[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 58 (Monday, March 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17430-17436]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7212]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-975]


Galvanized Steel Wire From the People's Republic of China: Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value

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

DATES: Effective Date: March 26, 2012.

SUMMARY: On November 4, 2011, the Department of Commerce (the 
``Department'') published the Preliminary Determination of sales at 
less than fair value (``LTFV'') in the antidumping investigation of 
galvanized steel wire from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'').\1\ 
On November 29, 2011, the Department published an Amended Preliminary 
Determination.\2\ The period of investigation (``POI'') is July 1, 
2010, through December 31, 2010. Based on our analysis of the comments 
received, we have made changes to our Preliminary Determination and 
Amended Preliminary Determination. The Department continues to find 
that galvanized steel wire from the PRC is being, or is likely to be, 
sold in the United States at LTFV, as provided in section 735 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). The estimated margins of 
sales at LTFV are shown in the ``Final Determination Margins'' section 
of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Galvanized Steel Wire From the People's Republic of 
China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value 
and Postponement of Final Determination, 76 FR 68407 (November 4, 
2011) (``Preliminary Determination'').
    \2\ See Galvanized Steel Wire From the People's Republic of 
China: Amended Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, 76 FR 73589 (November 29, 2011) (``Amended Preliminary 
Determination'').

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irene Gorelik, 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) 482-6905, (202) 482-7906, or 482-2593, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On November 4, 2011, Shanghai Bao Zhang Industry Co., Ltd., Anhui 
Bao Zhang Metal Products Co., Ltd., and B&Z Galvanized Wire Industry 
(collectively, ``Baozhang''), one of the three respondents selected for 
individual examination in this investigation, notified the Department 
that it would not participate in any the scheduled verifications.\3\ On 
November 9, 2011, Tianjin Honbase Machinery Manufactory Co., Ltd. 
(``Honbase''), another respondent selected for individual examination 
in this investigation, also notified the Department that it would not 
participate in any scheduled verifications.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Letter to the Department from Baozhang; Re: Letter 
Electing Not To Participate in Verification, dated November 4, 2011.
    \4\ See Letter to the Department from Honbase; Re: Galvanized 
Steel Wire from the People's Republic of China, dated November 9, 
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 2, 2011, Qingdao Ant Hardware Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 
(``AHM''), one of the non-individually examined exporters that received 
a separate rate, placed on the record samples of products which it 
believes should be excluded from the scope of the investigation. On 
November 9, 2011, the Department notified all interested parties that 
it would allow any interested parties to physically view the 
samples.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See ``Memorandum to the File from Kabir Archuletta, re: 
Galvanized Steel Wire Sample Viewing,'' dated November 9, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Between December 9 and 14, 2011, we received case and rebuttal 
briefs from Petitioners,\6\ AHM, Tianjin Huayuan Metal Wire Products 
Co., Ltd. (``Huayuan''),\7\ and Baozhang. The Department did not hold a 
public hearing, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d), as the hearing requests 
made by interested parties were withdrawn.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Davis Wire Corporation, Johnstown Wire Technologies, Inc., 
Mid-South Wire Company, Inc., National Standard, LLC and Oklahoma 
Steel & Wire Company, Inc. (hereinafter collectively referred to as 
``Petitioners'').
    \7\ In this case, Huayuan refers to the collective group of 
affiliated companies comprised of Tianjin Huayuan Metal Wire 
Products Co., Ltd., Tianjin Tianxin Metal Products, Co., Ltd., 
Tianjin Huayuan Times Metal Products Co., Ltd., and Tianjin 
Meijiahua Trade Co., Ltd.
    \8\ See Letter to the Department from Huayuan; Re: Galvanized 
Steel Wire from the People's Republic of China: Withdrawal of 
Request for a Hearing, dated December 15, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 2, 2012, at the Department's request, interested parties 
in the companion galvanized wire investigations involving Mexico filed 
on the record of this investigation certain scope comments that were 
raised in that proceeding's case and rebuttal briefs. We allowed a 
period of time for parties in the instant proceeding to comment on 
those submissions. We received no comments.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this investigation are addressed in the ``Antidumping Duty 
Investigation of Galvanized Steel Wire from the People's Republic of 
China: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination'' 
(``Decision Memo''), dated concurrently with this notice and which is 
hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties 
raised, and to which we respond in the Decision Memo, are attached to 
this notice as Appendix I. The Decision Memo is a public document and 
is on file electronically via Import Administration's Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (``IA 
ACCESS''). Access to IA ACCESS is available in the Central Records Unit 
(``CRU''), room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In 
addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed 
directly on the internet at http://www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed 
Decision Memo and the electronic versions of the Decision Memo are 
identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our analysis of information on the record of this 
investigation, we have made changes regarding Honbase and Baozhang for 
the final determination. Specifically, for the final determination, we 
have applied total adverse facts available (``AFA'') for Honbase's and 
Baozhang's failure to participate and their subsequent inclusion as 
part of the PRC-wide entity.

