Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Administrative Review and Final Results of New Shipper Review, 27287-27291 [E7-9324]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 15, 2007 / Notices (March 9, 2007); Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the 2004/2006 Administrative Review and Preliminary Intent to Rescind 2004/2006 New Shipper Review, 72 FR 10645 (March 9, 2007); Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results of the First Administrative Review and New Shipper Review, 72 FR 10689 (March 9, 2007); and Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 10669 (March 9, 2007). The final results for these administrative and aligned new shipper reviews are currently due no later than July 9, 2007, the next business day after 120 days from the date of publication of the preliminary results of review. Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results cprice-sewell on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), requires the Department to issue the final results of an administrative review within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published. If it is not practicable to complete the review within that time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the deadline for the final results to a maximum of 180 days. The Department requires additional time to complete these reviews in order to properly consider the numerous and complex issues raised by interested parties in their case briefs. Thus, it is not practicable to complete these reviews within the original time limit. Therefore, the Department is extending the time limit for completion of the final results of these reviews by 60 days, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. The final results are now due no later than September 5, 2007. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: May 9, 2007. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7–9328 Filed 5–14–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S VerDate Aug<31>2005 13:50 May 14, 2007 Jkt 211001 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–891] Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Administrative Review and Final Results of New Shipper Review Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 15, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maisha Cryor or Mark Manning; AD/ CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–5831 or (202) 482– 5253, respectively. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (‘‘Department’’) published its preliminary results of the administrative review and new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on hand trucks and certain parts thereof (‘‘hand trucks’’) from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) on January 9, 2007. See Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof From the People’s Republic of China; Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Administrative Review and Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review, 72 FR 937 (January 9, 2007) (‘‘Preliminary Results’’). The period of review (‘‘POR’’) is December 1, 2004, through November 30, 2005. We invited interested parties to comment on our Preliminary Results. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made changes to our calculations. The final dumping margins for this review are listed in the ‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section below. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 1, 2006, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of the initiation of the antidumping duty administrative review of hand trucks from the PRC for the period May 24, 2004, through November 30, 2005. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 71 FR 5241 (February 1, 2006). On February 3, 2006, the Department also published in the Federal Register a notice of the initiation of the new shipper review of Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. (‘‘Since Hardware’’). See Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof From the People’s Republic of China; Initiation of New AGENCY: PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 27287 Shipper Review, 71 FR 5810 (February 3, 2006). The Department published the preliminary results of these reviews on January 9, 2007. See Preliminary Results. We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results of review. See Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 946– 947. Forecarry Corporation and Formost Plastics & Metalworks (Jiaxing) Co., Ltd. (‘‘Forecarry and Formost’’) submitted their response to the Department’s December 19, 2006, supplemental section D questionnaire on January 18, 2007. Forecarry and Formost submitted a case brief on February 14, 2007; Since Hardware submitted a case brief on February 15, 2007; and on February 16, 2007, Gleason Industrial Products, Inc., and Precision Products, Inc. (collectively, ‘‘the petitioner’’) submitted a case brief. On February 20, 2007, the petitioner filed allegations that the case briefs submitted by Forecarry and Formost, and Since Hardware contained new information. Forecarry and Formost, and True Potential Co., Ltd. (‘‘True Potential’’) submitted rebuttal briefs on February 20, 2007, Since Hardware submitted a rebuttal brief on February 21, 2007, and the petitioner submitted a rebuttal brief on February 22, 2007. On March 7, 2007, the Department notified Forecarry and Formost that their case brief contained new information and requested that Forecarry and Formost resubmit their case brief, redacting factual information submitted after the deadline for new factual information, and not solicited by the Department, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2). Regarding the allegation of new information in Since Hardware’s case brief, the Department has reviewed this allegation and examined the information contained in Since Hardware’s prior submission. Based upon our analysis, the Department disagrees with the petitioner that Since Hardware’s case brief contained new information. See Comment 18 of the Memorandum to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, ‘‘Issues and Decisions for the Final Results of Administrative and New Shipper Reviews,’’ dated May 9, 2007 (‘‘Decision Memorandum’’), for a complete discussion of this issue. On March 16, 2007, Forecarry and Formost resubmitted their case brief. On March 28, 2007, the Department held a public hearing concerning this issues raised by the parties in these reviews. E:\FR\FM\15MYN1.SGM 15MYN1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES 27288 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 15, 2007 / Notices Scope of Antidumping Duty Order1 The product covered by this order consists of hand trucks manufactured from any material, whether assembled or unassembled, complete or incomplete, suitable for any use, and certain parts thereof, namely the vertical frame, the handling area and the projecting edges or toe plate, and any combination thereof. A complete or fully assembled hand truck is a hand–propelled barrow consisting of a vertically disposed frame having a handle or more than one handle at or near the upper section of the vertical frame; at least two wheels at or near the lower section of the vertical frame; and a horizontal projecting edge or edges, or toe plate, perpendicular or angled to the vertical frame, at or near the lower section of the vertical frame. The projecting edge or edges, or toe plate, slides under a load for purposes of lifting and/or moving the load. That the vertical frame can be converted from a vertical setting to a horizontal setting, then operated in that horizontal setting as a platform, is not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck from the scope of this petition. That the vertical frame, handling area, wheels, projecting edges or other parts of the hand truck can be collapsed or folded is not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck from the scope of the petition. That other wheels may be connected to the vertical frame, handling area, projecting edges, or other parts of the hand truck, in addition to the two or more wheels located at or near the lower section of the vertical frame, is not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck from the scope of the petition. Finally, that the hand truck may exhibit physical characteristics in addition to the vertical frame, the handling area, the projecting edges or toe plate, and the two wheels at or near the lower section of the vertical frame, is not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck from the scope of the petition. Examples of names commonly used to reference hand trucks are hand truck, convertible hand truck, appliance hand truck, cylinder hand truck, bag truck, dolly, or hand trolley. They are typically imported under heading 8716.80.50.10 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’), although they may also be imported under heading 8716.80.50.90. Specific parts of a hand truck, namely the vertical frame, the handling area and the projecting edges or toe plate, or any combination thereof, are typically imported under 1 See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof From the People’s Republic of China, 69 FR 70122 (December 2, 2004). VerDate Aug<31>2005 13:50 May 14, 2007 Jkt 211001 heading 8716.90.50.60 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department’s written description of the scope is dispositive. Excluded from the scope are small two–wheel or four–wheel utility carts specifically designed for carrying loads like personal bags or luggage in which the frame is made from telescoping tubular material measuring less than 5/ 8 inch in diameter; hand trucks that use motorized operations either to move the hand truck from one location to the next or to assist in the lifting of items placed on the hand truck; vertical carriers designed specifically to transport golf bags; and wheels and tires used in the manufacture of hand trucks. Separate Rates Forecarry and Formost, Since Hardware, and True Potential requested separate, company–specific antidumping duty rates. In the Preliminary Results, we found that Forecarry and Formost, and Since Hardware are owned wholly by entities located in market–economy countries. Thus, the Department preliminarily granted a separate rate to these two exporters. See Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 943–944. For the final results, the Department continues to grant Forecarry and Formost, and Since Hardware, separate rates for this review period because no party submitted comments on this issue, and no evidence was placed on the record that questions the appropriateness of this determination. Regarding True Potential, which is a privately owned company in the PRC, the Department conducted a separate rate analysis in the Preliminary Results. Based upon our analysis, we preliminarily granted True Potential a separate rate. See Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 944. For the final results, the Department did not receive any comments on True Potential’s separate rate, and no evidence was placed on the record that would warrant reconsideration of our separate rate analysis for True Potential. Therefore, the Department continues to find that True Potential has met the criteria for the application of a separate antidumping duty rate for this review period. