[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 88 (Tuesday, May 9, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21523-21529]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09370]



[[Page 21523]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-056, A-552-821]


Certain Tool Chests and Cabinets from the People's Republic of 
China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Less-Than-
Fair-Value Investigations

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

DATES: Effective Date: May 1, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Minoo Hatten at (202) 482-1690, AD/CVD 
Operations, Enforcement & Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Petitions

    On April 11, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
received antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of certain 
tool chests and cabinets (tool chests) from the People's Republic of 
China (the PRC) and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam), filed 
in proper form on behalf of Waterloo Industries Inc. (the 
petitioner).\1\ The AD petitions were accompanied by a countervailing 
duty (CVD) petition for tool chests from the PRC. The petitioner is a 
domestic producer of tool chests.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from the petitioner 
``Certain Tool Chests and Cabinets from the People's Republic of 
China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam--Petition for the 
Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties'' (April 11, 
2017) (the Petitions).
    \2\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 13 2017, the petitioner filed an amendment to the 
Petitions.\3\ On April 13, 2017, the Department requested additional 
information and clarification of certain areas of the Petitions.\4\ The 
petitioner filed responses to these requests on April 18 and 20, 
2017.\5\ On April 27, 2017, the petitioner filed an additional 
amendment to the Petition.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Letter from the petitioner to the Secretary of Commerce 
``Certain Tool Chests and Cabinets From the People's Republic of 
China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam--Petitioner's Amendment 
to Volume I of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petition'' 
(April 13, 2017) (clarifying the scope of the imported merchandise 
that the petitioner intends to cover).
    \4\ See Country-specific letters to the petitioner from the 
Department concerning supplemental questions on each of the country-
specific records (April 13, 2017); see also letter to the petitioner 
from the Department concerning supplemental questions on general 
issues (April 13, 2017) (General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire).
    \5\ See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from the petitioner 
``Certain Tool Chests and Cabinets from the People's Republic of 
China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam--Petitioner's 2nd 
Amendment to Volume I of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Petition'' (April 18, 2017) (General Issues 2nd Amendment); see also 
responses to the Department's April 13, 2017, questionnaires 
concerning supplemental questions on each of the country-specific 
records (April 18, 2017) (PRC AD Supplemental Response) (Vietnam AD 
Supplemental Response); and letter to the Secretary of Commerce from 
the petitioner ``Certain Tool Chests and Cabinets from the People's 
Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam--
Petitioner's Correction to Import Table (April 20, 2017) (Import 
Correction).
    \6\ See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from the petitioner 
``Certain Tool Chests and Cabinets From the People's Republic of 
China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam--Petitioner's 3rd 
Amendment to Volume I of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Petition'' (April 27, 2017) (General Issues 3rd Amendment).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that imports of tool chests 
from the PRC and Vietnam are being, or are likely to be, sold in the 
United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 731 
of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring, or 
threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. Also, 
consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petitions are 
accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner 
supporting its allegations.
    The Department finds that the petitioner filed these Petitions on 
behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioner is an interested 
party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also 
finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support with 
respect to the initiation of the AD investigations that the petitioner 
is requesting.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See the ``Determination of Industry Support for the 
Petitions'' section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Period of Investigation

    Because the Petitions were filed on April 11, 2017, pursuant to 19 
CFR 351.204(b)(1), the period of investigation (POI) is October 1, 
2016, through March 31, 2017.

Scope of the Investigations

    The products covered by these investigations are tool chests from 
the PRC and Vietnam. For a full description of the scope of these 
investigations, see the ``Scope of the Investigations,'' in Appendix I 
of this notice.

Comments on Scope of the Investigations

    During our review of the Petitions, the Department issued questions 
to and received responses from the petitioner pertaining to the 
proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions would 
be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic 
industry is seeking relief.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire; see also 
General Issues 2nd Amendment; and General Issues 3rd Amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations, we 
are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues 
regarding product coverage (scope).\9\ The Department will consider all 
comments received from parties and, if necessary, will consult with 
parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determination. If 
scope comments include factual information (see 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), 
all such factual information should be limited to public information. 
In order to facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, the 
Department requests all interested parties submit such comments by 5:00 
p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on Monday, May 22, 2017, which is the next 
business day after 20 calendar days from the signature date of this 
notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, 
must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on Thursday, June 1, 2017, which is 10 
calendar days from the deadline for initial comments.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 
27323 (May 19, 1997).
    \10\ See 19 CFR 351.303(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department requests that any factual information the parties 
consider relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted 
during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that 
additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the 
investigations may be relevant, the party may contact the Department 
and request permission to submit the additional information. All such 
comments must be filed on the records of each of the concurrent AD and 
CVD investigations.

