[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 149 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46058-46067]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18936]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-552-814]


Utility Scale Wind Towers 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.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``Department'') preliminarily 
determines that utility scale wind towers (``wind towers'') 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 preliminary margins of dumping are shown in the 
``Preliminary Determination'' section of this notice.

DATES: Effective Date: August 2, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Riggle, Magd Zalok or LaVonne 
Clark, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-0650, (202) 482-4162, or (202) 482-0721, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On December 29, 2011, the Department received a petition concerning 
imports of wind towers from Vietnam filed in proper form by the Wind 
Tower Trade Coalition (``Petitioner'').\1\ In January 2012, the 
Department issued requests for information regarding, and clarification 
of, certain areas of the Petition. Petitioner timely filed responses to 
these requests. The Department initiated an antidumping duty (``AD'') 
investigation of wind towers from Vietnam on January 18, 2012.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Wind Tower Trade Coalition is comprised of Broadwind 
Towers, Inc., DMI Industries, Katana Summit LLC, and Trinity 
Structural Towers, Inc. See Petitions for the Imposition of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Utility Scale Wind Towers 
from the People's Republic of China and Antidumping Duties on 
Utility Scale Wind Towers from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam 
(December 29, 2011) (``Petition'').
    \2\ See Utility Scale Wind Towers From the People's Republic of 
China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of 
Antidumping Duty Investigations, 77 FR 3440 (January 24, 2012) 
(``Initiation Notice'') at Volume I, Exhibit I-14 of the Petition.

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

[[Page 46059]]

    In the Initiation Notice, the Department noted that Petitioner 
listed only two known Vietnamese exporters/producers in the Petition: 
CS Wind Vietnam Co., Ltd. (``CS Wind Vietnam'') and Vina-Halla Heavy 
Industries Ltd. (``Vina-Halla''). Accordingly, the Department stated 
that it would send its AD questionnaire to these two companies.\3\ 
Moreover, in its Petition, Petitioner requested that the Department 
consider expanding the period of investigation (``POI'') to include 
more than two fiscal quarters, the period normally covered in an 
investigation involving a non-market economy (``NME'') country, because 
a POI of normal duration may not capture a large number of wind tower 
sales. Accordingly, in the Initiation Notice, the Department stated 
that it would give further consideration to the duration of the POI.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Initiation Notice, 77 FR at 3441, See also Volume I of 
the Petition.
    \4\ See Initiation Notice, 77 FR at 3441.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 16, 2012, the Department issued the AD questionnaire to 
CS Wind Vietnam and Vina-Halla and, in a separate questionnaire issued 
to both companies on the same date, requested quantity and value 
(``Q&V'') information to evaluate Petitioner's claim with respect to 
expanding the POI. On March 1, 2012, the Department received a Q&V 
response from CS Wind Group.\5\ The Department did not receive a Q&V 
response from Vina-Halla. Based on CS Wind Group's Q&V response, the 
Department concluded that the six-month POI data ensure a sufficient 
number of sales for its analysis.\6\ Accordingly, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.204(b)(1), the Department determined to follow its normal practice 
and use the six-month POI.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Department has preliminarily determined that CS Wind 
Vietnam and CS Wind Corporation, the Korean parent of CS Wind 
Vietnam, (collectively, ``CS Wind Group'') should be treated as a 
single entity for AD purposes. See Memorandum from Magd Zalok, 
International Trade Analyst, through Charles Riggle, Program 
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, to Abdelali Elouaradia, 
Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, regarding ``Affiliation and 
Single Entity Status of CS Wind Group Vietnam Co., Ltd. and CS Wind 
Group Corporation'' (July 26, 2012) (``Single Entity Memorandum'').
    \6\ See Memorandum to the File, regarding ``Six-Month Period of 
Investigation'' (March 12, 2012).
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In March and April 2012, CS Wind Group submitted timely responses 
to the Department's AD questionnaire. The Department did not receive 
responses to its AD questionnaire from Vina-Halla. Petitioner submitted 
comments regarding those responses in April and May 2012. The 
Department issued supplemental questionnaires to CS Wind Group from May 
to July 2012. CS Wind Group submitted timely responses to the 
Department's supplemental questionnaires, and Petitioner submitted 
comments thereon, from May through July 2012.
    In the Initiation Notice, the Department notified parties that they 
had an opportunity to comment on the scope of the investigation as well 
as the appropriate physical characteristics of wind towers to be 
reported in response to the Department's AD questionnaire.\8\ In 
February 2012, Petitioner and CS Wind Group submitted comments to the 
Department regarding the scope and the physical characteristics of 
merchandise under consideration to be used for reporting purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Initiation Notice, 77 FR at 3441.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 13, 2012, the U.S. International Trade Commission 
(``ITC'') preliminarily determined that there is a reasonable 
indication that an industry in the United States is threatened with 
material injury by reason of imports from Vietnam of wind towers.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Utility Scale Wind Towers From China and Vietnam, 77 FR 
9700 (February 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 27, 2012, the Department identified potential surrogate 
countries for use in the investigation.\10\ On March 15, 2012, the 
Department invited interested parties to comment on surrogate country 
and surrogate value selection.\11\ From April through May 2012, 
interested parties submitted comments and rebuttal comments on the 
appropriate surrogate country and surrogate values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Memorandum from Carol Showers, Director, Office of 
Policy, to Charles Riggle, Program Manager, Office 4, regarding 
``Request for a List of Surrogate Countries for an Antidumping Duty 
Investigation of Utility Scale Wind Towers (`Wind Towers') from the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam (`Vietnam')'' (January 27, 2012) 
(``Surrogate Country Memorandum'').
    \11\ See Letter to All Interested Parties, regarding ``Utility 
Scale Wind Towers from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (`Vietnam') 
Investigation: Request for Surrogate Country and Surrogate Value 
Comments and Information'' (March 15, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 3, 3012, Petitioner made a timely request pursuant to 
section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(2) and (e) for a 
50-day postponement of the preliminary determination.\12\ On May 17, 
2012, the Department published a notice of postponement of the due date 
of the preliminary AD determination on wind towers from Vietnam.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Letter from Petitioner to the Secretary of Commerce, 
regarding ``Certain Utility Scale Wind Towers from the People's 
Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Request to 
Fully Extend Preliminary Determination'' (May 3, 2012).
    \13\ See Utility Scale Wind Towers From the People's Republic of 
China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Postponement of 
Preliminary Determinations of Antidumping Duty Investigations, 77 FR 
29315 (May 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 29, 2012, Petitioner and CS Wind Group filed comments for 
the Department to consider in its preliminary determination.

