[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62765-62776]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26205]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-941]


Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks From the People's 
Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the First Administrative 
Review, Preliminary Rescission, in Part, and Extension of Time Limits 
for the Final Results

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

DATES: Effective Date: October 11, 2011.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``Department'') is conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain kitchen 
appliance shelving and racks from the People's Republic of China 
(``PRC''), covering the period of review (``POR'') of March 5, 2009, 
through August 31, 2010.\1\ The Department has preliminarily determined 
that sales have been made below normal value (``NV'') by the 
respondents examined in this administrative review. If these 
preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this review, 
the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
(``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of 
subject merchandise during the period of review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See ``Period of Review'' section below for further 
explanation of the POR in this administrative review.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katie Marksberry or Kabir Archuletta, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7906 or (202) 482-2593, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On October 28, 2010, the Department initiated an administrative 
review of certain kitchen appliance shelving and racks from the PRC for 
the period March 5, 2009, through August 31, 2010. See Initiation of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 75 FR 66349 
(October 28, 2010) (``First Initiation'').\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Nashville Wire Products Inc. and SSW Holding Company, Inc. 
(collectively, ``Petitioners'') initially requested that the 
Department initiate an administrative review of ten companies; 
however, we required additional information concerning why, pursuant 
to 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), Petitioners requested a review of five of 
these companies. See First Initiation, 75 FR at 66352. Accordingly, 
the Department postponed initiation of this administrative review 
with respect to five companies requested by Petitioners. See id. and 
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Reviews; Correction, 75 FR 69054 (November 10, 2010). After 
reviewing additional information placed on the record of this 
administrative review by Petitioners, we determined that, for three 
of the five companies, Petitioners did not provide any reason, other 
than alleged transshipment, for initiation; therefore, we declined 
to initiate a review for Asia Pacific CIS (Thailand) Co., Ltd., 
Taiwan Rail Company, and King Shan Wire Co., Ltd. See Initiation of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 75 FR 
73036, 73039 (November 29, 2010). However, we did determine that it 
was appropriate to initiate this review with respect to two 
additional companies originally requested by Petitioners: Asia 
Pacific CIS (Wuxi) Co., Ltd.; and Hengtong Hardware Manufacturing 
(Huizhou) Co., Ltd. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 1, 2010, the Department placed U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (``CBP'') data for the Harmonized Tarrif Schedule (``HTS'') 
numbers listed in the scope of the Order on the record of the review 
and stated that because there were apparent anomalies in the data that, 
for respondent selection purposes, it would be issuing quantity and 
value (``Q&V'') questionnaires to all companies under review, which 
were also issued on December 1, 2010.\3\ The Department received timely 
Q&V responses from four exporters that shipped subject merchandise to 
the United States during the POR: Jiangsu Weixi Group Co. (``Weixi''); 
Guangdong Wireking Housewares & Hardware Co., Ltd. (``Wireking''); New 
King Shan (Zhuhai) Wire Co., Ltd. (``NKS''); and Hangzhou Dunli Import 
& Export Co., Ltd., (``Dunli''). The Department also received a timely 
Q&V response from Hengtong Hardware Manufacturer (Huizhou) Co., Ltd. 
(``Hengtong Hardware'') indicating that it had no shipments of subject 
merchandise during the POR. On December 23, 2010, the Department 
received an untimely Q&V response from Leader Metal Industry Co., Ltd., 
(aka Marmon Retail Services Asia Company) (``Leader''). On January 20, 
2011, the Department sent a letter to Leader rejecting its untimely 
filed Q&V response and stating that it would not be considered for the 
purposes of this review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Memorandum to The File, from Katie Marksberry, 
International Trade Specialist, Office 9, regarding ``Release of 
Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') Data'', dated December 1, 
2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Respondent Selection

    On January 20, 2011, the Department selected two mandatory 
respondents for this review, pursuant to section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''), Wireking and Weixi.\4\ 
The Department sent its antidumping duty questionnaire to Weixi and 
Wireking on January 20, 2011.\5\ In its questionnaire, the Department 
requested that each firm provide a response to Section A of the 
Department's non-market economy (``NME'') questionnaire by February 10, 
2011, and Sections C and D of the NME questionnaire by February 28, 
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Office Director, Office 9, 
through Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, Office 9, from Kabir 
Archuletta, International Trade Analyst, Office 9, regarding 
``Selection of Respondents for the Antidumping Review of Certain 
Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks from the People's Republic of 
China,'' dated January 20, 2011.
    \5\ See Letters to Weixi and Wireking from Catherine Bertrand, 
Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding ``Kitchen 
Appliance Shelving and Racks from the People's Republic of China,'' 
dated January 20, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 2, 2011, eight days prior to the Department's February 
10, 2011, deadline for Section A questionnaire responses, the 
Department received a request on behalf of NKS, a mandatory respondent 
in the LTFV Investigation \6\ and a company for which an administrative 
review was requested, to be selected as a replacement mandatory 
respondent in the event of a non-responsive mandatory respondent. NKS 
also requested a 28-day extension to submit its questionnaire 
responses.\7\ On February 4, 2011, Wireking filed a request for an 
extension of the deadline to submit its Section A response, which the 
Department extended to February 22, 2011, for Wireking and any 
potential voluntary respondents.\8\ The

[[Page 62766]]

Department did not receive an extension request from Weixi and did not 
receive its Section A response by the appointed deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks From the 
People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value, 74 FR 36656 (July 24, 2009) (``LTFV Investigation 
Final''), amended by Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks 
from the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Notice of Antidumping Duty Order, 
74 FR 46971 (September 14, 2009) (``LTFV Investigation Amended 
Final'').
    \7\ See Letter from NKS regarding ``Request for Extension of 
Time to File Voluntary Response and Request for Clarification of 
Reporting of Sales,'' dated February 2, 2011 (``NKS February 2 
Submission'').
    \8\ See Memorandum to the File from Kabir Archuletta, 
International Trade Analyst, Office 9, regarding ``Guangdong 
Wireking Housewares & Hardware Co., Ltd. Section A Questionnaire 
Extension Request,'' dated February 10, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 23, 2011, the Department received a voluntary Section A 
questionnaire response from NKS.\9\ On March 1, 2011, because Weixi did 
not cooperate with our request for information, the Department selected 
NKS as a replacement mandatory respondent because it was the the next 
largest exporter of subject merchandise.\10\ We also determined that it 
was appropriate to use the voluntary Section A response already 
submitted by NKS as the basis for that company's response as a 
mandatory respondent.\11\ On March 1, 2011, the Department sent its 
antidumping questionnaire to NKS and assigned a deadline of March 22, 
2011, for its Sections C and D responses.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Letter from NKS regarding ``Voluntary Response to 
Section A by New King Shan (Zhuhai) Co., Ltd.,'' dated February 23, 
2011.
    \10\ See Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Office Director, Office 
9, through Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, Office 9, from Kabir 
Archuletta, International Trade Analyst, Office 9, regarding 
``Antidumping Review of Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks 
from the People's Republic of China: Selection of an Additional 
Mandatory Respondent,'' dated March 1, 2011.
    \11\ See id.
    \12\ See Letter to NKS from Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, 
Office 9, regarding ``Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks from the 
People's Republic of China,'' dated March 1, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Case Schedule

    On April 14, 2011, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 
Act, we extended the time period for issuing the preliminary results by 
120 days, until September 30, 2011.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks From the 
People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limits for the 
Preliminary Results of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 76 FR 20950 (April 14, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Period of Review

