[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 149 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46044-46055]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18905]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-552-812]


Steel Wire Garment Hangers From the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Postponement of Final Determination

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

DATES: Effective Date: August 2, 2012.
SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine that steel wire garment hangers 
from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (``Vietnam'') are being, or are 
likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value 
(``LTFV''), as provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (``the Act''). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown 
in the ``Preliminary Determination'' section of this notice. Pursuant 
to a request from an interested party, we are postponing the final 
determination by 60 days and extending provisional measures from a 
four-month period to not more than six months. Accordingly, we will 
make our final determination not later than 135 days after publication 
of the preliminary determination.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irene Gorelik or Bob Palmer, 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 or 482-9068, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Initiation

    On December 29, 2011, the Department of Commerce (the 
``Department'') received an antidumping duty (``AD'') petition 
concerning imports of steel wire garment hangers from Vietnam filed in 
proper form on behalf of M&B Metal Products Company, Inc.; Innovative 
Fabrication LLC/Indy Hanger; and US Hanger Company, LLC (collectively, 
``Petitioners'').\1\ On January 18, 2012, the Department initiated an 
AD investigation of steel wire garment hangers from Vietnam.\2\ 
Additionally, in the Initiation Notice, the Department notified parties 
of the application process by which exporters and producers may obtain 
separate-rate status in non-market economy (``NME'') investigations.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See ``Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on 
Steel Wire Garment Hangers From Taiwan and Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duties on Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam,'' filed on December 29, 2011 (the 
``Petition''). A countervailing duty (``CVD'') petition was also 
filed on steel wire garment hangers from Vietnam.
    \2\ See Steel Wire Garment Hangers From the Socialist Republic 
of Vietnam and Taiwan: Initiation of Antidumping Duty 
Investigations, 77 FR 3731 (January 25, 2012) (``Initiation 
Notice'').
    \3\ See id., 77 FR at 3735-36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 13, 2012, the United States International Trade 
Commission (``ITC'') issued its affirmative preliminary determination 
that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United 
States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by 
reason of imports from Vietnam of steel wire garment hangers.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Investigation Nos. 701-TA-487 and 731-TA-1197-1198 
(Preliminary), Steel Wire Garment Hangers From Taiwan And Vietnam, 
77 FR 9701 (February 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (``POI'') is April 1, 2011, through 
September 30, 2011. This period corresponds to the two most recent 
fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition 
(December 29, 2011).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise subject to this investigation is steel wire garment 
hangers, fabricated from carbon steel wire, whether or not galvanized 
or painted, whether or not coated with latex or epoxy or similar 
gripping materials, and whether or not fashioned with paper covers or 
capes (with or without printing) or nonslip features such as saddles or 
tubes. These products may also be referred to by a commercial 
designation, such as shirt, suit, strut, caped, or latex (industrial) 
hangers.
    Specifically excluded from the scope of the investigation are (a) 
Wooden, plastic, and other garment hangers that are not made of steel 
wire; (b) steel wire garment hangers with swivel hooks; (c) steel wire 
garment hangers with clips permanently affixed; and (d) chrome plated 
steel wire garment hangers with a diameter of 3.4 mm or greater.
    The products subject to the investigation are currently classified 
under U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule (``HTSUS'') subheadings 
7326.20.0020 and 7323.99.9080. Although the HTSUS subheadings are 
provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description 
of the merchandise is dispositive.

Scope Comments

    In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations,\6\ 
in our Initiation Notice we set aside a period of time for parties to 
raise issues regarding product coverage, and encouraged all parties to 
submit comments within 20 calendar days of publication of the 
Initiation Notice.\7\ The Department did not receive any scope comments 
from interested parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 
62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).
    \7\ See Initiation Notice, 77 FR at 3732.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quantity and Value and Respondent Selection

    In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that the quantity 
and value (``Q&V'') data received from Vietnamese exporters/producers 
will be used as the basis to select the mandatory respondents.\8\ The 
Department also stated that it requires that the respondents submit a 
response to both the Q&V questionnaire and the separate rate 
application by the respective deadlines in order to receive 
consideration for separate rate status. Of the 44 Q&V questionnaires 
sent, the Department received seven Q&V responses \9\ and two 
unsolicited Q&V responses.\10\ The Department rejected two untimely or 
improperly filed Q&V responses from Angang Clothes Rack Manufacture Co. 
(``Angang'') and

[[Page 46045]]

Vietnam Hangers Joint Stock Company.\11\ The Department also rejected 
one other unsolicited Q&V response which was improperly filed.\12\ Of 
the 44 Q&V questionnaires sent, 22 companies were unresponsive and did 
not provide Q&V responses.\13\ Finally, of the 44 Q&V questionnaires 
sent, 10 were marked as ``undeliverable/delivery exception.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See id., 77 FR at 3735.
    \9\ We received Q&V responses from the following companies to 
which we issued a Q&V questionnaire: Triloan Hangers, Inc.; Tan Minh 
Textile Sewing Trading Co., Ltd.; Nam A. Hamico Export Joint Stock; 
Minh Quang Steel Joint Stock Company; Ju Fu Co. Ltd.; Linh Sa Hamico 
Company, Ltd.; CTN Limited Company. Additionally, we note that 
Petitioners provided several addresses for multiple companies, which 
resulted in the issuance of more than one Q&V questionnaires to the 
same companies.
    \10\ We received an unsolicited Q&V response from South East 
Asia Hamico Export Joint Stock Company (``Hamico''). Further, while 
we did not issue a Q&V questionnaire to T.J. Co., Ltd. (``TJ''), it 
filed a Q&V response on behalf of itself and its two claimed 
affiliates, Infinite Industrial Hanger Co., Ltd. and Tan Dinh 
Enterprise, both to which we issued a Q&V questionnaire.
    \11\ See Letter from the Department to Angang, re: Return of 
Untimely Submission Quantity and Value Questionnaire, dated February 
15, 2012. See also Letter from the Department to Vietnam Hangers 
Joint Stock Company, re: Quantity and Value Questionnaire, dated 
February 8, 2012. While the Department provided Vietnam Hangers 
Joint Stock Company with an opportunity to refile complete and 
proper Q&V responses, the Department did not receive one.
    \12\ See Letter from the Department to Cty Tnhh Mtv Xnk My Phuoc 
and/or Cty Tnhh san xuat My Phuoc Long An Factory, re: Improperly 
Filed Quantity and Value Questionnaire Response, dated February 8, 
2012. While the Department provided Cty Tnhh Mtv Xnk My Phuoc and/or 
Cty Tnhh san xuat My Phuoc Long An Factory with an opportunity to 
refile a complete and proper Q&V response, the Department did not 
receive one.
    \13\ We did not receive Q&V responses from the following 
companies to which we issued a Q&V questionnaire: Acton Co., Ltd.; 
Asmara Home Vietnam; B2B Co., Ltd.; Capco Wai Shing Viet Nam Co., 
Ltd.; Dai Nam Investment Jsc; Dong Nam A Co., Ltd.; Focus Shipping 
Corp.; Dong Nam A Trading Co.; HCMC General Import and Export 
Investment Joint Stock Company; Hongxiang Business and Product Co., 
Ltd.; N-Tech Vina Co., Ltd.; Ocean Star Transport Co., Ltd.; Quoc Ha 
Production Trading Service; Quyky (Factory); Quyky Group/Quyky Co., 
Ltd./Quyky-Yanglei International Co., Ltd.; S.I.I.C.; The Xuong Co., 
Ltd.; Thien Ngon Printing Co., Ltd.; Trung Viet My Joint Stock 
Company; Viet Anh Imp-Exp Joint Stock Co.; VNS/VN Sourcing/Vietnam 
Sourcing; and Yen Trang Co., Ltd.
    \14\ Several of these ``undeliverable'' Q&V questionnaires were 
also sent to secondary addresses, which were confirmed delivered, 
but were ultimately unresponsive to the Department. The Q&V 
questionnaires were not successfully delivered to: Tan Minh Textile 
Sewing Trading; NV Hanger Co., Ltd. (both addresses); Thanh Hieu 
Manufacturing Trading Co.; Est Glory Industrial Ltd.; Top Sharp 
International Trading; Viet Hanger Investment, LLC; Vietnam 
Sourcing; Tan Dinh Enterprise; Moc Viet Manufacture Co., Ltd.; 
Godoxa Viet Nam, Ltd.; Diep Son Hangers One Member Co. See 
``Memorandum to the File from Robert Palmer, Analyst, re: Quantity & 
Value Questionnaire Delivery Confirmation,'' dated February 9, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After analyzing the Q&V responses, the Department selected two 
mandatory respondents for individual examination: Hamico and TJ. These 
companies accounted for the largest volume of exports of steel wire 
garment hangers, based on the Q&V responses, to the United States that 
can be reasonably examined.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See ``Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, from 
James C. Doyle, Director, Office 9; Antidumping Duty Investigation 
of Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam: Respondent Selection,'' dated February 16, 2012 
(``Respondent Selection Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questionnaires

    On February 17, 2012, the Department issued to Hamico and TJ the 
NME questionnaire. The Department issued supplemental questionnaires to 
TJ and Hamico between March 2012 and June 2012.

