 29, 1996), the 
Department used the date of the purchase order as the date of sale 
because the terms of sale were established at that point.
    After examining the questionnaire responses and the sales 
documentation that Shanghai Wells and the Shaoxing Metal Companies 
placed on the record, we preliminarily determine that the invoice date 
is the most appropriate date of sale for Shanghai Wells and the 
Shaoxing Metal Companies.

[[Page 15732]]

    In Allied Tube, the Court of International Trade (``CIT'') found 
that a ``party seeking to establish a date of sale other than invoice 
date bears the burden of producing sufficient evidence to satisfy' the 
Department that a different date better reflects the date on which the 
exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale.''' Allied 
Tube 132 F. Supp. 2d at 1092.
    Here, the Department preliminarily determines that based on the 
information on the record, the invoice date is the appropriate date of 
sale for Shanghai Wells and the Shaoxing Metal Companies. Each 
respondent has provided various examples of material changes to their 
purchase orders during the POI. See Shanghai Wells' Supplemental 
Section C Questionnaire Response, dated February 7, 2008 and Shaoxing 
Metal Companies's Supplemental Section C Questionnaire Response, dated 
February 1, 2008.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of steel wire garment hangers to the 
United States by Shanghai Wells and the Shaoxing Metal Companies were 
made at less than fair value, we compared the EP to NV, as described in 
the ``U.S. Price,'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. We 
compared NV to weighted-average EPs in accordance with section 
777A(d)(1) of the Act.

U.S. Price

A. EP

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we based the U.S. 
price for the Shaoxing Metal Companies's sales and certain Shanghai 
Wells' sales on EP because the first sale to an unaffiliated purchaser 
was made prior to importation, and the use of constructed export price 
(``CEP'') was not otherwise warranted. In accordance with section 
772(c) of the Act, we calculated EP by deducting, where applicable, 
foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, international 
freight, and rebates from the gross unit price. We based these movement 
expenses on surrogate values where a PRC company provided the service 
and was paid in Renminbi. For details regarding our EP calculation, see 
Memorandum to the File from Irene Gorelik, Senior Case Analyst: Program 
Analysis for the Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty 
Investigation of Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People's Republic 
of China: Shanghai Wells Hanger Co., Ltd., (March 18, 2008) (``Shanghai 
Wells Analysis Memorandum'') and Shaoxing Metal Companies Analysis 
Memorandum.

