[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 38 (Tuesday, February 26, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13019-13024]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04379]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-983]
Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks From the People's Republic of China:
Investigation, Final Determination
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: February 26, 2013.
SUMMARY: On October 4, 2012, the Department of Commerce
(``Department'') published its preliminary determination of sales at
less than fair value (``LTFV'') and postponement of final determination
in the antidumping (``AD'') investigation of drawn stainless steel
sinks (``drawn sinks'') from the People's Republic of China
(``PRC'').\1\ We invited interested parties to comment on our
preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. Based on our analysis of
the comments we received, we have made changes to our margin
calculations for the mandatory respondents. We determine that drawn
sinks from the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United
States at LTFV, as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended (``the Act''). The final dumping margins for this
investigation are listed in the ``Final Determination Margins'' section
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks From the People's Republic
of China: Antidumping Duty Investigation, 77 FR 60673 (October 4,
2012) (``Preliminary Determination'').
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frances Veith or Eve Wang, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4295 or (202) 482-6231, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Case History
The Department published its Preliminary Determination on October
4, 2012. On October 10, 2012, the Department issued post-Preliminary
Determination supplemental questionnaires in which we requested new
factual information regarding double remedies from Dongyuan and
Superte/Zhaoshun \2\ and received responses to these supplemental
questionnaires on October 17, 2012. From October 22, through November
1, 2012, the Department conducted verifications of Dongyuan and
Superte/Zhaoshun and released its verification reports for these
companies on November 28, and 29, 2012, respectively.\3\ Timely
requests for a public hearing were filed on October 25, 2012, by
Shenzen Kehuaxing Industrial Ltd. (``Kehuaxing'') and on November 5,
2012, by both Elkay Manufacturing Company (``Petitioner'') and
Dongyuan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Mandatory respondents are Guangdong Dongyuan Kitchenware
Industrial Co., Ltd. (``Dongyuan'') and Zhongshan Superte
Kitchenware Co., Ltd. (``Superte'') and its invoicing company Foshan
Zhaoshun Trade Co., Ltd. (``Zhaoshun'') (also collectively referred
to as ``Superte/Zhaoshun'').
\3\ See the ``Verification'' section below for additional
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 15, 2012, in response to a request filed by Dongyuan,
the Department extended the deadline for submission of publicly
available information to November 26, 2012, and the due date for
rebuttal information to December 6, 2012. On November 26, 2012,
Petitioner and Dongyuan submitted surrogate value (``SV'') information
for the record, and Petitioner, Dongyuan, and Superte submitted
rebuttal comments to this information on December 6, 2012. On November
28, 2012, the Department extended the deadline for submission of case
briefs to December 10, 2012, and the due date for rebuttals briefs to
December 17, 2012. On December 7, 2012, in response to a request filed
by Dongyuan, the Department again extended the deadline for submission
of case briefs to December 13, 2012, and the due date for rebuttals
briefs to December 18, 2012. On December 13, 2012, case briefs were
filed by Petitioner, Dongyuan, Superte/Zhaoshun, and Kehuaxing.
On December 18, 2012, Petitioner, Dongyuan, Superte/Zhaoshun and
the Government of China (``GOC''), each filed their rebuttal briefs,
and on December 19, 2012, in its request to replace its case brief, the
GOC submitted a corrected version of its case brief. On December 20,
2012, the Department rejected the GOC's original case brief and granted
the GOC's request to correct and replace their case brief filed as an
attachment to its December 19, 2012, request. We did not receive briefs
or rebuttal briefs from any other interested party to the
investigation. On January 30, 2013, the Department held a public
hearing limited to issues raised in case and rebuttal briefs.
Tolling of Administrative Deadlines
The Department postponed the deadline for the final determination
to not later than 135 days after publication of the Preliminary
Determination (i.e., February 16, 2013).\4\ However, as explained in
the memorandum from the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration,
the Department exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for two
calendar days. Thus, all existing deadlines associated with this
investigation were postponed by two days.\5\ However, since February
18, 2013, falls on a Federal Holiday, a non-business day, the revised
deadline for this final determination is now February 19, 2013.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Preliminary Determination, 77 FR at 60675.
