[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 245 (Wednesday, December 23, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68232-68241]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-30536]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-945]


Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand From the People's Republic 
of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value

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

DATES: Effective Date: December 23, 2009.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') preliminarily 
determines that prestressed concrete steel wire strand (``PC strand'') 
from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'') is being, or is 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 
(``Act''), for the period of investigation (``POI'') October 1, 2008, 
through March 31, 2009. The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are 
shown in the ``Preliminary Determination'' section of this notice. 
Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary 
determination.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Ray or Alexis Polovina, 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-
5403 or (202) 482-3927, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

[[Page 68233]]

Initiation

    On May 27, 2009, the Department received an antidumping duty 
(``AD'') petition concerning imports of PC strand from the PRC filed in 
proper form by American Spring Wire Corp., Insteel Wire Products 
Company, and Sumiden Wire Products Corp., (collectively, 
``Petitioners''). See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duties: Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from the 
People's Republic of China, dated May 27, 2009 (``Petition''). The 
Department initiated this investigation on June 23, 2009. See 
Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand From the People's Republic of 
China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 74 FR 29665 (June 
23, 2009) (``Initiation Notice'').
    On July 17, 2009, 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 by reason of imports from the PRC of PC strand. The 
ITC's determination was published in the Federal Register on July 17, 
2009. See Investigation Nos. 701-TA-464 and 731-TA-1160 (Preliminary) 
Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire From China, 74 FR 34782 (July 17, 
2009); see also Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire From China: 
Investigation Nos. 701-TA-464 and 731-TA-1160 (Preliminary), USITC 
Publication 4086 (July 2009).

Scope Comments

    In accordance with the preamble to our regulations, we set aside a 
period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage 
and encouraged all parties to submit comments within 20 calendar days 
of publication of the Initiation Notice. See Antidumping Duties; 
Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). 
See also Initiation Notice, 74 FR at 29665. We did not receive any 
scope comments.

Period of Investigation

    The POI is October 1, 2008, through March 31, 2009. This period 
corresponds to the two most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month 
of the filing of the petition (May 2009). See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).

Respondent Selection

    In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that it intended to 
select respondents based on quantity and value (``Q&V'') 
questionnaires. See Initiation Notice, 74 FR at 29668. On June 23, 
2009, the Department requested Q&V information from the 22 companies 
that Petitioners identified as potential exporters or producers of PC 
strand from the PRC. See Petition at Vol. 1., Exhibit General-4. 
Additionally, the Department also posted the Q&V questionnaire for this 
investigation on its Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html.
    The Department received timely Q&V responses from eight exporters/
producers that shipped merchandise under investigation to the United 
States during the POI.
    On July 28, 2009, the Department selected Tianjin Shengte and 
Silvery Dragon PC Steel Products Group Co., Ltd. (``Silvery Dragon 
Steel'') as mandatory respondents in this investigation. See July 28, 
2009, Memorandum to the File, from Alexis Polovina, Analyst, through 
Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, to James C. Doyle, Director, 
regarding the Antidumping Investigation of Prestressed Concrete Steel 
Wire Strand from the People's Republic of China: Respondent Selection 
(``Respondent Selection Memo''). The Department sent its antidumping 
duty questionnaire to Tianjin Shengte and Silvery Dragon Steel on July 
31, 2009. On August 7, 2009, Silvery Dragon Steel filed a letter 
stating that it would not participate as a mandatory respondent in this 
investigation. See August 7, 2009, Letter to the Department from 
Silvery Dragon Steel. On August 10, 2009, the Department received a 
letter from Wuxi Jinyang Metal Products Co. (``WJMP'') requesting to 
participate as a voluntary respondent in the investigation. On August 
14, 2009, the Department selected Xinhua Metal Products Co., Ltd. 
(``Xinhua Metal'') as an additional mandatory respondent, as Xinhua 
Metal was the next largest exporter in terms of volume. See August 14, 
2009, Memorandum to the File, from Alan Ray, Analyst, through Alex 
Villanueva, Program Manager, regarding Replacement Respondent Selection 
(``Replacement Respondent Selection Memo''). On August 24, 2009, 
Tianjin Shengte did not comply with the Department's procedures in 
attempting to file a Section A questionnaire response. On August 27, 
2009, the Department sent a letter to Tianjin Shengte that granted it a 
one week extension to properly resubmit their Section A questionnaire 
response. Tianjin Shengte failed to do so. On September 11, 2009, due 
to the time constraints of the investigation, the Department decided to 
select WJMP as the voluntary respondent, rather than select another 
mandatory respondent. See September 11, 2009, Memorandum to the File, 
from Alan Ray, Analyst, through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, 
regarding Replacement of Mandatory Respondent (``Replacement of 
Mandatory Respondent Selection Memo''). See the ``Application of 
Adverse Facts Available'' section below for a discussion on the 
application of adverse facts available for Tianjin Shengte and Silvery 
Dragon Steel.