Period of Investigation

    The POI is April 1, 2011, through September 30, 2011. This period 
corresponds to the two most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month 
in which the Petition was filed, December 2011.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation are certain wind 
towers, whether or not tapered, and sections thereof. Certain wind 
towers are designed to support the nacelle and rotor blades in a wind 
turbine with a minimum rated electrical power generation capacity in 
excess of 100 kilowatts (``kW'') and with a minimum height of 50 meters 
measured from the base of the tower to the bottom of the nacelle (i.e., 
where the top of the tower and nacelle are joined) when fully 
assembled.
    A wind tower section consists of, at a minimum, multiple steel 
plates rolled into cylindrical or conical shapes and welded together 
(or otherwise attached) to form a steel shell, regardless of coating, 
end-finish, painting, treatment, or method of manufacture, and with or 
without flanges, doors, or internal or external components (e.g., 
flooring/decking, ladders, lifts, electrical buss boxes, electrical 
cabling, conduit, cable harness for nacelle generator, interior 
lighting, tool and storage lockers) attached to the wind tower section. 
Several wind tower sections are normally required to form a completed 
wind tower.
    Wind towers and sections thereof are included within the scope 
whether or not they are joined with nonsubject merchandise, such as 
nacelles or rotor blades, and whether or not they have internal or 
external components attached to the subject merchandise.
    Specifically excluded from the scope are nacelles and rotor blades, 
regardless of whether they are attached to the wind tower. Also 
excluded are any internal or external components which are not attached 
to the wind towers or sections thereof.
    Merchandise covered by the investigation are currently classified 
in the Harmonized Tariff System of the United States (``HTSUS'') under 
subheadings 7308.20.0020 \15\ or

[[Page 46060]]

8502.31.0000.\16\ Prior to 2011, merchandise covered by the 
investigation were classified in the HTSUS under subheading 
7308.20.0000 and may continue to be to some degree. While the HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the 
written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Wind towers are classified under HTSUS 7308.20.0020 when 
imported as a tower or tower section(s) alone.
    \16\ Wind towers may also be classified under HTSUS 8502.31.0000 
when imported as part of a wind turbine (i.e., accompanying nacelles 
and/or rotor blades).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope Comments

    In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations, 
the Department 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.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 
27323 (May 19, 1997) (``Preamble''); Initiation Notice, 77 FR at 
3441.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 7, 2012, the Department received timely comments on the 
scope of the investigation from Petitioner.\18\ Specifically, 
Petitioner requested that the scope cover all future generations of 
utility scale wind towers, regardless of the type of the future tower 
(e.g., lattice mast, space frame tower, etc.), that are designed to 
support turbine generators with a capacity in excess of 100 kW.\19\ 
Petitioner argued that, in a previous case, the Department included 
scope language that covered future generations of semiconductors.\20\ 
Petitioner also stated that wind tower generating capacities have been 
consistently increasing, generator efficiencies have been improving, 
and turbine heights have been rising to altitudes with much stronger 
winds.\21\ Petitioner contends, in fact, that the next generation of 
wind towers will be over 100 meters in height and capable of supporting 
generators with capacities of 7.0 megawatt and larger.\22\ Accordingly, 
Petitioner proposed including language in the scope stating that 
``{f{time} uture utility scale wind tower configurations that meet the 
minimum height requirement and are designed to support wind turbine 
electrical generators greater than 100 kW are also included within the 
scope.'' \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Letter from Petitioner to the Secretary of Commerce, 
``Certain Utility Scale Wind Towers from the People's Republic of 
China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Scope Comments'' 
(February 7, 2012) (``Scope Comments''). No other parties provided 
comments.
    \19\ Id. at 2.
    \20\ Id. at 2-3; Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: 
Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors of One Megabit and Above 
From the Republic of Korea, 57 FR 21231 (May 19, 1992) 
(``Semiconductors'').
    \21\ See Scope Comments at 3.
    \22\ Id.
    \23\ Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 731 of the Act requires the Department to define the scope 
of merchandise subject to investigation in each AD investigation. If 
the Department initiates an investigation based upon a petition, it 
will continue to review the scope of the merchandise described in the 
petition to determine the scope of the final order.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Preamble, 62 FR at 27323.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Generally, the Department prefers to define product coverage by the 
physical characteristics of the merchandise subject to 
investigation.\25\ In this proceeding, a wind tower section subject to 
this investigation ``consists of, at a minimum, multiple steel plates 
rolled into cylindrical or conical shapes and welded together (or 
otherwise attached) to form a steel shell * * *.'' Consequently, to 
revise the scope language as proposed by Petitioner would expand 
product coverage beyond the physical characteristics of merchandise 
currently subject to this investigation by including all products 
meeting the minimum height and power generating capacity defined in the 
scope, regardless of physical characteristics. Moreover, in 
Semiconductors, the Department did not cover future generations of 
semiconductors as claimed by Petitioner but, rather, covered future 
packaging and assembling of dynamic random access memory. What 
distinguishes the instant investigation from Semiconductors is that, 
while the Department never contemplated future generations of 
semiconductors, Petitioner's admitted intention in the instant 
investigation is to ``cover all future generations of utility scale 
wind towers regardless of the type of future tower.'' \26\ This would 
result in an open-ended scope, potentially covering products whose 
physical characteristics differ significantly from the physical 
characteristics of the merchandise subject to this investigation. 
Therefore, for this preliminary determination, the Department has not 
adopted the revised scope language proposed by Petitioner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Affirmative Final Determination of Critical 
Circumstances: Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the 
People's Republic of China, 73 FR 31970 (June 5, 2008), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
    \26\ See Scope Comments at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Non-Market Economy Country