B. CEP

    In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we based the U.S. 
price for certain Shanghai Wells' sales on CEP because these sales were 
made by Shanghai Wells' U.S. affiliate.\14\ In accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we calculated CEP by deducting, where 
applicable, the following expenses from the gross unit price charged to 
the first unaffiliated customer in the United States: marine insurance, 
discounts, rebates, billing adjustments, foreign movement expenses, and 
international freight, and United States movement expenses, including 
brokerage and handling. Further, in accordance with section 772(d)(1) 
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402(b), where appropriate, we deducted from 
the starting price the following selling expenses associated with 
economic activities occurring in the United States: credit expenses, 
warranty expenses, other direct selling expenses, and indirect selling 
expenses. In addition, pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we 
made an adjustment to the starting price for CEP profit. We based 
movement expenses on either surrogate values, actual expenses, or an 
average of the two. For details regarding our CEP calculations, see 
Shanghai Wells Analysis Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Shanghai Wells reported these sales as ``indirect export 
price'' (``IEP''). However, the Department finds that these IEP 
sales are, in fact, CEP sales because Shanghai Wells reported that 
its affiliate in the United States performed sales functions such 
as: sales negotiation, issuance of invoices and receipt of payment 
from the ultimate U.S. customer during the POI. Moreover, Shanghai 
Wells reported expenses incurred in the United States that are 
normally deducted from the gross unit price. See Shanghai Wells 
Questionnaire Responses dated November 13, 2007, December 7, 2007, 
and March 4, 2008; see also Glycine From the People's Republic of 
China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
and Preliminary Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 18457 (April 12, 2007) 
unchanged in Final Results (where the Department stated that ``we 
based U.S. price for certain sales on CEP in accordance with section 
772(b) of the Act, because sales were made by Nantong Donchang's 
U.S. affiliate, Wavort, Inc. {``Wavort''{time}  to unaffiliated 
purchasers.''); AK Steel Corp., et al v. United States, 226 F.3d 
1361 (Fed.Cir. 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine the NV using a FOP methodology if the merchandise is exported 
from an NME and the information does not permit the calculation of NV 
using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value 
under section 773(a) of the Act. The Department bases NV on the FOP 
because the presence of government controls on various aspects of non-
market economies renders price comparisons and the calculation of 
production costs invalid under the Department's normal methodologies. 
See e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 
Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part, and Postponement of Final 
Determination: Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's Republic 
of China, 71 FR 19695 (April 17, 2006) (``CLPP'') unchanged in Final 
Determination.
    As the basis for NV, both Shanghai Wells and the Shaoxing Metal 
Companies provided FOPs used in each stage for processing steel wire 
garment hangers, i.e., from the drawing of the steel wire to completion 
of the final product. Additionally, both Shanghai Wells and the 
Shaoxing Metal Companies reported that they are integrated producers 
because both respondents draw the steel wire from the steel wire rod 
and provided the FOP information used in this production stage.
    Consistent with section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Act, it is the 
Department's practice to value the FOPs that a respondent uses to 
produce the merchandise under consideration. See Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater 
Shrimp From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 70997 (December 8, 
2004) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 9(E). 
If the NME respondent is an integrated producer, we take into account 
the factors utilized in each stage of the production process. For 
example, in a previous case, one shrimp respondent was a fully 
integrated firm, and the Department valued both the farming and 
processing FOPs because this company bore all the costs related to 
growing the shrimp. See id.
    In this case, we are valuing those inputs reported by Shanghai 
Wells and the Shaoxing Metal Companies that were used to produce the 
main input to the processing stage (steel wire) when calculating NV, 
regardless of whether the FOPs were produced or purchased by the 
respondents.

Factor Valuation Methodology

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on FOP data reported by Shanghai Wells and the Shaoxing Metal 
Companies for the POI. To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-
unit factor-consumption rates by publicly available surrogate values 
(except as discussed below). In selecting the surrogate values, we 
considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. 
As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by

[[Page 15733]]

