Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Preliminary Results of New Shipper Reviews and Notice of Partial Rescission, 6201-6221 [E7-2130]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 27 (Friday, February 9, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6201-6221]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-2130]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

A-570-890


Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
Preliminary Results of New Shipper Reviews and Notice of Partial 
Rescission

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the 
Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom 
furniture from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''). The period of 
review (``POR'') for this administrative review is June 24, 2004, 
through December 31, 2005. This administrative review covers multiple 
producers/exporters of the subject merchandise, five of which are being 
individually investigated as mandatory respondents. The Department is 
also conducting new shipper reviews for two exporters/producers. The 
POR for the new shipper reviews is also June 24, 2004, through December 
31, 2005.
    We preliminarily determine that all five mandatory respondents in 
the administrative review made sales in the United States at prices 
below normal value. With respect to the remaining respondents in the 
administrative review (herein after collectively referred to as the 
Separate Rate Applicants), we preliminarily determine that 39 entities 
have provided sufficient evidence that they are separate from the 
state-controlled entity, and we have established a weighted-average 
margin based on the rates we have calculated for the five mandatory 
respondents, excluding any rates that are zero, de minimis, or based 
entirely on adverse facts available to be applied to theses

[[Page 6202]]

separate rate entities. In addition, we have determined to rescind the 
review with respect to 17 entities in this administrative review. See 
Partial Rescission section below. Further, we preliminarily determine 
that the remaining separate rate applicants have not demonstrated that 
they are entitled to a separate rate, and will thus be considered part 
of the PRC entity. Finally, we preliminarily determine that the two new 
shippers made sales in the United States at prices below normal value. 
If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of 
review, 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.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit comments are requested to submit with each 
argument a statement of the issue and a brief summary of the argument. 
We intend to issue the final results of this review no later than 120 
days from the date of publication of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE:  February 9, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eugene Degnan or Robert Bolling, 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-
0414 and (202) 482-3434, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On January 4, 2005, the Department published in the Federal 
Register the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from 
the PRC. 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) 
(``Amended Final Determination''). On January 3, 2006, the Department 
published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review 
of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC 
for the period June 24, 2004, through December 31, 2005. See 
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended 
Investigation: Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 71 FR 89 
(January 3, 2006). On February 28, 2006, the Department issued a letter 
to all parties in its initiation notice, giving parties notice that, 
due to the large number of requests for review in this case, we were 
considering limiting the number of respondents, and in order to 
facilitate the selection process and administer this review, the 
Department was considering implementing its existing administrative 
procedures. See Letter from Wendy Frankel, Director, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 8, dated February 28, 2006. On March 7, 2006, the Department 
initiated the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order 
on wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC. See Notice of Initiation of 
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Wooden Bedroom 
Furniture from the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 11394 (March 7, 
2006) (``Initiation Notice''). Additionally, on March 7, 2006, the 
Department initiated three new shipper reviews on wooden bedroom 
furniture from the PRC with respect to the following companies: 
Dongguan Huanghouse Furniture Co., Ltd. (``Huanghouse''), Senyuan 
Furniture Group (``Senyuan''), and Tianjin First Wood Co., Ltd. 
(``First Wood''). See Notice of Initiation of New Shipper Reviews on 
Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 
11404 (March 7, 2006) (``New Shipper Initiation Notice''). Between 
March 7, 2006, and June 5, 2006, several parties withdrew their 
requests for administrative review. On June 30, 2006, the Department 
published a notice rescinding the review with respect to the entities 
for whom all review requests had been withdrawn. See Notice of Partial 
Rescission of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Wooden 
Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 37539 
(June 30, 2006).
    On March 21, 2006, the Furniture Sub-Chamber of the China Chamber 
of Commerce for Import & Export of Light Industrial Products and Arts-
Crafts (``Furniture Subchamber of ``CCCLA'') filed a Market-Oriented 
Industry request with the Department. On April 3, 2006, the Department 
issued the Furniture Subchamber of CCCLA a letter explaining that the 
submission had not been properly served on all interested parties, and 
that for the Department to retain the submission on the record of this 
administrative review, the Furniture Subchamber of CCCLA would have to 
comply with the following requirements: serve all interested parties 
with its March 21, 2006 submission and certify to the Department that 
it had served all interested parties. We informed the Furniture 
Subchamber of CCCLA that it must comply with our instructions by no 
later than April 14, 2006. On May 16, 2006, we rejected the Furniture 
Subchamber of CCCLA's March 21, 2006, submission because it had not 
complied with the requirements stipulated above, (i.e., did not 
properly serve all interested parties by the required deadline set 
forth in the Department's April 3 letter). See Letter from Wendy 
Frankel, Director, Office 8, to Hu Weiqiao, Secretary-General, The 
Furniture Sub-Chamber of the China Chamber of Commerce for Import & 
Export of Light Industrial Products and Arts-Crafts, dated May 16, 
2006.
    On May 12, 2006, Petitioners\1\ submitted comments with respect to 
respondent selection. On June 6 and 26, 2006, Fine Furniture (Shanghai) 
Limited and its affiliates (``Fine Furniture'') submitted comments with 
respect to respondent selection. On June 14, 2006, Shanghai Starcorp 
Funiture Co., Ltd, Starcorp Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., Orin 
Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., Shanghai Star Furniture Co., Ltd., and 
Shanghai Xing Ding Furniture Industrial Co., Ltd. (collectively, 
``Starcorp''), submitted comments with respect to respondent selection. 
Also, on June 14, 2006, Maria Yee, Inc., Guangzhou Maria Yee 
Furnishings, Ltd., and Pyla HK Limited (collectively, ``Maria Yee'') 
filed comments regarding respondent selection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Petitioners in this case are the American Furniture 
Manufacturers Committee for Legal Trade and Vaughan-Bassett 
Furniture Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 8, 2006, American Signature, Inc. (``ASI'') requested that 
the Department issue instructions to CBP to refund ``excess'' 
antidumping duty deposits made by ASI due to ministerial errors from 
the original investigation pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1520. On June 16, 
2006, Pacific Marketing International (``PMI'') stated that it supports 
ASI's comments and requested that the Department direct CBP to 
liquidate all entries from the supplier identified in ASI's June 8, 
2006, submission according to ``correct'' final rates rather than the 
``incorrect'' final rates. On June 21, 2006, Petitioners submitted 
comments with respect to ASI and PMI's request and stated that their 
requests are without merit and that the Department's regulations 
provide for the automatic assessment of duties at the cash deposit rate 
``at the time of entry'' if no administrative review is requested. 
Petitioners argue that because neither party requested a review of the 
exporter, the Department should liquidate their entries at the cash 
deposit rate in effect at the time of entry, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.212(c), which stipulates that if no review is requested the 
Department is to instruct CBP to assess antidumping