    For purposes of initiation, Petitioner treated Vietnam as an 
NME.\27\ The Department considers Vietnam to be an NME.\28\ In 
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination 
that a foreign country is an NME shall remain in effect until revoked 
by the Department.\29\ Therefore, the Department continues to treat 
Vietnam as an NME for purposes of this preliminary determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Volume IV of the Petition at 9-10; see also Initiation 
Notice, 77 FR at 3444.
    \28\ See, e.g., Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 74 FR 
56813 (November 3, 2009), unchanged in Polyethylene Retail Carrier 
Bags From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 75 FR 16434 (April 1, 2010).
    \29\ 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) (``CFS Paper from PRC Preliminary Determination''), 
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) (``CFS Paper from PRC Final 
Determination'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surrogate Country

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to base normal 
value (``NV''), in most cases, on the NME producer's factors of 
production (``FOPs'') valued in a surrogate market economy (``ME'') 
country or countries considered appropriate by the Department. In 
accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, the Department will value 
FOPs using ``to the extent possible, the prices or costs of factors of 
production in one or more market economy countries that are--(A) at a 
level of economic development comparable to that of the nonmarket 
economy country, and (B) significant producers of comparable 
merchandise.'' Further, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(2), the 
Department will normally value FOPs in a single surrogate country.
    In its Surrogate Country Memorandum, the Department identified 
Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, and the Philippines 
as being equally comparable to Vietnam in terms of economic 
development.\30\ Petitioner argues that India should be selected as the 
surrogate country because India is a significant producer of comparable 
merchandise, it has a large wind energy industry, and it is the best 
source for quality surrogate value data and usable financial 
statements.\31\ CS Wind Group, while agreeing that India provides the 
most appropriate primary surrogate country to value FOPs in this 
investigation, contends that

[[Page 46061]]

Ukraine also maintains a sizeable industry producing substantial 
quantities of comparable merchandise and offers reliable, quality data 
to value certain major inputs.\32\ Petitioner argued that Ukraine is 
not on the list of potential surrogate countries and, therefore, is not 
an appropriate source for surrogate values.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Surrogate Country Memorandum.
    \31\ See Letter from Petitioner to the Department, regarding 
``Utility Scale Wind Towers from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 
Surrogate Country Comments'' (April 25, 2012).
    \32\ See Letter from CS Wind Group to the Department, regarding 
``CS Wind Group's Surrogate Country Comments: Antidumping Duty 
Investigation on Utility Scale Wind Towers from the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam'' (April 25, 2012).
    \33\ See Letter from Petitioner to the Department, regarding 
``Utility Scale Wind Towers from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 
Submission of Additional Comments in Connection with the Department 
of Commerce's Surrogate Country Selection'' (May 23, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Economic Comparability

    The Department considers all six countries listed in the Surrogate 
Country Memorandum as having satisfied the economic comparability prong 
of the surrogate country selection criteria. Unless the Department 
finds that all of the countries determined to be equally economically 
comparable are not significant producers of comparable merchandise, do 
not provide a reliable source of publicly available surrogate data or 
are unsuitable for use for other reasons, the Department will rely on 
data from one of these countries.\34\ CS Wind Group has recommended 
that Ukraine also be considered as a potential surrogate country. 
However, Ukraine is not one of the potential countries included in the 
Surrogate Country Memorandum, nor is the Ukrainian gross national 
income (``GNI'') within the range of the GNI's for the countries 
included in the Surrogate Country Memorandum. Therefore, the Department 
finds that Ukraine is not as economically comparable as the countries 
in the Surrogate Country Memorandum, and will not be considered as a 
potential surrogate country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Certain Steel Wheels From the People's Republic of 
China: Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value, Partial Affirmative Preliminary Determination of 
Critical Circumstances, and Postponement of Final Determination, 76 
FR 67702, 67708 (November 2, 2011) (``Steel Wheels from PRC 
Preliminary Determination''), unchanged in Certain Steel Wheels From 
the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Final 
Determination of Critical Circumstances, 77 FR 17021 (March 23, 
2012) (``Steel Wheels from PRC Final Determination'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Once the countries that are economically comparable to Vietnam have 
been identified, the Department determines whether each economically 
comparable country is a significant producer of comparable 
merchandise.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See Steel Wheels from PRC Preliminary Determination, 76 FR 
at 67708-09, unchanged in Steel Wheels from PRC Final Determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Significant Producer of Comparable Merchandise

    Section 773(c)(4)(B) of the Act directs the Department, to the 
extent possible, to value FOPs in a surrogate country that is a 
significant producer of comparable merchandise. The record contains 
evidence of production of identical or comparable merchandise in India, 
Indonesia, Nicaragua and Pakistan. As a proxy for domestic production, 
export data from the United Nations Comtrade (www.comtrade.un.org) show 
that India, Indonesia, Nicaragua and Pakistan export towers under a 
Harmonized Tariff System (``HTS'') category that would include 
merchandise under consideration.\36\ However, these data also indicate 
that Nicaragua's and Pakistan's exports were negligible.\37\ The Global 
Trade Atlas (``GTA'') statistics further identify exports of 
merchandise under consideration from India of over 4,700,000 kilograms 
of towers classified under HTS 7308.20.19, which included the subject 
merchandise, during the most recent six-month period for which the GTA 
India data are available.\38\ Based on information on the record, the 
Department has determined that India and Indonesia are significant 
producers of comparable merchandise under consideration. After 
determining which potential surrogate countries are significant 
producers of identical or comparable merchandise, the Department then 
selects the primary surrogate country based upon whether data for 
valuing the FOPs are both available and reliable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See Petitioner's April 25, 2012, submission at Exhibit 1.
    \37\ See id.
    \38\ See CS Wind Group's April 25, 2012, submission at Exhibit 
2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Data Availability