    This review was intiated with a POR of March 5, 2009, through 
August 31, 2010. On February 2, 2011, the Department received a letter 
from NKS requesting clarification of the proper reporting periods for 
U.S. sales of subject merchandise.\14\ In its letter, NKS noted that 
the U.S. International Trade Commission found that there was a threat 
of injury with regard to oven racks during the period of 
investigation.\15\ As such, entries of oven racks prior to September 9, 
2009, were liquidated without antidumping or countervailing duties. On 
February 9, 2011, the Department sent interested parties a letter 
stating that it would not be appropriate to include sales of 
merchandise that have been liquidated by the Department without the 
assessment of antidumping duties in the margin calculation for the 
current POR.\16\ Accordingly, the Department instructed interested 
parties to adhere to an abbreviated reporting period for sales of oven 
racks, while sales of refrigerator and freezer shelves should continue 
to be reported in accordance with the POR for this review. The 
abbreviated POR for oven racks is September 9, 2009, through August 31, 
2010. Additionally, the Department clarified that respondents should 
report their factors of production according to the reporting period 
specific to the type of merchandise they reported in their U.S. sales 
database.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See NKS February 2 Submission.
    \15\ See id. at 6 (citing Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and 
Racks from China (Investigation No. 731-TA-1154 (Final), USITC 
Publication 4098 (August 2009)).
    \16\ See Letter to All Interested Parties from Catherine 
Bertrand, Program Manager, Office 9, regarding ``Section C 
Reporting,'' dated February 9, 2011.
    \17\ See Letter to NKS from Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, 
Office 9, regarding ``Section D and Appendix V Supplemental 
Questionnaire,'' dated May 5, 2011, at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

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

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

    The merchandise under the order is comprised of carbon or stainless 
steel wire ranging in thickness from 0.050 inch to 0.500 inch and may 
include sheet metal of either carbon or stainless steel ranging in 
thickness from 0.020 inch to 0.2 inch. The merchandise under this order 
may be coated or uncoated and may be formed and/or welded. Excluded 
from the scope of this order is shelving in which the support surface 
is glass.
    The merchandise subject to the order is currently classifiable in 
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') 
statistical reporting numbers 8418.99.8050, 8418.99.8060, 7321.90.5000, 
7321.90.6090, 8516.90.8000 and 8419.90.9520. Although the HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the 
written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

NKS's Sales of Out of Scope Products

    In its initial Section C Questionnaire Response, NKS provided 
information related to all of its POR production, including product 
codes of the subject merchandise it sold to the United States during 
the POR and also the product codes of certain products it claimed were 
out of the scope of this Order and, therefore, not reported in its U.S. 
Sales Database.\18\ Petitioners subsequently argued that those products 
not reported by NKS have not been subject to a formal scope 
determination and therefore cannot be definitively excluded from 
reportable sales.\19\ In response to the Department's request for more 
information regarding these products, NKS submitted detailed 
descriptions of the product codes it claims do not fall within the 
scope of this Order, justification as to why they should not be 
included in the scope of this Order and production drawings of the 
products in question.\20\ NKS conceded that it would submit a request 
for a formal scope ruling if requested to do so by the Department but 
argued that

[[Page 62767]]

an examination of the products in question reveal that they are not 
racks and clearly fall outside of the dimensions specified by the scope 
of the Order.\21\ Upon review of the documentation submitted by NKS, 
the Department preliminarily concludes that there is no evidence on the 
record of this review to indicate that the products in question fall 
within the scope of the Order. This conclusion is based on an 
examination of the dimensions of the products in question, as well as 
the factual information submitted by NKS indicating that these products 
do not appear to be shelving, baskets, racks, side racks, or subframes, 
as defined by the scope of the Order. \22\ Therefore, the Department 
has not required NKS to report sales of these specific products made 
during the POR in its U.S. Sales Database for consideration in these 
preliminary results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See NKS Section C questionnaire response, dated April 6, 
2011 (``NKS SCQR''), at 4-6.
    \19\ See Petitioners' Comments on NKS Supplemental Section A 
Response and Section C Response, dated April 15, 2011 (``Petitioners 
April 15 Comments''), at 8-10, and Petitioners' Comments on NKS 
Supplemental Section C Response and Additional Information Response, 
dated June 16, 2011 (``Petitioners June 16 Comments''), at 11-14.
    \20\ See NKS Second Supplemental Section A questionnaire 
response, dated April 26, 2011 (``NKS SSSAQR''), at Exhibit SSA-10, 
and NKS Supplemental Section D questionnaire response, dated June 7, 
2011 (``NKS SSDQR''), at 22-23.
    \21\ See NKS SSDQR at 23.
    \22\ See NKS SSSAQR at Exhibit SSA-10, and NKS SSDQR at 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NKS Affiliation

    In the LTFV Investigation, we found based on the evidence on the 
record that NKS was affiliated with certain related entities, pursuant 
to sections 771(33)(A), (E) and (F) of the Act, based on ownership and 
common control.\23\ While NKS has stated in this review that its 
corporate structure has changed since the LTFV Investigation such that 
an owner with more than five percent ownership of a related entity has 
sold that interest,\24\ we preliminarily determine that the changes 
reported by NKS do not significantly impact the affiliation analysis 
conducted in conjunction with the LTFV Investigation.\25\ As such, we 
continue to find NKS affiliated with the same entities with which we 
found it affiliated in the LTFV Investigation.\26\ However, we note 
that while we find NKS and its related entities affiliated, we are not 
finding that the facts warrant treatment as a single entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks From the 
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 74 FR 
9591, 9594 (March 5, 2009), unchanged in LTFV Investigation Final.
    \24\ See NKS Supplemental Section A questionnaire response, 
dated March 28, 2011, at 18.
    \25\ See Memorandum to the File from Kabir Archuletta, Case 
Analyst, Office 9, through Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, 
Office 9, regarding ``First Administrative Review of Certain Kitchen 
Appliance Shelving and Racks from the People's Republic of China: 
Affiliations of New King Shan (Zhu Hai) Co., Ltd.,'' dated September 
30, 2011.
    \26\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dunli's Separate Rate Certification

    On December 21, 2010, the Department received a timely filed 
separate rate certification from Dunli. Subsequently, the Department 
determined that there are two separate PORs applicable to this review. 
See ``Period of Review'' section above. On February 10, 2011, the 
Department sent a letter to Dunli asking that they clarify that they 
had made sales of subject merchandise within the amended PORs (i.e., 
sales of subject refrigerator/freezer shelves during the period March 
5, 2009-August 31, 2010, and/or sales of subject oven racks during the 
period September 9, 2009-August 31, 2010).\27\ On February 16, 2011, 
Dunli submitted a response which stated that it had no sales of 
refrigerator/freezer shelves during the period of March 5, 2009 through 
August 31, 2010, and no sales of oven/baking racks during the period of 
September 9, 2009 through August 31, 2010. On February 17, 2011, the 
Department sent a letter to Dunli granting additional time for it to 
submit a revised separate rate certification or instead, to submit a no 
shipments certification if appropriate and withdraw its separate rate 
application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Letter to Hangzhou Dunli from the Department regarding 
``Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks from the People's 
Republic of China (``PRC''),'' dated February 10, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 25, 2011, Dunli withdrew its separate rate 
certification and filed a no shipments certification. In order to 
examine this claim, the Department sent two inquiries, one for each 
POR, to CBP asking if any CBP office had any information contrary to 
Dunli's no shipments claim and requesting CBP alert the Department of 
any such information within ten days of receiving our inquiry. CBP 
received our inquiry on March 7, 2011. On March 14, 2011 we received 
notice from CBP that Dunli appeared to have an entry of subject 
merchandise during the POR. On March 15, 2011, the Department requested 
the entry documents corresponding to the entry noted by CBP. The 
Department received the entry documents from CBP and placed them on the 
record of the review on August 18, 2011, and requested comments from 
interested parties.
    On August 29, 2011, the Department received comments from Dunli 
stating that it had overlooked a small quantity of shipments and had, 
as a result, inadvertently withdrawn its separate rate certification 
and filed a no shipments certification.\28\ Additionally, Dunli argued 
that it was a harmless clerical error that did not affect respondent 
selection as it would not have been chosen as a mandatory respondent 
and that it would be adversely affected should the Department not 
provide Dunli with an opportunity to correct for the error.\29\ As an 
attachment to its comments, Dunli refiled its separate rate 
certification. Because of the unusual circumstances of the multiple 
PORs in this review, as well as the fact that doing so will not impede 
the review, we will, for these preliminary results, accept Dunli's 
refiled separate rate certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Letter from Dunli regarding ``Separate Rate 
Certification of Hangzhou Dunli Import & Export Co., Ltd.,'' dated 
August 30, 2011 (``Dunli's Sep Rate Letter'').
    \29\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preliminary Partial Rescission