Separate Rates Applications

    On August 24, 2009, we received timely filed separate-rate 
applications (``SRA'') from two companies: Liaonin TongDa Building 
Material Industry Co., Ltd. (``Tongda'') and Fasten Group Import & 
Export (``Fasten Group I&E''). On September 10, 2009, the Department 
issued Tongda a supplemental questionnaire requesting additional 
information. Tongda did not respond to the supplemental questionnaire, 
and as such, Tongda is not eligible for a separate rate. See the 
``Separate Rates'' section below for further discussion on the 
eligibility for a separate rate. On September 30 and October 20, 2009, 
the Department issused Fasten Group I&E two supplemental questionnaires 
requesting additional information. Fasten Group I&E submitted timely 
responses to these questionnaires.

Product Characteristics and Questionnaires

    In the Initiation Notice, the Department asked all parties in this 
investigation for comments on the appropriate product characteristics 
for defining individual products. On July 29, 2009, and August 6, 2009, 
we received comments from Petitioners regarding product 
characteristics. On July 31, 2009 the Department issued its antidumping 
duty questionnaire to Tianjin Shengte and Silvery Dragon Steel, and on 
August 14, 2009, the Department issued its antidumping duty 
questionnaire to Xinhua Metal. WJMP and Xinhua Metal submitted 
responses to the Department's questionnaire. As stated above, Tianjin 
Shengte failed to properly submit questionnaire responses and Silvery 
Dragon Steel did not submit questionnaire responses.

Surrogate Country Comments

    On August 19, 2009, the Department determined that India, the 
Philippines, Indonesia, Colombia, Thailand, and Peru, are countries 
comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development. See August 19, 
2009, Letter to All Interested Parties, regarding Antidumping Duty 
Investigation of prestressed concrete steel wire strand from the 
People's Republic of China: Surrogate Country List, attaching August 
17, 2009, Memorandum to Alex

[[Page 68234]]

Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, AD/CVD Operations, from Kelly 
Parkhill, Acting Director, Office for Policy, regarding Request for 
List of Surrogate Countries for an Antidumping Duty Investigation of 
prestressed concrete steel wire strand from the People's Republic of 
China (``Surrogate Country List'').
    On August 19, 2009, the Department requested comments on surrogate 
country selection from the interested parties in this investigation. On 
September 2, 2009, Petitioners submitted surrogate country comments. 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 September 14, 2009 and September 29, 2009, the Department 
extended the deadline for interested parties to submit surrogate 
information with which to value the factors of production in this 
proceeding. On October 13, 2009, Petitioners, WJMP, and Xinhua Metal 
submitted surrogate value comments. On October 23, 2009, Petitioners 
and WJMP submitted rebuttal comments on the surrogate values. All the 
surrogate values placed on the record were obtained from sources in 
India, with the exception of Petitioner's suggestions for international 
freight and marine insurance, which were based on U.S. sources.

Postponement of Preliminary Determination

    Pursuant to section 733(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1), the 
Department extended the preliminary determination by 30 days. The 
Department published a postponement of the preliminary determination on 
October 26, 2009. See Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand From the 
People's Republic of China: Postponement of Preliminary Determination 
of the Antidumping Duty Investigation, 74 FR 54963 (October 26, 2009). 
On November 23, 2009, the Department published a second postponement of 
the preliminary determination, extending the prelimininary 
determination by an additional 14 days. See Prestressed Concrete Steel 
Wire Strand From the People's Republic of China: Postponement of 
Preliminary Determination of the Antidumping Duty Investigation, 74 FR 
61104 (November 23, 2009). On December 9, 2009, we received pre-
preliminary determination comments from Petitioners.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Petitioner's December 9, 2009, Letter to the Department.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of Investigation

    The scope of this investigation consists of PC strand, produced 
from wire of non-stainless, non-galvanized steel, which is suitable for 
use in prestressed concrete (both pretensioned and post-tensioned) 
applications. The product definition encompasses covered and uncovered 
strand and all types, grades, and diameters of PC strand. PC strand is 
normally sold in the United States in sizes ranging from 0.25 inches to 
0.70 inches in diameter. PC strand made from galvanized wire is only 
excluded from the scope if the zinc and/or zinc oxide coating meets or 
exceeds the 0.40 oz./ft\2\ standard set forth in ASTM-A-475. The PC 
strand subject to this investigation is currently classifiable under 
subheadings 7312.10.3010 and 7312.10.3012 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''). Although the HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the 
written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

Non-Market Economy Country

    For purposes of initiation, Petitioners submitted LTFV analyses for 
the PRC as a non-market economy (``NME''). See Initiation Notice, 74 FR 
29665 (June 23, 2009). The Department considers the PRC to be a NME 
country. 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) (``CFS Paper''). 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 and calculated normal value in accordance with Section 
773(c) of the Act, which applies to all NME countries.

