Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 37703-37711 [E7-13382]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 132 (Wednesday, July 11, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37703-37711]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-13382]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-868]


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

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting 
an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on folding metal 
tables and chairs (``FMTCs'') from the People's Republic of China 
(``PRC'') covering the period June 1, 2005, through May 31, 2006. We 
have preliminarily determined that sales have not been made below 
normal value (``NV'') by Feili Furniture Development Limited Quanzhou 
City, Feili Furniture

[[Page 37704]]

Development Co., Ltd., Feili Group (Fujian) Co., Ltd., and Feili 
(Fujian) Co., Ltd. (collectively ``Feili''), or by New-Tec Integration 
(Xiamen) Co. Ltd. (``New-Tec''). If these preliminary results are 
adopted in our final results of this review, we will instruct U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on 
all appropriate entries of subject merchandise during the period of 
review (``POR'').
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. We intend to issue the final results no later than 120 days 
from the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 
751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act'').

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 11, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurel LaCivita or Matthew Quigley, 
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-
4243 or (202) 482-4551, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 27, 2002, the Department published 
the antidumping duty order on FMTCs from the PRC. See Antidumping Duty 
Order: Folding Metal Tables and Chairs From the People's Republic of 
China, 67 FR 43277 (June 27, 2002). On June 2, 2006, the Department 
published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review 
of this order. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, 
or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative 
Review, 71 FR 32032 (June 2, 2006). In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.213(b)(1), the following requests were made: (1) on June 13, 2006, 
Feili, a producer/exporter of subject merchandise, requested that the 
Department conduct an administrative review of its sales;\1\ (2) on 
June 27, 2006, Meco Corporation (``Meco''), a domestic interested 
party, requested that the Department review Feili's and New-Tec's sales 
and entries during the POR; (3) on June 28, 2006, Cosco Home & Office 
Products (``Cosco''), a U.S. importer of subject merchandise, requested 
that the Department review Feili's and New-Tec's sales and entries 
during the POR;\2\ (4) on June 30, 2006, New-Tec, a producer/exporter 
of subject merchandise, requested that the Department conduct an 
administrative review of its sales;\3\ and (5) on June 30, 2006, 
Dongguan Shichang Metals Factory Ltd. and Maxchief Investments Ltd. 
(collectively ``Shichang''), a producer/exporter of subject 
merchandise, requested that the Department conduct an administrative 
review of its sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Feili's request for administrative review did not include a 
request for revocation.
    \2\ Although Cosco requested revocation on behalf of Feili and 
New-Tec, section 351.222(e) of the Department's regulations only 
permits an exporter or a producer to request revocation. Thus, Cosco 
cannot request revocation because it is not an exporter or a 
producer.
    \3\ New-Tec's request for administrative review did not include 
a request for revocation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 27, 2006, the Department initiated this administrative 
review with respect to Feili, New-Tec, and Shichang. See Initiation of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request 
for Revocation in Part, 71 FR 42626 (July 27, 2006). On July 28, 2006, 
Shichang withdrew its request for an administrative review.
    The Department issued antidumping duty questionnaires to Feili and 
New-Tec on September 12, 2006. On September 27, 2006, the Department 
published a partial rescission of the instant administrative review 
with respect to Shichang. See Folding Metal Tables and Chairs: Notice 
of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 
56473 (September 27, 2006). On October 6, 2006, Meco, a petitioner in 
the original investigation, requested that the Department verify the 
factual information submitted by Feili and New-Tec. On October 13, 
2006, New-Tec and Feili submitted Section A questionnaire responses 
(``AQRs''), and on November 3, 2006, New-Tec and Feili submitted 
Section C and D questionnaire responses (``CQRs'' and ``DQRs,'' 
respectively). On December 13, 2006, the Department issued its first 
supplemental questionnaires to New-Tec and Feili.
    On December 19, 2006, the Department requested the Office of Policy 
to provide a list of surrogate countries for this review. See 
Memorandum to Ron Lorentzen, Acting Director, Office of Policy, through 
Wendy Frankel, Director, Office 8, AD/CVD Operations, from Matthew 
Quigley, International Trade Compliance Analyst, ``Certain Folding 
Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China: Request 
for Surrogate Country Selection'' (December 19, 2006). On December 21, 
2006, the Office of Policy issued its list of surrogate countries. See 
Memorandum from Ron Lorentzen, Director, Office of Policy, to Wendy 
Frankel, Director, Office 8, AD/CVD Operations, ``Administrative Review 
of Certain Folding Metal Tables and Chairs (``Tables and Chairs'') from 
the People's Republic of China (PRC): Request for a List of Surrogate 
Countries'' (December 21, 2006) (``Surrogate Country Memorandum'').
    On January 10 and 12, 2007, respectively, Feili and New-Tec 
submitted their first supplemental questionnaire responses. On February 
12, 2007, the Department requested interested parties to submit 
surrogate value information and to provide surrogate country selection 
comments. Meco provided comments on publicly available information to 
value the factors of production (``FOP'') on February 26, 2007. None of 
the interested parties provided comments on the selection of a 
surrogate country.
    On March 2, 2007, Meco submitted comments on both New-Tec's and 
Feili's first supplemental questionnaire responses. On March 7, 2007, 
the Department published a notice in the Federal Register extending the 
time limit for the preliminary results of review until May 31, 2007. 
See Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of 
China: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of 
the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 10141 (March 7, 
2007). On March 20 and 26, 2007, respectively, the Department issued 
its second supplemental questionnaire to Feili and New-Tec. On March 30 
and April 16, 2007, respectively, Feili and New-Tec submitted their 
second supplemental questionnaire responses. On May 4, 2007, the 
Department published a notice in the Federal Register extending the 
time limit for the preliminary results of review until July 2, 2007. 
See Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of 
China: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of 
the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 25244 (May 4, 2007).