[[Page 6203]]

duties at rates equal to the cash deposit or bond posted on those 
entries. Also, on June 26, 2006, RiversEdge Furniture Company 
(``RiversEdge'') requested that the Department issue instructions to 
CBP to refund excess antidumping duty deposits made by RiversEdge 
between the Preliminary Determination and the Amended Preliminary 
Determination and those posted between the Final Determination and the 
Amended Final Determination in the less than fair value investigation. 
See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Wooden Bedroom Furniture 
from the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 35312 (June 24, 2004) 
(``Preliminary Determination''); Notice of Amended Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Amendment to the 
Scope: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China, 69 
FR 54643 (September 9, 2004) (``Amended Preliminary Determination''); 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Wooden 
Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 67313 
(November 17, 2004) (``Final Determination'') and Amended Final 
Determination. On June 30, 2006, Petitioners submitted comments with 
respect to RiversEdge's request, reiterating their response to ASI and 
PMI's requests stating that the Department cannot grant the request 
because RiversEdge's entries are currently enjoined from liquidation. 
Additionally, on July 31, 2006, Dongguan Sunrise Furniture Co., Taican 
Sunrise Wood Industry Co., Ltd., Shanghai Sunrise Furniture Co., Ltd., 
and Fairmont Designs (collectively, ``Fairmont Designs'') requested the 
refund of certain antidumping duty deposits made by Fairmont Designs. 
On August 11, 2006, Petitioners submitted comments with respect to 
Fairmont Design's request and stated for the same reasons explained in 
its June 21 and June 30 submissions that Fairmont Design's request is 
without merit. The Department has determined that the requests made by 
the above parties are without merit. The Department's regulations state 
``if the Secretary does not receive a timely request for an 
administrative review, the Secretary will instruct the Customs Service 
to, . . . , assess antidumping duties, at rates equal to the cash 
deposit of, or bond for, estimated antidumping duties.'' See 19 CFR 
351.212(c). Because no review is being conducted with respect to the 
exporter for the period covered by these entries, we will instruct CBP 
to liquidate the entries at the cash deposit rate in effect at the time 
of entry, for all entries not enjoined from liquidation.
    Because of the large number of companies subject to this review, on 
July 3, 2006, the Department issued its respondent-selection 
memorandum, selecting the following five companies as mandatory 
respondents in this administrative review: Fine Furniture; Foshan 
Guanqiu Furniture Co., Ltd. (``Foshan Guanqiu''); Fujian Lianfu 
Forestry Co./Fujian Wonder Pacific Inc./Fuzhou Huan Mei Furniture Co., 
Ltd./Jiangsu Dare Furniture Co., Ltd. (``Dare Group''); Shanghai Aosen 
Furniture Co., Ltd. (``Shanghai Aosen''); and Starcorp. See Memorandum 
from Wendy J. Frankel, Director, Office 8, to Gary Taverman, Acting 
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's 
Republic of China: Selection of Respondents (``Respondent Selection 
Memo''), dated July 3, 2006.
    On July 28, 2006, the Department issued its questionnaire to Fine 
Furniture, Foshan Guanqiu, the Dare Group, Shanghai Aosen, and 
Starcorp. On August 30, 2006, all mandatory respondents requested an 
extension of time to respond to the Department's questionnaire. On 
August 30, 2006 the Department extended the deadline for submission of 
the Sections C and D questionnaire response until September 22, 2006.
    On July 26, 2006, counsel for Foshan Guanqiu met with Department 
officials to discuss modifying the requirement to report factors of 
production (``FOP'') for three of Foshan Guanqiu's suppliers of subject 
merchandise. See Memo to the File Regarding Meeting with Counsel for 
Foshan Guanqiu Furniture Co., dated July 27, 2006. On August 3, 2006, 
Foshan Guanqiu submitted comments regarding this issue. On August 14, 
2006, Petitioners submitted rebuttal comments arguing that the 
Department should require Foshan Guanqiu to submit FOP data for all of 
its suppliers. On August 24, 2006, we determined that Foshan Guanqiu 
did not have to report FOPs for two of its three suppliers of subject 
merchandise, Nanhai Baiyi Woodwork Co., Ltd (``Baiyi'') and Zhongshan 
Melux Furniture Co., Ltd. (``Melux'').
    In August 2006, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(j)(3), the two new 
shipper respondents (i.e., First Wood and Huanghouse) agreed to waive 
the time limits applicable to the new shipper reviews and to permit the 
Department to conduct the new shipper reviews concurrently with the 
administrative review. See Memorandum to the file, Wooden Bedroom 
Furniture from the People's Republic of China - Alignment of the 6/24/
04 - 12/31/05 Annual Administrative and New Shipper Reviews, dated 
August 24, 2006.
    On August 2, 2006, Huanghouse informed the Department that it would 
no longer participate in the new shipper review of Huanghouse. See 
Letter from Dongguan Huanghouse Furniture Co., Ltd., dated August 2, 
2006.
    On April 3, 2006, Senyuan withdrew its request for a new shipper 
review, within the 60-day time limit for withdrawal. No other party 
requested a review of Senyuan for this time period. Accordingly, we 
rescinded this new shipper review. See Notice of Partial Rescission of 
New Shipper Review on Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's 
Republic of China, 71 FR 52064 (September 1, 2006).
    On September 12, 2006, the Department issued a letter to interested 
parties seeking comments on surrogate country selection and surrogate 
values. On October 3, 2006, Petitioners and the Dare Group submitted 
comments regarding the selection of a surrogate country. Also, on 
October 24, 2006, the Dare Group, Fine Furniture, Foshan Guanqiu, 
Starcorp, and Petitioners submitted surrogate value information.
    On September 28, 2006, we extended the deadline for the issuance of 
the preliminary results of the administrative review and new shipper 
reviews until January 31, 2007. See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the 
People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limits for the 
Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
New Shipper Reviews, 71 FR 59088 (October 6, 2006).
    On November 3, 2006, Petitioners submitted comments responding to 
the respondent's surrogate value information. Also, on November 3, 
2006, the Dare Group, Fine Furniture, Foshan Guanqiu, Shanghai Aosen, 
and Starcorp responded to Petitioners' October 24, 2006, surrogate 
value submission. On November 13, 2006, the Dare Group provided 
additional surrogate value information and responded to Petitioners' 
November 3, 2006, submission. On November 22, 2006, Petitioners 
responded to the Dare Group's November 13, 2006, submission. On 
December 4, 2006, the Dare Group responded to Petitioners' November 22, 
2006, submission. On December 22, 2006, Petitioners responded to the 
Dare Group's December 4, 2006, submission.
    On December 11, 2006, the Department requested that Fine Furniture, 
Foshan Guanqiu, Shanghai Aosen, and Starcorp provide additional 
surrogate value information. Between