Surrogate Country

    When the Department investigates imports from an NME country and 
available information does not permit the Department to determine 
normal value (``NV'') pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act, then, 
pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act, the Department bases NV on an 
NME producer's factors of production (``FOPs''), to the extent 
possible, in one or more market-economy countries that (1) are at a 
level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country, 
and (2) are significant producers of comparable merchandise. The 
Department determined that India, the Philippines, Indonesia, Colombia, 
Thailand, and Peru, are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of 
economic development. See Surrogate Country List. The sources of the 
surrogate values we have used in this investigation are discussed under 
the ``Normal Value'' section below.
    Based on publicly available information placed on the record, the 
Department determines India to be a reliable source for surrogate 
values because India is at a comparable level of economic development 
pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act, is a significant producer of 
subject merchandise, and has publicly available and reliable data. 
Accordingly, the Department has selected India as the surrogate country 
for purposes of valuing the FOPs because it meets the Department's 
criteria for surrogate country selection.

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.''

[[Page 68235]]

WJMP

    Based on WJMP's statement \2\ that they are affiliated with Corus 
Americas, Inc., (``CAI'') and based on the evidence presented in WJMP's 
questionnaire responses, we preliminarily find that WJMP is affiliated 
with CAI, which was involved in WJMP's sales process pursuant to 
sections 771(33)(E), (F) and (G) of the Act, based on ownership and 
common control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See WJMP's August 21, 2009, Separate Rate Application at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving NME countries, there is a rebuttable 
presumption that all companies within the country are subject to 
government control and thus should be assessed a single antidumping 
duty rate. See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from 
the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value, 73 FR 55039, 55040 (September 24, 2008) (``PET Film 
LTFV Final''). 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. See Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers From the People's Republic of 
China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (``Sparklers''); see also 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''), and section 351.107(d) of the Department's 
regulations.
    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, 74 
FR at 29665. The process requires exporters and producers to submit a 
separate-rate status application. The Department's practice is 
discussed further in 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/policy/bull05-1.pdf.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 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 subject merchandise 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have considered whether each PRC company that submitted a 
complete application or complete Section A Response as a mandatory 
respondent, is eligible for a separate rate. The Department's separate 
rate test is not concerned, in general, with macroeconomic/border-type 
controls, e.g., export licenses, quotas, and minimum export prices, 
particularly if these controls are imposed to prevent dumping. See 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 
Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China, 63 FR 72255, 
72256 (December 31, 1998). The test focuses, rather, on controls over 
the investment, pricing, and output decision-making process at the 
individual firm level. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less than Fair: Value Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from 
Ukraine, 62 FR 61754, 61758 (November 19, 1997), and Tapered Roller 
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997).
    To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from 
government control of its export activities to be entitled to a 
separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the 
merchandise under investigation under a test arising from the 
Sparklers, as further developed in Silicon Carbide. In accordance with 
the separate rate criteria, the Department assigns separate rates in 
NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both de 
jure and de facto governmental control over export activities.
1. Absence of De Jure Control
    The Department considers the following de jure criteria in 
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate 
rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an 
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative 
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal 
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See 
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
    The evidence provided by WJMP supports a preliminary finding of de 
jure absence of governmental control based on the following: (1) An 
absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the individual 
exporter's business and export licenses; (2) the applicable legislative 
enactments decentralizing control of the companies; and (3) any other 
formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. 
See WJMP's August 21, 2009, Separate Rate Application at 4-8.
    Petitioners questioned Xinhua Metal's eligibility for a separate 
rate. Petitioners argued that a business proprietary note in Xinhua 
Metal's financial statement indicated government control.\4\ 
Additionally, Petitioners allege Xinhua Metal's parent company is state 
owned, based on a statement on the parent company's Web site.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4 5\ See Petitioners' September 22, 2009, Letter to the 
Department; and Petitioners' December 9, 2009, Letter to the 
Department.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have determined, however, that the evidence provided by Xinhua 
Metal supports a preliminary finding of de jure absence of governmental 
control based on the following: (1) An absence of restrictive 
stipulations associated with the individual exporter's business and 
export licenses; (2) the applicable legislative enactments 
decentralizing control of the companies; and (3) any other formal 
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See 
Xinhua Metal's August 24, 2009, Separate Rate Application (``SRA'') at 
6-10; October 23, 2009, 1st Supplemental A&C Questionnaire at 2-12; and 
November 23, 2009, 2nd Supplemental A Questionnaire at 1-8. This 
determination is consistent with recent prior Department analyses of de 
jure control. See Notice of Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review: 
Cut-to Length Carbon Steel Plate From the People's Republic of China, 
73 FR 67124 (November 13, 2008).
    Petitioners also questioned Fasten Group I&E's eligibility for a 
separate rate. Petitioners argued that, Fasten Group I&E is controlled 
by the parent company, Fasten Group Corporation, and in turn, the 
parent company is owned by the government, based on the business 
license and an annual report.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Petitioners' September 18, 2009, Letter to the 
Department.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Again, we have determined that the evidence provided by Fasten 
Group I&E supports a preliminary finding of de jure absence of 
government control based on the following: (1) An absence of 
restrictive stipulations associated