including freight costs to make them delivered prices. Specifically, we 
added to Indian import surrogate values a surrogate freight cost using 
the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the 
factory or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory where 
appropriate. This adjustment is in accordance with the Court of Appeals 
for the Federal Circuit's decision in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 
F.3d 1401, 1407-08 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A detailed description of all 
surrogate values used for respondents can be found in the Surrogate 
Value Memorandum and company-specific analysis memoranda.
    For this preliminary determination, in accordance with the 
Department's practice, we used data from the Indian Import Statistics 
in order to calculate surrogate values for the mandatory respondents' 
FOPs (direct materials, energy, and packing materials). In selecting 
the best available information for valuing FOPs in accordance with 
section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the Department's practice is to select, 
to the extent practicable, surrogate values which are non-export 
average values, most contemporaneous with the POI, product-specific, 
and tax-exclusive. See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary Determination of 
Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain 
Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged in Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and 
Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 
71005 (December 8, 2004). The record shows that data in the Indian 
Import Statistics, as well as that from the other Indian sources, 
represent data that are contemporaneous with the POI, product-specific, 
and tax-exclusive. See Surrogate Value Memorandum. In those instances 
where we could not obtain publicly available information 
contemporaneous to the POI with which to value factors, we adjusted the 
surrogate values using, where appropriate, the Indian Wholesale Price 
Index (``WPI'') as published in the International Financial Statistics 
of the International Monetary Fund. See, e.g. PSF at 77380 and CLPP at 
19704.
    Furthermore, with regard to the Indian import-based surrogate 
values, we have disregarded import prices that we have reason to 
believe or suspect may be subsidized. We have reason to believe or 
suspect that prices of inputs from Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand 
may have been subsidized because we have found in other proceedings 
that these countries maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific 
export subsidies. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that all exports 
to all markets from these countries may be subsidized. 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) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 7. 
Further, guided by the legislative history, it is the Department's 
practice not to conduct a formal investigation to ensure that such 
prices are not subsidized. See Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 
1988, Conference Report to accompany H.R. Rep. 100-576 at 590 (1988) 
reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 1623-24; see also Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper 
from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 30758 (June 4, 2007) 
unchanged in final determination. Rather, the Department bases its 
decision on information that is available to it at the time it makes 
its determination. Therefore, we have not used prices from these 
countries either in calculating the Indian import-based surrogate 
values or in calculating market-economy input values. See id.
    Additionally, during the POI, both Shanghai Wells and the Shaoxing 
Metal Companies purchased all or a portion of certain inputs from a 
market economy supplier and paid for the inputs in a market economy 
currency. The Department has instituted a rebuttable presumption that 
market economy input prices are the best available information for 
valuing an input when the total volume of the input purchased from all 
market economy sources during the period of investigation or review 
exceeds 33 percent of the total volume of the input purchased from all 
sources during the period. In these cases, unless case-specific facts 
provide adequate grounds to rebut the Department's presumption, the 
Department will use the weighted-average market economy purchase price 
to value the input. Alternatively, when the volume of an NME firm's 
purchases of an input from market economy suppliers during the period 
is below 33 percent of its total volume of purchases of the input 
during the period, but where these purchases are otherwise valid and 
there is no reason to disregard the prices, the Department will weight-
average the weighted-average market economy purchase price with an 
appropriate SV according to their respective shares of the total volume 
of purchases, unless case-specific facts provide adequate grounds to 
rebut the presumption. When a firm has made market economy input 
purchases that may have been dumped or subsidized, are not bona fide, 
or are otherwise not acceptable for use in a dumping calculation, the 
Department will exclude them from the numerator of the ratio to ensure 
a fair determination of whether valid market economy purchases meet the 
33-percent threshold. See Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy 
Inputs, Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request 
for Comments, 71 FR 61716, 61717-18 (October 19, 2006).
    Accordingly, we valued the Shaoxing Metal Companies' inputs using 
the market economy prices paid for the inputs where the total volume of 
the input purchased from all market economy sources during the POI 
exceeded 33 percent of the total volume of the input purchased from all 
sources during that period. Alternatively, when the volume of the 
Shaoxing Metal Companies' purchases of an input from market economy 
suppliers during the POI was below 33 percent of the company's total 
volume of purchases of the input during the POI, we weight-averaged the 
weighted-average market economy purchase price with an appropriate 
surrogate value according to their respective shares of the total 
volume of purchases, as appropriate. See Shaoxing Metal Companies' 
Questionnaire Responses dated December 10, 2007, and January 8, 2008. 
Where appropriate, we increased the market economy prices of inputs by 
freight and brokerage and handling expenses. See Surrogate Value 
Memorandum. For a detailed description of all actual values used for 
market-economy inputs, see Shanghai Wells Analysis Memorandum and 
Shaoxing Metal Companies Analysis Memorandum.
    Additionally, Shanghai Wells reported a market-economy purchase of 
an input which the Department preliminarily finds that there is reason 
to believe or suspect the price paid for this input may be subsidized. 
Therefore, because the Department's practice is to exclude prices that 
are dumped or subsidized, the Department has calculated the value for 
this input using a surrogate value derived from Indian Import 
Statistics, rather than the purchase price paid. See, e.g., Folding 
Metal Tables and Chairs From the People's Republic of China: Final

[[Page 15734]]

