[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 177 (Tuesday, September 14, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55759-55764]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-22898]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-888]


Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts 
Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the 
Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on floor-standing, metal-top 
ironing tables and certain parts thereof from the People's Republic of 
China (PRC). The period of review (POR) is August 1, 2007 through July 
31, 2008. We have preliminarily determined that respondent Since 
Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. (Since Hardware) has made sales to the 
United States of the subject merchandise at prices below normal value. 
We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. 
Parties filing comments are requested to submit with each argument (1) 
a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument(s).

DATES: Effective Date: September 14, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael J. Heaney or Robert James, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4475 or (202) 482-0649, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On August 6, 2004, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the antidumping duty order regarding floor-standing, metal-top ironing 
tables and certain parts thereof (ironing tables) from the PRC. See 
Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value 
and Antidumping Duty Order: Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables 
and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 
47868 (August 6, 2004) (Amended Final and Order).
    On August 1, 2008, the Department published a notice of opportunity 
to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on, 
inter alia, ironing tables from the People's Republic of China. See 
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended 
Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 73 FR 
44966 (August 1, 2008). On August 29, 2008, Home Products International 
(the Petitioner in this proceeding) requested, in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.213(b)(1), an administrative review of this order for Since 
Hardware. Since Hardware's request for an administrative review of its 
sales pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2) followed on September 2, 2008. 
(The deadline for filing a request for review, August 31, 2008, fell on 
a weekend; Since Hardware's request was timely filed on the first 
business day thereafter.) In its request for review, Since Hardware 
also requested that the Department defer initiation of the 
administrative review for one year, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(c).
    On October 29, 2008, the Department published its notice of 
deferral of the administrative review for one year with respect to 
Since Hardware, pursuant to

[[Page 55760]]

19 CFR 351.213(c). (This notice of deferral was inadvertently omitted 
from our September 30th notice of initiation). See Initiation of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Deferral 
of Administrative Review, 73 FR 64305 (October 29, 2008)
    In accordance with the deferral of administrative review, on 
September 22, 2009, the Department initiated an administrative review 
of Since Hardware for the period of review of August 1, 2007 through 
July 31, 2008. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 74 FR 48224 
(September 22, 2009). On February 16, 2010, the Department issued a 
memorandum that tolled the deadlines for all Import Administration 
cases by seven calendar days due to the recent Federal Government 
closure. See Memorandum for the Record from Ronald Lorentzen, DAS for 
Import Administration, regarding Tolling of Administrative Deadlines as 
a Result of the Government Closure During the Recent Snowstorm, dated 
February 12, 2010.
    On April 28, 2010, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), the 
Department extended the deadline for the preliminary results of review 
until September 7, 2010. See Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables 
and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: 
Extension of the Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the 
Administrative Review, 75 FR 22371 (April 28, 2010).
    The Department issued its original antidumping questionnaire to 
Since Hardware on September 29, 2009. Since Hardware timely filed its 
response to Section A of the questionnaire on October 29, 2009; Since 
Hardware's Sections C and D responses followed on November 19, 2009 and 
December 1, 2009 respectively. Petitioner filed comments on Since 
Hardware's sections A, C, and D responses on December 7, 2009.
    The Department subsequently issued supplemental questionnaires to 
Since Hardware on February 24, 2010, and May 5, 2010. Since Hardware 
timely responded to each of the Department's supplemental requests for 
information on March 25, 2010, April 9, 2010 and June 3, 2010. On April 
9, 2010, Petitioner filed additional comments on the original and 
supplemental sections A, C, and D responses submitted by Since 
Hardware. On August 26, 2010, Petitioner filed comments concerning the 
Department's verification of Since Hardware.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the Act, we verified the 
information submitted by Since Hardware upon which we have relied in 
these preliminary results of review. We conducted our verification from 
June 21, through June 25, 2010. The Department's verification report is 
on the record of this review in the Central Records Unit, Room 1117 of 
the main Department building. We used standard verification procedures, 
including examination of relevant accounting and production records, as 
well as source documentation provided by Since Hardware. See August 23, 
2010 Verification of the Sales and Factors Response of Since Hardware 
(Guangzhou) Co. Ltd. in the Antidumping Review of Floor Standing, 
Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's 
Republic of China (PRC) (Since Hardware 2007-2008 Verification Report).

