[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 4 (Wednesday, January 7, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 683-693]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-31175]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-570-942]


Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks From the People's 
Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determination and Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination 
With Final Antidumping Duty Determination

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce preliminarily determines that 
countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters 
of certain kitchen appliance shelving and racks from the People's 
Republic of China. For information on the estimated subsidy rates, see 
the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice.

DATES: Effective Date: January 7, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yasmin Nair or Scott Holland, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
3813 or (202) 482-1279, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Case History

    The following events have occurred since the publication of the 
Department of Commerce's (``Department'') notice of initiation in the 
Federal Register. See Notice of Initiation of Countervailing Duty 
Investigation: Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks from the 
People's Republic of China, 73 FR 50304 (August 26, 2008) (``Initiation 
Notice''), and the accompanying Initiation Checklist.
    On August 21, 2008, the Department requested Quantity and Value 
(``Q&V'') information from the 12 companies that the petitioners \1\ 
identified as potential producers/exporters of kitchen shelving and 
racks in the People's Republic of China (``PRC''). On September 17, 
2008, the Department selected two Chinese producers/exporters of 
certain kitchen appliance shelving and racks (``KASR'') as mandatory 
respondents, Asber Enterprise Co. (``Asber'') and

[[Page 684]]

Guangdong Wire King Housewares and Hardware Co., Ltd. (``Wire King''). 
See Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Import Administration, ``Respondent Selection Memo'' (September 17, 
2008). This memorandum is on file in the Department's Central Records 
Unit in Room 1117 of the main Department building (``CRU'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioners in this investigation are Nashville Wire 
Products Inc., SSW Holding Company, Inc., United Steel, Paper and 
Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied-Industrial and 
Service Workers International Union, and the International 
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge 6 
(Clinton, IA) (collectively, ``the petitioners'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 24, 2008, the U.S. 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 by reason of allegedly subsidized imports of Certain 
Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks from the People's Republic of 
China (``PRC''). See Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks from 
China, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-458 and 731-TA-1154, 73 FR 55132 
(September 24, 2008).
    On September 29, 2008, the Department postponed the deadline for 
the preliminary determination in this investigation until December 22, 
2008. See Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks from the 
People's Republic of China: Notice of Postponement of Preliminary 
Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation, 73 FR 56550 
(September 29, 2008).
    On October 3, 2008, the petitioners submitted new subsidy 
allegations to the Department.
    On October 7, 2008, we issued the countervailing duty (``CVD'') 
questionnaires to the Government of the People's Republic of China 
(``GOC''), Asber, and Wire King. On October 8, 2008, we issued a 
correction to the CVD Questionnaire to Asber and Wire King.
    On October 23, 2008, counsel for Asber notified the Department that 
the company would not participate further in the investigation.
    On November 18, 2008, the Department determined to investigate 
certain of the newly alleged subsidies, specifically those relating to 
the following local subsidy programs: Exemption from Land Development 
Fees for Enterprises Located in Industrial Cluster Zones (``ICZ''); 
Reduction in Farmland Development Fees for Enterprises Located in ICZ; 
Exemption from District and Township Level Highway Construction Fees 
for Enterprises Located in ICZ; Exemptions from or Reductions in 
Educational Supplementary Fees and Embankment Defense Fees for 
Enterprises Located in ICZ; Preferential Electricity Rates Charged to 
Enterprises Located in ICZ; Special Subsidy from the Technology 
Development Fund to Encourage Technology Innovation; Special Subsidy 
from the Technology Development Fund to Encourage Technology 
Development; Subsidies to Encourage Enterprises in ICZ to Hire Post-
Doctoral Workers; Land Purchase Grants to Enterprises Located in ICZ 
and Encouraged Enterprises; Discounted Electricity Rates for Foreign-
Invested Enterprises (``FIEs''); Exemption from Project Consulting Fee 
for FIEs; Exemption from Accommodating Facilities Fees for High-Tech 
and Large-Scale FIEs; Income Tax Deduction for Technology Development 
Expenses of FIEs; Preferential Land-Use Charges for Newly-Established, 
Industrial Projects in Zhongshan's Industrial Zones (``IZs''); 
Reduction of Land Price at the Township Level for Newly-Established, 
Industrial Projects in Zhongshan's IZ; Reduction in Urban 
Infrastructure Fee for Industrial Enterprises in IZ; Income Tax Rebate 
for ``Superior Industrial Enterprise'' in Zhongshan; Accelerated 
Depreciation for New Technological Transformation Projects ``Superior 
Industrial Enterprises'' in Zhongshan; Exemption from the Tax on 
Investments in Fixed Assets for ``Superior Industrial Enterprises'' in 
Zhongshan; and Preferentially-Priced Electricity for ``Superior 
Industrial Enterprises.'' See Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach, Director, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, ``New Subsidy Allegations'' (November 18, 
2008). Questionnaires regarding these newly alleged subsidies were sent 
to the GOC and Wire King on November 18, 2008.
    We received responses to our questionnaire from the GOC and Wire 
King on November 20, 2008. See the GOC's Original Questionnaire 
Response (November 20, 2008) (``GQR'') and Wire King's Original 
Questionnaire Response (November 20, 2008) (``WKQR''). We sent 
supplemental questionnaires on the following dates: December 4 and 
December 12, 2008 (Wire King) and December 5, 2008 (GOC). We received 
responses to these supplemental questionnaires as follows: Wire King's 
First Supplemental Response on December 11, and December 15 (``WK1SR'') 
and Wire King's Second Supplemental Response on December 17 (``WK2SR'') 
and GOC's First Supplemental Response on December 11 (``G1SR'').
    On November 24, December 3, December 8, and December 16, 2008, the 
petitioners submitted comments on the questionnaire responses filed by 
the GOC and Wire King.
    We received responses to the new subsidy allegation questionnaires 
on December 9, 2008 from the GOC (``GOC NSAQR'') and Wire King (``WK 
NSAQR'').
    On December 19, 2008, the petitioners requested that the final 
determination of this CVD investigation be aligned with the final 
determination in the companion antidumping duty (``AD'') investigation 
in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the ``Act'').
    The petitioners provided comments on December 16 and 17, 2008, 
regarding certain issues for the preliminary determination.

Scope Comments

    In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations, we 
set aside a period of time in our Initiation Notice for parties to 
raise issues regarding product coverage, and encouraged all parties to 
submit comments within 20 calendar days of publication of that notice. 
See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 
19, 1997), and Initiation Notice, 73 FR at 50304. We did not receive 
comments concerning the scope of the AD and CVD investigations of KASR 
from the PRC.

Scope of the Investigation

    The scope of this investigation consists of shelving and racks for 
refrigerators, freezers, combined refrigerator-freezers, other 
refrigerating or freezing equipment, cooking stoves, ranges, and ovens 
(``certain kitchen appliance shelving and racks'' or ``the subject 
merchandise''). Certain kitchen appliance shelving and racks are 
defined as shelving, baskets, racks (with or without extension slides, 
which are carbon or stainless steel hardware devices that are connected 
to shelving, baskets, or racks to enable sliding), side racks (which 
are welded wire support structures for oven racks that attach to the 
interior walls of an oven cavity that does not include support ribs as 
a design feature), and subframes (which are welded wire support 
structures that interface with formed support ribs inside an oven 
cavity to support oven rack assemblies utilizing extension slides) with 
the following dimensions:

--Shelving and racks with dimensions ranging from 3 inches by 5 inches 
by 0.10 inch to 28 inches by 34 inches by 6 inches; or
--Baskets with dimensions ranging from 2 inches by 4 inches by 3 inches 
to 28 inches by 34 inches by 16 inches; or
--Side racks from 6 inches by 8 inches by 0.1 inch to 16 inches by 30 
inches by 4 inches; or
--Subframes from 6 inches by 10 inches by 0.1 inch to 28 inches by 34 
inches by 6 inches.