Surrogate Country Comments

    On March 14, 2012, the Department determined that Bangladesh, 
India, Indonesia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, and the Philippines are 
countries whose per capita gross national income are comparable to 
Vietnam in terms of economic development.\16\ On March 14, 2012, the 
Department requested comments from the interested parties regarding the 
selection of a surrogate country. On May 3, 2012, the Department 
extended the deadline for the submission of surrogate country and 
factor valuation comments to May 21, 2012, and May 31, 2012, 
respectively. On May 21, 2012, Petitioners and TJ submitted surrogate 
country comments. For a detailed discussion of the selection of the 
surrogate country, see ``Surrogate Country'' section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See ``Memorandum from Carole Showers, Director, Office of 
Policy, to Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, China/NME Group, 
Office 9: Request for a List of Surrogate Countries for an 
Antidumping Duty Investigation of Steel Wire Garment Hangers 
(``Hangers'') From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam 
(``Vietnam''),'' dated March 14, 2012 (``Surrogate Country List'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surrogate Value Comments

    On May 31, 2012, Petitioners and TJ submitted surrogate factor 
valuation comments and data. On June 12, 2012, Petitioners and TJ 
submitted rebuttal surrogate factor valuation comments.

Separate Rate Applications

    On March 26, 2012, we received properly filed separate rate 
applications from three companies.\17\ See the ``Separate Rates'' 
section below for the full discussion of the treatment of the separate 
rate applicants. Additionally, three other companies attempted to file 
separate rate applications, which were rejected because these companies 
either had not also filed Q&V responses, which the Department required 
in the Initiation Notice, or had submitted improperly filed/deficient 
separate rate applications.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The following companies filed separate rate applications: 
CTN Limited Company; Ju Fu Co., Ltd.; and Triloan Hangers Inc. 
(collectively, ``separate rate applicants'').
    \18\ The Department rejected separate rate applications filed by 
the following companies with no Q&V responses on the record: Angang 
and N-Tech Vina Co., Ltd. See Letter from the Department to Angang, 
re; Antidumping Duty Investigation of Steel Wire Garment Hangers 
from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Rejection of Separate Rate 
Application, dated February 22, 2012, and Letter from the Department 
to N-Tech Vina Co., Ltd. re; Antidumping Duty Investigation of Steel 
Wire Garment Hangers from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Third 
Rejection of Separate Rate Application, dated April 2, 2012. The 
Department also rejected a separate rate application repeatedly 
improperly filed by Tan Minh Textile Sewing Trading Company. See 
Letter from the Department to Tan Minh Textile Sewing Trading 
Company, re; Final Opportunity to Properly File a Separate Rate 
Application, dated April 17, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Postponement of Preliminary Determination

    On April 27, 2012, Petitioners filed a timely request to postpone 
the issuance of the preliminary determination by 50 days. On May 14, 
2012, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice 
postponing the preliminary AD determination.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Steel Wire Garment Hangers From the Socialist Republic 
of Vietnam and Taiwan: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations of 
Antidumping Duty Investigations, 77 FR 28356 (May 14, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, on June 25, 2012, TJ requested that, in the event of an 
affirmative preliminary determination in this investigation, the 
Department: (1) Postpone its final determination by 60 days, in 
accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.210(b)(2)(ii); and (2) extend the application of the provisional 
measures prescribed under section 733(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.210(e)(2) from a four month period to a six month period. For 
further discussion, see the ``Postponement of Final Determination and 
Extension of Provisional Measures'' section of this notice, below.

Non-Market-Economy Country

    For purposes of initiation, Petitioners submitted LTFV analyses of 
Vietnam as an NME country.\20\ The Department considers Vietnam to be 
an NME country.\21\ 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.\22\ 
Therefore, we continue to treat Vietnam as an NME country for purposes 
of this preliminary determination. Accordingly, the Department has 
calculated the normal value (``NV'') in accordance with section

[[Page 46046]]

773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Initiation Notice, 77 FR at 3733.
    \21\ See, e.g., Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 
Seventh Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 77 FR 15039, 15040 
(March 14, 2012).
    \22\ See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Coated Free Sheet 
Paper from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 30758, 30760 (June 
4, 2007), unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of 
China, 72 FR 60632 (October 25, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surrogate Country

    When the Department is investigating imports from an NME country, 
section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV, in most 
circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of production (``FOP''), 
valued in a surrogate market economy (``ME'') 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 ME countries that are: (1) At a level of economic development 
comparable to that of the NME country; and (2) significant producers of 
comparable merchandise.\23\ As stated above, the Department determined 
that Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, and the 
Philippines are countries whose per capita gross national income are 
comparable to Vietnam in terms of economic development. The sources of 
the surrogate values (``SVs'') we have used in this investigation are 
discussed under the ``Normal Value'' section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Import Administration Policy Bulletin 04.1: Non-Market 
Economy Surrogate Country Selection Process (March 1, 2004) 
(``Policy Bulletin'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioners submit that for purposes of the Department's selection 
of an appropriate surrogate, based on the export statistics compiled by 
the World Trade Atlas for the POI, both Indonesia and India reported 
substantial exports of steel wire products and, therefore, should be 
considered significant producers of comparable merchandise.\24\ 
Petitioners propose India and Indonesia as appropriate candidates for 
the primary surrogate country in this investigation. Petitioners assert 
that Indonesia has a large number of companies that manufacture various 
steel wire products and several that produce steel wire garment 
hangers. TJ proposes that the Department should select India as the 
surrogate country in this investigation because it satisfies the 
surrogate selection criteria under section 773(c)(4) of the Act. 
Further, citing to the second administrative review of steel wire 
garment hangers from the People's Republic of China, TJ notes that the 
Department selected India as the primary surrogate country after 
determining that India is a significant producer of comparable 
merchandise.\25\ TJ suggests that India is an appropriate surrogate 
country for Vietnam in this investigation as it is an ME country at a 
comparable level of economic development to that of Vietnam, it is a 
significant producer of comparable merchandise, and because it provides 
available and reliable surrogate data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Petitioners' Surrogate Country comments dated May 21, 
2012, at 4.
    \25\ See TJ's Surrogate Country comments dated May 21, 2012, at 
3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Economic Comparability

    As explained in our Surrogate Country List, the Department 
considers Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, and the 
Philippines all comparable to Vietnam in terms of economic 
development.\26\ Therefore, we consider all six countries as having met 
this prong of the surrogate country selection criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Surrogate Country List.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Significant Producers of Comparable Merchandise

    Section 773(c)(4)(B) of the Act requires the Department to value 
FOPs in a surrogate country that is a significant producer of 
comparable merchandise. Neither the statute nor the Department's 
regulations provide further guidance on what may be considered 
comparable merchandise. Given the absence of any definition in the 
statute or regulations, the Department looks to other sources such as 
the Policy Bulletin for guidance on defining comparable merchandise. 
The Policy Bulletin states that ``the terms `comparable level of 
economic development,' `comparable merchandise,' and `significant 
producer' are not defined in the statute.'' \27\ The Policy Bulletin 
further states that ``in all cases, if identical merchandise is 
produced, the country qualifies as a producer of comparable 
merchandise.'' \28\ Conversely, if identical merchandise is not 
produced, then a country producing comparable merchandise is sufficient 
in selecting a surrogate country.\29\ Further, when selecting a 
surrogate country, the statute requires the Department to consider the 
comparability of the merchandise, not the comparability of the 
industry.\30\ ``In cases where the identical merchandise is not 
produced, the team must determine if other merchandise that is 
comparable is produced. How the team does this depends on the subject 
merchandise.'' \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Policy Bulletin.
    \28\ See id.
    \29\ The Policy Bulletin also states that ``if considering a 
producer of identical merchandise leads to data difficulties, the 
operations team may consider countries that produce a broader 
category of reasonably comparable merchandise.'' See id., at note 6.
    \30\ See Sebacic Acid from the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 65674 
(December 15, 1997) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 
at Comment 1 (to impose a requirement that merchandise must be 
produced by the same process and share the same end uses to be 
considered comparable would be contrary to the intent of the 
statute).
    \31\ See Policy Bulletin, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this regard, the Department recognizes that any analysis of 
comparable merchandise must be done on a case-by-case basis:

    In other cases, however, where there are major inputs, i.e., 
inputs that are specialized or dedicated or used intensively, in the 
production of the subject merchandise, e.g., processed agricultural, 
aquatic and mineral products, comparable merchandise should be 
identified narrowly, on the basis of a comparison of the major 
inputs, including energy, where appropriate.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See id., at 3.

