Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 2905-2908 [E6-498]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2006 / Notices Background On April 2, 2005, the Government of Ukraine’s Ministry of Economy and European Integration requested that the Department of Commerce conduct a review of Ukraine’s status as a nonmarket economy (‘‘NME’’) country within the context of a changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from Ukraine. In response to this request, the Department initiated a changed circumstances review in order to determine whether Ukraine should continue to be treated as an NME country for purposes of the antidumping law, pursuant to sections 751(b) and 771(18)(C)(ii) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). See Initiation of a Changed Circumstances Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Ukraine, 70 FR 21396 (April 26, 2005). In its notice of initiation, the Department invited public comment on Ukraine’s ongoing economic reforms and received extensive initial and rebuttal comments on July 11, 2005, and August 31, 2005, respectively. These comments have been made available to the public at the Import Administration Web site at the following address: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/. In addition, the Department has compiled and analyzed information regarding Ukrainian economic reforms from independent third-party sources that it commonly cites for market economy status decisions. erjones on PROD1PC68 with NOTICES Opportunity for Public Comment and Extension of Final Results In order to consider any economic and institutional developments that occurred in Ukraine since the closure of the record in this review that may be of importance to the Department’s decision, the Department is inviting further public comment on reforms in Ukraine. Specifically, the Department invites comment on such developments in relation to the factors listed in section 771(18)(B) of the Act, which the Department must take into account in making a market/non-market economy decision: (i) The extent to which the currency of the foreign country is convertible into the currency of other countries; (ii) The extent to which wage rates in the foreign country are determined by free bargaining between labor and management; (iii) The extent to which joint ventures or other investments by firms of other foreign countries are permitted in the foreign country; VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:06 Jan 17, 2006 Jkt 208001 (iv) The extent of government ownership or control of the means of production; (v) The extent of government control over allocation of resources and over price and output decisions of enterprises; and (vi) Such other factors as the administering authority considers appropriate. In order to provide opportunity to consider the comments, the Department is extending the deadline for the final results of this changed circumstance review by thirty days, making the new deadline February 16, 2006. Comments—Deadline, Format, and Number of Copies The deadline for submission of comments is January 25, 2006. The deadline for rebuttal comments is February 1, 2006. Each person submitting comments should include his or her name and address. To facilitate their consideration by the Department, comments should be submitted in the following format: (1) Begin each comment on a separate page; (2) concisely state the issue identified and discussed in the comment and include any supporting documentation in exhibits or appendices; (3) provide a brief summary of the comment (a maximum of three sentences) and label this section ‘‘summary of comment’’; (4) provide an index or table of contents; and (5) include the case number, A– 823–812, in the top right hand corner of the submission. Persons wishing to comment should file a signed original and six copies of each set of comments by the dates specified above. All comments responding to this notice will be a matter of public record and will be available for public inspection and copying at Import Administration’s Central Records Unit, Room B–099, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. on business days. The Department requires that comments be submitted in written form. The Department recommends submission of comments in electronic media, preferably in Portable Document Format (PDF), to accompany the required paper copies. Comments filed in electronic form should be submitted on CD–ROM as comments submitted on diskettes are likely to be damaged by postal radiation treatment. Comments received in electronic form will be made available to the public on the Internet at the Import Administration Web site at the following address: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/. Any questions concerning file formatting, document conversion, PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 2905 access on the Internet, or other electronic filing issues should be addressed to Andrew Lee Beller, Import Administration Webmaster, at (202) 482–0866, e-mail: webmastersupport@ita.doc.gov. Dated: January 12, 2006. David Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. 06–461 Filed 1–17–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–868] Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People’s Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On July 11, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of the 2003 - 2004 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on folding metal tables and chairs (FMTCs) from the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The period of review (POR) is June 1, 2003, to May 31, 2004. We have now completed the 2003 - 2004 administrative review of the order. Based on comments received, we have made changes in the dumping margin calculations. Therefore, the final results differ from the preliminary results. For details regarding these changes, see the section of this notice entitled ‘‘Changes Since the Preliminary Results.’’ The final results are listed below in the ‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section. EFFECTIVE DATE: January 18, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marin Weaver or Catherine Feig, 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) 482–2336 and (202) 482–3962, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Background The preliminary results in this administrative review were published on July 11, 2005. See Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 39726 E:\FR\FM\18JAN1.SGM 18JAN1 2906 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2006 / Notices erjones on PROD1PC68 with NOTICES (July 11, 2005) (‘‘Preliminary Results’’). The POR is June 1, 2003, through May 31, 2004. The respondents in this case are Feili Furniture Development Ltd. Quanzhou City, Feili Furniture Development Co., Ltd., Feili Group (Fujian) Co., Ltd., and Feili (Fujian) Co., Ltd. (collectively ‘‘Feili Group’’), and New–Tec Integration (Xiamen) Co. Ltd. (‘‘New–Tec’’). The domestic interested parties are Meco Corporation (‘‘Meco’’) and Cosco Home and Office Products (‘‘Cosco’’). As stated in the Preliminary Results, we issued an additional supplemental questionnaire to New–Tec on July 1, 2005. New–Tec responded on July 29, 2005. On August 18, 2005, the Department issued another supplemental questionnaire to New– Tec. On September 7, 2005, in response to New–Tec’s August 31, 2005, extension request, the Department granted an extension and also requested additional documentation related to the inventory reconciliation. On September 16, 2005, in response to the Department’s requests, New–Tec submitted its responses to both the August 18, 2005, supplemental questionnaire and the additional August 31, 2005, questions. In the Preliminary Results the Department applied total adverse facts available to New–Tec. However, on December 1, 2005, the Department issued a margin calculation for New–Tec applying partial adverse facts available. See Memorandum to Joseph A. Spetrini; Calculation of an Anti–Dumping Duty Margin of Review and Application of Partial Facts Available with an Adverse Inference for New–Tec Integration (Xiamen) Co., Ltd. (‘‘New–Tec Memo’’) (December 1, 2005), see also Memorandum to Wendy J. Frankel; Factors–of-Production Valuation for New–Tec Integration (Xiamen) Co., Ltd. Post–Preliminary Results (December 1, 2005) (‘‘New–Tec FOP Memo’’) and Memorandum to the File; Calculation Memorandum, New– Tec Integration (Xiamen) Co., Ltd. (‘‘New–Tec Calculation Memo’’) (December 1, 2005). On December 8, 2005, we received case briefs from Meco and the respondents. On December 9, 2005, we received a case brief from Cosco.1 We received rebuttal briefs from Meco and respondents on December 13, 2005, and from Cosco on December 14, 3005.2 On December 27, 2005, the Department issued a letter to interested parties 1 This case brief was timely because one copy was originally filed on December 8, 2005 as ‘‘bracketing not final.’’ 2 This rebuttal brief was timely because one copy was originally filed on December 13, 2005 as ‘‘bracketing not final.’’ VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:06 Jan 17, 2006 Jkt 208001 soliciting comments on moving indirect employee benefit expenses (e.g., employees provident and other funds, employees gratuity trust fund, workman and staff welfare expense and voluntary retirement compensation) in the surrogate Indian financial statements from direct labor costs to manufacturing overhead costs. Feili Group, New–Tec, Cosco and Meco all responded on December 30, 2005. Scope of the Order The products covered by this order consist of assembled and unassembled folding tables and folding chairs made primarily or exclusively from steel or other metal, as described below: 1) Assembled and unassembled folding tables made primarily or exclusively from steel or other metal (folding metal tables). Folding metal tables include square, round, rectangular, and any other shapes with legs affixed with rivets, welds, or any other type of fastener, and which are made most commonly, but not exclusively, with a hardboard top covered with vinyl or fabric. Folding metal tables have legs that mechanically fold independently of one another, and not as a set. The subject merchandise is commonly, but not exclusively, packed singly, in multiple packs of the same item, or in five piece sets consisting of four chairs and one table. Specifically excluded from the scope of the order regarding folding metal tables are the following: a. Lawn furniture; b. Trays commonly referred to as ‘‘TV trays’’; c. Side tables; d. Child–sized tables; e. Portable counter sets consisting of rectangular tables 36’’ high and matching stools; and f. Banquet tables. A banquet table is a rectangular table with a plastic or laminated wood table top approximately 28’’ to 36’’ wide by 48’’ to 96’’ long and with a set of folding legs at each end of the table. One set of legs is composed of two individual legs that are affixed together by one or more cross– braces using welds or fastening hardware. In contrast, folding metal tables have legs that mechanically fold independently of one another, and not as a set. 2) Assembled and unassembled folding chairs made primarily or exclusively from steel or other metal (folding metal chairs). Folding metal chairs include chairs with one or more cross–braces, PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 regardless of shape or size, affixed to the front and/or rear legs with rivets, welds or any other type of fastener. Folding metal chairs include: those that are made solely of steel or other metal; those that have a back pad, a seat pad, or both a back pad and a seat pad; and those that have seats or backs made of plastic or other materials. The subject merchandise is commonly, but not exclusively, packed singly, in multiple packs of the same item, or in five piece sets consisting of four chairs and one table. Specifically excluded from the scope of the order regarding folding metal chairs are the following: a. Folding metal chairs with a wooden back or seat, or both; b. Lawn furniture; c. Stools; d. Chairs with arms; and e. Child–sized chairs. The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under subheadings 9401.71.0010, 9401.71.0030, 9401.79.0045, 9401.79.0050, 9403.20.0010, 9403.20.0030, 9403.70.8010, 9403.70.8020, and 9403.70.8030 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department’s written description of the merchandise is dispositive. Separate Rates Determination for New– Tec The Department has treated the PRC as a non–market economy (NME) country in all past antidumping duty investigations and administrative reviews. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol From the People’s Republic of China, 69 FR 34130 (June 18, 2004). A designation as an NME country remains in effect until it is revoked by the Department. See section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). It is the Department’s standard policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to review in an NME country a single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate an absence of government control, with respect to exports. To establish whether an exporter is sufficiently independent of government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes the exporter in light of the criteria established in the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (Sparklers); and Final Determination of Sales at Less Than E:\FR\FM\18JAN1.SGM 18JAN1 erjones on PROD1PC68 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2006 / Notices Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide). Under this test, exporters in NME countries are entitled to separate, company–specific margins when they can demonstrate an absence of government control over exports, both in law (de jure) and in fact (de facto). Evidence supporting, though not requiring, a finding of de jure absence of government control over export activities includes: 1) an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the individual exporter’s business and export licenses; 2) any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and 3) any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. De facto absence of government control over exports is based on four factors: 1) whether each exporter sets its own export prices independently of the government and without the approval of a government authority; 2) whether each exporter retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or the financing of losses; 3) whether each exporter has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; and 4) whether each exporter has autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22587, and Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. New–Tec is a joint venture owned by New–Tec International Inc., a South Korean company, and Xiamen Integration Co., Ltd. New–Tec has placed documents on the record to demonstrate the absence of de jure control including its list of shareholders, business license, and the Company Law. Other than limiting New–Tec to activities referenced in the business license, we found no restrictive stipulations associated with the license. In addition, in previous cases the Department has analyzed the Company Law and found that it establishes an absence of de jure control. See, e.g., Certain Non–Frozen Apple Juice Concentrate from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results, Partial Recision and Termination of a Partial Deferral of the 2002–2003 Administrative Review, 69 FR 65148, 65150 (November 10, 2004). We have no information in this segment of the proceeding which would cause us to reconsider this determination. Therefore, based on the foregoing, we have preliminarily found an absence of de jure control for New Tec. With regard to de facto control, New– Tec reported the following: (1) it sets prices to the United States through negotiations with customers and these VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:06 Jan 17, 2006 Jkt 208001 prices are not subject to review by any government organization; (2) it does not coordinate with other exporters or producers to set the price or determine to which market companies sell subject merchandise; (3) the Chamber of Commerce does not coordinate the export activities of New–Tec; (4) New– Tec’s general manager has the authority to contractually bind the company to sell subject merchandise; (5) the board of directors appointed the general manager; (6) there is no restriction on its use of export revenues; and (7) New– Tec’s management decides how to dispose of the profits and New–Tec has not had a loss in the last two years. Additionally, New–Tec’s questionnaire responses do not suggest that pricing is coordinated among exporters. Furthermore, our analysis of New–Tec’s questionnaire responses reveals no other information indicating government control of export activities. Therefore, based on the information provided, we determine that there is an absence of de facto government control over New– Tec’s export functions. For the final results of this administrative review, we find an absence of government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to New– Tec’s export activities according to the criteria identified in Sparklers and an absence of government control with respect to the additional criteria identified in Silicon Carbide. Therefore, we have assigned New–Tec a separate rate. Corroboration of Facts Available 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 concerning the subject merchandise.’’ See Statement of Administrative Action (‘‘SAA’’) accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (’URAA’’), H.R. Doc. No. 103–316 at 870 (1994); see also 19 CFR 351.308(d). The SAA further provides that the term ‘‘corroborate’’ means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. See SAA at 870. Thus, to corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information used. However, unlike other types of information, such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 2907 independent sources for calculated dumping margins. Thus, in an administrative review, if the Department chooses, as partial adverse facts available (‘‘AFA’’), a calculated margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not necessary to question the reliability of the margin. The AFA rate used in this review, 70.71 percent, is the current PRC–wide rate originally calculated in the less–than-fair–value investigation and corroborated in the first administrative review. This rate has not been judicially invalidated. Therefore, we consider this rate to be reliable. See Folding Metal Tables and Chairs From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 75913, December 20, 2004 (‘‘FMTCs AR1 Final’’); see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People’s Republic of China, 67 FR 20090, 20091 (April 24, 2002) (FMTCs Final Determination). With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Nothing in the record of this review calls into question the relevance of the margin we have selected as AFA. Moreover, the selected margin is the current PRC–wide rate and is currently applicable to exporters who do not have a separate rate. Further, the selected rate of 70.71 percent was the PRC–wide rate for every prior segment of this proceeding. See FMTCs AR1 Final; see also FMTCs Final Determination. Thus, it is appropriate to use the selected rate as AFA in this review. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’ (Decision Memorandum) from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated January 9, 2006, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues that parties have raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in the Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as an Appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B–099 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, the Decision E:\FR\FM\18JAN1.SGM 18JAN1 2908 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2006 / Notices Memorandum can be accessed directly on Import Administration’s Web site at http://.ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper copy and the electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made changes in the margin calculations for New–Tec and Feili Group. The specific calculation changes can be found in our calculation memoranda dated January 9, 2006. These changes are listed below. New–Tec For the final results the Department has revised its calculation of international movement expenses so that ‘‘QTYU’’ field is not included and a per–unit international movement expenses calculated. See Decision Memorandum at Comment 6. Additionally, as we sated in the New– Tec FOP Memo, we have updated our U.S. deflator for the final results and, therefore, we adjusted our international air freight surrogate values to reflect this change. Feili Group For the final results, the Department has revised its surrogate value for wooden pallets using a HTS category for lumber since Feili Group has claimed it makes its pallets. See Decision Memorandum at Comment 8. We also changed our surrogate value labor rate to the rate issued by the Department in November 2005, consistent with the wage rate we applied to New–Tec. New–Tec and Feili Group We made several changes to the surrogate financial ratios. See Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. For the final results we use the revised financial ratios in our margin calculations. PRC–Wide Entity erjones on PROD1PC68 with NOTICES Other than finding that New–Tec is no longer part of the PRC–wide entity, we received no comments on and made no changes to our treatment of the PRC– wide entity (including Wok and Pan). Cash Deposit Requirements Administrative Protective Orders The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of the final results of administrative review for all shipments of FMTCs from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates shown above except where the margin is de minimis, no cash deposit will be required; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company–specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) the cash deposit rate for all other PRC exporters will be 70.71 percent; and 4) the cash deposit rate for non–PRC exporters will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that exporter. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under an APO in accordance with 19 C.F.R. 351.305. Timely written notification of the return/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 violation which is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 771(i) of the Act. 15:06 Jan 17, 2006 Jkt 208001 Appendix Issues in Decision Memorandum Assessment List of Comments The Department will determine, and Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) will assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with these final results of review. For the companies subject to this review, we calculated customer–specific assessment rates because there is no information on the record that identifies the importers of record. Specifically, for New–Tec and Feili Group we calculated duty assessment rates for subject merchandise based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total quantity of those sales. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of these final results of review. I. ISSUES RELATED TO BOTH RESPONDENTS Reimbursement of Duties This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their Final Results of Review responsibility under 19 C.F.R. 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the We determine that the following reimbursement of antidumping duties weighted–average, ad valorem, prior to liquidation of the relevant percentage margins exist for the period entries during this review period. June 1, 2003, through May 31, 2004: Failure to comply with this requirement Exporter/Manufacturer Margin (percent) could result in the Secretary’s presumption that reimbursement of New–Tec ....................... 0.00 antidumping duties occurred and the Feili Group .................... 0.00 subsequent assessment of doubled PRC Wide–Rate ........... 70.71 antidumping duties. VerDate Aug<31>2005 Dated: January 9, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Comment 1: Financial Ratios Comment 2: Use of Market–Economy Purchase Prices Comment 3: Surrogate Labor Rate II. ISSUES SPECIFIC TO NEW–TEC Comment 4: Treatment of Zero–Priced Transactions Comment 5: Application of Total Adverse Facts Available Comment 6: International Freight Surrogate Value Comment 7: Application of the International Freight Surrogate Value III. ISSUES SPECIFIC TO FEILI GROUP Comment 8: Wood/Pallet Surrogate Value Comment 9: Billing Adjustments to U.S. Prices Comment 10: Exclusion of Certain Market–Economy Purchases [FR Doc. E6–498 Filed 1–17–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S E:\FR\FM\18JAN1.SGM 18JAN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 18, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2905-2908]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-498]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-868]


Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of 
China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On July 11, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of the 2003 - 
2004 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on folding 
metal tables and chairs (FMTCs) from the People's Republic of China 
(PRC). The period of review (POR) is June 1, 2003, to May 31, 2004. We 
have now completed the 2003 - 2004 administrative review of the order. 
Based on comments received, we have made changes in the dumping margin 
calculations. Therefore, the final results differ from the preliminary 
results. For details regarding these changes, see the section of this 
notice entitled ``Changes Since the Preliminary Results.'' The final 
results are listed below in the ``Final Results of Review'' section.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 18, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marin Weaver or Catherine Feig, 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-
2336 and (202) 482-3962, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The preliminary results in this administrative review were 
published on July 11, 2005. See Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from 
the People's Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 39726

[[Page 2906]]

(July 11, 2005) (``Preliminary Results''). The POR is June 1, 2003, 
through May 31, 2004. The respondents in this case are Feili Furniture 
Development Ltd. Quanzhou City, Feili Furniture Development Co., Ltd., 
Feili Group (Fujian) Co., Ltd., and Feili (Fujian) Co., Ltd. 
(collectively ``Feili Group''), and New-Tec Integration (Xiamen) Co. 
Ltd. (``New-Tec''). The domestic interested parties are Meco 
Corporation (``Meco'') and Cosco Home and Office Products (``Cosco'').
    As stated in the Preliminary Results, we issued an additional 
supplemental questionnaire to New-Tec on July 1, 2005. New-Tec 
responded on July 29, 2005. On August 18, 2005, the Department issued 
another supplemental questionnaire to New-Tec. On September 7, 2005, in 
response to New-Tec's August 31, 2005, extension request, the 
Department granted an extension and also requested additional 
documentation related to the inventory reconciliation. On September 16, 
2005, in response to the Department's requests, New-Tec submitted its 
responses to both the August 18, 2005, supplemental questionnaire and 
the additional August 31, 2005, questions. In the Preliminary Results 
the Department applied total adverse facts available to New-Tec. 
However, on December 1, 2005, the Department issued a margin 
calculation for New-Tec applying partial adverse facts available. See 
Memorandum to Joseph A. Spetrini; Calculation of an Anti-Dumping Duty 
Margin of Review and Application of Partial Facts Available with an 
Adverse Inference for New-Tec Integration (Xiamen) Co., Ltd. (``New-Tec 
Memo'') (December 1, 2005), see also Memorandum to Wendy J. Frankel; 
Factors-of-Production Valuation for New-Tec Integration (Xiamen) Co., 
Ltd. Post-Preliminary Results (December 1, 2005) (``New-Tec FOP Memo'') 
and Memorandum to the File; Calculation Memorandum, New-Tec Integration 
(Xiamen) Co., Ltd. (``New-Tec Calculation Memo'') (December 1, 2005).
    On December 8, 2005, we received case briefs from Meco and the 
respondents. On December 9, 2005, we received a case brief from 
Cosco.\1\ We received rebuttal briefs from Meco and respondents on 
December 13, 2005, and from Cosco on December 14, 3005.\2\ On December 
27, 2005, the Department issued a letter to interested parties 
soliciting comments on moving indirect employee benefit expenses (e.g., 