[[Page 685]]


    The subject merchandise is comprised of carbon or stainless steel 
wire ranging in thickness from 0.050 inch to 0.500 inch and may include 
sheet metal of either carbon or stainless steel ranging in thickness 
from 0.020 inch to 0.2 inch. The subject merchandise may be coated or 
uncoated and may be formed and/or welded. Excluded from the scope of 
this investigation is shelving in which the support surface is glass.
    The merchandise subject to this investigation is currently 
classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(``HTSUS'') statistical reporting numbers 8418.99.80.50, 7321.90.50.00, 
7321.90.60.90 and 8516.90.80.00. Although the HTSUS subheadings are 
provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description 
of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

Period of Investigation

    The period for which we are measuring subsidies, i.e., the period 
of investigation (``POI''), is January 1, 2007, through December 31, 
2007.

Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination With Final 
Antidumping Duty Determination

    On August 26, 2008, and August 27, 2008, respectively, the 
Department initiated the CVD and AD investigations of certain kitchen 
appliance shelving and racks from the PRC. See Initiation Notice and 
Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks From the People's Republic 
of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 73 FR 50596 
(August 27, 2008). The CVD investigation and the AD investigation have 
the same scope with regard to the merchandise covered.
    As noted above, on December 19, 2008, the petitioners submitted a 
letter requesting alignment of the final CVD determination with the 
final determination in the companion AD investigation of certain 
kitchen appliance shelving and racks from the PRC. Therefore, in 
accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), 
we are aligning these final determinations such that the final CVD 
determination will be issued on the same date as the final AD 
determination, which is currently scheduled to be issued no later than 
May 12, 2009, unless postponed.

Application of the Countervailing Duty Law to Imports From the PRC

    On October 25, 2007, the Department published Coated Free Sheet 
Paper From the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative 
Countervailing Duty Determination, 72 FR 60645 (October 25, 2007) 
(``CFS from the PRC''), and the accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum (``CFS Decision Memorandum''). In CFS from the PRC, the 
Department found that

given the substantial differences between the Soviet-style economies 
and China's economy in recent years, the Department's previous 
decision not to apply the CVD law to these Soviet-style economies 
does not act as a bar to proceeding with a CVD investigation 
involving products from China.

See CFS Decision Memorandum, at Comment 6. The Department has affirmed 
its decision to apply the CVD law to the PRC in subsequent final 
determinations. See, e.g., Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe 
From the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing 
Duty Determination and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical 
Circumstances, 73 FR 31966 (June 5, 2008) (``CWP from the PRC''), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (``CWP Decision 
Memorandum''), at Comment 1.
    Additionally, for the reasons stated in the CWP Decision 
Memorandum, we are using the date of December 11, 2001, the date on 
which the PRC became a member of the World Trade Organization, as the 
date from which the Department will identify and measure subsidies in 
the PRC. See CWP Decision Memorandum, at Comment 2.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences

    Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act provide that the Department 
shall apply ``facts otherwise available'' if, inter alia, necessary 
information is not on the record or an interested party or any other 
person: (A) Withholds information that has been requested; (B) fails to 
provide information within the deadlines established, or in the form 
and manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) 
and (e) of section 782 of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a 
proceeding; or (D) provides information that cannot be verified as 
provided by section 782(i) of the Act.
    Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may 
use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when 
a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its 
ability to comply with a request for information.

Non-Cooperative Companies

    In the instant investigation, the following five companies provided 
no response to the Department's ``quantity and value'' questionnaire 
issued during the respondent selection process: Changzhou Yixiong Metal 
Products Co., Ltd.; Foshan Winleader Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Kingsun 
Enterprises Group Co, Ltd.; Zhongshan Iwatani Co., Ltd.; and Yuyao 
Hanjun Metal Work Co./Yuyao Hanjun Metal Products Co., Ltd. 
(collectively, ``non-cooperative Q&V companies''). We attempted to 
solicit quantity and value information from these companies, and 
confirmed delivery of our questionnaires through Federal Express. In 
our attempt, we warned that ``{f{time} ailure to respond to this 
questionnaire may result in the Department determining that your 
company has decided not to participate in this proceeding and that your 
company has not cooperated to the best of its ability. As a 
consequence, the Department would consider applying facts available 
with an adverse inference in accordance with section 776(b) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930.'' See Letters to Changzhou Yixiong Metal Products 
Co., Ltd., et al., from Susan H. Kuhbach, Director, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 1, ``Quantity and Value Questionnaire for the Countervailing 
Duty Investigation of Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks From 
the People's Republic of China'' (August 21, 2008). See Respondent 
Selection Memorandum for the details of our attempts to solicit 
information from the 12 producers and exporters identified in the 
petition.
    The five non-cooperative Q&V companies withheld requested 
information and significantly impeded this proceeding. Specifically, by 
not responding to requests for information concerning the quantity and 
value of their sales, they impeded the Department's ability to select 
the most appropriate respondents in this investigation. Thus, in 
reaching our preliminary determination, pursuant to sections 
776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, we have based the CVD rate for the 
non-cooperative Q&V companies on facts otherwise available.
    We further determine that an adverse inference is warranted, 
pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. By failing to submit responses 
to the Department's quantity and value questionnaires, these companies 
did not cooperate to the best of their ability in this investigation. 
Accordingly, we find that an adverse inference is warranted to ensure 
that the non-cooperating Q&V companies will not obtain a more favorable 
result than had they fully complied with our request for information.

Asber

    As noted above, Asber was selected as a mandatory respondent. 
Asber, however, did not provide the requested information that is 
necessary to

[[Page 686]]