    Moreover, while the legislative history provides that the term 
``significant producer'' includes any country that is a significant 
``net exporter,'' \33\ it does not preclude reliance on additional or 
alternative metrics. In this case, because production data of identical 
or comparable merchandise was not available, we analyzed which of the 
six countries are exporters of identical or comparable merchandise, as 
a proxy for production data. We obtained export data using the Global 
Trade Atlas (``GTA'') for Harmonized Tariff Schedule (``HTS'') 7326.20: 
``Other Articles of Iron/Steel Wire,'' which the Department has 
previously found to be comparable merchandise.\34\ The Department found 
that, of the six countries provided in the Surrogate Country List, only 
four countries (India, Indonesia, Nicaragua, and the Philippines) were 
exporters of comparable merchandise. Thus, India, Indonesia, Nicaragua, 
and the Philippines are considered as having met this prong of the 
surrogate country selection criteria because each exported comparable 
merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See Conference Report to the 1988 Omnibus Trade & 
Competitiveness Act, H.R. Rep. No. 100-576, at 590 (1988).
    \34\ See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of 
China, 73 FR 15726, 15728 (March 25, 2008) (``PRC Hangers LTFV 
Prelim''), unchanged in Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People's 
Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, 73 FR 47587 (August 14, 2008) (``PRC Hangers LTFV Final'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Data Availability

    When evaluating SV data, the Department considers several factors 
including whether the SV is publicly available, contemporaneous with 
the POI, represents a broad-market average, from an approved surrogate 
country, tax

[[Page 46047]]

and duty-exclusive, and specific to the input. There is no hierarchy 
among these criteria. It is the Department's practice to carefully 
consider the available evidence in light of the particular facts of 
each industry when undertaking its analysis.\35\ In this case, because 
surrogate financial statements for Nicaragua or the Philippines are 
unavailable, these countries will not be considered for surrogate 
country selection purposes at this time. With respect to Indonesia, SVs 
are available for the FOPs. However, we find that the three financial 
statements \36\ submitted by interested parties are not useable because 
the companies produce merchandise which is not comparable to steel wire 
garment hangers and, thus, do not adequately reflect the production 
experience of the mandatory respondents.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See Policy Bulletin.
    \36\ See Petitioners' Surrogate Value Submission, dated May 31, 
2012, at Exhibit 2; see also TJ Rebuttal Surrogate Value 
Information, dated June 12, 2012, at Exhibits 3 and 4.
    \37\ See id. Petitioners placed financial statements for one 
Indonesian company on the record: PT Lion Metal Works TBK, which 
produces safes and office equipment. However, we have previously 
found that products that require significantly more sophisticated 
production processes than the simpler fabrication of cutting and 
shaping wire into steel wire garment hangers are not suitably 
representative of steel wire garment hanger producers. See, e.g., 
PRC Hangers LTFV Prelim, 73 FR at 15734, unchanged in PRC Hangers 
LTFV Final, and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 3. Further, TJ placed financial statements for two 
Indonesian companies on the record PT Lionmesh Prima TBK 
(``Lionmesh'') and KMI Wire and Cable (``KMI''). Lionmesh produces 
wire mesh products using a welding process and KMI produces telecom 
cables from copper or aluminum. The Department has previously 
rejected financial statements of producers of copper wire products 
because copper is not comparable to the steel wire used to produce 
steel wire garment hangers. See First Administrative Review of Steel 
Wire Garment Hangers From the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 76 FR 27994 (May 13, 2011) and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2 (``PRC Hangers AR1 
Final''). Therefore, we find that KMI's financial statements are not 
suitable here because this company produces cables manufactured from 
metals other than steel wire which we find not to be comparable 
merchandise. The Department has also previously determined that, 
even for hangers, ``the nature of the welding process * * * results 
in a product that is distinct in form and shape (and use) from the 
hangers covered by the scope * * *'' See ``Steel Wire Garment 
Hangers from the People's Republic of China: Final Scope Ruling on 
Target's Accessory Hanger,'' dated May 12, 2010. Therefore, we find 
that Lionmesh's financial statements are not suitable here because 
this company produces products that require welding processes and we 
do not find these products to be comparable to steel wire garment 
hangers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consequently, this leaves India as the remaining surrogate country 
that fulfills the surrogate country selection criteria. While there is 
no evidence on the record that India is a producer of identical 
merchandise, the Department has previously relied on Indian producers 
of comparable merchandise such as nails, fasteners, or screws, because 
these steel products are produced downstream from steel wire rod or 
steel wire.\38\ Because the Department has information for every FOP 
available from India as well as useable and complete Indian financial 
statements on the record from producers of comparable merchandise, we 
have preliminarily determined that India is the appropriate surrogate 
country from which to obtain SVs and surrogate financial ratios to 
calculate an NV. A detailed explanation of the financial statements and 
SVs used is provided below in the ``Normal Value'' section of this 
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See, e.g., PRC Hangers AR1 Final, and accompanying Issues 
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2; PRC Hangers LTFV Prelim, 
unchanged in PRC Hangers LTFV Final.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Affiliation and Single Entity Determinations

    Section 771(33) of the Act provides that:
    The following persons shall be considered to be `affiliated' or 
`affiliated persons':

    (A) Members of a family, including brothers and sisters (whether 
by the whole or half blood), spouse, ancestors, and lineal 
descendants;
    (B) Any officer or director of an organization and such 
organization;
    (C) Partners;
    (D) Employer and employee;
    (E) Any person directly or indirectly owning, controlling, or 
holding with power to vote, 5 percent or more of the outstanding 
voting stock or shares of any organization and such organization;
    (F) Two or more persons directly or indirectly controlling, 
controlled by, or under common control with, any person;
    (G) Any person who controls any other person and such other 
person.

    Additionally, section 771(33) of the Act stipulates that: ``For 
purposes of this paragraph, a person shall be considered to control 
another person if the person is legally or operationally in a position 
to exercise restrain or direction over the other person.''
    Finally, according to 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1) and (2), two or more 
companies may be treated as a single entity for antidumping duty 
purposes if: (1) The producers are affiliated, (2) the producers have 
production facilities for similar or identical products that would not 
require substantial retooling of either facility in order to 
restructure manufacturing priorities, and (3) there is a significant 
potential for manipulation of price or production.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1) and (2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The TJ Group

