Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews: Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China, 46957-46966 [E7-16584]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 22, 2007 / Notices
74. Zhanjiang Regal Integrated Marine
Resources Co., Ltd.
75. Zhanjiang Runhai Foods Co., Ltd.
76. Zhanjiang Universal Seafood Corp
77. Zhejiang Cereals, Oils & Foodstuff Import
& Export Co., Ltd.
78. Zhejiang Daishan Baofa Aquatic Products
Co., Ltd.
79. Zhejiang Evernew Seafood Co., Ltd.
80. Zhejiang Xingyang Import & Export
81. Zhejiang Xintianjiu Sea Products Co., Ltd.
82. Zhejiang Zhenlong Foodstuffs Co., Ltd.
83. Zhenjiang Evergreen Aquatic Products
Science & Technology Co., Ltd.
84. Zhoushan Cereals, Oils, and Foodstuffs
Import and Export Co., Ltd.
85. Zhoushan Diciyuan Aquatic Products
86. Zhoushan Guotai Aquatic Products Co.,
Ltd.
87. Zhoushan Haichang Food Co
88. Zhoushan Huading Seafood Co., Ltd.
89. Zhoushan Industrial Co., Ltd.
90. Zhoushan Jingzhou Aquatic Product Co.,
Ltd.
91. Zhoushan Lizhou Fishery Co., Ltd.
92. Zhoushan Putuo Huafa Sea Products Co.,
Ltd.
93. Zhoushan Xifeng Aquatic Co., Ltd.
94. Zhoushan Zhenyang Developing Co., Ltd.
95. ZJ CNF Sea Products Engineering Ltd.
[FR Doc. E7–16576 Filed 8–21–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–890]
Amended Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and New Shipper Reviews:
Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the
People’s Republic of China
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On February 9, 2007, the
Department of Commerce (‘‘the
Department’’) published its preliminary
results in the antidumping duty
administrative review and new shipper
reviews and notice of partial rescission
for wooden bedroom furniture from the
People’s Republic of China. The period
of review (‘‘POR’’) for the administrative
review and the new shipper reviews is
June 24, 2004 through December 31,
2005. For the final results of
administrative review, see this notice.
As a result of an inadvertent error, the
version of this notice released on
Wednesday, August 8, 2007, contained
the appendix from the investigation of
this proceeding, rather than the
appendix intended for this
administrative review. These amended
final results correct this error. No
changes to the analysis, methodologies
employed, or the rates calculated were
made. Because this error was discovered
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:26 Aug 21, 2007
Jkt 211001
prior to publication in the Federal
Register, this amendment is being
published in place of the original
version released on August 8, 2007.
In the administrative review, we have
determined that all five mandatory
respondents (i.e., Fine Furniture
(Shanghai) Limited and its affiliates
(‘‘Fine Furniture’’); Foshan Guanqiu
Furniture Co., Ltd. (‘‘Foshan Guanqiu’’);
Fujian Lianfu Forestry Co./Fujian
Wonder Pacific Inc./Fuzhou Huan Mei
Furniture Co., Ltd./Jiangsu Dare
Furniture Co., Ltd. (‘‘Dare Group’’);
Shanghai Aosen Furniture Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Shanghai Aosen’’) and Shanghai
Starcorp Furniture Co., Ltd, Starcorp
Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., Orin
Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., Shanghai
Star Furniture Co., Ltd., and Shanghai
Xing Ding Furniture Industrial Co., Ltd.
(collectively, ‘‘Starcorp’’)) made sales in
the United States at prices below normal
value. With respect to the remaining
respondents in the administrative
review (collectively, ‘‘Separate Rate
Applicants’’), we have determined that
42 entities have provided sufficient
evidence that they are separate from the
state-controlled entity, and we have
established a weighted-average margin
based on the rates we have calculated
for the five mandatory respondents,
excluding any rates that are zero, de
minimis, or based entirely on adverse
facts available, to be applied to these
separate-rate entities. We invited
interested parties to comment on our
preliminary results of review. For the
new shipper reviews, the Department
also reviewed two exporters/producers,
i.e., Dongguan Huanghouse Furniture
Co., Ltd. (‘‘Huanghouse’’) and Tianjin
First Wood Co., Ltd. (‘‘First Wood’’).
Based on our analysis of the comments
we received, we have made certain
changes to our calculations for all
mandatory respondents. The final
dumping margins for this review are
listed in the ‘‘Final Results Margins’’
section below.
DATES: Effective Date: August 22, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gene Degnan or Robert Bolling, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–0414 and (202)
482–3434, respectively.
Background
The Department published its
preliminary results on February 9, 2007.
See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from
the People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review,
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
46957
Preliminary Results of New Shipper
Reviews and Notice of Partial
Rescission, 72 FR 6201 (February 9,
2007) (‘‘Preliminary Results’’). The
Department conducted verification of
two of the mandatory respondents’ and
certain Separate-Rate Applicants’ data
in the People’s Republic of China
(‘‘PRC’’). See Verification section,
below, for additional information.
On June 12, 2007, the Department
extended the deadline for the final
results of review to August 8, 2007. See
Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the
People’s Republic of China: Extension of
Time Limits for the Final Results of the
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and New Shipper Reviews, 72
FR 32281 (June 12, 2007).
