[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