Verification of Responses

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified information 
provided by Feili and New-Tec. We used standard verification 
procedures, including on-site inspection of the manufacturers' and 
exporters' facilities, and examination of relevant sales and financial 
records. The Department conducted the sales and FOP verification at 
Feili's facilities in Quanzhou, Fujian Province from May 21 to 25, 
2007, and New-Tec's facilities in Xiamen, Fujian Province from May 28 
to June 1, 2007. Our verification results are outlined in the 
verification reports for Feili and New-Tec. See ``Verification of the 
Sales and Factors Response of Feili in the Antidumping

[[Page 37705]]

Review of Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of 
China'' (July 2, 2007) (``Feili Verification Report''), and 
``Verification of the Sales and Factors Response of New-Tec in the 
Antidumping Review of Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's 
Republic of China'' (July 2, 2007) (``New Tec Verification Report'').

Period of Review

    The POR is June 1, 2005, through May 31, 2006.

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by this order consist of assembled and 
unassembled folding tables and folding chairs made primarily or 
exclusively from steel or other metal, as described below:
    1) Assembled and unassembled folding tables made primarily or 
exclusively from steel or other metal (folding metal tables). Folding 
metal tables include square, round, rectangular, and any other shapes 
with legs affixed with rivets, welds, or any other type of fastener, 
and which are made most commonly, but not exclusively, with a hardboard 
top covered with vinyl or fabric. Folding metal tables have legs that 
mechanically fold independently of one another, and not as a set. The 
subject merchandise is commonly, but not exclusively, packed singly, in 
multiple packs of the same item, or in five piece sets consisting of 
four chairs and one table. Specifically excluded from the scope of the 
order regarding folding metal tables are the following:
    a. Lawn furniture;
    b. Trays commonly referred to as ``TV trays'';
    c. Side tables;
    d. Child-sized tables;
    e. Portable counter sets consisting of rectangular tables 36'' high 
and matching stools; and,
    f. Banquet tables. A banquet table is a rectangular table with a 
plastic or laminated wood table top approximately 28'' to 36'' wide by 
48'' to 96'' long and with a set of folding legs at each end of the 
table. One set of legs is composed of two individual legs that are 
affixed together by one or more cross-braces using welds or fastening 
hardware. In contrast, folding metal tables have legs that mechanically 
fold independently of one another, and not as a set.
    2) Assembled and unassembled folding chairs made primarily or 
exclusively from steel or other metal (folding metal chairs). Folding 
metal chairs include chairs with one or more cross-braces, regardless 
of shape or size, affixed to the front and/or rear legs with rivets, 
welds or any other type of fastener. Folding metal chairs include: 
those that are made solely of steel or other metal; those that have a 
back pad, a seat pad, or both a back pad and a seat pad; and those that 
have seats or backs made of plastic or other materials. The subject 
merchandise is commonly, but not exclusively, packed singly, in 
multiple packs of the same item, or in five piece sets consisting of 
four chairs and one table. Specifically excluded from the scope of the 
order regarding folding metal chairs are the following:
    a. Folding metal chairs with a wooden back or seat, or both;
    b. Lawn furniture;
    c. Stools;
    d. Chairs with arms; and
    e. Child-sized chairs.
    The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under subheadings 
9401.71.0010, 9401.71.0030, 9401.79.0045, 9401.79.0050, 9403.20.0015, 
9403.20.0030, 9403.70.8010, 9403.70.8020, and 9403.70.8030 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'').\4\ 
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs 
purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise is 
dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Originally the scope included 9403.20.0010 but, effective 
July 1, 2003, 9403.20.0010 (metal household furniture) was 
eliminated from the HTS code. 9403.20.0011 (ironing boards) and 
9403.20.0015 (other) were added in its place. 9403.20.0015 contains 
merchandise in 9403.20.0010 except for ironing boards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on a request by RPA International Pty., Ltd. and RPS, LLC, 
the Department ruled on January 13, 2003, that poly-fold metal folding 
chairs are within the scope of the order.
    On May 5, 2003, in response to a request by Staples, the Office 
Superstore Inc. (``Staples''), the Department issued a scope ruling 
that the chair component of Staples' ``Complete Office-To-Go,'' a 
folding chair with a tubular steel frame and a seat and back of 
plastic, with measurements of: height: 32.5 inches; width: 18.5 inches; 
and depth: 21.5 inches, is covered by the scope of the order.
    On September 7, 2004, the Department found that table styles 4600 
and 4606 produced by Lifetime Plastic Products Ltd. are within the 
scope of the order.
    On July 13, 2005, the Department issued a scope ruling determining 
that ``butterfly'' chairs are excluded from the scope of the 
antidumping duty order. Butterfly chairs are described as consisting of 
a collapsible metal rod frame and a cover, such that when the chair 
frame is spread open, the pockets of the cover are slipped over the 
upper ends of the frame and the cover provides both the seating surface 
and back of the chair. The frame consists of eight s-shaped pieces 
(with the ends offset at almost a 90-degree angle) made from metal rods 
that are connected by hinges. In order to collapse the frame, the chair 
cover must be removed. The frame is collapsed by moving the four legs 
inward until they meet in the center, similar to the folding mechanism 
of a pocket umbrella.
    On July 13, 2005, the Department issued a scope ruling determining 
that folding metal chairs, with wooden seats that have been padded with 
foam and covered with fabric or polyvinyl chloride and attached to the 
tubular steel seat frame with screws, are within the scope of the 
antidumping duty order.
    On May 1, 2006, the Department issued a scope ruling determining 
that ``moon chairs'' are not included within the scope of the 
antidumping duty order. Moon chairs are described as containing 
circular, fabric-padded, concave cushions that envelop the user at 
approximately a 105-degree reclining angle. The fabric cushion is 
ringed and supported by two curved 16-mm steel tubes. The cushion is 
attached to this ring by nylon fabric. The cushion is supported by a 
16-mm steel tube four-sided rectangular cross-brace mechanism that 
constitutes the moon chair's legs. This mechanism supports and attaches 
to the encircling tubing and enables the moon chair to be folded. To 
fold the chair, the user pulls on a fabric handle in the center of the 
seat cushion of the chair.