We invited parties to comment on the
Preliminary Results. We received
comments from the Petitioners, certain
mandatory respondents, certain
Separate-Rate Applicants, and other
interested parties to this review. On
June 18, 2007, parties submitted case
briefs. On June 26, 2007, parties
submitted rebuttal briefs. On July 12,
2007, the Department held public and
closed hearings.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and
rebuttal briefs by parties in this review
are addressed in the memorandum from
Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration, to
David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary
for Import Administration, ‘‘Issues and
Decision Memorandum for the Final
Results of the Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and New
Shipper Reviews on Wooden Bedroom
Furniture from the People’s Republic of
China,’’ Issues and Decision
Memorandum, dated August 8, 2007,
which is hereby adopted by this notice
(‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’).
A list of the issues which parties raised
and to which we respond in the Issues
and Decision Memorandum is attached
to this notice as an Appendix. The
Issues and Decision Memorandum is a
public document and is on file in the
Central Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’), Main
Commerce Building, Room B–099, and
is accessible on the Web at https://
ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and
electronic version of the memorandum
are identical in content.
Period of Review
The POR is June 24, 2004 through
December 31, 2005.
Scope of Order
The product covered by the order is
wooden bedroom furniture. Wooden
bedroom furniture is generally, but not
E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM
22AUN1
46958
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 22, 2007 / Notices
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
exclusively, designed, manufactured,
and offered for sale in coordinated
groups, or bedrooms, in which all of the
individual pieces are of approximately
the same style and approximately the
same material and/or finish. The subject
merchandise is made substantially of
wood products, including both solid
wood and also engineered wood
products made from wood particles,
fibers, or other wooden materials such
as plywood, oriented strand board,
particle board, and fiberboard, with or
without wood veneers, wood overlays,
or laminates, with or without non-wood
components or trim such as metal,
marble, leather, glass, plastic, or other
resins, and whether or not assembled,
completed, or finished.
The subject merchandise includes the
following items: (1) Wooden beds such
as loft beds, bunk beds, and other beds;
(2) wooden headboards for beds
(whether stand-alone or attached to side
rails), wooden footboards for beds,
wooden side rails for beds, and wooden
canopies for beds; (3) night tables, night
stands, dressers, commodes, bureaus,
mule chests, gentlemen’s chests,
bachelor’s chests, lingerie chests,
wardrobes, vanities, chessers,
chifforobes, and wardrobe-type cabinets;
(4) dressers with framed glass mirrors
that are attached to, incorporated in, sit
on, or hang over the dresser; (5) chestson-chests, 1 highboys, 2 lowboys, 3 chests
of drawers, 4 chests, 5 door chests, 6
chiffoniers, 7 hutches, 8 and armoires; 9
1 A chest-on-chest is typically a tall chest-ofdrawers in two or more sections (or appearing to be
in two or more sections), with one or two sections
mounted (or appearing to be mounted) on a slightly
larger chest; also known as a tallboy.
2 A highboy is typically a tall chest of drawers
usually composed of a base and a top section with
drawers, and supported on four legs or a small chest
(often 15 inches or more in height).
3 A lowboy is typically a short chest of drawers,
not more than four feet high, normally set on short
legs.
4 A chest of drawers is typically a case containing
drawers for storing clothing.
5 A chest is typically a case piece taller than it
is wide featuring a series of drawers and with or
without one or more doors for storing clothing. The
piece can either include drawers or be designed as
a large box incorporating a lid.
6 A door chest is typically a chest with hinged
doors to store clothing, whether or not containing
drawers. The piece may also include shelves for
televisions and other entertainment electronics.
7 A chiffonier is typically a tall and narrow chest
of drawers normally used for storing undergarments
and lingerie, often with mirror(s) attached.
8 A hutch is typically an open case of furniture
with shelves that typically sits on another piece of
furniture and provides storage for clothes.
9 An armoire is typically a tall cabinet or
wardrobe (typically 50 inches or taller), with doors,
and with one or more drawers (either exterior below
or above the doors or interior behind the doors),
shelves, and/or garment rods or other apparatus for
storing clothes. Bedroom armoires may also be used
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:26 Aug 21, 2007
Jkt 211001
(6) desks, computer stands, filing
cabinets, book cases, or writing tables
that are attached to or incorporated in
the subject merchandise; and (7) other
bedroom furniture consistent with the
above list.
The scope of the order excludes the
following items: (1) Seats, chairs,
benches, couches, sofas, sofa beds,
stools, and other seating furniture; (2)
mattresses, mattress supports (including
box springs), infant cribs, water beds,
and futon frames; (3) office furniture,
such as desks, stand-up desks, computer
cabinets, filing cabinets, credenzas, and
bookcases; (4) dining room or kitchen
furniture such as dining tables, chairs,
servers, sideboards, buffets, corner
cabinets, china cabinets, and china
hutches; (5) other non-bedroom
furniture, such as television cabinets,
cocktail tables, end tables, occasional
tables, wall systems, book cases, and
entertainment systems; (6) bedroom
furniture made primarily of wicker,
cane, osier, bamboo or rattan; (7) side
rails for beds made of metal if sold
separately from the headboard and
footboard; (8) bedroom furniture in
which bentwood parts predominate 10;
(9) jewelry armories 11; (10) cheval
to hold television receivers and/or other audiovisual entertainment systems.
10 As used herein, bentwood means solid wood
made pliable. Bentwood is wood that is brought to
a curved shape by bending it while made pliable
with moist heat or other agency and then set by
cooling or drying. See Customs’ Headquarters’
Ruling Letter 043859, dated May 17, 1976.
