[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 171 (Tuesday, September 4, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53845-53856]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21708]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-909]


Certain Steel Nails From the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the Third Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``Department'') is conducting the 
third administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain 
steel nails from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'') for the 
period August 1, 2010, through July 31, 2011. The Department has 
preliminarily determined that sales have been made below normal value 
(``NV'') by certain respondents examined in this administrative review. 
If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this 
review, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
(``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of 
subject merchandise during the period of review.

DATES: Effective Date: September 4, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alexis Polovina or Jamie Blair-Walker, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3927 or (202) 
482-2615, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Department received timely requests from Petitioner \1\ and 
other companies, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), during the 
anniversary month of August, to conduct reviews of certain companies 
exporting steel nails from the PRC. On October 3, 2011, the Department 
initiated this review with respect to all 383 requested companies.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Mid Continent Nail Corporation (``Petitioner'').
    \2\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocations in Part, 76 FR 
61076 (October 3, 2011) (``Initiation Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 22, 2011, Qingdao JISCO Co., Ltd., a Chinese producer 
of subject merchandise and its Korean parent company, ECO System 
Corporation d/b/a JISCO Corporation (collectively, ``JISCO''), withdrew 
its request for an administrative review.\3\ On January 3, 2012, the 
Department received a timely \4\ letter from Petitioner to withdraw its 
request for review of numerous companies.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See submission from JISCO Corporation regarding Steel Nails 
from the People's Republic of China: Withdrawal of Request for 
Administrative Review, dated December 22, 2011.
    \4\ The deadline for submitting requests was January 1, 2012, 
but due to the federal holiday, the deadline was automatically 
extended to the following business day.
    \5\ See submission from Petitioner regarding Certain Steel Nails 
from the People's Republic of China: Withdrawal of Requests for 
Administrative Review, dated January 3, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 30, 2012, the Department published a notice \6\ extending 
the time period for issuing the preliminary results by 120 days to 
August 30, 2012. From October 11, 2011, to December 5, 2011, the 
Department received timely separate rate applications, certifications 
and no shipment letters from many companies. On December 13, 2011, the 
Department received an untimely no shipment certification from Hebei 
Minmetals Co., Ltd. (``Hebei'').\7\ Pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.302(d)(1)(i), the Department rejected the untimely no shipment 
certification from Hebei on July 16, 2012.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Certain Steel Nails From the People's Republic of China: 
Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the Third 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 77 FR 19190 (March 30, 
2012).
    \7\ The deadline to submit separate rate applications, 
certifications and no shipment letters was December 2, 2011, 60 days 
following the publication of the Initiation Notice.
    \8\ See letter to Hebei from Matthew Renkey regarding Certain 
Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''): Rejection 
of Untimely Certification of No Shipments, dated July 16, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Between December 20, 2011, and July 25, 2012, The Stanley Works 
(Langfang) Fastening Systems Co., Ltd. (``Stanley Langfang''), and 
Stanley Black & Decker (``SBD'') (collectively ``Stanley'') submitted 
responses to the Department's original and supplemental questionnaires. 
Between March 8, 2012, and July 20, 2012, the Department received 
responses to its original and supplemental questionnaires from Tianjin 
Jinghai County Hongli Industry and Business Co., Ltd. (``Hongli'').

Period of Review

    The period of review (``POR'') is August 1, 2010, through July 31, 
2011.

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by this order includes certain steel nails 
having a shaft length up to 12 inches. Certain steel nails include, but 
are not limited to, nails made of round wire and nails that are cut. 
Certain steel nails may be of one piece construction or constructed

[[Page 53846]]

of two or more pieces. Certain steel nails may be produced from any 
type of steel, and have a variety of finishes, heads, shanks, point 
types, shaft lengths and shaft diameters. Finishes include, but are not 
limited to, coating in vinyl, zinc (galvanized, whether by 
electroplating or hot dipping one or more times), phosphate cement, and 
paint. Head styles include, but are not limited to, flat, projection, 
cupped, oval, brad, headless, double, countersunk, and sinker. Shank 
styles include, but are not limited to, smooth, barbed, screw threaded, 
ring shank and fluted shank styles. Screw-threaded nails subject to 
this proceeding are driven using direct force and not by turning the 
fastener using a tool that engages with the head. Point styles include, 
but are not limited to, diamond, blunt, needle, chisel and no point. 
Finished nails may be sold in bulk, or they may be collated into strips 
or coils using materials such as plastic, paper, or wire. Certain steel 
nails subject to this order are currently classified under the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') subheadings 
7317.00.55, 7317.00.65 and 7317.00.75.
    Excluded from the scope of this order are steel roofing nails of 
all lengths and diameter, whether collated or in bulk, and whether or 
not galvanized. Steel roofing nails are specifically enumerated and 
identified in ASTM Standard F 1667 (2005 revision) as Type I, Style 20 
nails. Also excluded from the scope are the following steel nails: (1) 
Non-collated (i.e., hand-driven or bulk), two-piece steel nails having 
plastic or steel washers (caps) already assembled to the nail, having a 
bright or galvanized finish, a ring, fluted or spiral shank, an actual 
length of 0.500'' to 8'', inclusive; and an actual shank diameter of 
0.1015'' to 0.166'', inclusive; and an actual washer or cap diameter of 
0.900'' to 1.10'', inclusive; (2) Non-collated (i.e., hand-driven or 
bulk), steel nails having a bright or galvanized finish, a smooth, 
barbed or ringed shank, an actual length of 0.500'' to 4'', inclusive; 
an actual shank diameter of 0.1015'' to 0.166'', inclusive; and an 
actual head diameter of 0.3375'' to 0.500'', inclusive; (3) Wire 
collated steel nails, in coils, having a galvanized finish, a smooth, 
barbed or ringed shank, an actual length of 0.500'' to 1.75'', 
inclusive; an actual shank diameter of 0.116'' to 0.166'', inclusive; 
and an actual head diameter of 0.3375'' to 0.500'', inclusive; and (4) 
Non-collated (i.e., hand-driven or bulk), steel nails having a convex 
head (commonly known as an umbrella head), a smooth or spiral shank, a 
galvanized finish, an actual length of 1.75'' to 3'', inclusive; an 
actual shank diameter of 0.131'' to 0.152'', inclusive; and an actual 
head diameter of 0.450'' to 0.813'', inclusive.
    Also excluded from the scope of this order are corrugated nails. A 
corrugated nail is made of a small strip of corrugated steel with sharp 
points on one side. Also excluded from the scope of this order are 
fasteners suitable for use in powder-actuated hand tools, not threaded 
and threaded, which are currently classified under HTSUS 7317.00.20 and 
7317.00.30. Also excluded from the scope of this order are thumb tacks, 
which are currently classified under HTSUS 7317.00.10.00.
    Also excluded from the scope of this order are certain brads and 
finish nails that are equal to or less than 0.0720 inches in shank 
diameter, round or rectangular in cross section, between 0.375 inches 
and 2.5 inches in length, and that are collated with adhesive or 
polyester film tape backed with a heat seal adhesive. Also excluded 
from the scope of this order are fasteners having a case hardness 
greater than or equal to 50 HRC, a carbon content greater than or equal 
to 0.5 percent, a round head, a secondary reduced-diameter raised head 
section, a centered shank, and a smooth symmetrical point, suitable for 
use in gas-actuated hand tools. While the HTSUS subheadings are 
provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description 
of the scope of this order is dispositive.

Respondent Selection

    Section 777A(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``Act'') 
directs the Department to calculate individual dumping margins for each 
known exporter or producer of the subject merchandise.\9\ However, 
section 777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the Department discretion to limit 
its examination to a reasonable number of exporters or producers, if 
the number of companies involved is so large that it is not practicable 
to individually examine all exporters or producers for which the review 
is initiated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See also 19 CFR 351.204(c) regarding respondent selection, 
in general.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 7, 2011, the Department released CBP data for entries of 
the subject merchandise during the POR under administrative protective 
order (``APO'') to all interested parties having access to materials 
released under APO and invited comments regarding the CBP data and 
respondent selection.\10\ The Department received comments from 
Petitioner, Stanley, and Itochu Building Products Co., Inc. 
(``Itochu'') regarding respondent selection between October 24, 2011 
and October 25, 2011. On October 31, Stanley submitted rebuttal 
comments regarding respondent selection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Memorandum to the File from Alexis Polovina regarding 
Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China: U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection Data, dated October 7, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 28, 2011, the Department issued its respondent 
selection memorandum.\11\ The Department determined that with 383 
companies involved, it would be impracticable to individually review 
each company. After determining that the number of companies (i.e., 
383) was too large a number for individual reviews, the Department 
determined that it could reasonably examine the exporters accounting 
for the largest volume of entries subject to this review. Pursuant to 
section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, the Department selected Stanley and 
JISCO as mandatory respondents.\12\ On November 29, 2011, the 
Department issued an antidumping duty questionnaire to these two 
mandatory respondents. On February 6, 2012, after receiving timely 
requests for withdrawal of review from JISCO and Petitioner, the 
Department selected Hongli as a mandatory respondent in place of 
JISCO.\13\ On February 6, 2012, the Department issued an antidumping 
duty questionnaire to Hongli.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Memorandum to James Doyle through Matthew Renkey from 
Jamie Blair-Walker regarding: Respondent Selection for the Third 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Steel Nails from 
the People's Republic of China, dated November 28, 2011 (``First 
Respondent Selection Memo'').
    \12\ See id.
    \13\ See Memorandum to James Doyle through Matthew Renkey from 
Jamie Blair-Walker regarding Respondent Selection for the Third 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Steel Nails from 
the People's Republic of China: Selection of an Additional Mandatory 
Respondent, dated February 6, 2012 (``Second Respondent Selection 
Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Partial Rescission of Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an 
administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party that requested 
the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of 
publication of the initiation notice of the requested review. Besides 
the requests for review submitted by Petitioner as discussed above, 
several companies requested review of themselves.\14\ On December 22, 
2011, JISCO timely withdrew its request for an administrative review of 
itself and its affiliates. On January 3, 2012, the Department received 
a timely letter from Petitioner withdrawing its requests for review of 
316 of the 383 companies that were originally under review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Appendix I.