Filing Requirements

    All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically 
using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).\11\ An electronically-
filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the 
time and date when it is due. Documents excepted from the

[[Page 21524]]

electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in 
paper form) with Enforcement & Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 
18022, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by 
the applicable deadlines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order 
Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011); see also Enforcement and 
Compliance; Change of Electronic Filing System Name, 79 FR 69046 
(November 20, 2014) for details of the Department's electronic 
filing requirements, which went into effect on August 5, 2011. 
Information on help using ACCESS can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments on Product Characteristics for AD Questionnaires

    The Department requests comments from interested parties regarding 
the appropriate physical characteristics of tool chests to be reported 
in response to the Department's AD questionnaires. This information 
will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the 
merchandise under consideration in order to report the relevant factors 
and costs of production accurately as well as to develop appropriate 
product-comparison criteria.
    Interested parties will have the opportunity to provide any 
information or comments that they feel are relevant to the development 
of an accurate list of physical characteristics. Specifically, they may 
provide comments as to which characteristics are appropriate to use as: 
(1) General product characteristics; and (2) product-comparison 
criteria. We note that it is not always appropriate to use all product 
characteristics as product-comparison criteria. We base product-
comparison criteria on meaningful commercial differences among 
products. In other words, although there may be some physical product 
characteristics used by manufacturers to describe tool chests, it may 
be that only a select few product characteristics take into account 
commercially-meaningful physical characteristics. In addition, 
interested parties may comment on the order in which the physical 
characteristics should be used in matching products. Generally, the 
Department attempts to list the most important physical characteristics 
first and the least important characteristics last.
    In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in 
developing and issuing the AD questionnaire, all comments must be filed 
by 5:00 p.m. ET on Tuesday, May 16, 2017. Any rebuttal comments, which 
may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on 
Tuesday, May 23, 2017. All comments and submissions to the Department 
must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the 
records of the PRC and Vietnam less-than-fair-value investigations.

Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions

    Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act 
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic 
producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and 
(ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like 
product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support 
for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of 
the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of 
domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of 
the total production of the domestic like product, the Department 
shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to 
determine if there is support for the petition, as required by 
subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a 
statistically valid sampling method to poll the ``industry.''
    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the 
producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine 
whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute 
directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the 
domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which 
is responsible for determining whether ``the domestic industry'' has 
been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like 
product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and 
the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic 
like product,\12\ they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a 
separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's 
determination is subject to limitations of time and information. 
Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, 
such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary 
to law.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See section 771(10) of the Act.
    \13\ See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 
2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. 
Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a 
product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in 
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation 
under this title.'' Thus, the reference point from which the domestic 
like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an 
investigation'' (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be 
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the 
Petitions).
    With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not 
offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope 
of the investigations. Based on our analysis of the information 
submitted on the record, we have determined that tool chests, as 
defined in the scope, constitute a single domestic like product and we 
have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like 
product.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in 
this case, see Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: 
Certain Tool Chests and Cabinets from the People's Republic of China 
(PRC AD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II, Analysis of 
Industry Support for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Petitions Covering Certain Tool Chests and Cabinets from the 
People's Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 
(Attachment II); and Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation 
Checklist: Certain Tool Chests and Cabinets from the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam AD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment 
II. These checklists are dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted 
by, this notice and on file electronically via ACCESS. Access to 
documents filed via ACCESS is also available in the Central Records 
Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section 
732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data 
contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product 
as defined in the ``Scope of the Investigations,'' in Appendix I of 
this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioner provided its 
own production of the domestic like product in 2016.\15\ In addition, 
the petitioner provided a letter of support from Metal Box 
International, stating that the company supports the Petitions and 
providing its own production of the domestic like product in 2016.\16\ 
The petitioner identifies itself and Metal Box International as the 
companies constituting the U.S. tool chests industry and states that 
there are no other known producers of tool chests in the United States; 
therefore, the Petitions are supported by 100 percent of the U.S. 
industry.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 3 and Exhibit GEN-1.
    \16\ Id., at 3 and Exhibit GEN-1.
    \17\ Id., at 2-3 and Exhibits GEN-1 and GEN-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our review of the data provided in the Petitions and other 
information readily available to the Department indicates that the 
petitioner has established industry support for the Petitions.\18\ 
First, the Petitions established support from domestic producers (or 
workers)