11 Any armoire, cabinet or other accent item for
the purpose of storing jewelry, not to exceed 24’’
in width, 18’’ in depth, and 49’’ in height, including
a minimum of 5 lined drawers lined with felt or
felt-like material, at least one side door (whether or
not the door is lined with felt or felt-like material),
with necklace hangers, and a flip-top lid with inset
mirror. See Issues and Decision Memorandum from
Laurel LaCivita to Laurie Parkhill, Office Director,
Concerning Jewelry Armoires and Cheval Mirrors in
the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Wooden
Bedroom Furniture from the People’s Republic of
China, dated August 31, 2004. See also Wooden
Bedroom Furniture from the People’s Republic of
China: Notice of Final Results of Changed
Circumstances Review and Revocation in Part, 71
FR 38621 (July 7, 2006).
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
mirrors 12; (11) certain metal parts 13;(12)
mirrors that do not attach to,
incorporate in, sit on, or hang over a
dresser if they are not designed and
marketed to be sold in conjunction with
a dresser as part of a dresser-mirror set;
and (13) upholstered beds. 14
Imports of subject merchandise are
classified under subheading
9403.50.9040 of the HTSUS as ‘‘wooden
* * * beds’’ and under subheading
9403.50.9080 of the HTSUS as ‘‘other
* * * wooden furniture of a kind used
in the bedroom.’’ In addition, wooden
headboards for beds, wooden footboards
for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and
wooden canopies for beds may also be
entered under subheading 9403.50.9040
of the HTSUS as ‘‘parts of wood’’ and
framed glass mirrors may also be
entered under subheading 7009.92.5000
of the HTSUS as ‘‘glass mirrors * * *
framed.’’ This order covers all wooden
bedroom furniture meeting the above
description, regardless of tariff
classification. Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, our
written description of the scope of this
proceeding is dispositive.
12 Cheval mirrors are, i.e., any framed, tiltable
mirror with a height in excess of 50’’ that is
mounted on a floor-standing, hinged base.
Additionally, the scope of the order excludes
combination cheval mirror/jewelry cabinets. The
excluded merchandise is an integrated piece
consisting of a cheval mirror, i.e., a framed tiltable
mirror with a height in excess of 50 inches,
mounted on a floor-standing, hinged base, the
cheval mirror serving as a door to a cabinet back
that is integral to the structure of the mirror and
which constitutes a jewelry cabinet lined with
fabric, having necklace and bracelet hooks,
mountings for rings and shelves, with or without a
working lock and key to secure the contents of the
jewelry cabinet back to the cheval mirror, and no
drawers anywhere on the integrated piece. The fully
assembled piece must be at least 50 inches in
height, 14.5 inches in width, and 3 inches in depth.
See Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results of Changed
Circumstances Review and Determination To
Revoke Order in Part, 72 FR 948 (January 9, 2007).
13 Metal furniture parts and unfinished furniture
parts made of wood products (as defined above)
that are not otherwise specifically named in this
scope (i.e., wooden headboards for beds, wooden
footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and
wooden canopies for beds) and that do not possess
the essential character of wooden bedroom
furniture in an unassembled, incomplete, or
unfinished form. Such parts are usually classified
under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) subheading 9403.90.7000.
14 Upholstered beds that are completely
upholstered, i.e., containing filling material and
completely covered in sewn genuine leather,
synthetic leather, or natural or synthetic decorative
fabric. To be excluded, the entire bed (headboards,
footboards, and side rails) must be upholstered
except for bed feet, which may be of wood, metal,
or any other material and which are no more than
nine inches in height from the floor. See Wooden
Bedroom Furniture from the People’s Republic of
China: Final Results of Changed Circumstances
Review and Determination to Revoke Order in Part,
72 FR 7013 (February 14, 2007).
E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM
22AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 22, 2007 / Notices
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘Act’’),
we verified the information submitted
by certain mandatory respondents and
certain Separate-Rate Applicants for use
in our final results. See the
Department’s verification reports on the
record of this review in the CRU with
respect to Shanghai Aosen; Starcorp;
Baigou Crafts Factory of Fengkai
(‘‘Baigou Crafts’’); Dongguan Dihao
Furniture Co., Ltd. (‘‘Dihao’’); and
Transworld (Zhangzhou) Furniture Co.,
Ltd. (‘‘Transworld’’). For all verified
companies, we used standard
verification procedures, including
examination of relevant accounting and
production records, as well as original
source documents provided by
respondents. For the further details on
the verifications, see the aforementioned
verification reports.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on an analysis of comments
received, the Department has made
certain changes in the margin
calculations. For the final results, the
Department has made the following
changes with respect to Shanghai
Aosen, Dare Group, Foshan Guanqui,
Starcorp, and Fine Furniture.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
General Issues
Calculation of Surrogate Financial
Ratios
• For the final results, the Department
is no longer using the Nizamuddin
Furnitures Private Limited 2004–2005
financial statement in the calculation of
the surrogate financial ratios. See Issues
and Decision Memorandum.
• For the final results, the Department
is using the following additional
financial statements (not used in the
preliminary results) to calculate
surrogate financial ratios: (1)
Nizamuddin Furnitures Private Limited
(2005–2006); (2) James Andrew Newton
Art Export Pvt. Ltd. (2004–2005); (3)
Nikhil Decore Industries Pvt. Ltd.
