[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 10 (Friday, January 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2648-2655]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-791]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-891]


Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic 
of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
and Intent To Rescind in Part

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

DATES: Effective Date: January 14, 2011.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is currently 
conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
hand trucks and parts thereof (hand trucks) from the People's Republic 
of China (PRC) covering the period of review (POR) of December 1, 2008, 
through November 30, 2009. We preliminarily determine that sales made 
by New-Tec Integration (Xiamen) Co., Ltd. (New-Tec), were not made 
below normal value (NV). We also preliminarily determine that two 
companies for which a review was requested had no shipments during the 
POR, and therefore we intend to rescind the review with respect to 
them. Furthermore, we determine that three companies for which a review 
was requested have not been responsive, and thus have not demonstrated 
entitlement to a separate rate. As a result, we have preliminarily 
determined that they are part of the PRC-wide entity, and continue to 
be subject to the PRC-wide entity rate. We invite interested parties to 
comment on these preliminary results.
    Parties who submit comments are requested to submit with each 
argument a statement of the issue and a summary of the argument.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Baker, Scott Hoefke, 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) 482-2924, (202) 482-4947 or (202) 482-0649, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On December 2, 2004, the Department published in the Federal 
Register the antidumping duty order on hand trucks from the PRC. See 
Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof 
From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 70122 (December 2, 2004). On 
December 1,

[[Page 2649]]

2009, the Department published in the Federal Register its notice of 
opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty 
order on hand trucks from the PRC. See Antidumping or Countervailing 
Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request 
Administrative Review, 74 FR 62743 (December 1, 2009). On December 30, 
2009, Gleason Industrial Products, Inc., and Precision Products, Inc., 
requested that the Department conduct reviews of New-Tec, Century 
Distribution Systems, Inc. (Century Distribution), Sunshine 
International Corporation (Sunshine International), Zhejiang Yinmao 
Import and Export Co. (Zhejiang Yinmao), Qingdao Huazhan Hardware and 
Machinery Co., Ltd. (Qingdao Huazhan), and Yangjiang Shunhe Industrial 
Co. (Yangjiang Shunhe). On January 29, 2010, the Department published 
in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of the antidumping duty 
administrative review of hand trucks from the PRC for the period 
December 1, 2008, through November 30, 2009, with respect to the six 
companies named above. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 75 FR 
4770 (January 29, 2010) (Initiation Notice).
    We issued the standard antidumping duty questionnaire to each of 
the six companies on February 4, 2010, and received timely responses 
from New-Tec in March 2010. We issued supplemental questionnaires to 
New-Tec covering sections A, C, and D of the original questionnaire in 
May 2010, July 2010, and November 2010 and received timely responses to 
those questionnaires.
    On February 25, 2010, and February 26, 2010, we received 
certifications of no-shipments during the POR from Century Distribution 
and Yangjiang Shunhe.

Period of Review

    The POR covers December 1, 2008, through November 30, 2009.