employees provident and other funds, employees gratuity trust fund, 
workman and staff welfare expense and voluntary retirement 
compensation) in the surrogate Indian financial statements from direct 
labor costs to manufacturing overhead costs. Feili Group, New-Tec, 
Cosco and Meco all responded on December 30, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This case brief was timely because one copy was originally 
filed on December 8, 2005 as ``bracketing not final.''
    \2\ This rebuttal brief was timely because one copy was 
originally filed on December 13, 2005 as ``bracketing not final.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by this order consist of assembled and 
unassembled folding tables and folding chairs made primarily or 
exclusively from steel or other metal, as described below:
    1) Assembled and unassembled folding tables made primarily or 
exclusively from steel or other metal (folding metal tables). Folding 
metal tables include square, round, rectangular, and any other shapes 
with legs affixed with rivets, welds, or any other type of fastener, 
and which are made most commonly, but not exclusively, with a hardboard 
top covered with vinyl or fabric. Folding metal tables have legs that 
mechanically fold independently of one another, and not as a set. The 
subject merchandise is commonly, but not exclusively, packed singly, in 
multiple packs of the same item, or in five piece sets consisting of 
four chairs and one table. Specifically excluded from the scope of the 
order regarding folding metal tables are the following:
    a. Lawn furniture;
    b. Trays commonly referred to as ``TV trays'';
    c. Side tables;
    d. Child-sized tables;
    e. Portable counter sets consisting of rectangular tables 36'' high 
and matching stools; and
    f. Banquet tables. A banquet table is a rectangular table with a 
plastic or laminated wood table top approximately 28'' to 36'' wide by 
48'' to 96'' long and with a set of folding legs at each end of the 
table. One set of legs is composed of two individual legs that are 
affixed together by one or more cross-braces using welds or fastening 
hardware. In contrast, folding metal tables have legs that mechanically 
fold independently of one another, and not as a set.
    2) Assembled and unassembled folding chairs made primarily or 
exclusively from steel or other metal (folding metal chairs). Folding 
metal chairs include chairs with one or more cross-braces, regardless 
of shape or size, affixed to the front and/or rear legs with rivets, 
welds or any other type of fastener. Folding metal chairs include: 
those that are made solely of steel or other metal; those that have a 
back pad, a seat pad, or both a back pad and a seat pad; and those that 
have seats or backs made of plastic or other materials. The subject 
merchandise is commonly, but not exclusively, packed singly, in 
multiple packs of the same item, or in five piece sets consisting of 
four chairs and one table. Specifically excluded from the scope of the 
order regarding folding metal chairs are the following:
    a. Folding metal chairs with a wooden back or seat, or both;
    b. Lawn furniture;
    c. Stools;
    d. Chairs with arms; and
    e. Child-sized chairs.
    The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under subheadings 
9401.71.0010, 9401.71.0030, 9401.79.0045, 9401.79.0050, 9403.20.0010, 
9403.20.0030, 9403.70.8010, 9403.70.8020, and 9403.70.8030 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the 
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, 
the Department's written description of the merchandise is dispositive.