[[Page 17431]]

Scope of Investigation

    The scope of this investigation covers galvanized steel wire which 
is a cold-drawn carbon quality steel product in coils, of circular or 
approximately circular, solid cross section with any actual diameter of 
0.5842 mm (0.0230 inch) or more, plated or coated with zinc (whether by 
hot-dipping or electroplating).
    Steel products to be included in the scope of this investigation, 
regardless of Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(``HTSUS'') definitions, are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, 
by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) the carbon 
content is two percent or less, by weight; and (3) none of the elements 
listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:

--1.80 percent of manganese, or
--1.50 percent of silicon, or
--1.00 percent of copper, or
--0.50 percent of aluminum, or
--1.25 percent of chromium, or
--0.30 percent of cobalt, or
--0.40 percent of lead, or
--1.25 percent of nickel, or
--0.30 percent of tungsten, or
--0.02 percent of boron, or
--0.10 percent of molybdenum, or
--0.10 percent of niobium, or
--0.41 percent of titanium, or
--0.15 percent of vanadium, or
--0.15 percent of zirconium.

    Specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation is 
galvanized steel wire in coils of 15 feet or less which is pre-packed 
in individual retail packages. The products subject to this 
investigation are currently classified in subheadings 7217.20.30, 
7217.20.45, and7217.90.1000 of the HTSUS which cover galvanized wire of 
all diameters and all carbon content. Galvanized wire is reported under 
statistical reporting numbers 7217.20.3000, 7217.20.4510, 7217.20.4520, 
7217.20.4530, 7217.20.4540, 7217.20.4550, 7217.20.4560, 7217.20.4570, 
7217.20.4580, and 7217.90.1000. These products may also enter under 
HTSUS subheadings 7229.20.0015, 7229.20.0090, 7229.90.5008, 
7229.90.5016, 7229.90.5031, and 7229.90.5051. Although the HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the 
written description of the merchandise is dispositive.

Scope Comments

    In their case and rebuttal briefs, interested parties provided 
comments on the scope and merchandise that is to be covered under the 
scope. We have discussed these comments fully in the Decision Memo.\9\ 
In addition, and as referenced in the ``Background'' section above, 
certain parties in the companion galvanized wire investigation 
involving Mexico provided scope comments.\10\ As a result of 
considering these comments, we have made a slight modification of the 
scope to clarify that galvanized steel wire of circular or 
approximately circular, solid cross section is included within the 
scope.\11\ We have also included an additional HTSUS subheading as part 
of the scope description.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Decision Memo at Comment 3.
    \10\ These comments have been addressed in the Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Galvanized Steel 
Wire from Mexico, signed concurrently with this notice and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 3 and 4.
    \11\ See id., at Comment 3.
    \12\ See id., at Comment 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, in the Preliminary Determination, we responded to 
scope comments provided by Tree Island Wire (USA), Inc. and Preferred 
Wire Products, Inc., and we preliminarily determined that galvanized 
wire with a diameter less than one millimeter is subject to the scope 
of the investigation. No additional comments were made on this issue in 
the case or rebuttal briefs. Thus, for the final determination, we have 
made no changes on this determination from the Preliminary 
Determination and continue to find, specifically, that galvanized wire 
with a diameter less than one millimeter but equal to or greater than 
0.5842 millimeters is covered by the scope.

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving non-market-economy (``NME'') countries, 
the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies 
within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should 
be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the 
Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to 
an investigation in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter 
can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be 
entitled to a separate rate.\13\ In the Preliminary Determination, we 
found that Shijiazhuang Kingway Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Shanxi Yuci 
Broad Wire Products Co., Ltd.; Huanghua Jinhai Hardware Products Co., 
Ltd.; Huanghua Jinhai Import & Export Trading Co., Ltd.; Guizhou Wire 
Rope Incorporated Company; Hebei Minmetals Co., Ltd.; Shandong 
Minmetals Co., Ltd.; Fasten Group Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd.; Qingdao Ant 
Hardware Manufacturing Co., Ltd.; Suntec Industries Co., Ltd.; M & M 
Industries Co., Ltd.; Shaanxi New Mile International Trade Co., Ltd.; 
Hebei Cangzhou New Century Foreign Trade Co., Ltd.; Dezhou Hualude 
Hardware Products Co., Ltd.; Shanghai SETI Enterprise International 
Co., Ltd.; and Xi'an Metals and Minerals Import and Export Co., Ltd., 
demonstrated their eligibility for, and were hence assigned, separate 
rate status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 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''), as amplified by Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's 
Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (``Silicon Carbide''), 
and 19 CFR 351.107(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No parties commented on the above companies' eligibility for 
separate rate status. Consequently, for the final determination, we 
continue to find that these companies demonstrated both a de jure and 
de facto absence of government control with respect to their exports of 
the merchandise under investigation, and are eligible for separate rate 
status for the final determination.
    The Department received comments from Huayuan and Petitioners 
regarding the Department's preliminary determination with respect to 
Huayuan's separate rate status. The Department has addressed the 
arguments in Comment 1 of the Decision Memo. For the final 
determination, we continue to find that Huayuan has not overcome the 
presumption of government control with respect to its exports of the 
merchandise under investigation.\14\ Thus, we continue to find that 
Huayuan is not eligible for a separate rate and remains part of the 
PRC-wide entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Decision Memo at Comment 1; see also ``Memorandum to 
the File from Irene Gorelik, Senior Case Analyst: Program Analysis 
for the Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation 
of Galvanized Steel Wire from the People's Republic of China: 
Tianjin Huayuan Metal Wire Products Co., Ltd.,'' dated October 27, 
2011 (``Huayuan Prelim Analysis Memo'') at Exhibit 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, as discussed in the ``PRC-wide Entity and Facts 
Available'' section below and in Comment 2 of the Decision Memo, 
Honbase and Baozhang failed to demonstrate their eligibility for a 
separate rate by preventing the Department from verifying the accuracy 
of their information and will, therefore, be considered part of the 
PRC-wide entity for this final determination.