    As stated above, the Department selected TJ as a mandatory 
respondent in this investigation because it was one of two companies 
accounting for the largest volume of exports of steel wire garment 
hangers, based on the Q&V responses, to the United States.\40\ In its 
Q&V response, TJ stated that it exported steel wire garment hangers 
from Vietnam produced by Infinite Industrial Hanger Limited 
(``Infinite'') and Tan Dinh Enterprise (``Tan Dinh'').\41\ It was later 
corrected in TJ's questionnaire responses that H2I2 Dry Cleaning 
Supply, Inc. (``H2I2''), a U.S. company, owns Infinite and that H2I2 
purchased the hanger manufacturing assets of Tan Dinh prior to the 
POI.\42\ H2I2 planned to create a company called Supreme Hanger Co., 
Limited which would operate using the hanger manufacturing assets that 
were purchased from Tan Dinh. However, while hangers were produced on 
these manufacturing assets during the POI the planned company did not 
yet have a company registration or a business license, and as such 
Supreme Hanger Co., Limited only came into existence when it received 
its business license on May 4, 2012, which is after the POI. For 
purposes of this determination, we will refer to the entity operating, 
during the POI, the manufacturing assets that were formerly owned by 
Tan Dinh as ``the Pre-Supreme Entity.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See Respondent Selection Memo at 4.
    \41\ See TJ's Q&V Response, dated February 8, 2012, at 2.
    \42\ See TJ's Supplemental Section A Questionnaire Response, 
dated April 23, 2012, at 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the information presented in TJ's questionnaire responses, 
we preliminarily find that H2I2, Infinite, the Pre-Supreme Entity, and 
TJ are affiliated pursuant to sections 771(33)(B), (E), (F), and (G) of 
the Act based on ownership and common control. Due to the business 
proprietary nature of this issue and for a detailed discussion, see the 
``TJ Group Affiliation Memo.'' \43\ Evidence of this affiliation was 
provided by TJ's questionnaire responses, ownership/affiliation chart, 
organization chart, business licenses, and purchase agreements.\44\

[[Page 46048]]

Furthermore, we find that Infinite, the Pre-Supreme Entity, and TJ 
(collectively, the ``TJ Group'') should be considered as a single 
entity for purposes of this investigation.\45\ In addition to being 
affiliated, the TJ Group has production facilities for similar or 
identical products that would not require substantial retooling and 
there is a significant potential for manipulation of production based 
on the level of common ownership and control, shared management, and an 
intertwining of business operations.\46\ Further it has yet to be 
determined that Supreme Hanger Co., Limited is the successor-in-
interest to the Pre-Supreme Entity. Accordingly, Supreme Hanger Co., 
Limited is also not eligible to use the rate of the TJ Group.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See Memorandum to the File, through Catherine Bertrand, 
Program Manager, from Robert Palmer, Analyst, re: ``Steel Wire 
Garment Hangers from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary 
Affiliation and Single Entity Determination,'' dated concurrently 
with this notice (``TJ Group Affiliation Memo'').
    \44\ See, e.g., TJ's Section A Questionnaire Response, dated 
March 16, 2012, at Exhibit A-5; TJ's Supplemental Section A 
Questionnaire Response, dated April 23, 2012, at 22-24 and Exhibit 
22.
    \45\ See TJ Group Affiliation Memo.
    \46\ See 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1) and (2). For a detailed discussion 
of this issue, see TJ Group Affiliation Memo.
    \47\ Furthermore, Tan Dinh is also not eligible to use the rate 
of the TJ Group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate Rates

    In the Initiation Notice, the Department notified parties of the 
application process by which exporters and producers may obtain 
separate rate status in NME investigations.\48\ The process requires 
exporters and producers to submit a separate rate status 
application.\49\ In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department 
has a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are 
subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single AD 
rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of 
merchandise subject to 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. Exporters can demonstrate this 
independence through the absence of both de jure and de facto 
governmental control over export activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See Initiation Notice, 77 FR at 3731, 3735.
    \49\ See also Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate Rates Practice and 
Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations 
involving Non-Market Economy Countries (April 5, 2005) (``Policy 
Bulletin 05.1'') available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov. Policy Bulletin 
05.1 states: ``{w{time} hile continuing the practice of assigning 
separate rates only to exporters, all separate rates that the 
Department will now assign in its NME investigations will be 
specific to those producers that supplied the exporter during the 
period of investigation. Note, however, that one rate is calculated 
for the exporter and all of the producers which supplied steel wire 
garment hangers to it during the period of investigation. This 
practice applies both to mandatory respondents receiving an 
individually calculated separate rate as well as the pool of non-
investigated firms receiving the weighted-average of the 
individually calculated rates. This practice is referred to as the 
application of ``combination rates'' because such rates apply to 
specific combinations of exporters and one or more producers. The 
cash-deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to 
merchandise both exported by the firm in question and produced by a 
firm that supplied the exporter during the period of 
investigation.'' See Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department analyzes each entity exporting steel wire garment 
hangers under a test arising from Sparklers,\50\ as further developed 
in Silicon Carbide.\51\ However, if the Department determines that a 
company is wholly foreign-owned or located in an ME, then a separate 
rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether it is independent 
from government control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ 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'').
    \51\ 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Separate Rate Recipients

Wholly Foreign-Owned
    All the companies of the TJ Group are wholly ME foreign-owned.\52\ 
Therefore, because it is wholly ME foreign-owned, and we have no 
evidence indicating that its export activities are under the control of 
Vietnam, a further separate rate analysis is not necessary to determine 
whether this company is independent from government control.\53\ Thus, 
we have preliminarily granted separate rate status to the TJ Group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See TJ Section A Questionnaire Response, dated March 16, 
2012, at 14-15; see also TJ's Supplemental Section A Questionnaire 
Response, dated April 23, 2012, at 24-25.
    \53\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate From the People's Republic of 
China, 64 FR 71104, 71104-71105 (December 20, 1999) (where the 
respondent was wholly foreign-owned, and thus, qualified for a 
separate rate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another of the separate rate applicants, Triloan Hangers Inc. 
(``Triloan''), reported that it is wholly ME foreign-owned.\54\ 
Therefore, because it is wholly ME foreign-owned, and we have no 
evidence indicating that its export activities are under the control of 
Vietnam, a further separate rate analysis is not necessary to determine 
whether this company is independent from government control.\55\ Thus, 
we have preliminarily granted separate rate status to Triloan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See Separate Rate Application filed by Triloan Hangers, 
Inc., dated March 26, 2012, at 10.
    \55\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wholly NME-Owned Companies
    The remaining separate rate applicants, Ju Fu Co., Ltd. (``Ju Fu'') 
and CTN Limited Company (``CTN''), are wholly NME-owned companies.\56\ 
Therefore, the Department analyzed whether these companies demonstrated 
the absence of both de jure and de facto governmental control over 
export activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See Separate Rate Applications filed by Ju Fu and CTN, both 
dated March 26, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. 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.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The evidence provided by Ju Fu and CTN 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 exporters' business and export licenses; (2) there are 
applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of the 
companies; and (3) and there are formal measures by the government 
decentralizing control of companies. With respect to Ju Fu and CTN,\58\ 
we find that there is sufficient evidence on the record to 
preliminarily determine that it is free of de jure government control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See Separate Rate Application for CTN, dated March 26, 
2012, at 11-14 and Appendix C; see also Separate Rate Application 
for Ju Fu, dated March 26, 2012, at 8-18, and Exhibits 1-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. 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 (``EP'') 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.\59\ The Department has determined that an analysis 
of de facto control is critical in determining

[[Page 46049]]

whether respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of governmental 
control which would preclude the Department from assigning separate 
rates. The evidence provided by CTN and Ju Fu supports a preliminary 
finding of an absence of de facto governmental control based on the 
following: (1) The EP is not set by or subject to the approval of a 
governmental agency; (2) the respondent has authority to negotiate and 
sign contracts and other agreements; (3) the respondent has autonomy 
from the government in making decisions regarding the selection of 
management; and (4) the respondent retains the proceeds of its export 
sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits 
or financing of losses.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22587; 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 and 
n.3 (May 8, 1995).
    \60\ See Separate Rate Application for CTN, dated March 26, 2012 
at 17-22 and Appendix K. See also Separate Rate Application for Ju 
Fu, dated March 26, 2012, at 8-18, and Exhibits 1-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Companies Receiving a Separate Rate
    The Department has preliminarily determined that the TJ Group is 
eligible for a separate rate.\61\ In addition, we have granted separate 
rate status to Triloan, CTN, and Ju Fu, which were not selected for 
individual examination because they are wholly ME foreign-owned or and 
have demonstrated an absence of government control both in law and in 
fact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ As noted above, neither Tan Dinh nor Supreme Hangers Co., 
Limited is entitled to use the rate of the TJ Group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The evidence placed on the record of this investigation by the 
separate rate applicants demonstrates an absence of de jure and de 
facto government control with respect to each of the exporters' exports 
of steel wire garment hangers, in accordance with the criteria 
identified in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide.