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

[[Page 53847]]

    For those companies named in the Initiation Notice for which all 
reviews requests have been withdrawn and who previously received 
separate rate status in prior segments of this case we are rescinding 
this administrative review, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). 
These companies are: (1) Dezhou Hualude Hardware Products Co., Ltd.; 
(2) JISCO Corporation; (3) Koram Panagene Co., Ltd.; (4) Qingdao Koram 
Steel Co., Ltd.; (5) Romp (Tianjin) Hardware Co., Ltd.; (6) Shandong 
Oriental Cherry Hardware Group Co., Ltd.; (7) Shandong Oriental Cherry 
Hardware Import and Export Co., Ltd.; (8) Shanxi Pioneer Hardware 
Industrial Co., Ltd.; (9) Tianjin Lianda Group Co., Ltd.; (10) Tianjin 
Universal Machinery Import & Export Corporation; and (11) Xi'an Metals 
& Minerals Import & Export Co., Ltd. Petitioner's timely request for an 
administrative review included a request to conduct an administrative 
review of multiple companies that do not have separate rates. As 
described above, Petitioner withdrew its review request covering these 
companies. While the requests for review of those companies were timely 
withdrawn,\15\ those withdrawn companies remain under review as part of 
the PRC-wide entity and the Department will make a determination with 
respect to the PRC-wide entity at these preliminary results and the 
final results.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Appendix II.
    \16\ See, e.g., Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven Selvedge From 
the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial 
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 77 FR 47363, 
47363 (August 8, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preliminary Partial Rescission of Administrative Review

    Twelve companies (collectively, ``No Shipment Respondents'') filed 
timely no-shipment certifications indicating that they had no shipments 
of subject merchandise to the United States during the 
POR.17, 18 Subsequent to receiving no-shipment 
certifications, the Department examined entry statistics obtained from 
CBP. The Department also issued no-shipment inquiries to CBP, asking it 
to respond only if it had information that the above-companies may have 
shipped entries of subject merchandise during the POR. For nine 
companies, we did not receive any response from CBP, thus indicating 
that there were no entries of subject merchandise into the United 
States exported by these companies. CBP did indicate potential entries 
of nails during the POR for the three remaining companies and the 
Department requested CBP entry packages for these. On July 18, 2012, we 
placed these entry packets on the record and requested comments from 
interested parties.\19\ In its response, CPI demonstrated that it was a 
third country reseller and as its Chinese vendors had knowledge the 
subject merchandise was destined for the United States, CPI was not the 
``exporter.'' \20\ China Staple stated that its entries were for non-
subject merchandise and provided product descriptions demonstrating its 
merchandise was non-subject and noted the importer placed the post 
entry adjustment on the record.\21\ Hengshui Mingyao explained that due 
to the Department's changed circumstances review, it entries are no 
longer subject and its importer has requested refund.\22\ After 
reviewing the responses, the corrected entry documents, and the CBP 
information, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we preliminarily 
determine that these 12 No Shipment Respondents did not have any 
reviewable transactions during the POR and, as a result, we are 
preliminarily rescinding the administrative review for these companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Appendix III.
    \18\ As noted above, Hebei submitted an untimely certification, 
which the Department rejected. Therefore, Hebei is not included in 
the No Shipment Respondents.
    \19\ See Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain 
Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''): No 
Shipment Supplemental Questionnaire Letters from the Department of 
Commerce, to CPI, China Staple, and Hengshui Mingyao, dated July 18, 
2012.
    \20\ See CPI's No Shipment Supplemental Response, dated July 31, 
2012.
    \21\ See China Staple's No Shipment Supplemental Response, dated 
July 27, 2012; see also, SBD's Post Entry Adjustment, dated July 24, 
2012. We are also confirming the post entry documents with CBP.
    \22\ See Hengshui Mingyao's No Shipment Supplemental Response, 
dated July 31, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Non-Market Economy Country Status

    In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the 
designation of a country as a nonmarket economy (``NME'') country 
remains in effect until it is revoked by the Department. As such, we 
continue to treat the PRC as an NME in this proceeding. When the 
Department investigates imports from an NME country and available 
information does not permit the Department to determine NV, pursuant to 
section 773(a) of the Act, then, pursuant to section 773(c)(1) of the 
Act, the Department determines NV on the basis of the factors of 
production (``FOP'') utilized in producing the merchandise.

Surrogate Country

    Section 773(c)(4) of the Act, directs the Department to value an 
NME producer's FOPs, to the extent possible, in one or more market-
economy (``ME'') countries that (1) are at a level of economic 
development comparable to that of the NME country, and (2) are 
significant producers of comparable merchandise. From the countries 
that are both economically comparable and significant producers, the 
Department will select a primary surrogate country based upon whether 
the data for valuing FOPs are both available and reliable.\23\ In this 
review, the Department determined that Colombia, Indonesia, the 
Philippines, Peru, South Africa, Thailand, and Ukraine are countries 
comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Import Administration Policy Bulletin 04.1: Non-Market 
Economy Surrogate Country Selection Process (March 1, 2004) 
(``Policy Bulletin 04.1''), available on the Department's Web site 
at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/index.html.
    \24\ See Memorandum to Matthew Renkey, Acting Program Manager, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, from Carole 
Showers, Director, Office of Policy, Import Administration re: 
Request for a List of Surrogate Countries for an Administrative 
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Steel Nails from the 
People's Republic of China (``PRC''), dated December 8, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 12, 2011, the Department sent interested parties a 
letter inviting comments on surrogate country selection and information 
regarding valuing FOPs.\25\ On March 26, 2011, interested parties 
submitted comments on the selection of a surrogate country.\26\ Between 
April 30, 2012, and August 6, 2012, interested parties submitted 
surrogate value (``SV'') comments and rebuttal comments.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See the Department's Letter to All Interested Parties; 
Third Administrative Review of Certain Steel Nails from the People's 
Republic of China (``PRC''): Deadlines for Surrogate Country and 
Surrogate Value Comments, dated December 12, 2011 (``Surrogate 
Country List'').
    \26\ See Letters from Stanley, GDLSK Respondents (Counsel to 
Hongli), and Petitioner, regarding Surrogate Country Comments dated 
March 26, 2011.
    \27\ See Surrogate Value Submissions from GDLSK Respondents 
(Counsel to Hongli) and Petitioner, dated April 30, 2012; Surrogate 
Value Rebuttal Comments, dated May 7, 2012; see also Pre-Preliminary 
Results Comments from Stanley, dated August 6, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Economic Comparability

    As explained in our Surrogate Country List, the Department 
considers Colombia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Peru, South Africa, 
Thailand, and Ukraine all comparable to the PRC in terms of economic 
development.\28\ In its surrogate country comments, Stanley argued that 
India should also be considered economically comparable to the PRC 
because a report by the World Bank identifies India, along with three

[[Page 53848]]

of the countries identified by Policy as ``low middle income 
countries.'' \29\ We note that in Steel Wheels \30\ the Department 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Surrogate Country List.
    \29\ See Letter from Stanley regarding Surrogate Country 
Comments at 2, dated March 26, 2011.
    \30\ 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 677703 (November 2, 2011) (``Steel Wheels'').

    {U{time} nless we find 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, we will rely on data from one of these countries.

Therefore, because the Department finds that at least one of the 
countries included in the Surrogate Country List meet the selection 
criteria as explained below, the Department is not considering India as 
the primary surrogate country.