\5\ See Memorandum to the Record from Paul Piquado, Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration, regarding ``Tolling of
Administrative Deadlines as a Result of the Government Closure
During Hurricane Sandy,'' dated October 31, 2012. Accordingly, the
revised deadline for this final determination is February 18, 2013.
\6\ See Notice of Clarification: Application of ``Next Business
Day'' Rule for Administrative Determination Deadlines Pursuant to
the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation (``POI'') is July 1, 2011, through
December 31, 2011. This period corresponds to the two most recent
fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition, which
was March 2012.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the
information submitted by Dongyuan and Superte/Zhaoshun for use in our
final determination.\8\ For all verified
[[Page 13020]]
companies, we used standard verification procedures, including
examination of relevant accounting and production records, as well as
original source documents provided by respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See The Department's verification reports titled,
``Verification of the Sales and Factors Responses of Zhongshan
Superte Kitchenware Co. Ltd./Foshan Zhaoshun Trade Co., Ltd. in the
Investigation of Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from the People's
Republic of China,'' (November 28, 2012) (``Superte/Zhaoshun's
Verification Report''); and ``Verification of the Sales and Factors
Responses of Guangdong Dongyuan Kitchenware Industrial Co., Ltd. in
the Antidumping Investigation of Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from
the People's Republic of China,'' (November 27, 2012) (``Dongyuan's
Verification Report'') on the record of this investigation on file
electronically via Import Administration's Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA
ACCESS). IA ACCESS is available to registered users at http://iaaccess.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit (``CRU''), room
7046 of the main Department of Commerce, with respect to these
entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to
this investigation are addressed in the ``Investigation of Drawn
Stainless Steel Sinks from the People's Republic of China: Issues and
Decision Memorandum,'' dated concurrently with this notice and hereby
adopted by this notice (``Issues and Decision Memorandum''). A list of
the issues which parties raised and to which we respond in the Issues
and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The
Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document on file in the CRU
and accessible on the Web at ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and
electronic version of the memorandum are identical in content.
Changes Since the Preliminary Determination
Changes Applicable to Multiple Companies
Updated the SV used to value sound deadening pads.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Valued the labor SV using Thailand 2007 National
Statistics Office (``NSO'') data.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See id., at Comment 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revised the treatment of labor in the financial ratios
calculations to accord with the costs captured in the Thailand 2007 NSO
data.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See id., at Comment 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revised the SV calculation for stainless steel.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See id., at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes Specific to Superte/Zhaoshun
Adjusted Superte/Zhaoshun's electricity consumption to
reflect usage during the POI.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See id., at Comment 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjusted Superte/Zhaoshun's consumption of wooden boxes
and polystyrene based on verification findings.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See id., at Comment 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes Specific to Dongyuan
Revised the SV used to value Dongyuan's paint input.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See id., at Comment 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For detailed information concerning all of the changes made,
including those listed above, see the company-specific analysis and SV
memoranda.
Scope of the Investigation
The products covered by the scope of this investigation are drawn
stainless steel sinks with single or multiple drawn bowls, with or
without drain boards, whether finished or unfinished, regardless of
type of finish, gauge, or grade of stainless steel. Mounting clips,
fasteners, seals, and sound-deadening pads are also covered by the
scope of this investigation if they are included within the sales price
of the drawn stainless steel sinks.\16\ For purposes of this scope
definition, the term ``drawn'' refers to a manufacturing process using
metal forming technology to produce a smooth basin with seamless,
smooth, and rounded corners. Drawn stainless steel sinks are available
in various shapes and configurations and may be described in a number
of ways including flush mount, top mount, or undermount (to indicate
the attachment relative to the countertop). Stainless steel sinks with
multiple drawn bowls that are joined through a welding operation to
form one unit are covered by the scope of the investigations. Drawn
stainless steel sinks are covered by the scope of the investigation
whether or not they are sold in conjunction with non-subject
accessories such as faucets (whether attached or unattached),
strainers, strainer sets, rinsing baskets, bottom grids, or other
accessories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Mounting clips, fasteners, seals, and sound-deadening pads
are not covered by the scope of these investigations if they are not
included within the sales price of the drawn stainless steel sinks,
regardless of whether they are shipped with or entered with drawn
stainless steel sinks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excluded from the scope of the investigation are stainless steel
sinks with fabricated bowls. Fabricated bowls do not have seamless
corners, but rather are made by notching and bending the stainless
steel, and then welding and finishing the vertical corners to form the
bowls. Stainless steel sinks with fabricated bowls may sometimes be
referred to as ``zero radius'' or ``near zero radius'' sinks.