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the briefs and rebuttal briefs submitted by the parties in these reviews are addressed in the Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties raised and to which we responded in the Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 as an appendix. The Decision Memorandum is a public document which is on file in the Central Records Unit in room B–099 in the main Department building, and is accessible on the Web at http:// www.ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the memorandum are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made changes in the margin calculations for Since Hardware and True Potential. For a list of these changes, see Decision Memorandum, at the section titled ‘‘Changes Since the Preliminary Results.’’ Adverse Facts Available 1. Forecarry and Formost Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘Act’’), provide that the Department shall apply ‘‘facts otherwise available’’ if 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 will so inform the party submitting the response and will, 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 and 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. E:\FR\FM\15MYN1.SGM 15MYN1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 15, 2007 / Notices Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information. Section 776(b) of the Act also authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available (‘‘AFA’’) information derived from the petition, the final determination, a previous administrative review, or other information placed on the record. In the Preliminary Results, the Department found that Forecarry and Formost failed to provide usable factors of production (‘‘FOPs’’). Further, the Department found that Forecarry and Formost (A) withheld information regarding Formost’s FOPs that had been requested, (B) failed to provide the FOP information in the form and manner requested by the Department, and (C) due to the absence of this information, Forecarry and Formost significantly impeded the proceeding because the Department could not tie the reported FOP database to appropriate source documentation. See Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 940–941. Thus, in the absence of a usable FOP database, the Department applied total facts available, according to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act. Id. at 941. Nonetheless, the Department provided Forecarry and Formost with a final opportunity to substantiate their reported FOPs by: (1) reconciling the reported FOPs to Formost’s normal books and records; and (2) demonstrating how the reported FOPs were calculated. See Supplemental Section D questionnaire, dated December 19, 2006. The Department has reviewed Forecarry and Formost’s response to the December 19, 2006, supplemental questionnaire, and the comments submitted by the parties regarding this issue. Based upon our analysis, for the final results, the Department finds that the information necessary to calculate an accurate and otherwise reliable margin is not available on the record with respect to Forecarry and Formost. Specifically, in its January 18, 2007, response to the Department’s December 19, 2006, supplemental questionnaire, Forecarry and Formost failed to (1) reconcile the reported FOPs to Formost’s normal books and records, and (2) demonstrate how the reported FOPs were calculated. See Comment 26 of the Decision Memorandum for a complete discussion of this issue. The Department continues to find that Forecarry and Formost withheld information, failed to provide VerDate Aug<31>2005 13:50 May 14, 2007 Jkt 211001 information requested by the Department in the form and manner required, and significantly impeded the Department’s ability to calculate an accurate margin. Therefore, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A),(B) and (C) of the Act, the Department is resorting to facts otherwise available. In the Preliminary Results, the Department found that it is reasonable to assume that Forecarry and Formost possessed the records necessary for this administrative review and that, by not supplying the information the Department requested, Forecarry and Formost failed to cooperate to the best of their ability. See Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 944. Therefore, the Department preliminarily applied an adverse inference. Id. For the final results, the Department continues to find that, in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act, it is appropriate to apply an adverse inference in selecting the facts available rate as it has determined that Forecarry and Formost did not act to the best of their ability to cooperate with the Department in this administrative review, because information placed on the record by Forecarry and Formost indicates that Forecarry and Formost reasonably could have responded to the Department’s requests for information. As a result, we are continuing to apply the highest rate from the history of this proceeding, 383.60 percent, the PRC– wide rate from the less–than-fair–value (‘‘LTFV’’) amended final determination. See Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof From the People’s Republic of China, 69 FR 65410, 65411 (November 12, 2004) (‘‘Final Amended Determination’’). 2. Future Tool and Shandong Machinery In the Preliminary Results, the Department determined that it was not appropriate to grant Qingdao Future Tool, Inc. (‘‘Future Tool’’), and Shandong Machinery Import & Export Group Corporation (‘‘Shandong Machinery’’), a separate rate because both of these companies failed to respond to the Department’s requests for information. See 72 FR at 942. For this reason, we considered Future Tool and Shandong Machinery as part of the PRC–wide entity. Moreover, since the PRC–wide entity did not respond to our requests for information, we applied total facts available to the PRC–wide entity pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act. Id. For the final results, since no new information has been placed on the record regarding Future Tool, Shandong Machinery, or the PRC–wide entity, we continue to apply total facts available. PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 27289 As we stated in the Preliminary Results, it is reasonable to assume that the PRC–wide entity (including Shandong Machinery and Future Tool) possessed the records necessary for this administrative review and that, by not supplying the information the Department requested, these companies failed to cooperate to the best of their ability. See Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 944. Accordingly, because the PRC– wide entity (including Future Tool and Shandong Machinery) failed to respond to the Department’s requests for information, we continue to find that these companies have not acted to the best of their abilities in this proceeding, within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act. Therefore, an adverse inference is warranted in selecting from the facts otherwise available. As a result, we are continuing to apply the highest rate from the history of this proceeding, 383.60 percent, the PRC–wide rate from the LTFV final determination, to the PRC–wide entity (including Future Tool and Shandong Machinery). See Final Amended Determination. Corroboration Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the course of an investigation or review, it shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is defined as ‘‘information derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.’’ See Statement of Administrative Action (‘‘SAA’’) accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. Vol. 1 at 870 (1994). The SAA clarifies that ‘‘corroborate’’ means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. Id. To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information to be used. The Department, however, need not prove that the selected facts available are the best alternative information. See SAA at 869; see also Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of E:\FR\FM\15MYN1.SGM 15MYN1 27290 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 15, 2007 / Notices cprice-sewell on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996) (unchanged in the final results). Independent sources used to corroborate such evidence may include, for example, ‘‘published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information obtained from interested parties during the instant investigation or review.’’ See 19 CFR 351.308(d) and SAA at 870; see also Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: High and Ultra– High Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators from Japan, 68 FR 35627, 35629 (June 16, 2003) (where the Department reviewed the adequacy and accuracy of the information in the petition) (unchanged in final determination); and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Live Swine From Canada, 70 FR 12181, 12183 (March 11, 2005) (where the Department compared the normal values and U.S. prices submitted by the petitioners to data submitted by the respondents for whom the Department calculated a margin). The reliability of the AFA rate was determined in the final determination of the investigation when the Department compared the U.S. prices from the price quotations in the petition to prices of comparable products sold by a mandatory respondent in the LTFV investigation, and found them to be comparable. See Final Amended Determination. The Department applied this rate as AFA to Qingdao Xinghua Group Co., Ltd. (‘‘Xinghua’’) in the Final Amended Determination.2 The Department also compared the surrogate values used in the petition to the surrogate values selected for the final determination, and then adjusted and replaced certain values to make them more accurate. Finally, the Department replaced the surrogate value ratios in the petition with those used in the final investigation. Therefore, in the investigation, the Department found this margin to be reliable. Id. Further, the application of this rate was subject to comment from interested parties in the instant proceeding. The Department has received no information to date that warrants revisiting the issue of the reliability of the rate calculation itself. See, e.g., Certain Preserved Mushrooms 2 In the final determination, the Department applied total AFA to Xinghua, and assigned Xinghua the PRC-wide rate of 386.75 percent. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the People’s Republic of China, 69 FR 60980, 60984 (October 14, 2004). The Department revised the PRC-wide rate in the amended final determination from 386.75 percent to 383.60 percent. See Final Amended Determination, 69 FR at 65411. VerDate Aug<31>2005 13:50 May 14, 2007 Jkt 211001 From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the New Shipper Review and Final Results and Partial Rescission of the Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 41304, 41307–41308 (July 11, 2003). Since no information has been presented in the current review that calls into question the reliability of this information, the Department finds the selected rate reliable. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. For example, in Fresh Cut Flowers From Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996), the Department disregarded the highest margin in that case as adverse best information available (the predecessor to facts available), because the margin was based on another company’s uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high margin. Similarly, the Department does not apply a margin that has been discredited. See D&L Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 1997) where the Court ruled that the Department will not use a margin that has been judicially invalidated. Nothing on the record of this review calls into question the relevance of the margin selected as AFA. Further, the selected margin is currently the PRC–wide rate. Moreover, this rate has not been invalidated judicially. Thus, it is appropriate to use the selected rate as AFA in the instant review. Therefore, we determine that the rate from the Final Amended Determination continues to be relevant for use in this administrative review. As the recalculated Final Amended Determination rate is both reliable and relevant, we determine that it has probative value. As a result, the Department determines that the Final Amended Determination rate is corroborated for the purposes of this administrative review and may reasonably be applied to Forecarry and Formost, and the PRC–wide entity, as AFA. Accordingly, we determine that the Final Amended Determination rate of 383.60 percent, which is the highest rate from any segment of this administrative proceeding, meets the corroboration criteria established in section 776(c) of the Act that secondary information have probative value. PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Final Results of Review We determine that the following percentage margins exist for the period December 1, 2004, through November 30, 2005: Exporter/manufacturer Forecarry Corp. and Formost Plastics & Metalworks (Jianxing) Co., Ltd. .................. Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd ................................... True Potential Co., Ltd. .............. PRC–wide Rate .......................... Weighted– average margin percentage 383.6 0 17.59 383.6 Assessment Rates Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP within 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review. For assessment purposes, where possible, we calculated importer– specific assessment rates for hand trucks from the PRC via ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of the dumping margins calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales. However, as noted in the Preliminary Results, we calculated importer–specific per–unit assessment instructions because True Potential was unable to provide the entered value of its reported sales. See Preliminary Results at 72 FR at 947. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of hand trucks from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) for Forecarry and Formost, Since Hardware, and True Potential, which each have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will be the company–specific rate shown above; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above that have a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company–specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) the cash deposit rate for all other PRC exporters will be 383.60 percent, the current PRC–wide rate; and E:\FR\FM\15MYN1.SGM 15MYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 15, 2007 / Notices (4) the cash deposit rate for all non–PRC exporters will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that exporter. These cash deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification of Interested Parties This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) 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 the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (‘‘APOs’’) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: May 9, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. cprice-sewell on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES Appendix I. General Issues Comment 1: Whether the Department Should Use an Electricity–Specific Inflation Index to Adjust the Electricity Surrogate Value. Comment 2: Whether the Department Should Include Packing Materials and Packing Labor in the Application Bases for Surrogate Financial Ratios. Comment 3: Whether the Department Should Correct Clerical Errors in the Application of the Surrogate Values for Inland Freight Expenses. Comment 4: Whether the Department Should Correct Clerical Errors in the Application of the Surrogate Values for Domestic Brokerage and Handling Expenses. Comment 5: Whether the Department Should Select Different Financial VerDate Aug<31>2005 13:50 May 14, 2007 Jkt 211001 Statements to Value Factory Overhead, Selling, General & Administrative Expenses, and Profit. Comment 6: Whether the Department Should Use the 2004–2005 or the 2005– 2006 Financial Statements of Jay Equipment to Calculate Overhead, Selling, General & Administrative Expenses and Profit. Comment 7: Whether the Department Should Correct Its Calculation of the Surrogate Financial Ratios for Rexello Castors Private Ltd. Comment 8:Whether the Department Should Correct Its Application of the Surrogate Value for Hydrochloric Acid. Comment 9: Whether the Department Should Apply an Updated Surrogate Value for Brokerage and Handling Expenses. Comment 10: Whether the Department Should Apply the Most Recently Calculated Non–Market Economy Wage Rate for the PRC. II. Company–Specific Issues B. True Potential Issues Comment 20: Whether the Department Should Add Trading Company Factors for Selling, General and Administrative Expenses and Profit to its Calculation of True Potential’s Normal Value. Comment 21: Whether the Department Should Correct its Application of a Surrogate Value for Certain Ball Bearings. Comment 22: Whether the Department Should Correct Its Surrogate Value Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Calculation for Carbon Dioxide to Include Imports from Hong Kong. Comment 23: Whether the Department Should Correct its Surrogate Value Calculation for Welding Solder to Include Imports from Austria and the Netherlands. C. Future Tool’s Issue Comment 24: Whether the Department Should Continue to Apply Adverse Facts Available to Future Tool. D. Shangdong Machinery’s Issue Comment 25: Whether the Department Should Continue to Apply Adverse Facts Available to Shandong Machinery. E. Forecarry and Formost’s Issues Comment 26: Whether to Apply Facts Available to Forecarry and Formost. Comment 27: Whether to Apply Adverse Facts Available to Forecarry and Formost. [FR Doc. E7–9324 Filed 5–14–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S A. Since Hardware Issues Comment 11: Whether the Department Should Accept Since Hardware’s Reported Factors of Production Methodology. Comment 12: Whether the Department Should Reject Since Hardware’s Market Economy Purchases of Steel Inputs. Comment 13: Whether the Department Should Assign a Surrogate Value to Plastic Bags. Comment 14: Whether the Department Should Assign Bungee Cable a Different HTS Classification. Comment 15: Whether the Department Should Assign a Surrogate Value to the Input for Petrolatum. Comment 16: Whether the Inclusion of South Korea in the Calculation of the Surrogate Value for Muriate of Potash is Warranted. Comment 17:Whether the Calculation of the Surrogate Value for Welding Rod is Correct. Comment 18: Whether the Department Should Assign Bearings a Different HTS Classification. Comment 19: Whether the Inclusion of Packing–Related Inputs in Cost of Manufacturing is Valid. PO 00000 27291 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 042707A] Marine Mammals; File No. 486–1919 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; receipt of application. AGENCY: SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Brent Stewart, Ph.D, J.D, HubbsSeaWorld Research Institute, 2595 Ingraham Street, San Diego, CA, 92109, has applied for a permit to conduct reseach on crabeater (Lobodon carcinophaga), Ross (Ommatophoca rossii), leopard (Hydruga leptonyx), and Weddell (Leptonychotes weddellii) seals in Antarctica. DATES: Written, telefaxed, or e-mail comments must be received on or before June 14, 2007. ADDRESSES: The application and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s): Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713–2289; fax (301)427–2521; and Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802–4213; phone (562)980–4001; fax (562)980–4018. Written comments or requests for a public hearing on this application E:\FR\FM\15MYN1.SGM 15MYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 93 (Tuesday, May 15, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27287-27291]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9324]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-891]


Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic 
of China: Final Results of Administrative Review and Final Results of 
New Shipper Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 15, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maisha Cryor or Mark Manning; AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
5831 or (202) 482-5253, respectively.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``Department'') published its 
preliminary results of the administrative review and new shipper review 
of the antidumping duty order on hand trucks and certain parts thereof 
(``hand trucks'') from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'') on 
January 9, 2007. See Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof From the 
People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission 
of Administrative Review and Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review, 
72 FR 937 (January 9, 2007) (``Preliminary Results''). The period of 
review (``POR'') is December 1, 2004, through November 30, 2005. We 
invited interested parties to comment on our Preliminary Results. Based 
on our analysis of the comments received, we have made changes to our 
calculations. The final dumping margins for this review are listed in 
the ``Final Results of Review'' section below.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 1, 2006, the Department 
published in the Federal Register a notice of the initiation of the 
antidumping duty administrative review of hand trucks from the PRC for 
the period May 24, 2004, through November 30, 2005. See Initiation of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request 
for Revocation in Part, 71 FR 5241 (February 1, 2006). On February 3, 
2006, the Department also published in the Federal Register a notice of 
the initiation of the new shipper review of Since Hardware (Guangzhou) 
Co., Ltd. (``Since Hardware''). See Hand Trucks and Certain Parts 
Thereof From the People's Republic of China; Initiation of New Shipper 
Review, 71 FR 5810 (February 3, 2006).
    The Department published the preliminary results of these reviews 
on January 9, 2007. See Preliminary Results. We invited parties to 
comment on our preliminary results of review. See Preliminary Results, 
72 FR at 946-947. Forecarry Corporation and Formost Plastics & 
Metalworks (Jiaxing) Co., Ltd. (``Forecarry and Formost'') submitted 
their response to the Department's December 19, 2006, supplemental 
section D questionnaire on January 18, 2007. Forecarry and Formost 
submitted a case brief on February 14, 2007; Since Hardware submitted a 
case brief on February 15, 2007; and on February 16, 2007, Gleason 
Industrial Products, Inc., and Precision Products, Inc. (collectively, 
``the petitioner'') submitted a case brief. On February 20, 2007, the 
petitioner filed allegations that the case briefs submitted by 
Forecarry and Formost, and Since Hardware contained new information. 
Forecarry and Formost, and True Potential Co., Ltd. (``True 
Potential'') submitted rebuttal briefs on February 20, 2007, Since 
Hardware submitted a rebuttal brief on February 21, 2007, and the 
petitioner submitted a rebuttal brief on February 22, 2007. On March 7, 
2007, the Department notified Forecarry and Formost that their case 
brief contained new information and requested that Forecarry and 
Formost resubmit their case brief, redacting factual information 
submitted after the deadline for new factual information, and not 
solicited by the Department, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2). 
Regarding the allegation of new information in Since Hardware's case 
brief, the Department has reviewed this allegation and examined the 
information contained in Since Hardware's prior submission. Based upon 
our analysis, the Department disagrees with the petitioner that Since 
Hardware's case brief contained new information. See Comment 18 of the 
Memorandum to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import 
Administration, from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Import Administration, ``Issues and Decisions for the Final Results of 
Administrative and New Shipper Reviews,'' dated May 9, 2007 (``Decision 
Memorandum''), for a complete discussion of this issue. On March 16, 
2007, Forecarry and Formost resubmitted their case brief. On March 28, 
2007, the Department held a public hearing concerning this issues 
raised by the parties in these reviews.