[[Page 68236]]

with the individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) the 
applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of the 
companies; and (3) any other formal measures by the government 
decentralizing control of companies. See Fasten Group I&E's August 24, 
2009, SRA at 7-10, and November 3, 2009, SRA Second Supplemental 
Response at 1-6.
2. Absence of De Facto Control
    Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating 
whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of 
its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or are 
subject to the approval of a governmental agency; (2) whether the 
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other 
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government 
in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) 
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and 
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or 
financing of losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-87; see also 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 
22545 (May 8, 1995). The Department has determined that an analysis of 
de facto control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in 
fact, subject to a degree of governmental control which would preclude 
the Department from assigning separate rates.
    We determine that, for WJMP, Xinhua Metal, and Fasten Group I&E, 
the evidence on the record supports a preliminary finding of de facto 
absence of governmental control based on record statements and 
supporting documentation showing the following: (1) Each exporter sets 
its own export prices independent of the government and without the 
approval of a government authority; (2) each exporter retains the 
proceeds from its sales and makes independent decisions regarding 
disposition of profits or financing of losses; (3) each exporter has 
the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; and 
(4) each exporter has autonomy from the government regarding the 
selection of management. See WJMP's August 21, 2009, SRA at 9-14; 
Xinhua Metal's October 23, 2009, 1st Supplemental A&C Questionnaire at 
2-12, and November 23, 2009, 2nd Supplemental A Questionnaire at 1-8; 
and Fasten Group I&E's November 3, 2009, SRA Second Supplemental at 1-
6, and August 24, 2009, SRA at 10-17.
    The evidence placed on the record of this investigation by WJMP, 
Xinhua Metal, and Fasten Group I&E, demonstrates an absence of de jure 
and de facto government control with respect to each of the exporter's 
exports of the merchandise under investigation, in accordance with the 
criteria identified in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. As a result, we 
have granted the separate company, Fasten Group I&E, a margin based on 
the experience of the mandatory respondent and excluding any de minimis 
or zero rates or rates based on total adverse facts available (``AFA'') 
for the purposes of this preliminary determination.

Application of Adverse Facts Available, the PRC-Wide Entity and PRC-
Wide Rate

    The Department has data that indicate there were more exporters of 
PC strand from the PRC than those indicated in the response to our 
request for Q&V information during the POI. See Respondent Selection 
Memorandum. We issued our request for Q&V information to 22 potential 
Chinese exporters of the merchandise under investigation, in addition 
to posting the Q&V questionnaire on the Department's Web site. While 
information on the record of this investigation indicates that there 
are other exporters/producers of PC strand in the PRC, we received only 
eight timely filed Q&V responses. Although all exporters were given an 
opportunity to provide Q&V information, not all exporters provided a 
response to the Department's Q&V letter. Additionally, as discussed 
above, Silvery Dragon Steel filed a letter stating that it would not 
participate as a mandatory respondent, and Tianjin Shengte filed a 
deficient Section A questionnaire and failed to respond to the 
Department's request for more information. Therefore, the Department 
has preliminarily determined that there were exporters/producers of the 
merchandise under investigation during the POI from the PRC that did 
not respond to the Department's request for information. We have 
treated these PRC exporters/producers, as part of the PRC-wide entity 
because they did not qualify for a separate rate. See, e.g., 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 
Postponement of Final Determination, and Preliminary Partial 
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts 
Thereof From the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 77121, 77128 
(December 29, 2005), and unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value and Final Partial Affirmative Determination of 
Critical Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the 
People's Republic of China, 71 FR 29303 (May 22, 2006).
    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party 
(A) withholds information that has been requested by the Department, 
(B) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form 
or manner requested, subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the 
Act, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping 
statute, or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be 
verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the 
Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable 
determination.
    Information on the record of this investigation indicates that the 
PRC-wide entity was non-responsive. Certain companies did not respond 
to our questionnaire requesting Q&V information or the Department's 
request for more information. As a result, pursuant to section 
776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we find that the use of facts available 
(``FA'') is appropriate to determine the PRC-wide rate. See Notice of 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative 
Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of 
Final Determination: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 4986 (January 31, 2003), unchanged in Notice 
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative 
Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 37116 (June 23, 2003).
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among 
the facts otherwise available, the Department may employ an adverse 
inference if an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to 
the best of its ability to comply with requests for information. See 
Statement of Administrative Action, accompanying the Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act (``URAA''), H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, 870 (1994) (``SAA''); 
see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products 
from the Russian Federation, 65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000). We 
find that, because the PRC-wide entity did not respond to our requests 
for information, it has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. 
Therefore, the Department preliminarily finds that, in selecting from 
among the facts available, an adverse inference is appropriate.