Non-Market Economy Country Status

    Neither Feili nor New-Tec contested the Department's treatment of 
the PRC as a non-market economy (``NME''), and the Department has 
treated the PRC as an NME country in all past antidumping duty 
investigations and administrative reviews and continues to do so in 
this case. See, e.g., Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic 
of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 
FR 27074, 27075 (May 14, 2007). No interested party in this case has 
argued that we should do otherwise. Designation as an NME country 
remains in effect until it is revoked by the Department. See Section 
771(18)(C)(i) of the Act.

Surrogate Country

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to base NV on 
the NME producer's FOPs, valued in a surrogate market-economy country 
or countries

[[Page 37706]]

considered to be appropriate by the Department. In accordance with 
section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the FOPs, the Department shall 
use, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of the FOPs in one or 
more market-economy countries that are: (1) at a level of economic 
development comparable to that of the NME country; and (2) significant 
producers of comparable merchandise. The sources of the surrogate 
factor values are discussed under the ``Normal Value'' section below 
and in the Memorandum from Laurel LaCivita and Matthew Quigley, 
International Trade Compliance Analysts, through Charles Riggle, 
Program Manager, to Wendy Frankel, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 
8, ``Preliminary Results of the 2005-2006 Administrative Review of 
Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China: 
Surrogate Value Memorandum'' (July 2, 2007) (``Surrogate Value 
Memorandum'').
    The Department has previously determined that India, Indonesia, Sri 
Lanka, the Philippines, and Egypt are countries comparable to the PRC 
in terms of economic development. See Surrogate Country Memorandum. 
Customarily, we select an appropriate surrogate country from the 
Surrogate Country Memorandum based on the availability and reliability 
of data from the countries that are significant producers of comparable 
merchandise. In this case, we have found that India is a significant 
producer of comparable merchandise. See Memorandum from Laurel LaCivita 
and Matthew Quigley, International Trade Compliance Analysts, through 
Charles Riggle Program Manager, to Wendy Frankel, Director, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 8, ``Antidumping Administrative Review of Folding 
Metal Tables and Chairs: Selection of a Surrogate Country'' (July 2, 
2007) (``Surrogate Country Selection Memorandum'').
    The Department used India as the primary surrogate country and, 
accordingly, has calculated NV using Indian prices to value the PRC 
producers' FOPs, when available and appropriate. See Surrogate Country 
Selection Memorandum and Surrogate Value Memorandum. We have obtained 
and relied upon publicly available information wherever possible.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results 
in an antidumping administrative review, interested parties may submit 
publicly available information to value FOPs within 20 days after the 
date of publication of these preliminary results of review.