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 04.1 for guidance on defining comparable 
merchandise. The Policy Bulletin 04.1 states that ``{t{time} he terms 
`comparable level of economic development,' `comparable merchandise,' 
and `significant producer' are not defined in the statute.'' \31\ The 
Policy Bulletin 04.1 further states that ``{i{time} n all cases, if 
identical merchandise is produced, the country qualifies as a producer 
of comparable merchandise.'' \32\ Conversely, if identical merchandise 
is not produced, then a country producing comparable merchandise is 
sufficient in selecting a surrogate country.\33\ Further, when 
selecting a surrogate country, the statute requires the Department to 
consider the comparability of the merchandise, not the comparability of 
the industry.\34\ ``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.'' \35\ In this regard, the Department recognizes that any 
analysis of comparable merchandise must be done on a case-by-case 
basis:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Policy Bulletin 04.1.
    \32\ See id.
    \33\ The Policy Bulletin 04.1 also states that ``{i{time} f 
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 n. 6.
    \34\ 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'').
    \35\ See Policy Bulletin 04.1.

    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.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See id.

Further, the statute grants the Department discretion to examine 
various data sources for determining the best available 
information.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See section 773(c)(1) of the Act; Nation Ford Chem. Co. v. 
United States, 166 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this case, because production data of identical or comparable 
merchandise was not available, we analyzed which of the seven countries 
are exporters of comparable merchandise, as a proxy for production 
data. We obtained export data using the Global Trade Atlas (``GTA'') 
for Harmonized Tariff Schedule (``HTS'') 7317.00: ``Nails, tacks 
drawing pins, staples (other than in strips), and similar articles of 
iron or steel excluding such articles with heads of copper.'' The 
Department found that all seven of these countries had exports of 
comparable merchandise during the POR at the following levels: Colombia 
3,339,661 kilograms (``kg''); Indonesia 842,759 kg; the Philippines 
27,759 kg; Peru 1,319,276 kg; South Africa 912,572 kg; Thailand 
8,784,527 kg; and Ukraine 18,571,880 kg.\38\ As these levels suggest 
domestic production in these countries, we considered them as having 
met this prong of the surrogate country selection criteria because each 
exported comparable merchandise at volumes from which we can reasonably 
infer domestic production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See Memorandum to the File, from Alexis Polovina regarding 
Surrogate Country Exports, dated August 30, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Data Availability

    When evaluating SV data, the Department considers several factors 
including whether the SV is publicly available, contemporaneous with 
the POR, represents a broad-market average, from an approved surrogate 
country, tax and duty-exclusive, and specific to the input.\39\ There 
is no hierarchy among these criteria.\40\ 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.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See id; see also section 773(c)(1) of the Act.
    \40\ See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic 
of Vietnam: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the Seventh 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 15941 (March 14, 
2012), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (``Fish 
Fillets AR7'') at Comment II.
    \41\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parties placed significant SV data on the record for both Thailand 
and Ukraine.\42\ Similar to the circumstances in Fish Fillets AR6 and 
AR7, the record does not contain any SV data for the remaining 
countries: Colombia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Peru, and South 
Africa; thus, these countries will not be considered for primary 
surrogate country purposes at this time.\43\ Much of the Thai and 
Ukrainian data placed on the record are import statistics from GTA, and 
therefore, satisfy the publicly available, contemporaneous with the 
POR, broad-market average, from an approved surrogate country, and tax 
and duty-exclusive, criteria. As such, we will examine specificity of 
data available for the relevant the inputs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See Surrogate Value Submissions from Hongli and Petitioner, 
dated April 30, 2012.
    \43\ See Fish Fillets AR7 at Comment I; see also Certain Frozen 
Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results 
of the Sixth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Sixth New 
Shipper Review, 76 FR 15941 (March 22, 2011), and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum (``Fish Fillets AR6'') at Comment I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this case, the wire rod is a significant input because most 
steel nails made by the respondents are made largely from wire rod. 
Therefore, we must consider the availability and reliability of the SVs 
for wire rod on the record. The record contains equally specific Thai 
and Ukraine HTSs for imports of bars and rods under 14 millimeters 
(``mm'') in size and of varying carbon contents from GTA.\44\ 
Additionally, the record contains monthly price data during the POR for 
6.5-8 mm wire rod for Ukraine from Metal Expert, an independent 
provider of analysis of world steel markets.\45\ Because respondents 
consumed wire rod measuring 6.5 mm in diameter, we

[[Page 53849]]

consider Metal Expert data a more specific match.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See Surrogate Value Submissions from Hongli and Petitioner, 
dated April 30, 2012.
    \45\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Financial ratios are also an important component of the antidumping 
duty calculation. The record contains one set of contemporaneous 
financial statements from both Thailand and Ukraine. However, the 
financial statements from Thailand are for the year ending 2010, while 
the Ukrainian financial statements are for the year ending 2011, making 
them more contemporaneous with the POR (seven months of 2011 overlap 
with the POR compared to five months of 2010).
    Both Thailand and Ukraine are economically comparable to the PRC, 
significant producers of comparable merchandise, and have viable data 
options. However, Ukraine offers a more specific option for valuing the 
main input, wire rod, and a more contemporaneous set of financial 
statements. Therefore, for the preliminary results we have selected 
Ukraine as the surrogate country because it represents the best 
available information.

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving NME countries, it is the Department's 
practice to begin with a rebuttable presumption that all companies 
within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should 
be assessed a single antidumping duty rate.\46\ In the Initiation 
Notice, the Department notified parties of the application process by 
which exporters may obtain separate rate status in NME reviews.\47\ 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 affirmatively demonstrate that it is sufficiently 
independent from government control so as to be entitled to a separate 
rate.\48\ Exporters can demonstrate this independence through the 
absence of both de jure and de facto government control over export 
activities.\49\ The Department analyzes each entity's export 
independence under a test first articulated in Sparklers and as further 
developed in Silicon Carbide.\50\ 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.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See, e.g., Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes From the 
People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 77 FR 40854, 40855 (July 11, 2011); see also 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and 
Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part: Certain Lined Paper 
Products From the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 53079, 53080 
(September 8, 2006).
    \47\ See Initiation Notice, 76 FR at 61076-77.
    \48\ See id.
    \49\ See id.
    \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''); see also 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'').
    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the two mandatory respondents, Stanley and Hongli, 
the Department received separate rate applications (``SRAs'') from 3 
companies \52\ and separate rate certifications (``SRCs'') from 15 
companies,53, 54, (collectively, the ``Separate Rate 
Respondents'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ These companies include: 1) Cana (Tianjin) Hardware 
Industrial Co., Ltd.; 2) Shanghai Curvet Hardware Products Co., 
Ltd.; and 3) Huanghua Jinhai Hardware Products Co., Ltd.
    \53\ The 15 other companies include: (1) Shanxi Tianli 
Industries Co., Ltd.; (2) Shanghai Jade Shuttle Hardware Tools Co., 
Ltd.; (3) Shandong Dinglong Import & Export Co., Ltd.; (4) Tianjin 
Jinchi Metal Products Co., Ltd.; (5) Huanghua Xionghua Hardware 
Products Co., Ltd.; (6) Tianjin Zonglian Metals Ware Co., Ltd.; (7) 
Shanghai Yueda Nails Industry Co., Ltd.; (8) Hebei Cangzhou New 
Century Foreign Trade Co., Ltd.; (9) Zhaoqing Harvest Nails Co., 
Ltd.; (10) Nanjing Yuechang Hardware Co., Ltd.; (11) S-Mart 
(Tianjin) Technology Development Co. Ltd.; (12) SDC International 
Australia Pty., Ltd.; (13) Shanxi Hairui Trade Co., Ltd.; (14) 
Guangdong Foreign Trade Import & Export Corporation; and (15) 
Qingdao D&L Group Ltd., collectively (``Separate Rate 
Respondents'').
    \54\ One additional company applied for a separate rate, 
Mingguang Abundant Hardware Products Co., Ltd., however, as 
explained below we are not considering it as a Separate Rate 
Respondent at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate Rate Respondents

1. Wholly Foreign-Owned

    Stanley reported that it is wholly-owned by a company located in an 
ME country.\55\ Therefore, there is no PRC ownership of Stanley and, 
because the Department has no evidence indicating that Stanley is under 
the control of the PRC, a separate rates analysis is not necessary.\56\ 
Additionally, seven other exporters under review not selected for 
individual review demonstrated in their SRAs or SRCs that they are 
wholly foreign owned by companies located in ME countries.\57\ 
Accordingly, the Department has preliminarily granted separate rate 
status to Stanley and the other wholly owned companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See Stanley's Section A Questionnaire Response, dated 
December 20, 2011, at 2.
    \56\ 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); Brake Rotors From the 
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial 
Rescission of the Fourth New Shipper Review and Rescission of the 
Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 1303, 1306 
(January 8, 2001), unchanged in Brake Rotors From the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Fourth 
New Shipper Review and Rescission of Third Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 66 FR 27063 (May 16, 2001); Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate 
From the People's Republic of China, 64 FR 71104 (December 20, 
1999).
    \57\ These companies are: (1) Cana (Tianjin) Hardware Industrial 
Co., Ltd.; (2) Shanghai Curvet Hardware Products Co., Ltd.; (3) 
Shanghai Jade Shuttle Hardware Tools Co., Ltd.; (4) Huanghua 
Xionghua Hardware Products Co., Ltd.; (5) Zhaoqing Harvest Nails 
Co., Ltd.; (6) S-Mart Tianjing Technology Development Co., Ltd.; and 
(7) SDC International Australia Pty., Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Joint Ventures Between Chinese and Foreign Companies or Wholly 
Chinese-Owned Companies