[[Page 68237]]

    When employing an adverse inference, section 776 indicates that the 
Department may rely upon information derived from the petition, the 
final determination from the LTFV investigation, a previous 
administrative review, or any other information placed on the record. 
In selecting a rate for AFA, the Department selects a rate that is 
sufficiently adverse to ensure that the uncooperative party does not 
obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had 
fully cooperated. It is the Department's practice to select, as AFA, 
the higher of the (a) highest margin alleged in the petition, or (b) 
the highest calculated rate of any respondent in the investigation. See 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-
Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from the People's Republic of 
China, 65 FR 34660 (May 21, 2000) and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 1. As AFA, we have preliminarily assigned to the 
PRC-wide entity a rate of 193.55 percent, a rate calculated in the 
petition which is higher than the highest rate calculated for either of 
the cooperative respondents. The Department preliminarily determines 
that this information is the most appropriate from the available 
sources to effectuate the purposes of AFA.

Corroboration

    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 as facts available, it must, to the extent 
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources 
reasonably at its disposal. The SAA provides guidance as to what 
constitutes secondary information. One of the suggested sources of 
secondary information is ``information derived from the petition that 
gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination 
concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under 
section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.'' See SAA at 870. The 
SAA further suggests that to ``corroborate'' means that the Department 
will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has 
probative value. Id. Independent sources used to corroborate may 
include, for example, published price lists, official import 
statistics, and CBP data, and information obtained from interested 
parties during the particular investigation. Id. To corroborate 
secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, 
examine the reliability and relevance of the information used.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or 
Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and 
Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 
(November 6, 1996), unchanged in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller 
Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components 
Thereof, From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825 (March 
13, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The AFA rate selected by the Department is a rate calculated in the 
petition. Based on our examination of information on the record, 
including examination of the petition export prices and normal values, 
we find that, for purposes of this investigation, there is not a 
sufficient basis to consider that certain petition margins have 
probative value. However, there is a sufficient basis to find that the 
petition margin selected does have probative value. In this case, we 
have selected a margin that is not so much greater than the highest 
transaction-specific margin calculated for the mandatory respondent 
that it can be considered not to have probative value. The Department's 
practice, when selecting an AFA rate from among the possible sources of 
information, has been to ensure that the margin 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 Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative 
Critical Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from 
Brazil, 67 FR 55792, 55796 (Aug. 30, 2002); see also Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Static Random Access 
Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (Feb. 23, 1998). As 
guided by the SAA, the information used as AFA should ensure an 
uncooperative party does not benefit by failing to cooperate than if it 
had cooperated fully. See SAA at 870. We conclude that using Xinhua 
Metal's highest transaction specific margin as a limited reference 
point, the highest petition margin that can be corroborated within the 
meaning of the statute is 193.55 percent, which is sufficiently adverse 
so as to induce cooperation that the uncooperative companies do not 
benefit from their failure to cooperate. Accordingly, we preliminarily 
find that the rate of 193.55 percent is corroborated within the meaning 
of section 776(c) of the Act. This method of selecting an AFA dumping 
margin is consistent with the recent final determination involving 
kitchen appliance shelving and racks from the PRC. See July 20, 2009, 
Memorandum to the File, from Julia Hancock, Senior Analyst, regarding 
Corroboration of the PRC-Wide Entity Rate and the Wireking Total AFA 
Rate for the Final Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation 
of Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks From the People's 
Republic of China. Accordingly, we determine that 193.55 percent is the 
most appropriate antidumping rate for the PRC-wide entity. The PRC-wide 
rate applies to all entries of the merchandise under investigation 
except for entries from WJMP, Xinhua Metal, and Fasten Group I&E.