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to this antidumping duty order consists of 
hand trucks manufactured from any material, whether assembled or 
unassembled, complete or incomplete, suitable for any use, and certain 
parts thereof, namely the vertical frame, the handling area and the 
projecting edges or toe plate, and any combination thereof. A complete 
or fully assembled hand truck is a hand-propelled barrow consisting of 
a vertically disposed frame having a handle or more than one handle at 
or near the upper section of the vertical frame; at least two wheels at 
or near the lower section of the vertical frame; and a horizontal 
projecting edge or edges, or toe plate, perpendicular or angled to the 
vertical frame, at or near the lower section of the vertical frame. The 
projecting edge or edges, or toe plate, slides under a load for 
purposes of lifting and/or moving the load.
    That the vertical frame can be converted from a vertical setting to 
a horizontal setting, then operated in that horizontal setting as a 
platform, is not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck from the scope 
of this petition. That the vertical frame, handling area, wheels, 
projecting edges or other parts of the hand truck can be collapsed or 
folded is not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck from the scope of 
the petition. That other wheels may be connected to the vertical frame, 
handling area, projecting edges, or other parts of the hand truck, in 
addition to the two or more wheels located at or near the lower section 
of the vertical frame, is not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck 
from the scope of the petition. Finally, that the hand truck may 
exhibit physical characteristics in addition to the vertical frame, the 
handling area, the projecting edges or toe plate, and the two wheels at 
or near the lower section of the vertical frame, is not a basis for 
exclusion of the hand truck from the scope of the petition.
    Examples of names commonly used to reference hand trucks are hand 
truck, convertible hand truck, appliance hand truck, cylinder hand 
truck, bag truck, dolly, or hand trolley. They are typically imported 
under heading 8716.80.50.10 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (HTSUS), although they may also be imported under heading 
8716.80.50.90. Specific parts of a hand truck, namely the vertical 
frame, the handling area and the projecting edges or toe plate, or any 
combination thereof, are typically imported under heading 8716.90.50.60 
of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description 
of the scope is dispositive.
    Excluded from the scope are small two-wheel or four-wheel utility 
carts specifically designed for carrying loads like personal bags or 
luggage in which the frame is made from telescoping tubular materials 
measuring less than \5/8\ inch in diameter; hand trucks that use 
motorized operations either to move the hand truck from one location to 
the next or to assist in the lifting of items placed on the hand truck; 
vertical carriers designed specifically to transport golf bags; and 
wheels and tires used in the manufacture of hand trucks.

Intent To Rescind Review in Part

    As indicated above, in February 2010, we received certifications of 
no shipments from Century Distribution and Yangjiang Shunhe. We made 
inquiries with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) as to whether 
any shipments were entered with respect to these two companies during 
the POR. See message numbers 0158302 and 0158303, both dated June 7, 
2010. We received no responses to those inquiries indicating that any 
shipments from either Century Distribution or Yangjiang Shunhe entered 
during the POR. We also examined CBP information to further confirm no 
shipments by these companies during the POR. Based on the above, we 
preliminarily find that both of these companies had no shipments of 
subject merchandise during the POR, and we intend to rescind the review 
with respect to them pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3).
    Interested parties may submit comments on the Department's intent 
to rescind with respect to these two companies no later than 30 days 
after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. 
The Department will issue the final rescission (if appropriate), which 
will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any 
comments received, in the final results of review.

Non-Market Economy Country Status

    In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, we 
have treated the PRC as a non-market economy (NME) country. See, e.g., 
Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 76336 (December 16, 
2008); and Frontseating Service Valves from the People's Republic of 
China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final 
Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 74 FR 10886 (March 
12, 2009). In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act 
of 1930, as amended (the Act), any determination that a foreign country 
is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the 
administering 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 proceeding have contested such treatment or provided record 
evidence

[[Page 2650]]

to reconsider our continued treatment of the PRC as an NME. 
Accordingly, we calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the 
Act, which applies to NME countries.

Separate Rates Determination

    A designation of a country as an NME remains in effect until it is 
revoked by the Department. See section 771(18)(C) of the Act. 
Accordingly, there is a rebuttable presumption that all companies 
within the PRC are subject to government control, and thus should be 
assessed a single antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's policy 
to assign all exporters of the merchandise subject to review in NME 
countries a single rate unless an exporter can affirmatively 
demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law (de jure) and 
in fact (de facto), with respect to exports. To establish whether a 
company is sufficiently independent to be entitled to a separate, 
company-specific rate, the Department analyzes each exporting entity in 
an NME country under the test established in the Final Determination of 
Sales at Less than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of 
China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), (Sparklers) as amplified by the 
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).

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 the 
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative 
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any other 
formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. 
See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. In this review New-Tec submitted 
complete responses to the separate rates section of the Department's 
questionnaire. The evidence submitted by New-Tec includes government 
laws and regulations on corporate ownership and control (i.e., the 
Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic of China and the Law of the 
People's Republic of China on Foreign Joint Ventures), its individual 
business license, and narrative information regarding its operations 
and selection of management. The evidence provided by New-Tec supports 
a preliminary finding of a de jure absence of government control over 
its export activities based on the record: (1) There are no controls on 
exports of subject merchandise, such as quotas applied to, or licenses 
required for, exports of the subject merchandise to the United States; 
(2) the government of the PRC has passed legislation decentralizing 
control of companies; and (3) there are other formal measures by the 
government decentralizing control of companies. See New-Tec's March 30, 
2010, submission at 1 and its June 8, 2010, submission at 2-5.