Results and Partial Rescission of First Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 69 FR 75913 (December 20, 2004) and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 1; see also Surrogate Value Memorandum 
and Shanghai Wells Analysis Memorandum.
    The Department used the Indian Import Statistics to value the raw 
material and packing material inputs that Shanghai Wells and the 
Shaoxing Metal Companies used to produce the merchandise under 
consideration during the POI, except where listed below.
    To value electricity, the Department used rates from Key World 
Energy Statistics 2003, published by the International Energy Agency 
(``IEA''). Additionally, to value diesel, the Department used data from 
Key World Energy Statistics 2005, published by IEA. Because the data 
were not contemporaneous to the POI, we adjusted for inflation using 
WPI. See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
    For liquefied petroleum gas, we applied a surrogate value obtained 
from Bharat Petroleum\15\, published on October 3, 2005. See Folding 
Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 
37703, 37710 (July 11, 2007); see also Folding Metal Tables and Chairs 
From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 72 FR 71355 (December 17, 2007). Because the 
data was not contemporaneous to the POI, we adjusted for inflation 
using WPI. See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ www.bharatpetroleum.com/general/gen_petroprices.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For direct, indirect, and packing labor, consistent with 19 CFR 
351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC regression-based wage rate as reported 
on Import Administration's home page, Import Library, Expected Wages of 
Selected NME Countries, revised in January 2007, http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html. The source of these wage-rate data on the Import 
Administration's web site is the Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2002, 
ILO (Geneva: 2002), Chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing. Because this 
regression-based wage rate does not separate the labor rates into 
different skill levels or types of labor, we have applied the same wage 
rate to all skill levels and types of labor reported by the respondent. 
See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
    Because water is essential to the production process of the 
merchandise under consideration, the Department considers water to be a 
direct material input, and not as overhead, and valued water with a 
surrogate value according to our practice. See Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Critical Circumstances: Certain 
Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 
61395 (October 28, 2003) and, accompanying Issue and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 11. The Department valued water using data from 
the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (www.midcindia.org) 
since it includes a wide range of industrial water tariffs. This source 
provides 386 industrial water rates within the Maharashtra province 
from June 2003: 193 for the ``inside industrial areas'' usage category 
and 193 for the ``outside industrial areas'' usage category. Because 
the value was not contemporaneous with the POI, we adjusted the rate 
for inflation. See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
    We used Indian transport information in order to value the freight-
in cost of the raw materials. The Department determined the best 
available information for valuing truck freight to be from 
www.infreight.com. This source provides daily rates from six major 
points of origin to five destinations in India using data from October 
2005 to March 2006, because data from the POI was unavailable. The 
Department obtained a price quote from each point of origin to each 
destination and averaged the data accordingly. Consistent with the 
calculation of inland truck freight, the Department used the same 
freight distances used in the calculation of inland truck freight, as 
reported by www.infreight.com to derive a value in Rupees per kilogram 
per kilometer. See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
    The Department used four sources to calculate a surrogate value for 
domestic brokerage expenses. The sources are from Essar Steel Ltd., 
Agro Dutch Industries Ltd., Kerjiwal Paper, and Navneet Publication. 
The Department first derived an average per-unit amount from each 
source. Then the Department adjusted each average rate for inflation. 
Finally, the Department averaged the two per-unit amounts to derive an 
overall average rate for the POI. See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
    To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative 
expenses, and profit, we used the data from the audited financial 
statements from the 2006-2007 Annual Report of Lakshmi Precision 
Screws, Ltd. (``Lakshmi''). While this company produces comparable 
rather than identical merchandise, Lakshmi uses an integrated wire-
drawing production process with steel wire rod as the main input, which 
closely mirrors that of the mandatory respondents. Specifically, the 
straightening, cutting, and forming process of screws is similar to 
that of hangers. While Petitioner provided an additional source for 
surrogate financial ratios using the financial statements of Usha 
Martin Ltd. (``Usha''), and Shanghai Wells provided the surrogate 
financial statements of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. 
(``G&B''), we find that neither Usha nor G&B use a production process 
that mirrors the manufacture of hangers as closely as screws.
    To value low carbon steel wire rod, we used price data fully 
contemporaneous with the POI for 6mm and 8mm steel wire rod available 
on the website of the Indian Joint Plant Committee (``JPC''). The JPC 
is a joint industry/government board that monitors Indian steel prices. 
These data are publicly available, specific to the input in question, 
represent a broad market average, and are tax-exclusive. See 19 CFR 
351.408(c)(1).

Currency Conversion

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

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we intend to verify 
the information upon which we will rely in making our final 
determination.

Combination Rates

    In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that it would 
calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible 
for a separate rate in this investigation. See Initiation Notice, 72 FR 
52859. This change in practice is described in Policy Bulletin 05.1, 
available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/.rates.

