[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 173 (Wednesday, September 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55357-55362]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22856]


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

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 (ironing tables) from the 
People's Republic of China (PRC). The period of review (POR) is August 
1, 2009 through July 31, 2010. We have preliminarily determined that 
respondent Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares & Hardware Co., Ltd. 
(Foshan Shunde) has made sales to the United States of the subject 
merchandise at prices below normal value (NV). 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 7, 2011.

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 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 2, 2010, the Department published a notice of opportunity 
to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on, 
inter alia, ironing tables from the PRC. See Antidumping or 
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; 
Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 75 FR 45094 (August 2, 
2010). On August 31, 2010, Home Products International (the Petitioner 
in this proceeding) and Foshan Shunde requested, in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.213(b)(1), an administrative review of this order for Foshan 
Shunde.
    On September 29, 2010, the Department initiated an administrative 
review of Foshan Shunde. See Initiation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation 
in Part, 75 FR 60076 (September 29, 2010).
    On May 4, 2011, 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 August 31, 2011. 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, 76 FR 25301 (May 4, 2011).
    The Department issued its original antidumping questionnaire to 
Foshan Shunde on October 4, 2010. Foshan Shunde timely filed its 
response to Section A of the questionnaire on November 12, 2010; Foshan 
Shunde's Sections C and D responses followed on November 19, 2010 and 
November 30, 2010 respectively. Petitioner filed comments on Foshan 
Shunde's sections A, C and D responses on January 12, 2011, May 17, 
2011, July 28, 2011 and July 8, 2011.
    The Department issued supplementary questionnaires to Foshan Shunde 
on March 30, 2011, June 2, 2011, and July 13, 2011. Foshan Shunde 
timely responded to each of these supplemental requests for information 
on May 2, 2011, June 23, 2011, and July 29, 2011.

Surrogate Country and Surrogate Value Data

    On July 8, 2011 the Department issued a memorandum on surrogate 
country selection and surrogate value (SV) data. See Memorandum from 
Carole Showers, Director Office of Policy to Richard Weible, Director 
Office 7, Re: Request for a List of Surrogate Countries for an 
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Floor-Standing, 
Metal-Top, Ironing Tables and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic 
of China (``PRC''): Surrogate Country List, dated June 8, 2011 
(Surrogate Country List). On June 10, 2011 the Department distributed 
the Surrogate Country List Memorandum to interested parties via e-mail. 
On July 8, 2011, the Petitioner submitted information to value factors 
of production (FOP) from Indonesia. See Petitioner July 8, 2011 letter. 
On July 22, 2011, Foshan Shunde submitted suggested FOPs from India. 
See Foshan Shunde July 22, 2011, letter. For the reasons explained 
infra, the Department has determined that Indonesia is an appropriate 
surrogate country for purposes of this review. Accordingly, all the 
surrogate values used to value FOPs were obtained from sources in 
Indonesia.

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

[[Page 55358]]

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 9403.90.8041. 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 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 or provided 
such information that would overturn that designation. Accordingly, we 
calculated 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 FOPs 
to the extent possible, in one or more market-economy countries that 
(1) are at a level of economic development comparable to that of the 
NME country, and (2) are significant producers of comparable 
merchandise. The Department determined the Philippines, Indonesia, 
Ukraine, Thailand, Colombia and South Africa are countries comparable 
to the PRC in economic development. (See Surrogate Country List).
    Based on publicly available information placed on the record by 
interested parties (e.g., production data), the Department determines 
Indonesia to be a reliable source for surrogate values. Indonesia is at 
a comparable level of economic development pursuant to section 
773(c)(4) of the Act. Id. Moreover, Indonesia is a significant producer 
of the subject merchandise. See Petitioner July 8, 2011, submission at 
Exhibit 1. Additionally, Indonesia has publicly available and reliable 
data. See 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 August 31, 2011 (Factors Valuation Memorandum). 
Accordingly because Indonesia meets all of the Department's criteria 
for selection as a surrogate country, the Department has selected 
Indonesia for purposes of valuing FOP surrogate values.