Separate Rates Determination for New-Tec

    The Department has treated the PRC as a non-market economy (NME) 
country in all past antidumping duty investigations and administrative 
reviews. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 
69 FR 34130 (June 18, 2004). A designation as an NME country remains in 
effect until it is revoked by the Department. See section 771(18)(C)(i) 
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
    It is the Department's standard policy to assign all exporters of 
merchandise subject to review in an NME country a single rate unless an 
exporter can demonstrate an absence of government control, with respect 
to exports. To establish whether an exporter is sufficiently 
independent of government control to be entitled to a separate rate, 
the Department analyzes the exporter in light of the criteria 
established in the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 
6, 1991) (Sparklers); and Final Determination of Sales at Less Than

[[Page 2907]]

Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 
22585 (May 2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide). Under this test, exporters in 
NME countries are entitled to separate, company-specific margins when 
they can demonstrate an absence of government control over exports, 
both in law (de jure) and in fact (de facto). Evidence supporting, 
though not requiring, a finding of de jure absence of government 
control over export activities includes: 1) an absence of restrictive 
stipulations associated with the individual exporter's business and 
export licenses; 2) any legislative enactments decentralizing control 
of companies; and 3) any other formal measures by the government 
decentralizing control of companies. De facto absence of government 
control over exports is based on four factors: 1) whether each exporter 
sets its own export prices independently of the government and without 
the approval of a government authority; 2) whether each exporter 
retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent decisions 
regarding the disposition of profits or the financing of losses; 3) 
whether each exporter has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts 
and other agreements; and 4) whether each exporter has autonomy from 
the government regarding the selection of management. See Silicon 
Carbide, 59 FR at 22587, and Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
    New-Tec is a joint venture owned by New-Tec International Inc., a 
South Korean company, and Xiamen Integration Co., Ltd. New-Tec has 
placed documents on the record to demonstrate the absence of de jure 
control including its list of shareholders, business license, and the 
Company Law. Other than limiting New-Tec to activities referenced in 
the business license, we found no restrictive stipulations associated 
with the license. In addition, in previous cases the Department has 
analyzed the Company Law and found that it establishes an absence of de 
jure control. See, e.g., Certain Non-Frozen Apple Juice Concentrate 
from the People's Republic of China: Final Results, Partial Recision 
and Termination of a Partial Deferral of the 2002-2003 Administrative 
Review, 69 FR 65148, 65150 (November 10, 2004). We have no information 
in this segment of the proceeding which would cause us to reconsider 
this determination. Therefore, based on the foregoing, we have 
preliminarily found an absence of de jure control for New Tec.
    With regard to de facto control, New-Tec reported the following: 
(1) it sets prices to the United States through negotiations with 
customers and these prices are not subject to review by any government 
organization; (2) it does not coordinate with other exporters or 
producers to set the price or determine to which market companies sell 
subject merchandise; (3) the Chamber of Commerce does not coordinate 
the export activities of New-Tec; (4) New-Tec's general manager has the 
authority to contractually bind the company to sell subject 
merchandise; (5) the board of directors appointed the general manager; 
(6) there is no restriction on its use of export revenues; and (7) New-
Tec's management decides how to dispose of the profits and New-Tec has 
not had a loss in the last two years. Additionally, New-Tec's 
questionnaire responses do not suggest that pricing is coordinated 
among exporters. Furthermore, our analysis of New-Tec's questionnaire 
responses reveals no other information indicating government control of 
export activities. Therefore, based on the information provided, we 
determine that there is an absence of de facto government control over 
New-Tec's export functions.
    For the final results of this administrative review, we find an 
absence of government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to 
New-Tec's export activities according to the criteria identified in 
Sparklers and an absence of government control with respect to the 
additional criteria identified in Silicon Carbide. Therefore, we have 
assigned New-Tec a separate rate.

Corroboration of Facts Available

    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 concerning the subject merchandise.'' See 
Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA'') accompanying the Uruguay 
Round Agreements Act ('URAA''), H.R. Doc. No. 103-316 at 870 (1994); 
see also 19 CFR 351.308(d).
    The SAA further provides that the term ``corroborate'' means that 
the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be 
used has probative value. See SAA at 870. Thus, to corroborate 
secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, 
examine the reliability and relevance of the information used. However, 
unlike other types of information, such as input costs or selling 
expenses, there are no independent sources for calculated dumping 
margins. Thus, in an administrative review, if the Department chooses, 
as partial adverse facts available (``AFA''), a calculated margin from 
a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not necessary to question the 
reliability of the margin. The AFA rate used in this review, 70.71 
percent, is the current PRC-wide rate originally calculated in the 
less-than-fair-value investigation and corroborated in the first 
administrative review. This rate has not been judicially invalidated. 
Therefore, we consider this rate to be reliable. See Folding Metal 
Tables and Chairs From the People's Republic of China: Final Results 
and Partial Rescission of First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
69 FR 75913, December 20, 2004 (``FMTCs AR1 Final''); see also Notice 
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Folding Metal 
Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 20090, 
20091 (April 24, 2002) (FMTCs Final Determination).
    With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the 
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to 
determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Nothing in the 
record of this review calls into question the relevance of the margin 
we have selected as AFA. Moreover, the selected margin is the current 
PRC-wide rate and is currently applicable to exporters who do not have 
a separate rate. Further, the selected rate of 70.71 percent was the 
PRC-wide rate for every prior segment of this proceeding. See FMTCs AR1 
Final; see also FMTCs Final Determination. Thus, it is appropriate to 
use the selected rate as AFA in this review.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this administrative review are addressed in the ``Issues and Decision 
Memorandum'' (Decision Memorandum) from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated January 9, 2006, 
which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues that 
parties have raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in 
the Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as an Appendix. 
Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this 
review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, 
which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the main 
Department of Commerce building. In addition, the Decision