The products covered by this investigation are currently classified
in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'')
under statistical reporting number 7324.10.0000 and 7324.10.00.10.
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive.
Nonmarket Economy Country
The Department considers the PRC to be a nonmarket economy
(``NME'') country. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act,
any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain
in effect until revoked by the administering authority. The Department
continues to treat the PRC as an NME for purposes of this final
determination.
Surrogate Country
In the Preliminary Determination, we stated that we had selected
Thailand as the appropriate surrogate country to use in this
investigation for the following reasons: (1) It is a significant
producer of comparable merchandise; (2) it is at a level of economic
development comparable to that of the PRC, pursuant to section
773(c)(4) of the Act; and (3) we have reliable data from Thailand that
we can use to value the factors of production (``FOPs'').\17\ For the
final determination, we received no comments on surrogate country
selection and made no changes to our findings with respect to the
selection of a surrogate country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Preliminary Determination, and accompanying Decision
Memorandum at Surrogate Country 5-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate Rate Companies
In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department holds a
rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are
subject to government control and, thus, should be assessed a single
antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all
exporters of the subject merchandise in an NME country this single rate
unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent
so as to be entitled to a separate rate.
In the Preliminary Determination, we found 19 companies and the
mandatory respondents (``Separate Rate Applicants'') demonstrated their
eligibility for separate rate status.\18\ Additionally, the Department
did not grant a separate rate to Jiangmen Liantai Kitchen Equipment
Co., Ltd.'s (``Liantai''), Xinhe Stainless Steel Products Co., Ltd.'s
(``Xinhe''), Kele Kitchenware Co., Ltd.'s (``Kele Kitchenware''),
Capstone International Development Corporation (``Capstone''), FoShan
Fancome Trading Co., Ltd. (``Fancome'') and Kehuaxing. Kehuaxing
submitted comments in its case brief regarding its separate rate
status. After considering Kehuaxing's comments, the Department has not
changed its position
[[Page 13021]]
from the Preliminary Determination with respect to Kehuaxing's separate
rate status. For a complete discussion of the issue, see the Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See id., at Separate Rates 8-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department continues to find that the evidence placed on the
record of this investigation by the Separate Rate Applicants that were
granted separate rate status in the Preliminary Determination
demonstrates both de jure and de facto absence of government control
with respect to each company's respective exports of the merchandise
under investigation. Further, the Department has continued to deny
Liantai, Xinhe, Kele Kitchenware, Capstone, Fancome, and Kehuaxing
separate rate status as was the case in the Preliminary Determination.