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 (Policy Bulletin 
O5:1). 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 concept 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. See Policy 
Bulletin 05:1 at 5.
    Accordingly, we have considered whether Foshan Shunde 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).
    Foshan Shunde provided complete separate-rate information in its 
response to our original and supplemental questionnaires. Accordingly, 
we performed a separate-rates analysis to determine whether Foshan 
Shunde is independent from government control.

Absence of De Jure Control

    The Department considers the following de jure criteria in 
determining

[[Page 55359]]

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 Foshan Shunde supports 
a preliminary 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., 
Foshan Shunde November 12, 2010, Section A questionnaire response at 
pages at A-4-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 Foshan Shunde 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) the 
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other 
agreements; (3) the respondent has autonomy from government in making 
decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) the respondent 
retains the proceeds of its export sales and make independent decisions 
regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses. See Foshan 
Shunde November 12, 2010, Section A questionnaire response at A-7 
through A-9.
    In accordance with the criteria identified in Sparklers and Silicon 
Carbide, the evidence placed on the record of this review by Foshan 
Shunde demonstrates an absence of de jure and de facto government 
control with respect to Foshan Shunde's exports of the subject 
merchandise. Accordingly, we have determined that Foshan Shunde has 
demonstrated eligibility for a separate rate.

Fair Value Comparisons

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

U.S. Price

Export Price
    We based U.S. price for Foshan Shunde 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.
    Foshan Shunde incurred foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage 
and handling expenses from PRC service providers. We therefore valued 
these services using Indonesian surrogate values (see ``Factors of 
Production'' section below for further discussion).

Normal Value

Factors of Production (FOPs)
    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 controls 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 Foshan Shunde to provide 
information regarding its weighted-average FOP.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), the Department will 
normally use publicly 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. 3d 1376, 1382-1383 (Fed. Cir. 
2001) (affirming the Department's use of market-based prices to value 
FOPs). During the POR, Foshan Shunde reported that it purchased a 
certain production material from a market economy supplier. See Foshan 
Shunde November 30, 2010, Section D response at Exhibit D-2 (because of 
the proprietary nature of this information, we do not summarize it 
here). Foshan Shunde further claimed that it purchased more than 33 
percent of its total volume of this particular input from a market 
economy supplier. However, in response to our requests for further 
information concerning this input, Foshan Shunde was unable to 
establish that the production input was indeed of market economy 
origin. Accordingly, we used the Indonesian surrogate value of the 
input to value this FOP. See August 31, 2011, Memorandum from Michael 
Heaney to the File: ``Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares & Hardware Co., 
Ltd. (Foshan Shunde) Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary Results'' 
(Preliminary Analysis Memorandum) at pages 3-4.
    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 
Foshan Shunde for materials, energy, by-products, and packing. To 
calculate NV, we multiplied the reported unit factor quantities by 
publicly available values in the surrogate country, Indonesia. As

[[Page 55360]]

