Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 2004-2005 Semi-Annual New Shipper Reviews and Notice of Final Rescission of One New Shipper Review, 38373-38382 [E6-10488]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 129 (Thursday, July 6, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38373-38382]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-10488]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-890]


Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results of 2004-2005 Semi-Annual New Shipper Reviews and 
Notice of Final Rescission of One New Shipper Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from Shenyang Kunyu Wood Industry Co., 
Ltd. (``Kunyu''), Dongguan Landmark Furniture Products Ltd. 
(``Landmark''), Meikangchi (Nantong) Furniture Company Ltd. 
(``Meikangchi''), and WBE Industries (Hui-Yang) Co., Ltd. (``WBE''), 
the U.S. Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting new 
shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom 
furniture from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''). The period of 
review (``POR'') is June 24, 2004, through June 30, 2005.
    We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below 
normal value (``NV'') by Kunyu and Meikangchi. However, we have also 
preliminarily determined that sales have not been made below normal 
value by Landmark. If these preliminary results are adopted in our 
final results of these reviews, we will instruct U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on entries of 
subject merchandise during the POR for which the importer-specific 
assessment rates are above de minimis. Additionally, we have rescinded 
the new shipper review for WBE.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results.

[[Page 38374]]

Parties who submit comments are requested to submit with each argument 
a statement of the issue and a brief summary of the argument. We will 
issue the final results no later than 90 days from the date of 
publication of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 6, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Holton or Eugene Degnan, 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-
1324 and (202) 482-0414, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Department published an antidumping duty order on wooden 
bedroom furniture from the PRC on January 4, 2005. See Notice of 
Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Antidumping Duty Order: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's 
Republic of China, 70 FR 329 (January 4, 2005). On July 8, 2005, we 
received a timely request for a new shipper review from Kunyu. On July 
28, 2005, we received timely requests for new shipper reviews from 
Landmark and Meikangchi. On August 1, 2005, we received a timely 
request for a new shipper review from WBE. Pursuant to section 
751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''), and 
19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), we initiated the above-mentioned four new shipper 
reviews for shipments of wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC.
    On September 8, 2005, the Department published a notice of the 
initiation of the new shipper reviews of Kunyu, Landmark, Meikangchi, 
and WBE. See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of 
China; Initiation of New Shipper Reviews, 70 FR 53344 (September 8, 
2005).
    On September 22, 2005, we issued antidumping duty questionnaires to 
Kunyu, Landmark, Meikangchi, and WBE. In October and November 2005, we 
received responses to the questionnaires from Kunyu, Landmark, 
Meikangchi, and WBE. From November 2005 to April 2006, the Department 
issued supplemental questionnaires to the respondents and received 
timely responses.
    On December 19, 2005, Petitioners\1\ requested that the Department 
conduct verification of the questionnaire responses submitted by Kunyu, 
Landmark, Meikangchi, and WBE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The American Furniture Manufacturers Committee for Legal 
Trade and its individual members and the Cabinet Makers, Millmen, 
and Industrial Carpenters Local 721; UBC Southern Council of 
Industrial Workers Local Union 2305; United Steel Workers of America 
Local 193U; Carpenters Industrial Union Local 2093; and Teamsters, 
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Local 991 (``Petitioners'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 28, 2006, we extended the deadline for the issuance of 
the preliminary results of these new shipper reviews until June 26, 
2006. See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: 
Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of New Shipper 
Reviews, 71 FR 10010 (February 28, 2006).
    On June 5, 2006, the Department preliminarily determined to rescind 
the new shipper review of WBE based on evidence that WBE exported 
subject merchandise during the period of investigation and, therefore, 
does not meet the requirements for initiation of a new shipper review 
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(a) and (b). See Memorandum from Wendy J. 
Frankel, Director Office 8 to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, Wooden Bedroom Furniture from The 
People's Republic of China: Intent to Rescind the New Shipper Review of 
WBE Industries (Hui-Yang) Co., Ltd. WBE Rescission (``WBE Rescission 
Memo''). On June 6, 2006, we issued a letter to all interested parties 
requesting parties to provide comments on this issue by June 13, 2006, 
and rebuttal comments by June 16, 2006. Due to the unexpected emergency 
closure of the main Commerce building on Monday, June 26, 2006, the 
Department is issuing these preliminary results on June 27, 2006, the 
next business day. See Notice of Clarification: Application of ``Next 
Business Day'' Rule for Administrative Determination Deadlines Pursuant 
to the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005).

Period of Review

    The POR is June 24, 2004, through June 30, 2005.

