[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 58 (Monday, March 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17418-17422]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7214]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-570-976]
Galvanized Steel Wire From the People's Republic of China: Final
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that
countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters
of galvanized steel wire (galvanized wire) from the People's Republic
of China (the PRC). For information on the estimated subsidy rates, see
the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice.
DATES: Effective Date: March 26, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicholas Czajkowski or David Lindgren,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Room 7866, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-1395 or 202-482-3870,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The U.S. producers that filed the petition for this investigation
are Davis Wire Corporation, Johnstown Wire Technologies, Inc., Mid-
South Wire Company, Inc., National Standard, LLC, and Oklahoma Steel &
Wire Company, Inc. (collectively, Petitioners). This investigation
covers 40 programs. The mandatory respondents in this investigation
are: (1) M&M Industries Co. Ltd. (M&M); (2) Shandong Hualing Hardware
and Tool Co., Ltd. (Hualing); (3) Shanghai Bao Zhang Industry Co. Ltd.
and its cross-owned affiliated companies Anhui Bao Zhang Metal Products
Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Li Chao Industry Co., Ltd. (collectively, the
Bao Zhang Companies); and, (4) Tianjin Huayuan Metal Wire Products Co.,
Ltd. and its cross-owned affiliated companies Tianjin Tianxin Metal
Products Co., Ltd. and Tianjin Mei Jia Hua Trade Co., Ltd.
(collectively, the Huayuan Companies).
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation for which we are measuring subsidies is
January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010.
Case History
The following events have occurred since the Department published
the Preliminary Determination \1\ on September 6, 2011.\2\ The Huayuan
Companies filed a ministerial error allegation on September 7, 2011,
and, on September 12, 2011, Petitioners filed responses to the Huayuan
Companies' allegation. On September 29, 2011, the Department released
its analysis of the ministerial error allegation, finding that no
ministerial errors were made in the Preliminary Determination.
Petitioners, the Huayuan Companies and the
[[Page 17419]]
Government of the People's Republic of China (GOC) filed requests for a
hearing on September 14, 22 and October 6, 2011, respectively, and, on
January 30, 2012, all three parties withdrew their requests for a
hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Galvanized Steel Wire From the People's Republic of
China: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and
Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping
Determination, 76 FR 55031 (September 6, 2011) (Preliminary
Determination).
\2\ Public versions of all business proprietary documents and
all public documents are 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Between September 15 and October 21, 2011, the GOC, Petitioners,
the Bao Zhang Companies and the Huayuan Companies filed factual
information submissions. Except for the Bao Zhang Companies' October
21, 2011 wire rod benchmark submission, all were rejected by the
Department as untimely under 19 CFR 351.301(c). The Department informed
Petitioners they could re-file certain portions of their rejected
material, which they did on October 31, 2011. On September 19, 2011,
the Department issued supplemental questionnaires to the GOC, the Bao
Zhang Companies, and the Huayuan Companies, which, in turn, submitted
responses between September 28 and October 3, 2011. On October 7, 2011,
the Department issued additional supplemental questionnaires to the Bao
Zhang Companies and the GOC, with responses filed on October 13 and 14,
2011, respectively. Moreover, on October 14, 2011, Department issued a
supplemental questionnaire to the Huayuan Companies, which filed a
response on October 24, 2011.
Between October 21 and November 2, 2011, the Department issued
verification outlines to the GOC, the Bao Zhang Companies, the Huayuan
Companies and M&M. On October 24, 2011, Petitioners filed pre-
verification comments. The Department conducted verification of the Bao
Zhang Companies and the GOC from October 31 to November 8, 2011.
Although scheduled for verification, the Huayuan Companies and M&M
verbally informed the Department on November 3, 2011 that they would
not participate in verification; a letter filed on November 9, 2011
stated the reasons for their decision not to participate. The Bao Zhang
Companies filed minor corrections on November 4, 2011, and on November
10 and 15, 2011, the Bao Zhang Companies and the GOC, respectively,
timely filed verification exhibits. The Department issued verification
reports for the Bao Zhang Companies and the GOC on December 22, 2011.