The separate rate is normally determined based on the weighted-
average of the estimated AD margins established for exporters and
producers individually investigated, excluding zero and de minimis
margins or margins based entirely on adverse facts available
(``AFA'').\19\ In this investigation, both Dongyuan and Superte/
Zhaoshun have estimated weighted-average AD margins which are above de
minimis and which are not based on total AFA. Because there are only
two relevant weighted-average AD margins for this final determination,
using a weighted-average of these two margins risks disclosure of
business proprietary information (``BPI'') data. Therefore, the
Department has calculated a simple average of the two final AD margins
calculated for the mandatory respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The statute does not preclude adopting a uniform application of the
average-to-transaction method (``A-to-T'') under the following
circumstances: (1) There is a pattern of export prices that differ
significantly among purchasers, regions, or periods of time; and (2)
the Department explains why such differences cannot be taken into
account using the average-to-average (``A-to-A'') method or
transaction-to-transaction (``T-to-T'') method.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See section 777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Preliminary Determination, in accordance with section
777A(d)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and our practice, as discussed in Steel
Nails \21\ and as modified in Wood Flooring,\22\ we determined that for
Superte there is a pattern of prices for U.S. sales of comparable
merchandise that differ significantly among certain purchasers, but not
by regions or time periods, and for Dongyuan, a pattern of prices for
U.S. sales of comparable merchandise that differ significantly among
certain purchasers and regions, but not by time periods. However, we
determined that the criteria established in 777A(d)(1)(B)(ii) of the
Act had not been met, because the A-to-A method does not mask
differences in the patterns of prices between the targeted and non-
targeted groups and the alternative A-to-T method yields a difference
in the margin that is not meaningful relative to the size of the
resulting margin.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See Certain Steel Nails from the United Arab Emirates:
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value,
73 FR 33985 (June 16, 2008) (``Steel Nails'').
\22\ See Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic
of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 76
FR 64318 (October 18, 2011) (``Wood Flooring''), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4.
\23\ See also Memorandum to Paul Piquado from Christian Marsh,
entitled, ``Decision Memorandum for Preliminary Determination for
the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks
from the People's Republic of China,'' dated September 27, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the final determination, for Superte, we have found that there
is a pattern of prices for U.S. sales of comparable merchandise that
differ significantly among purchasers, regions, and time periods. With
respect to Dongyuan, we find that a pattern of export prices (or
constructed export prices) for comparable merchandise that differ
significantly among purchasers, regions, or time periods does not
exist. As in the Preliminary Determination, however, for both
respondents, the criteria established in 777A(d)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act
have not been met, thus, we continue to apply the A-to-A method for
both Dongyuan and Superte in the final determination of this
investigation.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjustment Under Section 777A(f) of the Act
In our Preliminary Determination, the Department made adjustments
to the AD cash deposit rate found for the respondents in this
investigation, pursuant to section 777A(f) of the Act.\25\ To make
these adjustments, we used information for individually examined
respondents in the countervailing duty (``CVD'') investigation to
derive program-specific rates for subsidized inputs for each respondent
in the AD investigation.\26\ In making these adjustments, the
Department stated that it had not concluded that concurrent application
of NME ADs and CVDs necessarily and automatically results in
overlapping remedies.\27\ Rather, a finding that there is an overlap in
remedies, and any resulting adjustment, is based on a case-by-case
analysis of the totality of facts on the administrative record in the
relevant segment of the proceeding, as required by the statute.\28\ We
also stated that because of the timelines in an LTFV investigation, and
the fact that this is only the second time that the Department applied
section 777A(f) of the Act,\29\ it may be necessary to continue to
refine our practice, based on record evidence, in applying this
statutory provision.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See Preliminary Determination, and accompanying Decision
Memorandum at 21-23.
\26\ The mandatory respondents in the CVD investigation are
Superte and Guangdong Yingao Kitchen Utensils Co., Ltd. See Drawn
Stainless Steel Sinks From the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 77 FR
46717 (August 6, 2012).
\27\ See Preliminary Determination, and accompanying Decision
Memorandum at 21-23.
\28\ See id.
\29\ See Implementation of Determinations Under Section 129 of
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act: Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road
Tires; Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe; Laminated Woven
Sacks; and Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From the People's
Republic of China, 77 FR 52683, 52686 (August 30, 2012).