Surrogate Country and Surrogate Value Data

    On July 13, 2010, the Department sent interested parties a letter 
inviting comments on surrogate country selection and surrogate value 
data. See the Department's Letter to All Interested Parties; 
Administrative Review of Floor-Standing, Metal-Top, Ironing Tables and 
Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China (PRC): Surrogate 
Country List, dated July 13, 2010 (Surrogate Country List). On August 
17, 2010, the Department received information to value factors of 
production (FOP) from Since Hardware and the Petitioner. With the 
exception of the surrogate value data to value labor rates, all of the 
surrogate values placed on the record were obtained from sources in 
India.

Scope of the Order

    For purposes of this order, the product covered consists of floor-
standing, metal-top ironing tables, assembled or unassembled, complete 
or incomplete, and certain parts thereof. The subject tables are 
designed and used principally for the hand ironing or pressing of 
garments or other articles of fabric. The subject tables have full-
height leg assemblies that support the ironing surface at an 
appropriate (often adjustable) height above the floor. The subject 
tables are produced in a variety of leg finishes, such as painted, 
plated, or matte, and they are available with various features, 
including iron rests, linen racks, and others. The subject ironing 
tables may be sold with or without a pad and/or cover. All types and 
configurations of floor-standing, metal-top ironing tables are covered 
by this review.
    Furthermore, this order specifically covers imports of ironing 
tables, assembled or unassembled, complete or incomplete, and certain 
parts thereof. For purposes of this order, the term ``unassembled'' 
ironing table means a product requiring the attachment of the leg 
assembly to the top or the attachment of an included feature such as an 
iron rest or linen rack. The term ``complete'' ironing table means 
product sold as a ready-to-use ensemble consisting of the metal-top 
table and a pad and cover, with or without additional features, e.g., 
iron rest or linen rack. The term ``incomplete'' ironing table means 
product shipped or sold as a ``bare board''--i.e., a metal-top table 
only, without the pad and cover--with or without additional features, 
e.g., iron rest or linen rack. The major parts or components of ironing 
tables that are intended to be covered by this order under the term 
``certain parts thereof'' consist of the metal top component (with or 
without assembled supports and slides) and/or the leg components, 
whether or not attached together as a leg assembly. The order covers 
separately shipped metal top components and leg components, without 
regard to whether the respective quantities would yield an exact 
quantity of assembled ironing tables.
    Ironing tables without legs (such as models that mount on walls or 
over doors) are not floor-standing and are specifically excluded. 
Additionally, tabletop or countertop models with short legs that do not 
exceed 12 inches in length (and which may or may not collapse or 
retract) are specifically excluded.
    The subject ironing tables are currently classifiable under 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 
9403.20.0011. The subject metal top and leg components are classified 
under HTSUS subheading 9403.90.8040. Although the HTSUS subheadings are 
provided for convenience and for Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 
purposes, the Department's written description of the scope remains 
dispositive.

Non-Market-Economy Status

    In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the 
PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (NME). 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

[[Page 55761]]

authority. See, e.g., Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: 
Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 2004/2005 Administrative 
Review and Notice of Rescission of 2004/2005 New Shipper Review, 71 FR 
66304 (November 14, 2006). None of the parties to this administrative 
review has contested such treatment. Accordingly, we calculated normal 
value (NV) in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies 
to NME countries.