Margin for the Separate Rate Companies

    The Department received a timely and complete separate rate 
application from the separate rate company, Fasten Group I&E, who is an 
exporter of PC strand from the PRC, and was not selected as a mandatory 
respondent in this investigation. Through the evidence in their 
application and supplemental questionnaire responses, this company has 
demonstrated its eligibility for a separate rate. See the ``Separate 
Rates'' section above. Consistent with the Department's practice, as 
the separate rate, we have established a margin for the separate rate 
company based on the rate we calculated for the mandatory respondent, 
Xinhua Metal, excluding any rates that are zero, de minimis, or based 
entirely on AFA.\8\ The Department did not include WJMP in the 
calculation of the separate rate because as discussed above in the 
``Respondent Selection'' section, WJMP is a voluntary respondent. 
Fasten Group I&E is the company receiving this rate and is listed in 
the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 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 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, 
72 FR 19690 (April 19, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Sale

    Section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations state that, 
``{i{time} n identifying the date of sale of the merchandise under 
consideration or foreign like product, the Secretary normally will use 
the date of invoice, as recorded in the exporter or producer's records 
kept in

[[Page 68238]]

the normal course of business.'' In Allied Tube, the Court of 
International Trade (``CIT'') noted that a ``party seeking to establish 
a date of sale other than invoice date bears the burden of producing 
sufficient evidence to `satisf{y{time} ' the Department that `a 
different date better reflects the date on which the exporter or 
producer establishes the material terms of sale.' '' Allied Tube & 
Conduit Corp. v. United States 132 F. Supp. 2d at 1087, 1090 (CIT 2001) 
(quoting 19 CFR 351.401(i)) (``Allied Tube''). Additionally, 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, 132 F. Supp. 2d at 
1090-1092. 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 Carbon and 
Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 62824 (November 7, 2007) 
and accompanying Issue and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1; Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-
Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from Turkey, 65 FR 
15123 (March 21, 2000) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 
at Comment 1.
    WJMP reported that the date of sale was determined by the invoice 
issued by the affiliated importer to the unaffiliated United States 
customer. In this case, as the Department found no evidence contrary to 
WJMP's claims that invoice date was the appropriate date of sale, the 
Department used invoice date as the date of sale for this preliminary 
determination.
    Xinhua Metal reported that the date of sale was determined by the 
invoice issued to the unaffiliated United States customer. In this 
case, as the Department found no evidence contrary to Xinhua Metal's 
claims that invoice date was the appropriate date of sale, the 
Department used invoice date as the date of sale for this preliminary 
determination.

Fair Value Comparison

    To determine whether sales of PC strand to the United States by 
WJMP and Xinhua Metal were made at LTFV, we compared constructed export 
price (``CEP'') and export price (``EP'') to NV, as described in the 
``U.S. Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice.

U.S. Price

    In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we based the U.S. 
price for WJMP's sales on CEP because these sales were made by WJMP's 
U.S. affiliate, CAI, which purchased the merchandise under 
investigation produced by WJMP. 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: foreign movement expenses, 
and U.S. movement expenses, including U.S. duties, brokerage and 
handling, AMS charges, and inventory carrying costs. 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 and other 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 or actual expenses. For details 
regarding our CEP calculations, and for a complete discussion of the 
calculation of the U.S. price for WJMP, see December 17, 2009, 
Memorandum to the File, from Alan Ray, Case Analyst, through Alex 
Villanueva, Program Manager, regarding Analysis of the Preliminary 
Determination of the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Prestressed 
Concrete Steel Wire Strand from the PRC: WJMP (``WJMP Analysis Memo'').
    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, the Department 
calculated the EP for Xinhua Metal's sales to the United States because 
the first sale to an unaffiliated party was made before the date of 
importation and the use of CEP was not otherwise warranted. The 
Department calculated EP based on the price to unaffiliated purchasers 
in the United States. In accordance with section 772(c) of the Act, as 
appropriate, the Department deducted from the starting price to 
unaffiliated purchasers foreign inland freight, foreign inland 
insurance, and brokerage and handling. Each of these services was 
provided by an NME vendor. Thus, the Department based the deduction of 
these movement charges on surrogate values. For a complete discussion 
of the calculation of the U.S. price for Xinhua Metal, see December 17, 
2009, Memorandum to the File, from Alexis Polovina, Case Analyst, 
through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, regarding Analysis of the 
Preliminary Determination of the Antidumping Duty Investigation of 
Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from the PRC: Xinhua Metal 
(``Xinhua Metal Analysis Memo'').

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine NV using a FOP methodology if the merchandise is exported 
from an NME and the information does not permit the calculation of NV 
using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value 
under section 773(a) of the Act. The Department bases NV on 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 Notice 
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and 
Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part: Certain Lined Paper 
Products From the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 53079 (September 8, 
2006).
    As the basis for NV, both WJMP and Xinhua Metal provided FOPs used 
in each stage for processing PC strand.
    Consistent with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, it is the 
Department's practice to value the FOPs that a respondent uses to 
produce the merchandise under consideration. See Notice of 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).