\30\ See Preliminary Determination, and accompanying Decision
Memorandum at 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After verifying Dongyuan's and Superte's sales and costs, we
continue to find that electricity and stainless steel coil subsidies
impacted both Superte's and Dongyuan's cost of manufacturing (``COM''),
and that the other subsidy programs under investigation (e.g., grant
programs, tax programs, policy lending, etc.) did not.\31\ We also
confirmed that Superte and Dongyuan only adjust prices in response to
certain changes in stainless steel coil cost, but not to changes in
other subsidized costs that impact COM.\32\ Additionally, at Dongyuan's
verification, we confirmed that Dongyuan's cost-to-price linkage was
applicable to all of its POI sales to the United States.\33\ However,
Superte explicitly stated at verification that it did not change price
in response to reductions in stainless steel costs, only increases, and
only on a limited number of sales.\34\ Therefore, we find that Dongyuan
demonstrated the cost-to-price linkage for its products, but that
Superte did not. Accordingly, we find that both respondents provided
sufficient information to demonstrate the first link between certain
subsidies and COM, but that only one company, Dongyuan, demonstrated
the second link--changes in cost that were linked to changes in prices.
As such, we have determined that an estimated domestic subsidy pass-
through adjustment is
[[Page 13022]]
warranted for Dongyuan but not for Superte.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See Superte/Zhaoshun's Verification Report and Dongyuan's
Verification Report.
\32\ See id.
\33\ See Dongyuan's Verification Report.
\34\ See Superte/Zhaoshun's Verification Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department has determined that record evidence does not support
the calculation of a company-specific pass-through rate for Dongyuan.
Although Dongyuan's calculation of an estimated pass-through rate
provides probative evidence that some pass-through occurred, the
estimate is based only on certain sales \35\ and is not consistent
across the sales the Department verified. Therefore, the Department has
determined to continue to apply a documented ratio of cost-price
changes for the Chinese manufacturing sector as a whole, 61.01 percent
\36\ as the estimate of the extent of subsidy pass-through for
Dongyuan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See Dongyuan's submission regarding: Drawn Stainless Steel
Sinks from the People's Republic of China: Double Remedies
Questionnaire Response, dated October 17, 2012, at 6-9; see also
Dongyuan's submission regarding: Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from
the People's Republic of China: Double Remedies Questionnaire
Response, dated September 17, 2012, at 2.
\36\ See Final Determination Analysis Memorandum for Zhongshan
Superte Kitchenware Co., Ltd.; see also Final Determination Analysis
Memorandum for Guangdong Dongyuan Kitchenware Industrial Co.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By-Product Offset
The Department has determined to continue to grant Dongyuan's and
Superte's claimed scrap offset in the final determination. It is the
Department's practice to allow respondents an offset to the reported
FOPs for scrap generated during the production of the merchandise under
consideration if evidence is provided that such scrap has commercial
value.\37\ In its questionnaire responses and at verification, however,
Superte explained that it does not track scrap generation in its books
and records and, therefore, based its scrap offset on the ratio of the
total weight of stainless steel grades 304 and 201 scrap sold during
the POI divided by the total POI consumption of stainless steel grades
304 and 201.\38\ We determined, in the instant case, the record
evidence supports that Superte's claimed scrap offsets were related to
the production of the merchandise under consideration (i.e., the
quantity claimed was reasonably tied to the production of stainless
steel sinks during the POI) and that the scrap claimed as an offset has
commercial value. However, in the event we issue a final antidumping
duty order, in future proceedings we would expect Superte to modify its
accounting and recordkeeping system in order to accurately record scrap
materials generated during production of the subject merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See, e.g., Wood Flooring/China, and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 23; see also Narrow Woven Ribbons
With Woven Selvedge From the People's Republic of China: Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 75 FR 41808 (July
19, 2010), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 2; see also Frontseating Service Valves From the People's
Republic of China; 2010-2011 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review;
Final Results, 77 FR 67334 (November 9, 2012), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 7.
\38\ See Superte/Zhaoshun's submission regarding: Drawn
Stainless Steel Sinks from China: First Supplemental Section D
Questionnaire Response, dated August 20, 2012 (``Superte/Zhaoshun's
SDQR''), at 24 and Exhibit SQ1-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use of Facts Available and Adverse Facts Available
Section 776(a) of the Act provides that the Department shall apply
facts available (``FA'') if (1) necessary information is not on the
record, or (2) an interested party or any other person (A) withholds
information that has been requested, (B) fails to provide information
within the deadlines established, or in the form and manner requested
by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782
of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D) provides
information that cannot be verified as provided by section 782(i) of
the Act.
Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may
use an adverse inference in applying FA when a party has failed to
cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a
request for information. Such an adverse inference may include reliance
on information derived from the petition, the final determination, a
previous administrative review, or other information placed on the
record.
PRC-Wide Entity
In the Preliminary Determination, the Department determined that,
during the POI, in addition to Capstone, Fancome, and Kehuaxing, there
are other PRC exporters and/or producers of the merchandise under
consideration that failed to timely respond to the Department's
requests for information and did not establish that they were separate
from the PRC-wide entity. Thus, the Department has found that these PRC
exporters and/or producers are part of the PRC-wide entity and the PRC-
wide entity has not responded to our requests for information. Because
the PRC-wide entity did not provide the Department with requested
information, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the
Department continues to find it appropriate to base the PRC-wide rate
on FA.
The Department determines that, because the PRC-wide entity did not
respond to our request for information, the PRC-wide entity has failed
to cooperate to the best of its ability. Therefore, pursuant to section
776(b) of the Act, the Department finds that, in selecting from among
the FA, an adverse inference is appropriate for the PRC-wide entity.
Because the Department begins with the presumption that all companies
within an NME country are subject to government control, and because
only the mandatory respondents and certain Separate Rate Applicants
have overcome that presumption, the Department is applying a single AD
rate to all other exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC. Such
companies have not demonstrated entitlement to a separate rate.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Market Value: Synthetic Indigo From the People's Republic
of China, 65 FR 25706, 25707 (May 2, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Selection of the Adverse Facts Available Rate for the PRC-Wide Entity
In determining a rate for AFA, the Department's practice is to
select a rate that is sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the
purpose of the adverse facts available rule to induce respondents to
provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a
timely manner.'' \40\ Further, it is the Department's practice to
select a rate that ensures ``that the party does not obtain a more
favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated
fully.'' \41\ Thus, the Department's practice is to select, as an AFA
rate, the higher of: (1) the highest AD margin alleged in the petition,
or (2) the highest calculated AD margin of any respondent in the
investigation.\42\ In this investigation, the highest petition AD
margin is 76.53 percent.\43\ This rate is higher than any of the
weighted-average AD margins calculated for the companies individually
examined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than
Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan,
63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998).
\41\ See Brake Rotors from the People's Republic of China: Final
Results and Partial Rescission of the Seventh Administrative Review;
Final Results of the Eleventh New Shipper Review, 70 FR 69937, 69939
(November 18, 2005) (quoting the Statement of Administrative Action
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``SAA''), H. Doc. No.
316, 103d Cong., 2d Session at 870 (1994)).
\42\ See Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents From the
People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value, 77 FR 17436, 17438 (March 26, 2012).
\43\ See Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from the People's Republic
of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 77 FR 18207,
18210 (March 27, 2012) (``Initiation Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 13023]]
Corroboration of Information
Section 776(c) of the Act requires the Department to corroborate,
to the extent practicable, secondary information used as facts
available. Secondary information is defined as ``information derived
from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the
final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous
review under section 751 of the Act concerning the subject
merchandise.''\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See SAA, H. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Session at 870
(1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SAA clarifies that ``corroborate'' means that the Department
will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has
probative value.\45\ The SAA also states that independent sources used
to corroborate such evidence may include, for example, published price
lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information
obtained from interested parties during the particular
investigation.\46\ To corroborate secondary information, the Department
will, to the extent practicable, determine whether the information used
has probative value by examining the reliability and relevance of the
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ See id.