    Hongli \58\ and 11 other Separate Rate Respondents \59\ stated that 
they are either joint ventures between Chinese and foreign companies or 
are wholly Chinese-owned companies. In accordance with our practice, 
the Department has analyzed whether these Separate Rate Respondents 
have demonstrated the absence of de jure and de facto governmental 
control over their respective export activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See Hongli's Section A Questionnaire Response, dated March 
8, 2012, at 1-13.
    \59\ These companies are: (1) Huanghua Jinhai Hardware Products 
Co., Ltd.; (2) Shanxi Tianli Industries Co., Ltd.; (3) Shandong 
Dinglong Import & Export Co., Ltd.; (4) Tianjin Jinchi Metal 
Products Co., Ltd.; (5) Tianjin Zhonglian Metals Ware Co., Ltd.; (6) 
Shanghai Yueda Nails Industry Co., Ltd.; (7) Hebei Cangzhou New 
Century Foreign Trade Co., Ltd.; (8) Nanjing Yuechang Hardware Co., 
Ltd.; (9) Guangdong Foreign Trade Import & Export Corporation; (10) 
Shanxi Hairui Trade Co., Ltd.; and (11) Qingdao D&L Group Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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) any other 
formal measures by the government decentralizing control of 
companies.\60\ The evidence provided by Hongli \61\ and the Separate 
Rate Respondents \62\ supports a preliminary finding of de jure absence 
of government control based on the following: (1) An absence of 
restrictive stipulations associated

[[Page 53850]]

with the individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) there 
are applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of the 
companies; and (3) there are formal measures by the government 
decentralizing control of companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
    \61\ See, e.g., Hongli's Section A Questionnaire Response, dated 
March 8, 2012, at 4 and Exhibit A-2.
    \62\ See Separate Rate Respondents' SRAs and SRCs, dated between 
October 11 and December 5, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Absence of De Facto Control
    Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating 
whether each respondent is subject to de facto government control of 
its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or are 
subject to the approval of a government 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.\63\ The Department has determined that an analysis 
of de facto control is critical in determining whether respondents are, 
in fact, subject to a degree of government control which would preclude 
the Department from assigning separate rates. The evidence provided by 
Hongli \64\ and the Separate Rate Respondents \65\ supports a 
preliminary finding of de facto absence of government control based on 
the following: (1) The companies set their own export prices 
independent of the government and without the approval of a government 
authority; (2) the companies have authority to negotiate and sign 
contracts and other agreements; (3) the companies have autonomy from 
the government in making decisions regarding the selection of 
management; and (4) there is no restriction on any of the companies' 
use of export revenue. Therefore, the Department preliminarily finds 
that Stanley, Hongli, and Separate Rate Respondents have established 
that they qualify for a separate rate under the criteria established by 
Silicon Carbide and Sparklers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-87; see also Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl 
Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May 
8, 1995).
    \64\ See Hongli's Section A Questionnaire Response, dated March 
8, 2012, at 8-9.
    \65\ See Separate Rate Respondents' SRAs and SRCs, dated between 
October 11 and December 5, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that for Mingguang Abundant Hardware Co., Ltd., 
(``Mingguang Abundant''), we are not granting a separate rate. Although 
it applied for a separate rate, the CBP data do not contain evidence of 
an entry during the POR. We issued a supplemental requesting Mingguang 
Abundant demonstrate it had an entry of subject merchandise during the 
POR. Mingguang Abundant was only able to provide the invoice, shipping 
list, and proof of payment.\66\ Because Mingguang Abundant was unable 
to provide the CBP 7501 demonstrating the date the merchandise entered 
the United States, we intend to rescind the review for Mingguang 
Abundant unless Mingguang Abundant can demonstrate it had POR entries 
of subject merchandise within 20 days after the date of publication of 
these preliminary results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ See Mingguang Abundant's Separate Rate Certification 
Supplemental Response, dated July 23, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Calculation of Margin for Separate Rate Companies

    The statute and the Department's regulations do not address the 
establishment of a rate to be applied to individual companies not 
selected for examination where the Department limited its examination 
in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. 
Generally, we have looked to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which 
provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an 
investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for respondents 
we did not examine in an administrative review. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of 
the Act instructs that we are not to calculate an all-others rate using 
any zero or de minimis margins or any margins based entirely on facts 
available. Accordingly, the Department's practice in this regard, in 
reviews involving limited respondent selection based on exporters 
accounting for the largest volume of trade, has been to average the 
rates for the selected companies, excluding zero and de minimis rates 
and rates based entirely on facts available.\67\ Section 735(c)(5)(B) 
of the Act also provides that, where all margins are zero, de minimis, 
or based entirely on facts available, we may use ``any reasonable 
method'' for assigning the rate to non-selected respondents, including 
``averaging the estimated weighted average dumping margins determined 
for the exporters and producers individually investigated.'' In this 
instance, consistent with our practice, we have preliminarily 
established a margin for the Separate Rate Respondents based on the 
rate we calculated for the mandatory respondents whose rates were not 
zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam: Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 52273, 52275 
(September 9, 2008), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 
at Comment 6.
    \68\ See, e.g., Fourth Administrative Review of Certain Frozen 
Warmwater Shrimp From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary 
Results, Preliminary Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Intent Not To Revoke, In Part, 75 FR 
11855, 11859 (March 12, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PRC-Wide Entity

    As discussed above, in this administrative review we limited the 
selection of respondents using CBP import data.\69\ In this case, we 
made available to the companies who were not selected, the SRA and SRC, 
which were put on the Department's Web site.\70\ Because certain 
parties for which a review was requested did not apply for separate 
rate status, they did not demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate 
and effectively became part of the PRC-wide entity, which is considered 
to be part of this review.\71\ We continue to use the PRC-wide rate 
determined in the original investigation, the highest rate identified 
in the petition of 118.04 percent.\72\ Certain companies did not apply 
for separate rates and are thus considered to be part of the PRC-wide 
entity.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ See First and Second Respondent Selection Memos.
    \70\ See Initiation Notice.
    \71\ See, e.g., Honey From the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results of Review, 77 FR 46699, 46700 (August 6, 2012); 
Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China; 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 
64930, 64933 (November 6, 2006).
    \72\ See 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, 3934-35 (January 
23, 2008) (unchanged in the final results).
    \73\ See Appendix IV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Sale

    The date of sale is generally the date on which the parties agree 
upon all substantive terms of the sale, which normally includes the 
price, quantity, delivery terms and payment terms.\74\ 19 CFR 
351.401(i) states that, ``{i{time} n identifying the date of sale of 
the merchandise under consideration or foreign like product, the 
Secretary normally will use the date of invoice, as

[[Page 53851]]

recorded in the exporter or producer's records kept in the normal 
course of business. 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.'' \75\ However, as noted by the Court of 
International Trade (``CIT'') in Allied Tube, a party seeking to 
establish a date of sale other than invoice date bears the burden of 
establishing that ``a different date better reflects the date on which 
the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale.'' \76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ See Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and 
Tobago: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 
FR 62824 (November 7, 2007), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 1; see also Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled 
Carbon Quality Steel Products from Turkey, 65 FR 15123 (March 21, 
2000), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
    \75\ 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'').
    \76\ See Allied Tube, 132 F. Supp. 2d at 1090 (quoting 19 CFR 
351.401(i)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As in the last administrative review, Stanley explained that 
because of alterations or cancellations, the earlier of invoice date or 
shipment date is the appropriate date of sale because it reflects the 
date on which the material terms no longer change.\77\ Consistent with 
the regulatory presumption for invoice date and because the Department 
found no evidence on the record contrary to Stanley's claims, for these 
preliminary results, the Department used the invoice date as the date 
of sale. Consistent with the Department's practice, for those sales 
where shipment date preceded invoice date, the Department used the 
shipment date as the date of sale, as Stanley provided evidence that 
the material terms of sale were set on that date.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ See Stanley's section A questionnaire response at 25, dated 
December 20, 2011; see also Stanley's Supplemental A Response at 3-
6, dated April 4, 2012.
    \78\ See 19 CFR 351.401(i); see also Certain Steel Nails From 
the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Preliminary 
Rescission, in Part, of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
and Preliminary Intent To Rescind New Shipper Review, 76 FR 56147, 
56151 (September 12, 2011) (unchanged in the final results).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hongli reported that the PRC Export Declaration is the appropriate 
date of sale.\79\ As explained above, the Department will not use a 
date other than the date of invoice unless a party provides sufficient 
evidence that a different date better reflects the date on which the 
material terms of sale were established.\80\ Hongli did not provide 
such evidence. Instead, Hongli merely asserted that the PRC Export 
Declaration date is the correct date of sale without any discussion or 
factual support of when the material terms of sale such as price and 
quantity were established for their sales.\81\ Therefore, given its 
failure to demonstrate that a date other than invoice date better 
reflects the date on which the material terms of sale were established, 
the Department is following the presumption established in its 
regulation and using the invoice date as the date of sale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ See Hongli's Section A questionnaire response at 16, dated 
March 8, 2012, and Hongli's supplemental A questionnaire response at 
4-6, dated May 15, 2012.
    \80\ See 19 CFR 351.401(i).
    \81\ See Hongli's Supplemental Section A Questionnaire Response 
at 6, dated May 15, 2012; see also Hongli's Sections C & D 
Questionnaire Response at 8, dated April 4, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of certain steel nails to the United 
States by Stanley and Hongli were made at less than NV, the Department 
compared export price (``EP'') and constructed export price (``CEP'') 
to NV, as described in the ``U.S. Price,'' and ``Normal Value'' 
sections below.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ In these preliminary results, 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) (``Final Modification 
for Reviews''). In particular, the Department compared monthly 
weighted-average EPs (or CEPs) with monthly weighted-average NVs and 
granted offsets for non-dumped comparisons in the calculation of the 
weighted average dumping margin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Price