(2004–2005); and (4) Indian Furniture
Products Limited (2005–2006). See
Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 17, and ‘‘First Administrative
Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture
from the People’s Republic of China:
Factor Valuation Memorandum for the
Final Results’’ dated August 8, 2007
(‘‘WBF Final Factor Valuation
Memorandum’’).
• For the final results, in the
calculation of Akriti Perfections India
Pvt. Ltd.’s surrogate financial ratios, the
Department has reclassified
‘‘Consumables’’ from raw material to
manufacturing overhead. See Issues and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:26 Aug 21, 2007
Jkt 211001
Decision Memorandum at Comment 21,
and WBF Final Factor Valuation
Memorandum.
• For the final results, the Department
has excluded ‘‘Octroi’’ expenses from
the calculation of Huzaifa Furniture
Industries Pvt. Ltd.’s surrogate financial
ratios. See Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 25.
• For the final results, the Department
has included the line-item ‘‘Contract
Manufacturing’’ in manufacturing
overhead of Ahuja Furnishers Private
Limited’s surrogate financial ratios. See
Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 18, and WBF Final Factor
Valuation Memorandum.
• For the final results, the Department
has re-classified ‘‘Bonuses’’ and
‘‘Gratuities’’ from manufacturing
overhead or selling, general and
administrative expenses to the direct
labor portion of Materials, Labor and
Energy (‘‘ML&E’’) in the calculation of
surrogate financial ratios for Ahuja
Furnishers Private Limited, Huzaifa
Furniture Industries Pvt. Ltd., and
Indian Furniture Products Limited. See
Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 20 and WBF Final Factor
Valuation Memorandum.
• For the final results, the Department
has included ‘‘Closing Stock’’ and
‘‘Opening Stock’’ in the material portion
of ML&E in the calculation of Fusion
Design Private Ltd.’s surrogate financial
ratios. See Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 23, and WBF
Final Factor Valuation Memorandum.
Recalculation of Surrogate Values
• For the final results, the Department
has recalculated surrogate values for the
polymers of styrene, cardboard, paint,
and resin. See Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comments 10, 13, 14,
47, and 48 and WBF Final Factor
Valuation Memorandum.
• For the final results, the Department
has calculated a surrogate value for
mirrors using Glass Yug instead of the
Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade
of India, Volume II: Imports. See
https://www.gtis.com/wta.htm, which we
used for the preliminary results. See
Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 12 and WBF Final Factor
Valuation Memorandum.
• For the final results, the Department
has recalculated the surrogate value for
labor using the surrogate value of $0.83
per hour instead of $0.97 per hour used
for the preliminary results. See Issues
and Decision Memorandum at Comment
17 and WBF Final Factor Valuation
Memorandum.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
46959
Company-Specific Issues
Dare Group
• For the final results, the Department
has revised the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule (‘‘HTS’’) category used to
calculate the surrogate value for
cardboard. See Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 34 and WBF
Final Factor Valuation Memorandum.
• For the final results, the Department
has revised certain assessment rate
calculations. See Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 36 and
‘‘Analysis Memorandum for the Final
Results of Administrative Review of
Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the
People’s Republic of China for Fujian
Lianfu Forestry Co., Ltd., Fuzhou Huan
Mei Furniture Co. Ltd., and Jiangsu Dare
Furniture Co, Ltd.’’ dated (August 8,
2007) (‘‘WBF Dare Group Final Results
Analysis Memo 08/08/07’’).
• For the final results, the Department
has excluded certain non-scope
merchandise from the margin
calculation. See Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 37 and WBF
Dare Group Final Results Analysis
Memo 08/08/07.
• For the final results, the Department
is using a material-specific conversion
rate to calculate surrogate values for
‘‘FIBERBOARDMD’’,
‘‘PAPEREDFIBERBOARDMD’’, and
‘‘FIBERBOARDPACKING.’’ See Issues
and Decision Memorandum at Comment
40 and WBF Dare Group Final Results
Analysis Memo 08/08/07.
• For the final results, the Department
has corrected a conversion error in the
calculation of the surrogate values for
‘‘WOODPLUG’’ and
‘‘OKOUEMEVEMEER.’’ See Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comments 41
and 42 and WBF Dare Group Final
Results Analysis Memo 08/08/07.
• For the final results, the Department
is using data from a different HTS
category to calculate the surrogate value
of ‘‘PIGMENT_O’’. See Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 31
and WBF Dare Group Final Results
Analysis Memo 08/08/07.
• For the final results, the Department
is using updated quantity data
submitted by Dare Group and is no
longer applying facts available to certain
sales where Dare Group reported zero
quantity in gross unit kilograms. See
Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 39 and WBF Dare Group Final
Results Analysis Memo 08/08/07.
• In the preliminary results, the
Department used partial adverse facts
available (‘‘AFA’’) to value the indirect
and packing labor which was not
reported for certain control numbers
(‘‘CONNUMs’’). For the final results, the
E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM
22AUN1
46960
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 22, 2007 / Notices
Department is continuing to apply as
partial AFA the highest labor values
reported by Dare Group for any
CONNUM. See ‘‘Application of Partial
Facts Available’’ section, below, the
Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 38, and WBF Dare Group
Final Results Analysis Memo 08/08/07.
Fine Furniture
• For the final results, the Department
has determined not to apply partial facts
available with respect to certain of Fine
Furniture’s sample sales. With respect
to Fine Furniture’s sample sales, we are
using Fine Furniture’s reported data in
our margin calculation. See ‘‘Analysis
Memorandum for the Final Results of
the First Administrative Review of
Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the
People’s Republic of China: Fine
Furniture (Shanghai) Limited’’ dated
August 8, 2007.