Surrogate Country

    When the Department investigates imports from an NME country and 
available information does not permit the Department to determine NV 
pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act, then, pursuant to section 
773(c)(4) of the Act, the Department bases NV on an NME producer's 
FOP's 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 India, the Philippines, 
Indonesia, Thailand, Ukraine and Peru are countries comparable to the 
PRC in economic development for purposes of this administrative review. 
(See Memorandum to Richard Weible from Carole Showers Request for a 
List of Surrogate Countries for an Administrative Review of the 
Antidumping Order on Floor Standing Metal-Top Ironing Tables and 
Certain Parts (``Ironing Tables'') from the People's Republic of China 
dated July 8, 2010 (Surrogate Country List).)
    Based on publicly available information placed on the record by 
interested parties (e.g., production data), 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 the 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.

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department has a 
rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are 
subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single 
antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all 
exporters of subject merchandise 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 Policy Bulletin 05.1: 
Separate Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in 
Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market Economy Countries, 
available at http://ia.ita.gov.policy/bull05-1.pdf. Exporters can 
demonstrate this independence through the absence of both de jure and 
de facto governmental control over export activities. The Department 
analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test 
arising from the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 at Comment 1 
(May 6, 1991) (Sparklers). This test was further developed in Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide 
from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994). 
(Silicon Carbide). However, if the Department determines that a company 
is wholly foreign-owned or located in a market economy, then a separate 
rate analysis is unnecessary to determine whether it is independent 
from government control.
    Accordingly, we have considered whether Since Hardware is 
independent from government control, and therefore eligible for a 
separate rate. The Department's separate-rate test to determine whether 
the exporters are independent from government control does not 
consider, in general, 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, e.g., 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); see also 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).
    Since Hardware provided complete separate-rate information in its 
responses to our original and supplemental questionnaires. Accordingly, 
we performed a separate-rates analysis to determine whether Since 
Hardware is independent from government control.

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 20588 at Comment 1. The evidence provided by Since 
Hardware supports a finding of de jure absence of control based on the 
following: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with 
its business and export licenses, (2) applicable legislative enactments 
decentralizing control of companies; and (3) formal measures (e.g., the 
Foreign Trade Law) decentralizing control of companies, See, e.g., 
Since Hardware October 29, 2009 questionnaire response at pages A-3-A-
5.

Absence of De Facto Control

    Typically, the Department considers four factors in evaluating 
whether a respondent is subject to de facto government control of its 
export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by, or subject 
to, the approval of a government authority; (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 its 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 22857; 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 (May 8, 1995) The 
Department has determined that an analysis of de facto control is 
critical in determining whether respondents are, in fact, subject to a 
degree of governmental control, which would preclude the Department 
from assigning separate rates.
    The evidence provided by Since Hardware supports a preliminary 
finding of de facto absence of government control based on the 
following: (1) The absence of evidence that the export prices are set 
by or are subject to the approval of a government agency, (2) Since 
Hardware has

[[Page 55762]]

authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements, (3) 
Since Hardware has autonomy from government in making decisions 
regarding the selection of management, and (4) Since Hardware retains 
the proceeds of its export sales and make independent decisions 
regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses. See Since 
Hardware October 29, 2010 Section A questionnaire response at A-5 
through A-8.
    In accordance with the criteria identified in Sparklers and Silicon 
Carbide, the evidence placed on the record of this review by Since 
Hardware demonstrates an absence of de jure and de facto government 
control with respect to Since Hardware's exports of the subject 
merchandise. Accordingly, we have determined that Since Hardware has 
demonstrated eligibility for a separate rate.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether Since Hardware's sales of the subject 
merchandise to the United States were made at prices below normal value 
(NV), we compared its United States prices to NV, as described in the 
``U.S. Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. See 
section 773(a) of the Act.

U.S. Price

    We based U.S. price for Since Hardware on export price (EP) in 
accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the first sale to an 
unaffiliated purchaser was made prior to importation, and constructed 
export price (CEP) was not otherwise warranted by the facts on the 
record. We calculated EP based on the packed price from the exporter to 
the first unaffiliated customer in the United States. We deducted 
foreign inland freight, and foreign brokerage and handling expenses 
from the starting price (gross unit price), in accordance with section 
772(c) of the Act. Where appropriate, we made an addition to U.S. price 
for billing adjustments.
    Since Hardware incurred foreign inland freight and foreign 
brokerage and handling expenses from PRC service providers. We 
therefore valued these services using Indian surrogate values (see 
``Factors of Production'' section below for further discussion).