[[Page 6204]]

December 18 and 21, 2006, Starcorp, Fine Furniture, Foshan Guanqiu, and 
Shanghai Aosen each submitted responses to the Department's request.
    On January 9, 2007, First Wood withdrew its request for a new 
shipper review and requested that the review be terminated. See The 
Application of Total Adverse Facts Available, First Wood section below 
for additional discussion.

Company-Specific Chronology

    As described above, the Department issued its antidumping 
questionnaire to the five mandatory respondents. Upon receipt of the 
various responses, the Petitioners provided comments and the Department 
issued supplemental questionnaires. Because the chronology of this 
stage of the administrative review is extensive and varies by 
respondent, the Department has separated this portion of the background 
section by company.

Dare Group

    On August 7, 2006, the Dare Group requested a one-week extension 
for the submission of its Section A response. On August 25, 2006, the 
Dare Group submitted its Section A response to the Department's 
original questionnaire. On August 29, 2006, the Dare Group requested a 
24-day extension for the submission of its Sections C and D response to 
the Department's original questionnaire. On August 30, 2006, the 
Department granted the Dare Group a 17-day extension. On September 12, 
2006, the Dare Group requested an additional two-week extension for the 
submission of its Section C and D response. On September 19, 2006, the 
Department granted the Dare Group a further one-week extension. On 
September 21, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental Section A 
questionnaire to the Dare Group. On September 27, 2006, the Dare Group 
requested an additional one-day extension for the submission of its 
Sections C and D response, which the Department granted on September 
28, 2006. On October 2, 2006, the Dare Group submitted its Section C 
and D response to the Department's original questionnaire. Also, on 
October 2, 2006, the Dare Group requested a two-week extension for the 
submission of its supplemental Section A response. On October 5, 2006, 
the Dare Group requested an additional four-day extension for the 
submission of its supplemental Section A response, which the Department 
granted. On October 16, 2006, the Dare Group submitted its supplemental 
Section A response. On November 22, 2006, the Department issued a 
supplemental Sections C and D questionnaire. On November 30, 2006, the 
Dare Group requested a three-week extension for the submission of its 
supplemental Sections C and D response. On December 4, 2006, the 
Department granted the Dare Group a 12-day extension for the submission 
of its supplemental Sections C and D response. On December 18, 2006, 
the Dare Group submitted its supplemental Sections C and D response. On 
January 9, 2007, the Department issued a second supplemental Sections 
A, C and D questionnaire. On January 18, 2007, the Dare Group requested 
a one-day extension for the submission of its supplemental Sections A, 
C and D response, which the Department granted. On January 22, 2007, 
the Dare Group submitted its supplemental Sections A, C and D response. 
On September 5, October 17, November 13, and December 22, 2006, 
Petitioners submitted comments on the Dare Group's questionnaire and 
supplemental questionnaire responses.