\46\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to determine the probative value of the margins in the
petition for use as AFA for purposes of this preliminary determination,
we compared the petition margins to the margins we calculated for the
individually examined respondents. We determined that the petition
margin of 76.53 percent is reliable and relevant because it is within
the range of the control number specific margins on the record for one
of the individually examined exporters of subject merchandise.\47\
Thus, the highest petition margin has probative value. Accordingly, we
have corroborated the petition margin to the extent practicable within
the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ See the Department's Memorandum titled, ``LTFV
Investigation of Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from the People's
Republic of China: Superte/Zhaoshun's Preliminary Analysis
Memorandum,'' (September 27, 2012) at Attachment 1, SAS Margin
Output.
\48\ See section 776(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308(c) and
(d); Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part: Light-
Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the People's Republic of
China, 73 FR 35652, 35653 (June 24, 2008), and accompanying Issues
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combination Rates
In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that it would
calculate combination rates for respondents that are eligible for a
separate rate in this investigation. This practice is described in
Policy Bulletin 05.1, available at http://www.trade.gov/ia/.
Final Determination Margins
The Department determines that the following weighted-average
dumping margins exist for the period July 1, 2011, through December 31,
2011.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Exporter Producer margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zhongshan Superte Kitchenware Zhongshan Superte 39.87
Co., Ltd./Zhongshan Superte Kitchenware Co., Ltd.
Kitchenware Co., Ltd. invoiced
as Foshan Zhaoshun Trade Co.,
Ltd.
Guangdong Dongyuan Kitchenware Guangdong Dongyuan 27.14
Industrial Co., Ltd. Kitchenware Industrial
Co., Ltd.
B&R Industries Limited........... Xinhe Stainless Steel 33.51
Products Co., Ltd. and.
Jiamen XHHL Stainless
Steel Manufacturing
Co., Ltd.
Elkay (China) Kitchen Solutions, Elkay (China) Kitchen 33.51
Co., Ltd. Solutions, Co., Ltd.
Feidong Import and Export Co., Jiangmen Liantai Kitchen 33.51
Ltd. Equipment Co.
Jiangmen Xinhe Stainless
Steel Product Co., Ltd.
Foshan Shunde MingHao Kitchen Foshan Shunde MingHao 33.51
Utensils Co., Ltd. Kitchen Utensils Co.,
Ltd.
Franke Asia Sourcing Ltd......... Guangdong YingAo Kitchen 33.51
Utensils Co., Ltd.;.
Franke (China) Kitchen
System Co., Ltd.
Grand Hill Work Company.......... Zhongshan Xintian 33.51
Hardware Co., Ltd.
Guangdong G-Top Import and Export Jiangmen Jin Ke Ying 33.51
Co., Ltd. Stainless Steel Wares
Co., Ltd.
Guangdong Yingao Kitchen Utensils Guangdong Yingao Kitchen 33.51
Co., Ltd. Utensils Co., Ltd.
Hangzhou Heng's Industries Co., Hangzhou Heng's 33.51
Ltd. Industries Co., Ltd.
J&C Industries Enterprise Limited Zhongshan Superte 33.51
Kitchenware Co., Ltd.
Jiangmen Hongmao Trading Co., Ltd Xinhe Stainless Steel 33.51
Products Co., Ltd.
Jiangmen New Star Hi-Tech Jiangmen New Star Hi- 33.51
Enterprise Ltd. Tech Enterprise Ltd.
Jiangmen Pioneer Import & Export Jiangmen Ouert Kitchen 33.51
Co., Ltd. Appliance Manufacturing
Co., Ltd.
Jiangmen XHHL Stainless
Steel Manufacturing
Co., Ltd.
Jiangxi Zoje Kitchen & Bath Jiangxi Offidun Industry 33.51
Industry Co., Ltd. Co. Ltd.
Ningbo Oulin Kitchen Utensils Ningbo Oulin Kitchen 33.51
Co., Ltd. Utensils Co., Ltd.
Primy Cooperation Limited........ Primy Cooperation 33.51
Limited.
Shunde Foodstuffs Import & Export Bonke Kitchen & Sanitary 33.51
Company Limited of Guangdong. Industrial Co., Ltd.
Zhongshan Newecan Enterprise Zhongshan Xintian 33.51
Development Corporation. Hardware Co., Ltd.