B. Companies Not Receiving a Separate Rate

    The Department is not granting a separate rate to Tan Minh Textile 
Sewing Trading Company (``Tan Minh Textile'') because, after providing 
Tan Minh Textile several opportunities to correct deficiencies in its 
separate rate application,\62\ the Department informed Tan Minh Textile 
that it had still not complied with the Department's regulations 
regarding the filing of its separate rate application and that we will 
not consider its separate rate application for this investigation.\63\ 
In addition, the companies that were not responsive to the Department's 
Q&V questionnaire, submitted late Q&V responses, or did not submit 
separate rate applications are also ineligible for a separate rate 
because they did not provide any evidence demonstrating an absence of 
government control both in law and in fact.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ See, e.g., Letters from the Department to Tan Minh Textile, 
dated March 28, April 5, and April 12, 2012.
    \63\ See Letter from the Department to Tan Minh Textile, dated 
April 17, 2012.
    \64\ These companies are: Acton Co., Ltd.; Angang Clothes Rack 
Manufacture Co.; Asmara Home Vietnam; B2B Co., Ltd.; Capco Wai Shing 
Viet Nam Co., Ltd.; Dai Nam Investment JSC; Diep Son Hangers One 
Member Co. Ltd.; Dong Nam A Co., Ltd.; Dong Nam A Trading Co.; EST 
Glory Industrial Ltd.; Focus Shipping Corp.; Godoxa Viet Nam Ltd.; 
HCMC General Import And Export Investment JSC; Hongxiang Business 
And Product Co., Ltd.; Linh Sa Hamico Company, Ltd.; Minh Quang 
Steel Joint Stock Company; Moc Viet Manufacture Co., Ltd.; Nam A 
Hamico Export Joint Stock; N-Tech Vina Co., Ltd.; NV Hanger Co., 
Ltd. (A/K/A Nguyen Hoang Vu Co., Ltd.); Ocean Star Transport Co., 
Ltd.; Quoc Ha Production Trading Service; Quyky (Factory); Quyky 
Group/Quyky Co., Ltd./Quyky-Yanglei International Co., Ltd.; 
S.I.I.C.; Tan Minh Textile Sewing Trading Co., Ltd.; Thanh Hieu 
Manufacturing Trading Co. Ltd.; The Xuong Co., Ltd.; Thien Ngon 
Printing Co., Ltd.; Top Sharp International Trading Limited; Trung 
Viet My Joint Stock Company; Viet Anh Imp-Exp Joint Stock Co.; Viet 
Hanger Investment, LLC/Viet Hanger; Vietnam Hangers Joint Stock 
Company; VNS/VN Sourcing/Vietnam Sourcing; Yen Trang Co., Ltd.; and 
South East Asia Hamico Export Joint Stock Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department has also made a preliminary determination with 
respect to Hamico, a mandatory respondent, based on the facts available 
on the record. A detailed discussion of this determination is provided 
below in the ``The Vietnam-Wide Entity, Vietnam-Wide Rate and 
Application of Adverse Facts Available'' section. Based on the below 
determination, the Department has not granted separate rate status to 
Hamico.

Calculation of Separate Rate

    The statute and our regulations do not address directly how we 
should establish a rate to apply to imports from companies which we did 
not select for individual examination in accordance with section 
777A(c)(2) of the Act in an administrative review. Generally, we have 
used section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for 
calculating the all-others rate in an investigation, as guidance when 
we establish the rate for respondents not examined individually in an 
administrative review.\65\ Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides 
that ``the estimated all-others rate shall be an amount equal to the 
weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins 
established for exporters and producers individually investigated, * * 
*.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ See Notice of Final Results and Partial Rescission 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Frozen Warmwater 
Shrimp from the People's Republic of China, 75 FR 49460 (August 13, 
2010); Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice of Final Results of the 
Twelfth Administrative Review, 75 FR 6352 (February 9, 2010), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hamico has not qualified for a separate rate, as explained above, 
and accordingly it will not receive an individually calculated margin. 
In this investigation, the TJ Group has an estimated weight-average 
dumping margin which is above de minimis and which is not based on 
total adverse facts available (``AFA''). Therefore, because there is 
only one relevant weighted-average dumping margin for this preliminary 
determination, we will use the weighted-average of the TJ Group's 
calculated AD margin, which is 135.81 percent.

The Vietnam-Wide Entity, Vietnam-Wide Rate and Application of Adverse 
Facts Available

    Information on the record of this investigation indicates that 
there were more exporters of steel wire garment hangers from Vietnam 
than those indicated in the response to our request for Q&V information 
during the POI.\66\ As stated above, we issued our request for Q&V 
information to 44 potential Vietnamese producers/exporters of steel 
wire garment hangers. While information on the record of this 
investigation indicates that there are other producers/exporters of 
steel wire garment hangers in Vietnam, we received only seven timely-
filed solicited Q&V responses and two timely-filed unsolicited Q&V 
responses, which we considered for respondent selection purposes. 
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.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ See Respondent Selection Memo.
    \67\ The following companies were not responsive to the 
Department's request for Q&V information: Acton Co., Ltd.; Asmara 
Home Vietnam; B2B Co., Ltd.; Capco Wai Shing Viet Nam Co., Ltd.; Dai 
Nam Investment JSC; Dong Nam A Co., Ltd.; Focus Shipping Corp.; Dong 
Nam A Trading Co.; HCMC General Import And Export Investment Joint 
Stock Company; Hongxiang Business And Product Co., Ltd.; N-Tech Vina 
Co., Ltd.; Ocean Star Transport Co., Ltd.; Quoc Ha Production 
Trading Service; Quyky (Factory); Quyky Group/Quyky Co., Ltd./Quyky-
Yanglei International Co., Ltd.; S.I.I.C.; The Xuong Co., Ltd.; 
Thien Ngon Printing Co., Ltd.; Trung Viet My Joint Stock Company; 
Viet Anh Imp-Exp Joint Stock Co.; VNS/VN Sourcing/Vietnam Sourcing; 
and Yen Trang Co., Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, as stated above, the Department selected Hamico as a 
mandatory respondent in this investigation.\68\ Between March 27, 2012 
and April 24, 2012, Hamico attempted to submit its responses to the 
Departments original NME questionnaire and supplemental

[[Page 46050]]