Export Price

    For Hongli, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we based 
the U.S. price for sales on EP because the first sale to an 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States was made prior to 
importation, and the use of CEP was not otherwise warranted. In 
accordance with section 772(c) of the Act, we calculated EP by 
deducting the applicable movement expenses and adjustments from the 
gross unit price. We based these movement expenses on SVs where a PRC 
company provided the service and was paid in Renminbi (``RMB''). See 
``Factors of Production'' section below for further discussion. For 
details regarding our EP calculations, see Memorandum regarding: 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Steel Nails from the 
People's Republic of China: Tianjin Jinghai County Hongli Industry and 
Business Co., Ltd.,'' dated concurrently with this notice.

Constructed Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we based the U.S. 
price for Stanley's sales on CEP because the first sale to an 
unaffiliated customer was made by Stanley's U.S. affiliate. In 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we calculated CEP by 
deducting the applicable expenses from the gross unit price charged to 
the first unaffiliated customer in the United States. 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 applicable 
selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the 
United States. In addition, pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, 
we made an adjustment to the starting price for CEP profit. We based 
movement expenses on either SVs or actual expenses, where appropriate. 
For details regarding our CEP calculations, and for a complete 
discussion of the calculation of the U.S. price for Stanley, see 
Memorandum regarding: Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain 
Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China: Stanley,'' 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) of the Act. The Department bases 
NV on the FOPs because the presence of government controls on various 
aspects of NMEs renders price comparisons and the calculation of 
production costs invalid under the Department's normal methodologies.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), the Department will 
normally use publicly available information to value the FOPs, but when 
a producer sources an input from an ME country and pays for it in an ME 
currency, the Department may value the factor using the actual price 
paid for the input. During the POR, Stanley reported that it purchased 
certain inputs from an ME supplier, which were produced in an ME 
country, and paid for the inputs in an ME currency.\83\ The Department 
has a rebuttable presumption that ME input prices are the best 
available information for valuing an input when the total volume of the 
input purchased from all ME sources during the period of investigation 
or review exceeds 33 percent of the total volume of the input purchased 
from all sources during the period.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ See Stanley's Section D Response at 7-8, dated January 19, 
2012; and Stanley's Supplemental C Response at Exhibit SC-3(a), 
dated April 25, 2012.
    \84\ See Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, 
Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for 
Comments, 71 FR 61716, 61717-18 (October 19, 2006) (``Antidumping 
Methodologies'').

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

[[Page 53852]]

    In this case, unless case-specific facts provide adequate grounds 
to rebut the Department's presumption, the Department will use the 
weighted-average ME purchase price to value the input. Alternatively, 
when the volume of an NME firm's purchases of an input from ME 
suppliers during the period is below 33 percent of its total volume of 
purchases of the input during the period, but where these purchases are 
otherwise valid and there is no reason to disregard the prices, the 
Department will weight-average the ME purchase price with an 
appropriate SV according to their respective shares of the total volume 
of purchases, unless case-specific facts provide adequate grounds to 
rebut the presumption.\85\ When a firm has made ME input purchases that 
may have been dumped or subsidized, are not bona fide, or are otherwise 
not acceptable for use in a dumping calculation, the Department will 
exclude them from the numerator of the ratio to ensure a fair 
determination of whether valid ME purchases meet the 33 percent 
threshold.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ See Antidumping Methodologies, 71 FR at 61717-18.
    \86\ See Antidumping Methodologies, 71 FR at 61717-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on FOP data reported by the respondents. To calculate NV, we 
multiplied the reported per-unit factor-consumption rates by publicly 
available SVs. In selecting SVs, the Department is tasked with using 
the best available information on the record.\87\ To satisfy this 
statutory requirement, we compared the quality, specificity, and 
contemporaneity of the potential SV data.\88\ The Department's practice 
is to select, to the extent practicable, SVs which are: publicly 
available; representative of non-export, broad market average values; 
contemporaneous with the POR; product-specific; and exclusive of taxes 
and import duties.\89\ As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by 
including freight costs to make them delivered prices. Specifically, we 
added to Ukrainian 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). For a detailed description of all SVs 
selected in these preliminary results, see Memorandum regarding: 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Steel Nails from the 
People's Republic of China: Surrogate Values for the Preliminary 
Results, dated concurrently with this notice (``Preliminary Surrogate 
Value Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ See section 773(c) of the Act.
    \88\ See, e.g., Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 67 FR 
72139 (December 4, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 6; Final Results of First New Shipper Review 
and First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Preserved 
Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 31204 (June 11, 
2001), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5.
    \89\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these preliminary results, we concluded that publicly available 
Ukrainian sources constitute the best available information on the 
record for the SVs for the respondents' raw materials, packing, by-
products, and the surrogate financial ratios. The record shows that 
data from these sources, are contemporaneous with the POR, product-
specific, tax-exclusive, and represent a broad market average.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ See Preliminary Surrogate Value Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department has disregarded statistics from NMEs, countries with 
generally available export subsidies, and countries listed as 
``unidentified'' \91\ in GTA in calculating the average value.\92\ In 
accordance with the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988  
legislative history, the Department continues to apply its long-
standing practice of disregarding SVs if it has a reason to believe or 
suspect the source data may be subsidized.\93\ In this regard, the 
Department has previously found that it is appropriate to disregard 
such prices from e.g., India, Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand, 
because we have determined that these countries maintain broadly 
available, non-industry specific export subsidies.\94\ Based on the 
existence of these subsidy programs that were generally available to 
all exporters and producers in these countries at the time of the POR, 
the Department finds that it is reasonable to infer that all exporters 
from India, Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand may have benefitted 
from these subsidies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ We excluded imports labeled as originating from an 
``unspecified'' country from the average value because we could not 
be certain that they were not from either an NME country or a 
country with generally available export subsidies.
    \92\ See Certain Non-Frozen Apple Juice Concentrate from the 
People's Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary Results of the New 
Shipper Review, 75 FR 47270, 47273 (August 5, 2010); see also Drill 
Pipe From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Determination of 
Critical Circumstances, and Postponement of Final Determination, 75 
FR 51004, 51006 (August 18, 2010).
    \93\ Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, Conf. Report 
to Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. Rep. No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess. 
(1988) at 590.
    \94\ See, e.g., Expedited Sunset Review of the Countervailing 
Duty Order on Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India, 75 FR 13257 
(March 19, 2010), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
4-5; 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; see 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; see 
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Thailand: Final 
Results of Countervailing Duty Determination, 66 FR 50410 (October 
3, 2001), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, to value factory overhead, selling, general, and 
administrative expenses, and profit, the Department used the 2011 
audited financial statements of Dneprometiz Co., a Ukrainian producer 
of nails and other comparable merchandise. Although Petitioner argued 
that the financial statements of Dneprometiz Co. were not publicly 
available,\95\ through our own research, the Department found 
Dneprometiz Co.'s financial statements available online for a fee.\96\ 
In similar situations, we have considered this ``publicly available.'' 
\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ See Petitioner's Response to GDLSK Respondents' First 
Surrogate Value Submission, dated May 7, 2012.
    \96\ See Memorandum to the File, from Alexis Polovina, Third 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Steel Nails From 
the People's Republic of China: Placing Additional Data on the 
Record, dated August 30, 2012.
    \97\ See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic 
of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
and Rescission in Part, 76 FR 56732, 56734 (September 14, 2011) 
(``Mushrooms from the PRC'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Currency Conversion

    Where appropriate, the Department 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.