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 subject merchandise subject to review in an NME 
country a single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is 
sufficiently independent of government control to be entitled to a 
separate rate. See, e.g., Certain Cased Pencils from the People's 
Republic of China; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 71 FR 70949, 70952 (December 7, 2006) (unchanged 
in the final results).
    We have considered whether each reviewed company based in the PRC 
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., Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length 
Carbon Steel Plate From Ukraine, 62 FR 61754, 61757 (November 19, 
1997); and Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China; Final Results of 
Antidumping Administrative Review, 62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 17, 
1997).
    To establish whether an exporter is sufficiently independent of 
government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department 
analyzes the exporter in light of select criteria, discussed below. See 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from 
the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) 
(``Sparklers''); and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide From the People's Republic of China, 
59 FR 22585, 22587 (May 2, 1994). Under this test, exporters in NME 
countries are entitled to separate, company-specific margins when they 
can demonstrate an absence of government control over exports, both in 
law (``de jure'') and in fact (``de facto'').
    Feili and New-Tec each provided company-specific separate-rate 
information and stated that each met the standards for the assignment 
of separate rates. Feili reported that it is wholly owned by market-
economy entities. See Feili's AQR, at 2 and Exhibit A-3. Therefore, 
consistent with the Department's practice, a separate-rates analysis is 
not necessary to determine whether Feili's export activities are 
independent from government control. See Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate From the 
People's Republic of China, 64 FR 71104 (December 20, 1999); and Notice 
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles From 
the People's Republic of China, 61 FR 19026, 19027 (April 30, 1996). 
For New-Tec, a separate-rates analysis is necessary to determine 
whether its export activities are independent from government control.

A. 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; or (3) any other formal 
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See, 
e.g., Sparklers, 56 FR 20588.
    New-Tec reported that it is a joint venture. Until April 2006, it 
was owned by New-Tec International Inc., a South Korean company, and 
Xiamen Integration Co., Ltd., a PRC company. In April 2006, New-Tec 
International Inc. transferred its shares to Mr. Lee Ki Cheon, a South 
Korean national. New-Tec has placed documents on the record to 
demonstrate the absence of de jure control including its list of 
shareholders, business license, and the Company Law of the PRC, as 
revised on October 27, 2005 (``Company Law''). Other than limiting New-
Tec to activities referenced in the business license, we found no 
restrictive stipulations associated with the license. In addition, in 
previous cases the Department has analyzed the Company Law and found 
that it establishes an absence of de jure control, lacking record 
evidence to the contrary. See, e.g., Certain Non-Frozen Apple Juice 
Concentrate from the People's Republic of China: Final Results, Partial 
Rescission and Termination of a Partial Deferral of the 2002-2003 
Administrative Review, 69 FR 65148, 65150 (November 10, 2004). We have 
no information in this segment of the proceeding that would cause us to 
reconsider this determination. Therefore, based on the foregoing, we

[[Page 37707]]

have preliminarily found an absence of de jure control for New-Tec.

B. Absence of De Facto Control

    As stated in previous cases, there is some evidence that certain 
enactments of the PRC central government have not been implemented 
uniformly among different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. See, 
e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544 (May 
8, 1995) (``Furfuryl Alcohol''). Therefore, an analysis of de facto 
control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in fact, 
subject to a degree of government control that would preclude the 
Department from assigning separate rates. The Department typically 
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 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. See, e.g., Furfuryl Alcohol, 60 FR 22545.
    With regard to de facto control, New-Tec reported that: (1) it 
independently set prices for sales to the United States through 
negotiations with customers and these prices are not subject to review 
by any governmental organization; (2) it did not coordinate with other 
exporters or producers to set the price or to determine to which market 
the companies will sell subject merchandise; (3) the PRC Chamber of 
Commerce did not coordinate the export activities of New-Tec; (4) its 
general manager has the authority to contractually bind it to sell 
subject merchandise; (5) its board of directors appoints its general 
manager; (6) there is no restriction on its use of export revenues; (7) 
its shareholders ultimately determine the disposition of respective 
profits, and New-Tec has not had a loss in the last two years; and (8) 
none of New-Tec's board members or managers is a government official. 
Additionally, New-Tec's questionnaire responses did not suggest that 
pricing is coordinated among exporters. Furthermore, our analysis of 
New-Tec's questionnaire responses reveals no other information 
indicating government control of its export activities. Therefore, 
based on the information on the record, we preliminarily determine that 
there is an absence of de facto government control with respect tor 
New-Tec's export functions and that New-Tec has met the criteria for 
the application of a separate rate.