[[Page 21525]]

accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the 
domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required to 
take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., 
polling).\19\ Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the 
statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) 
of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the 
Petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total production of 
the domestic like product.\20\ Finally, the domestic producers (or 
workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under 
section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or 
workers) who support the Petitions account for more than 50 percent of 
the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of 
the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the 
Petitions.\21\ Accordingly, the Department determines that the 
Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the 
meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist and Vietnam AD Initiation 
Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \19\ See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also PRC AD 
Initiation Checklist and Vietnam AD Initiation Checklist, at 
Attachment II.
    \20\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist and Vietnam AD Initiation 
Checklist, at Attachment II.
    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department finds that the petitioner filed the Petitions on 
behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as 
defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and it has demonstrated 
sufficient industry support with respect to the AD investigations that 
it is requesting that the Department initiate.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    The petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the 
domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened 
with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject 
merchandise sold at less than normal value (NV). In addition, the 
petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility 
threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 17-19 and Exhibits GEN-2, 
GEN-7, and GEN-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is 
illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price suppression 
or depression; lost sales and revenues; declining production and 
shipments; declining net sales; and deteriorating financial 
performance.\24\ We have assessed the allegations and supporting 
evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and 
causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly 
supported by adequate evidence, and meet the statutory requirements for 
initiation.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 12-26 and Exhibits GEN-2, 
GEN-6 through GEN-9, and GEN-11 through GEN-15.
    \25\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, 
Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and 
Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions 
Covering Certain Tool Chests and Cabinets from the People's Republic 
of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, (Attachment III); 
and Vietnam AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value

    The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less 
than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to 
initiate AD investigations of imports of tool chests from the PRC and 
Vietnam. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments 
relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the 
country-specific initiation checklists.

Export Price

    For the PRC, the petitioner based export price (EP) on pricing 
information for a sale of a combination tool chest and cabinet set 
produced in, and exported from, the PRC and sold in the United 
States.\26\ For Vietnam, the petitioner based EP on pricing information 
for a sale of a combination tool chest and cabinet set produced in, and 
exported from Vietnam, and sold in the United States.\27\ Where 
applicable, the petitioner made deductions from U.S. price for foreign 
inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, ocean freight, marine 
insurance, U.S. merchandise processing and harbor maintenance fees, and 
U.S. inland freight to the customer.\28\ In addition, for the PRC, the 
petitioner deducted an amount for the irrecoverable portion of the 
value added tax in the PRC, consistent with the terms of sale.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist.
    \27\ See Vietnam AD Initiation Checklist.
    \28\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist and Vietnam AD Initiation 
Checklist.
    \29\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normal Value

    The petitioner stated that the Department has found the PRC and 
Vietnam to be non-market economy (NME) countries as recently as the 
month before the Petitions were filed with respect to the PRC,\30\ and 
as recently as two weeks before the Petitions were filed with respect 
to Vietnam.\31\ In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, 
the presumption of NME status remains in effect until revoked by the 
Department. The presumption of NME status for either the PRC or Vietnam 
has not been revoked by the Department and, therefore, remains in 
effect for purposes of the initiation of these investigations. 
Accordingly, the NV of the product is appropriately based on factors of 
production (FOPs) valued in a surrogate market economy country, in 
accordance with section 773(c) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Volume II of the Petition, at 1.
    \31\ See Volume III of the Petition, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioner claims that South Africa is an appropriate surrogate 
country for the PRC because it is a market economy that is at a level 
of economic development comparable to that of the PRC, it is a 
significant producer of comparable merchandise, and public information 
from South Africa is available to value all FOPs.\32\ The petitioner 
claims that Indonesia is an appropriate surrogate country for Vietnam 
because it is a market economy that is at a level of economic 
development comparable to that of Vietnam, it is a significant producer 
of comparable merchandise, and public information from Indonesia is 
available to value all FOPs.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Volume II of the Petition, at 2; see also section 
773(c) of the Act.
    \33\ See Volume III of the Petition, at 1-2 and 5, and Exhibits 
AD-VN-2A, AD-VN-2B, and AD-VN-2C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the information provided by the petitioner, we believe it 
is appropriate to use South Africa as a surrogate country for the PRC 
and Indonesia as a surrogate country for Vietnam for initiation 
purposes. Interested parties will have the opportunity to submit 
comments regarding surrogate country selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly 
available information to value FOPs no later than 30 days before the 
scheduled date of the preliminary determinations.

Factors of Production

    Because information regarding the volume of inputs consumed by 
Chinese producers/exporters is not reasonably available, the petitioner 
based the FOPs for materials, labor, and energy on its own production 
experience, adjusted for known differences.\34\ The petitioner asserts 
that the production process for tool chests is similar regardless of 
whether the product is produced in the United States or in the PRC.\35\ 
The