[[Page 27288]]

Scope of Antidumping Duty Order\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Hand Trucks and 
Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 
70122 (December 2, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The product covered by this order consists of hand trucks 
manufactured from any material, whether assembled or unassembled, 
complete or incomplete, suitable for any use, and certain parts 
thereof, namely the vertical frame, the handling area and the 
projecting edges or toe plate, and any combination thereof.
    A complete or fully assembled hand truck is a hand-propelled barrow 
consisting of a vertically disposed frame having a handle or more than 
one handle at or near the upper section of the vertical frame; at least 
two wheels at or near the lower section of the vertical frame; and a 
horizontal projecting edge or edges, or toe plate, perpendicular or 
angled to the vertical frame, at or near the lower section of the 
vertical frame. The projecting edge or edges, or toe plate, slides 
under a load for purposes of lifting and/or moving the load.
    That the vertical frame can be converted from a vertical setting to 
a horizontal setting, then operated in that horizontal setting as a 
platform, is not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck from the scope 
of this petition. That the vertical frame, handling area, wheels, 
projecting edges or other parts of the hand truck can be collapsed or 
folded is not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck from the scope of 
the petition. That other wheels may be connected to the vertical frame, 
handling area, projecting edges, or other parts of the hand truck, in 
addition to the two or more wheels located at or near the lower section 
of the vertical frame, is not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck 
from the scope of the petition. Finally, that the hand truck may 
exhibit physical characteristics in addition to the vertical frame, the 
handling area, the projecting edges or toe plate, and the two wheels at 
or near the lower section of the vertical frame, is not a basis for 
exclusion of the hand truck from the scope of the petition.
    Examples of names commonly used to reference hand trucks are hand 
truck, convertible hand truck, appliance hand truck, cylinder hand 
truck, bag truck, dolly, or hand trolley. They are typically imported 
under heading 8716.80.50.10 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (``HTSUS''), although they may also be imported under 
heading 8716.80.50.90. Specific parts of a hand truck, namely the 
vertical frame, the handling area and the projecting edges or toe 
plate, or any combination thereof, are typically imported under heading 
8716.90.50.60 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided 
for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written 
description of the scope is dispositive.
    Excluded from the scope are small two-wheel or four-wheel utility 
carts specifically designed for carrying loads like personal bags or 
luggage in which the frame is made from telescoping tubular material 
measuring less than 5/8 inch in diameter; hand trucks that use 
motorized operations either to move the hand truck from one location to 
the next or to assist in the lifting of items placed on the hand truck; 
vertical carriers designed specifically to transport golf bags; and 
wheels and tires used in the manufacture of hand trucks.