Fine Furniture

    On August 25, 2006, Fine Furniture submitted its Section A response 
to the Department's original questionnaire. On September 15, 2006, Fine 
Furniture requested an extension of time to respond to Sections C and D 
of the Department's original questionnaire. On September 19, 2006, the 
Department extended the deadline for submission of Fine Furniture's 
Sections C and D responses until October 2, 2006. On September 21, 
2006, the Department issued a supplemental Section A questionnaire to 
Fine Furniture. On October 2, 2006, Fine Furniture requested an 
extension of time to respond to the supplemental Section A 
questionnaire. Also, on October 2, 2006, Fine Furniture submitted its 
responses to Sections C and D of the questionnaire. On October 4, 2006, 
the Department extended the deadline for submission of Fine Furniture's 
supplemental Section A response until October 16, 2006. On November 9, 
2006, the Department issued a supplemental Section D questionnaire to 
Fine Furniture. On November 15, 2006, Fine Furniture requested an 
extension of time to respond to the supplemental Section D 
questionnaire. On November 20, 2006, the Department extended the 
deadline for submission of Fine Furniture's supplemental Section D 
response until December 4, 2006. On November 28, 2006, Fine Furniture 
requested an additional extension of time to respond to the 
supplemental Section D questionnaire. On November 30, 2006, the 
Department extended the deadline for submission of Fine Furniture's 
supplemental Section D response until December 6, 2006. Also, on 
November 30, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental Section C 
questionnaire to Fine Furniture. On December 6, 2006, Fine Furniture 
submitted its supplemental Section D response. Also, on December 11, 
2006, Fine Furniture requested an additional extension of time to 
respond to the Section C supplemental questionnaire. On December 14, 
2006, the Department extended the deadline for submission of Fine 
Furniture's supplemental Section C response until December 20, 2006. On 
December 20, 2006, Fine Furniture submitted its supplemental Section C 
response. On December 27, 2006, the Department issued its second 
supplemental Section D questionnaire. On January 3, 2007, Fine 
Furniture requested an extension of time to respond to the second 
supplemental Section D questionnaire. Also, on January 3, 2007, the 
Department issued its second supplemental Section C questionnaire. On 
January 4, 2007, the Department extended the deadline for submission of 
Fine Furniture's second supplemental Section D response until January 
12, 2007. On January 12, 2007, Fine Furniture requested an extension of 
time to respond to the second supplemental Section C and D 
questionnaire. On January 16, 2007, Fine Furniture submitted its 
responses to the second supplemental Sections C and D questionnaires. 
On September 5, October 13, November 21, and December 19 and 22, 2006, 
Petitioners submitted comments on Fine Furniture's questionnaire and 
supplemental questionnaire responses.

Foshan Guanqiu

    On August 25, 2006, Foshan Guanqiu submitted its Section A response 
to the Department's original questionnaire. On October 2, 2006, Foshan 
Guanqiu submitted its Sections C and D response to the Department's 
original questionnaire. The Department issued a supplemental Section A 
questionnaire to Foshan Guanqiu on October 4, 2006, to which Foshan 
Guanqiu responded on October 25, 2006. On November 8, 2006, the 
Department issued a supplemental Sections C and D questionnaire to 
Foshan Guanqiu, to which Foshan Guanqiu responded on November 30, 2006. 
The Department issued a supplemental questionnaire on surrogate values 
submitted by Foshan Guanqiu on December 11, 2006, and received a 
response on December 21, 2006. The Department issued a second 
supplemental Section C and D questionnaire to Foshan Guanqiu on

[[Page 6205]]

December 29, 2006, and received a response on January 12, 2007. On 
September 5, October 20, November 13, and December 13, 2006, 
Petitioners submitted comments on Foshan Guanqiu's questionnaire and 
supplemental questionnaire responses.

Shanghai Aosen

    On August 28, 2006, Shanghai Aosen submitted its Section A response 
to the Department's original questionnaire. On September 15, 2006, 
Shanghai Aosen requested a two-week extension to respond to Section D 
of the Department's original questionnaire. On September 19, 2006, the 
Department granted the extension for Shanghai Aosen to file its Section 
D response by September 29, 2006. On September 25, 2006, Shanghai Aosen 
submitted its Section C response to the Department's original 
questionnaire.
    On October 2, 2006, Shanghai Aosen submitted its Section D response 
to the Department's original questionnaire. On October 3, 2006, the 
Department issued a supplemental Section A questionnaire to Shanghai 
Aosen. On October 5, 2006, Shanghai Aosen requested a one-week 
extension to respond to the supplemental Section A questionnaire. On 
October 10, 2006, the Department granted a full extension until October 
18, 2006. On October 18, 2006, Shanghai Aosen submitted its 
supplemental Section A response.
    On November 8, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental Section C 
questionnaire to Shanghai Aosen. On November 16, 2006, Shanghai Aosen 
requested a two-week extension to respond to the supplemental Section C 
questionnaire. The Department granted a partial extension on November 
21, 2006, and instructed Shanghai Aosen to respond to the supplemental 
Section C questionnaire by November 29, 2006. On November 28, 2006, the 
Department issued a supplemental Section D questionnaire to Shanghai 
Aosen. On November 30, Shanghai Aosen submitted its supplemental 
Section C response.
    On December 7, 2006, Shanghai Aosen requested a 17-day extension to 
respond to the supplemental Section D questionnaire. The Department 
granted a partial extension until December 19, 2006. On December 12, 
2006, the Department issued a supplemental Section D questionnaire 
specific to Shanghai Aosen's FOPs to be due by December 19, 2006. On 
December 18, 2006, Shanghai Aosen requested a three-day extension to 
respond to this supplemental Section D questionnaire. The Department 
granted a partial extension until December 21, 2006. On December 20, 
2006, Shanghai Aosen submitted its supplemental Section D response. On 
December 21, 2006, Shanghai Aosen submitted its response to the 
supplemental Section D questionnaire specific to its FOPs.
    On January 5, 2007, the Department issued a second supplemental 
Sections C and D questionnaire. On January 22, 2007, Shanghai Aosen 
submitted its second supplemental Sections C and D response. On 
September 6, October 23, November 13, and December 13 and 27, 2006, and 
January 18, 2007, Petitioners submitted comments on Shanghai Aosen's 
questionnaire and supplemental questionnaire responses.