Absence of De Facto Control

    The absence of de facto government control over exports is based on 
whether the company: (1) Sets its own export prices independent of the 
government and without the approval of a government authority; (2) 
retains the proceeds from its export sales and makes independent 
decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses; 
(3) has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other 
agreements; (4) has autonomy from the government regarding the 
selection of management. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22587; 
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589; and 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).
    In its March 1, 2010, submission, New-Tec submitted evidence 
demonstrating an absence of de facto government control over its export 
activities. Specifically, this evidence indicates that: (1) The company 
sets its own export prices independent of the government and without 
the approval of a government authority; (2) the company retains the 
proceeds from its sales and makes independent decisions regarding the 
disposition of profits or financing of losses; (3) the company has a 
general manager with the authority to negotiate and bind the company in 
an agreement; (4) the general manager is selected by the board of 
directors; (5) the general manager appoints the other management 
personnel; and (6) there are no restrictions on the company's use of 
export revenues. Therefore, we preliminarily find that New-Tec has 
established that it qualifies for a separate rate under the criteria 
established by Silicon Carbide and Sparklers.

Surrogate Country

    When the Department is investigating imports from an NME country, 
section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV, in most 
circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of production (FOPs), 
valued in a surrogate market economy country or countries considered to 
be appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) 
of the Act, in valuing the FOPs, the Department shall utilize, to the 
extent possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in one or more market 
economy countries that are: (1) At a level of economic development 
comparable to that of the NME country; and (2) significant producers of 
comparable merchandise.
    The Department determined that India, the Philippines, Indonesia, 
Thailand, Ukraine, and Peru are countries comparable to the PRC in 
terms of economic development.\1\ Moreover, it is the Department's 
practice to select an appropriate surrogate country based on the 
availability and reliability of data from the countries. See Department 
Policy Bulletin No. 04.1: Non-Market Economy Surrogate Country 
Selection Process (March 1, 2004) (Surrogate Country Policy Bulletin). 
In the most recently completed proceeding involving the Order, we 
determined that India is comparable to the PRC in terms of economic 
development and has surrogate value data that are available and 
reliable. See Hand Trucks and Parts Thereof From the People's Republic 
of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 
FR 29314 (May 25, 2010). In the current proceeding, we received no 
comments regarding surrogate country selection. Because India meets all 
of the criteria discussed below, we continue to find that India is the 
appropriate surrogate country. Specifically, we have selected India 
because it is at a level of economic development similar to the PRC, it 
is a significant producer of comparable merchandise, and we have 
reliable, publicly available data from India representing broad-market 
averages. See 773(c)(4) of the Act; see also Memorandum to the File, 
from Fred Baker, Analyst, Subject: Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review of Hand Trucks and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of 
China: Selection of a Surrogate Country, dated January 7, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Memorandum from Carole Showers, Director, Office of 
Policy, to Richard Weible, Director, Office 7; Subject: Request for 
a List of Surrogate Countries for an Administrative Review of the 
Antidumping Duty Order on Hand Trucks and Parts Thereof from the 
People's Republic of China, dated June 28, 2010. The Department 
notes that these six countries are part of a non-exhaustive list of 
countries that are at a level of economic development comparable to 
the PRC. See the Department's letter to ``All Interested Parties; 
First Administrative Review of Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the 
People's Republic of China: Deadlines for Surrogate Country and 
Surrogate Value Comments,'' dated March 25, 2010 at 1 and Attachment 
I (``Surrogate Country List'').