Zhuhai Kohler Kitchen & Bathroom Zhuhai Kohler Kitchen & 33.51
Products Co., Ltd. Bathroom Products Co.,
Ltd.
PRC-Wide Rate *.................. ........................ 76.53
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This rate also applies to Jiangmen Liantai Kitchen Equipment Co.,
Jiangmen Xinhe Stainless Steel Product Co., Ltd., Kele Kitchenware
Co., Ltd., Capstone International Development Corporation, FoShan
Fancome Trading Co., Ltd., and Shenzen Kehuaxing Industrial Ltd.
Disclosure
We intend to disclose to parties the calculations performed in this
proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department
will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to continue
to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of drawn sinks from
the PRC as described in the ``Scope of the Investigation'' section,
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after
October 4,
[[Page 13024]]
2012, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination in the
Federal Register. Further, the Department will instruct CBP to require
a cash deposit equal to the weighted-average amount by which the normal
value exceeds U.S. price, adjusted where appropriate for export
subsidies and estimated domestic subsidy pass-through,\49\ as follows:
(1) The separate rate margin for the exporter/producer combinations
listed in the table above will be the rate the Department has
determined in this final determination; (2) for all combinations of PRC
exporters/producers of merchandise under consideration which have not
received their own separate rate AD margin above, the cash-deposit rate
will be the cash-deposit rate established for the PRC-wide entity; and
(3) for all non-PRC exporters of merchandise under consideration which
have not received their own separate rate above, the cash-deposit rate
will be the cash-deposit rate applicable to the PRC exporter/producer
combination that supplied that non-PRC exporter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ See sections 772(c)(1)(C) and 777A(f) of the Act,
respectively. Unlike in administrative reviews, the Department
calculates the adjustment for export subsidies and estimated
domestic subsidy pass-through in investigations not in the margin
calculation program, but in the cash deposit instructions issued to
CBP. See the Preliminary Determination, and accompanying Decision
Memorandum, for treatment of estimated domestic subsidy pass-
through; see Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, and Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances:
Certain Lined Paper Products from India, 71 FR 45012 (August 8,
2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1
for discussion of our treatment of export subsidies in
investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the
International Trade Commission (``ITC'') of the final affirmative
determination of sales at LTFV. As the Department's final determination
is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the
ITC will determine, within 45 days, whether the domestic industry in
the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material
injury, by reason of imports of subject merchandise, or sales (or the
likelihood of sales) for importation, of the subject merchandise. If
the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury
does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities
posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such
injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order
directing CBP to assess antidumping duties on all imports of the
subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of
liquidation.
Notification Regarding APO
This notice also serves as a reminder to the parties subject to
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of BPI disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return or destruction of
APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby
requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO
is a sanctionable violation.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with
sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: February 19, 2013.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix--Issues for Final Determination
Issue 1: Adjustment Under Section 777A(f) of the Act
Issue 2: Valuation of Stainless Steel
Issue 3: Surrogate Value for Labor
Issue 4: Whether the Department Applied the Correct Treatment to
Labor Line items in Its Financial Ratio Calculations
Issue 5: Valuation of Brokerage and Handling
Issue 6: Financial Statements
Issue 7: Surrogate Value for Sound Deadening Pad Input
Issue 8: Whether the Department Correctly Applied Targeted Dumping
Methodology
Issue 9: Whether Superte/Zhaoshun's Scrap Offset Should be Rejected
Issue 10: Whether Superte/Zhaoshun Reported Accurate Electricity
Consumption
Issue 11: Whether Superte/Zhaoshun Reported Accurate Consumption for
Wooden Boxes and Polystyrene Foam
Issue 12: Whether an Invoicing Company Fees Superte Paid to Zhaoshun
is an Adjustment to its U.S. Price
Issue 13: Whether Dongyuan's Reported Paint Input is Soluble in
Water
Issue 14: Whether the Department Properly Rejected Kehuaxing's
Quantity and Value Questionnaire and Separate Rate Application
[FR Doc. 2013-04379 Filed 2-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P