Date of Sale

    19 CFR 351.401(i) states that:
    In identifying the date of sale of the subject merchandise or 
foreign like product, the Secretary normally will use the date of 
invoice, as recorded in the exporter or producer's records kept in the 
ordinary course of business. However, the Secretary may use a date 
other than the date of invoice if the Secretary is satisfied that a 
different date better reflects the date on which the exporter or 
producer establishes the material terms of sale.
See also, Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 
2d 1087, 1090-1092 (CIT 2001) (upholding the Department's rebuttable 
presumption that invoice date is the appropriate date of sale). After 
examining the questionnaire responses and the sales documentation 
placed on the record by Feili and New-Tec, we preliminarily determine 
that invoice date is the most appropriate date of sale for each 
respondent. We made this determination based on statements on the 
record that indicate that Feili's and New-Tec's invoices establish the 
material terms of sale to the extent required by our regulations. See 
Feili CQR at C-10 and New-Tec CQR at C-12. Nothing on the record rebuts 
the presumption that invoice date should be the date of sale.

Normal Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of FMTCs to the United States by Feili 
and New-Tec were made at less than NV, we compared export price 
(``EP'') to NV, as described in the ``Export Price,'' and ``Normal 
Value'' sections of this notice, pursuant to section 771(35) of the 
Act.

Export Price

    Because Feili and New-Tec sold subject merchandise to unaffiliated 
purchasers in the United States prior to importation into the United 
States or to unaffiliated resellers outside the United States with 
knowledge that the merchandise was destined for the United States, and 
use of a constructed-export-price methodology is not otherwise 
indicated, we have used EP in accordance with section 772(a) of the 
Act.
    We calculated EP based on the free-on-board or delivered price to 
unaffiliated purchasers for Feili and New-Tec. From this price, we 
deducted amounts for foreign inland freight, brokerage and handling 
and, where applicable, air freight, pursuant to section 772(c)(2)(A) of 
the Act. See Memorandum to the File from Laurel LaCivita, Senior 
International Trade Compliance Analyst, through Charles Riggle, Program 
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, ``Analysis for the Preliminary 
Results of the 2005-2006 Administrative Review of Folding Metal Tables 
and Chairs from the People's Republic of China: Feili Furniture 
Development Limited Quanzhou City, Feili Furniture Development Co., 
Ltd., Feili Group (Fujian) Co., Ltd., Feili (Fujian) Co., Ltd. 
(collectively, 'Feili')'' (July 2, 2007) (``Feili Preliminary Analysis 
Memorandum''); and Memorandum to the File from Matthew Quigley, 
International Trade Compliance Analyst, through Charles Riggle, Program 
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, ``Analysis for the Preliminary 
Results of the 2005-2006 Administrative Review of Folding Metal Tables 
and Chairs from the People's Republic of China: New-Tec Integration 
(Xiamen) Co. Ltd. (``New-Tec'')'' (July 2, 2007) (``New-Tec Preliminary 
Analysis Memorandum'').
    Consistent with the Department's practice, we used two sources to 
calculate a surrogate value for domestic brokerage expenses. See, e.g., 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative 
Critical Circumstances, In Part, and Postponement of Final 
Determination: Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's Republic 
of China, 71 FR 19695, 19704 (April 17, 2006) (utilizing these same 
data, unchanged for the final determination). The Department averaged 
December 2003-November 2004 data contained in the February 28, 2005, 
public version of Essar Steel's response submitted in the antidumping 
duty administrative review of hot-rolled carbon steel flat products 
from India. See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From 
India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
71 FR 2018 (January 12, 2006) (unchanged in the final results). These 
data were averaged with the February 2004-January 2005 data contained 
in the May 24, 2005, public version of Agro Dutch Industries Limited's 
(``Agro Dutch'') response submitted in the administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from

[[Page 37708]]

India. See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 37757 (June 30, 2005). 
The brokerage expense data reported by Essar Steel and Agro Dutch in 
their public versions are ranged data. The Department first derived an 
average per-unit amount from each source. Then the Department adjusted 
each average rate for inflation. Finally, the Department averaged the 
two per-unit amounts to derive an overall average rate for the POR. See 
Surrogate Value Memorandum at 8 and Attachment XV.
    To value truck freight, we used the freight rates published by 
Indian Freight Exchange, available at https://www.infreight.com. The 
truck freight rates are contemporaneous with the POR; therefore, we 
made no adjustments for inflation. Where applicable, we valued air 
freight using the rates published on the UPS website: https://
www.ups.com. The air freight rates are contemporaneous with the POR; 
therefore, we made no adjustments for inflation. See Surrogate Value 
Memorandum at 9 and Attachment XVI.