Starcorp

    On August 25, 2006, Starcorp submitted its Section A questionnaire 
response. On October 2, 2006, Starcorp submitted its Sections C and D 
questionnaire responses. The Department issued a supplemental Section A 
questionnaire to Starcorp on October 3, 2006, to which Starcorp 
responded on October 27, 2006. The Department issued a supplemental 
Section D questionnaire to Starcorp on November 3, 2006, to which 
Starcorp responded on November 29, 2005. On November 21, 2006, the 
Department issued a supplemental Section C questionnaire and second 
supplemental Sections A and D questionnaires to Starcorp, to which 
Starcorp responded on December 12, 2006. On December 11, 2006, the 
Department issued a third supplemental Section D questionnaire to 
Starcorp, to which Starcorp responded on December 18, 2006. On December 
20, 2006, the Department issued a fourth supplemental Section D 
questionnaire to Starcorp, to which Starcorp responded on January 8, 
2007. On December 28, 2006, the Department issued a second supplemental 
Section C questionnaire, to which Starcorp responded on January 8, 
2007. Further, on January 12, 2007, the Department issued a third 
supplemental Section C questionnaire, to which Starcorp responded on 
January 17, 2007. On September 6, October 16, November 9, and December 
13, 19, and 21, 2006, and January 12, 2007, Petitioners submitted 
comments on Starcorp's questionnaire and supplemental questionnaire 
responses. Finally, on December 18, 2006, and January 19, 22, and 26, 
2007, Starcorp submitted responses to Petitioners' comments of December 
7 and 12, 2006, and January 12 and 23, 2007, respectively.

First Wood

    On March 14, 2006, the Department issued its standard antidumping 
questionnaire to First Wood. First Wood submitted its Section A 
response on April 19, 2006, and its Sections C and D responses on May 
11, 2006. The Department issued a supplemental Sections A, C, and D 
questionnaire to First Wood on July 14, 2006, to which First Wood 
responded on August 17, 2006. The Department issued a second 
supplemental Sections A, C, and D questionnaire to First Wood on 
December 7, 2006, to which First Wood responded on January 3, 2006. 
Petitioners provided no comments.

Period of Review

    The POR is June 24, 2004, through December 31, 2005.

Scope of the Order

    The product covered 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\,

[[Page 6206]]

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 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\; and (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 (whether or not the door is 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. See also Wooden Bedroom Furniture 
from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of 
Changed Circumstances Review and Revocation in Part, (71 FR 38621) 
(July 7, 2006).
    \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. Additionally, the scope of the order excludes 
combination cheval mirror/jewelry cabinets. The excluded merchandise 
is an integrated piece consisting of a cheval mirror, i.e., a framed 
tiltable mirror with a height in excess of 50 inches, mounted on a 
floor-standing, hinged base, the cheval mirror serving as a door to 
a cabinet back that is integral to the structure of the mirror and 
which constitutes a jewelry cabinet lined with fabric, having 
necklace and bracelet hooks, mountings for rings and shelves, with 
or without a working lock and key to secure the contents of the 
jewelry cabinet back to the cheval mirror, and no drawers anywhere 
on the integrated piece. The fully assembled piece must be at least 
50 inches in height, 14.5 inches in width, and 3 inches in depth. 
See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: 
Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review and 
Determination to Revoke Order in Part, (72 FR 948) (January 9, 
2007).
    \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 under HTSUS 
subheading 9403.90.7000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Imports of subject merchandise are classified under subheading 
9403.50.9040 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(``HTSUS'') as ``wooden...beds'' and under subheading 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 subheading 9403.50.9040 of the HTSUS as ``parts 
of wood'' and framed glass mirrors may also be entered under subheading 
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, our written description 
of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Partial Rescission of Administrative Review

    On April 17, 2006, Dongguan Landmark Furniture Products Ltd. 
(``Dongguan Landmark'') submitted a separate rate application to the 
Department with regard to the first administrative review of wooden 
bedroom furniture from the PRC. Concurrently, Dongguan Landmark was 
participating in the first new shipper review of wooden bedroom 
furniture from the PRC covering the period June 24, 2004, through June 
30, 2005, (``04/05 NSR''). On December 6, 2006, the Department 
completed this new shipper review, and determined Dongguan Landmark to 
be eligible for a separate rate. See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the 
People's Republic of China: Final Results of the 2004-2005 Semi-Annual 
New Shipper Reviews, 71 FR 70739 (December 6, 2006) (``Final New 
Shipper Review''). On December 22, 2006, Dongguan Landmark responded to 
the Department's December 12, 2006, supplemental questionnaire with 
respect to its April 17 separate-rate application, stating that it had 
only one sale to the United States during the POR, which the Department 
reviewed and verified during the 04/05 NSR. Since the Department 
examined this sale in a previous segment of this proceeding, and it is 
not the Department's practice to examine the same sale(s) in multiple 
segments of a proceeding, the Department is rescinding this review with 
respect to Dongguan Landmark.
    On July 28, 2006, Maria Yee conditionally withdrew its request for 
review based on the premise that should the Department rescind the 
review, it would instruct CBP to liquidate Maria Yee's entries for the 
first administrative review period at the assessment rate of 6.65 
percent (and refund all excess antidumping duty deposits with interest) 
in accordance with the final court decision,\15\ pursuant to section 
516a(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). Also, 
Maria Yee requested in the alternative that, if the