Factor Valuation Methodology

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on FOP data reported by WJMP and Xinhua Metal. To calculate NV, 
we multiplied the reported per-unit factor-consumption rates by 
publicly available surrogate values. In selecting the surrogate values, 
we considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the 
data. See, e.g., Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 67 FR 72139 
(December 4, 2002) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 6; and Final Results of First New Shipper Review and First

[[Page 68239]]

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms 
From the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 31204 (June 11, 2001) and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5. As 
appropriate, we adjusted input prices by 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). For a detailed description of all 
surrogate values used for WJMP and Xinhua Metal see December 17, 2009, 
Memorandum to the File, from Alexis Polovina, Case Analyst, through 
Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Investigation of Prestressed Concrete 
Steel Wire Strand from the PRC: Surrogate Values for the Preliminary 
Determination (``Preliminary Surrogate Value Memorandum'').
    For this preliminary determination, in accordance with the 
Department's practice, we used data from the Indian Import Statistics 
and other publicly available Indian sources in order to calculate 
surrogate values for WJMP and Xinhua Metal's raw materials, packing, 
by-products, and coal. 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 
those from the other Indian sources, are contemporaneous with the POI, 
product-specific, and tax-exclusive. See Preliminary 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 71 FR at 77380 and CLPP 71 FR 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. We have found in other proceedings that these 
countries maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export 
subsidies and, 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 CFS Paper. 
Rather, the Department bases its decision on information that is 
available to it at the time it makes its determination. See 
Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the People's 
Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, 73 FR 24552, 24559 (May 5, 2008), unchanged in PET Film LTFV 
Final. Therefore, we have not used prices from these countries in 
calculating the Indian import-based surrogate values. Additionally, we 
disregarded prices from NME countries. Finally, imports that were 
labeled as originating from an ``unspecified'' country were excluded 
from the average value, because the Department could not be certain 
that they were not from either an NME country or a country with general 
export subsidies. See id.
    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 October 2009. See Expected Non-
Market Economy Wages: Request for Comments on 2009 Calculation, 74 FR 
51555 (October 7, 2009), and 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 2005, ILO (Geneva: 2007), 
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 respondents.
    We valued steam using the April 2007--March 2008 financial 
statement of Hindalco Industries Limited. Since the rates are not 
contemporaneous with the POI, we inflated the values using the WPI. See 
Preliminary Surrogate Value Memorandum.
    We valued diesel using the June 2007 diesel prices across four 
Indian cities from the Indian Oil Corporation. Since the rates are not 
contemporaneous with the POI, we inflated the values using the WPI. See 
Preliminary Surrogate Value Memorandum.
    We valued electricity using price data for small, medium, and large 
industries, as published by the Central Electricity Authority of the 
Government of India in its publication titled ``Electricity Tariff & 
Duty and Average Rates of Electricity Supply in India,'' dated March 
2008. These electricity rates represent actual country-wide, publicly 
available information on tax-exclusive electricity rates charged to 
industries in India. As the rates listed in this source became 
effective on a variety of different dates, we are not adjusting the 
average value for inflation.
    Because water is essential to the production process of the 
merchandise under consideration, the Department considers water to be a 
direct material input, not 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 
23, 2003) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 
11. The Department valued water using data from the Maharashtra 
Industrial Development Corporation (http://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, of which 193 were for the ``inside industrial areas'' usage 
category and the other 193 were for the ``outside industrial areas'' 
usage category.

[[Page 68240]]