Calculation of Separate Rate

    In the Preliminary Determination, we calculated a weighted-average 
separate rate based on the margins calculated for Honbase and Baozhang 
and their submitted publicly ranged sales quantities. However, none of 
the mandatory respondents are receiving a

[[Page 17432]]

separate rate for this final determination. If the estimated weighted-
average margins for all individually investigated respondents are de 
minimis or based entirely on facts available (``FA''), the Department 
may use any reasonable method to determine the separate rate 
margin.\15\ Therefore, pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) and (B) of the 
Act, we have, for the final determination, determined the separate rate 
margin using a reasonable method that is consistent with our 
established practice. Specifically, we have assigned to the separate 
rate companies the simple average of all of the margins alleged in the 
Petition,\16\ as revised in the Initiation Notice,\17\ which is 194.00 
percent.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act.
    \16\ See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on 
Galvanized Steel Wire from Mexico and Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duties on Galvanized Steel Wire from the People's Republic of China 
filed on March 31, 2011 (the ``Petition'').
    \17\ See Galvanized Steel Wire from the People's Republic of 
China and Mexico: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations, 76 
FR 23548, 23552 (April 27, 2011) (``Initiation Notice''); see also 
Decision Memo at Comment 7.
    \18\ See, e.g., Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic 
of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 76 
FR 18524, 18525 (April 4, 2011) (``For the final determination, we 
have assigned the 29 separate rate applicants to whom we are 
granting a separate rate a dumping margin of 32.79 percent, based on 
the simple average of the margins alleged in the petition * * *''); 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Affirmative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Circular 
Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of 
China, 73 FR 31970, 31971-31972 (June 5, 2008) (``* * * we have 
assigned to the separate rate companies the simple average of the 
margins alleged in the petition.''); Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Sodium Hexametaphosphate from the People's 
Republic of China, 73 FR 6479, 6480-6481 (February 4, 2008) 
(``Specifically, we have assigned an average of the margins 
calculated for purposes of initiation as the separate rate for the 
final determination.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The PRC-Wide Entity and Facts Available

    In the Preliminary Determination, the Department found that:

information on the record of this investigation indicates that there 
were more exporters of galvanized steel wire from the PRC than those 
indicated in the response to our request for Q&V information during 
the POI * * * Although all producers/exporters were given an 
opportunity to provide Q&V information, not all producers/exporters 
provided a response to the Department's Q&V letter.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Preliminary Determination, 76 FR at 68415-68416.