determine a CVD rate for this preliminary determination and 
significantly impeded this proceeding. Specifically, Asber did not 
respond to the Department's October 7, 2008 CVD questionnaire. On 
October 23, 2008, counsel for Asber notified the Department that Asber 
would not participate in the investigation. Thus, in reaching our 
preliminary determination, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of 
the Act, we have based the CVD rate for Asber on facts otherwise 
available.
    For the preliminary determination, we determine that an adverse 
inference is warranted, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. By 
failing to submit a response to the Department's initial questionnaire, 
Asber did not cooperate to the best of its ability in this 
investigation. Accordingly, we find that an adverse inference is 
warranted to ensure that Asber will not obtain a more favorable result 
than had it fully complied with our request for information.
    In deciding which facts to use as adverse facts available 
(``AFA''), section 776(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize 
the Department to rely on information derived from: (1) The petition; 
(2) a final determination in the investigation; (3) any previous review 
or determination; or (4) any other information placed on the record. 
The Department's practice when selecting an adverse rate from among the 
possible sources of information is to ensure that the rate is 
sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the statutory purposes of the 
adverse facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the 
Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.'' 
See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan, 63 FR 
8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). The Department's practice also ensures 
``that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to 
cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.'' See Statement of 
Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements 
Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, Vol. I, at 870 (1994), reprinted at 1994 
U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4199.
    It is the Department's practice to select, as AFA, the highest 
calculated rate in any segment of the proceeding. See, e.g., Laminated 
Woven Sacks From the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative 
Countervailing Duty Determination and Final Affirmative Determination, 
in Part, of Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 35639 (June 24, 2008) (LWS 
from the PRC), and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (LWS 
Decision Memorandum) at ``Selection of the Adverse Facts Available.'' 
In previous CVD investigations into products from the PRC, we have 
adapted this practice to use the highest rate calculated for the same 
or similar programs in other PRC CVD investigations. Id. For the 
preliminary determination, consistent with the Department's recent 
practice, we are computing a total AFA rate for the non-cooperating 
companies, including Asber, generally using program-specific rates 
determined for the cooperating respondent or past cases. Specifically, 
for programs other than those involving income tax exemptions and 
reductions, we will apply the highest calculated rate for the identical 
program in this investigation if a responding company used the 
identical program. If there is no identical program match within the 
investigation, we will use the highest non-de minimis rate calculated 
for the same or similar program in another PRC CVD investigation. 
Absent an above-de minimis subsidy rate calculated for the same or 
similar program, we will apply the highest calculated subsidy rate for 
any program otherwise listed that could conceivably be used by the non-
cooperating companies. See, e.g., Lightweight Thermal Paper From the 
People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determination, 73 FR 57323 (Oct. 2, 2008), (``LWTP from the PRC''), and 
the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (``LWTP Decision 
Memorandum'') at ``Selection of the Adverse Facts Available Rate.''
    Further, where the GOC can demonstrate through complete, 
verifiable, positive evidence that non-cooperative companies (including 
all their facilities and cross-owned affiliates) are not located in 
particular provinces whose subsidies are being investigated, the 
Department does not intend to include those provincial programs in 
determining the countervailable subsidy rate for the non-cooperative 
companies, including Asber. See Certain Tow-Behind Lawn Groomers and 
Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Initiation 
of Countervailing Duty Investigation, 73 FR 42324 (July 21, 2008) 
(``Lawn Groomers from the PRC''), and the accompanying Initiation 
Checklist. In this investigation, the GOC has not provided any such 
information. Therefore, the Department makes the adverse inference that 
the non-cooperative Q&V companies had facilities and/or cross-owned 
affiliates that received subsidies under all of the sub-national 
programs alleged prior to the selection of mandatory respondents. With 
respect to the provincial or local programs alleged after respondent 
selection, we only assigned adverse rates to those mandatory 
respondents that petitioners alleged were located in the respective 
province or locality. See LWTP Decision Memorandum at pages 2-3. 
Consequently, in this case, we will include the following seven new 
subsidy programs in the calculation of Asber's rate: ``Preferential 
Land-Use Charges for Newly-Established, Industrial Projects in 
Zhongshan's Industrial Zones,'' ``Reduction of Land Price at the 
Township Level for Newly-Established, Industrial Projects in 
Zhongshan's Industrial Zones,'' ``Reduction in Urban Infrastructure Fee 
for Industrial Enterprises in Industrial Zones,'' ``Income Tax Rebate 
for `Superior Industrial Enterprises' in Zhongshan,'' ``Accelerated 
Depreciation for New Technological Transformation Projects, `Superior 
Industrial Enterprises' in Zhongshan,'' ``Exemption From the Tax on 
Investments in Fixed Assets for `Superior Industrial Enterprises' in 
Zhongshan'' and ``Preferentially-Priced Electricity for `Superior 
Industrial Enterprises.' ''

Foreign-Invested Enterprise (FIE) Income Tax Rate Reduction and 
Exemption Programs

    For the four income tax rate reduction or exemption programs,\2\ we 
have applied an adverse inference that the non-cooperative Q&V 
companies and Asber paid no income taxes during the POI. The standard 
income tax rate for corporations in the PRC is 30 percent, plus a 3 
percent provincial income tax rate. Therefore, the highest possible 
benefit for all income tax reduction or exemption programs combined is 
33 percent and we are applying a countervailing duty rate of 33 percent 
on an overall basis for these four income tax programs (i.e., these 
four income tax programs combined to provide a countervailable benefit 
of 33 percent). This 33 percent AFA rate does not apply to tax credit 
or tax refund programs. See, e.g., CWP Decision Memorandum, at 2; LWTP 
Decision Memorandum, at ``Selection of the Adverse Facts Available 
Rate.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Two Free, Three Half'' Program; Income Tax Reductions for 
FIEs based on Geographic Location; Income Tax Reduction for Export-
Oriented FIEs; and Local Income Tax Exemption or Reduction Program 
for ``Productive'' FIEs.

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

[[Page 687]]

Income Tax Credits and Rebates and Accelerated Depreciation

    The 33 percent AFA rate does not apply to the six income tax credit 
and rebate or accelerated depreciation programs because such programs 
may not affect the tax rate and, hence, the subsidy conferred, in the 
current year. Wire King did not use the ``Income Tax Credits for 
Purchases of Domestically Produced Equipment by FIEs,'' ``Income Tax 
Refund for Reinvestment of Profits in Export-oriented Enterprises,'' 
``Preferential Tax Subsidies for Research and Development at FIEs,'' 
``Income Tax Credits for Purchases of Domestically Produced Equipment 
by Domestically Owned Companies,'' ``Income Tax Rebate for `Superior 
Industrial Enterprises' in Zhongshan,'' \3\ or ``Accelerated 
Depreciation for New Technological Transformation Projects `Superior 
Industrial Enterprises' in Zhongshan'' \4\ programs, nor have we found 
greater than de minimis benefits for these direct tax programs in other 
countervailing duty proceedings. Therefore, we have preliminarily 
determined to use the highest non-de minimis rate for any indirect tax 
program from a China CVD investigation. The rate we selected is 1.51 
percent, which was the rate calculated for respondent Gold East Paper 
(Jiangsu) Co., Ltd (GE) for the ``Value-added Tax and Tariff Exemptions 
on Imported Equipment,'' program. See CFS From the PRC and CFS Decision 
Memorandum, at pages 13-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As noted above, this program is only included in Asber's AFA 
rate.
    \4\ As noted above, this program is only included in Asber's AFA 
rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Indirect Tax and VAT/Tariff Reductions and Exemptions

    For ``Exemption from City Construction Tax and Education Tax for 
FIEs in Guangdong Province,'' the rate we selected was 0.03 percent, 
which is the rate preliminarily determined for respondent Wire King's 
rate in this investigation. For the remaining indirect tax and VAT/
Tariff Reduction programs, which Wire King did not use, we are applying 
the 1.51 percent rate calculated from respondent GE's ``Value-added Tax 
and Tariff Exemptions on Imported Equipment'' program. See CFS From the 
PRC, 72 FR 60645, and CFS Decision Memorandum, at pages 13-14. These 
remaining indirect tax and VAT/Tariff Reduction programs are: 
``Reduction in or Exemption from Fixed Assets Investment Orientation 
Regulatory Tax,'' ``Exemption from Real Estate Tax and Dyke Maintaining 
Fee for FIEs in Guangdong Province,'' ``Reduction in Urban 
Infrastructure Fee for Industrial Enterprises in Industrial Zones,'' 
\5\ ``Exemption from the Tax on Investments in Fixed Assets for 
`Superior Industrial Enterprises' in Zhongshan,'' \6\ ``Import Tariff 
and VAT Exemptions for FIEs and Certain Domestic Enterprises Using 
Imported Equipment in Encouraged Industries,'' ``VAT Rebates for FIEs 
Purchasing Domestically-Produced Equipment,'' ``Import Tariff Exemption 
for the ``Encouragement of Investment by Taiwanese Compatriots,'' 
``Import Tariff Refunds and Exemptions for FIEs in Guangdong,'' and 
``Import Tariff and VAT Refunds and Exemptions for FIEs in Zhejiang.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ As noted above, this program is only included in Asber's AFA 
rate.
    \6\ As noted above, this program is only included in Asber's AFA 
rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Loans

    For the ``Preferential Loans and Interest Rate Subsidies in 
Guangdong Province'' loan program, we have preliminarily determined to 
apply the highest non-de minimis subsidy rate for any loan program in a 
prior China CVD investigation. The rate was 7.99 percent for the 
``Government Policy Lending Program,'' from Lightweight Thermal Paper 
From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Amended Final 
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Notice of 
Countervailing Duty Order, 73 FR 70958 (November 24, 2008) (``Amended 
LWTP from the PRC'').