Because the value was not contemporaneous with the POI, we used WPI 
data to deflate the rate to be contemporaneous to the POI.
    We are including dies, drawbench, and lime among the factors of 
production for this preliminary determination, as they appear to be 
actual factors used in the production of PC strand and not overhead.\9\ 
We will continue to consider whether they should be included among the 
factors of production for the final determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See WJMP's October 28, 2009 Supplemental C&D Questionnaire 
Response; and Xinhua Metal's December 2, 2009, 2nd Supplemental A&C 
Questionnaire Response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We valued truck freight expenses using a per-unit average rate 
calculated from data on the infobanc Web site: http://www.infobanc.com/logistics/logtruck.htm. The logistics section of this Web site contains 
inland freight truck rates between many large Indian cities. Since this 
value is not contemporaneous with the POI, we inflated the rate using 
WPI.
    We valued rail freight expenses using the 2006-2007 freight rail 
rate published by Indian Railways. Since this value is not 
contemporaneous with the POI, we inflated the rate using WPI.
    We valued inland shipping expenses using price data for barge 
freight reported in a March 19, 2007, article published in The Hindu 
Business Line. Since this value is not contemporaneous with the POI, we 
inflated the rate using WPI.
    We valued inland insurance using the public insurance expenses in 
the submission from Agro Dutch in the sixth administrative review of 
certain preserved mushrooms from India.\10\ Since this value is not 
contemporaneous with the POI, we inflated the rate using WPI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Certain Preserved Mushrooms from India: Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 10646 (March 2, 
2006) (``Mushrooms from India'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We continued our recent practice to value brokerage and handling 
using a simple average of the brokerage and handling costs that were 
reported in public submissions that were filed in three antidumping 
duty cases. Specifically, we averaged the public brokerage and handling 
expenses reported by Navneet Publications (India) Ltd. in the 2007-2008 
administrative review of certain lined paper products from India, Essar 
Steel Limited in the 2006-2007 antidumping duty administrative review 
of hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from India, and Himalya 
International Ltd. in the 2005-2006 administrative review of certain 
preserved mushrooms from India.\11\ Since the resulting value is not 
contemporaneous with the POI, we inflated the rate using the WPI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Certain Lined Paper Products from India: Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 17149 (April 14, 
2009); Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Review, 73 FR 31961 (June 5, 
2008); and Certain Preserved Mushrooms from India: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 5268 (February 5, 
2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative 
(``SG&A'') expenses, and profit, the Department used the audited 
financial statements of Rajratan Global Wire Ltd.
    Both WJMP and Xinhua Metal have claimed by-product offsets to 
normal value for by-products produced during the production of PC 
strand and then sold. We are preliminarily granting a by-product offset 
to WJMP for steel wire rod scrap, semi-finished scrap, and PC strand 
scrap. We are also preliminarily granting a by-product offset to Xinhua 
Metal for scrap PC strand, scrap wire, scrap wire rod, and scrap short 
wire.

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, 74 FR 
at 29668. This practice is described in Policy Bulletin 05.1, available 
at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/.

Preliminary Determination

    Preliminary weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Weighted-
            Exporter                     Producer         average margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WJMP...........................  WJMP...................           37.72
Xinhua Metal...................  Xinhua Metal...........          151.44
Fasten Group I&E...............  Jiangyin Fasten Steel            151.44
                                  Products Co., Ltd.,
                                  Jiangyin Walsin Steel
                                  Cable Co., Ltd.,
                                  Jiangyin Hongyu Metal
                                  Products Co., Ltd.
PRC-wide Entity *..............  .......................          193.55
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This rate also applies to Tianjin Shengte, Silvery Dragon Steel, and
  Tongda.

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 subject PC strand from the PRC 
as described in the ``Scope of Investigation'' section, entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption from WJMP, Xinhua Metal, 
Fasten Group I&E, and the PRC-wide entity on or after the date of 
publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
    On November 2, 2009, the Department published the preliminary 
affirmative countervailing duty determination with respect to PC Strand 
from the PRC. See Pre-Stressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from the 
People's Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary Affirmative 
Countervailing Duty Determination, 74 FR 56576 (November 2, 2009) (``PC 
Strand CVD Preliminary Determination''). In PC Strand CVD Preliminary 
Determination, the Department found that Xinhua Metal's merchandise 
benefited from export subsidies. Therefore, we will instruct CBP to 
require a cash deposit or posting of a bond equal to the weighted-
average amount by which normal value exceeds U.S. price for Xinhua 
Metal, as indicated above, minus the amount determined to constitute an 
export subsidy. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than

[[Page 68241]]

Fair Value: Carbazole Pigment 23 from India, 69 FR 67306, 67307 
(November 17, 2007).
    With respect to WJMP, the voluntary respondent in this proceeding, 
the Department did not individually examine its exports of merchandise 
under investigation in the PC Strand CVD Preliminary Determination. As 
a result, WJMP is captured under the ``All Others'' rate, which is an 
average of the companies examined in PC Strand CVD Preliminary 
Determination. Therefore, we will instruct CBP to require a cash 
deposit or posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average amount by 
which normal value exceeds U.S. price for WJMP, indicated above, minus 
the amount determined to constitute an export subsidy in the ``All 
Others'' rate.
    With respect to Fasten Group I&E, the separate rate company, we 
note that the rate applied in this proceeding as a separate rate is 
derived from the calculated rate received by Xinhua Metal. Therefore, 
because Xinhua Metal received export subsidies in PC Strand CVD 
Preliminary Determination, we will instruct CBP to require a cash 
deposit or posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average amount by 
which normal value exceeds U.S. price for Xinhua Metal, as indicated 
above, minus the amount determined to constitute an export subsidy.

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 PC strand, or sales (or the likelihood of sales) 
for importation, of the merchandise under investigation 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 
business days after the date on which the final verification report is 
issued in this proceeding and rebuttal briefs limited to issues raised 
in case briefs and must be received no later than five business days 
after the deadline date for case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(i) and 
(d). 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, and if requested, we 
will hold a public hearing, 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 shortly 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.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.


    Dated: December 17, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-30536 Filed 12-22-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P