Normal Value

Factors of Production (FOP)

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine NV using an FOP methodology if the merchandise is exported 
from an NME country and the Department finds that the available 
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. When determining NV in an NME context, the Department will 
base NV on FOPs because the presence of government control on various 
aspects of these economies renders price comparisons and the 
calculation of production costs invalid under our normal methodologies. 
The Department's questionnaires required Since Hardware to provide 
information regarding the weighted-average FOP.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), the Department will 
normally use publically available information to find an appropriate SV 
to value FOPs, but when a producer sources an input from a market 
economy and pays for it in market-economy currency, the Department may 
value the factor using the actual price paid for the input. See 19 CFR 
351.408(c)(1); see also Shakeproof Assembly Components, Div. of Ill. 
Tool Works, Inc. v. United States, 268 F. 3rd 1376, 1382-1383 (Fed. 
Cir. 2001) (affirming the Department's use of market-based prices to 
value FOPs). During the POR, Since Hardware purchased a certain packing 
material from a market economy supplier. Because Since Hardware 
purchased more than 33 percent of its total volume of this material 
from a market economy supplier, we used the market economy price of 
that material to value this input. See Since Hardware December 1, 2009 
Section D response at Appendix D-6.
    We calculated NV based on FOPs in accordance with section 773(c)(3) 
and (4) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c). The FOPs include but are not 
limited to: (1) Hours of labor required; (2) quantities of raw material 
employed; (3) amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; and (4) 
representative capital costs. The Department used FOPs reported by 
Since Hardware for materials, energy, labor, by-products, and packing. 
To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported unit factor quantities by 
publicly available values in the surrogate country, India.
    In addition, Since Hardware reported by-product sales. Consistent 
with the Department's determination in the investigation of Diamond 
Sawblades from the PRC, we will deduct the surrogate value of the by-
product from NV because the surrogate financial statements on the 
record of this administrative review contain no references to the 
treatment of by-products, and because Since Hardware provided evidence 
that it sold its by-products. See 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) (Diamond Sawblades from 
the PRC), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 9, 
unchanged in Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's 
Republic of China, 71 FR 35864 (June 22, 2006). This is consistent with 
accounting principles based on a reasonable assumption that if a 
company sells a by-product, the by-product necessarily incurs expenses 
for overhead, SG&A, and profit. Id.
    In selecting the surrogate Indian values, we considered the 
quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data, in accordance 
with our practice. See, e.g., Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide from the 
People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 
2. The Department adjusted input prices by including freight costs to 
make them delivered prices, as appropriate. Specifically, the 
Department added to Indian import SVs 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 of 
production. This adjustment is in accordance with the decision of the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) in 
Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3rd 1401, 1407-08 (Fed. Cir. 
1997). A detailed description of all SVs used to value Since Hardware's 
FOPs may be found in the September 7, 2010 Memorandum to the File 
through Robert James, Program Manager, Office 7 from Michael J. Heaney 
International Trade Analyst: Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of 
Floor-Standing, Metal Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from 
the People's Republic of China, dated September 7, 2010 (Factors 
Valuation Memorandum.)
    The Department calculated SVs for the majority of reported FOPs 
purchased from NME sources using the contemporaneous, weighted average 
unit import value derived from the Ministry of Commerce of India 
(Indian Import Statistics) for the POR. The Department used Indian 
import data from the Global Trade Atlas (GTA) published by Global Trade 
Information Services, Inc. (GTIS) which is sourced