Scope of the Order

    The product covered by the order is wooden bedroom furniture. 
Wooden bedroom furniture is generally, but not exclusively, designed, 
manufactured, and offered for sale in coordinated groups, or bedrooms, 
in which all of the individual pieces are of approximately the same 
style and approximately the same material and/or finish. The subject 
merchandise is made substantially of wood products, including both 
solid wood and also engineered wood products made from wood particles, 
fibers, or other wooden materials such as plywood, oriented strand 
board, particle board, and fiberboard, with or without wood veneers, 
wood overlays, or laminates, with or without non-wood components or 
trim such as metal, marble, leather, glass, plastic, or other resins, 
and whether or not assembled, completed, or finished.
    The subject merchandise includes the following items: (1) wooden 
beds such as loft beds, bunk beds, and other beds; (2) wooden 
headboards for beds (whether stand-alone or attached to side rails), 
wooden footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and wooden 
canopies for beds; (3) night tables, night stands, dressers, commodes, 
bureaus, mule chests, gentlemen's chests, bachelor's chests, lingerie 
chests, wardrobes, vanities, chessers, chifforobes, and wardrobe-type 
cabinets; (4) dressers with framed glass mirrors that are attached to, 
incorporated in, sit on, or hang over the dresser; (5) chests-on-
chests\2\, highboys\3\, lowboys\4\, chests of drawers\5\, chests\6\, 
door chests\7\, chiffoniers\8\, hutches\9\, and armoires\10\; (6) 
desks, computer stands, filing cabinets, book cases, or writing tables 
that are attached to or incorporated in the subject merchandise; and 
(7) other bedroom furniture consistent with the above list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A chest-on-chest is typically a tall chest-of-drawers in two 
or more sections (or appearing to be in two or more sections), with 
one or two sections mounted (or appearing to be mounted) on a 
slightly larger chest; also known as a tallboy.
    \3\ A highboy is typically a tall chest of drawers usually 
composed of a base and a top section with drawers, and supported on 
four legs or a small chest (often 15 inches or more in height).
    \4\ A lowboy is typically a short chest of drawers, not more 
than four feet high, normally set on short legs.
    \5\ A chest of drawers is typically a case containing drawers 
for storing clothing.
    \6\ A chest is typically a case piece taller than it is wide 
featuring a series of drawers and with or without one or more doors 
for storing clothing. The piece can either include drawers or be 
designed as a large box incorporating a lid.
    \7\ A door chest is typically a chest with hinged doors to store 
clothing, whether or not containing drawers. The piece may also 
include shelves for televisions and other entertainment electronics.
    \8\ A chiffonier is typically a tall and narrow chest of drawers 
normally used for storing undergarments and lingerie, often with 
mirror(s) attached.
    \9\ A hutch is typically an open case of furniture with shelves 
that typically sits on another piece of furniture and provides 
storage for clothes.
    \10\ An armoire is typically a tall cabinet or wardrobe 
(typically 50 inches or taller), with doors, and with one or more 
drawers (either exterior below or above the doors or interior behind 
the doors), shelves, and/or garment rods or other apparatus for 
storing clothes. Bedroom armoires may also be used to hold 
television receivers and/or other audio-visual entertainment 
systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The scope of the order excludes the following items: (1) seats, 
chairs, benches, couches, sofas, sofa beds, stools, and other seating 
furniture; (2) mattresses, mattress supports (including

[[Page 38375]]

box springs), infant cribs, water beds, and futon frames; (3) office 
furniture, such as desks, stand-up desks, computer cabinets, filing 
cabinets, credenzas, and bookcases; (4) dining room or kitchen 
furniture such as dining tables, chairs, servers, sideboards, buffets, 
corner cabinets, china cabinets, and china hutches; (5) other non-
bedroom furniture, such as television cabinets, cocktail tables, end 
tables, occasional tables, wall systems, book cases, and entertainment 
systems; (6) bedroom furniture made primarily of wicker, cane, osier, 
bamboo or rattan; (7) side rails for beds made of metal if sold 
separately from the headboard and footboard; (8) bedroom furniture in 
which bentwood parts predominate\11\; (9) jewelry armories\12\; (10) 
cheval mirrors\13\ (11) certain metal parts\14\ (12) mirrors that do 
not attach to, incorporate in, sit on, or hang over a dresser if they 
are not designed and marketed to be sold in conjunction with a dresser 
as part of a dresser-mirror set.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ As used herein, bentwood means solid wood made pliable. 
Bentwood is wood that is brought to a curved shape by bending it 
while made pliable with moist heat or other agency and then set by 
cooling or drying. See Customs' Headquarters' Ruling Letter 043859, 
dated May 17, 1976.
    \12\ Any armoire, cabinet or other accent item for the purpose 
of storing jewelry, not to exceed 24'' in width, 18'' in depth, and 
49'' in height, including a minimum of 5 lined drawers lined with 
felt or felt-like material, at least one side door lined with felt 
or felt-like material, with necklace hangers, and a flip-top lid 
with inset mirror. See Memorandum from Laurel LaCivita to Laurie 
Parkhill, Office Director, Issues and Decision Memorandum Concerning 
Jewelry Armoires and Cheval Mirrors in the Antidumping Duty 
Investigation of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic 
of China, dated August 31, 2004.
    \13\ Cheval mirrors, i.e., any framed, tiltable mirror with a 
height in excess of 50'' that is mounted on a floor-standing, hinged 
base.
    \14\ Metal furniture parts and unfinished furniture parts made 
of wood products (as defined above) that are not otherwise 
specifically named in this scope (i.e., wooden headboards for beds, 
wooden footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and wooden 
canopies for beds) and that do not possess the essential character 
of wooden bedroom furniture in an unassembled, incomplete, or 
unfinished form. Such parts are usually classified in subheading 
9403.90.7000, HTSUS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Imports of subject merchandise are classified under statistical 
category 9403.50.9040 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States (``HTSUS'') as ``wooden...beds'' and under statistical category 
9403.50.9080 of the HTSUS as ``other...wooden furniture of a kind used 
in the bedroom.'' In addition, wooden headboards for beds, wooden 
footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and wooden canopies 
for beds may also be entered under statistical category 9403.50.9040 of 
the HTSUS as ``parts of wood'' and framed glass mirrors may also be 
entered under statistical category 7009.92.5000 of the HTSUS as ``glass 
mirrors...framed.'' This order covers all wooden bedroom furniture 
meeting the above description, regardless of tariff classification. 
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs 
purposes, the written description of the scope of this proceeding is 
dispositive.

Rescission of Review

    On June 5, 2006, the Department preliminarily determined to rescind 
the new shipper review of WBE based on evidence that WBE exported 
subject merchandise during the period of investigation and, therefore, 
does not meet the requirements for initiation of a new shipper review 
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(a) and (b). See WBE Rescission Memo. We 
requested comments on our preliminary rescission. The Department did 
not receive any comments. Therefore, we are rescinding the new shipper 
review of WBE based on evidence that WBE exported subject merchandise 
during the period of investigation and, therefore, does not meet the 
requirements for initiation of a new shipper review pursuant to our 
regulations.