With respect to scope issues, on November 2, 2011, Qingdao Ant
Hardware Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (AHM) placed on the record physical
samples and other information pertaining to the scope of the
investigation, and, on November 16, 2011, a public viewing of the
physical samples was held at the Department. On December 15, 2011, the
Department placed on the record of this investigation the preliminary
determinations in the corresponding antidumping duty (AD)
investigations of galvanized wire from the PRC and Mexico \3\ in which
scope comments filed prior to the preliminary countervailing duty (CVD)
determination were addressed. When placing these preliminary AD
determinations on the record, we requested that parties submit any
comments on scope issues when they filed their case briefs.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 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); see also Galvanized Steel Wire From Mexico: Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of
Final Determination, 76 FR 68422 (November 4, 2011).
\4\ See Memorandum to File ``Decisions Regarding Scope Comments
from Investigations of Galvanized Steel Wire from the PRC and
Mexico,'' dated December 15, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 9, 2012, the GOC requested that the Department terminate
this investigation based on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit December 19, 2011 ruling in GPX International Tire Corp. v.
United States.\5\ On January 13, 2012, Petitioners filed rebuttal
comments in response to the GOC's request for termination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See GPX Int'l Tires Corp. v. United States, 666 F.3d 732
(Fed. Cir. 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department issued a post-preliminary analysis memorandum
regarding three programs on January 17, 2012.\6\ Interested parties
submitted case briefs on January 25 and 31, 2012, and rebuttal briefs
on February 6, 2012. On March 1, 2012, the Department requested all
parties in all three galvanized wire investigations that filed scope
comments in their case and rebuttal briefs to ensure their comments
were placed on the records of all three investigations, and all parties
were provided an opportunity to comment on these scope comments. No
additional comments on scope issues were submitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration from Barbara E. Tillman, Director, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 6, through Christian Marsh Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations
``Countervailing Duty Investigation on Galvanized Steel Wire from
the People's Republic of China: Post-Preliminary Analysis
Memorandum,'' dated January 17, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope Comments
As referenced in the ``Case History'' section above, the Department
placed the preliminary determinations of the companion galvanized wire
AD investigations from Mexico and the PRC on the record of this
investigation. In those preliminary determinations, the Department
found that galvanized wire with a diameter less than one millimeter was
subject to the scope of the investigation. We invited parties to
comment on this issue. No additional comments were made on this issue.
Thus, the Department continues 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.
Also, as noted in the ``Case History'' section above, all scope-
related comments submitted by parties in all three investigations in
their case and rebuttal briefs are on the record of all three
investigations. Petitioners and AHM provided comments on the scope and
merchandise that is to be covered under the scope. Based on our
analysis of these comments, the Department continues to find that hobby
wire, which is galvanized steel wire, in lengths of more than 15 feet,
is properly included in the scope of this investigation.\7\ Further,
certain parties in the companion AD investigation involving Mexico
provided comments on the scope and merchandise that is to be covered
under the scope. Based on our analysis of these comments, the
Department has clarified the scope language to include not only
circular cross section material, but also out-of-round material that
meets the circular tolerances. In addition, the Department has included
an additional HTSUS subheading as part of the scope description.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ AMH's and Petitioners comments on the scope of the
investigation are fully addressed in Galvanized Steel Wire from the
People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 3, issued concurrently with this final determination.
\8\ These comments are fully addressed in Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Galvanized Steel
Wire from Mexico and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comments 3 and 4, issued concurrently with this final determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of Investigation
The merchandise covered by this investigation is galvanized steel
wire. See Appendix I for a complete description of the scope of this
investigation.
Analysis of Subsidy Programs and Comments Received
The subsidy programs under investigation and the issues raised in
the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are
discussed in Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final
[[Page 17420]]
Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Galvanized
Steel Wire from the People's Republic of China (Decision Memorandum),
which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the subsidy programs
and the issues that parties raised and to which we responded in the
Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as Appendix II. The
Decision Memorandum is a public document, which is on file
electronically via IA ACCESS. In addition, a complete version of the
Decision Memorandum is also accessible on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The signed Decision Memorandum and the electronic
versions of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.