[[Page 55763]]

from the Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence & Statistics, 
Indian Ministry of Commerce, to determine the surrogate values for most 
raw materials, by-products and packing material inputs. The Department 
has disregarded statistics from NMEs, countries with generally 
available export subsidies, and undetermined countries, in calculating 
average value. In accordance with the Omnibus Trade and Competiveness 
Act of 1988, Conf. Report to Accompany HR. 3, HR Rep. No., 100th Cong., 
2nd Session (1988), the Department continues to apply its long-standing 
practice of disregarding surrogate values if it has a reason to believe 
or suspect the source data may be subsidized. In this regard, the 
Department has previously found that it is appropriate to disregard 
such prices from India, Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand because we 
have determined that these countries maintain broadly available, non-
industry specific export subsidies. See, e.g. Expedited Sunset Review 
of the Countervailing Duty Order on Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from 
India, 75 FR 13257 (March 19, 2010), and accompanying Issues and 
Decisions Memorandum at pages 4-5; Expedited Sunset Review of the 
Countervailing Duty Order on Certain Cut-To Length Carbon Quality Steel 
Plate from Indonesia, 70 FR 45692 (August 8, 2005), and accompanying 
Issues and Decisions Memorandum at page 4; Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon 
Steel Flat Products from Thailand: Final Results of Countervailing Duty 
Determination, 66 FR 50410 (October 3, 2001), and accompanying Issues 
and Decision Memorandum at page 23. For a detailed description of all 
surrogate values used for Since Hardware, see the Factors Valuation 
Memorandum.
    In past cases, it has been the Department's practice to value 
various FOPs using import statistics of the primary selected surrogate 
country from the World Trade Atlas (WTA), as published by GTIS. See, 
e.g., Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 74 FR 
50946, 50950 (October 2, 2009). However, in October 2009, the 
Department learned that Indian import data obtained from the WTA, as 
published by GTIS, began identifying the original reporting currency 
for India as the U.S. dollar. The Department then contacted GTIS about 
the change in the original reporting currency for India from the Indian 
rupee to the U.S. dollar. Officials at GTIS explained that while GTIS 
obtains data on imports into India directly from the Ministry of 
Commerce, Government of India, as denominated and published in Indian 
rupees, the WTA software is limited with regard to the number of 
significant digits it can manage. Therefore, GTIS made a decision to 
change the official reporting currency for Indian data from the Indian 
rupee to the U.S. dollar in order to reduce the loss of significant 
digits when obtaining data through the WTA software. GTIS explained 
that it converts the Indian Rupee to the U.S. dollar using the monthly 
Federal Reserve exchange rate applicable to the relevant month of the 
data being downloaded and converted. See, Certain Oil Country Tubular 
Goods from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Final determination of Critical 
Circumstances, and Final Determination of Targeted Dumping, 75 FR 20335 
(April 19, 2010), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 4.
    However, the data reported in the GTA software report import 
statistics, such as data from India, in the original reporting currency 
and thus these data correspond to the original currency value reported 
by each country. Additionally, the data reported in GTA software are 
reported to the nearest digit and thus there is not a loss of data by 
rounding, as there is with the data reported by the WTA software. 
Consequently, the Department will now obtain import statistics from GTA 
for valuing FOPs because the GTA import statistics are in the original 
reporting currency of the country from which the data are obtained and 
have the same level of accuracy as the original data released.
    The Department valued electricity using the updated electricity 
price data for small, medium, and large industries, as published by the 
Central Electricity Authority, an administrative body 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, publically available 
information on tax-exclusive electricity rates charged to small, 
medium, and large industries in India. We did not inflate this value 
because utility rates represent current rates, as indicated by the 
effective dates listed for each of the rates provided. See Factors 
Valuation Memorandum at page 6.
    The Department valued water using data from the Maharashtra 
Industrial Development Corporation (MDIC) as it includes a wide range 
of industrial water tariffs. To value water, we used the average rate 
for industrial use from MDIC water rates at http://www.midcindia.org. 
See Factors Valuation Memorandum at page 6.
    We valued diesel fuel using the rates provided by the OECD's 
International Energy Agency's publication: Key World Energy Statistics 
from 2004 and 2005. The prices are based on 2004 and 2005 first quarter 
prices of automotive diesel fuel retail prices. See Factor Valuation 
Memorandum at page 6.
    For direct, indirect, and packing labor, pursuant to a recent 
decision by the Federal Circuit, we have calculated an hourly wage rate 
to use in valuing Since Hardware's reported labor input by averaging 
earnings and/or wages in countries that are economically comparable to 
the PRC and that are significant producers of comparable merchandise. 
See Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 2009-1257 at 20 (Fed. Cir. 2010). 
Because this wage rate does not separate labor rates into different 
skill levels or types of labor, the Department has applied the same 
wage rate to all skill levels and types of labor reported by Since 
Hardware. See Factors Valuation Memorandum at page 5.
    Since Hardware claimed that it utilized hot rolled steel as a 
production input of the subject merchandise. However, Since Hardware's 
supporting documentation provided to department officials at 
verification did not demonstrate Since Hardware purchased hot-rolled 
steel in sizes of less than 1.1 millimeters. See Since Hardware 2007-
2008 Verification Report at pages 25-27. We, therefore, assigned the 
surrogate value of cold-rolled steel to value this production input.
    The Department valued truck freight expenses using a per-unit 
average rate calculated from data on the Infobanc Web site: http://www.infobanccom/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 POR, the 
Department deflated the rate using the Wholesale Price Index of India. 
See Factors Valuation Memorandum at page 7.
    The Department valued brokerage and handling using a price list of 
export procedures necessary to export a standardized cargo of goods in 
India. The price list is compiled based on a survey case study of the 
procedural requirements for trading a standard shipment of goods by 
ocean transport in India that is published in Doing Business 2010: 
India, by the World Bank.
    To value factory overhead, selling, general and administrative 
(SG&A) expenses, and profit the Department