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

[[Page 2651]]

U.S. Price

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(i), we used invoice date as the date of 
sale. Because record evidence indicated the terms of New-Tec's U.S. 
sales changed following the contract date, we determine that no date 
other than invoice date better reflects when the material terms of sale 
are set. See 19 CFR 351.401(i); see also New-Tec's June 8, 2010, 
submission at 3.
    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we based New-Tec's 
U.S. prices on export prices (EP), because its first sales to an 
unaffiliated purchaser were made before the date of importation and the 
use of constructed export price was not otherwise warranted by the 
facts on the record. As appropriate, we deducted foreign inland freight 
and foreign brokerage and handling from the starting price (or gross 
unit price), in accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act. These 
services were provided by NME vendors for New-Tec's U.S. sales. 
Therefore, we based the deduction of these movement charges on 
surrogate values. See Memorandum to the File, ``Administrative Review 
of Hand Trucks and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: 
Surrogate Values for the Preliminary Results'' (New-Tec Surrogate 
Values Memorandum) at Exhibit 7.
    We valued foreign inland freight (which consisted of truck freight) 
using a per-unit, POR-wide, average rate calculated from Indian data on 
the following 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. See New-Tec Surrogate Values 
Memorandum at Exhibit 6.
    We 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, published by the World Bank. See New-Tec Surrogate Values 
Memorandum at Exhibit 7.
    Our surrogate values for truck freight and for brokerage and 
handling were in Indian rupees. Therefore, in accordance with section 
773A(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415, we converted them to U.S. 
dollars (USD) using the official exchange rate for India recorded on 
the date of sale of subject merchandise in this case. See http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html.

Normal Value

1. Methodology

    Section 773(c)(1)(A) & (B) of the Act provides that the Department 
shall determine the NV using an FOP methodology if the merchandise 
under review 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 FOPs because the presence of government controls 
on various aspects of the NME economy renders price comparisons and the 
calculation of production costs invalid under the Department's normal 
methodologies.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See, e.g., Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 
Finished or Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part, 70 FR 39744 (July 11, 2005), 
unchanged in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 
2003-2004 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review, 71 
FR 2517 (January 17, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV by 
adding the value of the FOPs, general expenses, profit, and packing 
costs reported by New-Tec. The FOPs for subject merchandise include: 
(1) Quantities of raw materials employed; (2) hours of labor required; 
(3) amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; (4) representative 
capital and selling costs; and (5) packing materials. See section 
773(c)(3) of the Act. We valued the FOP that New-Tec reported by 
multiplying the amount of the factor consumed in producing subject 
merchandise by the average unit surrogate value of the factor derived 
from the Indian surrogate values selected.
    The Department used Indian import statistics to value the raw 
material and packing material inputs that New-Tec used to produce the 
merchandise under review except where listed below. In past cases, it 
has been the Department's practice to use import statistics reported by 
the World Trade Atlas (WTA),\3\ as published by Global Trade 
Information Services (GTIS). 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 USD. The Department then contacted GTIS about the change in the 
original reporting currency for India from the Indian rupee to the USD. 
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 USD 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 
USD using the monthly Federal Reserve exchange rate applicable to the 
relevant month of the data being downloaded and converted.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 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), unchanged in Certain 
Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results of Antidumping duty New Shipper Review, 74 FR 65520 
(December 20, 2009).
    \4\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notwithstanding the GTIS reporting methodology, the data reported 
in the Global Trade Atlas (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 the GTA software is 
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 various 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.
    As appropriate, we added freight costs to the surrogate values that 
we calculated for New-Tec's material inputs to make these prices 
delivered prices. We calculated these freight costs by multiplying 
surrogate freight rates by the shorter of the reported distance from 
the domestic supplier to the factory that produced the subject 
merchandise or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory 
that produced the subject merchandise, as appropriate. Where there were 
multiple domestic suppliers of a material input, we calculated a 
weighted-average distance after limiting each supplier's distance to no 
more than the distance from the nearest seaport to New-Tec. This 
adjustment is in accordance with the decision by the

[[Page 2652]]