    As discussed in the ``Background'' section above, Hengtong Hardware 
filed a no shipment certification indicating that it did not export 
subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. In order to 
examine this claim, we reviewed the CBP data used for respondent 
selection and found no discrepancies with the statement made by 
Hengtong Hardware. Additionally, we sent an inquiry to CBP asking if 
any CBP office had any information contrary to the no shipments claim 
and requesting CBP alert the Department of any such information within 
ten days of receiving our inquiry. CBP received our inquiry on January 
6, 2011. We have not received a response from CBP with regard to our 
inquiry which indicates that CBP did not have information that was 
contrary to the claim of Hengtong Hardware. Therefore, because the 
record indicates that Hengtong Hardware did not export subject 
merchandise to the United States during the POR, we are preliminarily 
rescinding this administrative review with respect to this company in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with our 
practice.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See, e.g., Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam: Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial 
Rescission of the Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 
FR 53527, 53530 (September 19, 2007), unchanged in Certain Frozen 
Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission, 73 
FR 15479, 15480 (March 24, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NME Country Status

    In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the 
PRC has been treated as an NME country.\31\

[[Page 62768]]

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. None of the parties to this 
proceeding have contested such treatment. Accordingly, we calculated NV 
in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME 
countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks From the 
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 74 FR 
9591, 9593 (March 5, 2009) (``LTFV Investigation Prelim'', unchanged 
in LTFV Investigation Final).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate Rates

    Purusant to section 771(18)(C) of the Act, a designation of a 
country as an NME remains in effect until it is revoked by the 
Department. 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.\32\ In the First 
Initiation, the Department notified parties of the application process 
by which exporters and producers may obtain separate rate status in NME 
proceedings.\33\ 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 Sparklers,\34\ as amplified by Silicon Carbide.\35\ 
However, if the Department determines that a company is wholly foreign-
owned or located in a market economy (``ME''), then a separate rate 
analysis is not necessary to determine whether it is independent from 
government control.\36\ In this review, Dunli is the only company, 
other than the companies under mandatory individual review, that 
submitted a separate rate certification.\37\ Additionally, the 
Department received separate rate certifications and completed 
responses to the Section A portion of the NME antidumping questionnaire 
from Wireking and NKS, which contained information pertaining to each 
company's eligibility for a separate rate.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value, and Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part: Certain 
Lined Paper Products From the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 
53079, 53082 (September 8, 2006); 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, 29307 (May 22, 2006).
    \33\ See First Initiation.
    \34\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Sparklers From the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 
1991) (``Sparklers'').
    \35\ See 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'').
    \36\ See, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review: Petroleum Wax Candles From the People's Republic of China, 
72 FR 52355, 52356 (September 13, 2007).
    \37\ See Dunli's Sep Rate Letter at Attachment 1.
    \38\ See Separate Rate Certification of Guangdong Wireking 
Housewares & Hardware Co., Ltd., dated December 29, 2010, and 
Separate Rate Certification of New King Shan (Zhu Hai) Co., Ltd., 
dated December 30, 2010 (``NKS Sep Rate Certification'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have considered whether each PRC company that submitted a 
complete application, certification or complete Section A Response as a 
mandatory respondent is eligible for a separate rate. The Department's 
separate rate test is not concerned, in general, with macroeconomic/
border-type controls, e.g., export licenses, quotas, and minimum export 
prices, particularly if these controls are imposed to prevent 
dumping.\39\ The test focuses, rather, on controls over the investment, 
pricing, and output decision-making process at the individual firm 
level.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 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).
    \40\ See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Ukraine: 
Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 62 FR 61754, 
61758 (November 19, 1997), and Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 
FR 61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from 
government control of its export activities to be entitled to a 
separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the 
merchandise under investigation under a test arising from Sparklers, as 
further developed in Silicon Carbide. In accordance with the separate 
rate criteria, the Department assigns separate rates in NME cases only 
if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto 
governmental control over export activities.

1. Wholly Foreign-Owned

    In its Section A response, NKS reported that it is wholly-owned by 
individuals or companies located in a ME country.\41\ Therefore, 
because it is wholly foreign-owned, and we have no evidence indicating 
that it is under the control of the PRC, a separate rate analysis is 
not necessary to determine whether this company is independent from 
government control.\42\ Accordingly, we have preliminarily granted a 
separate rate to this company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See NKS Section A questionnaire response dated February 23, 
2011, at 2.
    \42\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate From the People's Republic of 
China, 64 FR 71104-71105 (December 20, 1999) (where the respondent 
was wholly foreign-owned, and thus, qualified for a separate rate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Absence of De Jure Control

    The Department considers the following de jure criteria in 
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate 
rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an 
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative 
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal 
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies.\43\ The 
evidence provided by Dunli and Wireking supports a preliminary finding 
of de jure absence of governmental control based on the following: (1) 
An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the individual 
exporter's business and export licenses; (2) the applicable legislative 
enactments decentralizing control of the companies; and (3) any other 
formal measures by the government decentralizing control of 
companies.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
    \44\ See Dunli Sep Rate Letter at Attachment 1, pages 5-6; and 
Wireking's Section A Questionnaire Response, dated February 23, 
2011, at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Absence of De Facto Control

    Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating 
whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of 
its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or are 
subject to the approval of a governmental agency; (2) whether the 
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other 
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government 
in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) 
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and 
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or 
financing of losses.\45\ 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

[[Page 62769]]

which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-87; see also Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl 
Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May 
8, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We determine that, for Dunli and Wireking the evidence on the 
record supports a preliminary finding of de facto absence of 
governmental control based on record statements and supporting 
documentation showing the following: (1) Each exporter sets its own 
export prices independent of the government and without the approval of 
a government authority; (2) each exporter retains the proceeds from its 
sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits 
or financing of losses; (3) each exporter has the authority to 
negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; and (4) each 
exporter has autonomy from the government regarding the selection of 
management.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See Dunli's Sep Rate Letter at Attachment 1, pages 6-7; and 
Wireking's Section A Questionnaire Response, dated February 23, 
2011, at 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The evidence placed on the record of this investigation by Dunli 
and Wireking demonstrates an absence of de jure and de facto government 
control with respect to each of the exporter's exports of the 
merchandise under investigation, in accordance with the criteria 
identified in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. As a result, we have 
granted Dunli and Wireking separate rate status.

Separate Rate Recipients

    As discussed above, the Department initiated this administrative 
review with respect to seven companies. Additionally, we are 
preliminarily rescinding this review with respect to Hengtong Hardware 
because we have preliminarily determined that it had no shipments of 
subject merchandise during the POR. Thus, including Wireking and NKS, 
six companies remain subject to this review. While Wireking, NKS and 
Dunli provided documentation supporting their eligibility for a 
separate rate, the remaining companies under active review have not 
demonstrated their eligibility for a separate rate. Furthermore, Weixi, 
which responded to the Department's Q&V questionnaire and reported 
shipments during the POR, was chosen by the Department as a mandatory 
respondent, but did not respond to the Department's full antidumping 
duty questionnaire. Therefore, the Department preliminarily determines 
that there were exports of merchandise under review from three PRC 
exporters that did not demonstrate their eligibility for separate rate 
status: Weixi, Asia Pacific CIS (Wuxi) Co., Ltd., and Leader Metal 
Industry Co., Ltd. (aka Marmon Retail Services Asia). As a result, the 
Department is treating these three PRC exporters as part of the PRC-
wide entity, subject to the PRC-wide rate.