Furthermore, the Department did not grant a separate rate to Tianjin 
Jinghai Yicheng Metal Products Co., Ltd. (``Tianjin Jinghai'') because 
it withdrew its participation from this investigation as a selected 
mandatory respondent, having never provided any evidence demonstrating 
an absence of government control both in law and in fact. As such, the 
Department preliminarily determined that there were PRC producers/
exporters of galvanized steel wire during the POI that did not respond 
to the Department's request for information. We treated these PRC 
producers/exporters as part of the PRC-wide entity because they did not 
qualify for a separate rate.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, as stated above, in the Preliminary Determination, the 
Department did not grant a separate rate to Huayuan because it did not 
overcome the presumption of government control.\21\ The Department has 
addressed this issue at length in the Decision Memo, based on comments 
received from Huayuan and Petitioners.\22\ However, because the 
Department begins with the presumption that all companies within an NME 
country are subject to government control, and because only the 
separate rate recipients have overcome that presumption, because 
Huayuan did not qualify for a separate rate, the Department is applying 
the PRC-wide entity rate to Huayuan and its affiliates. Despite 
Huayuan's submission of sales and factor of production data, because 
Huayuan did not receive a separate rate and was found to be part of the 
PRC-wide entity, we have not used this data to calculate a separate 
antidumping duty margin for Huayuan. Rather, we have assigned to 
Huayuan the rate assigned to the PRC-wide entity. This is consistent 
with our long-standing practice of assigning a country-wide rate to NME 
companies that do not qualify for a separate rate, and has been 
affirmed by the court.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See id., 76 FR at 68413; see also ``Memorandum to Catherine 
Bertrand, Program Manager, Office 9, from Irene Gorelik, Senior 
International Trade Analyst, Office 9: Antidumping Duty 
Investigation of Galvanized Steel Wire from the People's Republic of 
China: Preliminary Affiliation and Single Entity Determinations for 
Tianjin Huayuan Metal Wire Products Co., Ltd.,'' dated October 27, 
2011 (``Huayuan Affiliation Memo''); and Huayuan Prelim Analysis 
Memo.
    \22\ See Decision Memo at Comment 1A, 1B, and 1C.
    \23\ See Transcom, Inc. v. United States, 182 F.3d 876, 883 
(CAFC 1999) (citing Sigma Corp v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 
1405- 06. (CAFC 1997)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if an interested party: 
(A) Withholds information that has been requested by the Department; 
(B) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form 
or manner requested, subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the 
Act; (C) significantly impedes a determination under the antidumping 
statute; or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be 
verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the 
Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable 
determination.
    Section 782(c)(1) of the Act provides that if an interested party 
``promptly after receiving a request from {the Department{time}  for 
information, notifies {the Department{time}  that such party is unable 
to submit the information in the requested form and manner, together 
with a full explanation and suggested alternative form in which such 
party is able to submit the information,'' the Department may modify 
the requirements to avoid imposing an unreasonable burden on that 
party.
    Section 782(d) of the Act provides that, if the Department 
determines that a response to a request for information does not comply 
with the request, the Department will inform the person submitting the 
response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent 
practicable, provide that person the opportunity to remedy or explain 
the deficiency. If that person submits further information that 
continues to be unsatisfactory, or this information is not submitted 
within the applicable time limits, the Department may, subject to 
section 782(e) of the Act, disregard all or part of the original and 
subsequent responses, as appropriate.
    Section 782(e) of the Act states that the Department shall not 
decline to consider information deemed ``deficient'' under section 
782(d) if: (1) The information is submitted by the established 
deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the information is 
not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching 
the applicable determination; (4) the interested party has demonstrated 
that it acted to the best of its ability; and (5) the information can 
be used without undue difficulties.
    Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act states that if the 
administering authority finds that an interested party has not acted to 
the best of its ability to comply with a request for information, the 
administering authority may, in reaching its determination, use an 
inference that is adverse to that party. The adverse inference may be 
based upon: (1) The Petition, (2) a final determination in the 
investigation under this title, (3) any previous review under section 
751 or determination under section 753, or (4) any other information 
placed on the record.
    Information on the record of this investigation indicates that the 
PRC-

[[Page 17433]]

wide entity was unresponsive to the Department's requests for 
information. Certain companies: (1) Did not respond to our 
questionnaires requesting quantity and value (``Q&V'') information; or 
(2) withdrew participation from the investigation. As a result, 
pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we found that the use of 
facts available is appropriate to determine the PRC-wide rate.
    Since the Preliminary Determination, Honbase and Baozhang, the two 
mandatory respondents for which we calculated preliminary antidumping 
duty margins, both withdrew their participation from their respective, 
scheduled on-site verifications. By ceasing to participate in the 
verification of their questionnaire responses, Honbase and Baozhang 
prevented the Department from verifying the accuracy of their 
information as provided by section 782(i) of the Act, and thus, failed 
to demonstrate their eligibility for a separate rate.\24\ Therefore, 
for the final determination, the Department finds that Honbase and 
Baozhang are considered to be part of the PRC-wide entity (along with 
Tianjin Jinghai, the companies unresponsive to the Q&V questionnaires 
and Huayuan). Because the PRC-wide entity, which now also includes 
Honbase and Baozhang, significantly impeded the Department's proceeding 
pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(C) of the Act, by failing to provide the 
requested information and by refusing to allow verification of their 
data, we find that the PRC-wide entity withheld information requested 
by the Department pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act. Based on 
the foregoing, we have determined that the PRC-wide entity failed to 
act to the best of its ability by not providing the requested 
information and by ceasing their participation in the proceeding. 
Therefore, we continue to find that when selecting from among the FA, 
an adverse inference is warranted for the PRC-wide entity, including 
Honbase and Baozhang, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The PRC-Wide Entity Rate