[[Page 21526]]

petitioner valued the estimated FOPs using surrogate values from South 
Africa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Volume II of the Petition, at 6, and Exhibits AD-PRC-8 
and AD-PRC-9. See also Import Correction, at Revised Exhibit II-
SUPP-6.
    \35\ See Volume II of the Petition, at 6 and Exhibit AD-PRC-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because information regarding the volume of inputs consumed by 
Vietnamese producers/exporters is not reasonably available, the 
petitioner based the FOPs for materials, labor, and energy on its own 
production experience, adjusted for known differences.\36\ The 
petitioner asserts that the production process for tool chests is 
similar regardless of whether the product is produced in the United 
States or in the Vietnam.\37\ The petitioner valued the estimated FOPs 
using surrogate values from Indonesia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See Volume III of the Petition, at 5 and Exhibits AD-VN-7 
and AD-VN-8; see also Vietnam AD Supplemental Response, at 6-8 and 
Exhibit III-Supp-4.
    \37\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Valuation of Raw Materials

    For the PRC, the petitioner valued direct materials based on 
publicly-available import data for South Africa obtained from the 
Global Trade Atlas (GTA) for the period September 2016 through February 
2017 (i.e., the most recent six month period for which data were 
available).\38\ The petitioner excluded all import data from countries 
previously determined by the Department to maintain broadly available, 
non-industry-specific export subsidies and from countries previously 
determined by the Department to be NME countries.\39\ In addition, in 
accordance with the Department's practice, the petitioner excluded 
imports that were labeled as originating from an unidentified 
country.\40\ The petitioner stated that the Chinese producers use a 
more expensive powder coat process to paint subject tool chests than 
the petitioner who uses a less expensive electrophoretic (e-coat) 
process.\41\ Therefore, the petitioner adjusted its actual e-coat paint 
usage to reflect the additional material required under the Chinese 
producers' powder coat paint process.\42\ The petitioner made offsets 
to cost for steel scrap generated by the production process, using its 
own experience and valued at the average cost of scrap imported into 
South Africa from GTA.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Id., at 7 and Exhibit AD-PRC-10; see also PRC AD 
Supplemental Response, at Exhibit II-SUPP-3, and Import Correction, 
at Revised Exhibit II-SUPP-3.
    \39\ These countries include India, Indonesia, PRC, South Korea, 
Thailand, and Vietnam. See Volume II of the Petition, at Exhibit AD-
PRC-10. See also PRC AD Supplemental Response, at Exhibit II-SUPP-3, 
and Import Correction, at Revised Exhibit II-SUPP-3.
    \40\ Id.
    \41\ See Volume II of the Petition, at 8 and Exhibit AD-PRC-10.
    \42\ Id.
    \43\ See Volume II of the Petition, at 7-8 and Exhibit AD-PRC-
10. See also Import Correction, at Revised Exhibit II-SUPP-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Vietnam, the petitioner valued direct materials using public 
import data for Indonesia obtained from GTA for the period February 
2016 through July 2016 (i.e., the most recent six-month period for 
which data were available).\44\ The petitioner excluded all import 
values from countries previously determined by the Department to 
maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies and 
from countries previously determined by the Department to be NME 
countries.\45\ In addition, in accordance with the Department's 
practice, the petitioner excluded imports that were labeled as 
originating from an unidentified country.\46\ The petitioner stated 
that the Vietnamese producers use a more expensive powder coat process 
to paint subject tool chests than the petitioner who uses a less 
expensive e-coat process.\47\ Therefore, the petitioner adjusted its 
actual e-coat paint usage to reflect the additional material required 
under Vietnamese producers' powder coat paint process.\48\ Finally, the 
petitioner made an offset to cost for steel scrap generated in the 
production process, estimated using its own production experience and 
valued at the average cost of scrap imported into Indonesia from 
GTA.\49\ The Department determines that the surrogate values used by 
the petitioner are reasonably available and, thus, are acceptable for 
purposes of initiation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See Volume III of the Petition, at 6 and Exhibits AD-VN-7, 
AD-VN-8, and AD-VN-9; see also Vietnam AD Supplemental Response, at 
6-8 and Exhibit III-Supp-4.
    \45\ See Volume III of the Petition, at Exhibit AD-VN-9.
    \46\ Id.
    \47\ See Volume III of the Petition, at 6-7 and Exhibit AD-VN-8.
    \48\ Id.
    \49\ See Volume III of the Petition, at 6, and Exhibits AD-VN-7, 
AD-VN-8, and AD-VN-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Valuation of Labor

    For the PRC, the petitioner relied on 2012 data published by the 
International Labour Organization, inflated to 2016 using the South 
African Consumer Price Index.\50\ For Vietnam, the petitioner relied on 
2017 data published by the World Bank in Doing Business 2017: Indonesia 
(DBI).\51\ As noted above, because producers in the PRC and Vietnam use 
a powder coat method to paint subject tool chests, which is more labor-
intensive, the petitioner adjusted its actual labor usage for the e-
coat process to reflect its actual labor usage experience in its powder 
painting line.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See Volume II of the Petition, at 9 and Exhibit AD-PRC-13. 
See also PRC AD Supplemental Response, at 4-5 and Exhibits II-SUPP-4 
and II-SUPP-5, and Import Correction, at Revised Exhibit II-SUPP-6.
    \51\ See Volume III of the Petition, at 7-8 and Exhibit AD-VN-
12.
    \52\ See Volume II of the Petition, at 9 and Exhibit AD-CN-13; 
see also Volume III of the Petition, at 7-8 and Exhibit AD-VN-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Valuation of Energy