Preliminary Results of Review

    The Department preliminarily determines that the following 
weighted-average dumping margins exist:

[[Page 53853]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Weighted
                                                              average
                        Exporter                              margin
                                                             (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) The Stanley Works (Langfang) Fastening Systems Co.,             0.00
 Ltd. and Stanley Black & Decker........................
(2) Tianjin Jinghai County Hongli Industry and Business            22.07
 Co., Ltd...............................................
(3) Cana (Tianjin) Hardware Industrial Co., Ltd.........           22.07
(4) Shanghai Curvet Hardware Products Co., Ltd..........           22.07
(5) Huanghua Jinhai Hardware Products Co., Ltd..........           22.07
(6) Shanxi Tianli Industries Co., Ltd...................           22.07
(7) Shanghai Jade Shuttle Hardware Tools Co., Ltd.......           22.07
(8) Shandong Dinglong Import & Export Co., Ltd..........           22.07
(9) Tianjin Jinchi Metal Products Co., Ltd..............           22.07
(10) Huanghua Xionghua Hardware Products Co., Ltd.......           22.07
(11) Tainjin Zhonglian Metals Ware Co., Ltd.............           22.07
(12) Shanghai Yueda Nails Industry Co., Ltd.............           22.07
(13) Hebie Cangzhou New Century Foreign Trade Co., Ltd..           22.07
(14) Zhaoqing Harvest Nails Co., Ltd....................           22.07
(15) Nanjing Yuechang Hardware Co., Ltd.................           22.07
(16) S-Mart (Tianjin) Technology Development Co., Ltd...           22.07
(17) SDC International Australia Pty., Ltd..............           22.07
(18) Shanxi Hairui Trade Co., Ltd.......................           22.07
(19) Guangdong Foreign Trade Import & Export Corporation           22.07
(20) Qingdao D&L Group Ltd..............................           22.07
PRC-Wide Rate...........................................          118.04
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure and Public Comment

    The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed 
in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice.\98\ Interested parties may submit 
case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30 days after the 
date of publication of these preliminary results of review.\99\ 
Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues 
raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than five days 
after the deadline for filing case briefs.\100\ Parties who submit case 
briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit 
with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary 
of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.\101\ Written comments 
and rebuttal comments should be submitted via the Department's Import 
Administration Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized 
Electronic Service System (``IA ACCESS'').\102\ An electronically filed 
document must be received successfully in its entirety by 5 p.m. 
Eastern Time (ET) on the day it is due.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ See 19 CFR 351.224(b).
    \99\ See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii).
    \100\ See 19 CRR 351.309(d).
    \101\ See 19 CFR 351.309(c), (d).
    \102\ See, generally, 19 CFR 351.303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results 
of this administrative review, interested parties may submit publicly 
available information to value FOPs within 20 days after the date of 
publication of these preliminary results. Interested parties must 
provide the Department with supporting documentation for the publicly 
available information to value each FOP. Additionally, in accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final results of this administrative 
review, interested parties may submit factual information to rebut, 
clarify, or correct factual information submitted by an interested 
party less than 10 days before, on, or after, the applicable deadline 
for submission of such factual information. However, the Department 
notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1) permits new information only insofar as 
it rebuts, clarifies, or corrects information recently placed on the 
record. The Department generally cannot accept ``the submission of 
additional, previously absent-from-the-record alternative surrogate 
value or financial ratio information'' pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.301(c)(1).\103\ Additionally, for each piece of factual information 
submitted with SV rebuttal comments, the interested party must provide 
a written explanation of what information that is already on the record 
of the ongoing proceeding that the factual information is rebutting, 
clarifying, or correcting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ 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, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), 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, within 30 days of the date of publication of this 
notice and file the request via IA ACCESS.\104\ Requests should 
contain: (1) The party's name, address and telephone number; (2) the 
number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. 
Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the 
respective case and rebuttal briefs. The Department will issue the 
final results of this administrative review, including the results of 
its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 
120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to 
section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act unless the deadline is extended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

    Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, 
and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries 
covered by this review. The Department intends to issue assessment 
instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final 
results of this review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we are 
calculating importer- (or customer-) specific assessment rates for the 
merchandise subject to this review. In these preliminary results, the 
Department applied the assessment rate calculation method adopted in 
Final Modification for Reviews, i.e., on the basis of monthly average-
to-average comparisons using only the transactions associated with that 
importer with offsets being provided for non-dumped

[[Page 53854]]

comparisons.\105\ Where the respondent has reported reliable entered 
values, we calculate importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem rates 
by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to 
each importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total 
entered value of the sales to each importer (or customer). Where an 
importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem rate is greater than de 
minimis, we will apply the assessment rate to the entered value of the 
importers'/customers' entries during the POR, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.212(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ See Antidumping Proceeding: Calculation of the Weighted-
Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping 
Duty Proceedings; Final Modification, 77 FR 8103 (February 14, 2012) 
(``Final Modifications for Reviews'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where we do not have entered values for all U.S. sales to a 
particular importer/customer, we calculate a per-unit assessment rate 
by aggregating the antidumping duties due for all U.S. sales to that 
importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total quantity 
sold to that importer (or customer).\106\ To determine whether the duty 
assessment rates are de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set 
forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer- (or customer-) 
specific ad valorem ratios based on the estimated entered value. Where 
an importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem rate is zero or de 
minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without 
regard to antidumping duties.\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the companies receiving a separate rate that were not selected 
for individual review, we will assign an assessment rate based on the 
rate we calculated for the mandatory respondent whose rate was not de 
minimis, as discussed above. We intend to instruct CBP to liquidate 
entries containing subject merchandise exported by the PRC-wide entity 
at the PRC-wide rate. Finally, for those companies for which this 
review has been preliminarily rescinded, the Department intends to 
assess antidumping duties at rates equal to the cash deposit of 
estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or 
withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.212(c)(2), if the review is rescinded for these companies.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters 
listed above, the cash deposit rate will be established in the final 
results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, 
i.e., less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit will be required for that 
company); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC 
exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit 
rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the 
most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise 
which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash 
deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 118.04 percent; and (4) for 
all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received 
their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to 
the PRC exporters that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit 
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further 
notice.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

     Dated: August 28, 2012.
Paul Piquado
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix I

    Companies that requested an administrative review of themselves:

Cana (Tianjin) Hardware Ind., Co., Ltd.;
Certified Products International Inc.;
ECO System Corporation;
Guangdong Foreign Trade Import & Export Corporation;
Heibei Minmentals Co., Ltd.;
Huanghua Jinhai Hardware Products Co., Ltd.;
Huanghua Xionghua Hardware Products Co., Ltd.;
JISCO Corporation;
Mingguang Abundant Hardware Products Co., Ltd.;
Qingdao D&L Group Ltd.;
Qingdao Jisco Co., Ltd.;
SDC International Australia Pty., Ltd.;
Shandong Dinglong Import & Export Co., Ltd.;
Shanghai Curvet Hardware Products Co., Ltd.;
Shanghai Jade Shuttle Hardware Tools Co., Ltd.;
Shanghai Yueda Nails Industry Co., Ltd.;
Shanxi Hairui Trade Co., Ltd.;
Shanxi Tianli Industries Co., Ltd.;
S-mart (Tianjin) Technology Development Co., Ltd.;
Suzhou Xingya Nail Co., Ltd.;
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.;
The Stanley Works (Langfang) Fastening Systems Co., Ltd.;
Tianjin Jinchi Metal Products Co., Ltd.;
Tianjin Jinghai County Hongli Industry & Business Co., Ltd.;
Tianjin Zhonglian Metals Ware Co., Ltd.;
Tradex Group, Inc.;
Zhaoqing Harvest Nails Co., Ltd.

Appendix II

    Companies that are part of the PRC-wide entity for which 
Petitioner has withdrawn its review request:

ABF Freight System, Inc.;
Agritech Products Ltd.;
Aihua Holding Group Co., Ltd.;
Anping County Anning Wire Mesh Co.;
Anping Fuhua Wire Mesh Making Co.;
APM Global Logistics O/B Hasbro Toy;
Beijing Daruixing Global Trading Co., Ltd.;
Beijing Daruising Nail Products Co., Ltd.;
Beijing Jinheuang Co., Ltd.;
Beijing Kang Jie Kong Cargo Agent;
Beijing KJK Intl Cargo Agent Co., Ltd.;
Beijing Long Time Rich Tech Develop;
Beijing Tri-Metal Co., Ltd.;
Beijing Yonghongsheng Metal Products Co., Ltd.;
Brighten International, Inc.;
Century Shenzhen Xiamin Branch;
Changzhou MC I/E Co., Ltd.;
Changzhou Quyan Machinery Co., Ltd.;
Changzhou Refine Flag & Crafts Co., Ltd.;
Chao Jinqiao Welding Material Co.;
Chaohu Bridge Nail Industry Co., Ltd.;
Chaohu Jinqiao Welding Material Co.;
Chewink Corp.;
China Container Line (Shanghai) Ltd.;
China Silk Trading & Logistics Co., Ltd.;
Chongqing Hybest Nailery Co., Ltd.;
Chongqing Hybest Tools Group Co., Ltd.;
Cintee Steel Products Co., Ltd.;
Cyber Express Corporation;
Damco Shenzhen;
Daxing Niantan Industrial;
Delix International Co., Ltd.;
Dingzhou Derunda Material and Trade Co., Ltd.;
Dingzhou Ruili Nail Production Co., Ltd.;
Dong'e Fuqiang Metal Products Co., Ltd.;
Dongguan Five Stone Machinery Products Trading Co., Ltd.;
Elite International Logistics Co.;
Elite Master International Ltd.;
England Rich Group (China) Ltd.;
Entech Manufacturing (Shenzhen) Ltd.;
Expeditors China Tianjin Branch;
Fedex International Freight Forward Agency Services (Shanghai) Co., 
Ltd.;
Feiyin Co., Ltd.; Fension International Trade Co., Ltd.;