[[Page 6207]]

Department does not agree to issue liquidation instructions for the 
first administrative review period in accordance with the court 
decision (see footnote 15), the Department instruct CBP to refund the 
difference in the duties deposited at the 198.08-percent rate and the 
duties that would have been deposited on those entries at the 6.65-
percent rate. Additionally, Maria Yee requested the Department to 
instruct CBP to refund the difference in antidumping duties deposited 
on Maria Yee's January 1, 2006, through June 21, 2006, entries (the 
first half of the second administrative review) to account for the 
difference between these two deposit rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ During the investigation, because the Department determined 
that Maria Yee had not demonstrated separateness from the PRC 
government, Maria Yee received the PRC-wide rate of 198.08 percent. 
As a result of Maria Yee's litigation on the investigation, the 
Department determined on remand that Maria Yee was entitled to a 
separate rate. On June 22, 2006, when Maria Yee's litigation was 
concluded, the Department issued an amended final determination, 
revising Maria Yee's cash deposit rate to 6.65 percent. See Notice 
of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value/
Pursuant to Court Decision:Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the 
People's Republic of China: 71 FR 35870 (June 22, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although Maria Yee submitted its withdrawal request after the 90-
day regulatory deadline, Maria Yee submitted the request very soon 
after the close of the appeal date (see footnote 15), which occurred 
shortly after the 90-day regulatory deadline for withdrawals of request 
for review. In order to preserve its rights with respect to the 
ultimate deposits on the entries in question, Maria Yee had to retain 
its request for review in place until the possibility of all appeals 
had been exhausted. Additionally, the Department had already completed 
its selection of mandatory respondents and Maria Yee was not selected 
as a mandatory respondent in this administrative review. Therefore, the 
Department's selection process of the mandatory respondents for this 
administrative review was not compromised by Maria Yee's request for 
withdrawal. Furthermore, the Department did not expend significant 
resources as of the date Maria Yee withdrew its request for review. 
Therefore, the Department is rescinding this review with respect to 
Maria Yee, and we will instruct to CBP to liquidate Maria Yee's entries 
for the first administrative review period (i.e., June 24, 2004, 
through December 31, 2005) at the assessment rate of 6.65 percent.
    Furthermore, the Department is rescinding this review with respect 
to the following companies (i.e.,Bao An Guan Lan Winmost Furniture 
Factory; Bouvrie International Limited; Dongguan Sea Eagle Furniture 
Company Limited; Guangdong New Four Seas Furniture Mfg.;Huizhou Jadom 
Furniture Co., Ltd.; Hwang Ho New Century Furniture (Dongguan) Corp. 
Ltd.; Inni Furniture Mfg. Ltd.; Jadom Furniture Co., Ltd.; Qingdao 
Beiyuan Industry Trading Co., Ltd.; Red Apple Furniture Co. Ltd.; 
Shenzhen Tiancheng Furniture Co. Ltd.; Sino Concord (Zhangzhou) 
Furniture Co., Ltd.; Top Goal Furniture Co., Ltd (Shenzhen); Trade Rich 
Furniture (Dongguan) Corp. Ltd.; and Winbuild Industrial Ltd.) because 
1) the respondent could not demonstrate that it made sales of subject 
merchandise to the United States during the POR or 2) record evidence 
demonstrates that the respondent did not have any exports of subject 
merchandise during the POR.

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 on the NME 
producer's FOPs. The Act further instructs that valuation of the FOPs 
shall be based on the best available information in a surrogate market 
economy country or countries considered to be appropriate by the 
Department. See Section 773(c)(1) of the Act. When 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. See Section 
773(c)(1) of the Act. The sources of the surrogate values (``SV'') are 
discussed under the Normal Value section below and in the Memorandum to 
the File, Factors Valuations for the Preliminary Results of the 
Administrative Review, dated January 31, 2007 (``Factor Valuation 
Memorandum''), which is on file in the CRU.
    The Department first 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, Administrative 
Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China 
(PRC): Request for a List of Surrogate Countries, dated August 7, 2006, 
(``Policy Memo'') which is on file in the CRU.
    On September 12, 2006, the Department issued a request for parties 
to submit comments on surrogate country selection. On October 3, 2006, 
Petitioners submitted comments regarding the selection of a surrogate 
country.\16\ Also, on October 3, 2006, the Dare Group submitted 
comments regarding the selection of a surrogate country.\17\ On October 
13, 2006, Petitioners submitted comments responding to the Dare Group's 
comments.\18\ Also, on October 13, 2006, the Dare Group and Starcorp 
submitted comments responding to Petitioners' comments.\19\ On October 
23, 2006, Petitioners submitted rebuttal comments to the Dare Group's 
October 13, 2006, comments.\20\ No other party to the proceeding 
submitted information or comments concerning the selection of a 
surrogate country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Letter dated October 3, 2006, from King & Spalding to 
Secretary of Commerce, Re: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the 
People's Republic of China.
    \17\ Letter dated October 3, 2006, from Kay Scholer to Secretary 
of Commerce, Re: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic 
of China.
    \18\ Letter dated October 13, 2006, from King & Spalding to 
Secretary of Commerce, Re: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the 
People's Republic of China.
    \19\ See Letter dated October 13, 2006, from Kay Scholer to 
Secretary of Commerce, Re: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the 
People's Republic of China, and Letter dated October 13, 2006, from 
Steptoe & Johnson to Secretary of Commerce, Re: Wooden Bedroom 
Furniture from the People's Republic of China.
    \20\ Letter dated October 23, 2006, from King & Spalding to 
Secretary of Commerce, Re: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the 
People's Republic of China.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioners assert 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 
comparable merchandise. Additionally, Petitioners note that the 
Department selected India as the surrogate country in the original 
investigation.
    The Dare Group claims that the method by which the Department 
selected the five surrogate countries is arbitrary and flawed. The Dare 
Group argues the surrogate country list in the Policy Memo is 
unsupported by record evidence and is contrary to the Department's 
regulations. The Dare Group argues that because India's per capita GNI 
is less than half that of the PRC, India cannot reasonably be described 
as ``economically comparable'' to the PRC, and would