Grants

    For grant programs, Wire King did not use ``Funds for `Outward 
Expansion' of Industries in Guangdong Province,'' ``Direct Grants--
Guangdong,'' and ``Grants to Promote Exports from Zhejiang Province'' 
programs. The Department has not calculated any above de minimis rates 
for any of these programs in prior investigations, and, moreover, all 
previously calculated rates for grant programs from prior China CVD 
investigations have been de minimis. Therefore, for each of these 
programs, we have determined to use the highest calculated subsidy rate 
for any program otherwise listed, which could have been used by the 
non-cooperative Q&V companies or Asber. This rate was 13.36 percent for 
the ``Government Provision of Land for Less Than Adequate 
Remuneration,'' program from LWS From the PRC. See LWS Decision 
Memorandum, at 14-18.

Provision of Goods and Services at Less Than Adequate Remuneration 
(LTAR) Programs

    Finally, for the ``Provision of Wire Rod for Less than Adequate 
Remuneration by the GOC,'' we are using the rate calculated for 
respondent Wire King. For ``Land-Related Subsidies to Companies Located 
in Specific Regions of Guangdong,'' ``Preferential Land-Use Charges for 
Newly-Established, Industrial Projects in Zhongshan's Industrial 
Zones,'' \7\ ``Reduction of Land Price at the Township Level for Newly-
Established Industrial Projects in Zhongshan's Industrial Zones,'' \8\ 
and ``Land-Related Subsidies to Companies Located in Specific Regions 
of Zhejiang,'' programs, we have used the highest calculated rate for a 
land LTAR program from a previous China CVD investigation. This rate 
was 13.36 percent for the ``Government Provision of Land for Less Than 
Adequate Remuneration,'' program from LWS From the PRC. Id. For the 
``Provision of Nickel for Less than Adequate Remuneration by the GOC,'' 
``Government Provision of Electricity at Less than Adequate 
Remuneration to Companies Located in Development Zones in Guangdong 
Province,'' and ``Preferentially-Priced Electricity for `Superior 
Industrial Enterprises,' '' \9\ we have preliminarily determined to use 
the highest non-de minimis rate calculated for a provision of goods or 
services at LTAR program from which the non-cooperative respondents and 
Asber could have benefitted. This rate was 13.36 percent for the 
``Government Provision of Land for Less Than Adequate Remuneration,'' 
program from LWS From the PRC. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ As noted above, this program is only included in Asber's AFA 
rate.
    \8\ As noted above, this program is only included in Asber's AFA 
rate.
    \9\ As noted above, this program is only included in Asber's AFA 
rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For further explanation of the derivation of the AFA rates, see 
Memorandum to the File, ``Adverse Facts Available Rate'' (December 22, 
2008) (``AFA Calc Memo'').
    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies 
on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the 
course of an investigation or review, it shall, to the extent 
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that 
are reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is ``information 
derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or 
review, the final determination concerning the subject

[[Page 688]]

merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the 
subject merchandise.'' See e.g., SAA, at 870, 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 
4199. The Department considers information to be corroborated if it has 
probative value. See id. To corroborate secondary information, the 
Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and 
relevance of the information to be used. The SAA emphasizes, however, 
that the Department need not prove that the selected facts available 
are the best alternative information. See SAA, at 869, 1994 
U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4199.
    With regard to the reliability aspect of corroboration, we note 
that these rates were calculated in recent prior final CVD 
determinations. Further, the calculated rates were based upon verified 
information about the same or similar programs. Moreover, no 
information has been presented that calls into question the reliability 
of these calculated rates that we are applying as AFA. Finally, unlike 
other types of information, such as publicly available data on the 
national inflation rate of a given country or national average interest 
rates, there typically are no independent sources for data on company-
specific benefits resulting from countervailable subsidy programs.
    With respect to the relevance aspect of corroborating the rates 
selected, the Department will consider information reasonably at its 
disposal in considering the relevance of information used to calculate 
a countervailable subsidy benefit. Where circumstances indicate that 
the information is not appropriate as AFA, the Department will not use 
it. See Fresh Cut Flowers From Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996).
    In the absence of record evidence concerning these programs due to 
non-cooperative Q&V companies and Asber's decision not to participate 
in the investigation, the Department has reviewed the information 
concerning PRC subsidy programs in this and other cases. For those 
programs for which the Department has found a program-type match, we 
find that, because these are the same or similar programs, they are 
relevant to the programs of this case. For the programs for which there 
is no program-type match, the Department has selected the highest 
calculated subsidy rate for any PRC program from which the non-
cooperative Q&V companies and Asber could receive a benefit to use as 
AFA. The relevance of these rates is that it is an actual calculated 
CVD rate for a PRC program from which the non-cooperative Q&V companies 
and Asber could actually receive a benefit. Further, these rates were 
calculated for periods close to, and overlapping with, the POI in the 
instant case. Moreover, these companies' failure to respond to requests 
for information has ``resulted in an egregious lack of evidence on the 
record to suggest an alternative rate.'' Shanghai Taoen Int'l Trading 
Co. v. United States, 360 F. supp. 2d 1339, 1348 (CIT 2005). Due to the 
lack of participation by the non-cooperative Q&V companies and Asber 
and the resulting lack of record information concerning these programs, 
the Department has corroborated the rates it selected to the extent 
practicable.
    On this basis, we preliminarily determine that the AFA 
countervailable subsidy rate for Asber is 197.14 percent ad valorem. We 
preliminarily determine that the AFA countervailable subsidy rate for 
the non-cooperative Q&V companies is 162.87 percent ad valorem. See AFA 
Calc Memo.

Application of ``All Others'' Rate to Companies Not Selected as 
Mandatory Respondents

    In addition to Wire King and Asber, the Department received 
responses to its quantity and value questionnaire from the following 
five companies: Hangzhou Dunli Import & Export Co., Jiangsu Weixi Group 
Co., Leader Metal Industry Co. Ltd., Meizhigao Co.,\10\ and New King 
Shan, Zhuhai. See Respondent Selection Memorandum. While these five 
companies were not chosen as mandatory respondents, because they 
cooperated fully with the Department's request for quantity and value 
information regarding their sales, we are applying the all others rate 
to them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Meizhigao Co. reported that it did not have shipments of 
the subject merchandise to the United States during the POI, except 
for one sample sale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subsidies Valuation Information

Allocation Period

    The average useful life (``AUL'') period in this proceeding, as 
described in 19 CFR 351.524(d)(2), is 12 years according to the U.S. 
Internal Revenue Service's 1977 Class Life Asset Depreciation Range 
System. See U.S. Internal Revenue Service Publication 946 (2007), How 
to Depreciate Property, at Table B-2: Table of Class Lives and Recovery 
Periods. No party in this proceeding has disputed this allocation 
period.

Attribution of Subsidies

    The Department's regulations at 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(i) state that 
the Department will normally attribute a subsidy to the products 
produced by the corporation that received the subsidy. However, 19 CFR 
351.525(b)(6)(ii)-(v) direct that the Department will attribute 
subsidies received by certain other companies to the combined sales of 
those companies if (1) Cross-ownership exists between the companies, 
and (2) the cross-owned companies produce the subject merchandise, are 
a holding or parent company of the subject company, produce an input 
that is primarily dedicated to the production of the downstream 
product, or transfer a subsidy to a cross-owned company. The Court of 
International Trade (``CIT'') has upheld the Department's authority to 
attribute subsidies based on whether a company could use or direct the 
subsidy benefits of another company in essentially the same way it 
could use its own subsidy benefits. See Fabrique de Fer de Charleroi v. 
United States, 166 F. Supp. 2d 593, 604 (CIT 2001).
    According to 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(vi), cross-ownership exists 
between two or more corporations where one corporation can use or 
direct the individual assets of the other corporation(s) in essentially 
the same ways it can use its own assets. This regulation states that 
this standard will normally be met where there is a majority voting 
interest between two corporations or through common ownership of two 
(or more) corporations.
    Wire King responded on behalf of itself, a Hong Kong-owned foreign 
invested enterprise. Wire King identified several affiliated companies 
and claims that these affiliates do not produce the subject merchandise 
and do not provide inputs to Wire King. We intend to seek further 
information from Wire King regarding certain affiliates that may 
provide an input to Wire King or otherwise fall within the situations 
described in 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(iii)-(v). For purposes of the 
Preliminary Determination, we are limiting our analysis to Wire King.