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Sigma Corp. v. United 
States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407-1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We increased the 
calculated costs of the FOPs for surrogate general expenses and profit. 
See New-Tec Surrogate Values Memorandum at Exhibit 8.
    Energy inputs consisted of water, electricity, and liquid petroleum 
gas. 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 in India, dated March 2008. See 
Surrogate Values Memorandum at Exhibit 4. These electricity rates 
represent actual country-wide publicly available information on tax-
exclusive electricity rates charges to industries in India. To value 
water, the Department used the revised Maharastra Industrial 
Development Corporation water rates, which are available at http://www.midcindia.com/water-supply. The Department found this source to be 
the best available information because it includes a wide range of 
industrial water rates. Since the water rates were not contemporaneous 
with the POR, the Department adjusted the value for inflation. See 
Surrogate Values Memorandum at Exhibit 4. We valued liquid petroleum 
gas using import statistics from the GTA as described above. See 
Surrogate Values Memorandum at Exhibit 3.
    We offset New-Tec's material costs for revenue generated from the 
sale of recovered steel scrap and recovered aluminum scrap. See New-Tec 
Surrogate Values Memorandum at Exhibit 8.
    Indian surrogate values were denominated in rupees and were 
converted to USD using the applicable average exchange rate based on 
exchange rate data from the Department's Web site. For further details 
regarding the surrogate values used for these preliminary results, see 
New-Tec's Surrogate Value Memorandum.
    New-Tec reported that several of its raw materials were sourced 
from market-economy countries and paid for in market-economy 
currencies. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), when a respondent sources 
inputs from a market-economy supplier in meaningful quantities (i.e., 
not insignificant quantities), the Department normally will use the 
actual price paid by the respondent for those inputs.\5\ Because 
information reported by New-Tec demonstrates that it purchased 
significant quantities (i.e., 33 percent or more) of certain inputs 
from market-economy suppliers, the Department used New-Tec's actual 
market-economy purchase prices to value its FOPs for these inputs.\6\ 
Where appropriate, we added freight expenses to the market-economy 
prices for these inputs. Where New-Tec made market economy purchase of 
inputs that may have been dumped or subsidized, were not bona fide, or 
were otherwise not acceptable for use in a dumping calculation, the 
Department excluded them from the numerator of the ratio to ensure a 
fair determination of whether valid market-economy purchases meet the 
33 percent threshold.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 
27366 (May 19, 1997).
    \6\ See Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, 
Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for 
Comments, 71 FR 61716, 61717 (October 19, 2006) (Antidumping 
Methodologies).
    \7\ See Antidumping Methodologies, 71 FR at 61717-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To value the surrogate financial ratios for factory overhead (OH), 
selling, general & administrative (SG&A) expenses, and profit, the 
Department used the 2008-2009 financial statement of Godrej & Boyce 
Manufacturing Company, Ltd. (Godrej). Godrej is a producer of 
comparable merchandise. Its financial ratios for OH and SG&A are 
comparable to New-Tec's financial ratios by virtue of each company's 
production of comparable merchandise. See Surrogate Values Memorandum 
at Exhibit 8.

2. Selection of Surrogate Values

    In selecting the ``best available information for surrogate 
values'' (see section 773(c)(1) of the Act) consistent with the 
Department's practice, we considered whether the information was 
publicly available, product-specific, representative of broad market 
average prices, contemporaneous with the POR, and free of taxes.\8\ We 
also considered the quality of the source of surrogate information. See 
Manganese Metal From the People's Republic of China; Final Results and 
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 
12440 (March 13, 1998). Where we could obtain only surrogate values 
that were not contemporaneous with the POR, consistent with our 
practice, we inflated the surrogate values using, where appropriate, 
the Indian wholesale price index as published in International 
Financial Statistics by the International Monetary Fund. See New-Tec 
Surrogate Values Memorandum at Exhibit 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with the legislative history of the Omnibus Trade and 
Competitiveness Act of 1988, see Conf. Report to Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. 
Rep. No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1988) (OTCA 1988) at 590, the 
Department continues to disregard surrogate values if it has a reason 
to believe or suspect the source data may be subsidized and there are 
other usable data on the record. See Pure Magnesium from the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 75 FR 80791 (December 23, 2010). In this regard, the Department 
has previously found that it is appropriate to disregard such prices 
from Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand because we have determined 
that these countries maintain broadly available, non-industry specific 
export subsidies. Based on the existence of these subsidy programs that 
were generally available to all exporters and producers in these 
countries at the time of the POR, the Department finds that it is 
reasonable to infer that all exporters from Indonesia, South Korea and 
Thailand may have benefitted from these subsidies.\9\ Additionally, we 
disregarded prices from NME countries. Finally, we excluded imports 
that were labeled as originating from an ``unspecified'' country 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.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, e.g., 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 
Decision Memorandum at page 4; Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 
Products from the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Countervailing 
Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 2512 (January 15, 2009), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1, pages 17, 
19-20; and 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 Comment 1.
    \10\ See Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review, 75 FR 24578 (May 5, 
2010), unchanged in Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results of New Shipper Review , 75 FR 51004 (August 18, 
2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 14, 2010, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 
(Federal Circuit) in Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 1363, 1372 
(CAFC 2010) (Dorbest IV), found that the ``(regression-based) method 
for calculating wage rates