    If more than one potential surrogate country satisfies the 
statutory requirements for selection as a surrogate country, the 
Department selects the primary surrogate country from among the 
potential surrogate countries based on data availability and 
reliability. When evaluating surrogate value data, the Department 
considers several factors, including whether the surrogate values are 
publicly available, contemporaneous with the POI, representative of a 
broad market average, tax and duty-exclusive, and specific to the 
inputs being valued.\39\ There is no surrogate value information on the 
record for Bangladesh, Indonesia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, and the 
Philippines. In contrast, the record contains usable Indian surrogate 
values for almost every FOP.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Import Administration's Policy Bulletin 04.1: Non-
Market Economy Surrogate Country Selection Process (March 1, 2004), 
available on the Department's Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/index.html.
    \40\ See CS Wind Group's April 25, 2012, letter at 2-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because India is the only country listed on the Surrogate Country 
Memorandum found to be both economically comparable to Vietnam, a 
significant producer of comparable merchandise, and for which we have 
reliable data to value almost every one of the FOPs, we have selected 
India as the primary surrogate country. Because India satisfies the 
Department's criteria for the selection of a primary surrogate country, 
resort to an alternative surrogate country which is not as economically 
comparable to Vietnam as the countries in the Surrogate Country 
Memorandum, is not necessary.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), for the final 
determination in an AD investigation, interested parties may submit 
publicly available information to value the FOPs within 40 days after 
the date of publication of the preliminary determination.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final 
determination of this investigation, interested parties may submit 
factual information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual 
information submitted by any other interested party less than ten 
days before, on, or after, the applicable deadline for submission of 
such factual information. However, the Department notes that 19 CFR 
351.301(c)(1) permits new information only insofar as it rebuts, 
clarifies, or corrects information recently placed on the record. 
The Department generally will not accept the submission of 
additional, previously absent-from-the-record alternative surrogate 
value information. See Glycine from the People's Republic of China: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final 
Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809 (October 17, 2007), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. 
Additionally, for each piece of factual information submitted with 
surrogate value rebuttal comments, the interested party must provide 
a written explanation of what information that is already on the 
record of the ongoing proceeding the factual information is 
rebutting, clarifying, or correcting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Single Entity Treatment

    To the extent that the Department's practice does not conflict with 
section 773(c) of the Act, the Department will collapse two or more 
affiliated entities in a proceeding involving an NME country if the 
facts of the case warrant such treatment.\42\ Pursuant to 19 CFR

[[Page 46062]]

351.401(f)(1), the Department will treat producers as a single entity, 
or ``collapse'' them, where: (1) Those producers are affiliated; (2) 
the producers have production facilities for producing 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. In determining whether a significant potential for 
manipulation exists, 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2) states that the Department 
may consider various factors, including: (1) The level of common 
ownership; (2) the extent to which managerial employees or board 
members of one firm sit on the board of directors of an affiliated 
firm; and (3) whether the operations of the affiliated firms are 
intertwined, such as through the sharing of sales information, 
involvement in production and pricing decisions, the sharing of 
facilities or employees, or significant transactions between the 
affiliated producers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See, e.g., Certain Steel Nails From the People's Republic 
of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value 
and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances and 
Postponement of Final Determination, 73 FR 3928, 3932 (January 23, 
2008), unchanged in Certain Steel Nails From the People's Republic 
of China: Amended Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value, 73 FR 7254 (February 7, 2008) and Certain Steel Nails 
from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of 
Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 33977 (June 16, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 771(33) of the Act identifies persons that shall be 
considered ``affiliated'' or ``affiliated persons,'' including, inter 
alia, (1) 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; or (2) two 
or more persons directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or 
under common control with, any person.\43\ Section 771(33) of the Act 
further states that a person shall be considered to control another 
person if the person is legally or operationally in a position to 
exercise restraint or direction over the other person.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See sections 771(33)(E)-(F) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department has preliminarily determined that CS Wind Vietnam 
and CS Wind Corporation, the Korean parent company of CS Wind Vietnam, 
are affiliated pursuant to sections 771(33)(E) and (F) of the Act and 
that these companies should be treated as a single entity for AD 
purposes.\44\ In summary, the Department has preliminarily determined 
that CS Wind Vietnam and CS Wind Corporation meet the statutory 
definition of ``affiliated persons'' under sections 771(33)(E) and (F) 
of the Act.\45\ Furthermore, the Department has preliminarily found a 
significant potential for manipulation of production and sales 
decisions between CS Wind Corporation and CS Wind Vietnam.\46\ 
Accordingly, the Department has determined it appropriate to treat CS 
Wind Corporation and CS Wind Vietnam as a single entity in this 
proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See Single Entity Memorandum.
    \45\ Id.
    \46\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department has a 
rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are 
subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single 
weighted-average dumping margin.\47\ It is the Department's policy to 
assign all exporters of merchandise under investigation that are 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.\48\ The Department analyzes whether each entity exporting the 
subject merchandise is sufficiently independent under a test arising 
from Sparklers,\49\ as further developed in Silicon Carbide.\50\ In 
accordance with the separate rates criteria, the Department assigns 
separate rates in NME cases if respondents can demonstrate the absence 
of both de jure and de facto governmental control over their export 
activities. If, however, the Department determines that a company is 
wholly foreign owned, then a separate rate analysis is not necessary to 
determine whether it is independent from government control.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See, e.g., Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and 
Strip from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 55039, 55040 (September 24, 
2008) (``PET Film from PRC Final Determination'').
    \48\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Sparklers From the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 
1991) (``Sparklers''), as amplified by Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide From the People's 
Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (``Silicon Carbide'').
    \49\ See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20588.
    \50\ See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22585.
    \51\ See, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China, 
72 FR 52355, 52356 (September 13, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CS Wind Group, the respondent in this investigation, provided 
information indicating that it is a wholly-owned foreign 
enterprise.\52\ Accordingly, a separate rate analysis is not necessary 
for this company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See CS Wind Group's March 20, 2012, letter at A-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Companies not Receiving a Separate Rate

    The Department has not granted a separate rate to Vina-Halla 
because the company failed to submit a timely response to the 
Department's questionnaires which requested information regarding 
separate rate eligibility. As indicated above, CS Wind Vietnam and 
Vina-Halla are the only producers/exporters identified in the Petition. 
The Department stated in the Initiation Notice that it would request 
information regarding separate rate eligibility in the questionnaire 
being sent to the two known exporters/producers identified in the 
Petition (i.e., CS Wind Vietnam and Vina-Halla).\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ See Initiation Notice, 77 FR at 3445-46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Vietnam-Wide Entity

    As noted above, Vina-Halla did not respond to the Department's 
questionnaires. Since Vina-Halla has not demonstrated that it is 
eligible for separate rate status, it is part of the Vietnam-wide 
entity. Thus, the record indicates that the Vietnam-wide entity 
withheld information requested by the Department.