Use of Facts Otherwise Available, Including Adverse Inferences
For purposes of this final determination, we have continued to rely
on facts available and have continued to apply adverse inferences in
accordance with sections 776(a) and (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act) with regard to: (1) The CVD rate to be applied to the
non-cooperative mandatory company respondent, Hualing; (2) whether the
wire rod and zinc input producers at issue are government authorities
that provide wire rod and zinc for less than adequate remuneration
(LTAR); and, (3) the GOC's provision of electricity for LTAR. In
addition, for the purposes of this final determination, we are also
applying adverse facts available (AFA) to (1) determine the CVD rate to
be applied to the non-cooperating mandatory respondents the Huayuan
Companies and M&M, and (2) determine that the Zhabei District ``Save
Energy Reduce Emission Team'' award is specific pursuant to sections
776(a) and (b) of the Act. A full discussion of our decision to apply
AFA is presented in the Decision Memorandum under the section ``Use of
Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences.''
Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we have
calculated a rate for each individually investigated producer/exporter
of the subject merchandise. Section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act states
that for companies not investigated, we will determine an ``all-
others'' rate equal to the weighted average countervailable subsidy
rates established for exporters and producers individually
investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis countervailable subsidy
rates, and any rates determined entirely under section 776 of the Act.
In this investigation, the only rate not based entirely on AFA is
the rate calculated for the Bao Zhang Companies. Consequently, the rate
calculated for the Bao Zhang Companies is also assigned as the ``all-
others'' rate. For those non-cooperative companies that did not fully
participate in this investigation, we have determined rates based
solely on AFA, in accordance with sections 776(a) and (b) of the
Act.\9\ Therefore, we determine the total estimated net countervailable
subsidy rates to be:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See ``Non-Cooperative Companies'' in the ``Use of Facts
Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences'' section of the Decision
Memorandum.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ad Valorem net
Company subsidy rate
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
M&M Industries Co. Ltd................................ 223.27
Shandong Hualing Hardware and Tool Co., Ltd........... 223.27
Shanghai Bao Zhang Industry Co. Ltd., Anhui Bao Zhang 19.06
Metal Products Co., Ltd., and Shanghai Li Chao
Industry Co., Ltd. (collectively the Bao Zhang
Companies)...........................................
Tianjin Huayuan Metal Wire Products Co., Ltd., Tianjin 223.27
Tianxin Metal Products Co., Ltd., and Tianjin Mei Jia
Hua Trade Co., Ltd. (collectively, the Huayuan
Companies)...........................................
All Others Rate....................................... 19.06
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of our Preliminary Determination and pursuant to
section 703(d) of the Act, we instructed U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject
merchandise from the PRC which were entered or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after September 6, 2011, the date of
the publication of the Preliminary Determination in the Federal
Register. In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we later issued
instructions to CBP to discontinue the suspension of liquidation for
CVD purposes for subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, on or after January 4, 2012, but to continue the suspension
of liquidation of all entries from September 6, 2011, through January
3, 2012.
We will issue a CVD order and reinstate the suspension of
liquidation under section 706(a) of the Act if the U.S. International
Trade Commission (ITC) issues a final affirmative injury determination,
and will require a cash deposit of estimated CVDs for such entries of
merchandise in the amounts indicated above. If the ITC determines that
material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this
proceeding will be terminated and all estimated duties deposited or
securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be
refunded or canceled.
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the
ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the
ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information related to this
investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and
business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC
confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or
under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written
consent of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Return or Destruction of Proprietary Information
In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury
determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties
subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of
proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR
351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of
APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby
requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO
is a violation which is subject to sanction.
[[Page 17421]]
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections
705(d) and 777(i) of the Act.
Dated: March 19, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix I
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, or 7217.90.10 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.