[[Page 2653]]

(as stipulated by 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3)) uses data not permitted by (the 
statutory requirements laid out in section 773 of the Act (i.e., 19 
U.S.C. 1677b(c))).'' The Department is continuing to evaluate options 
for determining labor values in light of the recent Federal Circuit 
decision. However, for these preliminary results, we have calculated an 
hourly wage rate to use in valuing respondents' reported labor input by 
averaging industry-specific earnings and/or wages in countries that are 
economically comparable to the PRC and that are significant producers 
of comparable merchandise.
    For the preliminary results of this AR, the Department is valuing 
labor using a simple average industry-specific wage rate using earnings 
or wage data reported under Chapter 5B by the International Labor 
Organization (ILO). To achieve an industry-specific labor value, we 
relied on industry-specific labor data from the countries we determined 
to be both economically comparable to the PRC and significant producers 
of comparable merchandise. A full description of the industry-specific 
wage rate calculation methodology is provided in the New-Tec Surrogate 
Values Memorandum at Exhibit 5. The Department calculated a simple-
average, industry-specific wage rate of $1.51 for these preliminary 
results. Specifically, for this review, the Department has calculated 
the wage rate using a simple average of the data provided to the ILO 
under Sub-Classification 34 of the ISIC-Revision 3 standard by 
countries determined to be both economically comparable to the PRC and 
significant producers of comparable merchandise. The Department finds 
the two-digit description under ISIC-Revision 3 (``Manufacture of Motor 
Vehicles, Trailers, and Semi-Trailers'') to be the best available wage 
rate surrogate value on the record because it is specific and derived 
from industries that produce merchandise comparable to the subject 
merchandise. Consequently, we averaged the ILO industry-specific wage 
rate data or earnings data available from the following countries found 
to be economically comparable to the PRC and are significant producers 
of comparable merchandise: Ecuador, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Peru, 
Philippines, Thailand, and Ukraine. For further information on the 
calculation of the wage rate, see New-Tec Surrogate Values Memorandum.

Use of Facts Available and Adverse Facts Available (AFA)

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

Application of Total AFA to the PRC-Wide Entity

    Because Sunshine International, Qingdao Huazhan, and Zhejiang 
Yinmao did not respond to the Department's antidumping questionnaire, 
we preliminarily determine that these companies withheld information 
requested by the Department in accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A) 
and (B) of the Act. Furthermore, these companies' refusal to 
participate in the review significantly impeded the proceeding in 
accordance with section 776(a)(2)(C) of the Act. Specifically, had 
these companies participated in the review, the Department would have 
calculated dumping margins for them.
    Further, because there is no information on the record 
demonstrating these companies' entitlement to a separate rate in 
accordance with section 776(a) of the Act, the Department has 
preliminarily treated these companies as part of the PRC-wide entity.
    Because these companies did not respond to the Department's 
antidumping questionnaire, and are part of the PRC-wide entity, the 
PRC-wide entity's refusal to provide any information constitutes 
circumstances under which the Department can conclude that less than 
full cooperation has been shown.\11\ Hence, pursuant to section 776(b) 
of the Act, the Department has determined that, when selecting from 
among the facts otherwise available, an adverse inference is warranted 
with respect to the PRC-wide entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than 
Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan, 
63 FR 8909, 8911 (February 23, 1998); see also Brake Rotors From the 
People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of 
the Seventh Administrative Review; Final Results of the Eleventh New 
Shipper Review, 70 FR 69937, 69939 (November 18, 2005) and the SAA 
at 870.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Selection of AFA Rate