Application of Facts Available and Adverse Facts Available

    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 AD 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.
    As discussed above, Vina-Halla did not respond to the Department's 
questionnaires, failed to establish its eligibility for a separate rate 
and, thus, the Department preliminarily finds that Vina-Halla is a part 
of the Vietnam-wide entity. Therefore, we find that the Vietnam-wide 
entity withheld information requested by the Department, failed to 
provide information in a timely manner, and significantly impeded the 
proceeding by not submitting the requested information. The Vietnam-
wide entity did not file documents indicating that it was having 
difficulty providing the requested information nor did it request that 
it be allowed to submit the

[[Page 46063]]

information in an alternate form. As a result, pursuant to sections 
776(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Act, we find that the use of facts otherwise 
available is appropriate to determine the rate for the Vietnam-wide 
entity.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Preliminary Determination of 
Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: 
Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 
68 FR 4986, 4991 (January 31, 2003), unchanged in Notice of Final 
Antidumping Duty Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Affirmative Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From 
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 37116 (June 23, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among 
the facts otherwise available, the Department may employ an inference 
that is adverse to a party if the party failed to cooperate by not 
acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for 
information.\55\ The Department finds that the Vietnam-wide entity's 
failure to provide the requested information constitutes circumstances 
under which it is reasonable to conclude that less than full 
cooperation has been shown.\56\ Therefore, because the Vietnam-wide 
entity did not respond to the Department's requests for information, it 
has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. Therefore, the 
Department preliminarily finds that, in selecting from among the facts 
otherwise available, an adverse inference is appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See also Statement of Administrative Action accompanying 
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), H.R. Doc. 103-316, 870 
(1994) (``SAA''); 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).
    \56\ See Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 
1383 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (noting that the Department need not show 
intentional conduct existed on the part of the respondent, but 
merely that a ``failure to cooperate to the best of a respondent's 
ability'' existed (i.e., information was not provided ``under 
circumstances in which it is reasonable to conclude that less than 
full cooperation has been shown'')).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When employing an adverse inference, section 776(b) of the Act 
states 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 based on adverse facts available (``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.\57\ It is the 
Department's practice to select, as an AFA rate, the higher of the: (a) 
Highest dumping margin alleged in the petition, or (b) highest 
calculated dumping margin of any respondent in the investigation.\58\ 
The dumping margins alleged in the Petition are 140.54 percent and 
143.29 percent.\59\ Either of these rates is higher than the calculated 
rate for CS Wind Group. Thus, as AFA, the Department's practice would 
be to assign the rate of 143.29 percent to the Vietnam-wide entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See SAA at 870.
    \58\ See Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents From the 
People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value, 77 FR 17436, 17438 (March 26, 2012).
    \59\ See Initiation Notice, 77 FR at 3445.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Corroboration of Information

    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies 
on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the 
course of an investigation as facts available, it must, to the extent 
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources 
reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is described as 
``information derived from the petition that gave rise to the 
investigation or review, the final determination concerning merchandise 
subject to this investigation, or any previous review under section 751 
concerning the merchandise subject to this investigation.'' \60\ To 
``corroborate'' means that the Department will satisfy itself that the 
secondary information to be used has probative value.\61\ Independent 
sources used to corroborate may include, for example, published price 
lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information 
obtained from interested parties during the particular 
investigation.\62\ To corroborate secondary information, the Department 
will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance 
of the information used.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Sodium Hexametaphosphate From the People's Republic of China, 73 FR 
6479, 6481 (February 4, 2008), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 2 (quoting SAA at 870).
    \61\ See SAA at 870.
    \62\ Id.
    \63\ See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or 
Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan; 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and 
Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 
(November 6, 1996), unchanged in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller 
Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components 
Thereof, From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825 (March 
13, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to determine the probative value of the dumping margins in 
the Petition for use as AFA for purposes of this preliminary 
determination, we examined information on the record and found that we 
were unable to corroborate either of the dumping margins contained in 
the Petition. Therefore, for the preliminary determination, we have 
assigned the Vietnam-wide entity the rate of 59.91 percent, the highest 
transaction-specific dumping margin for the mandatory respondent, CS 
Wind Group.\64\ No corroboration of this rate is necessary because we 
are relying on information obtained in the course of this 
investigation, rather than secondary information from the Petition.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ See, e.g., Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's 
Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, 76 FR 64318, 64322 (October 18, 2011) (assigning as an AFA 
rate the highest calculated transaction-specific rate among 
mandatory respondents).
    \65\ See section 776(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308(c) and 
(d); see also Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value 
and Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part: 
Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From the People's Republic of 
China, 73 FR 35652, 35653 (June 24, 2008), and accompanying Issues 
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Sale

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(i), ``in identifying the date of sale of 
the subject merchandise 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.'' 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.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ See, e.g., Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Trinidad 
and Tobago: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
72 FR 62824 (November 7, 2007), and accompanying Issue and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 1; Notice of Final Determinations of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value; Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality 
Steel Products From Turkey, 65 FR 15123 (March 21, 2000), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Date of Sale, Comment 
1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sales during the POI were made pursuant to long-term contracts, 
and/or purchase orders. Petitioner maintains that CS Wind Group's date 
of sale involving one of its customers should be based on the purchase 
order date because: (1) Once production begins (i.e., at the production 
release date) upon request, the material terms appear to be fixed, 
pursuant to the long-term agreement, and are reflected in the purchase 
order; (2) certain terms under the contract make it unlikely that 
changes are made after the purchase order date; and (3) CS Wind Group 
has