[[Page 53855]]

Foreign Economic Relations & Trade; Fujiansmarness Imp. & Exp. Co., 
Ltd.;
Fuzhou Builddirect Ltd.;
Goal Well Stone Co., Ltd.;
Gold Union Group Ltd.;
Goldever International Logistics Co.;
Goldmax United Ltd.;
Grace News Inc.;
Guangzhou Qiwei Imports and Exports Co., Ltd.;
Guoxin Group Wang Shun I/E Co., Ltd.;
GWP Industries (Tianjin) Co., Ltd.;
Haierce Industry Co., Ltd.;
Haixing Hongda Hardware Production Co., Ltd.;
Haixing Linhai Hardware Products Factory;
Haiyan Fefine Import and Export Co.;
Handuk Industrial Co., Ltd.;
Hangzhou Kelong Electrical Appliance & Tools Co. Ltd;
Hangzhou New Line Co., Ltd.;
Hangzhould Zhongding Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd.;
Hebei Development Metals Co., Ltd.;
Hebei Jinsidun (JSD) Co., Ltd.;
Hebei Machinery Import and Export Co., Ltd.;
Hebei My Foreign Trade Co., Ltd.;
Hebei Super Star Pneumatic Nails Co., Ltd.;
Henan Pengu Hardware Manufacturing Co., Ltd.;
Heretops (Hong Kong) Internaitonal Ltd.;
Hilti (China) Limited;
HK Villatao Sourcing Co., Ltd.;
Hong Kong Hailiang Metal Trading Ltd.;
Huadu Jin Chuan Manufactory Co Ltd,;
Huanghua Honly Industry Corp.;
Huanghua Huarong Hardware Products Co., Ltd.;
Hubei Boshilong Technology Co., Ltd.;
Huiyuan Int'l commerce Exhibition Co., Ltd.;
Jiashan Superpower Tools Co., Ltd.;
Jiaxing Yaoliang Import & Export Co., Ltd.;
Jinding Metal Products Ltd.;
Jinhua Kaixin Imp & Exp Ltd.;
Joto Enterprise Co., Ltd.;
K.E. Kingstone;
Karius Custom Metal Parts Mfg. Ltd.;
Kasy Logistics (Tianjin) Co., Ltd.;
Kuehne & Nagel Ltd.;
Kum Kang Trading Co., Ltd.;
Kyung Dong Corp.;
Le Group Industries Corp. Ltd.;
Leang Wey Int. Business Co., Ltd.;
Liang's Industrial Corp.;
Lijiang Liantai Trading Co., Ltd.;
Limhai Chicheng Arts & Crafts Co., Ltd.;
Lins Corp.;
Linyi Flying Arrow Imp & Exp Co., Ltd.;
Maanshan Cintee Steel Products Co., Ltd.;
Maanshan Leader Metal Products Co. Ltd.;
Maanshan Longer Nail Product Co., Ltd.;
Manufacutersinchina (HK) Company Ltd.;
Marsh Trading Ltd.;
Master International Co., Ltd.;
Montana (Taiwan) Int'l Co., Ltd.;
Nanjing Dayu Pneumatic Gun Nails Co., Ltd.;
Nantong Corporation for Internation;
Ningbo Bolun Electric Co, Ltd.;
Ningbo Dollar King Industrial Co., Ltd.;
Ningbo Endless Energy Electronic Co., Ltd.;
Ningbo Fension International Trade Center;
Ningbo Fortune Garden Tools and Equipment Inc.;
Ningbo Haixin Railroad Material Co.;
Ningbo Huamao Imp &Exp. Co., Ltd.;
Ningbo Hyderon Hardware Co., Ltd.;
Ningbo JF Tools Industrial Co., Ltd.;
Ningbo KCN electric Co., Ltd.;
Ningbo Meizhi Tools Co., Ltd.;
Ningbo Ordam Import & Export Co., Ltd.;
OEC Logistics (Qingdao) Co. Ltd.;
Omega Products International;
OOCL Logistics O B OF Winston Marketing Group;
Orisun Electronics HK Co., Ltd.;
Pacole International Ltd.;
Panagene Inc.;
Pavilion Investment Ltd.;
Perfect Seller Co., Ltd.;
Prominence Cargo Service, Inc.;
Qianshan Huafeng Trading Co., Ltd.;
Qingdao Bestworld Industry Trading;
Qingdao Denarius Manufacture Co. Limited;
Qingdao Golden Sunshine ELE-EAQ Co., Ltd.;
Qingdao International Fastening Systems Inc.;
Qingdao Lutai Industrial Products Manufacturing Co., Ltd.;
Qingdao Meijia Metal Products Co.;
Qingdao Rohuida International Trading Co., Ltd.;
Qingdao Sino-Sun International Trading Company Limited;
Qingdao Super United Metals & Wood Prods. Co. Ltd.;
Qingdao Tiger Hardware Co., Ltd.;
Qingfu Metal Craft Manufacturing Ltd.;
Qinghai Wutong (Group) Industry Co.;
Qingyuan County Hongyi Hardware Products Factory;
Qingyun Hongyi Hardware Factory;
Qinhuandao Kaizheng Industry and Trade Co. Ltd.;
Q-Yield Outdoor Great Ltd.;
Region International Co., Ltd.;
Richard Hung Ent. Co. Ltd.;
River Display Ltd.;
Rizhao Changxing Nail-Making Co., Ltd.;
Rizhao Handuk Fasteners Co., Ltd.;
Rizhao Qingdong Electric Appliance Co., Ltd.;
Saikelong Electric Appliances (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.; Se Jung (China) 
Shipping Co., Ltd.;
Senco Products, Inc.;
Shandex Co., Ltd;
Shandex Industrial Inc.;
Shandong Minmetals Co., Ltd.;
Shanghai Chengkai Hardware Product Co., Ltd.;
Shanghai Colour Nail Co., Ltd.;
Shanghai Ding Ying Printing & Dyeing CLO;
Shanghai GBR Group International Co.;
Shanghai Holiday Import & Export Co., Ltd.;
Shanghai Jian Jie International TRA;
Shanghai March Import & Export Company Ltd.;
Shanghai Mizhu Imp & Exp Corporation;
Shanghai Nanhui Jinjun Hardware Factory;
Shanghai Pioneer Speakers Co., Ltd.;
Shanghai Pudong Int'l Transportation Booking Dep't;
Shanghai Shengxiang Hardware Co.;
Shanghai Suyu Railway Fastener Co.;
Shanghai Tengyu Hardware Products Co., Ltd.;
Shanghai Tymex International Trade Co., Ltd.;
Shanghai Yuet Commercial Consulting Co., Ltd.;
Shanxi Yuci Wire Material Factory;
Shaoguang International Trade Co.;
Shenyang Yulin International;
Shenzhen Changxinghongye Imp.;
Shenzhen Erisson Technology Co., Ltd.;
Shenzhen Meiyuda Trade Co., Ltd.;
Shenzhen Pacific-Net Logistics Inc.;
Shenzhen Shangqi Imports-Exports TR;
Shijiazhuang Anao Imp & Export Co. Ltd.;
Shijiazhuang Fangyu Import & Export Corp.;
Shijiazhuang Fitex Trading Co., Ltd.;
Shijiazhuang Glory Way Trading Co.;
Shijiazhuang Shuangjian Tools Co., Ltd.;
Shitong Int'l Holding Limited;
Sinochem Tianjin Imp & Exp Shenzhen Corp.;
Sirius Global Logistics Co., Ltd.;
Sunfield Enterprise Corporation;
Sunlife Enterprises (Yangjiang) Ltd.;
Sunworld International Logistics;
Superior International Australia Pty Ltd.;
Suzhou Guoxin Group Wangshun I/E Co. Imp. Exp. Co., Ltd.;
Telex Hong Kong Industry Co., Ltd.;
The Everest Corp.;
Thermwell Products;
Tian Jin Sundy Co., Ltdl (a/k/a/Tianjin Sunny Co., Ltd.);
Tianjin Baisheng Metal Products Co., Ltd.;
Tianjin Bosai Hardware Tools Co., Ltd.;
Tianjin Certified Products Inc.;
Tianjin Chengyi International Trading Co., Ltd.;
Tianjin City Dagang Area Jinding Metal Products Factory;
Tianjin City Daman Port Area Jinding Metal Products Factory;
Tianjin City Jinchi Metal Products Co., Ltd.;
Tianjin Dagang Dongfu Metallic Products Co., Ltd.;
Tianjin Dagang Hewang Nail Factory;
Tianjin Dagang Hewang Nails Manufacture Plant;
Tianjin Dagang Huasheng Nailery Co., Ltd.;
Tianjin Dagang Jingang Nail Factory;
Tianjin Dagang Jingang Nails Manufacture Plant;
Tianjin Dagang Linda Metallic Products Co., Ltd.;
Tianjin Dagang Longhua Metal Products Plant;
Tianjin Dagang Shenda Metal Products Co., Ltd.;
Tianjin Dagang Yate Nail Co., Ltd.;
Tianjin Dagang Yate Nail Co., Ltd.;
Tianjin Dery Import and Export Co., Ltd.;
Tianjin Everwin Metal Products Co., Ltd.;
Tianjin Foreign Trade (Group) Textile & Garment Co., Ltd.;
Tianjin Hewang Nail Making Factory;
Tianjin Huachang Metal Products Co., Ltd.;
Tianjin Huapeng Metal Company;
Tianjin Huasheng Nails Production Co., Ltd.;
Tianjin jetcom Manufacturing Co., Ltd.;
Tianjin Jieli Hengyuan Metallic Products Co.; Ltd.;
Tianjin Jietong Hardware Products Co., Ltd.;
Tianjin Jietong Metal Products Co., Ltd;
Tianjin Jin Gang metal Products Co., Ltd.;
Tianjin Jinjin Pharmaceutical Factory Co., Ltd.;
Tianjin Jishili Hardware Co., Ltd.;
Tianjin JLHY Metal Products Co., Ltd.;
Tianjin Jurum Metal Products Co., Ltd.;
Tianjin Kunxin Hardware Co., Ltd.;
Tianjin Kunxin Metal Products Co., Ltd.;
Tianjin Linda Metal Company;
Tianjin Longxing (Group) Huanyu Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd.;