Preliminary Determination

    The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

[[Page 15735]]



        Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the PRC - Dumping Margins
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Exporter & Producer             Weighted-Average Deposit Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shanghai Wells Hanger Co., Ltd.                           33.85 [percnt]
 [supcaret]..............................
Shaoxing Metal Companies: [ast] Shaoxing                 164.54 [percnt]
 Gangyuan Metal Manufactured Co., Ltd.,
 Shaoxing Andrew Metal Manufactured Co.,
 Ltd., Shaoxing Tongzhou Metal
 Manufactured Co., Ltd., Company ``X''...
Jiangyin Hongji Metal Products Co., Ltd                   83.98 [percnt]
 [supcaret]..............................
Shaoxing Meideli Metal Hanger Co., Ltd.                   83.98 [percnt]
 [ast]...................................
Shaoxing Dingli Metal Clotheshorse Co.,                   83.98 [percnt]
 Ltd. [ast]..............................
Shaoxing Liangbao Metal Manufactured Co.                  83.98 [percnt]
 Ltd. [ast]..............................
Shaoxing Zhongbao Metal Manufactured Co.                  83.98 [percnt]
 Ltd. [ast]..............................
Shangyu Baoxiang Metal Manufactured Co.                   83.98 [percnt]
 Ltd. [ast]..............................
Zhejiang Lucky Cloud Hanger Co., Ltd.                     83.98 [percnt]
 [ast]...................................
Pu Jiang County Command Metal Products                    83.98 [percnt]
 Co., Ltd. [ast].........................
Shaoxing Shunji Metal Clotheshorse Co.,                   83.98 [percnt]
 Ltd. [ast]..............................
Ningbo Dasheng Hanger Ind. Co., Ltd.                      83.98 [percnt]
 [ast]...................................
Jiaxing Boyi Medical Device Co., Ltd.                     83.98 [percnt]
 [ast]...................................
Yiwu Ao-Si Metal Products Co., Ltd. [ast]                 83.98 [percnt]
Shaoxing Guochao Metallic Products Co.,                   83.98 [percnt]
 Ltd. [ast]..............................
PRC-Wide Rate\16\........................                221.05 [percnt]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The PRC-Wide entity includes Tianjin Hongtong Metal Manufacture Co.
  Ltd.

Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we will instruct CBP 
to suspend liquidation of all entries of steel wire garment hangers 
from the PRC as described in the ``Scope of Investigation'' section, 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption from Shanghai 
Wells, Shaoxing Metal Companies, the PRC SR Recipients and the PRC-wide 
entity on or after the date of publication of this notice in the 
Federal Register.
    We will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a 
bond equal to the weighted-average dumping margin amount by which the 
NV exceeds U.S. price, as indicated in the chart above as follows: (1) 
The rate for the firms listed in the chart above will be the rate we 
have determined in this preliminary determination; (2) for all non-PRC 
exporters of the merchandise under consideration which have not 
received their own rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate 
applicable to the PRC exporter in the combination listed above, that 
supplied that non-PRC exporter. These suspension-of-liquidation 
instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our preliminary affirmative determination of sales at less than 
fair value. Section 735(b)(2) of the Act requires the ITC to make its 
final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United 
States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by 
reason of imports of steel wire garment hangers, or sales (or the 
likelihood of sales) for importation, of the merchandise under 
consideration within 45 days of our final determination.

Public Comment

    Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no later than seven days 
after the date the final verification report is issued in this 
proceeding and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case 
briefs, no later than five days after the deadline for submitting case 
briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i) and 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). A list of 
authorities used and an executive summary of issues should accompany 
any briefs submitted to the Department. This summary should be limited 
to five pages total, including footnotes.
    In accordance with section 774 of the Act, we will hold a public 
hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to 
comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. If a request 
for a hearing is made, we intend to hold the hearing three days after 
the deadline of submission of rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave, NW., Washington, DC 20230, 
at a time and location to be determined. Parties should confirm by 
telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before 
the scheduled date.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate 
if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 
1870, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. See 
19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests should contain the party's name, address, 
and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the 
issues to be discussed. At the hearing, each party may make an 
affirmative presentation only on issues raised in that party's case 
brief and may make rebuttal presentations only on arguments included in 
that party's rebuttal brief.
    We will make our final determination no later than 75 days after 
the date of publication of this preliminary determination, pursuant to 
section 735(a) of the Act.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: March 18, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-6079 Filed 3-24-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S