    Because we begin with the presumption that all companies within a 
NME country are subject to government control, and because only the 
companies listed under the ``Final Determination Margins'' section, 
below, have overcome that presumption, we are applying a single 
antidumping rate (i.e., the PRC-wide rate) to all other exporters of 
the merchandise under consideration. These other companies did not 
demonstrate entitlement to a separate rate.\25\ The PRC-wide rate 
applies to all entries of the merchandise under consideration except 
for entries from the companies receiving a separate rate.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See, e.g., Synthetic Indigo From the People's Republic of 
China; Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, 65 FR 25706, 25707 (May 3, 2000).
    \26\ These companies are: Shijiazhuang Kingway Metal Products 
Co., Ltd.; Shanxi Yuci Broad Wire Products Co., Ltd.; Huanghua 
Jinhai Hardware Products Co., Ltd.; Huanghua Jinhai Import & Export 
Trading Co., Ltd.; Guizhou Wire Rope Incorporated Company; Hebei 
Minmetals Co., Ltd.; Shandong Minmetals Co., Ltd.; Fasten Group Imp. 
& Exp. Co., Ltd.; Qingdao Ant Hardware Manufacturing Co., Ltd.; 
Suntec Industries Co., Ltd.; M & M Industries Co., Ltd.; Shaanxi New 
Mile International Trade Co., Ltd.; Hebei Cangzhou New Century 
Foreign Trade Co., Ltd.; Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products Co., Ltd.; 
Shanghai SETI Enterprise International Co., Ltd.; and Xi'an Metals 
and Minerals Import and Export Co., Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Preliminary Determination, the Department determined that 
there were: (1) Exporters/producers of the merchandise subject to the 
investigation during the POI from the PRC that did not respond to the 
Department's request for information; (2) exporters that withdrew from 
participation from the review; and (3) exporters that did not overcome 
the presumption of government control (specifically Huayuan \27\). 
Further, we treated these PRC producers/exporters as part of the PRC-
wide entity because they did not qualify for a separate rate. Finally, 
we found that the use of FA was appropriate to determine the PRC-wide 
rate pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Decision Memo at Comments 1A, 1B, and 1C; see also 
Preliminary Determination, 76 FR at 68413.
    \28\ See Preliminary Determination, 76 FR at 68416.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Preliminary Determination, the Department also determined 
that, in selecting from among the FA, an adverse inference is 
appropriate because the PRC-wide entity failed to cooperate by not 
acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for 
information.\29\ As AFA, we preliminarily assigned to the PRC-wide 
entity a rate of 235.00 percent, the highest calculated rate from the 
Petition.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See id.
    \30\ See id.; see also Statement of Administrative Action 
accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. 1, at 870 (1994) 
(``SAA'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party 
(A) withholds information requested by the Department, (B) fails to 
provide such information by the deadline, or in the form or manner 
requested, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D) provides 
information that cannot be verified, the Department shall use, subject 
to sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act, facts otherwise available in 
reaching the applicable determination. Because the PRC-wide entity (now 
including Honbase and Baozhang) did not respond to our requests for 
information, withheld information requested by the Department, and did 
not allow their information to be verified, pursuant to sections 
776(a)(2)(A), (C), and (D) of the Act, we determine, as in the 
Preliminary Determination, that the use of facts otherwise available is 
appropriate to determine the PRC-wide rate. The PRC-wide entity has not 
provided the Department with the requested information; therefore, 
pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the Department continues 
to find that the use of FA is appropriate to determine the PRC-wide 
rate. As noted above, section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in 
selecting from among the facts otherwise available, the Department may 
employ an adverse inference if an interested party fails to cooperate 
by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for 
information.\31\ We find that, because the PRC-wide entity did not 
respond to our request for information, it has failed to cooperate to 
the best of its ability. Therefore, the Department finds that, in 
selecting from among the facts otherwise available, an adverse 
inference is appropriate for the PRC-wide entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel 
Products from the Russian Federation, 65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 
2000). See also SAA at 870.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Corroboration

    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies 
on secondary information, rather than on information obtained in the 
course of an investigation as facts available, it must, to the extent 
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources 
reasonably at its disposal. 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 subject 
merchandise, or any previous review under Section 751 concerning the 
subject merchandise.'' \32\ The SAA provides that to ``corroborate'' 
means simply that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary 
information to be used has probative value.\33\ The SAA also states 
that independent sources used to corroborate may include, for example, 
published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and

[[Page 17434]]

information obtained from interested parties during the particular 
investigation.\34\ To corroborate secondary information, the Department 
will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance 
of the information used.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See SAA at 870.
    \33\ See id.
    \34\ See id.
    \35\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the Preliminary Determination, as AFA the Department selected a 
rate of 235.00 percent, the highest rate from the Petition,\36\ as 
recalculated by the Department in the Initiation Notice.\37\ 
Petitioners' methodology for calculating the export price and normal 
value (``NV'') in the Petition is discussed in the Initiation 
Notice.\38\ To corroborate the AFA margin that we selected, we compared 
this margin to the model-specific margins we found for the cooperating 
mandatory respondents. We found that the margin of 235.00 percent had 
probative value because it is within the range of the non-aberrational, 
model-specific margins that we preliminarily calculated for one of the 
mandatory respondents during the POI.\39\ Accordingly, we found that 
235.00 percent was a reliable and relevant rate, considering the record 
information, and thus, had probative value for the Preliminary 
Determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See Petition.
    \37\ See Initiation Notice.
    \38\ See id.
    \39\ See ``Memorandum to the File, from Irene Gorelik, Senior 
Analyst, re; Corroboration of the PRC-Wide Entity Rate for the 
Preliminary Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of 
Galvanized Steel Wire from the People's Republic of China,'' dated 
October 27, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the final determination, because there were no margins 
calculated for the mandatory respondents, to corroborate the 235.00 
percent margin used as AFA for the PRC-wide entity, to the extent 
appropriate information was available, we are affirming our pre-
initiation analysis of the adequacy and accuracy of the information in 
the Petition.\40\ During our pre-initiation analysis, we examined 
evidence supporting the calculations in the Petition and the 
supplemental information provided by Petitioners prior to initiation to 
determine the probative value of the margins alleged in the Petition. 
During our pre-initiation analysis, we examined the information used as 
the basis of export price and NV in the Petition, and the calculations 
used to derive the alleged margins. Also during our pre-initiation 
analysis, we examined information from various independent sources 
provided either in the Petition or, based on our requests, in 
supplements to the Petition, which corroborated key elements of the 
export price and NV calculations.\41\ Therefore, for the final 
determination, we have corroborated our AFA margin by affirming our 
pre-initiation analysis. Because no parties commented on the selection 
of the PRC-wide rate, we continue to find that the margin of 235.00 
percent has probative value. Accordingly, we find that the rate of 
235.00 percent is corroborated within the meaning of section 776(c) of 
the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See Antidumping Investigation Initiation Checklist: 
Galvanized Steel Wire from the People's Republic of China, dated 
April 20, 2011 (``Initiation Checklist'').
    \41\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surrogate Country