[[Page 2908]]

Memorandum can be accessed directly on Import Administration's Web site 
at http://.ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper copy and the electronic version of 
the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made 
changes in the margin calculations for New-Tec and Feili Group. The 
specific calculation changes can be found in our calculation memoranda 
dated January 9, 2006. These changes are listed below.

New-Tec

    For the final results the Department has revised its calculation of 
international movement expenses so that ``QTYU'' field is not included 
and a per-unit international movement expenses calculated. See Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 6. Additionally, as we sated in the New-Tec FOP 
Memo, we have updated our U.S. deflator for the final results and, 
therefore, we adjusted our international air freight surrogate values 
to reflect this change.

Feili Group

    For the final results, the Department has revised its surrogate 
value for wooden pallets using a HTS category for lumber since Feili 
Group has claimed it makes its pallets. See Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 8. We also changed our surrogate value labor rate to the rate 
issued by the Department in November 2005, consistent with the wage 
rate we applied to New-Tec.

New-Tec and Feili Group

    We made several changes to the surrogate financial ratios. See 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. For the final results we use the 
revised financial ratios in our margin calculations.

PRC-Wide Entity

    Other than finding that New-Tec is no longer part of the PRC-wide 
entity, we received no comments on and made no changes to our treatment 
of the PRC-wide entity (including Wok and Pan).

Final Results of Review

    We determine that the following weighted-average, ad valorem, 
percentage margins exist for the period June 1, 2003, through May 31, 
2004:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Exporter/Manufacturer                  Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New-Tec.............................................                0.00
Feili Group.........................................                0.00
PRC Wide-Rate.......................................               70.71
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of this notice of the final results of administrative 
review for all shipments of FMTCs from the PRC entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as 
provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rates 
for the reviewed companies will be the rates shown above except where 
the margin is de minimis, no cash deposit will be required; (2) for 
previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above that 
have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the 
company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) the 
cash deposit rate for all other PRC exporters will be 70.71 percent; 
and 4) the cash deposit rate for non-PRC exporters will be the rate 
applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that exporter.
    These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication 
of the final results of the next administrative review.

Assessment

    The Department will determine, and Customs and Border Protection 
(``CBP'') will assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of 
subject merchandise in accordance with these final results of review. 
For the companies subject to this review, we calculated customer-
specific assessment rates because there is no information on the record 
that identifies the importers of record. Specifically, for New-Tec and 
Feili Group we calculated duty assessment rates for subject merchandise 
based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated 
for the examined sales to the total quantity of those sales. The 
Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to 
CBP within 15 days of publication of these final results of review.

Reimbursement of Duties

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 C.F.R. 351.402(f) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility 
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under an APO in accordance with 19 C.F.R. 351.305. Timely 
written notification of the return/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 violation which is 
subject to sanction.
    We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 771(i) of the Act.

    Dated: January 9, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix Issues in Decision Memorandum

List of Comments

I. ISSUES RELATED TO BOTH RESPONDENTS
Comment 1: Financial Ratios
Comment 2: Use of Market-Economy Purchase Prices
Comment 3: Surrogate Labor Rate
II. ISSUES SPECIFIC TO NEW-TEC
Comment 4: Treatment of Zero-Priced Transactions
Comment 5: Application of Total Adverse Facts Available
Comment 6: International Freight Surrogate Value
Comment 7: Application of the International Freight Surrogate Value
III. ISSUES SPECIFIC TO FEILI GROUP
Comment 8: Wood/Pallet Surrogate Value
Comment 9: Billing Adjustments to U.S. Prices
Comment 10: Exclusion of Certain Market-Economy Purchases
[FR Doc. E6-498 Filed 1-17-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S