[[Page 6208]]

thus not be an appropriate surrogate in this review. The Dare Group 
argues that the Philippines is a more appropriate choice for a 
surrogate country because it is at a level of economic development 
comparable to that of the PRC and is a significant producer of 
comparable merchandise.
    Starcorp, a mandatory respondent in this review, urges the 
Department ``to not automatically revert to its 'default' position of 
selecting India as the surrogate country for this proceeding, despite 
the fact that it determined that India was the appropriate surrogate 
country in the less than fair value (``LTFV'') investigation.'' 
Starcorp agues that the Department's surrogate country determination in 
the LTFV investigation was made on the basis of 2001 data. Starcorp 
contends that the PRC's per capita GNI growth has significantly 
outpaced India's GNI growth since 2001. Starcorp states that at this 
stage of the review it cannot rule out or endorse India or any other 
potential surrogate country and requests that the Department address 
the question anew in light of updated data placed on the record of this 
proceeding by the Dare Group.
    On January 22, 2007, the Department issued its surrogate country 
memorandum in which we addressed the parties' comments. See Memorandum 
to the File, Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Wooden Bedroom 
Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate 
Country, dated January 22, 2007 (``Surrogate Country Memorandum''), 
which is on file in the CRU. After evaluating concerns and comments, 
the Department determined that India is the appropriate surrogate 
country to use in this review. 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, 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), interested parties may submit publicly available 
information to value FOPs until 20 days after the date of publication 
of these preliminary results.

Affiliation

    Section 771(33) of the Act directs that the following persons will 
be considered affiliated: (A) Members of a family, including brothers 
and sisters (whether by whole or half blood), spouse, ancestors, and 
lineal descendants; (B) Any officer or director of an organization and 
such organization; (C) Partners; (D) Employer and employee; (E) Any 
person directly or indirectly owning, controlling, or holding with 
power to vote, five percent or more of the outstanding voting stock or 
shares of any organization and such organization; (F) Two or more 
persons directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under 
common control with, any person; and (G) Any person who controls any 
other person and such other person.
    For purposes of affiliation, a person shall be considered to 
control another person if the person is legally or operationally in a 
position to exercise restraint or direction over the other person. See 
Section 771(33) of the Act. In order to find affiliation between 
companies, the Department must find that at least one of the criteria 
listed above is applicable to the respondents. Moreover, stock 
ownership is not the only evidentiary factor that the Department may 
consider to determine whether a person is in a position to exercise 
restraint or direction over another person, e.g., control may be 
established through corporate or family groupings, or joint ventures 
and other means as well. See The Statement of Administrative Action 
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``SAA''), H.R. Doc. 103-
316, 838 (1994). See also Certain Fresh Cut Flowers from Colombia; 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 42833, 
42853 (August 19, 1996); and Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and 
Tubes from Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 62 FR 53808, 53810 (October 16, 1997).
    To the extent that the affiliation provisions in section 771(33) of 
the Act do not conflict with the Department's application of separate 
rates and the statutory NME provisions in section 773(c) of the Act, 
the Department will determine that exporters and/or producers are 
affiliated if the facts of the case support such a finding. See Certain 
Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary 
Results of Sixth New Shipper Review and Preliminary Results and Partial 
Rescission of Fourth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 
10410, 10413 (March 5, 2004) (``Mushrooms''), unchanged in Final 
Results and Final Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's 
Republic of China, 70 FR 54361 (September 14, 2005).

The Dare Group

    Following these guidelines, we preliminarily determine that Fujian 
Lianfu Forestry Co. Ltd./Fujian Wonder Pacific Inc./Fuzhou Huan Mei 
Furniture Co., Ltd./Jiangsu Dare Furniture Co., Ltd., collectively, 
(``Dare Group'') are affiliated pursuant to sections 771(33)(A), (E) 
and (F) of the Act and that these companies should be treated as a 
single entity for the purposes of the antidumping administrative review 
of wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC. Based on our examination of 
the evidence presented in the Dare Group's questionnaire responses, we 
have determined that: (1) Fujian Lianfu Forestry Co. Ltd./Fujian Wonder 
Pacific Inc./Fuzhou Huan Mei Furniture Co., Ltd./Jiangsu Dare Furniture 
Co., Ltd. have overlapping managers and directors; (2) Fujian Lianfu 
Forestry Co. Ltd./Fujian Wonder Pacific Inc./Fuzhou Huan Mei Furniture 
Co., Ltd./Jiangsu Dare Furniture Co., Ltd. have some common ownership; 
(3) There is a familial relationship between persons with significant 
ownership interests in all three companies. See Memorandum to Wendy 
Frankel, Director, Office 8, NME/China Group, through Robert Bolling, 
Program Manager, From Eugene Degnan, Case Analyst, Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's 
Republic of China: Fujian Lianfu Forestry Co. Ltd./Fujian Wonder 
Pacific Inc./Fuzhou Huan Mei Furniture Co., Ltd./Jiangsu Dare Furniture 
Co., Ltd. and Treatment as a Single Entity, dated October 28, 2005 
(``Affiliation/Single Entity Treatment Memorandum'').