    In the Preliminary Determination, we stated that we selected 
Thailand as the appropriate surrogate country to use in this 
investigation for the following reasons: (1) It is a significant 
producer of comparable merchandise; (2) it is at a similar level of 
economic development pursuant to 773(c)(4) of the Act; and (3) we have 
reliable data from Thailand that we can use to value the factors of 
production.\42\ For the final determination, we are not calculating any 
margins that require surrogate values from a surrogate country and, 
therefore, there is no need to consider comments with respect to the 
selection of a surrogate country.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See Preliminary Determination, 76 FR at 68410-68412.
    \43\ See Decision Memo at Comment 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final Determination Margins

    We determine that the below percentage margins exist for the 
following entities for the POI:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Weighted-
             Exporter                    Producer        average margin
                                                            (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shijiazhuang Kingway Metal         Shijiazhuang                   194.00
 Products Co., Ltd.                 Kingway Metal
                                    Products Co., Ltd.
Shanxi Yuci Broad Wire Products    Shanxi Yuci Broad              194.00
 Co., Ltd.                          Wire Products Co.,
                                    Ltd.
Huanghua Jinhai Hardware Products  Huanghua Jinhai                194.00
 Co., Ltd.                          Hardware Products
                                    Co., Ltd.
Huanghua Jinhai Import & Export    Huanghua Jinhai                194.00
 Trading Co., Ltd.                  Hardware Products
                                    Co., Ltd.
Guizhou Wire Rope Incorporated     Guizhou Wire Rope              194.00
 Company.                           Incorporated
                                    Company.
Hebei Minmetals Co., Ltd.........  Huanghua Jinhai                194.00
                                    Hardware Products
                                    Co., Ltd.
Hebei Minmetals Co., Ltd.........  Huanghua Huarong               194.00
                                    Hardware Co., Ltd.
Hebei Minmetals Co., Ltd.........  Shandong Jining                194.00
                                    Lianzhong Hardware
                                    Products Co., Ltd.
Shandong Minmetals Co., Ltd......  Huanghua Jinhai                194.00
                                    Hardware Products
                                    Co., Ltd.
Shandong Minmetals Co., Ltd......  Huanghua Xincheng              194.00
                                    Metal Products
                                    Co., Ltd.
Shandong Minmetals Co., Ltd......  Tianjin Shi                    194.00
                                    Dagangqu Yuliang
                                    XianCaichang.
Shandong Minmetals Co., Ltd......  Tianjin Hengfeng               194.00
                                    Metal Wire Co.,
                                    Ltd.
Shandong Minmetals Co., Ltd......  Tianjin Shi Jinghai            194.00
                                    Yicheng Hardware
                                    Products Co., Ltd.
Fasten Group Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd  Jiangsu Fasten                 194.00
                                    Stock Co., Ltd.
Fasten Group Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd  Zhangjiagang                   194.00
                                    Guanghua
                                    Communication
                                    Cable Materials
                                    Co., Ltd.
Fasten Group Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd  Zhangjiagang Kaihua            194.00
                                    Metal Products
                                    Co., Ltd.
Qingdao Ant Hardware               Qingdao Ant                    194.00
 Manufacturing Co., Ltd.            Hardware
                                    Manufacturing Co.,
                                    Ltd.
Suntec Industries Co., Ltd.......  Tianjin Jinnan 4th             194.00
                                    Wire Factory.
Suntec Industries Co., Ltd.......  Tianjin Yinshan                194.00
                                    Manufacture &
                                    Trade Co., Ltd.
Suntec Industries Co., Ltd.......  Tianjin Zhaohong               194.00
                                    Metal Products
                                    Co., Ltd.
Suntec Industries Co., Ltd.......  Tianjin Wandai                 194.00
                                    Metal Products
                                    Co., Ltd.
Suntec Industries Co., Ltd.......  Tianjin Dagang Wire            194.00
                                    Factory.
Suntec Industries Co., Ltd.......  Tianjin Jinghai                194.00
                                    Yicheng Metal
                                    Products Co., Ltd.