    For the PRC, the petitioner valued natural gas using the average 
unit value of imports of liquid natural gas into South Africa. The 
petitioner converted that cost to an equivalent per million British 
Thermal Units of natural gas, and applied that rate to its estimated 
usage rate.\53\ The petitioner valued electricity using an average per-
kilowatt-hour electricity cost obtained from Doing Business 2017: South 
Africa. The petitioner applied that rate to the kilowatt hours of 
electricity that the petitioner estimated it consumed.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ See Volume II of the Petition, at 8 and Exhibit AD-PRC-11. 
See also PRC AD Supplemental Response, at 4 and Exhibit II-SUPP-3, 
and Import Correction, at Revised Exhibit II-SUPP-6.
    \54\ See Volume II of the Petition, at 8 and Exhibit AD-PRC-12. 
See also Import Correction, at Revised Exhibit II-SUPP-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Vietnam, the petitioner valued natural gas using the average 
unit value of imports of liquid natural gas into Indonesia.\55\ The 
petitioner converted that cost to an equivalent per million British 
Thermal Units of natural gas, and applied that rate to its estimated 
usage rate.\56\ The petitioner valued electricity using a per-kilowatt-
hour electricity cost in Indonesia in effect during the POI obtained 
from DBI.\57\ The petitioner applied that rate to the number of 
kilowatt hours of electricity that the petitioner estimated it 
consumed.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See Volume III of the Petition, at 7 and Exhibit AD-VN-10.
    \56\ See Volume III of the Petition, at 7 and Exhibits AD-VN-7, 
AD-VN-8 and AD-VN-10.
    \57\ See Volume III of the Petition, at 7 and Exhibit AD-VN-11.
    \58\ See Volume III of the Petition, at 7 and Exhibits AD-VN-7, 
AD-VN-8 and AD-VN-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Valuation of Packing Materials

    For the PRC, the petitioner determined the FOPs for packing 
materials based on its own experience in packing its products.\59\ The 
petitioner indicated the packing materials would be cardboard shipping 
boxes, polybags, and Styrofoam, and valued them based on South African 
import values.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ See Volume II of the Petition, at 9 and Exhibits AD-PRC-9 
and AD-PRC-10. See also Import Correction, at Revised Exhibit II-
SUPP-6.
    \60\ See Volume II of the Petition, at 9 and Exhibits AD-PRC-9 
and AD-PRC-10. See also PRC AD Supplemental Response, at 4 and 
Exhibit II-SUPP-3, and Import Correction, at Revised Exhibits II-
SUPP-3 and II-SUPP-6.

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

[[Page 21527]]

    For Vietnam, the petitioner determined the FOPs for packing 
materials based on its own experience in packing its products.\61\ The 
petitioner indicated the packing materials would be cardboard shipping 
boxes, polybags, and Styrofoam, and valued them based on Indonesian 
import values.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ See Volume III of the Petition, at 8 and Exhibits AD-VN-7 
and AD-VN-8.
    \62\ See Volume III of the Petition, at 8 and Exhibits AD-VN-7, 
AD-VN-8, and AD-VN-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Valuation of Factory Overhead, Selling, General and Administrative 
Expenses, and Profit