Analysis of Programs

    Based upon our analysis of the petition and the responses to our 
questionnaires, we determine the following:

I. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Be Countervailable

A. Income Tax Reduction for Foreign Invested Enterprises (``FIEs'') 
Based on Geographic Location

    To promote economic development and attract foreign investment, 
``productive'' FIEs located in coastal economic zones, special economic

[[Page 689]]

zones or economic and technical development zones in the PRC receive 
preferential tax rates of 15 percent or 24 percent, depending on the 
zone, under Article 7 of the Foreign Investment Enterprise Tax Law 
(``FIE Tax Law''). See GQR, at Exhibit 4. This program was created June 
15, 1988, pursuant to the Provisional Rules on Exemption and Reduction 
of Corporate Income Tax and Business Tax of FIEs in Coastal Economic 
Development Zone issued by the Ministry of Finance. See GQR, at Exhibit 
11. The March 18, 1988, Circular of State Council on Enlargement of 
Economic Areas enlarged the scope of the coastal economic areas and the 
July 1, 1991, FIE Tax Law continued this policy. See GQR, at Exhibit 4.
    The Department has previously found this program to be 
countervailable. See CFS from the PRC, LWTP from the PRC, and Certain 
New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China: 
Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Final Negative 
Determination of Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 40480 (July 15, 2008) 
(``Tires from the PRC'') and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum (``Tires Decision Memorandum'').
    Wire King is located in a coastal economic development zone and was 
subject to the reduced income tax rate of 24 percent for the tax 
returned filed during the POI.
    We preliminarily determine that the reduced income tax rate paid by 
productive FIEs under this program confers a countervailable subsidy. 
The reduced rate is a financial contribution in the form of revenue 
forgone by the GOC and it provides a benefit to the recipient in the 
amount of the tax savings. See section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act and 19 
CFR 351.509(a)(1). We further determine preliminarily that the 
reduction afforded by this program is limited to enterprises located in 
designated geographic regions and, hence, is specific under section 
771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act.
    To calculate the benefit, we treated Wire King's income tax savings 
as a recurring benefit, consistent with 19 CFR 351.524(c)(1), and 
divided the company's tax savings received during the POI by the 
company's total sales during that period. To compute the amount of the 
tax savings, we compared the income tax rate Wire King would have paid 
in the absence of the program (30 percent) with the rate it paid (24 
percent).
    On this basis, we preliminarily determine that Wire King received a 
countervailable subsidy of 0.30 percent ad valorem under this program.

B. Income Tax Reduction for Export-Oriented FIEs

    Article 75(7) of the Detailed Rules for Implementation of the 
Income Tax Law of the People's Republic of China for Enterprises with 
Foreign Investment and Foreign Enterprises and the FIE Tax Law 
authorize export-oriented FIEs to reduce their income tax to half the 
national income tax rate. See GQR, at 6. Export-oriented FIEs are 
defined as FIEs with export product sales that exceed 70 percent of 
their total sales value.
    Wire King qualified for this benefit and paid a reduced income tax 
rate of 12 percent for the tax return filed during the POI. See WKQR, 
at 10.
    We preliminarily determine that the reduction in the income tax 
paid by export-oriented FIEs under this program confers a 
countervailable subsidy. The exemption/reduction is a financial 
contribution in the form of revenue forgone by the government and it 
provides a benefit to the recipient in the amount of the tax savings. 
See section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.509(a)(1). We also 
preliminarily determine that the exemption/reduction afforded by this 
program is contingent as a matter of law on export performance, and, 
hence, is specific under section 771(5A)(B) of the Act.
    To calculate the benefit, we treated Wire King's income tax savings 
as a recurring benefit, consistent with 19 CFR 351.524(c)(1), and 
divided the company's tax savings received during the POI by the export 
sales of Wire King during that period. To compute the amount of the tax 
savings, we compared the rate Wire King would have paid in the absence 
of the program (24 percent) with the rate the company paid (12 
percent). On this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable 
subsidy attributable to Wire King to be 0.94 percent ad valorem under 
this program.

C. Local Income Tax Exemption or Reduction for ``Productive'' FIEs

    Under Article 9 of the FIE Tax Law, the provincial governments have 
the authority to grant an exemption or reduction in local income taxes 
to FIEs. See GQR, at 36. The GOC states that, according to the ``Equity 
Joint Venture Tax Law,'' the local income tax rate is set at ten 
percent of the enterprise income tax rate, which was 30 percent during 
the POI. According to the GOC, the Guangdong People's Government 
published its own Rules on Exemption and Reduction of Local Income Tax 
for Foreign Invested Enterprises. Id. Under Article 5 of these rules, 
productive and/or export-oriented FIEs that were eligible to pay income 
tax at half the normal rate shall also be exempted from the local 
income tax during the same period.
    Wire King reported being exempted from local income tax on the tax 
return filed during the POI. See WKQR, at 15.
    We preliminarily determine that the exemption or reduction in the 
local income tax paid by FIEs under this program confers a 
countervailable subsidy. The exemption is a financial contribution in 
the form of revenue forgone by the government and it provides a benefit 
to the recipient in the amount of the tax savings. See section 
771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.509(a)(1). We also 
preliminarily determine that the exemption afforded by this program is 
contingent as a matter of law on export performance, and, hence, is 
specific under section 771(5A)(B) of the Act.
    To calculate the benefit, we treated Wire King's income tax savings 
as a recurring benefit, consistent with 19 CFR 351.524(c)(1), and 
divided the company's tax savings received during the POI by the export 
sales of Wire King during that period. To compute the amount of the tax 
savings, we compared the rate Wire King would have paid in the absence 
of the program (3 percent) with the rate the company paid (zero). On 
this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy 
attributable to Wire King to be 0.23 percent ad valorem under this 
program.

D. Exemption From City Construction Tax and Education Tax for FIEs in 
Guangdong Province

    Pursuant to the Circular on Temporarily Not Collecting City 
Maintenance and Construction Tax and Education Fee Surcharge for FIEs 
and Foreign Enterprises (GUOSHUIFA {1994{time}  No. 38), the local tax 
authorities exempt all FIEs and foreign enterprises from the city 
maintenance and construction tax and education fee surcharge. See GQR, 
at Exhibit 23. The city maintenance and construction tax is normally 
seven percent of a company's VAT payable, while the education fee 
surcharge is normally three percent of a company's VAT payable. See 
GQR, at Exhibits 21 and 22; see also, G1SR, at 8-9.
    Wire King reported that it was exempted from the city construction 
tax and educational surcharges during the POI. See WKQR, at 16.
    We preliminarily determine that the exemptions from the city 
construction tax and education surcharge under this program confer a 
countervailable subsidy. The exemptions are financial

[[Page 690]]

contributions in the form of revenue forgone by the government and 
provide a benefit to the recipient in the amount of the savings. See 
section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.509(a)(1). We also 
preliminarily determine that the exemptions afforded by this program 
are limited as a matter of law to certain enterprises, FIEs, and, 
hence, specific under section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act.
    To calculate the benefit, we treated Wire King's tax savings and 
exemptions as a recurring benefit, consistent with 19 CFR 
351.524(c)(1), and divided the company's savings received during the 
POI by the total sales of Wire King during that period. To compute the 
amount of the city construction tax savings, we compared the rate Wire 
King would have paid in the absence of the program (seven percent of 
its VAT payable during the POI) with the rate the company paid (zero). 
See WKQR, at 16. To compute the amount of the savings from the 
educational surcharge exemption, we compared the rate Wire King would 
have paid in the absence of the program (three percent of VAT payable 
during the POI) with the rate the company paid (zero). Id. On this 
basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy 
attributable to Wire King to be 0.03 percent ad valorem under this 
program.