explained infra, to value labor, we used the industry specific labor 
rate for schedule 28 release 5B for Indonesia.
    Foshan Shunde 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 by-products sold 
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 Foshan Shunde provided evidence to demonstrate 
sales of their 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 Indonesian values, we considered the 
quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data, in accordance 
with our normal practice. See, e.g., Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide 
from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 48195 (August 18, 2008), 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 Indonesian 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 in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1407-
08 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A detailed description of all SVs used to value 
Foshan Shunde's FOPs may be found in the 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 August 31, 2011 (Factors 
Valuation Memorandum).
    The Department used Indonesian import data from the Global Trade 
Atlas (GTA) published by Global Trade Information Services, Inc., which 
is sourced from the Buku Tarif Bea Masuk Indonesia (BTBMI) to determine 
the surrogate values for most raw materials, by-products and packing 
material inputs. With regard to the Indonesian-based surrogate values, 
we have disregarded prices that we have reason to believe or suspect 
may be subsidized, such as those imports from India, South Korea, and 
Thailand. We have found in other proceedings that these countries 
maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies and, 
therefore, it is reasonable to infer that all exports to all markets 
from these countries may be subsidized. See, e.g., Frontseating Service 
Valves from the People's Republic of China; Preliminary Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Preliminary Negative Determination of 
Critical Circumstances, and Postponement of Final Determination, 73 FR 
62952, 62597 (October 22, 2008), unchanged in 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 13, 2009); and China 
National Machinery Import & Export Corporation v. United States, 293 F. 
Supp. 2d 1334, 1339 (CIT 2003), aff'd 104 Fed. Appx. 183 (Fed. Cir. 
2004). We are also guided by the statute's legislative history that 
explains that it is not necessary to conduct a formal investigation to 
ensure that such prices are not subsidized. See Conference Report to 
the 1988 Omnibus Trade & Competitiveness Act, H.R. Rep. No 100-S-76 at 
590 (1988) which stipulates that the Department will ``avoid using any 
prices which it has reason to believe or suspect may be dumped or 
subsidized prices.'' Rather, the Department bases its decisions on 
information that is available to it at the time it is making its 
determination. Therefore, we have not used prices from these countries 
in calculating the Indonesian import-based surrogate values. 
Additionally, we disregarded prices from NME countries. These countries 
include Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, 
China, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam. Finally, 
imports that were labeled as originating from an ``unspecified'' 
country were excluded from the averaging value, because the Department 
could not be certain that they were not from either an NME country or a 
country with general export subsidies.
    Except as noted below, we valued raw material inputs using the 
weighted-average unit import values derived from the BTBMI, in the GTA, 
available at http://www.gtis.com/gta. All surrogate values used from 
the GTA are available on the record of this proceeding and are listed 
in the Factors Valuation Memorandum. Where we could not obtain publicly 
available information contemporaneous with the POR with which to value 
FOPs, we adjusted the surrogate values using, where appropriate, the 
Indonesian Wholesale Price Index as published in the International 
Financial Statistics of the International Monetary Fund. See Factors 
Valuation Memorandum at Attachment 1. We further adjusted these prices 
to account for freight expenses incurred between the input supplier and 
the respondent. For business proprietary factors, valuation 
descriptions are described in the Factors Valuation Memorandum.
    The Department valued electricity using electricity price data for 
Indonesia specified in the World's Bank's 2003 Electricity for All: 
Options for Increasing Access in Indonesia, issued in 2003 (Electricity 
for All). Petitioner has placed a copy of Electricity for All on the 
record of this proceeding. See Petitioner's July 8, 2011, Surrogate 
Value Comments at Exhibit 3. The electricity rates reported represent 
actual, country-wide, publicly-available information on tax-exclusive 
electricity rates charged to small, medium, and large industries in 
Indonesia. To represent current electricity rates during the POR, we 
used the Indonesian Wholesale Price Index to inflate these values to 
POR price levels. See Factors Valuation Memorandum at page 5.
    The Department valued water using data collected by the United 
Nations in 2006. See Human Development Report: Disconnected Poverty: 
Water Supply and Development in Jakarta, Indonesia (Water Supply and 
Development). Petitioner has placed a copy of Water Supply and 
Development on the record of this proceeding. See Petitioner's July 8, 
2011, Surrogate Value Comments at Exhibit 6. We based the value for 
water on the 2005 value listed for large hotels, high-rise buildings, 
banks, and factories. To represent current water rates during the POR, 
we used the Indonesian Wholesale Price Index to inflate these values to 
POR price levels. See Factors Valuation Memorandum at page 5.
    To calculate the labor input, we based our calculation on the 
methodology

[[Page 55361]]