    For the PRC, the petitioner calculated ratios for factory overhead, 
SG&A expenses, and profit based on the 2016 consolidated financial 
statements of Trellidor Holdings Limited (Trellidor), a South African 
producer of security doors, shades, grates, and bars.\63\ Because 
Trellidor had net financial income rather than net financial expenses, 
the petitioner reported financial expenses as zero, in accordance with 
Department practice.\64\ The petitioner calculated a profit for 
Trellidor by dividing its operating profit before taxes by the sum of 
cost of sales and SG&A expenses. The resulting profit was added to the 
cost of production (COP) values for the sale product to arrive at total 
cost of production plus profit for the product.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ See Volume II of the Petition, at 10-11 and Exhibits AD-
PRC-15. The petitioner was unable to find publicly-available 
financial statements for a South African producer of tool chests; it 
contends that Trellidor's production process is reasonably 
comparable to that of tool chests because both require bending metal 
in presses, welding, and painting. Further, the petitioner was 
unable to obtain unconsolidated financial statements from Trellidor 
and has therefore used the consolidated financial statements. See 
PRC AD Supplemental Response, at 5-6.
    \64\ See Volume II of the Petition, at 10 and Exhibit AD-PRC-15.
    \65\ See Volume II of the Petition, at 11 and Exhibits AD-PRC-9 
and AD-PRC-15. See also Import Correction, at Revised Exhibit II-
SUPP-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Vietnam, the petitioner calculated ratios for factory overhead, 
SG&A expenses, and profit based on publicly available 2015 consolidated 
financial statements of PT Lion Metal Works Tbk (PT Lion), an 
Indonesian producer of filing cabinets, other steel office equipment, 
and other steel fabricated products.\66\ Because PT Lion had net 
financial income rather than net financial expenses, the petitioner 
reported financial expenses as zero, in accordance with Department 
practice.\67\ The petitioner calculated a profit for PT Lion by 
dividing its operating profit before taxes by the sum of cost of sales 
and SG&A expenses.\68\ The resulting profit was added to the COP values 
for the sale product to arrive at the total cost of production plus 
profit for the product.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ See Volume III of the Petition, at 8 and Exhibit AD-VN-13. 
The petitioner explained that it was unable to find publicly 
available financial statements for an Indonesian producer of 
merchandise identical to the merchandise under investigation; the 
petitioner asserted that PT Lion manufactures products through 
processes that require bending metal in presses, welding, and 
painting, production methods which are reasonably comparable to 
those involved in the manufacture of the merchandise under 
investigation.
    \67\ See Volume III of the Petition, at 8 and Exhibits AD-VN-8 
and AD-VN-14; see also Vietnam AD Supplemental Response, at 8 and 
Exhibit III-Supp-5.
    \68\ See Volume III of the Petition, at Exhibit AD-VN-14 and 
Vietnam AD Supplemental Response, at Exhibit III-Supp-5.
    \69\ See Volume III of the Petition, at Exhibit AD-VN-8 and 
Vietnam AD Supplemental Response, at Exhibit III-Supp-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by the petitioner, there is reason to 
believe that imports of tool chests from the PRC and Vietnam are being, 
or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. 
Based on comparisons of EP to NV, in accordance with section 773(c) of 
the Act, the estimated dumping margin for tool chests from the PRC is 
159.99 percent \70\ and from Vietnam is 21.85 percent.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ See PRC AD Initiation Checklist.
    \71\ See Vietnam AD Initiation Checklist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations

    Based upon the examination of the AD Petitions on tool chests from 
the PRC and Vietnam, we find that the Petitions meet the requirements 
of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating AD 
investigations to determine whether imports of tool chests from the PRC 
and Vietnam are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States 
at less than fair value. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the 
Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our 
preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after the date of 
this initiation.
    Under the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, numerous 
amendments to the AD and CVD laws were made.\72\ The 2015 law does not 
specify dates of application for those amendments. On August 6, 2015, 
the Department published an interpretative rule, in which it announced 
the applicability dates for each amendment to the Act, except for 
amendments contained in section 771(7) of the Act, which relate to 
determinations of material injury by the ITC.\73\ The amendments to 
sections 771(15), 773, 776, and 782 of the Act are applicable to all 
determinations made on or after August 6, 2015, and, therefore, apply 
to these AD investigations.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Public Law 
114-27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015).
    \73\ See Dates of Application of Amendments to the Antidumping 
and Countervailing Duty Laws Made by the Trade Preferences Extension 
Act of 2015, 80 FR 46793 (August 6, 2015) (Applicability Notice).
    \74\ Id. at 46794-95. The 2015 amendments may be found at 
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1295/text/pl.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Respondent Selection

    The petitioner named 47 companies in the PRC,\75\ and five 
companies in Vietnam,\76\ as producers/exporters of tool chests. In 
accordance with our standard practice for respondent selection in cases 
involving NME countries, we intend to issue quantity and value (Q&V) 
questionnaires to producers/exporters of merchandise subject to these 
investigations and, in the event we determine to limit the number of 
companies individually examined, base respondent selection on the 
responses received. For these investigations, the Department will 
request Q&V information from known exporters and producers identified, 
with complete contact information, in the Petitions. In addition, the 
Department will post the Q&V questionnaire along with filing 
instructions on the Enforcement & Compliance Web site at http://www.trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ See Volume I of the Petitions, at 12 and Exhibit GEN-8.
    \76\ See Id., at 12 and Exhibit GEN-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Exporters/producers of tool chests from the PRC or Vietnam that do 
not receive Q&V questionnaires by mail may still submit a response to 
the Q&V questionnaire and can obtain a copy from the Enforcement & 
Compliance Web site. The Q&V response must be submitted by all PRC or 
Vietnam exporters/producers no later than May 11, 2017, which is ten 
days from the signature date of this notice. All Q&V responses must be 
filed electronically via ACCESS.