    In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act 
and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize the Department to rely on 
information derived from: (1) The petition; (2) a final determination 
in the investigation; (3) any previous review or determination; or (4) 
any information placed on the record. In reviews, the Department 
normally selects as AFA the highest rate determined for any respondent 
in any segment of the proceeding.\12\ The Court of International Trade 
(CIT) and the Federal Circuit have consistently upheld the Department's 
practice.\13\ 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.'' The Department's practice also ensures ``that the 
party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate 
than if it had cooperated fully.'' \14\ In choosing the appropriate 
balance between providing respondents with an incentive to respond 
accurately and imposing a rate that is reasonably related to the 
respondent's prior commercial activity, selecting the

[[Page 2654]]

highest prior margin ``reflects a common sense inference that the 
highest prior margin is the most probative evidence of current margins 
because, if it were not so, the importer, knowing the rule, would have 
produced current information showing the margin to be less.'' \15\ 
Consistent with the statute, court precedent, and its normal practice, 
the Department has assigned 383.60 percent to the PRC-wide entity 
(including Sunshine International, Qingdao Huazhan, and Zhejiang 
Yinmao) as AFA. This rate was assigned in the less-than-fair value 
(LTFV) investigation of this proceeding and is the highest rate 
determined for any party in any segment of this proceeding. See Amended 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Hand Trucks and 
Certain Parts thereof From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 65410 
(November 12, 2004) (Hand Trucks Amended Final Determination). As 
discussed below, this rate has been corroborated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See e.g., Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's 
Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 68 FR 19504, 19507 (April 21, 2003).
    \13\ See KYD, Inc. v. United States, 607 F.3d 760 (Fed. Cir. 
2010) (KYD); Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1185, 
1190 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Rhone Poulenc); NSK Ltd. v. United States, 
346 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1335 (CIT 2004) (upholding a 73.55 percent 
total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a 
different respondent in a less-than-fair-value (LTFV) 
investigation); Kompass Food Trading Int'l v. United States, 24 CIT 
678, 684 (2000) (upholding a 51.16 percent total AFA rate, the 
highest available dumping margin from a different, fully cooperative 
respondent); and Shanghai Taoen International Trading Co., Ltd. v. 
United States, 360 F. Supp. 2d 1339, 1348 (CIT 2005) (upholding a 
223.01 percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin 
from a different respondent in a previous administrative review).
    \14\ See Uruguay Round Agreement Act, Statement of 
Administrative Action, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, vol. 1, at 870 (1994) 
(SAA); see also Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair 
Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, 69 FR 
76910, 76912 (December 23, 2004); and D&L Supply Co. v. United 
States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
    \15\ See KYD (citing Rhone Poulenc, 899 F.2d at 1190).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Corroboration of Secondary Information