Rate for Non-Selected Companies

    In accordance with section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, the Department 
employed a limited examination methodology, as it did not have the 
resources to examine all companies for which a review request was made. 
As stated above, the Department selected Wireking and NKS as the 
mandatory respondents in this review. In addition to the mandatory 
respondent, only Dunli submitted information as requested by the 
Department and remains subject to review as a cooperative separate rate 
respondent.
    The statute and the Department's regulations do not address the 
establishment of a rate to be applied to individual companies not 
selected for examination where the Department limited its examination 
in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. 
Generally we have looked to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which 
provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an 
investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for respondents 
we did not examine in an administrative review. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of 
the Act instructs that we are not to calculate an all-others rate using 
any zero or de minimis margins or any margins based entirely on facts 
available. Accordingly, the Department's practice in this regard, in 
reviews involving limited respondent selection based on exporters 
accounting for the largest volume of trade, has been to average the 
rates for the selected companies, excluding zero and de minimis rates 
and rates based entirely on facts available.\47\ Section 735(c)(5)(B) 
of the Act also provides that, where all margins are zero, de minimis, 
or based entirely on facts available, we may use ``any reasonable 
method'' for assigning the rate to non-selected respondents, including 
``averaging the estimated weighted average dumping margins determined 
for the exporters and producers individually investigated.'' In this 
instance, consistent with our practice, we have preliminarily 
established a margin for the separate rate respondent, Dunli, based on 
the rate we calculated for the mandatory respondent whose rate was not 
de minimis.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam: Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 52273, 52275 
(September 9, 2008) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 
at Comment 6.
    \48\ See, e.g., Forth Administrative Review of Certain Frozen 
Warmwater Shrimp From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary 
Results, Preliminary Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Intent Not To Revoke, In Part, 75 FR 11855 
(March 12, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The PRC-Wide Entity and Use of Adverse Facts Available (``AFA'')

    Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act provide that the Department 
shall apply ``facts otherwise available'' if, inter alia, necessary 
information is not on the record or an interested party or any other 
person: (A) Withholds information that has been requested; (B) fails to 
provide information within the deadlines established, or in the form 
and manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) 
and (e) of section 782 of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a 
proceeding; or (D) provides information that cannot be verified as 
provided by section 782(i) of the Act.
    Where the Department determines that a response to a request for 
information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act 
provides that the Department will so inform the party submitting the 
response and will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the 
opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to 
remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits, subject to 
section 782(e) of the Act, the Department may disregard all or part of 
the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Section 782(e) 
of the Act provides that the Department ``shall not decline to consider 
information that is submitted by an interested party and is necessary 
to the determination but does not meet all applicable requirements 
established by the administering authority'' if the information is 
timely, can be verified, is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a 
reliable basis, and if the interested party acted to the best of its 
ability in providing the information. Where all of these conditions are 
met, the statute requires the Department to use the information if it 
can do so without undue difficulties.
    Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may 
use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when 
a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its 
ability to comply with a request for information. Section 776(b) of the 
Act also authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available 
(``AFA'') information derived from the petition, the final

[[Page 62770]]

determination, a previous administrative review, or other information 
placed on the record.
    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.'' \49\ ``Corroborate'' means that the Department 
will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has 
probative value.\50\ To corroborate secondary information, the 
Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and 
relevance of the information to be used. The SAA explains, however, 
that the Department need not prove that the selected facts available 
are the best alternative information.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See SAA at 870.
    \50\ See id.
    \51\ See id. at 869.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have preliminarily determined that three companies did not 
demonstrate their eligibility for a separate rate and are properly 
considered part of the PRC-wide entity. As explained above in the 
``Separate Rates'' section, all companies within the PRC are considered 
to be subject to government control unless they are able to demonstrate 
an absence of government control with respect to their export 
activities. Such companies are thus assigned a single antidumping duty 
rate distinct from the separate rate(s) determined for companies that 
are found to be independent of government control with respect to their 
export activities. We consider the influence that the government has 
been found to have over the economy to warrant determining a rate for 
the entity that is distinct from the rates found for companies that 
have provided sufficient evidence to establish that they operate freely 
with respect to their export activities.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value, and Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part: Certain 
Lined Paper Products From the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 
53079, 53080 (September 8, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because we have determined that three companies are not entitled to 
separate rates and are now part of the PRC-wide entity, the PRC-wide 
entity--which includes Weixi, Asia Pacific CIS (Wuxi) Co., Ltd., and 
Leader Metal Industry Co., Ltd. (aka Marmon Retail Services Asia)--is 
now under review. The PRC-wide entity did not respond to our requests 
for information. Because the PRC-wide entity did not respond to our 
requests for information, we find it necessary under section 776(a)(2) 
of the Act to use facts available as the basis for these preliminary 
results. Because the PRC-wide entity provided no information, we 
determine that sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act are not relevant to 
our analysis. We further find that the PRC-wide entity (Weixi, Asia 
Pacific CIS (Wuxi) Co., Ltd., and Leader Metal Industry Co., Ltd. (aka 
Marmon Retail Services Asia)) failed to respond to the Department's 
requests for information and, therefore, did not cooperate to the best 
of its ability. Therefore, because the PRC-wide entity did not 
cooperate to the best of its ability in the proceeding, the Department 
finds it necessary to use an adverse inference in making its 
determination, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act.

Selection of the Adverse Facts Available 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 
other information placed on the record. Because of the PRC-wide 
entity's failure to cooperate in this administrative review, we have 
preliminarily assigned the PRC-wide entity an AFA rate of 95.99 
percent, which is the PRC-wide rate determined in the LTFV 
Investigation and the only rate ever determined for the PRC-wide entity 
in this proceeding.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ See LTFV Investigation Amended Final, 74 FR at 46973.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department preliminarily determines that this information is 
the most appropriate from the available sources to effectuate the 
purposes of AFA, which is to induce respondents to provide the 
Department with complete and accurate information in a timely 
manner.\54\ The Department's reliance on the PRC-wide rate from the 
original investigation to determine an AFA rate is subject to the 
requirement to corroborate secondary information.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than 
Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan, 
63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998).
    \55\ See Section 776(c) of the Act and the ``Corroboration of 
Facts Available'' section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Corroboration of Facts Available

    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 the Department's disposal. Secondary information is 
described in the SAA 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.'' \56\ The SAA explains 
that ``corroborate'' means to determine that the information used has 
probative value. The Department has determined that to have probative 
value, information must be reliable and relevant.\57\ The SAA also 
explains that 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.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See SAA at 870.
    \57\ 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).
    \58\ See SAA at 870; see also Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Live Swine From Canada, 70 FR 12181, 
12183 (March 11, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated above, we are applying as AFA the highest and only rate 
for the PRC-wide entity from any segment of this administrative 
proceeding, which is 95.99 percent from the LTFV Investigation Final. 
In deriving that rate, the Department relied upon a rate from the 
Petition.\59\ Because only one mandatory respondent, NKS, received an 
individually calculated weighted-average margin in the LTFV 
Investigation Final, the Department had limited information from which 
to corroborate the selected AFA rate. To assess the probative value of 
the total AFA rate selected for the PRC-wide entity in the LTFV 
Investigation Final, the Department compared the transaction-specific 
rates calculated for NKS to the margins contained in the

[[Page 62771]]

petition and found that, by using NKS's highest transaction specific 
margin in the LTFV Investigation Final as a limited reference point, it 
could corroborate the 95.99 percent AFA rate.\60\ Since the 
investigation, the Department has found no other corroborating 
information available in this case, and received no comments from 
interested parties as to the relevance or reliability of that secondary 
information. Based upon the above, for these preliminary results, the 
Department finds that the rate derived from the Petition and assigned 
to the PRC-wide entity in the LTFV Investigation Final is corroborated 
to the extent practicable for purposes of assigning the PRC-wide entity 
the same 95.99 percent rate as AFA in this administrative review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ See LTFV Investigation Final, 74 FR at 36660.
    \60\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Sale