Separate Rates

    Forecarry and Formost, Since Hardware, and True Potential requested 
separate, company-specific antidumping duty rates. In the Preliminary 
Results, we found that Forecarry and Formost, and Since Hardware are 
owned wholly by entities located in market-economy countries. Thus, the 
Department preliminarily granted a separate rate to these two 
exporters. See Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 943-944. For the final 
results, the Department continues to grant Forecarry and Formost, and 
Since Hardware, separate rates for this review period because no party 
submitted comments on this issue, and no evidence was placed on the 
record that questions the appropriateness of this determination. 
Regarding True Potential, which is a privately owned company in the 
PRC, the Department conducted a separate rate analysis in the 
Preliminary Results. Based upon our analysis, we preliminarily granted 
True Potential a separate rate. See Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 944. 
For the final results, the Department did not receive any comments on 
True Potential's separate rate, and no evidence was placed on the 
record that would warrant reconsideration of our separate rate analysis 
for True Potential. Therefore, the Department continues to find that 
True Potential has met the criteria for the application of a separate 
antidumping duty rate for this review period.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the briefs and rebuttal briefs submitted by 
the parties in these reviews are addressed in the Decision Memorandum, 
which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which 
parties raised and to which we responded in the Decision Memorandum is 
attached to this notice as an appendix. The Decision Memorandum is a 
public document which is on file in the Central Records Unit in room B-
099 in the main Department building, and is accessible on the Web at 
http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of 
the memorandum are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made changes in 
the margin calculations for Since Hardware and True Potential. For a 
list of these changes, see Decision Memorandum, at the section titled 
``Changes Since the Preliminary Results.''

Adverse Facts Available

1. Forecarry and Formost
    Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(``Act''), provide that the Department shall apply ``facts otherwise 
available'' if 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 will so inform the party submitting the 
response and will, 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 and 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.

[[Page 27289]]

    Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may 
use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when 
a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its 
ability to comply with a request for information. Section 776(b) of the 
Act also authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available 
(``AFA'') information derived from the petition, the final 
determination, a previous administrative review, or other information 
placed on the record.
    In the Preliminary Results, the Department found that Forecarry and 
Formost failed to provide usable factors of production (``FOPs''). 
Further, the Department found that Forecarry and Formost (A) withheld 
information regarding Formost's FOPs that had been requested, (B) 
failed to provide the FOP information in the form and manner requested 
by the Department, and (C) due to the absence of this information, 
Forecarry and Formost significantly impeded the proceeding because the 
Department could not tie the reported FOP database to appropriate 
source documentation. See Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 940-941. Thus, 
in the absence of a usable FOP database, the Department applied total 
facts available, according to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of 
the Act. Id. at 941. Nonetheless, the Department provided Forecarry and 
Formost with a final opportunity to substantiate their reported FOPs 
by: (1) reconciling the reported FOPs to Formost's normal books and 
records; and (2) demonstrating how the reported FOPs were calculated. 
See Supplemental Section D questionnaire, dated December 19, 2006.
    The Department has reviewed Forecarry and Formost's response to the 
December 19, 2006, supplemental questionnaire, and the comments 
submitted by the parties regarding this issue. Based upon our analysis, 
for the final results, the Department finds that the information 
necessary to calculate an accurate and otherwise reliable margin is not 
available on the record with respect to Forecarry and Formost. 
Specifically, in its January 18, 2007, response to the Department's 
December 19, 2006, supplemental questionnaire, Forecarry and Formost 
failed to (1) reconcile the reported FOPs to Formost's normal books and 
records, and (2) demonstrate how the reported FOPs were calculated. See 
Comment 26 of the Decision Memorandum for a complete discussion of this 
issue. The Department continues to find that Forecarry and Formost 
withheld information, failed to provide information requested by the 
Department in the form and manner required, and significantly impeded 
the Department's ability to calculate an accurate margin. Therefore, 
pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A),(B) and (C) of the Act, the 
Department is resorting to facts otherwise available.
    In the Preliminary Results, the Department found that it is 
reasonable to assume that Forecarry and Formost possessed the records 
necessary for this administrative review and that, by not supplying the 
information the Department requested, Forecarry and Formost failed to 
cooperate to the best of their ability. See Preliminary Results, 72 FR 
at 944. Therefore, the Department preliminarily applied an adverse 
inference. Id. For the final results, the Department continues to find 
that, in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act, it is appropriate 
to apply an adverse inference in selecting the facts available rate as 
it has determined that Forecarry and Formost did not act to the best of 
their ability to cooperate with the Department in this administrative 
review, because information placed on the record by Forecarry and 
Formost indicates that Forecarry and Formost reasonably could have 
responded to the Department's requests for information. As a result, we 
are continuing to apply the highest rate from the history of this 
proceeding, 383.60 percent, the PRC-wide rate from the less-than-fair-
value (``LTFV'') amended final determination. See Amended Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Hand Trucks and Certain 
Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 65410, 65411 
(November 12, 2004) (``Final Amended Determination'').
2. Future Tool and Shandong Machinery
    In the Preliminary Results, the Department determined that it was 
not appropriate to grant Qingdao Future Tool, Inc. (``Future Tool''), 
and Shandong Machinery Import & Export Group Corporation (``Shandong 
Machinery''), a separate rate because both of these companies failed to 
respond to the Department's requests for information. See 72 FR at 942. 
For this reason, we considered Future Tool and Shandong Machinery as 
part of the PRC-wide entity. Moreover, since the PRC-wide entity did 
not respond to our requests for information, we applied total facts 
available to the PRC-wide entity pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and 
(C) of the Act. Id. For the final results, since no new information has 
been placed on the record regarding Future Tool, Shandong Machinery, or 
the PRC-wide entity, we continue to apply total facts available.
    As we stated in the Preliminary Results, it is reasonable to assume 
that the PRC-wide entity (including Shandong Machinery and Future Tool) 
possessed the records necessary for this administrative review and 
that, by not supplying the information the Department requested, these 
companies failed to cooperate to the best of their ability. See 
Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 944. Accordingly, because the PRC-wide 
entity (including Future Tool and Shandong Machinery) failed to respond 
to the Department's requests for information, we continue to find that 
these companies have not acted to the best of their abilities in this 
proceeding, within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act. Therefore, 
an adverse inference is warranted in selecting from the facts otherwise 
available. As a result, we are continuing to apply the highest rate 
from the history of this proceeding, 383.60 percent, the PRC-wide rate 
from the LTFV final determination, to the PRC-wide entity (including 
Future Tool and Shandong Machinery). See Final Amended Determination.