[[Page 17435]]

 
Suntec Industries Co., Ltd.......  Tianjin Liquan                 194.00
                                    Metal Products
                                    Co., Ltd.
Suntec Industries Co., Ltd.......  Tianjin Huayuan                194.00
                                    Times Metal
                                    Products Co., Ltd.
Suntec Industries Co., Ltd.......  Tianjin Fusheng                194.00
                                    Metal Products
                                    Co., Ltd.
M & M Industries Co., Ltd........  Tianjin Huayuan                194.00
                                    Times Metal
                                    Products Co., Ltd.
M & M Industries Co., Ltd........  Tianjin Huayuan                194.00
                                    Metal Wire
                                    Products Co., Ltd.
M & M Industries Co., Ltd........  Tianjin Tianxin                194.00
                                    Metal Products
                                    Co., Ltd.
M & M Industries Co., Ltd........  Tianjin Jinghai                194.00
                                    County Yongshun
                                    Metal Products
                                    Mill.
M & M Industries Co., Ltd........  Huanghua Jinhai                194.00
                                    Hardware Products
                                    Co., Ltd.
Shaanxi New Mile International     Tianjin Huayuan                194.00
 Trade Co., Ltd.                    Metal Wire
                                    Products Co., Ltd.
Shaanxi New Mile International     Tianjin Jinghai                194.00
 Trade Co., Ltd.                    Yicheng Metal
                                    Products Co., Ltd.
Shaanxi New Mile International     Tianjin Zhaohong               194.00
 Trade Co., Ltd.                    Metal Products
                                    Co., Ltd.
Shaanxi New Mile International     Tianjin Lianxing               194.00
 Trade Co., Ltd.                    Metal Products
                                    Co., Ltd.
Shaanxi New Mile International     Tianjin Beichen                194.00
 Trade Co., Ltd.                    Gangjiaoxian Metal
                                    Products Co.,
                                    Ltd., Fuli Branch.
Shaanxi New Mile International     Shenzhou Hongli                194.00
 Trade Co., Ltd.                    Metal Products
                                    Co., Ltd.
Hebei Cangzhou New Century         Tianjin Huayuan                194.00
 Foreign Trade Co., Ltd.            Metal Wire
                                    Products Co., Ltd.
Hebei Cangzhou New Century         Tianjin Randa Metal            194.00
 Foreign Trade Co., Ltd.            Products Factory.
Hebei Cangzhou New Century         Tianjin Jinghai                194.00
 Foreign Trade Co., Ltd.            Yicheng Metal
                                    Products Co., Ltd.
Hebei Cangzhou New Century         Tianjin Jinghai                194.00
 Foreign Trade Co., Ltd.            Hongjiufeng Wire
                                    Products Co., Ltd.
Hebei Cangzhou New Century         Huanghua Jinhai                194.00
 Foreign Trade Co., Ltd.            Hardware Products
                                    Co., Ltd.
Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products   Tianjin Jinghai                194.00
 Co., Ltd.                          Yicheng Metal
                                    Products Co., Ltd.
Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products   Tianjin Yinshan                194.00
 Co., Ltd.                          Industry and Trade
                                    Co., Ltd.
Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products   Tianjin Zhenyuan               194.00
 Co., Ltd.                          Industry and Trade
                                    Co., Ltd.
Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products   Dingzhou Xuri Metal            194.00
 Co., Ltd.                          Products Factory.
Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products   Huanghua Jinhai                194.00
 Co., Ltd.                          Hardware Products
                                    Co., Ltd.
Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products   Tianjin Dagang Wire            194.00
 Co., Ltd.                          Mill.
Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products   Tianjin Huayuan                194.00
 Co., Ltd.                          Industrial Company.
Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products   Hebei Yongwei Metal            194.00
 Co., Ltd.                          Products Co., Ltd.
Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products   Tianjin Guanshun               194.00
 Co., Ltd.                          Metal Products
                                    Co., Ltd.
Shanghai SETI Enterprise           Shanghai Xiaoyu                194.00
 International Co., Ltd.            Metal Products
                                    Co., Ltd.
Xi'an Metals and Minerals Import   Tianjin Jinyongtai             194.00
 and Export Co., Ltd.               Hardware Products
                                    Co., Ltd.
Xi'an Metals and Minerals Import   Tianjin Hengfeng               194.00
 and Export Co., Ltd.               Metal Wire Co.,
                                    Ltd.
Xi'an Metals and Minerals Import   Shenzhou City                  194.00
 and Export Co., Ltd.               Hongli Hardware
                                    Manufacturing Co.,
                                    Ltd.
Xi'an Metals and Minerals Import   Tianjin Dagang                 194.00
 and Export Co., Ltd.               Jinding Metal
                                    Products Factory.
PRC-Wide 44......................  ...................            235.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ The PRC-wide entity includes: Tianjin Honbase Machinery 
Manufactory Co., Ltd.; Anhui Bao Zhang Metal Products Co., Ltd.; 
Shanghai Bao Zhang Industry Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Huayuan Metal Wire 
Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Meijiahua Trade Co., Ltd.; Tianjin 
Huayuan Times Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Tianxin Metal 
Products Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Jinghai Yicheng Metal Products Co., 
Ltd.; Anping Shuangmai Metal Products Co., Ltd.; Anping Xinhong Wire 
Mesh Co., Ltd.; Beijing Catic Industry Limited; Benxi Wasainuo Metal 
Packaging Production Co., Ltd.; China National Electronics Imp. & 
Exp. Ningbo Co., Ltd.; Easen Corp.; Ecms O/B Tianjin Huayuan Metal 
Wire; Hebei Dongfang Hardware And Mesh Co., Ltd.; Hebei Longda Trade 
Co., Ltd.; Huanghua Yufutai Hardware Products Co., Ltd.; Maccaferri 
(Changsha) Enviro-Tech Co.; Nantong Long Yang International Trade 
Co., Ltd.; Shandong Hualing Hardware & Tools Co. Ltd.; Shanghai 
Multi-development Enterprises; Shanghai Suntec Industries Co., Ltd.; 
Tianjin Jing Weida International Trade Co., Ltd.; Tianjin Pcss 
Trading Co., Ltd.; and Weifang Hecheng International Trade Co., Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are 
directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to continue to 
suspend liquidation of all imports of merchandise subject to the 
investigation entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption for 
the PRC-wide entity and the Separate Rate Recipients on or after 
November 4, 2011. We will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the 
posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV 
exceeds U.S. price, as follows: (1) The rate for the exporter/producer 
combinations listed in the chart above will be the rate we have 
determined in this final determination; (2) for all PRC exporters of 
subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash-
deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate; and (3) 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/producer combination that supplied that non-PRC exporter. 
These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect 
until further notice.
    Additionally, the Department found in its final determination for 
the companion countervailing duty (``CVD'') investigation that 
Baozhang's merchandise benefited from export subsidies.\45\ However, as 
noted above, we have determined that Baozhang is part of the PRC-wide 
entity in this proceeding. With respect to the PRC-wide entity, we have 
applied as AFA the highest rate from the Petition. Therefore, we will 
not instruct CBP to deduct any export subsidy from the PRC-wide 
entity's cash deposit rate.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See Galvanized Steel Wire from the People's Republic of 
China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, dated 
concurrently with this notice.
    \46\ See, e.g., Drill Pipe From the People's Republic of China: 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Critical 
Circumstances, 76 FR 1966, 1970 (January 11, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to M&M Industries Co., Ltd., a separate rate recipient 
in this case, but a mandatory respondent in the companion CVD case to 
which total AFA was assigned, the Department