    Section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations states that, 
``in identifying the date of sale of the merchandise under 
consideration or foreign like product, the Secretary normally will use 
the date of invoice, as recorded in the exporter or producer's records 
kept in the normal course of business.'' In Allied Tube, the CIT noted 
that a ``party seeking to establish a date of sale other than invoice 
date bears the burden of producing sufficient evidence to `satisfy' the 
Department that `a different date better reflects the date on which the 
exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale.' '' \61\ 
Additionally, the Secretary may use a date other than the date of 
invoice if the Secretary is satisfied that a different date better 
reflects the date on which the exporter or producer establishes the 
material terms of sale.\62\ The date of sale is generally the date on 
which the parties agree upon all substantive terms of the sale. This 
normally includes the price, quantity, delivery terms and payment 
terms.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ See Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. United States 132 F. 
Supp. 2d 1087, 1090 (CIT 2001) (quoting 19 CFR 351.401(i)) (``Allied 
Tube'').
    \62\ See 19 CFR 351.401(i); see also Allied Tube, 132 F. Supp. 
2d at 1090-1092.
    \63\ See Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and 
Tobago: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 
FR 62824 (November 7, 2007) and accompanying Issue and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 1; Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value; Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality 
Steel Products from Turkey, 65 FR 15123 (March 21, 2000) and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Issue 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NKS reported that the date of sale was determined by the invoice 
issued by the affiliated importer to the unaffiliated United States 
customer. In this case, as the Department found no evidence contrary to 
NKS's claims that invoice date was the appropriate date of sale, the 
Department used invoice date as the date of sale for these preliminary 
results.
    As it did in the LTFV Investigation, Wireking reported its U.S. 
sales for this review as constructed export price (``CEP'') sales 
because the sales are not made until after importation to the United 
States. Wireking reported that, while it issues a commercial invoice to 
the U.S. customer for the quantities of subject merchandise that it 
shipped, the quantity of each sale is not fixed when it issues the 
commercial invoice to the U.S. customer.\64\ According to Wireking, the 
U.S. customer does not agree to purchase the final quantity for each of 
Wireking's reported sales until the U.S. customer issues document X 
\65\ to Wireking, upon which payment and the total value of each sale 
is based.\66\ Additionally, Wireking has reported that it records the 
date of document X in its accounting records, as well as the payment 
received pursuant to the sale.\67\ Accordingly, based on the record 
evidence, the Department preliminarily determines that Wireking's date 
of sale is the date on which document X is issued because all the 
material terms of sale, i.e., final quantity, value, and payment, are 
not fixed until the U.S. customer issues document X to Wireking. 
Therefore, the Department will calculate Wireking's price for its U.S. 
sales using the date of document X as the date of sale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ See Wireking's Section A Response, dated February 23, 2011, 
at 13.
    \65\ The description of this document is business proprietary; 
for further discussion of this document, see, e.g., Wireking's 
Supplemental Section A Response, dated February 23, 2011, at 14, and 
Wireking's Supplemental Section A & C Response, dated April 27, 
2011, at 2.
    \66\ See Wireking's Supplemental Questionnaire Response, dated 
May 26, 2011, at 7.
    \67\ See Wireking's Supplemental Section A Response, dated 
(March 17, 2011), at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Use of Facts Available for Wireking's Unit Weights

    Section 776(a)(1) of the Act mandates that the Department use facts 
available if necessary information is not available on the record of an 
antidumping proceeding. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act also provides that 
the Department shall apply ``facts otherwise available'' if, inter 
alia, 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.
    In this review, as in the LTFV Investigation, Wireking reported 
that it does not maintain the records to trace the consumption of 
inputs or materials to the finished products (i.e. on a product-
specific basis).\68\ In the LTFV Investigation, the Department applied 
total AFA to Wireking for the final determination because it found 
production records at verification that Wireking had failed to submit, 
in spite of repeated requests from the Department that Wireking provide 
any documents that could be used to calculated product-specific usage 
ratios. The Department noted that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ See Wireking's Section D Response, dated March 21, 2011, at 
5.

    The Department afforded Wireking numerous opportunities to 
provide complete and accurate information for the calculation of its 
antidumping margin. This information is critical because it affects 
the Department's ability to ascertain whether Wireking has 
accurately reported its FOPs {factors of production{time} . 
Specifically, because Wireking failed to provide the BOMs {bills of 
materials{time}  and actual production notes in timely manner prior 
to verification, the Department did not have the opportunity to 
fully investigate whether Wireking could have reported its FOPs on a 
more specific basis, nor did the Department have the opportunity to 
obtain and analyze this data.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ See LTFV Investigation Final and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 16.

In this review, Wireking has used the standard weight of the 
consumption of steel wire for each finished product from its standard 
production notes (also referred to as the bill of materials), as the 
basis for its calculated unit consumption of FOPs for subject 
merchandise.\70\ Specifically, Wireking reported that for this review 
it reported its factors of production (``FOPs'') by calculating, at 
each stage of production, the ratio of the finished standard weight of 
each product code to the finished standard weight of all products, 
subject and non-subject, generated at that stage. Wireking then applied 
that ratio to the total actual POR usage of each FOP to obtain a 
standard consumption of each FOP on a product-specific basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ See Wireking's Section D Response, dated March 21, 2011, at 
11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In multiple submissions to the Department, Petitioners provided 
data gathered from Wireking's submitted packing lists and Petitioners' 
own production experience of certain products that allegedly 
demonstrated that Wireking's reported unit weights

[[Page 62772]]

were understated.\71\ After comparing the unit weight of products 
reported in Wireking's packing lists to Wireking's reported unit 
weights, we preliminarily find that Wireking has understated the unit 
weights of its finished products.\72\ Furthermore, we note that 
Wireking has stated that the weights on its packing lists are higher 
than its reported standard weights because it intentionally overstates 
the weights on the packing list to ensure that the packing list weight 
will not be lower than the actual weight when the container is checked 
by CBP. However, we find that overstating the weight on the packing 
lists to the extent done by Wireking would subject Wireking to 
unnecessary, additional shipping costs, and does not reflect a 
reasonable business decision. For a detailed discussion of the specific 
weight variations between documents, please see Wireking's Analysis 
Memo and Wireking's Supplemental Questionnaire Response, dated July 20, 
2011, at Exhibit S4-3. Additionally, the Department notes that 
Petitioners have argued that weights quoted by Wireking in e-mail 
correspondence with its U.S. customer would serve as a more appropriate 
benchmark to determine to what extent Wireking has understated the unit 
weights of its finished product. However, the Department finds that the 
packing lists, which are prepared by Wireking for use by an outside 
third party, are more reliable than the informal and internal business 
emails between Wireking and its customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ See Petitioners' Letter regarding ``Deficiencies in 
Sections C and D of Wireking's Response,'' dated March 28, 2011; 
Petitioners' letter regarding ``The True Weight of Finished Products 
and The Relationship to the True Weight of Direct Material Inputs,'' 
dated May 9, 2011; Petitioners' Letter regarding ``Petitioners' 
Commercial Experience For Benchmarking Wireking's Factors of 
Production,'' dated May 31, 2011; and Petitioners' Letter regarding 
``Factual Information Regarding Production Requirements (U.S. 
Petitioner's Business Proprietary Information),'' dated May 26, 
2011.
    \72\ See Memorandum to The File, through Catherine Bertrand, 
Program Manager, Office 9, from Katie Marksberry, International 
Trade Specialist, Office 9, regarding ``Analysis Memorandum for the 
Preliminary Results of the First Antidumping Duty Review of Certain 
Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks from the People's Republic of 
China: Guandong Wireking Housewares and Hardware Co., Ltd. 
(``Wireking''),'' dated September 30, 2011 (``Wireking Analysis 
Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because Wireking reported that it multiplied its FOP ratios by the 
unit weight of the finished product to obtain the per-unit consumption 
ratio of finished product, we further find that Wireking has 
understated its FOP ratios. Therefore, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(B) 
of the Act, we preliminarily determine that Wireking has not provided 
accurate information relevant to the Department's analysis. Thus, 
consistent with sections 776(a)(2)(B) and 782(d) of the Act, and 
consistent with the Department's determination in the LTFV 
Investigation Final, the Department is disregarding the standard 
weights reported by Wireking for each finished product and is applying 
facts otherwise available to Wireking's unit weight of each finished 
product to calculate Wireking's NV based on its reported FOP data. To 
account for the correct per-unit consumption ratio of each of 
Wireking's finished products, the Department has preliminarily 
determined to increase Wireking's reported FOP data by the difference 
in Wireking's reported unit weight and the product-specific unit weight 
reported in Wireking's packing list. Moreover, the Department has made 
the necessary corresponding changes to the variables reported in the 
U.S. sales database.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ See Wireking's Analysis Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wireking's Production Records