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 five mandatory 
respondents (i.e., Dare Group, Fine Furniture, Foshan Guanqiu, Shanghai 
Aosen, and Starcorp) and 64 separate-rate respondents have provided 
company-specific information

[[Page 6209]]

and each has stated that it meets the standards for the assignment of a 
separate rate.
    We have considered whether each of these 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 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) 
(``Silicon Carbide''). 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.
    Our analysis shows that, for the each of the mandatory respondents 
located in the PRC and certain separate-rate respondents, the evidence 
on the record supports a preliminary finding of de jure absence of 
government control based on record statements and supporting 
documentation showing the following: 1) an absence of restrictive 
stipulations associated with the individual exporter's business and 
export licenses; 2) the applicable legislative enactments 
decentralizing control of the companies; and 3) any other formal 
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See 
Memorandum to Wendy J. Frankel, Director, Office 8, Import 
Administration, from Charles Riggle, Program Manager, Wooden Bedroom 
Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Separate Rates for 
Producers/Exporters that Submitted Separate Rate Certifications and 
Applications (``Separate-Rates Memo''), dated January 31, 2007.

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.
    We determine that, for the mandatory respondents located in the PRC 
and certain separate- rate respondents, the evidence on the record 
supports a preliminary finding of de facto absence of government 
control based on record statements and supporting documentation showing 
the following: 1) each exporter sets its own export prices independent 
of the government and without the approval of a government authority; 
2) each exporter retains the proceeds from its sales and makes 
independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of 
losses; 3) each exporter has the authority to negotiate and sign 
contracts and other agreements; and 4) each exporter has autonomy from 
the government regarding the selection of management.
    Therefore, the evidence placed on the record of this administrative 
review by each of the mandatory respondents and certain separate-rate 
respondents demonstrates an absence of government control, both in law 
and in fact, with respect to each of the exporter's exports of the 
subject merchandise, in accordance with the criteria identified in 
Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. As a result, for the purposes of these 
preliminary results, we have granted separate, company-specific rates 
to each of the five mandatory respondents and certain separate-rate 
respondents\21\ that shipped wooden bedroom furniture to the United 
States during the POR. For a full discussion of this issue and list of 
separate-rate respondents, please see the Separate-Rates Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Fujian Lianfu Forestry Co. Ltd./Fujian Wonder Pacific Inc.; 
Fuzhou Huan Mei Furniture Co., Ltd.; Jiangsu Dare Furniture Co., 
Ltd.; Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited; Foshan Guanqiu Furniture 
Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Aosen Furniture Co., Ltd., Starcorp Funiture 
Co., Ltd, Starcorp Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., Orin Furniture 
(Shanghai) Co., Ltd., Shanghai Star Furniture Co., Ltd., and 
Shanghai Xing Ding Furniture Industrial Co., Ltd.; Tianjin First 
Wood Co., Ltd.; Ace Furniture & Crafts Ltd. (a.k.a. Deqing Ace 
Furniture and Crafts Limited); Baigou Crafts Factory of Fengkai; 
Best King International Ltd.; Dalian Pretty Home Furniture; Decca 
Furniture Limited; Der Cheng Wooden Works of Factory; Dongguan Dihao 
Furniture Co., Ltd.; Dongguan Hua Ban Furniture Co., Ltd; Dongguan 
Mingsheng Furniture Co., Ltd.; Dongguan New Technology Import & 
Export Co., Ltd.; Dongguan Sunpower Enterprise Co., Ltd.; Dongguan 
Yihaiwei Furniture Limited; Kalanter (Hong Kong) Furniture Company 
Limited; Furnmart Ltd.; Guangzhou Lucky Furniture Co. Ltd.; Hong Yu 
Furniture (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd.; Hung Fai Wood Products Factory, Ltd.; 
Hwang Ho International Holdings Limited; King Wood Furniture Co., 
Ltd.; Meikangchi Nantong Furniture Company Ltd.; Nantong Yangzi 
Furniture Co., Ltd.; Po Ying Industrial Co.; Profit Force Ltd.; 
Qingdao Beiyuan-Shengli Furniture Co., Ltd.; Qingdao Shenchang 
Wooden Co., Ltd.; Red Apple Trading Co. Ltd.; Shenyang Kunyu Wood 
Industry Co., Ltd.; Shenzhen Dafuhao Industrial Development Co., 
Ltd.; Shenzhen Shen Long Hang Industry Co., Ltd.; Sino Concord 
International Corporation; T.J. Maxx International Co., Ltd.; Top 
Goal Development Co.; Transworld (Zhangzhou) Furniture Co. Ltd.; Wan 
Bao Chen Group Hong Kong Co. Ltd.; Winmost Enterprises Limited; 
Xilinmen Group Co. Ltd.; Yongxin Industrial (Holdings) Limited; and 
Zhongshan Gainwell Furniture Co. Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, we have found that certain separate-rate 
applicants\22\ have

[[Page 6210]]

not demonstrated an absence of government control over their export 
activities, both in law and in fact, and are therefore, subject to the 
PRC-entity rate. See Separate-Rates Memo. For several of these 
entities,\23\ the Department has found that additional information is 
necessary in order t