which the Department enunciated on June 21, 2011 in Antidumping 
Methodologies in Proceedings Involving Non-Market Economies Valuing the 
Factor of Production: Labor 76 FR 36092 (June 21, 2011) (Labor 
Methodologies). Prior to 2010, the Department used regression-based 
wages that captured the worldwide relationship between per capita Gross 
National Income and hourly manufacturing wages, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.408(c)(3). On May 3, 2010, the Federal Circuit, in Dorbest Ltd., v. 
United States, 604 F. 3d 1363, 1372 (Fed Cir. 2010) (Dorbest), 
invalidated part of that regulation. As a consequence of the Federal 
Circuit's ruling in Dorbest, the Department no longer relies on the 
regression-based methodology described in 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3).
    In Labor Methodologies, the Department explained that the best 
methodology to value the labor input is to use industry-specific labor 
rates from the primary surrogate country. See Labor Methodologies at 76 
FR at 36093. Additionally, the Department determined that the best data 
source for industry-specific labor rates is Chapter 6A: Labor Cost in 
Manufacturing, from the International Labor Organization (ILO) Yearbook 
of Labor Statistics (Yearbook). See Labor Methodologies at 76 FR at 
36093-36094.
    There are no Chapter 6A labor data available in this proceeding 
from Indonesia. Therefore, in these Preliminary Results, the Department 
has calculated the labor input using Indonesian Chapter 5B data which 
reflects direct compensation and bonuses. The Department finds that 
because Chapter 6A data are unavailable, it is preferable to use 
Chapter 5B data from Indonesia to remain consistent with the other data 
sources that we are relying on from the primary surrogate country. 
Also, the Department further finds the two digit description under 
ISIC-Revision 3 (Manufacture of Fabricated Metal Products, except 
Machinery and Equipment) to be the best available information on the 
record because it is specific to the industry being examined, and is 
therefore derived from industries that produce comparable merchandise. 
This is the same classification used in the prior review of this case 
when the Department also relied on Chapter 5B data under the 
Department's interim labor rate methodology. See Antidumping 
Methodologies in Proceedings Involving Non Market Economies Valuing the 
Factor of Production: Labor 76 FR 9544 (February 18, 2011). 
Accordingly, relying on Chapter 5B of the Yearbook, we calculated the 
labor data reported by Indonesia to the ILO to the Department under 
Sub-classification 28 of the ISIC-Revision 3 standard, in accordance 
with section 773(c)(4) of the Act. For these Preliminary Results, the 
calculated industry-specific wage rate is $0.5347 per hour. Because 
these data reflect direct compensation and bonuses and none of the 
indirect costs reflected in Chapter 6A data, we find that the facts and 
information on the record do not warrant or permit an adjustment to the 
surrogate financial statements. See Labor Methodologies at 76 FR at 
36094. A more detailed description of the wage rate calculation 
methodology is provided in the Factors Valuation Memorandum.
    The Department valued truck freight expenses using a per-unit 
average rate calculated from a 2001 study Cost of Investing and Doing 
Business in ASEAN (ASEAN Study). We used the Indonesian Wholesale Price 
Index to inflate these values to POR levels. The ASEAN Study is 
attached at Attachment 7 of the Factors Valuation Memorandum.
    The Department valued brokerage and handling using the values 
published in Doing Business 2010: Indonesia by the World Bank. 
Petitioner has placed a copy of Doing Business 2010: Indonesia on the 
record of this proceeding. See Petitioner July 8, 2011, Surrogate Value 
Comments at Exhibit 10.
    To value factory overhead, selling, general and administrative 
(SG&A) expenses, and profit the Department used the audited 2009 
financial statements of PT Lion Metal Works Tbk (PT Lion). PT Lion is 
an Indonesian producer of Indonesian fabricated metal products which we 
find comparable to the subject merchandise. Petitioner placed upon the 
record of this proceeding, product brochures which describe the 
merchandise produced by PT Lion. See Petitioner July 8, 2011, letter at 
Exhibit 7. Many of the products produced by PT Lion are products which 
like the subject merchandise involve the fabrication of metal. 
Petitioner has placed a copy of the 2009 Financial Statements of PT 
Lion on the record of this proceeding. (See Petitioner July 8, 2011 
Surrogate Value Comments at Exhibit 8).
    We are preliminarily granting a by-product offset to Foshan Shunde 
for scrap steel sales. See Preliminary Analysis 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 
margin exists:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Margin
                        Exporter                             (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares & Hardware Co., Ltd...           63.09
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 exporter 
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

[[Page 55362]]

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, pursuant to the 
Department's e-filing regulations. See https://iaaccess.trade.gov/help/IA%20ACCESS%20User%20Guide.pdf.
    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 cited 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: August 31, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-22856 Filed 9-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P