New Shipper Status

    Consistent with our practice, we investigated whether the sales 
made by Kunyu, Landmark, and Meikangchi for these new shipper reviews 
were bona fide. See, e.g., Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty New 
Shipper Review: Honey from the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 59031 
(October 11, 2005). For Kunyu, Landmark, and Meikangchi, we found no 
evidence that the sale(s) in question are not bona fide sale(s). In our 
examination of Kunyu, Landmark, and Meikangchi's sales, we found the 
sales prices to be within the range of POR sales prices, and that these 
entities received timely payment for their POR sales. Based on our 
investigation into the bona fide nature of the sales, the questionnaire 
responses submitted by Kunyu, Landmark, and Meikangchi, and our 
verification thereof, we preliminarily determine that Kunyu, Landmark, 
and Meikangchi have met the requirements to qualify as new shippers 
during the POR. See Memorandum to Wendy J. Frankel, Office Director, 
Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Order on 
Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Bona Fide 
Analysis of Shenyang Kunyu Wood Industry Co., Ltd. (``Kunyu''), 
Dongguan Landmark Furniture Products Ltd. (``Landmark''), and 
Meikangchi (Nantong) Furniture Company Ltd. (``Meikangchi''), dated 
June 26, 2006. In addition, we have preliminarily determined that based 
on the information submitted, Kunyu, Landmark, and Meikangchi each made 
their first sale and/or shipment of subject merchandise to the United 
States during the POR, none exported subject merchandise during the 
period of investigation, and none was affiliated with any exporter or 
producer that had previously shipped subject merchandise to the United 
States. Therefore, for purposes of these preliminary results of review, 
we are treating the respective sales of wooden bedroom furniture to the 
United States as appropriate transactions to be examined in the context 
of these new shipper reviews. See Section 751 (a)(2)(B) of the Act and 
19 CFR 351.214(a); See also ``Separate Rates''; section below.

Verification of Responses

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified information 
provided by Kunyu, Landmark, and Meikangchi. We used standard 
verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the 
manufacturers' and exporters' facilities, and examination of relevant 
sales and financial records. Our verification results are outlined in 
the verification reports identified, the public versions of which are 
on file in the Central Records Unit (``CRU''), Room B-099 of the main 
Department building. See Verification of Sales and Factors of 
Production Reported by Kunyu Wood Industry Co., Ltd. (``Kunyu'') in the 
Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from 
the People's Republic of China, dated June 26, 2006 (``Kunyu 
Verification Report''); Verification of Sales and Factors of Production 
Reported by Dongguan Landmark Furniture Products Ltd. (``Landmark'') in 
the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture 
from the People's Republic of China, dated June 26, 2006; Verification 
of Sales and Factors of Production Reported by Meikangchi (Nantong) 
Furniture Company Ltd. (``Meikangchi'') in the Antidumping Duty New 
Shipper Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic 
of China, dated June 26, 2006 (``Meikangchi Verification Report''); and 
Verification of the Constructed Export Sales Reported by Up Country in 
the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture 
from the People's Republic of China, dated June 26, 2006 (``Up Country 
Verification Report'').

[[Page 38376]]

Surrogate Value Information

    On December 7, 2005, Landmark submitted comments on the appropriate 
surrogate values (``SV'') to be applied to the factors of production 
(``FOP'') in this review. On April 11, 2006, Petitioners submitted 
Indian financial statements for determining financial ratios for this 
review. No other party to the proceeding provided comments on surrogate 
values or financial ratios during the course of this review.

Non-market Economy Country Status

    In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the 
PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (``NME'') country. In 
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination 
that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until 
revoked by the administering authority. See Tapered Roller Bearings and 
Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of 
China: Preliminary Results 2001-2002 Administrative Review and Partial 
Rescission of Review, 68 FR 7500 (February 14, 2003). None of the 
parties to this proceeding has contested such treatment. Accordingly, 
we calculated normal value (``NV'') in accordance with section 773(c) 
of the Act, which applies to NME countries.