Foshan Guanqiu
• For the final results, the Department
has recalculated surrogate values for
resin and paint used by Foshan
Guanqiu. See Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comments 47 and 48,
and ‘‘Analysis Memorandum for the
Final Results of the First Administrative
Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture
from the People’s Republic of China:
Foshan Guanqiu’’ dated August 8. 2007.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Starcorp
• For the preliminary results, we
calculated a dumping margin of 74.69
percent for Starcorp, using partial
adverse facts available. However, for the
final results, we are applying total AFA.
See Adverse Facts Available section,
below. See also Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 63, and the
companion Memorandum regarding
‘‘Application of Adverse Facts Available
for Shanghai Starcorp Funiture Co., Ltd,
Starcorp Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.,
Orin Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.,
Shanghai Star Furniture Co., Ltd., and
Shanghai Xing Ding Furniture Industrial
Co., Ltd. in the Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture
from the People’s Republic of China,’’
dated August 8, 2007 (‘‘Starcorp AFA
Memorandum’’).
Surrogate Country
In the preliminary results, the
Department stated that it treats the PRC
as a non-market economy (‘‘NME’’)
country, and therefore, the Department
calculated normal value in accordance
with section 773(c) of the Act, which
applies to NME countries. Also, the
Department stated that it selected India
as the appropriate surrogate country to
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:26 Aug 21, 2007
Jkt 211001
use in this review for the following
reasons: (1) India is at a level of
economic development comparable to
that of the PRC; (2) India is a significant
producer of comparable merchandise;
and (3) India provides the best
opportunity to use quality, publicly
available data to value the factors of
production (‘‘FOP’’). See Preliminary
Results, 72 FR at 6208. For the final
results, the Department has made no
changes to its findings with respect to
the selection of a surrogate country. See
Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 1.
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 (‘‘PRCwide rate’’). It is the Department’s
policy to assign all exporters of
merchandise subject to review in an
NME country this single rate unless an
exporter can demonstrate that it is free
of de jure (in law) and de facto (in fact)
control over its export decisions, so as
to be entitled to a separate rate.
In the Preliminary Results, the
Department found that the mandatory
respondents and numerous companies
which provided responses to the
separate-rate application or separate-rate
certification were eligible for a rate
separate from the PRC-wide rate. See
Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 6208,
6210. For the final results, we have
determined that additional companies
qualify for separate-rate status. For a
complete listing of all the companies
that received a separate rate, see the
Final Results Margins section, below.
See also, Memorandum regarding
‘‘Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the
People’s Republic of China: Separate
Rates for Producers/Exporters that
Submitted Separate Rate Certifications
and Applications’’ (‘‘Final SeparateRates Memo’’), dated August 8, 2007.
In the Preliminary Results, we did not
grant separate-rate status for 14
companies. See Preliminary Results 72
FR at 6209, 6210. Of those, we stated
that we would request additional
information from six applicants after the
Preliminary Results, whereupon we
would reevaluate their eligibility for a
separate rate for the final results. See
Preliminary Results 72 FR at 6210. Also,
three additional companies (i.e.,
Zhejiang Niannian Hong Industrial Co.
Ltd. (‘‘Nanaholy’’); Triple J Enterprises
Co. Ltd. (‘‘Triple J’’), Zhongshan Winny
Furniture Ltd. (‘‘Winny’’)) filed postpreliminary submissions asking that the
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Department reconsider its preliminary
decision to deny them separate-rate
status. See Final Separate-Rates Memo.
Based on the information submitted
in response to our post-preliminary
supplemental questionnaires, we find
that Guangdong New Four Seas
Furniture Manufacturing Ltd.; King Kei
Furniture Factory/King Kei Trading Co.,
Ltd./Jin Ching Trading Co. Ltd.; and Top
Art Furniture Factory/Sanxig Top Art
Funiture/Ngai Kun Trading have
provided sufficient information to
establish an absence of government
control and eligibility for separate-rate
status. Therefore, the evidence placed
on the record of this administrative
review by these separate-rate
respondents demonstrates an absence of
government control, both in law and in
fact, with respect to each of the
exporter’s exports of the subject
merchandise, in accordance with the
criteria identified in Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Sparklers from the People’s
Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6,
1991), and Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide
from the People’s Republic of China, 59
FR 22585 (May 2,1994). As a result, for
the purposes of these final results, we
have granted separate rate status to the
above-named separate-rate applicants
that shipped wooden bedroom furniture
to the United States during the POR.
Additionally, we have granted a
separate rate to other separate-rate
applicants.15 See Final Separate-Rates
Memo.
15 Ace Furniture & Crafts Ltd. (a.k.a. Deqing Ace
Furniture & Crafts Limited); Baigou Crafts Factory
of Fengkai; Best King International Ltd.; Dalian
Pretty Home Furniture; Decca Furniture Limited;
Der Cheng Wooden Works of Factory; Dongguan
Dihao Furniture Co., Ltd.; Dongguan Hua Ban
Furniture Co., Ltd.; Dongguan Mingsheng Furniture
Co., Ltd.; Dongguan New Technology Import &
Export Co., Ltd.; Dongguan Sunpower Enterprise
Co., Ltd.; Dongguan Yihaiwei Furniture Limited;
Kalanter (Hong Kong) Furniture Company Limited;
Foshan Guanqiu Furniture Co., Ltd.; Fujian Lianfu
Forestry Co., Ltd./Fujian Wonder Pacific Inc.;
Furnmart Ltd.; Fuzhou Huan Mei Furniture Co.