    As explained above in the ``Use of Facts Available for Wireking's 
Unit Weights'' section, for these preliminary results, the Department 
is accepting Wireking's reported standard allocation methodology and 
applying FA to its reported unit weights. However, the Department now 
advises Wireking that it must, going forward and in all future 
segements of this proceeding, generate and maintain detailed production 
records sufficient to allow Wireking to report its FOP usage on an 
actual, CONNUM-specific basis.

NKS's Reported U.S. Sales Variable \74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ See Memorandum to the File from Kabir Archuletta, Analyst, 
Office 9, regarding ``Information Related to New King Shan's 
Reported Gross Unit Price and Billing Adjustments,'' dated September 
30, 2011 (``NKS BPI Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its U.S. Sales database, NKS has reported a variable that it 
argues should be accounted for in the Department's margin calculation. 
However, based on information placed on the record by NKS and its U.S. 
customer, the Department has determined not to include this variable in 
the margin calculation for these preliminary results. Due to the 
proprietary nature of the factual information concerning this 
discussion, a detailed explanation of this issue is provided in a 
separate business proprietary memorandum.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NKS's Reported Indirect Selling Expenses

    In the LTFV Investigation the Department determined that, in 
accordance with section 776(a)(1) of the Act, the use of facts 
available was warranted for the calculation of indirect selling 
expenses (``ISEs'') for the affiliates of NKS.\76\ The Department 
further stated that it would deduct ISEs for NKS's U.S. affiliate and 
other affiliated companies from NKS's CEP in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.402(b), which states that ``the Secretary will make adjustments for 
expenses associated with commercial activities in the United States 
that relate to the sale to the unaffiliated purchaser, no matter where 
or when paid.'' \77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ See LTFV Investigation Final, 74 FR at 36659.
    \77\ See 19 CFR 351.402(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this review, NKS initially submitted an ISE calculation that 
only included certain expenses for one of its affiliates. The 
Department requested that NKS revise its reported ISEs to include 
additional line item expenses and to include expenses for its other 
affiliates. Subsequently, NKS submitted a revised calculation which 
included additional expenses as well as certain expenses related to a 
second affiliate. However, NKS argued that the Department should not 
include all reported expenses and should instead accept NKS's suggested 
calculation. We have determined, based on the information on the record 
of this review, to apply the second, more complete ISE calculation 
submitted by NKS which includes all additional requested expenses, 
because there is not sufficient information currently on the record of 
this review to determine whether NKS's requested line item exclusions 
are appropriate. Therefore, the Department has requested additional 
information from NKS regarding each line item expense included in its 
submitted ISE calculations.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ See Letter from Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, Office 
9, to NKS regarding ``Sixth Supplemental Questionnaire.'' dated 
September 13, 2011 (``Sixth Supplemental Questionnaire'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, NKS declined to submit calculated ISEs for a third 
affiliate that it claims did not take title to the goods, did not 
arrange for shipping details, did not warehouse the goods, and did not 
sell the goods.\79\ Although NKS claims that this affiliate is in no 
way involved in the sale of subject merchandise, the Department finds 
that the record of this review does not provide sufficient information 
to definitively determine that this is the case. The Department notes 
that, while we deducted ISEs for this affiliate in the LTFV 
Investigation, certain circumstances have since changed and the extent 
of the involvement of this affiliate in the sale of subject merchandise 
has yet to be

[[Page 62773]]

fully explained on the record of this review.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ See NKS August 1 Response at Exhibit SSSC-4.
    \80\ See NKS August 1 Response at 18; NKS Supplemental Section C 
Questionnaire Response, dated May 27, 2011 (``NKS SSCQR''), at 25; 
and NKS Fourth Supplemental Questionnaire and First Addendum 
Response, dated August 30, 2011 (``NKS August 30 Response''), at 1-
4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Department has requested additional information from 
NKS that specifically addresses the involvement of this affiliate in 
the sale of subject merchandise and the propriety of excluding certain 
expenses from the ISE calculations of its other affiliates.\81\ 
Although the late timing of this questionnaire will not allow us to 
consider the response of NKS in these preliminary results, the 
information will be reviewed and incorporated into the final results. 
Therefore, for the preliminary results, we will use the INDIRSU1 ISE 
calculation provided by NKS pending NKS's response to its outstanding 
supplemental questionnaire.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ See Letter from Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, Office 
9, to NKS regarding ``Sixth Supplemental Questionnaire.'' dated 
September 13, 2011.
    \82\ See Memorandum to the File from Kabir Archuletta, Case 
Analyst, Office 9, through Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, 
Office 9, regarding ``Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary 
Results of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of 
Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks from the People's 
Republic of China: New King Shan (Zhu Hai) Co., Ltd.'', dated 
September 30, 2011 (``NKS Analysis Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allegations of NKS's Failure To Disclose Third Country Transshipments

    On June 16, 2011, Petitioners submitted comments requesting that 
the Department resort to total AFA for NKS based on allegations that it 
concealed U.S. sales shipped through third countries.\83\ These claims 
were based on price quotes submitted by NKS, a comparison of sales in 
the LTFV Investigation and those reported in this review, and email 
correspondence between NKS and its U.S. customer.\84\ Alternatively, 
Petitioners requested that the Department solicit further information 
and pointed to a number of specific issues for further 
clarification.\85\ Between May 2, 2011, and August 1, 2011, the 
Department requested clarification and received responses from NKS 
related to the allegations made by Petitioners.\86\ However, based on 
the information reported in these responses, the Department has 
determined, for these preliminary results, that there is not adequate 
information on the record of this review to determine that NKS has 
failed to report U.S. sales to the Department. Therefore, we are not 
requiring NKS to revise its Section C questionnaire responses or 
databases to include sales of merchandise from third countries for 
these preliminary results. Additionally, the Department has obtained 
CBP data related to Petitoners' allegations and is placing the data on 
the record of this review and requesting comments from interested 
parties related to this issue within ten days of publication of this 
notice, rebuttal comments pertaining to the CBP data will be due five 
days after affirmative comments.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ See Petitioners' June 16 Comments at 2-5; see also 
Petitioners' April 15 Comments at 2-5.
    \84\ See id.
    \85\ See id.
    \86\ See NKS SSCQR, NKS SSDQR, and NKS August 1 Response.
    \87\ See Memorandum to The File, from Katie Marksberry, 
International Trade Specialist, Office 9; regarding ``Release of CBP 
Data for Comment,'' dated September 30, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surrogate Country and Surrogate Values