questionnaires.\69\ However, the Department found that Hamico's 
responses were consistently and repeatedly non-responsive and 
incomplete. Further, Hamico attempted to postpone submitting entire 
sections of its questionnaire responses upon the expectation that it 
would be accorded an opportunity to submit the data at a time of its 
own choosing.\70\ The Department provided Hamico with numerous 
opportunities to re-file its untimely and incomplete responses, and 
indicated that failure to provide a timely and complete response may 
result in the use of AFA.\71\ On May 3, 2012, the Department informed 
Hamico that, because the Department has provided numerous opportunities 
for Hamico to: (1) Comply with repeated requests for information; (2) 
correct the data that was unusable for purposes of calculating an 
accurate dumping margin; and (3) submit complete information by the 
established deadlines, the Department would rely on facts otherwise 
available, which may include adverse inferences.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ See Respondent Selection Memo at 4.
    \69\ See Letter from the Department to South East Asia Hamico 
Export Joint Stock Corporation, re: ``Steel Wire Garment Hangers 
from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (``Vietnam''): Final 
Deficiency Letter regarding Inadequacy of Prior Responses,'' dated 
May 3, 2012 (``Hamico Final Deficiency Letter'') at 1-4.
    \70\ See Hamico Final Deficiency Letter at 4, footnote 12; see 
also, e.g., Hamico's Supplemental Section C Questionnaire Response 
dated April 24, 2012, at 22.
    \71\ See, e.g., Letter from the Department to Hamico, re: 
``Rejection and Removal from the record of Section D Questionnaire 
Response,'' dated April 17, 2012.
    \72\ See Hamico Final Deficiency Letter at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its communications with Hamico, the Department notified Hamico 
of its pervasive non-compliance with the filing regulations, non-
responsiveness to the questions asked, and incompleteness of the 
responses. The Department also established, on the record, that Hamico 
has repeatedly failed to provide information directly requested by the 
Department within: (1) The original questionnaire dated February 17, 
2012; (2) supplemental questionnaires; and (3) the deficiency letters. 
Furthermore, as the Department informed Hamico, a respondent does not 
have the right to postpone submitting entire sections of any 
questionnaire responses, or parts thereof, upon the expectation that 
they will be accorded an opportunity to submit the data at a time of 
its own choosing.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The record reflects that the Department has consistently provided 
Hamico with multiple opportunities to re-file non-compliant and 
incomplete questionnaire responses.\74\ The Department has also issued 
exhaustive supplemental questionnaires to Hamico, in which the 
Department provided Hamico with an opportunity to address the critical 
items which Hamico repeatedly omitted from its previous responses.\75\ 
Additionally, as discussed above, the Department has determined that 
Hamico has provided non-compliant and deficient responses to our 
requests for information, and thus will not receive a separate rate 
because the Department cannot determine whether Hamico is free of de 
jure and de facto control from the government of Vietnam. Consequently, 
we preliminarily determine that, because Hamico has not qualified for a 
separate rate, it is now part of the Vietnam-wide entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ See, e.g., Letter to Hamico re; rejection and removal from 
the record of Section D Questionnaire Response, dated April 17, 
2012; see also Letter to Hamico re; rejection and removal from the 
record of the Supplemental Section A Questionnaire Response, dated 
April 23, 2012.
    \75\ See the Department's Supplemental Section A Questionnaire 
dated March 27, 2012, and the Department's Supplemental Section C 
Questionnaire dated April 16, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department preliminarily determines that there were Vietnamese 
producers/exporters of steel wire garment hangers during the POI that: 
(1) Did not respond to the Department's request for information, and 
(2) did not provide compliant or complete information in a timely 
manner. Therefore, we are treating these Vietnamese producers/exporters 
as part of the Vietnam-wide entity because they did not qualify for a 
separate rate.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ See, e.g., Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand From the 
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value, 74 FR 68232, 68236 (December 23, 2009) (``PC 
Strand Prelim''), unchanged in Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire 
Strand From the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 75 FR 28560 (May 21, 2010); see also 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 
Postponement of Final Determination, and Preliminary Partial 
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts 
Thereof From the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 77121, 77128 
(December 29, 2005), unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value and Final Partial Affirmative Determination of 
Critical Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the 
People's Republic of China, 71 FR 29303 (May 22, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 proceeding 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.
    Information on the record of this investigation indicates that the 
Vietnam-wide entity, including Hamico, was unresponsive to the 
Department's requests for information. Certain companies: (1) Did not 
respond to our questionnaires requesting either Q&V information; or (2) 
provided pervasively non-compliant, incomplete, and untimely 
information requested by the Department. As a result, pursuant to 
section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we find that the use of facts 
available (``FA'') is appropriate to determine the Vietnam-wide 
rate.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ See PC Strand Prelim, 74 FR at 68236.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.\78\ We 
find that, because the Vietnam-wide entity did not respond to our 
requests for information and did not provide complete, compliant and 
timely information requested by the Department, it has failed to 
cooperate to the best of its ability. Therefore, the Department 
preliminarily finds that, in selecting from among the facts available, 
an adverse inference is appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ See Statement of Administrative Action, accompanying the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''), H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, 870 
(1994) (``SAA''); see also 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When employing an adverse inference, section 776 of the Act 
indicates that the Department may rely upon information derived from 
the petition, the final determination from the LTFV investigation, a 
previous administrative review, or any other information placed on the 
record. In selecting a rate for AFA, the Department selects a rate that 
is sufficiently adverse to ensure that the uncooperative party does not 
obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had 
fully cooperated. It is the Department's practice to select, as AFA, 
the higher of the (a) highest margin alleged in the petition, or (b) 
the highest calculated rate of any respondent in the investigation.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from the People's 
Republic of China, 65 FR 34660 (May 21, 2000) and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.

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

[[Page 46051]]

    To determine the appropriate AFA margin, the Department first 
examined whether the highest petition margin was less than or equal to 
the highest calculated margin. In this case, we compared 220.68 percent 
from the petition to 187.51 percent from the respondent's calculated 
margins. As 187.51 is less than 220.68 percent, we could not directly 
corroborate 220.68 percent.
    We then examined whether the component analysis was appropriate in 
this case to corroborate the highest margin. In this case, it is not 
clear which control numbers (``CONNUMs'') are appropriate to use for 
this purpose. Therefore, the component analysis would not be 
appropriate because it is unknown which CONNUM-specific margin to use 
for this analysis. Consequently, since we cannot use the component 
analysis here, we will use the highest calculated margin of 187.51 
percent as the Vietnam-wide entity rate.
    Therefore, as AFA, we have preliminarily assigned a rate of 187.51 
percent to the Vietnam-wide entity, the highest transaction-specific 
rate calculated for the TJ Group.\80\ In this instance, we believe that 
it is a reasonable exercise of the Department's discretion to select an 
AFA rate based on data in the investigation, instead of relying on 
secondary information. Accordingly, we found that the rate of 187.51 
percent is the most appropriate antidumping rate for the Vietnam-wide 
entity. The Vietnam-wide entity rate applies to all entries of steel 
wire garment hangers except for entries from the TJ Group and the three 
exporters receiving a separate rate, as stated above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ See Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from 
Taiwan: Final Results and Final Rescission in Part of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 66620 (December 16, 2009), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Sale

    19 CFR 351.401(i) 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.'' 
However, 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.\81\ 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.\82\ In 
order to simplify the determination of date of sale for both the 
respondents and the Department, and in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.401(i), the date of sale will normally be the date of the invoice, 
as recorded in the exporter's or producer's records kept in the 
ordinary course of business, unless the Department is satisfied that 
the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale on some 
other date.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ See 19 CFR 351.401(i); see also Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. 
v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 1090-1092 (CIT 2001) 
(``Allied Tube'').
    \82\ See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical 
Circumstances: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's 
Republic of China, 71 FR 77373, 77377 (December 26, 2006), unchanged 
in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial 
Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain 
Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 
19690 (April 19, 2007).
    \83\ For instance, in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Polyvinyl Alcohol From Taiwan, 61 FR 14064, 
14067-14068 (March 29, 1996), the Department used the date of the 
purchase order as the date of sale because the terms of sale were 
established at that point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Allied Tube, the Court of International Trade (``CIT'') found 
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.'' \84\ 
After examining the questionnaire responses and the sales documentation 
that the respondents placed on the record, we preliminarily determine 
that the invoice date is the most appropriate date of sale for H2I2, 
the TJ Group's U.S. affiliate.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ See Allied Tube, 132 F. Supp. 2d at 1092.
    \85\ See TJ's Section A Questionnaire Response, dated March 16, 
2012, and Section C Questionnaire Response dated April 9, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of steel wire garment hangers to the 
United States by the TJ Group were made at LTFV, we compared the 
constructed export price (``CEP'') to NV, as described in the ``U.S. 
Price,'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. We compared NV 
to weighted-average CEPs in accordance with section 777A(d)(1) of the 
Act.

U.S. Price

CEP

    In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we based the U.S. 
price for the TJ Group's sales on CEP because the first sale to an 
unaffiliated customer was made by H2I2. Specifically, H2I2 reports that 
it retained title to the steel wire garment hangers throughout the 
production process as it purchased all raw materials and paid its 
producers' operating expenses. Further, H2I2 reports that it performed 
all sales functions such as sales negotiations, issuance of invoices, 
and receipt of payment from the U.S. customers for all steel wire 
garment hangers produced by the producers in Vietnam for H2I2.\86\ In 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we calculated CEP by 
deducting, where applicable, the following expenses from the gross unit 
price charged to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States: 
Foreign movement expenses, international freight, and U.S. movement 
expenses, including brokerage and handling. Further, in accordance with 
section 772(d)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402(b), where appropriate, 
we deducted from the starting price the following selling expenses 
associated with economic activities occurring in the United States: 
Credit expenses and indirect selling expenses. In addition, pursuant to 
section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we made an adjustment to the starting 
price for CEP profit. Where foreign movement expenses, international 
movement expenses, or U.S. movement expenses were provided by 
Vietnamese service providers or paid for in Vietnamese Dong, we valued 
these services using SVs. For those expenses that were provided by an 
ME provider and paid for in an ME currency, we used the reported 
expense.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ See TJ's Supplemental Section A Questionnaire Response, 
dated April 23, 2012, at 32. See Glycine From the People's Republic 
of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review and Preliminary Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 18457 (April 12, 
2007), unchanged in 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 (where the Department stated that 
``we based U.S. price for certain sales on CEP in accordance with 
section 772(b) of the Act, because sales were made by Nantong 
Donchang's U.S. affiliate, Wavort, Inc. {``Wavort''{time}  to 
unaffiliated purchasers.''); AK Steel Corp., et al. v. United 
States, 226 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
    \87\ For details regarding our CEP calculations, see 
``Memorandum to the File, through Catherine Bertrand, Program 
Manager, from Robert Palmer, Analyst, re: Analysis Memorandum for 
the Preliminary Determination of the Investigation of Steel Wire 
Garment Hangers from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: TJ Co., 
Ltd.'' dated concurrently with this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) 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)