Surrogate Country

    When the Department is investigating imports from an NME country, 
section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV, in most 
circumstances, on the NME producer's FOPs, valued in a surrogate market 
economy country or countries considered to be appropriate by the 
Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing 
the FOPs, the Department shall utilize, to the extent possible, the 
prices or costs of FOPs in one or more market economy countries that 
are: (1) at a level of economic development comparable to that of the 
NME country; and (2) significant producers of comparable merchandise. 
The sources of the SVs are discussed under the ``Normal Value'' section 
below and in the Memorandum to the File, Factors Valuations for the 
Preliminary Results of the New Shipper Reviews, dated June 26, 2006 
(``Factor Valuation Memorandum''), which is on file in the CRU.
    The Department has determined that India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the 
Philippines, and Egypt are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of 
economic development. See Memorandum to the File, New Shipper Reviews 
of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China (PRC): 
Request for a List of Surrogate Countries, dated October 14, 2005, 
which is on file in the CRU.
    On November 1, 2005, Meikangchi submitted comments regarding the 
selection of a surrogate country. Meikangchi argued that India is not 
an important producer of subject merchandise or comparable merchandise. 
Meikangchi asserted that India produces primarily furniture in the 
style indigenous to India. Meikangchi asserts that it is also an 
importer of wooden bedroom furniture through its U.S. affiliate, Up 
Country Inc., and, as an importer, it would not consider India as a 
source for the subject merchandise in this review. Meikangchi argued 
that India is known for textiles and metal work, and has not 
demonstrated the ability to manufacture the type of furniture under 
review. Meikangchi asserts that of the countries chosen by the 
Department as being at a level of economic development comparable to 
that of the PRC, Indonesia is the most appropriate choice as a 
surrogate country. Meikangchi argues that, although it has no evidence 
to support its choice, in its experience as an importer, only Indonesia 
is known, in the furniture industry, to produce large amounts of wooden 
furniture. Therefore, Meikangchi stated that Indonesia is the best 
choice for a surrogate country.
    On November 2, 2005, Petitioners provided comments and 
information\15\ regarding the selection of a surrogate country. 
Petitioners argue that India is the appropriate surrogate country for 
the PRC because India is at a level of economic development comparable 
to that of the PRC and is a significant producer of the subject 
merchandise. Additionally, Petitioners state that the Department has 
consistently used India as the surrogate for the PRC. Further, 
Petitioners argue that the size of the Indian furniture industry, the 
types of materials used by the Indian furniture industry, and the 
number of producers in the Indian furniture industry all make India a 
significant producer of both identical and comparable merchandise. No 
other party to the proceeding submitted comments or information 
concerning the selection of a surrogate country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Petitioners' submission dated November 2, 2005, 
``Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture 
from The Peoples's Republic of China/Comments on Selection of 
Surrogate Country.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 16, 2006, the Department issued its surrogate country 
memorandum in which we addressed both interested parties comments. See 
Memorandum to the File, Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Wooden 
Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Selection of a 
Surrogate Country, dated February 16, 2006 (``Surrogate Country 
Memorandum''), which is on file in the CRU. Thus, the Department has 
evaluated all parties' concerns and comments and has determined that 
India is the appropriate surrogate country to use in these new shipper 
reviews. The Department based its decision on the following facts: 1) 
India is at a level of economic development comparable to that of the 
PRC; 2) India is a significant producer of comparable merchandise; and, 
3) India provides the best opportunity to use quality, publicly 
available data to value the FOPs. See Surrogate Country Memorandum.
    Therefore, we have selected India as the surrogate country and, 
accordingly, we have calculated NV using Indian prices to value the 
respondents' FOPs, when available and appropriate. We have obtained and 
relied upon publicly available information wherever possible. See 
(``Factor Valuation Memorandum''). In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results in an antidumping new shipper 
review, interested parties may submit publicly available information to 
value FOPs within 20 days after the date of publication of these 
preliminary results.

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department begins with 
a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are 
subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single 
antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign 
all exporters of merchandise subject to review in an NME country this 
single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently 
independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. The three 
respondents (i.e., Kunyu, Landmark, and Meikangchi) have provided 
company-specific information and each has stated that it meets the 
standards for the assignment of a separate rate.
    We have considered whether each of the three companies referenced 
above is eligible for a separate rate. The Department's separate-rate 
test to determine whether the exporters are independent from government 
control does not consider, in general, macroeconomic/border-type 
controls, e.g., export licenses, quotas, and minimum export prices, 
particularly if these controls are imposed to prevent dumping. The test 
focuses, rather, on

[[Page 38377]]

controls over the investment, pricing, and output decision-making 
process at the individual firm level. See, e.g., Certain Cut-to-Length 
Carbon Steel Plate from Ukraine: Final Determination of Sales at Less 
than Fair Value, 62 FR 61754, 61758 (November 19, 1997); and Tapered 
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the 
People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997).
    To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from 
government control of its export activities to be entitled to a 
separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the 
subject merchandise under a test arising from 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''), as amplified by 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide 
from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2,1994). In 
accordance with the separate-rates criteria, the Department assigns 
separate rates in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the 
absence of both de jure and de facto government control over export 
activities.

1. Absence of De Jure Control

    The Department considers the following de jure criteria in 
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate 
rate: (1) an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an 
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative 
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal 
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See 
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.

2. Absence of De Facto Control

    Through previous cases, the Department has learned that certain 
enactments of the PRC central government have not been implemented 
uniformly among different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. See 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Preserved 
Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China, 63 FR 72255 (December 
31, 1998). Therefore, the Department has determined that an analysis of 
de facto control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in 
fact, subject to a degree of government control which would preclude 
the Department from assigning separate rates. The Department considers 
four factors in evaluating whether each respondent is subject to de 
facto government control of its export functions: (1) whether the 
exporter sets its own export prices independent of the government and 
without the approval of a government authority; (2) whether the 
respondent has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts, and other 
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government 
in making decisions regarding the selection of its management; and (4) 
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and 
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or 
financing of losses.

Kunyu

    Kunyu placed on the record statements and documents to demonstrate 
absence of de jure control. In its questionnaire responses, Kunyu 
reported that it does not have any relationship with the central, 
provincial, or local governments. See Kunyu's October 18, 2005, Section 
A questionnaire response (``Kunyu AQR''). Kunyu submitted a copy of its 
business license and stated it is renewed annually and The Bureau of 
Industry and Commerce examines the license yearly. Kunyu reported that 
the subject merchandise did not appear on any government list regarding 
export provisions or export licensing, and the subject merchandise is 
not subject to export quotas. See Kunyu AQR. Kunyu explained that the 
license imposes no other limitations on Kunyu, nor grants any 
entitlements to the company by its license. Through the questionnaire 
responses, we examined each of the related laws and Kunyu's business 
license and preliminarily determine that they demonstrate the absence 
of de jure control over the export activities and evidence in favor of 
the absence of government control associated with Kunyu's business 
license.
    In support of an absence of de facto control, Kunyu reported the 
following: (1) During the POR, Kunyu explained that it sold the subject 
merchandise in the United States directly to unaffiliated U.S. 
customers. The prices are not subject to review by, or guidance from, 
any other entity, including any government organization; (2) Kunyu 
explained that its sales transactions are not subject to the review or 
approval of any organization outside the company; (3) Kunyu is not 
required to notify any government authorities of its management 
selection; and (4) Kunyu is free to spend its export revenues and its 
profit can be used for any lawful purpose. See Kunyu AQR.
    The evidence placed on the record of this new shipper review by 
Kunyu demonstrates an absence of government control, both in law and in 
fact, with respect to Kunyu's exports of the merchandise under review. 
As a result, for the purposes of these preliminary results, the 
Department is granting a separate, company-specific rate to Kunyu, the 
exporter which shipped the subject merchandise to the United States 
during the POR.