[[Page 17436]]

calculated the AFA rate for M&M Industries using program-specific rates 
calculated for the cooperating respondents. Therefore, in the CVD 
investigation, because there was only one export subsidy rate 
calculated (for Baozhang, a cooperative respondent in the CVD 
investigation), the export subsidy portion of the AFA-rate for M&M 
Industries is equal to the export subsidy rate calculated for Baozhang 
(0.21%). In addition, Baozhang's rate is the basis for the all-others 
rate in the CVD case. Therefore, we will instruct CBP to require a cash 
deposit or posting of a bond equal to the amount by which normal value 
exceeds U.S. price for the M&M Industries, reduced by the export 
subsidy rate (0.21%) found for all companies.
    Further, with respect to the other companies receiving a separate 
rate in the instant investigation, excluding M&M Industries Co., Ltd., 
these companies are subject to the all-others rate in the companion CVD 
investigation. Moreover, as noted above, all companies were found to 
have the same amount of export subsidies, the amount found for the 
cooperative respondent in the CVD case. Therefore, for companies 
receiving a separate rate, we will instruct CBP to require a cash 
deposit or posting of a bond equal to the amount by which normal value 
exceeds U.S. price for the separate rate recipients, as indicated 
above, reduced by the export subsidy rate (0.21%) found for all 
companies.

Notification Regarding APO

    This notice also serves as a reminder to the parties subject to 
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return or 
destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order 
is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the 
terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    This determination and notice are issued and published in 
accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: March 19, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix I

Company-Specific Issues

Comment 1: The Department's Preliminary Determination With Respect 
to Tianjin Huayuan Metal Wire Products Co., Ltd. (``Huayuan'')
    A. Whether the Department Incorrectly Determined Huayuan's 
Eligibility for a Separate Rate
    B. Whether the Department Should Have Applied Adverse Facts 
Available (``AFA'') to Huayuan
    C. Whether the Department Failed to Meet the Statutory 
Obligation to Verify Huayuan
Comment 2: Whether the Department Should Assign AFA to Tianjin 
Honbase Machinery Manufactory Co., Ltd. (``Tianjin Honbase'') and to 
Anhui Bao Zhang Metal Products Co., Ltd. (``Baozhang'')

General Issues

Comment 3: Whether Hobby Wire is Within the Scope of the 
Investigation
Comment 4: Surrogate Country Selection
Comment 5: Whether Double-Remedies Have Been Applied
Comment 6: Whether the NME Separate Rate Methodology is Contrary to 
Law and Should Be Eliminated
Comment 7: Appropriate Separate Rate to Assign to Cooperative Non-
Selected Companies

[FR Doc. 2012-7212 Filed 3-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P