E. Provision of Wire Rod for Less Than Adequate Remuneration

    The Department is investigating whether GOC authorities provided 
wire rod to producers of KASR for LTAR. In its original questionnaire 
response, Wire King stated that it obtained its wire rod primarily from 
trading companies and it provided the names of the trading companies 
and the amounts purchased from each of them (by month) during the POI. 
Wire King also stated that it was working with its trading companies to 
obtain the names of the companies that produced the wire rod. Wire King 
provided those names in Exhibit 1 of the WK2SR.
    In our original and supplemental questionnaires, we asked Wire King 
to provide the names of its wire rod producers to the GOC so that the 
government could respond to our questions about the ownership of these 
companies. Because the company names were not provided by Wire King 
until shortly before this preliminary determination, the GOC has not 
had sufficient time to provide the requested ownership information. 
Consequently, for purposes of this preliminary determination we have 
relied on facts available regarding ownership of these wire rod 
producers. See ``Business Proprietary Information Memorandum for the 
Preliminary Results,'' December 22, 2008 (``BPI Memo''). We will seek 
the necessary ownership information from the GOC for our final 
determination.
    In CWP From the PRC, the Department determined that when a 
respondent purchases an input from a trading company, a subsidy is 
conferred if the producer of the input is an ``authority'' within the 
meaning of section 771(5)(B) and the price paid by the respondent for 
the input is less than adequate remuneration. (CWP Decision Memorandum 
at p.10). Moreover, in Tires from the PRC, the Department determined 
that majority government ownership of a producer is sufficient to 
qualify it as an ``authority.'' (Tires Decision Memorandum at p. 10). 
Based on the record in the instant investigation, we preliminarily 
determine that certain wire rod producers that supply Wire King are 
majority-government owned and, hence, authorities. Thus, Wire King 
received a subsidy to the extent that the price it paid for wire rod 
produced by these suppliers was less than adequate remuneration.
    The Department's regulations at 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2) set forth the 
basis for identifying appropriate market-determined benchmarks for 
measuring the adequacy of remuneration for government-provided goods or 
services. These potential benchmarks are listed in hierarchical order 
by preference: (1) Market prices from actual transactions within the 
country under investigation (e.g., actual sales, actual imports or 
competitively run government auctions) (tier one); (2) world market 
prices that would be available to purchasers in the country under 
investigation (tier two); or (3) an assessment of whether the 
government price is consistent with market principles (tier three). As 
we explained in Canadian Lumber, the preferred benchmark in the 
hierarchy is an observed market price from actual transactions within 
the country under investigation because such prices generally would be 
expected to reflect most closely the prevailing market conditions of 
the purchaser under investigation. (See Notice of Final Affirmative 
Countervailing Duty Determination and Final Negative Critical 
Circumstances Determination: Certain Softwood Lumber Products From 
Canada, 67 FR 15545 (April 2, 2002) (``Canadian Lumber'') and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at page 36.)
    Beginning with tier one, we must determine whether the prices from 
actual sales transactions involving Chinese buyers and sellers are 
significantly distorted. As explained in the CVD Preamble: ``Where it 
is reasonable to conclude that actual transaction prices are 
significantly distorted as a result of the government's involvement in 
the market, we will resort to the next alternative {tier two{time}  in 
the hierarchy.'' See Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 63 FR 65348, 
65377 (November 25, 1998) (CVD Preamble). The CVD Preamble further 
recognizes that distortion can occur when the government provider 
constitutes a majority, or in certain circumstances, a substantial 
portion of the market.
    The GOC has reported that state-owned enterprises (``SOEs'') 
accounted for approximately 45.67 percent of the wire rod production in 
the PRC during the POI. While this is not a majority of the production, 
the SOEs' market share is substantial and there are other examples of 
government involvement in the market. Specifically, a 10 percent export 
tariff on wire rod was put in place during the POI and export licensing 
was instituted. Moreover, in reporting the share of PRC wire rod 
production accounted for by SOEs, the GOC defined SOEs as firms having 
50 percent or more government ownership. It is entirely possible, based 
on a fuller analysis, that the Department would find that additional 
wire rod producers are ``authorities'' and, hence, that the GOC 
accounts for more than 45.67 percent of production, i.e., the reported 
level may be a conservative measure.
    The GOC also placed on the record aggregate import price data for 
wire rod from various countries. Information from the GOC indicates 
that imports of wire rod accounted for 1.53 percent of the volume of 
wire rod available in the Chinese market during the POI. Because the 
share of imports of wire rod into the PRC is small relative to Chinese 
domestic production of wire rod, we are not using the aggregate import 
price data in our benchmark calculations. This is consistent with the 
Department's approach in Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From 
the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determination, 73 FR 35632 (June 24, 2008) (``LWRP From the PRC'') and 
the accompanying issues and decision memorandum (``LWRP Decision 
Memorandum'') at Comment 7.
    Consequently, we preliminarily determine that there are no tier one 
benchmark prices and have turned to tier two, i.e., world market prices 
in the PRC. Petitioners have put on the record data from the Steel 
Business Briefing (``SBB'') which includes monthly prices for mesh wire 
rod in North America and Europe. See Exhibit 82 of petitioners' July 
31, 2008, petition. Wire King

[[Page 691]]

submitted monthly prices for mesh wire rod in Asia from two sources: 
SBB and MEPS International Ltd. (``MEPS''). In analyzing this data, the 
Department found world market prices from MEPS, which we have placed on 
the record. See Memorandum to the File, ``Information Re: World Market 
Prices on Record,'' (December 22, 2008).
    We preliminarily determine that data from both SBB and MEPS should 
be used to derive a world market price for wire rod that would be 
available to purchasers of wire rod in the PRC. We note that the 
Department has relied on pricing data from industry publications such 
as SBB and MEPs in recent CVD proceedings involving the PRC. See CWP 
Decision Memorandum at p. 11 and LWRP Decision Memorandum at p. 9. 
Also, 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2)(ii), states that where there is more than 
one commercially available world market price, the Department will 
average the prices to the extent practicable. Therefore, we first 
derived a world market SBB price by averaging the monthly prices for 
the North America, Europe and Asia from SSB and then averaged that 
result with the MEPS world market price.
    The prices for wire rod in SBB and MEPS are expressed in U.S. 
dollars (``USD'') per short ton (``ST''). Therefore, to determine what 
price would constitute adequate remuneration, we first converted the 
benchmark prices from U.S. dollars to renminbi (``RMB'') using USD to 
RMB exchange rates, as reported by the Federal Reserve Statistical 
Release.
    Under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2)(iv), when measuring the adequacy of 
remuneration under tier one or tier two, the Department will adjust the 
benchmark price to reflect the price that a firm actually paid or would 
pay if it imported the product, including delivery charges and import 
duties. Regarding delivery charges, we have included the freight costs 
that would be incurred in shipping wire rod from North America, Europe 
and Asia. We have also added import duties, as reported by the GOC, and 
the VAT applicable to imports of wire rod into the PRC.
    Comparing the benchmark unit prices to the unit prices paid by the 
respondent for wire rod, we preliminarily determine that wire rod was 
provided for less than adequate remuneration and that a benefit exists 
in the amount of the difference between the benchmark and what the 
respondent paid. See 19 CFR 351.511(a).
    Finally, with respect to specificity, the GOC has provided 
information on end uses for wire rod. See GQR at Exhibit 17. The GOC 
stated that the end uses would relate to the type of industry involved 
as a direct purchaser of the input. See GQR at Exhibit 33.
    While numerous companies may comprise the listed industries, 
section 771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) clearly directs the Department to conduct 
its analysis on an industry or enterprise basis. Based on our review of 
the data and consistent with our past practice, we preliminarily 
determine that the industries named by the GOC are limited in number 
and, hence, the subsidy is specific. See section 771(5A)(D)(iii)(I). 
See also LWRP Decision Memorandum at Comment 7.
    Therefore, we preliminarily determine that a countervailable 
subsidy was conferred on Wire King through the GOC's provision of wire 
rod for less than adequate remuneration. To calculate the subsidy, we 
took the difference between the delivered world market price and what 
Wire King paid for wire rod produced by majority government owned 
producers during the POI. We divided this by Wire King's total sales 
during the POI. On this basis, we preliminarily calculated a net 
countervailable subsidy rate of 11.72 percent ad valorem for Wire King.