Landmark

    Landmark placed on the record statements and documents to 
demonstrate absence of de jure control. In its questionnaire responses, 
Landmark reported that it does not have any relationship with the 
central, provincial, or local governments with respect to ownership, 
internal management, and daily business operations. See Landmark's 
October 13, 2005, Section A questionnaire response (``Landmark AQR''). 
Landmark submitted a copy of its business license. Landmark reported 
that the subject merchandise did not appear on any government list 
regarding export provisions or export licensing, and the subject 
merchandise is not subject to export quotas. See Landmark AQR. Landmark 
explained that the license imposes no other limitations on Landmark, 
nor grants any entitlements to the company by its license. Through the 
questionnaire responses, we examined the related laws and Landmark's 
business license and preliminarily determine that they demonstrate the 
absence of de jure control over the export activities and evidence in 
favor of the absence of government control associated with Landmark's 
business license.
    In support of an absence of de facto control, Landmark reported the 
following: (1) During the POR, Landmark explained that it sold the 
subject merchandise in the United States directly to unaffiliated U.S. 
customers; (2) Landmark explained that its sales prices are not subject 
to the review or approval of any organization outside the company; (3) 
Landmark is not required to notify any government authorities of its 
management selection; and (4) Landmark is free to spend its export 
revenues and its profit can be used for any lawful purpose. See 
Landmark AQR.
    The evidence placed on the record of this new shipper review by 
Landmark demonstrates an absence of government control, both in law and 
in fact, with respect to Landmark's exports of the merchandise under 
review. As a result, for the purposes of these preliminary results, the 
Department is granting a separate, company-specific rate to

[[Page 38378]]

Landmark, the exporter which shipped the subject merchandise to the 
United States during the POR.

Meikangchi

    Meikangchi placed on the record statements and documents to 
demonstrate absence of de jure control. In its questionnaire responses, 
Meikangchi reported that it does not have any relationship with the 
central, provincial, or local governments. See Meikangchi's October 12, 
2005, Section A questionnaire response (``Meikangchi AQR''). Meikangchi 
submitted a copy of its business license and stated it is renewed 
annually and the Industrial and Commerical Administration Bureau of 
Nantong, Jiangsu Province examines the license yearly. Meikangchi 
reported that the subject merchandise did not appear on any government 
list regarding export provisions or export licensing, and the subject 
merchandise is not subject to export quotas. See Meikancghi AQR. 
Meikancghi explained that the license imposes no other limitations on 
Meikancghi, nor grants any entitlements to the company by its license. 
Through the questionnaire responses, we examined each of the related 
laws and Meikancghi's business license and preliminarily determine that 
they demonstrate the absence of de jure control over the export 
activities and evidence in favor of the absence of government control 
associated with Meikangchi's business license.
    In support of an absence of de facto control, Meikangchi reported 
the following: (1) During the POR, Meikangchi explained that it sold 
the subject merchandise in the United States through its U.S. 
affiliated company, Up Country, Inc. The prices are not subject to 
review by, or guidance from, any other entity, including any government 
organization; (2) Meikangchi explained that it set its sales prices and 
they are not subject to the review or approval of any organization 
outside the company; (3) Meikangchi is not required to notify any 
government authorities of its management selection; and (4) Meikangchi 
is free to spend its export revenues and its profit can be used for any 
lawful purpose. See Meikangchi AQR.
    The evidence placed on the record of this new shipper review by 
Meikangchi demonstrates an absence of government control, both in law 
and in fact, with respect to Meikangchi's exports of the merchandise 
under review. As a result, for the purposes of these preliminary 
results, the Department is granting a separate, company-specific rate 
to Meikangchi, the exporter which shipped the subject merchandise to 
the United States during the POR.

Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act provides that the Department 
shall apply ``facts otherwise available'' where necessary information 
is not on the record or an interested party or any other person (A) 
withholds information that has been requested, (B) fails to provide 
information within the deadlines established, or in the form and manner 
requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of 
section 782, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D) provides 
information that cannot be verified as provided by section 782(i) of 
the Act.
    Where the Department determines that a response to a request for 
information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act 
provides that the Department shall so inform the party submitting the 
response and shall, to the extent practicable, provide that party the 
opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to 
remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits, subject to 
section 782(e) of the Act, the Department may disregard all or part of 
the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Section 782(e) 
of the Act provides that the Department ``shall not decline to consider 
information that is submitted by an interested party and is necessary 
to the determination but does not meet all applicable requirements 
established by the administering authority'' if the information is 
timely, can be verified, is not so incomplete that it cannot be used, 
and if the interested party acted to the best of its ability in 
providing the information. Where all of these conditions are met, the 
statute requires the Department to use the information if it can do so 
without undue difficulties.
    We have determined that the use of facts available is warranted for 
Kunyu's consumption rates for certain FOPs in the determination of NV. 
During Kunyu's FOP verification, we determined that Kunyu was unable to 
wholly reproduce its total consumption of certain inputs that it had 
provided in its questionnaire responses. See Kunyu Verification Report. 
However, most consumption rates obtained at verification were close to 
the consumption rates Kunyu reported in its responses, with certain 
differences appearing to be due to rounding errors. Also, due to 
Kunyu's small size and rudimentary factory operations, the company 
explained that it does not maintain product-specific records reflecting 
gross consumption, nor does it maintain inventory withdrawal 
documentation or production records that allow for per-unit or product-
specific allocation of gross consumption. Additionally, based on 
Kunyu's responsiveness and cooperation at verification, and relying on 
the Department's experience in examining other furniture companies, it 
is evident that Kunyu has not benefitted from its reported consumption 
rates. Further, in its responses and at verification, the Department 
observes that Kunyu has made every effort to act to the best of its 
ability and to provide the Department with the requested information. 
Kunyu is a pro se respondent previously unfamiliar with our 
proceedings. We note, however, that in future reviews of this 
proceeding, all respondents, including Kunyu, must comply with all 
requests for information by the Department, and therefore, should 
maintain the appropriate books and records to comply with these 
requests and should provide the requisite supporting documentation. If 
respondents are unable to comply with such requests in the future, the 
Department may resort to the use of adverse facts available if 
appropriate.
    For the above reasons and pursuant to section 776(a)(1)(D) of the 
Act, we have resorted to the facts otherwise available to determine the 
consumption rates for certain inputs. The Department finds that Kunyu 
acted to the best of its ability in complying with the Department's 
numerous requests for information. Thus, we find an adverse inference 
is not warranted for the consumption rates for the above inputs 
pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. The Department is applying facts 
available for birchwood, plywood, woodscrews, dowels, glue, finishes, 
drawerslides, sandpaper, boxes, package paper, and tape. As facts 
available, we are using the reported information obtained at 
verification for each of the above inputs. See Memorandum to the file 
from Michael Holton, Case Analyst, through Robert Bolling, Program 
Manager, Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review of Wooden Bedroom 
Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Program Analysis for the 
Preliminary Results of Review: Shenyang Kunyu Wood Industry Co., Ltd. 
(``Kunyu''), dated June 26, 2006, (``Kunyu Prelim Analysis 
Memorandum'').