[[Page 53856]]

Tianjin Master Fastener Co., Ltd. (a/k/a Master Fastener Co., Ltd.);
Tianjin Mei Jia Hua Trade Co., Ltd.;
Tianjin Metals and Minerals;
Tianjin Port Free Trade Zone Xiangtong Intl. Industry & Trade Corp.;
Tianjin Products & Energy Resources dev. Co., Ltd.;
Tianjin Qichuan Metal Products Co., Ltd.;
Tianjin Ruiji Metal Products Co., Ltd.;
Tianjin Senbohengtong International;
Tianjin Senmiao Import and Export Co., Ltd.;
Tianjin Shenyuan Steel Producting Group Co., Ltd.;
Tianjin Shishun Metal Product Co., Ltd.;
Tianjin Shishun Metallic Products Co., Ltd.;
Tianjin Xiantong Fucheng Gun Nail Manufacture Co., Ltd.;
Tianjin Xiantong Juxiang Metal MFG Co., Ltd.;
Tianjin Xinyuansheng Metal Products Co., Ltd.;
Tianjin Yihao Metallic Products Co., Ltd.;
Tianjin Yongchang Metal Product Co., Ltd.;
Tianjin Yongxu Metal Products Co., Ltd.;
Tianjin Yongye Furniture;
Tianjin Yongyi Standard Parts Production Co., Ltd.;
Tianjin Zhong Jian Wanli Stone Co., Ltd.;
Tianjin Zhongsheng Garment Co., Ltd.;
Tianwoo Logistics Developing Co., Ltd.;
Topocean Consolidation Service (CHA) Ltd.;
Traser Mexicana, S.A. De C.V.;
Treasure Way International Dev. Ltd.;
True Value Company (HK) Ltd.;
Unicatch Industrial Co. Ltd.;
Unigain Trading Co., Ltd.;
Vinin Industries Limited;
Wenzhou KLF Medical Plastics Co., Lt.;
Wenzhou Ouxin Foreign Trade Co., Ltd.;
Wenzhou Yuwei Foreign Trade Co., Ltd.;
Winsmart International Shipping Ltd., O/B Zhaoqing Harvest Nails 
Co., Ltd.;
Worldwide Logistics Co., Ltd., (Tianjin Branch);
Wuhan Xinxin Native Produce & Animal By-Products Mfg. Co. Ltd.;
Wuhu Sheng Zhi Industrial Co., Ltd.;
Wuqiao County Huifeng Hardware Products Factory;
Wuqiao County Sinchuang Hardware Products Factory;
Wuqiao County Huifeng Hardware Production Co., Ltd.;
Wuxi Baolin Nail Enterprises;
Wuxi Baolin Nail-Making Machinery Co., Ltd.;
Wuxi Colour Nail Co., Ltd.;
Wuxi Jinde Assets Management Co., Ltd.;
Wuxi Moresky Developing Co., Ltd.;
Wuxi Qiangye Metal work Production Co., Ltd.;
Xi'an Steel; Xiamen New Kunlun Trade Co., Ltd.;
XL Metal Works Co., Ltd.; XM International, Inc.;
Yeswin Corporation;
Yiwu Dongshun Toys Manufacture;
Yiwu Excellent Import & Export Co., Ltd.;
Yiwu Jiehang Import & Export Co., Ltd.;
Yiwu Qiaoli Import & Export Co., Ltd.;
Yiwu Richway Imp & Exp Co., Ltd.;
Yiwu Zhongai Toys Co., Ltd.;
Yongcheng Foreign Trade Corp.;
Yu Chi Hardware Co., Ltd.;
Yue Sang Plastic Factory;
Yuhuan Yazheng Importing;
Zhangjiagang Lianfeng Metals Products Co., Ltd.;
Zhangjiagang Longxiang Packing Materials Co., Ltd.;
Zhejiang Hungyan Xingzhou Industria;
Zhejiang Jinhua Nail Factory;
Zhejiang Minmetals Sanhe Imp & Exp Co.;
Zhejiang Qifeng Hardware Make Co., Ltd.;
Zhejiang Taizhou Eagle Machinery Co.;
Zhejiang Yiwu Huishun Import/Export Co., Ltd.;
Zhongshan Junlong Nail Manufactures Co., Ltd.;
ZJG Lianfeng Metals Product Ltd.

Appendix III

    Companies that filed no-shipment certifications, collectively 
(``No Shipment Respondents''):

(1) Jining Huarong Hardware Products Co., Ltd.;
(2) Chiieh Yung Metal Ind. Corp.;
(3) CYM (Nanjing) Nail Manufacture Co., Ltd.;
(4) Qidong Liang Chyuan Metal Industry Co., Ltd.;
(5) Certified Products International Inc. (``CPI'');
(6) Besco Machinery Industry (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd.;
(7) China Staple Enterprise (Tianjin) Co., Ltd.;
(8) Zhejiang Gem-Chun Hardware Accessory Co., Ltd.;
(9) PT Enterprise Inc.;
(10) Shanxi Yuci Broad Wire Products Co., Ltd.;
(11) Hengshui Mingyao Hardware & Mesh Products Co., Ltd. (``Hengshui 
Mingyao'');
(12) Union Enterprise (Kunshan) Co., Ltd.

Appendix IV

    Companies that did not apply for separate rates and are 
considered to be part of the PRC-wide entity:

Aironware (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.;
Beijing Hong Sheng Metal Products Co., Ltd.;
Beijing Hongsheng Metal Products Co., Ltd.;
Dagang Zhitong Metal Products Co., Ltd.;
Faithful Engineering Products Co., Ltd.;
Hebei Minmetals Co., Ltd.; \108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ Hebei, submitted an untimely no shipment certification 
that the Department has rejected (see page 2). Therefore, this 
company is now considered to be part of the PRC-wide entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hong Kong Yu Xi Co., Ltd.;
Huanghua Shenghua Hardware Manufactory Factory;
Huanghua Xinda Nail Production Co., Ltd.;
Huanghua Yuftai Hardware Products Co., Ltd.;
Senco-Xingya Metal Products (Taicang) Co., Ltd.;
Shanghai Seti Enterprise International Co., Ltd.;
Shanghai Tengyu Hardware Tools Co., Ltd.;
Shanxi Tianli Enterprise Co., Ltd.;
Shaoxing Chengye Metal Producting Co., Ltd.;
Shouguang Meiqing Nail Industry Co., Ltd.;
Suntec Industries Co., Ltd.;
Suzhou Xingya Nail Co., Ltd.;
Suzhou Yaotian Metal Products Co., Ltd.;
Shandex Industrial Inc.;
Tianjin Chentai International Trading Co., Ltd.;
Tianjin Jurun Metal Products Co., Ltd.;
Tianjin Xiantong Material & Trade Co., Ltd.;
Tradex Group, Inc.;
Wintime Import & Export Corporation Limited of Zhongshan;
Wuhu Shijie Hardware Co., Ltd.;
Wuhu Sin Lan De Industrial Co., Ltd.;
Wuxi Chengye Metal Products Co., Ltd.;
Xuzhou CIP International Group Co., Ltd.;
Yitian Nanjing Hardware Co., Ltd.

[FR Doc. 2012-21708 Filed 8-31-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P