[[Page 46052]]

of the Act. The Department bases NV on the FOP 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.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ 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 (April 17, 2006), 
unchanged in 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 Valuation Methodology

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on FOP data reported by the TJ Group for the POI. To calculate 
NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor-consumption rates by 
publicly available SVs (except as discussed below). In selecting the 
SVs, among other criteria, 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. Specifically, 
we added to Indian import SVs a surrogate freight cost using the 
shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the 
factory or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory where 
appropriate. This adjustment is in accordance with the Court of Appeals 
for the Federal Circuit's decision in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 
F.3d 1401, 1407-08 (Fed. Cir. 1997).\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ See ``Memorandum to the File, through Catherine Bertrand, 
Program Manager, Office 9, from Irene Gorelik, Senior Analyst, 
Office 9, re; Investigation of Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Surrogate Values for the Preliminary 
Determination,'' dated concurrently with this notice (``Prelim SV 
Memo'') for a detailed description of all SVs used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For this preliminary determination, in accordance with the 
Department's practice, we used Indian GTA import statistics to 
calculate SVs for the mandatory respondent's FOPs (direct materials, 
including steel wire, certain energy FOPs, and packing materials). In 
selecting the best available information for valuing FOPs in accordance 
with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the Department's practice is to 
select, to the extent practicable, SVs which are non-export average 
values, most contemporaneous with the POI, product-specific, and tax-
exclusive.\90\ The record shows that data in the Indian Import 
Statistics, as well as that from the other Indian sources, represent 
data that are contemporaneous with the POI, product-specific, and tax-
exclusive.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary Determination of Critical 
Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain 
Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged in Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and 
Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 
FR 71005 (December 8, 2004).
    \91\ See Prelim SV Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, with regard to the Indian import-based SVs, we have 
disregarded import prices that we have reason to believe or suspect may 
be subsidized. We have reason to believe or suspect that prices of 
inputs from Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand may have been 
subsidized because we have found in other proceedings that these 
countries maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export 
subsidies.\92\ Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that all exports to 
all markets from these countries may be subsidized.\93\ Further, guided 
by the legislative history, it is the Department's practice not to 
conduct a formal investigation to ensure that such prices are not 
subsidized.\94\ Rather, the Department bases its decision on 
information that is available to it at the time it makes its 
determination. Additionally, consistent with our practice, we 
disregarded prices from NME countries and excluded imports labeled as 
originating from an ``unspecified'' country from the average value, 
because the Department could not be certain that they were not from 
either an NME country or a country with general export subsidies.\95\ 
Therefore, we have not used prices from these countries either in 
calculating the Indian import-based SVs or in calculating ME input 
values.\96\ The Department used Indian Import Statistics from the GTA 
to value the raw material, certain energy inputs and packing material 
inputs that the TJ Group used to produce steel wire garment hangers 
during the POI, except where listed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ See, e.g., Expedited Sunset Review of the Countervailing 
Duty Order on Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Quality Steel Plate from 
Indonesia, 70 FR 45692 (August 8, 2005), and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at 4; Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 
Products from the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Countervailing 
Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 2512 (January 15, 2009), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 17, 19-20; Final 
Results of Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled 
Carbon Steel Flat Products from Thailand, 66 FR 50410 (October 3, 
2001), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 23.
    \93\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical 
Circumstances: Certain Color Television Receivers From the People's 
Republic of China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004) and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 7.
    \94\ See Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, 
Conference Report to accompany H.R. Rep. 100-576 at 590 (1988) 
reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 1623-24; see also Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet 
Paper from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 30758 (June 4, 
2007), unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China, 
72 FR 60632, October 25, 2007.
    \95\ See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Chlorinated 
Isocyanurates From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 75294, 
75300 (December 16, 2004), unchanged in Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Chlorinated 
Isocyanurates From the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 24502 (May 
10, 2005).
    \96\ See id., 69 FR at 75300.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 21, 2011, the Department revised its methodology for 
valuing the labor input in NME AD proceedings.\97\ 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 the International Labor Organization 
(ILO) Yearbook of Labor Statistics (``Yearbook'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ See Antidumping Methodologies in Proceedings Involving Non-
Market Economies: Valuing the Factor of Production: Labor, 76 FR 
36092 (June 21, 2011) (``Labor Methodologies''). This notice 
followed the Federal Circuit decision in Dorbest Ltd. v. United 
States, 604 F.3d 1363, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2010), which found that the 
regression-based method for calculating wage rates as stipulated by 
19 CFR 351.408(c)(3) uses data not permitted by the statutory 
requirements laid out in section 773 of the Act (i.e., 19 U.S.C. 
1677b(c)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For this preliminary determination, 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 Division 28 
(Manufacture of Fabricated Metal Products, Except Machinery and 
Equipment) of the ISIC-Revision 3 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 Division 28 of ISIC-Revision 3 standard, in 
accordance with Section 773(c)(4) of the Act. A more detailed 
description of the wage rate calculation methodology is provided in the 
Prelim SV Memo.
    As stated above, the Department used Indian ILO data reported under 
Chapter 6A of the ILO Yearbook, which reflects

[[Page 46053]]

all costs related to labor, including wages, benefits, housing, 
training, etc. Pursuant to Labor Methodologies, the Department's 
practice is to consider whether financial ratios reflect labor expenses 
that are included in other elements of the respondent's FOPs (e.g., 
general and administrative expenses).\98\ Additionally, where 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.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ See Labor Methodologies, 76 FR at 36093-94.
    \99\ See id., 76 FR at 36093.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department valued truck freight expenses using an Indian per-
unit average rate calculated from publicly available data on the 
following Web site: http://www.infobanc.com/logistics/logtruck.htm. The 
logistics section of this Web site contains inland freight truck rates 
between many large Indian cities. We did not inflate this rate as it is 
contemporaneous with the POI.\100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ See Prelim SV Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To value brokerage and handling, the Department used a price list 
of export procedures necessary to export a standardized cargo of goods 
in India. The price list is publicly available and compiled based on a 
survey case study of the procedural requirements for trading a standard 
shipment of goods by ocean transport in India as published in Doing 
Business 2011: India (published by the World Bank).
    To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative 
(``SG&A'') expenses, and profit, the Department is using the 2010-2011 
audited financial statement of Sterling Tools Ltd. (``Sterling''), an 
Indian fastener manufacturer \101\ and the 2010-2011 audited financial 
statement of Nasco Steels Private Limited (``Nasco''),\102\ an Indian 
manufacturer of steel hinges and nails. The Department has previously 
relied on Sterling's and Nasco's financial statements in Steel Wire 
Garment Hangers From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and 
Final Partial Rescission of Second Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 77 FR 12553 (March 1, 2012) and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 4 (``PRC Hangers AR2 Final''), where we 
determined these two companies' financial statements were suitable 
because they are producers of comparable merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ See Petition at Volume III and Exhibit III-2.
    \102\ See TJ's Surrogate Value Comments dated May 31, 2012, at 
Exhibit 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While TJ provided additional Indian financial statements for Deccan 
Wires & Welding Products PVT Ltd. (``Deccan'') and Balaji Galvanising 
Industries Limited (``Balaji''),\103\ we have determined not to rely on 
either company's financial statements. Specifically, Balaji's financial 
statements indicate that Balaji is a producer of galvanized wire with 
no further production of downstream products from wire.\104\ 
Additionally, as Deccan \105\ is a producer of various types of wire 
and only produces nails as an ancillary product, we find that Deccan's 
financial statements do not adequately reflect the production 
experience of the respondent, a company wholly devoted to the 
production of merchandise produced downstream from steel wire. The 
Department has frequently determined that ``various fasteners produced 
by the surrogate companies are comparable to steel wire garment 
hangers, the merchandise subject to this investigation, because 
fasteners, like steel wire garment hangers, are a downstream product of 
wire requiring additional manufacturing processes.'' \106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ See id., at Exhibits 8 and 9, respectively.
    \104\ See id., at Exhibit 9.
    \105\ See id., at Exhibit 8.
    \106\ See PRC Hangers AR2 Final and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 4; see also PRC Hangers AR1 Final and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2 and PRC 
Hangers LTFV Prelim, unchanged in PRC Hangers LTFV Final.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Currency Conversion

    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.