Date of Sale

    Section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations provides that 
the Department will normally use the date of invoice, as recorded in 
the exporter or producer's records kept in the normal course of 
business, as the date of sale of

[[Page 38379]]

the subject merchandise. However, the Department may use a date other 
than the date of invoice if it is satisfied that a different date 
better reflects the date on which the exporter or producer establishes 
the material terms of sale. 19 CFR 351.401(i); see also Allied Tube and 
Conduit Corp. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 1090 (CIT 2001).
    After examining the questionnaire responses and the sales 
documentation that Kunyu, Landmark, and Meikangchi placed on the 
record, we preliminarily determine that invoice date is the most 
appropriate date of sale for Kunyu, Landmark, and Meikangchi. We made 
this determination based on record evidence which demonstrates that 
Kunyu, Landmark, and Meikangchi's invoices establish the material terms 
of sale to the extent required by our regulations.

Normal Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of wooden bedroom furniture to the 
United States by Kunyu, Landmark, and Meikangchi were made at less than 
NV, we compared export price (``EP'') or constructed export price 
(``CEP'') to NV, as described in the ``Export Price,'' ``Constructed 
Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice.

Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, EP is the price at 
which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) 
before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the 
subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for 
exportation to the United States, as adjusted under section 772(c) of 
the Act. In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we used EP for 
Kunyu and Landmark's U.S. sales because the subject merchandise was 
sold directly to the unaffiliated customers in the United States prior 
to importation and because CEP was not otherwise indicated.

Constructed Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, CEP is the price at 
which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in 
the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the 
account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller 
affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated 
with the producer or exporter, as adjusted under sections 772(c) and 
(d). In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we used CEP for 
Meikangchi's sales because it sold subject merchandise to its 
affiliated company in the United States, which in turn sold subject 
merchandise to unaffiliated U.S. customers.
    We compared NV to individual EP and CEP transactions, in accordance 
with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act.

Kunyu

    For Kunyu's EP sales, we based the EP on delivered prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. In accordance with 
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we made deductions from the starting 
price for movement expenses. Movement expenses include expenses for 
foreign inland freight from the plant to the port of exportation, 
domestic brokerage and handling, international freight and marine 
insurance. See the proprietary discussion of this issue in the Kunyu 
Prelim Analysis Memorandum.

Landmark

    For Landmark's EP sales, we based the EP on delivered prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. In accordance with 
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we made deductions from the starting 
price for movement expenses. Movement expenses include expenses for 
foreign inland freight from the plant to the port of exportation, and 
domestic brokerage and handling. See the proprietary discussion of this 
issue in the Memorandum from Eugene Degnan, Case Analyst, through 
Robert Bolling, Program Manager, to the File, Preliminary Results of 
New Shipper Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's 
Republic of China: Program Analysis for the Preliminary Results of 
Review: Dongguan Landmark Furniture Products Ltd. (``Landmark''), dated 
June 26, 2006.

Meikangchi

    For Meikangchi's CEP sales, we based the CEP on delivered prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. In accordance with 
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we made deductions from the starting 
price for movement expenses. Movement expenses include expenses for 
foreign inland freight from the plant to the port of exportation, 
domestic brokerage and handling, international freight, marine 
insurance, U.S. brokerage and handling, U.S. duty, and inland freight 
from the warehouse to the unaffiliated U.S. customer. In accordance 
with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, the Department additionally deducted 
credit expenses, inventory carrying costs and indirect selling expenses 
from the U.S. price, all of which relate to commercial activity in the 
United States. Finally, we determined and deducted CEP profit in 
accordance with sections 772(f) and 772(d)(3) of the Act. See the 
proprietary discussion of these issues in the Memorandum from Michael 
Holton, Case Analyst, through Robert Bolling, Program Manager, to the 
File, Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review of Wooden Bedroom 
Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Program Analysis for the 
Preliminary Results of Review: Meikangchi (Nantong) Furniture Company 
Ltd. (``Meikangchi''), dated June 26, 2006 (``Meikangchi Prelim 
Analysis Memorandum'').
    At verification, we found that Up Country (Meikangchi's U.S. 
affiliate) incorrectly calculated its indirect selling expenses by 
limiting its numerator of selling expenses to only a few expenses and 
by applying an incorrect denominator. See Up Country Verification 
Report. Thus, for the preliminary results, we have recalculated 
indirect selling expenses based on information from Up Country's 
verification. See Meikangchi Prelim Analysis Memorandum.
    As all foreign inland freight and foreign brokerage and handling 
expenses (where applicable) were provided by PRC service providers or 
paid for in renminbi, we valued these services using Indian SVs (see 
``Factor Valuations'' section below for further discussion). See Factor 
Valuation Memorandum.