    When the Department investigates 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 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 at a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME 
country and significant producers of comparable merchandise.
    On January 3, 2011, the Department sent interested parties a letter 
requesting comments on the surrogate country and information pertaining 
to the valuation of FOPs.\88\ On April 18, 2011, the Department 
received comments from Wireking regarding the valuation of FOPs. On 
August 1, 2011, the Department received comments from Petitioners 
regarding the valuation of FOPs. Wireking submitted rebuttal surrogate 
value comments on August 11, 2011. We did not receive surrogate value 
comments from any other interested parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ See Letter to Interested Parties from Catherine Bertrand, 
Program Manager, Office 9, regarding ``First Administrative Review 
of Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks from the People's 
Republic of China: Deadlines for Surrogate Country and Surrogate 
Value Comments,'' dated January 3, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the NME Country Status section, above, the 
Department considers the PRC to be an NME country. The Department 
determined that India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, Ukraine 
and Peru are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of economic 
development.\89\ Moreover, it is the Department's practice to select an 
appropriate surrogate country based on the availability and reliability 
of data from these countries.\90\ The Department finds India to be a 
reliable source for surrogate values because India is at a comparable 
level of economic development pursuant to 773(c)(4) of the Act, is a 
significant producer of comparable merchandise, and has publicly 
available and reliable data.\91\ Furthermore, the Department notes that 
India has been the primary surrogate country in the past segment.\92\ 
As noted above, Wireking and Petitioners submitted surrogate value data 
for FOPs, including that from India. Given the above facts, the 
Department has selected India as the primary surrogate country for this 
review.\93\ The sources of the surrogate factor values are discussed 
under the Normal Value section below and in the Surrogate Value Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ See Letter from the Department to Interested Parties, 
regarding ``First Administrative Review of Certain Kitchen Appliance 
Shelving and Racks from the People's Republic of China: Deadlines 
for Surrogate Country and Surrogate Value Comments,'' dated January 
3, 2011.
    \90\ See Department Policy Bulletin No. 04.1: Non-Market Economy 
Surrogate Country Selection Process, dated March 1, 2004.
    \91\ See Memorandum to the File through Catherine Bertrand, 
Program Manager, Office 9, from Katie Marksberry, Case Analyst, 
Office 9, regarding ``First Administrative Review of Certain Kitchen 
Appliance Shelving and Racks From the People's Republic of China: 
Surrogate Factor Valuations for the Preliminary Results,'' dated 
concurrently with this notice (``Surrogate Value Memo'').
    \92\ See LTFV Investigation Final, 74 FR at 36659.
    \93\ See Surrogate Value Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Price

Constructed Export Price

    Both Wireking and NKS reported that all of their POR sales were 
constructed export price (``CEP'') in accordance with section 772(b) of 
the Act. For these sales, we based CEP on prices to the first 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, we made 
deductions from the starting price (gross unit price) for foreign 
movement expenses, international movement expenses, U.S. movement 
expenses, and appropriate selling expenses, in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Additionally, in accordance with section 
772(c)(1)(C) of the Act, we adjusted CEP where appropriate to account 
for countervailing duties attributable to subject merchandise in order 
to offset export subsidies preliminarily found in the concurrent 
administrative review of the countervailing duty order on certain 
kitchen appliance shelving and racks from the PRC.

[[Page 62774]]

    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we also deducted 
those selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in 
the United States where appropriate. We deducted, where appropriate, 
commissions, inventory carrying costs, credit expenses, and indirect 
selling expenses. Where foreign movement expenses, international 
movement expenses, or U.S. movement expenses were provided by Chinese 
service providers or paid for in Chinese renminbi, we valued these 
services using surrogate values.\94\ For those expenses that were 
provided by a market-economy provider and paid for in market-economy 
currency, we used the reported expense.\95\ Due to the proprietary 
nature of certain adjustments to U.S. price, for a detailed description 
of all adjustments made to U.S. price for Wireking and NKS, see company 
specific analysis memos.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ See Surrogate Value Memo for details regarding the 
surrogate values for movement expenses.
    \95\ See NKS Analysis Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normal Value

Methodology

    Section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine the NV using an FOP methodology if the merchandise is 
exported from an NME and the information does not permit the 
calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or 
constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. The Department bases 
NV on the FOPs because the presence of government controls on various 
aspects of NMEs renders price comparisons and the calculation of 
production costs invalid under the Department's normal 
methodologies.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value, Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part, and 
Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Lined Paper Products 
From the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 19695, 19703 (April 17, 
2006), unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value, and Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part: 
Certain Lined Paper Products From the People's Republic of China, 71 
FR 53079 (September 8, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Factor Valuations

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on FOP data reported by the respondents for the POR. Because we 
had two effective PORs for this review, we used FOP data specific to 
the separate PORs, where possible. For more details, see Surrogate 
Value Memo. To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit 
factor-consumption rates by publicly available surrogate values (except 
as discussed below).
    In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, 
specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we 
adjusted input prices by including freight costs to make them delivered 
prices. We added to each Indian import surrogate value a surrogate 
freight cost calculated from the shorter of the reported distance from 
the domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the nearest 
seaport to the factory, where appropriate. See Sigma Corp. v. United 
States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407-1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Where we could not 
obtain publicly available information contemporaneous to the POR with 
which to value FOPs, we adjusted the surrogate values, where 
appropriate, using the Indian Wholesale Price Index (``WPI'') as 
published in the International Monetary Fund's International Financial 
Statistics. See Surrogate Value Memo.
    The Department used Indian import statistics from Global Trade 
Atlas to value the raw material and packing material inputs that 
Wireking and NKS used to produce subject merchandise during the POR, 
except where listed below.
    To value low carbon steel wire rod, we used price data from the 
Indian Join Plant Committee (``JPC''), which is a joint industry/
government board that monitors Indian steel prices. These data are 
fully contemporaneous with the POR, and are specific to the reported 
inputs of the respondents. Further, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.408(c)(1), these data are publicly available, represent a broad 
market average, and we are able to calculate them on a tax-exclusive 
basis. For a detailed discussion of all surrogate values used for these 
preliminary results, see Surrogate Value Memo.
    The Department valued electricity using the updated electricity 
price data for small, medium, and large industries, as published by the 
Central Electricity Authority, an administrative body of the Government 
of India, in its publication titled Electricity Tariff & Duty and 
Average Rates of Electricity Supply in India, dated March 2008. These 
electricity rates represent actual country-wide, publicly-available 
information on tax-exclusive electricity rates charged to small, 
medium, and large industries in India. We did not inflate this value 
because utility rates represent current rates, as indicated by the 
effective dates listed for each of the rates provided.
    The Department valued water using data from the Maharashtra 
Industrial Development Corporation (``MIDC'') as it includes a wide 
range of industrial water tariffs. To value water, we used the average 
rate for industrial use from MIDC water rates at http://www.midcindia.org.
    The Department valued truck freight expenses using a per-unit 
average rate calculated from data on the Infobanc Web site: http://www.infobanc.com/logistics/logtruck.htm. The logistics section of this 
Web site contains inland freight truck rates between many large Indian 
cities. Since this value is not contemporaneous with the POR, the 
Department deflated the rate using WPI.
    To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative 
(``SG&A'') expenses, and profit, the Department used the audited 
financial statements of Bansidhar Granites and Mekins Agro Products 
(``Mekins''). Although the Department notes that Wireking has argued 
that Mekins financial statement includes a packing credit which 
indicates that it receives countervailable subsidies, there is not 
enough information on the record to determine whether the packing 
credit has been found to be a countervailable subsidy by the 
Department.\97\ Therefore, for these preliminary results, we are using 
both the financial statement of Mekins and Bansidhar Granites to value 
overhead, SG&A, and profit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ See Surrogate Value Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Previously, the Department used regression-based wages that 
captured the worldwide relationship between per capita Gross National 
Income (``GNI'') and hourly manufacturing wages, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.408(c)(3), to value the respondent's cost of labor. However, on May 
14, 2010, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (``CAFC''), in 
Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 1363, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 
(``Dorbest''), invalidated 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3). As a consequence of 
the CAFC's ruling in Dorbest, the Department no longer relies on the 
regression-based wage rate methodology described in its regulations.
    On June 21, 2011, the Department revised its methodology for 
valuing the labor input in NME antidumping proceedings.\98\ In Labor 
Methodologies, the Department determined that the best methodology to 
value the labor input is to use industry-specific labor rates from the 
primary surrogate country. Additionally, the Department determined that 
the best data source for industry-specific labor rates is Chapter 6A: 
Labor Cost in Manufacturing, from