Appendix II
Decision Memorandum
I. Summary
II. Subsidy Valuation Information
A. Period of Investigation
B. Attribution of Subsidies
C. Allocation Period
D. Discount Rates for Allocating Non-Recurring Subsidies
III. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences
Non-Cooperative Companies
Input Producers--Government Authorities Under Provision of Wire
Rod and Zinc for Less Than Adequate Remuneration
GOC--Provision of Electricity for Less Than Adequate
Remuneration
GOC--Specificity of Zhabei District ``Save Energy Reduce
Emission Team'' Award Program
IV. Analysis of Programs
A. Programs Determined To Be Countervailable
1. Provision of Wire Rod for Less Than Adequate Remuneration
2. Provision of Zinc for Less Than Adequate Remuneration
3. Provision of Electricity for Less Than Adequate Remuneration
4. Export Grants From Local Governments
5. Zhabei District ``Save Energy Reduce Emission Team'' Award
Program
B. Program Determined Not To Confer a Benefit During the POI
Export Subsidies Characterized as ``VAT Rebates''
C. Program for Which the Benefit Has No Impact on the Subsidy
Rate
Exemption From City Construction Tax and Education Tax for
Foreign Invested Enterprises
D. Programs Determined To Be Not Used
1. Policy Loans to the Galvanized Wire Industry
2. Preferential Loans for Key Projects and Technologies
3. Preferential Loans and Directed Credit
4. Preferential Lending to Galvanized Wire Producers and
Exporters Classified as ``Honorable Enterprises''
5. Loans and Interest Subsidies Provided Pursuant to the
Northeast Revitalization Program
6. Provision of Land Use Rights for LTAR Within the Jinzhou
District Within the City of Dalian
7. Provision of Land Use Rights for LTAR to Enterprises Within
the Zhaoqing High-Tech Industry Development Zone in Guangdong
Province
8. Provision of Land Use Rights for LTAR to Enterprises Within
the South Sanshui Science and Technology Industrial Park of Foshan
City
9. Income Tax Credits for Domestically-Owned Companies
Purchasing Domestically-Produced Equipment
10. Income Tax Exemption for Investment in Domestic
Technological Renovation
11. Accelerated Depreciation for Enterprises Located in the
Northeast Region
12. Forgiveness of Tax Arrears for Enterprises in the Old
Industrial Bases of Northeast China
13. Income Tax Exemption for Investors in Designated
Geographical Regions Within Liaoning Province
14. VAT Deduction on Fixed Assets
15. Import Tariff and VAT Exemptions for FIEs and Certain
Domestic Enterprises Using Imported Equipment in Encouraged
Industries
16. Reduction in or Exemption From Fixed Assets Investment
Orientation Regulatory Tax
17. ``Five Points, One Line'' Program of Liaoning Province
18. Provincial Export Interest Subsidies
19. State Key Technology Project Fund
20. Subsidies for Development of Famous Export Brands and China
World Top Brands
21. Sub-Central Government Programs to Promote Famous Export
Brands and China World Top Brands
22. Zhejiang Province Program to Rebate Antidumping Legal Fees
23. Technology to Improve Trade Research and Development Fund of
Jiangsu Province
24. Outstanding Growth Private Enterprise and Small and Medium-
Sized Enterprises Development in Jiangyin Fund of Jiangyin City
25. Grants for Programs Under the 2007 Science and Technology
Development Plan in Shandong Province
26. Special Funds for Encouraging Foreign Economic and Trade
Development and for Drawing Significant Foreign Investment Projects
in Shandong Province
27. ``Two Free, Three Half'' Tax Exemptions for ``Productive''
FIEs
28. Income Tax Exemption Program for Export-Oriented FIEs
29. Local Income Tax Exemption and Reduction Programs for
``Productive'' FIEs
30. Preferential Tax Programs for FIEs Recognized as High or New
Technology Enterprises
31. Income Tax Subsidies for FIEs Based on Geographic Location
32. VAT Refunds for FIEs Purchasing Domestically-Produced
Equipment
33. Income Tax Credits for FIEs Purchasing Domestically-Produced
Equipment
V. Analysis of Comments
General Issues
Comment 1: Whether the Investigation Should Be Terminated Based
on the GPX III Ruling
Comment 2: Application of CVD Law to the PRC
Comment 3: Whether Application of the CVD Law to NMEs Violates
the Administrative Procedures Act (APA)
Comment 4: Double Remedies
Case-Specific Issues
Comment 5: Whether There is a Basis for Countervailing Inputs
Purchased From Input Suppliers
Comment 6: Whether the Department Improperly Rejected the GOC's
September 15, 2011, Submission and Whether the Application of AFA is
Warranted
Comment 7: Whether the Department Improperly Rejected the Bao
Zhang Companies' September 26, 2011 Submission
Comment 8: Whether the Department Should Revise Its Benchmark
for Wire Rod
Comment 9: Whether the Department Should Apply AFA in Selecting
the Electricity Benchmark
Comment 10: Whether the Bao Zhang Companies' Additional
Electricity Charges Should Be Included in the Final Determination
[[Page 17422]]
Comment 11: Whether the Department Should Apply the Same
Electricity Benchmark to both ABZ and SBZ
Comment 12: Application of AFA to the Huayuan Companies and M&M
VI. Recommendation
[FR Doc. 2012-7214 Filed 3-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P