[[Page 46064]]

provided no evidence to contradict its agreement with said customer 
that the material terms of sale change after the purchase order is 
issued.\67\ Petitioner further maintains that information on the record 
also shows that price adjustments, revising the commercial invoice 
price for said customer, followed the shipment of some towers. 
Petitioner, therefore, argues that, to the extent that the Department 
does not believe that the price is fixed before the commercial invoice 
is issued, it appears that the shipment of the towers may have occurred 
prior to the issuance of the final adjustment invoice of the tower. 
Accordingly, Petitioner argues that the shipment date may serve as an 
appropriate date of sale.\68\ Finally, Petitioner argues that the pro 
forma invoice, which is issued at the time of shipment to said 
customer, may be the appropriate date of sale because it appears to be 
the final iteration of the material terms of sale pursuant to the 
contractual agreement between CS Wind Group and said customer.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ See Petitioner's June 15, 2012, letter at 10-22.
    \68\ Id. at 23-25.
    \69\ Id. at 25-27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The relevant question in considering whether the purchase order 
date better reflects the date on which the exporter established the 
material terms of sale, and thus is the appropriate date of sale, is 
whether the material terms of sale were subject to change on the 
purchase order date. The date of sale is the date when the material 
terms of sale are established and final--that is, no longer subject to 
change.\70\ CS Wind Group provided evidence that the material terms of 
purchase orders can and do change up until issuance of the commercial 
invoice.\71\ Moreover, record evidence does not suggest that the 
shipments of towers have occurred prior to the issuance of the 
commercial invoice to said customer to warrant the use of the shipment 
date as the date of sale.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ 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).
    \71\ See CS Wind Group's May 7, 2012, Supplemental Response at 
Exhibits S1-1 through S1-3; CS Wind Group's June 6, 2012, 
Supplemental Response at 1-2, and Exhibits S5-1 through S5-5; and CS 
Wind Group's June 12, 2012, Supplemental Response at 3-11, and 
Exhibits S6-1 through S6-10.
    \72\ See CS Wind Group's June 12, 2012, Supplemental Response at 
3-11, and Exhibits S6-1 through S6-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. United States, the U.S. Court of 
International Trade noted that a ``party seeking to establish a date of 
sale other than invoice date bears the burden of producing sufficient 
evidence to `satisfy' the Department that `a different date better 
reflects the date on which the exporter or producer establishes the 
material terms of sale.' '' \73\ After examining the record, the 
Department has determined that there is insufficient evidence 
demonstrating that a date other than the commercial invoice date better 
reflects that date on which the material terms of sale were 
established.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ See Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. United States, 132 F. 
Supp. 2d 1087, 1090 (CIT 2001) (quoting 19 CFR 351.401(i)).
    \74\ See Memorandum from Magd Zalok, International Trade 
Compliance Analyst, to the File, regarding ``Preliminary 
Determination on CS Wind Group's Date of Sale'' (May 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair Value Comparisons

    In accordance with section 777A(d)(1) of the Act, to determine 
whether CS Wind Group sold merchandise under consideration to the 
United States at LTFV during the POI, we compared the weighted-average 
price of U.S. sales of subject merchandise to the weighted-average NV, 
as described in the U.S. Price and ``Normal Value'' sections of this 
notice.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ In this preliminary determination, the Department applied 
the weighted-average dumping margin calculation method adopted in 
Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping 
Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Proceedings: Final 
Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012). In particular, the 
Department compared monthly weighted-average export prices with 
monthly weighted-average normal values and granted offsets for non-
dumped comparisons in the calculation of the weighted average 
dumping margin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Price

    The Department considered the prices of U.S. sales reported by CS 
Wind Group to be export prices (``EP'') in accordance with section 
772(a) of the Act, because these are the prices at which the subject 
merchandise was first sold before the date of importation by the 
exporter of the subject merchandise outside of the United States to an 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated 
purchaser for exportation to the United States. We calculated the EP 
based on the packed prices at which merchandise under consideration was 
sold for exportation to the United States. We made deductions from U.S. 
price for movement expenses (i.e., foreign inland freight from the 
plant to the port of exportation and domestic brokerage), in accordance 
with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Where foreign inland freight or 
foreign brokerage and handling fees were provided by Vietnamese service 
providers or paid for in Dong, we based those charges on surrogate 
value rates.\76\ Where applicable, we also adjusted the U.S. price by 
the value of certain materials provided free of charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ See ``Factor Valuation Methodology'' section below for 
further discussion of surrogate value rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine NV using an FOP methodology if the merchandise is exported 
from an NME and the information does not permit the calculation of NV 
using home market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value 
under section 773(a) of the Act. The Department bases NV on FOPs 
because the presence of government controls on various aspects of NMEs 
renders price comparisons and the calculation of production costs 
invalid under the Department's normal methodologies.\77\ Thus, we 
calculated NV based on FOPs in accordance with sections 773(c)(3) and 
(4) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c). Under section 773(c)(3) of the 
Act, FOPs include, but are not limited to: (1) Hours of labor required; 
(2) quantities of raw materials employed; (3) amounts of energy and 
other utilities consumed; and (4) representative capital costs.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value, Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part, and 
Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Lined Paper Products 
From the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 19695, 19703 (April 17, 
2006), unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value, and Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part: 
Certain Lined Paper Products From the People's Republic of China, 71 
FR 53079 (September 8, 2006).
    \78\ See section 773(c)(3)(A)-(D) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CS Wind Group reported FOP offsets for steel and aluminum scrap. 
However, because the net total weight of the material inputs and the 
scrap offsets is less than the total weight of the finished product 
(exclusive of lifting and transport equipment), we have disallowed CS 
Wind Group's scrap offsets for purposes of the preliminary 
determination.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ See Memorandum from Magd Zalok and LaVonne Clark to the 
File, regarding ``Analysis for the Preliminary Determination of 
Utility Scale Wind Towers from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: CS 
Wind Group'' (July 26, 2012) (``Analysis Memorandum'') at Attachment 
V for the Department's comparison of the net total weight of the 
material inputs and the scrap offsets to the total weight of the 
finished product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Factor Valuation Methodology