Ltd.; Guangdong New Four Seas Furniture
Manufacturing Ltd.; Guangzhou Lucky Furniture
Co. Ltd.; Hong Yu Furniture (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd.;
Hung Fai Wood Products Factory, Ltd.; Hwang Ho
International Holdings Limited; Jiangsu Dare
Furniture Co, Ltd.; King Kei Furniture Factory;
Kingwood Furniture Co. Ltd.; Meikangchi Nantong
Furniture Company Ltd.; Nantong Yangzi Furniture
Co., Ltd.; Po Ying Industrial Co.; Profit Force Ltd.;
Qingdao Beiyuan-Shengli Furniture Co., Ltd.;
Qingdao Shenchang Wooden Co., Ltd.; Red Apple
Trading Co. Ltd.; Shanghai Aosen Furniture Co.,
Ltd.; Starcorp Furniture Co., Ltd., Starcorp
Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., Orin Furniture
(Shanghai) Co., Ltd., Shanghai Star Furniture Co.,
Ltd., and Shanghai Xing Ding Furniture Industrial
Co., Ltd. (collectively ‘‘Starcorp’’); Shenyang Kunyu
Wood Industry Co., Ltd.; Shenzhen Dafuhao
Industrial Development Co., Ltd.; Shenzhen Shen
Long Hang Industry Co., Ltd.; Sino Concord
E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM
22AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 22, 2007 / Notices
Furthermore, we continue to find that
the following separate-rate applicants
have not demonstrated an absence of
government control over their export
activities, both in law and in fact:
Conghua J. L. George Timber & Co. Ltd.
(‘‘Conghua’’); Zhongshan Youcheng
Wooden Arts & Crafts Co., Ltd. (‘‘ZY
Wooden’’) and Macau Youcheng
Trading Co. (‘‘MY Trading’’)
(collectively, ‘‘ZY Wooden/MY
Trading’’); Kunwa Enterprise Company
(‘‘Kunwa’’), Nanaholy; Triple J, Winny,
Kong Fong Art Factory and Kong Fong
Mao Iek Hong (‘‘Kong Fong’’), Putian Ou
Dian Furniture Co., Ltd. (‘‘Putian’’), and
Speedy International, Ltd. (‘‘Speedy’’).
Therefore, we determine that Conghua,
Kunwa, Nanaholy, Triple J, Winny, ZY
Wooden/MY Trading, Kong Fong,
Putian, and Speedy are part of the PRCwide entity and, therefore, do not
qualify for a separate rate and will be
subject to PRC-wide rate. See Final
Separate-Rates Memo.
The margin we calculated in the
Preliminary Results for these separaterate companies was 62.94 percent.
Because the rates of the selected
mandatory respondents have changed
since the Preliminary Results, we have
recalculated the rate for Separate-Rate
Applicants. The final rate is 35.38
percent. See Memorandum to the File
from Eugene Degnan, ‘‘Calculation of
Separate Rate,’’ dated August 8, 2007.
Affiliation
In the Preliminary Results, we stated
Fujian Lianfu Forestry Co. Ltd./Fujian
Wonder Pacific Inc./Fuzhou Huan Mei
Furniture Co., Ltd./Jiangsu Dare
Furniture Co., Ltd., collectively, (‘‘Dare
Group’’) were affiliated pursuant to
sections 771(33)(A), (E) and (F) of the
Act and that these companies should be
treated as a single entity for the
purposes of the antidumping
administrative review of wooden
bedroom furniture from the PRC. See
Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 6208. For
the final results, we have made no
changes to our findings with respect to
Dare Group’s affiliation.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Adverse Facts Available
Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the 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)
International Corporation; T.J. Maxx International
Co. Ltd.; Top Art Furniture Factory/Sanxig Top Art
Funiture/Ngai Kun Trading; Top Goal Development
Co.; Transworld (Zhangzhou) Furniture Co. Ltd.;
Wan Bao Chen Group Hong Kong Co. Ltd.; Winmost
Enterprises Limited; Xilinmen Group Co. Ltd.;
Yongxin Industrial (Holdings) Limited; Zhongshan
Gainwell Furniture Co. Ltd.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:26 Aug 21, 2007
Jkt 211001
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.
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 AFA information
derived from the petition, the final
determination, a previous
administrative review, or other
information placed on the record.
Application of Facts Available
First Wood
In the Preliminary Results, we
determined pursuant to sections
776(a)(1), 776(a)(2), and 776(b) of the
Act to apply AFA to First Wood in the
new shipper review because First Wood:
withheld the sales and cost
reconciliations as well as extensive
factors of production (‘‘FOP’’) data
requested by the Department; failed to
provide the units of measure for its FOP
consumption in a form or manner
requested by the Department; reported
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
46961
its FOP consumption in units of
measure in a manner that does not allow
the Department to identify the actual
consumption rates or calculate the value
for the FOP consumed in the production
of subject merchandise, thereby
significantly impeding the proceeding,
resulting in the sales and FOP data
being unverifiable. See Preliminary
Results, 72 FR at 6212–13. We also
determined that First Wood did not act
‘‘to the best of its ability,’’ as required
by the statute. See Preliminary Results,
72 FR at 6212–13. Thus, based on First
Wood’s actions, we preliminarily
determined that it failed to cooperate to
the best of its ability in responding to
the Department’s requests for
information. Therefore, we
preliminarily determined that, when
selecting from among the facts
otherwise available, an adverse
inference is warranted for First Wood
pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act.
See Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 6212,
6213. For the final results, we have
made no changes to our findings with
respect to First Wood’s total AFA
determination. See Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comments 43 and 44.
Huanghouse
In the Preliminary Results, we
determined that because Huanghouse
ceased participating in the new shipper
review, and none of its submitted
information could be verified,
Huanghouse did not demonstrate its
entitlement to a separate rate and was,
therefore, subject to the PRC-wide rate.
See Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 6212–
13. For the final results, we made no
changes to our findings with respect to
Huanghouse’s determination.
Kong Fong Art Factory and Kong Fong
Mao Iek Hong
In the Preliminary Results, we
determined that because Kong Fong
ceased participating in the
administrative review and would not
provide a response to the Department’s
supplemental questionnaire, Kong Fong
did not demonstrate its entitlement to a
separate rate and was, therefore, subject
to the PRC-wide rate. See Preliminary
Results, 72 FR at 6210–12. For the final
results, we made no changes to our
findings with respect to Huanghouse’s
determination.
Putian Ou Dian Furniture Co., Ltd.
In the Preliminary Results, we
determined that because Putian
submitted a withdrawal of its request for
the administrative review after the 90day regulatory deadline (i.e., November
30, 2006), and stated that it would not
provide a response to the Department’s
E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM
22AUN1
46962
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 22, 2007 / Notices
supplemental questionnaire. Thus
Putian stopped participating in this
review, did not demonstrate its
entitlement to a separate rate and was,
therefore, subject to the PRC-wide rate.
See Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 6211–
12. For the final results, we made no
changes to our findings with respect to
Putian’s determination.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Speedy International, Ltd.
In the Preliminary Results, we
determined that because Speedy
International, Ltd. (‘‘Speedy’’) failed to
support its claim that its owner was a
citizen of Taiwan, and did not complete
the sections of the separate rate
application for NME owned entities,
thus, Speedy did not demonstrate its
entitlement to a separate rate and was,
therefore, subject to the PRC-wide rate.
See Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 6211–
12. For the final results, we have made
no changes to our findings with respect
to Speedy’s determination.
Starcorp
The Department finds that the
information necessary to calculate an
accurate and reliable margin is not
available on the record with respect to
Starcorp. See Issues and Decision Memo
at Comment 63; and Starcorp AFA
Memorandum. Specifically, Starcorp
has significantly impeded the
Department’s ability to calculate
accurate margins for a significant
percentage of its U.S. sales as a direct
result of its misreporting and
withholding of information that would
have served as the basis for the
Department’s analysis. Therefore, we
find use of facts available appropriate
pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B)
and (C) of the Act, and as discussed in
extensive detail in the Starcorp AFA
Memorandum. Despite having
numerous opportunities to provide the
Department with requested information
with respect to merchandise sold but
not produced during the POR, the facts
on the record lead the Department to the
conclusion that Starcorp did not act as
a reasonable respondent by withholding
certain information necessary to
calculate an accurate margin (i.e., it
failed to disclose the methodology it
used to derive its proxy FOPs for
merchandise sold but not produced
during the POR (i.e., proxy FOPs) and
failed to provide forthcoming responses
in a timely manner to the Department’s
numerous direct questions regarding its
reporting methodology (i.e., use of
proxy FOPs and use of sales quantities
instead of production quantities to
weight certain FOPs within numerous
CONNUMs)). See Starcorp AFA
Memorandum and Comment 63 of the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:26 Aug 21, 2007
Jkt 211001
Issues and Decision Memorandum.
These failures significantly impeded the
Department’s ability to comprehend and
analyze Starcorp’s data adequately
within the Department’s statutory
timeframe. As a result of Starcorp’s
repeated misreporting and failure to
provide information that was responsive
to the Department’s requests, the
Department’s ability to calculate
accurate margins for a significant
portion of Starcorp’s sales was
compromised.
Starcorp further impeded the
Department’s ability to calculate
accurate margins as a direct result of its
failure to provide, in the form and
manner requested by the Department
and within the Department’s established
deadlines, the information that would
have served as the basis of the
Department’s analysis, pursuant to
sections 776(a)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act.
Specifically, and as discussed in great
detail in the Starcorp AFA
Memorandum, Starcorp did not provide
plant-specific plant data until very late
in the proceeding, and did not disclose
that these data do not contain FOPs for
all of the CONNUMs correlating to its
U.S. sales (i.e., the plant-specific
databases did not contain the requisite
data for calculating normal values for all
of Starcorp’s U.S. sales and thus do not
contain the data necessary to calculate
a dumping margin for those sales).
Despite having numerous opportunities
to provide the plant-specific and
weighted-average data in a timely
manner, as evidenced by the
Department’s numerous supplemental
questionnaires addressing deficiencies
in Starcorp’s responses, Starcorp did not
do so. Thus, as explained in detail in
the Starcorp AFA Memorandum, the
facts on the record lead the Department
to the conclusion that Starcorp failed to
provide forthcoming responses in a
timely manner to the Department’s
numerous direct requests, and this
failure significantly impeded the
Department’s ability to comprehend and
analyze Starcorp’s data adequately
within the Department’s statutory time
frame. As a result, the Department’s
ability to calculate accurate margins for
any of Starcorp’s sales was
compromised.