Zero-Priced Transactions

    During the course of this review, both Feili and New-Tec reported a 
significant number of zero-priced transactions to their U.S. customers. 
See Feili's CQR at C-2; and New-Tec's CQR at Exhibit 5. An analysis of 
the Section C databases provided by each company reveals that both 
companies made a significant number of zero-priced transactions with 
customers that had previously purchased the same merchandise in 
commercial quantities. See Feili Preliminary Analysis Memorandum at 
Attachment I; and New-Tec Preliminary Analysis Memorandum at Attachment 
9.
    In the final results of the 2003-2004 and the 2004-2005 
administrative reviews of FMTCs, we included New-Tec's zero-priced 
transactions in the margin calculation stating that the record 
demonstrated that: (1) New-Tec provided many pieces of the same 
product, indicating that these ``samples'' did not primarily serve for 
evaluation or testing of the merchandise; (2) New-Tec provided 
significant numbers of the same product to its U.S. customer while that 
customer was purchasing that same product; (3) New-Tec provided 
``samples'' to the same customers to whom it was selling the same 
products in commercial quantities; and (4) New-Tec acknowledged that it 
gave these products at zero price to its U.S. customers (already 
purchasing the same items) to sell to their own customers. Folding 
Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 2905 (January 
18, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 
4; Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 71509 
(December 11, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, 
at Comment 4. As a result, we concluded that these transactions were 
not what we consider to be samples because New-Tec was not providing 
product to entice its U.S. customers to buy the product. Ibid.
    The Federal Circuit has not required the Department to exclude 
zero-priced or de minimis sales from its analysis but, rather, has 
defined a sale as requiring ``both a transfer of ownership to an 
unrelated party and consideration.'' See NSK Ltd. v. United States, 115 
F.3d 965, 975 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The CIT in NSK Ltd. v. United States 
stated that it saw ``little reason in supplying and re-supplying and 
yet re-supplying the same product to the same customer in order to 
solicit sales if the supplies are made in reasonably short periods of 
time,'' and that ``it would be even less logical to supply a sample to 
a client that has made a recent bulk purchase of the very item being 
sampled by the client.'' NSK Ltd v. United States, 217 F. Supp. 2d 
1291, 1311-1312 (CIT 2002). Furthermore, the Courts have consistently 
ruled that the burden rests with a respondent to demonstrate that it 
received no consideration in return for its provision of purported 
samples. See, e.g., Zenith Electronics Corp. v. United States, 988 F.2d 
1573, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (explaining that the burden of evidentiary 
production belongs ``to the party in possession of the necessary 
information''). See also Tianjin Machinery Import & Export Corp. v. 
United States, 806 F. Supp. 1008, 1015 (CIT 1992) (``The burden of 
creating an adequate record lies with respondents and not with {the 
Department{time} .'') (citation omitted). Moreover, even where the 
Department does not ask a respondent for specific information to 
demonstrate that a transaction is a sample, the respondent has the 
burden of presenting the information in the first place to demonstrate 
that its transactions qualify for exclusion. See NTN Bearing Corp. of 
America. v. United States, 997 F.2d 1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
    An analysis of Feili's and New-Tec's Section C computer sales 
listings reveals that both companies provided zero-priced merchandise 
to the same customers to whom they were selling or had sold the same 
products in commercial quantities. See Feili Preliminary Analysis 
Memorandum at Attachment I, and New-Tec Preliminary Analysis Memorandum 
at Attachment 9. Consequently, based on the facts cited above, the 
guidance of past court decisions, and our previous decisions, for the 
preliminary results of this review, we have not excluded these 
transactions from the margin calculation for either Feili or New-Tec.

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that, in the case of an NME, 
the Department shall determine NV using an FOP methodology if the 
merchandise is exported from an NME and the information does not permit 
the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, 
or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. The Department 
will base NV on FOP because the presence of government controls on 
various aspects of these economies renders price comparisons and the 
calculation of production costs invalid under our normal methodologies. 
Therefore, we calculated NV based on FOP in accordance with sections 
773(c)(3) and (4) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c).
    The FOPs include: (1) hours of labor required; (2) quantities of 
raw materials employed; (3) amounts of energy and other utilities 
consumed; and (4) representative capital costs. We used the FOPs 
reported by respondents for materials, energy, labor, by-products, and 
packing.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), the Department will 
normally use publicly available information to value the FOPs, but when 
a producer sources a meaningful amount of an input from a market-
economy country and pays for it in market-economy currency, the 
Department will normally value the factor using the actual price paid 
for the input. See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1); see also Lasko Metal Products 
v. United States, 43 F.3d 1442, 1445-1446 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (affirming 
the Department's use of market-based prices to value certain FOPs). 
Further, the Department disregards prices it has reason to suspect may 
be dumped or subsidized. See, e.g., China National Machinery Import & 
Export Corp. v. United States, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (CIT 2003) (aff'd, 
104 Fed. Appx. 183 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
    Feili and New-Tec each reported that a significant portion of its 
purchases of raw material and/or packing inputs was sourced from 
market-economy countries and paid for in market-economy currencies. See 
Feili's DQR at

[[Page 37709]]