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.

Combination Rates

    In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that it would 
calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible 
for a separate rate in this investigation.\107\ Additionally, because 
we preliminarily find that Infinite, the Pre-Supreme Entity, and TJ, 
known as the TJ Group, to be a single entity, we are preliminarily 
assigning the combination rate to the TJ Group as the exporter and 
producer.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ See Initiation Notice, 77 FR at 3535. and Policy Bulletin 
05.1.
    \108\ As noted above, neither Supreme Hangers Co., Limited nor 
Tan Dinh are entitled to use the rate of the TJ Group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preliminary Determination

    The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Weighted-
             Exporter                    Producer        average  margin
                                                            (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TJ Group\109\....................  TJ Group...........            135.81
CTN Limited Company..............  CTN Limited Company            135.81
Ju Fu Co., Ltd...................  Ju Fu Co., Ltd.....            135.81
Triloan Hangers, Inc.............  Triloan Hangers,               135.81
                                    Inc..
Vietnam-Wide Rate\110\...........  ...................            187.51
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ The only companies entitled to use the rate of the TJ 
Group are: The Pre-Supreme Entity, Infinite Industrial Hanger 
Limited, and TJ Co., Ltd. As noted above, neither the Supreme 
Hangers Co., Limited nor Tan Dinh are entitled to use the rate of 
the TJ Group.
    \110\ The Vietnam-Wide entity includes: Acton Co., Ltd.; Angang 
Clothes Rack Manufacture Co.; Asmara Home Vietnam; B2B Co., Ltd.; 
Capco Wai Shing Viet Nam Co., Ltd.; Dai Nam Investment JSC; Diep Son 
Hangers One Member Co. Ltd.; Dong Nam A Co., Ltd.; Dong Nam A 
Trading Co.; EST Glory Industrial Ltd.; Focus Shipping Corp.; Godoxa 
Viet Nam Ltd.; HCMC General Import And Export Investment JSC; 
Hongxiang Business And Product Co., Ltd.; Linh Sa Hamico Company, 
Ltd.; Minh Quang Steel Joint Stock Company; Moc Viet Manufacture 
Co., Ltd.; Nam A Hamico Export Joint Stock; N-Tech Vina Co., Ltd.; 
NV Hanger Co., Ltd. (A/K/A Nguyen Hoang Vu Co., Ltd.); Ocean Star 
Transport Co., Ltd.; Quoc Ha Production Trading Service; Quyky 
(Factory); Quyky Group/Quyky Co., Ltd./Quyky-Yanglei International 
Co., Ltd.; S.I.I.C.; Tan Minh Textile Sewing Trading Co., Ltd.; 
Thanh Hieu Manufacturing Trading Co. Ltd.; The Xuong Co., Ltd.; 
Thien Ngon Printing Co., Ltd.; Top Sharp International Trading 
Limited; Trung Viet My Joint Stock Company; Viet Anh Imp-Exp Joint 
Stock Co.; Viet Hanger Investment, LLC/Viet Hanger; Vietnam Hangers 
Joint Stock Company; VNS/VN Sourcing/Vietnam Sourcing; Yen Trang 
Co., Ltd.; and South East Asia Hamico Export Joint Stock Company.

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

[[Page 46054]]

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we will instruct the 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to suspend liquidation of 
all entries of steel wire garment hangers from Vietnam as described in 
the ``Scope of Investigation'' section, entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption from the TJ Group, the non-selected 
companies receiving a separate rate, and the Vietnam-wide entity on or 
after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. 
Additionally, we will instruct CBP to require an AD duty cash deposit 
for each entry equal to the weight-averaged amount by which the NV 
exceeds U.S. price, as indicated above.\111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From India, 69 FR 
67306, 67307 (November 17, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Department has determined in its concurrent CVD 
investigation of steel wire garment hangers from Vietnam that subject 
merchandise exported by Infinite and Hamico benefitted from export 
subsidies.\112\ With respect to the TJ Group, we will instruct CBP to 
require an AD cash deposit equal to the amount by which the NV exceeds 
the U.S. price, as indicated above, reduced by the export subsidy 
determined for the TJ Group's in the companion CVD investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ See Certain Steel Wire Garment Hangers From the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determination and Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty 
Determination with Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 77 FR 32930 
(June 4, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, as noted above, we have determined that Hamico is part of 
the Vietnam-wide entity in this proceeding. With respect to the 
Vietnam-wide entity, we have applied, as AFA, the highest transaction-
specific rate calculated for a mandatory respondent, the TJ Group. 
Therefore, pursuant to our practice we will not instruct CBP to deduct 
any export subsidy from the Vietnam-wide entity's cash deposit 
rate.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ See, e.g., Galvanized Steel Wire From the People's 
Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, 77 FR 17430, 17435 (March 26, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the separate rate recipients in this case, who are receiving 
the All-Others rate in the CVD investigation, we will instruct CBP to 
require an AD cash deposit equal to the amount by which the NV exceeds 
the U.S. price, as indicated above, reduced by the lesser of the 
average of the export subsidy rates determined in the CVD investigation 
or the average of the CVD export subsidy rates applicable to the TJ 
Group, on which the separate rate dumping margins are based.
    For all other entries of steel wire garment hangers from Vietnam, 
the following cash deposit instructions apply: (1) The rate for the 
firms listed in the chart above will be the rate we have determined in 
this preliminary determination; (2) for all non-Vietnamese exporters of 
steel wire garment hangers which have not received their own rate, the 
cash-deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the Vietnamese 
exporter in the combination listed above, that supplied that non- 
Vietnamese exporter. These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will 
remain in effect until further notice.

International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we will notify the 
ITC of our preliminary affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. 
Section 735(b)(2) of the Act requires the ITC to make its final 
determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States 
is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of 
imports of steel wire garment hangers, or sales (or the likelihood of 
sales) for importation, of the steel wire garment hangers within 45 
days of our final determination.

Public Comment

    Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no later than seven days 
after the date the final verification report is issued in this 
proceeding and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case 
briefs, no later than five days after the deadline for submitting case 
briefs.\114\ A list of authorities used and an executive summary of 
issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. This 
summary should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i) and 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 774 of the Act, we will hold a public 
hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to 
comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. If a request 
for a hearing is made, we intend to hold the hearing three days after 
the deadline of submission of rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230, 
at a time and location to be determined. Parties should confirm by 
telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before 
the scheduled date.
    Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
publication of this notice.\115\ Hearing requests should contain the 
following information: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone 
number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to 
be discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in 
the briefs.\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
    \116\ See 19 CFR 351.310(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional 
Measures

    Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination 
may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the 
publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an 
affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement 
is made by exporters, who account for a significant proportion of 
exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative 
preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by 
the petitioner. The Department's regulations, at 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), 
require that requests by respondents for postponement of a final 
determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional 
measures from a four-month period to not more than six months.
    As noted above, on June 25, 2012, the TJ Group requested that, in 
the event of an affirmative preliminary determination in this 
investigation, the Department postpone its final determination by 60 
days and extend the application of the provisional measures prescribed 
under section 733(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), from a four 
month period to a six month period. In accordance with section 
735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because (1) Our 
preliminary determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting producers/
exporters account for a significant proportion of exports of the 
subject merchandise; and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, we 
are granting this request and are postponing the final determination 
until no later than 135 days after the publication of this notice in 
the Federal

[[Page 46055]]

Register. Suspension of liquidation will be extended accordingly. We 
are also granting the request to extend the application of the 
provisional measures prescribed under section 733(d) of the Act and 19 
CFR 351.210(e)(2) from a four month period to a six month period.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: July 26, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-18905 Filed 8-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P