[[Page 55764]]

used the audited financial statement of 2005-2006 Infiniti Modules Pvt. 
Ltd. (Infiniti Modules).
    We are preliminarily granting an offset to Since Hardware for its 
scrap steel sales. See Factors Valuation Memorandum at page 3.

Currency Conversion

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

Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following antidumping duty 
margins exist:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Exporter                         Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since Hardware......................................               52.06
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and 
CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The 
Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to 
CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this 
review. For assessment purposes, where possible, we calculated 
importer-specific ad valorem assessment rates for ironing tables from 
the PRC based on the ratio of the total amount of the dumping duties 
calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those 
same sales. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries covered by this review if any assessment rate 
calculated in the final results of this review is above de minimis. The 
final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of 
antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final 
results of these reviews and for future deposits of estimated duties, 
where applicable.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters 
listed above, the cash deposit rate will be established in the final 
results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, 
i.e., less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit will be required for that 
company); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC 
exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit 
rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the 
most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise 
which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash 
deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 157.68 percent (see Amended 
Final and Order); and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject 
merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit 
rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied 
that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall 
remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next 
administrative review.

Public Comment

    The Department will disclose calculations performed in connection 
with the preliminary results of this review within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.224(b). Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days 
of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any 
hearing will be held 37 days after the publication of this notice, or 
the first workday thereafter unless the Department alters the date 
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d). Individuals who wish to request a 
hearing must submit a written request within 30 days of the publication 
of this notice in the Federal Register to the Assistant Secretary for 
Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Requests for 
a public hearing should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and 
telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) to the extent 
practicable, an identification of the arguments to be raised at the 
hearing.
    Unless otherwise notified by the Department, interested parties may 
submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this 
notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). As part of the case 
brief, parties are encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments and 
a table of authorities in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2). 
Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case 
briefs, must be filed within five days after the case brief is filed in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(d). If a hearing is held, an interested 
party may make an affirmative presentation only on arguments included 
in that party's case brief and may make a rebuttal presentation only on 
arguments included in that party's rebuttal brief in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.310(c). Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and 
place of the hearing within 48 hours before the scheduled time. The 
Department will issue the final results of this review, which will 
include the results of its analysis of issues raised in the briefs, not 
later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice in 
accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.213(h)(1).

Notification to Importers

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

    Dated: September 7, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-22898 Filed 9-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P