II. Programs Determined To Be Terminated

A. Exemption From Project Consulting Fee for Export-oriented Industries

    The Department has determined that this program was terminated in 
1998, with no residual benefits. See CFS From the PRC and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at ``Programs Determined to be 
Terminated.''

III. Programs Preliminarily Determined Not To Exist

A. Income Tax Exemption for Investment in Domestic ``Technological 
Renovation''

    In its November 20, 2008 questionnaire response, the GOC reported 
that the Income Tax Exemption for Investment in Domestic 
``Technological Renovation'' program does not exist. The GOC explained 
that the description corresponds to the investigated program ``Income 
Tax Credits for Domestically-Owned Companies Purchasing Domestically 
Produced Equipment,'' which is listed in section III below. See GQR, at 
22. Therefore, we have not included this program for purposes of this 
Preliminary Determination.

IV. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Be Not Used by Wire King or To 
Not Provide Benefits During the POI

A. Exemption From Land Development Fees for Enterprises Located in 
Industrial Cluster Zones

    Under the Circular on Printing and Distributing the Implementation 
Rules for the Construction of Intensive Industrial Zones 
(SHUNFUBANFA{2002{time} No.33), the People's Government of Shunde 
exempted from the land development fees land users located in intensive 
industrial zones. See GOC NSAQR, at 2. The purpose of this program was 
to promote the construction of intensive industrial zones in Shunde.
    Wire King and the GOC reported that although Wire King is not 
located in an intensive industrial zone, the Government of Shunde 
agreed to extend the preferential treatment to land obtained by Wire 
King in 2003. See WK NSAQR, at 2; see also, GOC NSAQR, at 2. Wire King 
reported that this exemption occurred only when the land was obtained 
and, thus, it was a one-time exemption. See WK NSAQR, at 2.
    For this one-time exemption from land development fees, based on 
our calculations, the benefit would be expensed prior to the POI, i.e., 
the grants were less than 0.5 percent of the relevant sales in the 
years in which the grants were approved. Therefore, any potential 
benefit received by Wire King would have been attributed to the year of 
receipt (i.e., 2003). We note that to calculate the benefit under this 
program, we used Wire King's 2004 total sales figures, which are the 
best available facts on the record at this time. The Department will 
issue a supplemental questionnaire after the preliminary determination 
is issued in order to obtain Wire King's 2003 sales figures.

B. Reduction in Farmland Development Fees for Enterprises Located in 
Industrial Zones

    According to the Circular on Printing and Distributing the 
Implementation Rules for the Construction of Intensive Industrial Zones 
(SHUNFUBANFA{2002{time} No.33), the People's Government of Shunde has 
the authority to reduce the farmland cultivation fees for the 
enterprises located in the intensive industrial zones within Shunde. 
See GOC NSAQR, at 10. The program was created to protect the farmland.
    The GOC and Wire King reported that although Wire King is not 
located in an intensive industrial zone, the Government of Shunde 
agreed to grant Wire King a reduction of the farmland

[[Page 692]]

cultivation fee in 2003 when Wire King purchased a parcel of land. See 
WK NSAQR, at 2; see also, GOC NSAQR, at 10. Wire King reported that 
this exemption occurred only when the land was obtained and, thus, it 
was a one-time reduction. See WK NSAQR, at 2.
    For this one-time reduction of farmland development fees, based on 
our calculations, the benefit would be expensed prior to the POI, i.e., 
the grants were less than 0.5 percent of the relevant sales in the 
years in which the grants were approved. We note that to calculate the 
benefit under this program, we used Wire King's 2004 total sales 
figures, which are the best available facts on the record at this time. 
The Department will issue a supplemental questionnaire after the 
preliminary determination is issued in order to obtain Wire King's 2003 
sales figures.
    Based upon responses by the GOC and Wire King, we preliminarily 
determine that Wire King did not apply for or receive benefits during 
the POI under the programs listed below. See GQR, G1SR, WKQR, WK1SR, 
WK2SR, WK NSAQR, and GOC NSAQR.
    1. ``Two Free, Three Half'' program.
    2. Income tax refund for reinvestment of profits in export-oriented 
enterprises.
    3. Preferential tax subsidies for research and development by FIEs.
    4. Income tax credits for purchases of domestically produced 
equipment by FIEs.
    5. Income tax credits for purchases of domestically produced 
equipment by domestically owned companies.
    6. Reduction in or exemption from the fixed assets investment 
orientation regulatory tax.
    7. Value Added Tax (``VAT'') rebates for FIEs purchasing 
domestically-produced equipment.
    8. Import tariff and VAT exemptions for FIEs and certain domestic 
enterprises using imported equipment in encouraged industries.
    9. Import tariff exemptions for the ``encouragement of investment 
by Taiwan Compatriots.''
    10. Exemption from real estate tax and dyke maintenance fee for 
FIEs in Guangdong Province.
    11. Import tariff refunds and exemptions for FIEs in Guangdong 
Province.
    12. Preferential loans and interest rate subsidies in Guangdong 
Province.
    13. Direct grants in Guangdong Province.
    14. Funds for ``outward expansion'' of industries in Guangdong 
Province.
    15. Land-related subsidies to companies located in specific regions 
of Guangdong Province.
    16. Government provision of electricity at less than adequate 
remuneration to companies located in development zones in Guangdong 
Province.
    17. Import tariff and VAT refunds and exemptions for FIEs in 
Zhejiang.
    18. Grants to promote exports from Zhejiang Province.
    19. Land-related subsidies to companies located in specific regions 
of Zhejiang.
    20. Provision of Nickel for Less than Adequate Remuneration by the 
GOC.
    21. Government Provision of Water for Less than Adequate 
Remuneration to Companies Located in Development Zones in Guangdong 
Province.
    22. Exemption from District and Township Level Highway Construction 
Fees for Enterprises Located in Industrial Cluster Zones.
    23. Exemptions from or Reductions in Educational Supplementary Fees 
and Embankment Defense Fees for Enterprises Located in Industrial 
Cluster Zones.
    24. Preferential Electricity Rates Charged to Enterprises Located 
in Industrial Cluster Zones.
    25. Special Subsidy from the Technology Development Fund to 
Encourage Technology Innovation.
    26. Special Subsidy from the Technology Development Fund to 
Encourage Technology Development.
    27. Subsidies to Encourage Enterprises in Industrial Cluster Zones 
to Hire Post-Doctoral Workers.
    28. Land Purchase Grant Subsidy to Enterprises Located in 
Industrial Cluster Zones and Encouraged Enterprises.
    29. Discounted Electricity Rates for Foreign-Invested Enterprises.
    30. Exemption from Accommodating Facilities Fees for High-Tech and 
Large-Scale Foreign-Invested Enterprises.
    31. Income Tax Deduction for Technology Development Expenses of 
Foreign-Invested Enterprises.
    32. Preferential Land-Use Charges for Newly-Established, Industrial 
Projects in Zhongshan's Industrial Zones.
    33. Reduction of Land Price at the Township Level for Newly-
Established, Industrial Projects in Zhongshan's Industrial Zones.
    34. Reduction in Urban Infrastructure Fee for Industrial 
Enterprises in Industrial Zones.
    35. Income Tax Rebate for ``Superior Industrial Enterprises'' in 
Zhongshan.
    36. Accelerated Depreciation for New Technological Transformation 
Projects ``Superior Industrial Enterprises'' in Zhongshan.
    37. Exemption from the Tax on Investments in Fixed Assets for 
``Superior Industrial Enterprises'' in Zhongshan.
    38. Preferentially-Priced Electricity for `Superior Industrial 
Enterprises.'