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine the NV using a FOP methodology if: (1) the merchandise is 
exported from an NME country; and (2) the information does not permit 
the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, 
or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. When determining 
NV in an NME context, the Department will base NV on FOP, because the 
presence of government controls on various aspects of these economies 
renders price comparisons and the calculation of production costs 
invalid under our normal methodologies. Under section 772(c)(3) of the 
Act, FOP include but are not limited to: (1) hours of labor required; 
(2) quantities of raw materials employed; (3) amounts of energy and 
other utilities consumed; and (4) representative capital costs. We used 
FOP reported by respondents for materials, energy, labor and packing.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), the Department will 
normally use publicly available

[[Page 38380]]

information to value FOPs, but when a producer sources an input from a 
market economy and pays for it in market-economy currency, the 
Department will normally value the factor using the actual price paid 
for the input. See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1); see also Lasko Metal Products, 
Inc. v. United States, 43 F.3d 1442, 1446 (Fed. Cir. 1994). However, 
when the Department has reason to believe or suspect that such prices 
may be distorted by subsidies, the Department will disregard the NME 
purchase prices and use SVs to determine the NV. See Tapered Roller 
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's 
Republic of China; Final Results of the 1998-1999 Administrative 
Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and Determination Not to Revoke 
Order in Part, 66 FR 1953 (January 10, 2001) (``TRBs 1998-1999''), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
    It is the Department's consistent practice that, where the facts 
developed in the United States or third-country countervailing duty 
findings include the existence of subsidies that appear to be used 
generally (in particular, broadly available, non-industry specific 
export subsidies), it is reasonable for the Department to consider that 
it has particular and objective evidence to support a reason to believe 
or suspect that prices of the inputs from the country granting the 
subsidies may be subsidized. See TRBs 1998-1999 and accompanying Issues 
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1; see also Tapered Roller Bearings 
and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic 
of China; Final Results of 1999-2000 Administrative Review, Partial 
Rescission of Review, and Determination Not To Revoke Order in Part, 66 
FR 57420 (November 15, 2001), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 1; see also China National Machinery Imp. & Exp. 
Corp. v. United States, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1338-39 (CIT 2003).
    With regard to the Indian import-based SVs, we have disregarded 
import prices that we have reason to believe or suspect may be 
subsidized. We have reason to believe or suspect that prices of inputs 
from Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand may have been subsidized. We 
have found in other proceedings that these countries maintain broadly 
available, non-industry-specific export subsidies and, therefore, it is 
reasonable to infer that all exports to all markets from these 
countries may be subsidized. See TRBs 1998-1999 and accompanying Issues 
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. In avoiding the use of prices 
that may be subsidized the Department does not conducte a formal 
investigation to ensure that such prices are not subsidized. See also 
H.R. Rep. 100-576, at 590 (1988), reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 
1623-24. Rather, the Department bases its decision on information that 
is available to it at the time of its determination. Id. Accordingly, 
we have not used prices from Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand in 
calculating the Indian import-based SVs.

Factor Valuations

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on FOPs reported by respondents for the POR. To calculate NV, we 
multiplied the reported per-unit factor quantities by publicly 
available Indian SVs (except as noted below). In selecting the 
surrogate values, we considered the quality, specificity, and 
contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices 
by including freight costs to make them delivered prices. Specifically, 
we added to Indian import SVs a surrogate freight cost using the 
shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the 
factory or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory where 
appropriate (i.e., where the sales terms for the market-economy inputs 
were not delivered to the factory). See Sigma Corp. v. United States, 
117 F.3d 1401, 1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). For a detailed description of all 
SVs used to value the respondent's reported FOPs, see Factor Valuation 
Memorandum.
    The respondent's reported that all of their inputs to production 
were sourced from suppliers in NME countries and paid for in NME 
currency. See Factor Valuation Memorandum for a listing of these 
inputs. Therefore, we did not use respondents' actual prices for any 
raw materials purchases. In accordance with past practice, we used data 
from the Indian Import Statistics as published by the World Trade 
Atlas, or from the 2003/2004 Tata Energy Research Institute's Energy 
Data Directory & Yearbook in order to calculate surrogate values for 
Kunyu, Landmark, and Meikangchi. See Preliminary Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Artist Canvas from the People's 
Republic of China, 70 FR 67412, 67420 (November 7, 2005); see also 
Polyvinyl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 67434, 67439 
(November 7, 2005).
    In selecting the best available information for valuing FOPs in 
accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the Department's practice 
is to select, to the extent practicable, surrogate values which are 
non-export average values, most contemporaneous with the POR, product-
specific, and tax-exclusive. See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary 
Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final 
Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), 
unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic 
of Vietnam, 69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004).
    Where we could not obtain publicly available information 
contemporaneous with the POR with which to value factors, we adjusted 
the SVs using, where appropriate, the Indian Wholesale Price Index as 
published in the International Financial Statistics of the 
International Monetary Fund. See Factor Valuation Memorandum; see also 
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, 
from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 2003-2004 
Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review, 71 FR 2517, 
2522 (January 17, 2006) (``TRBs 2003-2004''). The Department used the 
Indian Import Statistics to value the following raw material inputs and 
packing materials that the respondents used to produce the subject 
merchandise during the POR, such as: birchwood, plywood, woodscrews, 
dowels, glue, finishes, drawerslide, sandpaper, and packaging 
materials. For a complete list of all the raw material inputs the 
Department valued using the Indian Import Statistics, see the Factor 
Valuation Memorandum.
    For direct labor, indirect labor and and packing labor, consistent 
with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC regression-based wage rate 
as reported on Import Administration's website, Import Library, 
Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries, revised in November 2005, 
https://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/. The source of these wage-rate 
data is the Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2002, ILO (Geneva: 2003), 
Chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing. The years of the reported wage 
rates range from 1996 to 2003. Because this regression-based wage rate 
does not separate the labor rates into different skill levels or types 
of labor, we have applied the same wage rate to all skill levels and 
types of labor