Separate Rates

    In order to obtain separate-rate status in an NME investigation, 
exporters and producers must submit a separate-rate application.\77\ 
The specific requirements for submitting a separate-rate application 
are outlined in detail in the

[[Page 21528]]

application itself, which is available on the Department's Web site at 
http://enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html. The separate-rate 
application will be due 30 days after publication of this initiation 
notice.\78\ Exporters and producers who submit a separate-rate 
application and are selected as mandatory respondents will be eligible 
for consideration for separate-rate status only if they respond to all 
parts of the Department's AD questionnaire as mandatory respondents. 
The Department requires that respondents submit a response to both the 
Q&V questionnaire and the separate-rate application by their respective 
deadlines in order to receive consideration for separate-rate status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and 
Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigation 
involving Non-Market Economy Countries (April 5, 2005), available at 
http://enforcement.trade.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf (Policy Bulletin 
05.1).
    \78\ Although in past investigations this deadline was 60 days, 
consistent with 19 CFR 351.301(a), which states that ``the Secretary 
may request any person to submit factual information at any time 
during a proceeding,'' this deadline is now 30 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Use of Combination Rates

    The Department will calculate combination rates for certain 
respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in an NME 
investigation. The Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin 
states:

    {w{time} hile continuing the practice of assigning separate 
rates only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will 
now assign in its NME Investigation will be specific to those 
producers that supplied the exporter during the period of 
investigation. Note, however, that one rate is calculated for the 
exporter and all of the producers which supplied subject merchandise 
to it during the period of investigation. This practice applies both 
to mandatory respondents receiving an individually calculated 
separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated firms 
receiving the weighted-average of the individually calculated rates. 
This practice is referred to as the application of ``combination 
rates'' because such rates apply to specific combinations of 
exporters and one or more producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned 
to an exporter will apply only to merchandise both exported by the 
firm in question and produced by a firm that supplied the exporter 
during the period of investigation.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ See Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6 (emphasis added).

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been 
provided to the governments of the PRC and Vietnam via ACCESS. To the 
extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public 
version of the Petitions to each exporter named in the Petitions, as 
provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

ITC Notification

    We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 
732(d) of the Act.

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

    The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date 
on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable 
indication that imports of tool chests from the PRC and/or Vietnam are 
materially injuring or threatening material injury to a U.S. 
industry.\80\ A negative ITC determination for any country will result 
in the investigation being terminated with respect to that country; 
\81\ otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to 
statutory and regulatory time limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ See section 733(a) of the Act.
    \81\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submission of Factual Information

    Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) 
Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence 
submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available 
information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the 
adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence 
placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than 
factual information described in (i)-(iv). Any party, when submitting 
factual information, must specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 
351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted \82\ and, if the 
information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual 
information already on the record, to provide an explanation 
identifying the information already on the record that the factual 
information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct.\83\ Time limits for 
the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, 
which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual 
information being submitted. Please review the regulations prior to 
submitting factual information in these investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b).
    \83\ See 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Extensions of Time Limits

    Parties may request an extension of time limits before the 
expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR part 351, or as 
otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request 
will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the 
time limit established under 19 CFR part 351. For submissions that are 
due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be 
considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. 
Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time 
limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for 
submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such 
a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting 
forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension 
requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request 
must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited 
circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension 
of time limits. Review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 
57790 (September 20, 2013), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual 
information in these investigations.

Certification Requirements

    Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding 
must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.\84\ 
Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are 
in effect for company/government officials, as well as their 
representatives. Investigations initiated on the basis of petitions 
filed on or after August 16, 2013, and other segments of any AD or CVD 
proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the 
formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final 
Rule.\85\ The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the 
submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
    \85\ See Certification of Factual Information to Import 
Administration during Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Final Rule); see also 
frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at 
http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notification to Interested Parties

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the 
Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 
22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate in these investigations 
should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures 
(e.g., the filing of letters of appearance as discussed in 19 CFR 
351.103(d)).

[[Page 21529]]

    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of 
the Act and 19 CFR 351.203(c).