[[Page 62775]]

the International Labor Organization (ILO) Yearbook of Labor Statistics 
(``Yearbook'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ See Antidumping Methodologies in Proceedings Involving Non-
Market Economies: Valuing the Factor of Production: Labor, 76 FR 
36092 (June 21, 2011) (``Labor Methodologies'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In these preliminary results, the Department calculated the labor 
input using the wage method described in Labor Methodologies. To value 
the respondent's labor input, the Department relied on data reported by 
India to the ILO in Chapter 6A of the Yearbook. 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. Accordingly, relying on Chapter 6A of 
the Yearbook, the Department calculated the labor input using labor 
data reported by India to the ILO 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 $1.22. A more detailed description of the wage rate 
calculation methodology is provided in the Surrogate Value Memo.
    As stated above, the Department used India ILO data reported under 
Chapter 6A of Yearbook, which reflects all costs related to labor, 
including wages, benefits, housing, training, etc. Because the 
financial statements used to calculate the surrogate financial ratios 
include itemized detail of labor costs, the Department made adjustments 
to certain labor costs in the surrogate financial ratios. See Labor 
Methodologies, 76 FR at 36093.
    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.
    Where appropriate, we made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, 
in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange 
rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the 
Federal Reserve Bank.

Export Subsidy Adjustment

    Section 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act unconditionally states that U.S. 
price ``shall be increased by the amount of any countervailing duty 
imposed on the subject merchandise * * * to offset an export subsidy.'' 
\99\ The Department determined in its preliminary results of the 
companion countervailing duty administrative review that NKS and 
Wireking's merchandise benefited from export subsidies.\100\ Therefore, 
we have increased each company's U.S. price for countervailing duties 
imposed attributable to export subsidies, where appropriate.\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ See, e.g., Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 38076, 
38077 (July 1, 2010), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 1.
    \100\ See Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks from the 
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, dated concurrently with 
this notice.
    \101\ See NKS Analysis Memo; see also Wireking Analysis Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we intend to verify 
the information upon which we will rely in making our final 
determination.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    The Department has determined that the following preliminary 
dumping margins exist for the period March 5, 2009 through August 31, 
2010:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Exporter                         Margin  (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guangdong Wireking Housewares & Hardware    5.18.
 Co., Ltd. (a/k/a Foshan Shunde Wireking
 Housewares & Hardware Co., Ltd.) \102\
New King Shan (Zhu Hai) Co., Ltd.\103\      0.00 (zero).
Hangzhou Dunli Import & Export Co., Ltd...  5.18.
PRC-Wide Entity \104\.....................  95.99.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated above in the Rate for Non-Selected Companies section of 
this notice, Dunli qualified for a separate rate in this review. 
Moreover, as stated above in the Respondent Selection section of this 
notice, we limited this review by selecting the largest exporter and 
did not select Dunli as a mandatory respondent. Therefore, we have 
preliminarily assigned to Dunli a dumping margin based on its most 
recently assigned rate in the LTFV Investigation because the mandatory 
respondents in this review received de minimis rates and it is not the 
Department's practice to assign separate rates based on rates that are 
de minimis or zero, or based entirely on facts available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ In the LTFV Investigation the Department found that 
Wireking was a single entity with Company G (the name of this 
company is business proprietary; see Wireking Analysis Memo). The 
information placed on the record of this review demonstrates that 
there have not been changes to the ownership structure. Therefore, 
we continue to find Wireking and Company G to constitute a single 
entity.
    \103\ New King Shan (Zhu Hai) Co., Ltd., is the only entity 
receiving this rate calculated in this administrative review.
    \104\ The PRC-wide entity includes Jiangsu Weixi Group Co., Asia 
Pacific CIS (Wuxi) Co., Ltd., and Leader Metal Industry Co., Ltd. 
(aka Marmon Retail Services Asia), as well as any company that does 
not have a separate rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose calculations performed for these 
preliminary results to the parties within five days of the date of 
publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results 
of this administrative review, interested parties may submit publicly 
available information to value FOPs within 20 days after the date of 
publication of these preliminary results. Interested parties must 
provide the Department with supporting documentation for the publicly 
available information to value each FOP. Additionally, in accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final results of this administrative 
review, interested parties may submit factual information to rebut, 
clarify, or correct factual information submitted by an interested 
party less than ten days before, on, or after, the applicable deadline 
for submission of such factual information. 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. The Department generally cannot accept the submission of 
additional, previously absent-from-the-record alternative surrogate 
value information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1).\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because, as discussed above, the Department intends to verify the 
information upon which we will rely in making our final determination, 
the Department will establish the briefing schedule at a later time, 
and will notify parties of the schedule in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.309. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this 
proceeding are requested to submit with each argument: (1) A statement 
of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of 
authorities. See 19 CFR 351.309(c) and (d).
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to 
request a hearing, or to participate if one is

[[Page 62776]]

requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for 
Import Administration, Room 1117, within 30 days of the date 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. Issues raised in the hearing will 
be limited to those raised in the respective case and rebuttal briefs.

Extension of the Time Limits for the Final Results

    Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act requires that the Department issue 
the final results of an administrative review within 120 days after the 
date on which the preliminary results are published. If it is not 
practicable to complete the review within that time period, section 
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the deadline 
for the final results to a maximum of 180 days after the date on which 
the preliminary results are published.
    In this proceeding, the Department requires additional time to 
complete the final results of this administrative review to issue 
additional supplemental questionnaires, conduct verifications, generate 
the reports of the verification findings, and properly consider the 
issues raised in case briefs from interested parties. Thus, it is not 
practicable to complete this administrative review within the original 
time limit. Consequently, the Department is extending the time limit 
for completion of the final results of this review by 60 days, in 
accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. The final results are 
now due no later 180 days after the publication date of these 
preliminary results.

Assessment Rates

    Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, 
and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries 
covered by this review. The Department intends to issue assessment 
instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final 
results of this review excluding any reported sales that entered during 
the gap period. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we are 
calculating importer- (or customer-) specific assessment rates for the 
merchandise subject to this review. Where the respondent has reported 
reliable entered values, we calculate importer- (or customer-) specific 
ad valorem rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all 
U.S. sales to each importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by 
the total entered value of the sales to each importer (or customer). 
Where an importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem rate is greater 
than de minimis, we will apply the assessment rate to the entered value 
of the importers'/customers' entries during the POR, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.212(b)(1).
    Where we do not have entered values for all U.S. sales to a 
particular importer/customer, we calculate a per-unit assessment rate 
by aggregating the antidumping duties due for all U.S. sales to that 
importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total quantity 
sold to that importer (or customer).\106\ To determine whether the duty 
assessment rates are de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set 
forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer- (or customer-) 
specific ad valorem ratios based on the estimated entered value. Where 
an importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem rate is zero or de 
minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without 
regard to antidumping duties.\107\ For the company receiving a separate 
rate that were not selected for individual review, we will assign an 
assessment rate based on rates calculated in previous segment as 
discussed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
    \107\ See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters 
listed above, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the 
final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de 
minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, a zero cash deposit rate 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 that have not been found to be entitled to a 
separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 95.99 
percent; \108\ 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 exporter(s) that supplied that non-PRC 
exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in 
effect until further notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Chlorinated Isocyanurates From the People's Republic of 
China, 70 FR 24502, 24505 (May 10, 2005) (explaining the derivation 
of the PRC-wide rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notification to Importers

    This notice also 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.
    These preliminary results are issued and published in accordance 
with sections 751(a)(1), 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, 19 CFR 
351.221(b)(4), and 19 CFR 351.214.

     Dated: September 30, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-26205 Filed 10-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P