Corroboration

    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies 
on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the 
course of an investigation or review, it shall, to the extent 
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that 
are reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is defined as 
``information derived from the petition that gave rise to the 
investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject 
merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the 
subject merchandise.'' See Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA'') 
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H. Doc. No. 316, 103d 
Cong., 2d Sess. Vol. 1 at 870 (1994). The SAA clarifies that 
``corroborate'' means that the Department will satisfy itself that the 
secondary information to be used has probative value. Id. To 
corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent 
practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information 
to be used. The Department, however, need not prove that the selected 
facts available are the best alternative information. See SAA at 869; 
see also Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less 
in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan; Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial 
Termination of

[[Page 27290]]

Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996) 
(unchanged in the final results). Independent sources used to 
corroborate such evidence may include, for example, ``published price 
lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information 
obtained from interested parties during the instant investigation or 
review.'' See 19 CFR 351.308(d) and SAA at 870; see also Notice of 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: High and 
Ultra-High Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators from Japan, 68 FR 
35627, 35629 (June 16, 2003) (where the Department reviewed the 
adequacy and accuracy of the information in the petition) (unchanged in 
final determination); and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Live Swine From Canada, 70 FR 12181, 12183 (March 
11, 2005) (where the Department compared the normal values and U.S. 
prices submitted by the petitioners to data submitted by the 
respondents for whom the Department calculated a margin).
    The reliability of the AFA rate was determined in the final 
determination of the investigation when the Department compared the 
U.S. prices from the price quotations in the petition to prices of 
comparable products sold by a mandatory respondent in the LTFV 
investigation, and found them to be comparable. See Final Amended 
Determination. The Department applied this rate as AFA to Qingdao 
Xinghua Group Co., Ltd. (``Xinghua'') in the Final Amended 
Determination.\2\ The Department also compared the surrogate values 
used in the petition to the surrogate values selected for the final 
determination, and then adjusted and replaced certain values to make 
them more accurate. Finally, the Department replaced the surrogate 
value ratios in the petition with those used in the final 
investigation. Therefore, in the investigation, the Department found 
this margin to be reliable. Id. Further, the application of this rate 
was subject to comment from interested parties in the instant 
proceeding. The Department has received no information to date that 
warrants revisiting the issue of the reliability of the rate 
calculation itself. See, e.g., Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the 
People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 
New Shipper Review and Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 
Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 41304, 41307-41308 
(July 11, 2003). Since no information has been presented in the current 
review that calls into question the reliability of this information, 
the Department finds the selected rate reliable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In the final determination, the Department applied total AFA 
to Xinghua, and assigned Xinghua the PRC-wide rate of 386.75 
percent. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's 
Republic of China, 69 FR 60980, 60984 (October 14, 2004). The 
Department revised the PRC-wide rate in the amended final 
determination from 386.75 percent to 383.60 percent. See Final 
Amended Determination, 69 FR at 65411.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the 
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to 
determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where 
circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as 
AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an 
appropriate margin. For example, in Fresh Cut Flowers From Mexico: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812 
(February 22, 1996), the Department disregarded the highest margin in 
that case as adverse best information available (the predecessor to 
facts available), because the margin was based on another company's 
uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high 
margin. Similarly, the Department does not apply a margin that has been 
discredited. See D&L Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1221 
(Fed. Cir. 1997) where the Court ruled that the Department will not use 
a margin that has been judicially invalidated. Nothing on the record of 
this review calls into question the relevance of the margin selected as 
AFA. Further, the selected margin is currently the PRC-wide rate. 
Moreover, this rate has not been invalidated judicially. Thus, it is 
appropriate to use the selected rate as AFA in the instant review. 
Therefore, we determine that the rate from the Final Amended 
Determination continues to be relevant for use in this administrative 
review.
    As the recalculated Final Amended Determination rate is both 
reliable and relevant, we determine that it has probative value. As a 
result, the Department determines that the Final Amended Determination 
rate is corroborated for the purposes of this administrative review and 
may reasonably be applied to Forecarry and Formost, and the PRC-wide 
entity, as AFA. Accordingly, we determine that the Final Amended 
Determination rate of 383.60 percent, which is the highest rate from 
any segment of this administrative proceeding, meets the corroboration 
criteria established in section 776(c) of the Act that secondary 
information have probative value.