[[Page 38381]]

reported by the respondent. See Factor Valuation Memorandum.
    The Department valued water using data from the Maharastra 
Industrial Development Corporation (www.midcindia.org) as it includes a 
wide range of industrial water tariffs. This source provides 386 
industrial water rates within the Maharashtra province from June 2003: 
193 rates for the ``inside industrial areas'' usage category and 193 
rates for the ``outside industrial areas'' usage category. See TRBs 
2003-2004, 71 FR at 2522.
    To value electricity and diesel, we used data from the 
International Energy Agency Key World Energy Statistics (2003 edition). 
Because the values for water, electricity and diesel were not 
contemporaneous with the POR, we adjusted the values for inflation. See 
Factor Valuation Memorandum.
    The Department used two sources to calculate a SV for domestic 
brokerageexpenses. The Department averaged December 2003-November 2004 
data contained in Essar
    Steel's February 28, 2005, public version response submitted in the 
antidumping administrative review of hot-rolled carbon steel flat 
products from India with February 2004-January 2005 data contained in 
Agro Dutch's May 24, 2005, public version response submitted in the 
antidumping investigation of certain preserved mushrooms from India. 
The brokerage expense data reported by Essar Steel and Agro Dutch in 
their public versions is ranged data. The Department first derived an 
average per-unit amount from the source. Then, the Department averaged 
the two per-unit amounts to derive an overall average rate for the POR. 
See Factor Valuation Memorandum at page 7.
    We used Indian transport information in order to value the freight-
in cost of the raw materials. The Department determined the best 
available information for valuing truck and rail freight to be from 
www.infreight.com. This source provides daily rates from six major 
points of origin to five destinations in India during the POR. The 
Department obtained a price quote on the first day of each month of the 
POR from each point of origin to each destination and averaged the data 
accordingly. See Factor Valuation Memorandum.
    To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative 
expenses (``SG&A''), and profit, we used the 2004-2005 financial 
statements of Indian Furniture Products, Ltd. (``IFP''), and the 
audited financial statements for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2003, 
from the following producers: IFP, Raghbir Interiors Pvt. Ltd., 
Nizamuddin Furnitures Pvt. Ltd., Fusion Design Private Ltd., Jayaraja 
Furniture Group, Akriti Perfections India Pvt. Ltd., Swaran Furnitures 
Ltd., Evergreen International Limited, and D'nD's Fine Furniture Pvt. 
Ltd., all of which are Indian producers of comparable merchandise. From 
this information, we were able to determine factory overhead as a 
percentage of the total raw materials, labor and energy (``ML&E'') 
costs; SG&A as a percentage of ML&E plus overhead (i.e., cost of 
manufacture); and the profit rate as a percentage of the cost of 
manufacture plus SG&A. For further discussion, see Factor Valuation 
Memorandum.

Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average 
dumping margins exist for the period June 24, 2004, through June 30, 
2005:

                  Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the PRC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted-Average
                  Producer/Exporter                    Margin (Percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kunyu...............................................              222.04
Landmark............................................                0.00
Meikangchi..........................................                1.25
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure

    The Department will disclose calculations performed for these 
preliminary results to the parties within five days of the date of 
publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). 
Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no 
later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary 
results of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs and 
rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs 
or comments, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of 
publication. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Further, parties submitting written 
comments should provide the Department with an additional copy of those 
comments on diskette. Any interested party may request a hearing within 
30 days of publication of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 
351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held seven days after 
the scheduled date for submission of rebuttal briefs. See 19 CFR 
351.310(d).
    The Department will issue the final results of these new shipper 
reviews, which will include the results of its analysis of issues 
raised in the briefs, within 90 days of publication of these 
preliminary results, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(i)(1), unless 
the time limit is extended.

Assessment Rates

    Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, 
and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. 
The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly 
to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of these new 
shipper reviews. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have 
calculated an exporter/importer-or customer specific assessment rate or 
value for merchandise subject to these reviews. For these preliminary 
results we divided the total dumping margins for the reviewed sales by 
the total entered quantity of those reviewed sales for each applicable 
importer. In these reviews, if these preliminary results are adopted in 
our final results of review, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting 
rate against the entered customs value for the subject merchandise on 
each importer's/customer's entries during the POR.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    Bonding will no longer be permitted to fulfill security 
requirements for shipments of wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC 
exported by Kunyu, Landmark, and Meikangchi that are entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication 
date of the final results of these new shipper reviews. The following 
cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the 
final results of these new shipper reviews for shipments of subject 
merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for Kunyu, Landmark, and Meikangchi, the 
cash deposit rate will be that established in the final results of 
these reviews; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-
PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash 
deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published 
for the most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject 
merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate 
rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 198.08 
percent; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which 
have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the 
rate applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied that non-PRC 
exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall

[[Page 38382]]

remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next 
administrative review.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 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 double antidumping duties.
    These new shipper reviews and this notice are published in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 
CFR 351.214(h).

    Dated: June 27, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-10488 Filed 7-5-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S