    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies 
on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the 
course of an investigation or review, it shall, to the extent 
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that 
are reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is defined as 
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. Corroborate means that the 
Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be 
used has probative value. Id. To corroborate secondary information, the 
Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and 
relevance of the information to be used.\16\ Independent sources used 
to corroborate such evidence may include, for example, published price 
lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information 
obtained from interested parties during the particular 
investigation.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 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).
    \17\ See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: High and Ultra-High Voltage Ceramic Station Post 
Insulators from Japan, 68 FR 35627, 35629 (June 16, 2003), unchanged 
in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
High and Ultra-High Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators from 
Japan, 68 FR 62560 (November 5, 2003); and Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Live Swine from 
Canada, 70 FR 12181, 12183-84 (March 11, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated above, we are applying as AFA the highest rate from any 
segment of this administrative proceeding, which is the PRC-wide rate 
of 383.60 percent. The 383.60 percent AFA margin is the highest rate on 
the record of any segment of this antidumping duty order. In the 
investigation, the Department determined the reliability of the margin 
contained in the petition by comparing the U.S. prices from the price 
quotes in the petition to prices of comparable products sold by Qingdao 
Huatian Hand Truck Co., Ltd., a mandatory respondent in the LTFV 
investigation, and found them to be comparable. The Department also 
compared the SVs used in the petition to the SVs selected for the final 
determination, and then adjusted and replaced certain values to make 
them more accurate. Finally, the Department replaced the SV ratios in 
the petition with those used in the final investigation. Therefore, in 
the investigation we found this margin to be reliable. This rate 
continues to be relevant to the PRC-wide entity in this proceeding. No 
party has provided information related to the PRC-wide entity. The 
Federal Circuit has held that ``{t{time} he presumption that a prior 
dumping margin imposed against an exporter in an earlier AR continues 
to be valid if the exporter fails to cooperate in a subsequent 
administrative review.'' Id. Here, the PRC-wide entity failed to 
cooperate or demonstrate that the margin applied is no longer valid.
    Because the Department continues to find the 383.60 percent margin 
is probative, as it is both reliable and relevant as discussed above, 
we have assigned this AFA rate to exports of the subject merchandise by 
the PRC-wide entity, including Sunshine International, Qingdao Huazhan, 
and Zhejiang Yinmao.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    The Department has determined that the following preliminary 
dumping margins exist for the period December 1, 2008, through November 
30, 2009:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
                   Manufacturer/Exporter                        margin
                                                              (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New-Tec Integration (Xiamen) Co., Ltd......................         0.00
PRC-wide Entity............................................       383.60
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Comment

    The Department will disclose to parties to this proceeding the 
calculations performed in reaching the preliminary results within five 
days of the date of publication of these preliminary results. See 19 
CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may submit written comments (case 
briefs) within 30 days of publication of the preliminary results and 
rebuttal comments (rebuttal briefs) within five days after the time 
limit for filing case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii) and 
351.309(d)(1). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d)(2), rebuttal briefs must 
be limited to issues raised in the case briefs. Parties who submit 
arguments are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of 
the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of 
authorities. Further, the Department requests that parties submitting 
written comments provide the Department with a diskette containing the 
public version of those comments.
    Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 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 within 30 days of publication of this notice. Requests 
should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; 
(2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be 
discussed. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in the hearing will be 
limited to those raised in the briefs.
    Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 
751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act, the Department will issue the final 
results of this AR, including the results of our analysis of the issues 
raised by the parties in their comments, within 120 days after issuance 
of these preliminary results.

Deadline for Submission of Publicly Available Surrogate Value 
Information

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3), the deadline for 
submission of publicly available information to value FOPs under 19 CFR 
351.408(c) is 20 days after the date of publication of these 
preliminary

[[Page 2655]]

results. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), if an interested 
party submits factual information less than ten days before, on, or 
after (if the Department has extended the deadline), the applicable 
deadline for submission of such factual information, an interested 
party has ten days to submit factual information to rebut, clarify, or 
correct the factual information no later than ten days after such 
factual information is served on the interested party. However, the 
Department notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), permits new information 
only insofar as it rebuts, clarifies, or corrects information recently 
placed on the record. See, e.g., Glycine from the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Final Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809 (October 17, 2007), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. Furthermore, 
the Department generally will not accept business proprietary 
information in either the surrogate value submissions or the rebuttals 
thereto, as the regulation regarding the submission of surrogate values 
allows only for the submission of publicly available information.

Assessment Rates

    Upon issuing the final results of the review, the Department shall 
determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 
15 days after the date of publication of the final results of review. 
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate importer-specific 
ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount 
of the dumping margins 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 importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results 
of this review is above de minimis. However, 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 this review and 
for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements, when imposed, will apply 
to all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication of the final 
results of this administrative review, as provided by section 
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for New-Tec will be 
the rate established in the final results of this administrative 
review; (2) for any previously reviewed or investigated PRC or non-PRC 
exporter, not covered in this administrative review, with a separate 
rate, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate 
established in the most recent segment of this proceeding; (3) for all 
other PRC exporters, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the PRC-
wide rate (i.e., 383.60 percent); and (4) the cash-deposit rate for any 
non-PRC exporter of subject merchandise from the PRC will be the rate 
applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that exporter. These cash 
deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
further notice.

Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. 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.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213.

    Dated: January 7, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-791 Filed 1-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P