D-3 and New-Tec's DQR at 44. Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.408(c)(1), we used the actual price paid by respondents for inputs 
purchased from market-economy suppliers during the POR and paid for in 
a market-economy currency.
    With regard to both the Indian import-based surrogate values and 
the market-economy input values, we disregarded prices that we have 
reason to believe or suspect may be subsidized. We have reason to 
believe or suspect that prices of inputs from India, Indonesia, South 
Korea, and Thailand may have been subsidized. We have found in other 
proceedings that these countries maintain broadly available, non-
industry-specific export subsidies and, therefore, it is reasonable to 
infer that all exports to all markets from these countries may be 
subsidized. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Certain Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From the 
People's Republic of China, 68 FR 10685 (March 6, 2003), and 
accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum at Comment 8 (declining to 
use market-economy input prices from South Korea or India); Heavy 
Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, 
From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review of the Order on Bars and Wedges, 68 FR 53347 
(September 10, 2003), and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum 
at Comment 2 (declining to use market-economy input prices from India); 
Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields From the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results of Administrative Review, 69 FR 61790 (October 21, 
2004), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5 
(declining to use input prices from Indonesia, South Korea and 
Thailand). This practice is also consistent with the statute's 
legislative history that explains that it is not necessary to conduct a 
formal investigation to ensure that such prices are not subsidized. See 
H.R. Rep. 100-576 at 590 (1988), reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 
1623-24. Rather, the Department bases its decision on information that 
is available to it at the time it is making its determination. 
Therefore, we have not used prices from these countries either in 
calculating the Indian import-based surrogate values or in calculating 
market-economy input values. In instances where a market-economy input 
was obtained solely from suppliers located in these countries, we used 
Indian import-based surrogate values to value the input. See Feili 
Preliminary Analysis Memorandum and New-Tec Preliminary Analysis 
Memorandum. Further, we did not use any market-economy purchases of raw 
materials sourced in countries against which the PRC has an outstanding 
antidumping duty order. See World Trade Organization's Committee on 
Anti-Dumping Practices Semi-Annual Report Under Article 16.4 of the 
Agreement, G/ADP/N/CHN, for the period 1 July - 31 December 2005, 
available at www.wto.org. and included in Attachment XIX of the 
Surrogate Value Memorandum. See New-Tec Preliminary Analysis Memorandum 
at 6 and Attachment 10. In addition, consistent with the Department's 
practice, we did not use prices paid by respondents for inputs 
purchased from market-economy suppliers prior to the POR.\5\ See Feili 
Verification Report at 23 and Exhibit 14; Feili Preliminary Analysis 
Memorandum at 8 and Attachments II and III; New-Tec Verification Report 
at 25 and Exhibit 7; and New-Tec Preliminary Analysis Memorandum at 6 
and Attachments 2 and 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See, e.g., Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products 
From Romania: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 70 FR 34448 (June 14, 2005), and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 3. See also Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass 
Windshields from the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 6482 
(February 12, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 
at Comment 33, where the Department stated that it would not use 
``market-economy inputs if they are insignificant or purchased 
outside of the period of investigation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Factor Valuations

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on the FOPs reported by respondents for the POR. To calculate NV, 
we multiplied the reported per-unit factor quantities by publicly 
available Indian surrogate values (except as noted below). In selecting 
the surrogate values, we considered the quality, specificity, and 
contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices 
by including freight costs to render them delivered prices. 
Specifically, we added to Indian import surrogate values a surrogate 
freight cost using the shorter of the reported distance from the 
domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the nearest 
seaport to the factory where appropriate (i.e., where the sales terms 
for the market-economy inputs were not delivered to the factory). This 
adjustment is in accordance with the decision of the Federal Circuit in 
Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). For 
a detailed description of all surrogate values used for respondents, 
see the Surrogate Value Memorandum at Attachment I.
    Except as noted below, we valued raw material inputs using the 
weighted-average unit import values derived from the Monthly Statistics 
of the Foreign Trade of India, as published by the Directorate General 
of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics of the Ministry of Commerce 
and Industry, Government of India in the World Trade Atlas, available 
at https://www.gtis.com/wta.htm (``WTA''). The WTA data are reported in 
rupees and are contemporaneous with the POR. See also Surrogate Value 
Memorandum at Attachment V. Where we could not obtain publicly 
available information contemporaneous with the POR with which to value 
FOPs, we adjusted the SVs using, where appropriate, the Indian 
Wholesale Price Index (``WPI'') as published in the International 
Financial Statistics of the International Monetary Fund. See Surrogate 
Value Memorandum at 2 and Attachments II and III. We further adjusted 
these prices to account for freight costs incurred between the suppler 
and respondent. We used the freight rates published by Indian Freight 
Exchange available at https://www.infreight.com, to value truck freight. 
The truck freight rates are contemporaneous with the POR. Therefore, we 
made no adjustments for inflation. For a complete description of the 
factor values we used, see the Surrogate Value Memorandum at 8 and 
Attachment XIV.
    Feili and/or New-Tec reported that they made market-economy 
purchases representing a meaningful portion of the total purchases of 
cold-rolled steel, hot-rolled steel, powder coating, polypropylene 
plastic resin, polyethylene resin, fiberboard, polyvinyl chloride 
sheet, vinyl sheet, polyester fabric, washers, rivets, gasket, screws, 
cardboard, carton, corrugate paper and fiberboard. See Feili 
Preliminary Analysis Memorandum at 8 and New-Tec Preliminary Analysis 
Memorandum at 5. Therefore, we valued these inputs using their 
respective per-kilogram market-economy purchase prices. Where 
applicable, we also adjusted these values to account for freight costs 
incurred between the supplier and respondent. See Surrogate Value 
Memorandum at 3-4, Feili Preliminary Analysis Memorandum, and New-Tec 
Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.
    To value hydrochloric acid used in the production of FMTCs, we used 
per-kilogram domestic values obtained from Chemical Weekly. We adjusted 
this