Final Results of Review

    We determine that the following percentage margins exist for the 
period December 1, 2004, through November 30, 2005:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Weighted-
                 Exporter/manufacturer                    average margin
                                                            percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forecarry Corp. and Formost Plastics & Metalworks                383.6
 (Jianxing) Co., Ltd...................................
Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd....................              0
True Potential Co., Ltd................................          17.59
PRC-wide Rate..........................................          383.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue 
assessment instructions to CBP within 15 days after the date of 
publication of these final results of review. For assessment purposes, 
where possible, we calculated importer-specific assessment rates for 
hand trucks from the PRC via ad valorem duty assessment rates based on 
the ratio of the total amount of the dumping margins calculated for the 
examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales. However, 
as noted in the Preliminary Results, we calculated importer-specific 
per-unit assessment instructions because True Potential was unable to 
provide the entered value of its reported sales. See Preliminary 
Results at 72 FR at 947. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of this notice of final results of administrative review 
for all shipments of hand trucks from the PRC entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as 
provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) for Forecarry and 
Formost, Since Hardware, and True Potential, which each have separate 
rates, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate shown 
above; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed 
above that have a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will continue to 
be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) 
the cash deposit rate for all other PRC exporters will be 383.60 
percent, the current PRC-wide rate; and

[[Page 27291]]

(4) the cash deposit rate for all non-PRC exporters will be the rate 
applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that exporter. These cash 
deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice.

Notification of Interested Parties

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) 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 the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective orders (``APOs'') of their responsibility 
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues 
to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the 
proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of 
APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby 
requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO 
is a violation which is subject to sanction.
    We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: May 9, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix

I. General Issues

Comment 1: Whether the Department Should Use an Electricity-Specific 
Inflation Index to Adjust the Electricity Surrogate Value.
Comment 2: Whether the Department Should Include Packing Materials and 
Packing Labor in the Application Bases for Surrogate Financial Ratios.
Comment 3: Whether the Department Should Correct Clerical Errors in the 
Application of the Surrogate Values for Inland Freight Expenses.
Comment 4: Whether the Department Should Correct Clerical Errors in the 
Application of the Surrogate Values for Domestic Brokerage and Handling 
Expenses.
Comment 5: Whether the Department Should Select Different Financial 
Statements to Value Factory Overhead, Selling, General & Administrative 
Expenses, and Profit.
Comment 6: Whether the Department Should Use the 2004-2005 or the 2005-
2006 Financial Statements of Jay Equipment to Calculate Overhead, 
Selling, General & Administrative Expenses and Profit.
Comment 7: Whether the Department Should Correct Its Calculation of the 
Surrogate Financial Ratios for Rexello Castors Private Ltd.
Comment 8:Whether the Department Should Correct Its Application of the 
Surrogate Value for Hydrochloric Acid.
Comment 9: Whether the Department Should Apply an Updated Surrogate 
Value for Brokerage and Handling Expenses.
Comment 10: Whether the Department Should Apply the Most Recently 
Calculated Non-Market Economy Wage Rate for the PRC.

II. Company-Specific Issues

A. Since Hardware Issues
Comment 11: Whether the Department Should Accept Since Hardware's 
Reported Factors of Production Methodology.
Comment 12: Whether the Department Should Reject Since Hardware's 
Market Economy Purchases of Steel Inputs.
Comment 13: Whether the Department Should Assign a Surrogate Value to 
Plastic Bags.
Comment 14: Whether the Department Should Assign Bungee Cable a 
Different HTS Classification.
Comment 15: Whether the Department Should Assign a Surrogate Value to 
the Input for Petrolatum.
Comment 16: Whether the Inclusion of South Korea in the Calculation of 
the Surrogate Value for Muriate of Potash is Warranted.
Comment 17:Whether the Calculation of the Surrogate Value for Welding 
Rod is Correct.
Comment 18: Whether the Department Should Assign Bearings a Different 
HTS Classification.
Comment 19: Whether the Inclusion of Packing-Related Inputs in Cost of 
Manufacturing is Valid.
B. True Potential Issues
Comment 20: Whether the Department Should Add Trading Company Factors 
for Selling, General and Administrative Expenses and Profit to its 
Calculation of True Potential's Normal Value.
Comment 21: Whether the Department Should Correct its Application of a 
Surrogate Value for Certain Ball Bearings.
Comment 22: Whether the Department Should Correct Its Surrogate Value 
Calculation for Carbon Dioxide to Include Imports from Hong Kong.
Comment 23: Whether the Department Should Correct its Surrogate Value 
Calculation for Welding Solder to Include Imports from Austria and the 
Netherlands.
C. Future Tool's Issue
Comment 24: Whether the Department Should Continue to Apply Adverse 
Facts Available to Future Tool.
D. Shangdong Machinery's Issue
Comment 25: Whether the Department Should Continue to Apply Adverse 
Facts Available to Shandong Machinery.
E. Forecarry and Formost's Issues
Comment 26: Whether to Apply Facts Available to Forecarry and Formost.
Comment 27: Whether to Apply Adverse Facts Available to Forecarry and 
Formost.
[FR Doc. E7-9324 Filed 5-14-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S