V. Programs for Which More Information Is Required

A. Government Provision of Electricity for Less Than Adequate 
Remuneration

    The petitioners made several allegations regarding governmental 
provision of electricity. In the petition, they alleged that companies 
located within development zones in Guangdong province received 
electricity for less than adequate remuneration. See July 31, 2008 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petition, which is on file in the 
Department's CRU. In their new subsidy allegations, petitioners 
contended that companies located within industrial cluster zones in 
Shunde District paid preferential rates and that FIEs in Shunde 
District received electricity discounts. See October 3, 2008 New 
Subsidy Allegations, which are on file in the Department's CRU.
    The GOC and Wire King responded that the company does not receive 
any of the alleged benefits. Wire King is a ``large scale industrial 
user'' and pays the large scale industrial user rate in Foshan. See 
GQR, at 58. According to the GOC's response, there were 7892 large 
scale users in Foshan during the POI, and the only companies singled 
out to receive preferential rates were small- and medium-sized chemical 
fertilizer producers. Id. With respect to the alleged electricity 
subsidies for certain companies in Shunde, the GOC and Wire King 
responded that the company is not located in an industrial cluster zone 
and that discounts paid to FIEs were abolished in 2002. See GOC NSAQR, 
at 21; see also, WK NSAQR, at 4. Moreover, according to the GOC, the 
China Southern Power Grid, the government-owned distributor of 
electricity in this area, is not obliged to carry out local 
governments' instructions to provide preferential electricity rates and 
did not do so. See GOC NSAQR, at 21.
    Therefore, we preliminarily determine that Wire King did not 
benefit from alleged electricity subsidies by virtue of its location in 
particular development zones or because it is an FIE.
    However, as the Department stated in LWTP Decision Memorandum at 
page 24, ``in any future administrative review of this proceeding, as 
well as in other China CVD proceedings (where relevant and 
practicable), we intend to investigate and analyze further the 
electricity rate-setting authority in China and the considerations that 
go into setting those rates.'' In this investigation we asked for and 
received certain information from the GOC about electricity rates in 
the PRC. The GOC

[[Page 693]]

reported that, prior to 2002, electricity prices in Guangdong were 
determined locally and that they varied across the different municipal 
regions because the development level of the supplying power plants 
varied across the municipal regions. See GQR, at 56-57. Since 2002, 
when the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) became 
involved in setting retail electricity prices in Guangdong, these 
retail price differences have been maintained or narrowed. See GQR, at 
57. Additionally, the GOC stated that pursuant to the Provisional 
Administrative Measures on Prices for Sales of Electricity retail 
prices for electricity are composed of the cost of purchasing 
electricity, the price for transmitting electricity, transmission loss, 
and governmental surcharges. Id. The NDRC Circulars setting out price 
adjustments for all provinces generally reflect this price structure. 
See GQR, at Exhibits 38 to 44. In Guangdong Province, for example, the 
average retail price for electricity increased, as did the amounts paid 
to supplying power plants, the amount paid to cover the debt service 
for transmission and distribution projects, and various surcharges. See 
id. at Exhibit 44.
    For the final determination, we intend to seek further information 
regarding the GOC's electricity rate-setting policy. Specifically, we 
will be sending a questionnaire asking the GOC to identify all agencies 
(local, provincial and national) that are involved in setting rates and 
the process for determining the increase in rates. We plan to issue a 
post-preliminary analysis so that parties will have an opportunity to 
comment on our findings prior to our final determination.

Verification

    In accordance with section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we will verify the 
information submitted by the respondents prior to making our final 
determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we 
calculated an individual rate for each producer/exporter of the subject 
merchandise individually investigated. We preliminarily determine the 
total estimated net countervailable subsidy rates to be:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Net
                    Exporter/Manufacturer                       subsidy
                                                                  rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guangdong Wire King Co., Ltd. (formerly known as Foshan            13.22
 Shunde Wireking Housewares & Hardware)......................
Asber Enterprises Co., Ltd. (China)..........................     197.14
Changzhou Yixiong Metal Products Co., Ltd....................     162.87
Foshan Winleader Metal Products Co., Ltd.....................     162.87
Kingsun Enterprises Group Co, Ltd............................     162.87
Yuyao Hanjun Metal Work Co./Yuyao Hanjun Metal Products Co.,      162.87
 Ltd.........................................................
Zhongshan Iwatani Co., Ltd...................................     162.87
All-Others...................................................      13.22
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act, for 
companies not investigated, we determined an ``all others'' rate by 
weighting the individual company subsidy rate of each of the companies 
investigated by the company's exports of the subject merchandise to the 
United States. The ``all others'' rate does not include zero and de 
minimis rates or any rates based solely on the facts available. In this 
investigation, because we have only one rate that can be used to 
calculate the all-others rate, Wire King's rate, we have assigned that 
rate to all-others. In accordance with sections 703(d)(1)(B) and (2) of 
the Act, we are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') 
to suspend liquidation of all entries of KASR from the PRC that are 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the 
date of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, and to 
require a cash deposit or bond for such entries of merchandise in the 
amounts indicated above.

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, we will notify the 
ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the 
ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information relating to this 
investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and 
business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC 
confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or 
under an administrative protective order, without the written consent 
of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
    In accordance with section 705(b)(2) of the Act, if our final 
determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final determination 
within 45 days after the Department makes its final determination.

Disclosure and Public Comment

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), we will disclose to the 
parties the calculations for this preliminary determination within five 
days of its announcement. Due to the anticipated timing of verification 
and issuance of verification reports, case briefs for this 
investigation must be submitted no later than one week after the 
issuance of the last verification report. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(i) (for 
a further discussion of case briefs). Rebuttal briefs must be filed 
within five days after the deadline for submission of case briefs, 
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). A list of authorities relied upon, a 
table of contents, and an executive summary of issues should accompany 
any briefs submitted to the Department. Executive summaries should be 
limited to five pages total, including footnotes. See 19 CFR 
351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2).
    Section 774 of the Act provides that the Department will hold a 
public hearing to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment 
on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a 
hearing is requested by an interested party. If a request for a hearing 
is made in this investigation, the hearing will be held two days after 
the deadline for submission of the rebuttal briefs, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.310(d), at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Parties should confirm 
by telephone the time, date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before 
the scheduled time.
    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, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, 
within 30 days of the publication of this notice, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.310(c). Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and 
telephone; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues 
to be discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in 
the briefs. See id.
    This determination is published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 
777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: December 22, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
 [FR Doc. E8-31175 Filed 1-6-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P