    Dated: May 1, 2017.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Appendix I

Scope of the Investigations

    The scope of these investigations covers certain metal tool 
chests and tool cabinets, with drawers, (tool chests and cabinets), 
from the People's Republic of China (the PRC) and the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam). The scope covers all metal tool 
chests and cabinets, including top chests, intermediate chests, tool 
cabinets and side cabinets, storage units, mobile work benches, and 
work stations and that have the following physical characteristics:
    (1) A body made of carbon, alloy, or stainless steel and/or 
other metals;
    (2) two or more drawers for storage in each individual unit;
    (3) a width (side to side) exceeding 15 inches for side cabinets 
and exceeding 21 inches for all other individual units but not 
exceeding 60 inches;
    (4) a drawer depth (front to back) exceeding 10 inches but not 
exceeding 24 inches; and
    (5) prepackaged for retail sale.
    For purposes of this scope, the width parameter applies to each 
individual unit, i.e., each individual top chest, intermediate top 
chest, tool cabinet, side cabinet, storage unit, mobile work bench, 
and work station.
    Prepackaged for retail sale means the units are packaged in a 
cardboard box or other container suitable for retail display and 
sale. Subject tool chests and cabinets are covered whether imported 
in assembled or unassembled form. Subject merchandise includes tool 
chests and cabinets produced in the PRC or Vietnam but assembled, 
prepackaged for sale, or subject to other minor processing in a 
third country prior to importation into the United States. 
Similarly, it would include tool chests and cabinets produced in the 
PRC or Vietnam that are later found to be assembled, prepackaged for 
sale, or subject to other minor processing after importation into 
the United States.
    Subject tool chests and cabinets may also have doors and shelves 
in addition to drawers, may have handles (typically mounted on the 
sides), and may have a work surface on the top. Subject tool chests 
and cabinets may be uncoated (e.g., stainless steel), painted, 
powder coated, galvanized, or otherwise coated for corrosion 
protection or aesthetic appearance.
    Subject tool chests and cabinets may be packaged as individual 
units or in sets. When packaged in sets, they typically include a 
cabinet with one or more chests that stack on top of the cabinet. 
Tool cabinets act as a base tool storage unit and typically have 
rollers, casters, or wheels to permit them to be moved more easily 
when loaded with tools. Work stations and work benches are tool 
cabinets with a work surface on the top that may be made of rubber, 
plastic, metal, wood, or other materials.
    Top chests are designed to be used with a tool cabinet to form a 
tool storage unit. The top chests may be mounted on top of the base 
tool cabinet or onto an intermediate chest. They are often packaged 
as a set with tool cabinets or intermediate chests, but may also be 
packaged separately. They may be packaged with mounting hardware 
(e.g., bolts) and instructions for assembling them onto the base 
tool cabinet or onto an intermediate tool chest which rests on the 
base tool cabinet. Smaller top chests typically have handles on the 
sides, while the larger top chests typically lack handles. 
Intermediate tool chests are designed to fit on top of the floor 
standing tool cabinet and to be used underneath the top tool chest. 
Although they may be packaged or used separately from the tool 
cabinet, intermediate chests are designed to be used in conjunction 
with tool cabinets. The intermediate chests typically do not have 
handles. The intermediate and top chests may have the capability of 
being bolted together.
    Side cabinets are designed to be bolted or otherwise attached to 
the side of the base storage cabinet to expand the storage capacity 
of the base tool cabinet.
    Subject tool chests and cabinets also may be packaged with a 
tool set included. Packaging a subject tool chest and cabinet with a 
tool set does not remove an otherwise covered subject tool chest and 
cabinet from the scope. When this occurs the tools are not part of 
the subject merchandise.
    Excluded from the scope of the investigations are tool boxes, 
chests and cabinets with bodies made of plastic, carbon fiber, wood, 
or other non-metallic substances. Also excluded from the scope of 
the investigations are portable metal tool boxes. Portable metal 
tool boxes have each of the following characteristics: (1) Fewer 
than three drawers; (2) a handle on the top that allows the tool box 
to be carried by hand; and (3) a width that is 21 inches or less; 
and depth (front to back) not exceeding 10 inches.
    Also excluded from the scope of the investigations are 
industrial grade steel tool chests and cabinets. The excluded 
industrial grade steel tool chests and cabinets are those:
    (1) Having a body that is over 60 inches wide; or
    (2) having each of the following physical characteristics:
    (a) A body made of steel that is 0.055'' or more in thickness;
    (b) all drawers over 21'' deep;
    (c) all drawer slides rated for 200 lbs. or more; and
    (d) not prepackaged for retail sale.
    Also excluded from the scope of the investigations are work 
benches with fewer than two drawers. Excluded work benches have a 
solid top working surface, fewer than two drawers, are supported by 
legs and have no solid front, side, or back panels enclosing the 
body of the unit.
    Also excluded from the scope of the investigations are metal 
filing cabinets that are configured to hold hanging file folders and 
are classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States (HTSUS) at subheading 9403.10.0020.
    Merchandise subject to the investigations is classified under 
HTSUS categories 9403.20.0021, 9403.20.0026, 9403.20.0030 and 
7326.90.8688, but may also be classified under HTSUS category 
7326.90.3500. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience 
and Customs purposes, the written description of the scope of these 
investigations is dispositive.

[FR Doc. 2017-09370 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P