[[Page 37710]]

value for taxes and to account for freight costs incurred between the 
supplier and each respondent, respectively. We used per-kilogram import 
values obtained from the WTA for all other material inputs used in the 
production of FMTCs.
    To value diesel oil, we used per-kilogram values obtained from 
Bharat Petroleum, published December 1, 2005. See Surrogate Value 
Memorandum at Attachment VIII. We made adjustments to account for 
inflation and freight costs incurred between the supplier and 
respondents. See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 6 and Attachments VIII - 
IX.
    To value liquid petroleum gas, we used per-kilogram values obtained 
from Bharat Petroleum, published on October 3, 2005. We made 
adjustments to account for inflation and freight costs incurred between 
the supplier and respondents. See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 6 and 
Attachment X.
    To value electricity, we used the 2000 electricity price data from 
International Energy Agency, Energy Prices and Taxes - Quarterly 
Statistics (First Quarter 2003), available at https://www.eia.doe.gov/
emeu/international/elecprii.html, adjusted for inflation. See Surrogate 
Value Memorandum at 5 and Attachment VII.
    To value water, we used the Revised Maharashtra Industrial 
Development Corporation water rates for June 1, 2003, available at 
https://www.midcindia.com/water-supply, adjusted for inflation. See 
Surrogate Value Memorandum at 6 and Attachment XI.
    For direct labor, indirect labor and packing labor, consistent with 
19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC regression-based wage rate as 
reported on the Import Administration's home page. See Expected Wages 
of Selected NME Countries (revised November 2005) (available at https://
ia.ita.doc.gov/wages). The source of these wage rate data on the Import 
Administration's web site is the Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2003, 
ILO, (Geneva: 2003), Chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing. The years of 
the reported wage rates range from 1998 to 2003. Because this 
regression-based wage rate does not separate the labor rates into 
different skill levels or types of labor, we have applied the same wage 
rate to all skill levels and types of labor reported by each 
respondent. See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 7 and Attachment XII.
    For factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses 
(``SG&A''), and profit values, we used information from Godrej and 
Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. for the year ending March 31, 2005. From 
this information, we were able to determine factory overhead as a 
percentage of the total raw materials, labor and energy (``ML&E'') 
costs; SG&A as a percentage of ML&E plus overhead (i.e., cost of 
manufacture); and the profit rate as a percentage of the cost of 
manufacture plus SG&A. See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 7 and 
Attachment XIII for a full discussion of the calculation of these 
ratios.
    For packing materials, we used the per-kilogram values obtained 
from the WTA and made adjustments to account for freight costs incurred 
between the PRC supplier and respondent. See Surrogate Value Memorandum 
at 3-4 and Attachment V.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with 
section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on 
the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average 
dumping margins exist:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Manufacturer/Exporter                  Margin (Percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feili...............................................           0.10[ast]
New-Tec.............................................           0.23[ast]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ast] de minimis

Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties 
to this proceeding within five days of the publication date of this 
notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties are invited to 
comment on the preliminary results and may submit case briefs and/or 
written comments within 30 days of the date of publication of this 
notice. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to 
written comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, 
may be filed no later than five days after the date on which the case 
briefs are due. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Any interested party may request 
a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 
351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the 
deadline for submission of the rebuttal briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(d). 
The Department requests that parties submitting written comments also 
provide the Department with an additional copy of those comments on 
diskette. The Department will issue the final results of this 
administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis 
of issues raised in any such comments, within 120 days of publication 
of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 
Act.

Assessment Rates

    Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, 
and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. 
The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days 
after the date of publication of the final results of review. In this 
review, if these preliminary results are adopted in our final results 
of review, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting rate against the 
entered customs value for the subject merchandise on each importer's/
customer's entries during the POR, as appropriate.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for the above-
listed respondents, which have a separate rate, the cash deposit rate 
will be the company-specific rate established in the final results of 
review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, no cash deposit will 
be required); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-
PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash 
deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published 
for the most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject 
merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, 
the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 70.71 percent; and 
(4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not 
received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate 
applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied that non-PRC exporter. 
These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
further notice.

Notification to Importers

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

[[Page 37711]]

    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: July 2, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-13382 Filed 7-10-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S