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on FOP

[[Page 46065]]

data reported by CS Wind Group for the POI. To calculate NV, we 
multiplied the reported per-unit factor consumption rates by publicly 
available surrogate values (except as discussed below). In selecting 
the surrogate values, we considered, among other factors, the quality, 
specificity, and contemporaneity of the data.\80\ As appropriate, we 
adjusted input prices by including freight costs to make them delivered 
prices. Specifically, we added a surrogate freight cost to surrogate 
input values using the shorter of the reported distance from the 
domestic supplier to the respondent's factory or the distance from the 
nearest seaport to the respondent's 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). A detailed description of all surrogate 
values used for CS Wind Group can be found in the surrogate values 
memorandum.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ See, e.g., Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from 
the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination 
of Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 40485 (July 15, 2008), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 9.
    \81\ See Memorandum from LaVonne Clark to The File, regarding 
``Antidumping Duty Investigation of Utility Scale Wind Towers from 
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Surrogate Values for the 
Preliminary Determination'' (July 26, 2012) (``Surrogate Values 
Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the preliminary determination, except as noted below, we used 
Indian import data, as reported by the Indian Customs Department and 
published by GTA, and other publicly available sources from India in 
order to calculate surrogate values for CS Wind Group's FOPs (e.g., 
direct materials, packing materials) and certain movement expenses. 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, surrogate values which are non-
export average values, contemporaneous with, or closest in time to, the 
POI, product-specific, and tax-exclusive.\82\ The record shows that 
Indian import data obtained through GTA, as well as data used from 
other Indian sources are product-specific, tax-exclusive, and generally 
contemporaneous with the POI.\83\ In those instances where we could not 
obtain publicly available information contemporaneous with the POI with 
which to value FOPs, we adjusted the surrogate values using, where 
appropriate, the Indian Producer Price Index (``PPI'') or, for the 
purposes of valuing labor, the Consumer Price Index (``CPI''), as 
published in the International Financial Statistics by the 
International Monetary Fund (``IMF'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ 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).
    \83\ See Surrogate Values Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In calculating Indian import-based per-unit surrogate values, we 
have disregarded import prices that we have reason to believe or 
suspect may be subsidized. 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.\84\ Rather, the Department bases 
its decision on information that is available to it at the time it 
makes its determination.\85\ We have reason to believe or suspect that 
prices of inputs from Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand may have 
been subsidized. The Department has found in other proceedings that 
these countries maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific 
export subsidies and, therefore, it is reasonable to infer that all 
exports from these countries to all markets may be subsidized.\86\ 
Therefore, we have not used prices from these countries in calculating 
India's import-based surrogate values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ See Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, 
Conference Report, H.R. Rep. 100-576 at 590 (1988); see also CFS 
Paper from PRC Preliminary Determination, 72 FR at 30763 (June 4, 
2007), unchanged in CFS Paper from PRC Final Determination.
    \85\ See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from 
the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 24552, 24559 (May 5, 2008), unchanged 
in PET Film from PRC Final Determination.
    \86\ 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; see also Certain Cut-
to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from Indonesia: Final Results 
of Expedited Sunset Review, 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 Affirmative 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 ``II. Programs Determined to Confer 
Subsidies.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, in calculating India's import-based per-unit 
surrogate values, we disregarded prices from NME countries. Finally, we 
excluded from our calculation of India's import-based per-unit 
surrogate values imports that were labeled as originating from an 
``unspecified'' country because the Department could not be certain 
that they were not from either an NME country or a country with general 
export subsidies.\87\ Detailed calculations are provided in the 
Surrogate Values Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ 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, 
75301 (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)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), when a respondent sources inputs 
from an ME supplier in meaningful quantities (i.e., not insignificant 
quantities) and pays in an ME currency, the Department uses the actual 
price paid by the respondent to value those inputs, except when prices 
may have been distorted by findings of dumping in Vietnam and/or 
subsidies.\88\ Where the Department finds ME purchases to be of 
significant quantities (i.e., 33 percent or more), in accordance with 
its statement of policy as outlined in Antidumping Methodologies: 
Market Economy Inputs,\89\ the Department uses the actual purchase 
prices to value the inputs. Information reported by CS Wind Group 
demonstrates that an input was sourced from an ME country and paid for 
in ME currencies.\90\ The information reported by CS Wind Group also 
demonstrates that such an input was purchased in significant quantities 
(i.e., 33 percent or more) from ME suppliers; hence, the Department 
used CS Wind Group's actual ME purchase prices to value this input.\91\ 
Where appropriate, freight expenses were added to the ME price of the 
input. For certain other inputs claimed by CS Wind Group as ME 
purchases, the Department has preliminarily determined not to use such 
prices because they have been distorted by subsidization.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ See, e.g., Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final 
Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27366 (May 19, 1997).
    \89\ See Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, 
Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for 
Comments, 71 FR 61716, 61717-61718 (October 19, 2006) (``Antidumping 
Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs'').
    \90\ See Analysis Memorandum at Attachment III.
    \91\ Id.
    \92\ Id at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 21, 2011, the Department revised its methodology for 
valuing the labor input in NME AD proceedings.\93\

[[Page 46066]]

In Labor Methodologies, the Department explained that the best 
methodology to value the labor input is to use industry-specific labor 
rates from the primary surrogate country.\94\ 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).\95\ The latest year for which ILO Chapter 6A reports 
national data for India is 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ See Antidumping Methodologies in Proceedings Involving Non-
Market Economies: Valuing the Factor of Production: Labor, 76 FR 
36092 (June 21, 2011) (``Labor Methodologies'').
    \94\ See Labor Methodologies, 76 FR at 36093.
    \95\ See Labor Methodologies, 76 FR at 36093.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department 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 most 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 labor rate calculation methodology is 
provided in the Surrogate Values Memo. We find that this information 
constitutes the best available information on the record because it is 
the most contemporaneous data available for the POI and, thus, more 
accurately reflective of actual wages in India.
    Therefore, for the preliminary determination, we calculated the 
labor inputs using the data for average monthly industrial labor rate 
prevailing during 2005 in India, corresponding to ``Manufacturing'' 
economic sector, adjusted to current price levels using the Indian CPI. 
For the preliminary determination, the calculated industry-specific 
labor rate is 60.81 rupees (``Rs'')/hour. Because the Indian financial 
statements on the record do not itemize the indirect costs reflected in 
Chapter 6A data, we find that the facts and information on the record 
do not warrant or permit an adjustment to the surrogate financial 
statements.\96\ A more detailed description of the labor rate 
calculation methodology is provided in the Surrogate Values Memo.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ See Labor Methodologies, 76 FR at 36094.
    \97\ See Surrogate Values Memo at Exhibit 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We valued electricity using data published by India's Central 
Electricity Authority.\98\ The average cost was 3.80 Rs./kWh in 2008. 
We selected these data because they were representative of broad market 
average prices, publicly available, and tax-exclusive. Because the 
rates listed in this source became effective on a variety of different 
dates, we did not adjust it for inflation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ Id. at Exhibit 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We valued oxygen and argon using data from Bhoruka Gases Limited. 
Because prices are not contemporaneous with the POI, we inflated such 
prices using the PPI rate for India, as published in the International 
Financial Statistics by the IMF.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ See Surrogate Values Memo at Exhibits 2 and 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We valued truck freight using data from a Web site 
www.infobanc.com/logististics/logtruck.htm. We did not inflate the 
value for truck freight since it is contemporaneous with the POI.\100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ See Surrogate Values Memo at Exhibit 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We valued brokerage and handling using a price list of export 
procedures necessary to export a standardized cargo of goods in India. 
The price list is compiled based on a survey case study of the 
procedural requirements for trading a standard shipment of goods by 
ocean transport in India that is published in Doing Business 2010: 
India, published by the World Bank. The price is for 2009. We inflated 
the value for brokerage and handling using the PPI rate for India.\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ See Surrogate Values Memo at Exhibits 2 and 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative 
expenses, and profit, we used the financial statements of ISGEC Heavy 
Engineering Ltd., a producer of comparable merchandise. These financial 
statements cover the fiscal year ending in September 2011 and, 
therefore, are contemporaneous.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ See Surrogate Values Memo at Exhibit 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Currency Conversion

    Where necessary, 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 submitted by CS Wind Group.

Combination Rates

    In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that it would 
calculate combination rates for the respondents that are eligible for a 
separate rate in this investigation.\103\ This practice is described in 
Policy Bulletin 05.1.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ See Initiation Notice, 77 FR at 3446.
    \104\ See Import Administration's Policy Bulletin No. 05.1: 
Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in 
Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market Economy Countries'' 
(April 5, 2005), available on the Department's Web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preliminary Determination

    The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
             Exporter                      Producer             margin
                                                              (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CS Wind Group * *............  The CS Wind Group.......        52.67
Vietnam-Wide Entity..............  ........................        59.91
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * The CS Wind Group consists of CS Wind Vietnam Co., Ltd. and CS Wind
  Corporation.

Disclosure

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

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, the Department will 
instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to suspend 
liquidation of all entries of wind towers from Vietnam, as described in 
the ``Scope of the Investigation'' section, entered or withdrawn from 
warehouse for consumption on or after the date of publication of this 
notice in the Federal Register.
    The Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to 
the

[[Page 46067]]

weighted-average amount by which NV exceeds U.S. price, as follows: (1) 
The rate for the exporter/producer combinations listed in the table 
above will be the rate the Department has determined in this 
preliminary determination; (2) for all Vietnamese exporters of 
merchandise under consideration which have not received their own rate, 
the rate will be the rate for the Vietnam-wide entity; and (3) for all 
non-Vietnamese exporters of merchandise under consideration which have 
not received their own rate, the rate will be the rate applicable to 
the Vietnamese exporter/producer combination that supplied that non-
Vietnamese exporter.

International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified 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 wind tower from Vietnam, or sales (or the likelihood of 
sales) for importation, of the merchandise under consideration within 
45 days of our final determination.

Public Comment

    Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the 
Department no later than seven days after the date on which the final 
verification report is issued in this proceeding, and rebuttal briefs, 
limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than 
five days after the deadline for case briefs.\105\ A table of contents, 
list of authorities used, and an executive summary of issues should 
accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. The executive summary 
should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i) and (d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. Interested 
parties, who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is 
requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for 
Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, filed 
electronically using Import Administration's Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (``IA 
ACCESS''). An electronically filed document must be received 
successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records 
system, IA ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, within 30 days 
after the date of publication of this notice.\106\ Requests should 
contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of 
participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request 
for a hearing is made, we intend to hold the hearing at the U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional 
Measures

    Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act, on June 8, 2012, we 
received a request from CS Wind Group that the Department postpone its 
final determination by 60 days.\107\ Additionally, consistent with 19 
CFR 351.210(e)(2), CS Wind Group requested that the Department extend 
the application of the provisional measures from a four-month period to 
a six-month period. In accordance with section 735(a) of the Act and 19 
CFR 351.210(b), we are granting these requests and are postponing the 
final determination until no later than 135 days after the publication 
of this notice in the Federal Register because: (1) Our preliminary 
determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting exporter accounts for 
a significant proportion of exports of the merchandise under 
consideration; and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist. 
Suspension of liquidation will be extended accordingly. We are further 
extending the application of the provisional measures from a four-month 
period to a six-month period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ See Letter from CS Wind Group to the Department, regarding 
``Request to Postpone the Final Determination: Antidumping Duty 
Investigation on Utility, Scale Wind Towers from the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam (Case No. A-552-814),'' dated June 8, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. 2012-18936 Filed 8-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P