Further, the Department also found
Starcorp’s financial statements to be
unreliable. See Comment 56 of the
Issues and Decision Memorandum and
the Starcorp AFA Memo. Because the
Department finds that Starcorp’s
submitted information cannot be tied to
reliable financial statements or a reliable
financial recording system, the
Department must conclude that any
submitted data are also not reliable.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Finally, there remain significant
discrepancies between Starcorp’s
numerous data files and the narrative
descriptions Starcorp provided
purporting to explain those data files.
For example, there are inconsistencies
related to: which unique products were
not sold during the POR and which
FOPs were therefore based on proxy
FOP data; Starcorp’s reported
production quantities for sets,
notwithstanding Starcorp’s repeated
statements that it does not produce sets;
and Starcorp’s inclusion of the same
product in the FOP buildups for more
than one CONNUM.
Based on the analysis above, for the
final results, we applied facts available
pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B),
and (C) of the Act with respect to
Starcorp’s sales. Furthermore, it is
apparent from the facts on the record,
i.e., Starcorp’s repeated
unresponsiveness to information
requests, its repeated failure to provide
requested data in a timely manner, its
withholding of its methodology to
determine the product-specific source of
proxy FOP data, and the significant
level of inconsistencies and
contradictions in its data and narrative
submissions (including information
obtained at verification), that Starcorp
did not act as a reasonable respondent
because its failure to be responsive was
unnecessary. See Starcorp AFA
Memorandum. Thus, we find that
Starcorp failed to cooperate by not
acting to the best of its ability. For this
reason, we find it appropriate that an
adverse inference be applied when
selecting from among the facts available
in accordance with section 776(b) of the
Act.
As AFA we are applying a rate of
216.01 percent, the rate calculated for a
respondent in the most recently
completed new shipper reviews of
wooden bedroom furniture from the
PRC, covering the first 12 months of this
administrative review. See Final Results
of the 2004–2005 Semi-Annual New
Shipper Reviews: Wooden Bedroom
Furniture from the People’s Republic of
China, 71 FR 70739 (December 6, 2006)
(‘‘04–05 New Shipper Reviews’’). This
represents the highest rate from the
history of this proceeding.
Application of Partial Facts Available
Sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the
Act provide for the use of facts available
when an interested party withholds
information that has been requested by
the Department or when an interested
party fails to provide the information
requested in a timely manner and in the
form required. Additionally, section
776(b) of the Act provides for the use of
E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM
22AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 22, 2007 / Notices
AFA when an interested party has failed
to cooperate by not acting to the best of
its ability. We have concluded that the
Dare Group did not cooperate to the best
of its ability.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Dare Group
Because the Dare Group did not
provide complete information with
respect to indirect and packing labor for
certain CONNUMs, as requested in the
Department’s questionnaires, we
preliminarily determined that the use of
an adverse inference was warranted to
value these FOPs. See Preliminary
Results, 72 FR at 6214. For the final
results, we have determined to continue
to apply sections 776(a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B),
and (b) of the Act because the Dare
Group did not provide us with the
information we requested. Therefore, in
accordance with sections 776(a)(2) and
(b) of the Act, we have applied partial
AFA in calculating the Dare Group’s
margin. For each CONNUM for which
zero labor hours were reported, we have
applied the highest labor hour value for
any CONNUM reported in the Dare
Group’s FOP database. See Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 38.
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 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 e.g., Statement
of Administration Action accompanying
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act,
H.R. Rep. No. 103–316, (1994) (SAA) at
870. Corroborate means that the
Department will satisfy itself that the
secondary information to be used has
probative value. To corroborate
secondary information, the Department
will, to the extent practicable, examine
the reliability and relevance of the
information to be used. See e.g.,
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
Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391,
57392 (November 6, 1996) (unchanged
in the final determination). Independent
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:26 Aug 21, 2007
Jkt 211001
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 particular
investigation or review. See 19 CFR
351.308(d).
The AFA rate that the Department is
now using was determined in the
recently published new shipper review.
See 04–05 New Shipper Reviews 71 FR
at 70741. In that new shipper review,
the Department calculated a companyspecific rate of 216.01 percent, which
was above the PRC-wide rate
established in the less-than-fair-value
investigation. Because this new rate is a
company-specific calculated rate
concerning subject merchandise, we
have determined this rate to be 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 a company-specific calculated
rate for another respondent for a period
covering 12 months (i.e., June 24, 2004,
through June 30, 2005) of this 18-month
administrative review. Moreover, this
rate has not been invalidated judicially,
and falls within the range of margins
calculated for another respondent in
this review. Therefore, it is appropriate
to use the selected rate as AFA and we
have determined the 216.01 percent rate
to be relevant for use in this
administrative review.
As the adverse margin is both reliable
and relevant, we determine that it has
probative value. Accordingly, we
determine that this rate meets the
corroboration criteria established in
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
46963
section 776(c) that secondary
information have probative value. As a
result, the Department determines that
the margin is corroborated for the
purposes of this administrative review
and may reasonably be applied to First
Wood, Huanghouse, Kong Fong, Putian,
Speedy, and Starcorp, and the PRC-wide
entity as AFA.
The PRC-Wide Rate
Because we begin with the
presumption that all companies within
an NME country are subject to
government control and because only
the companies listed under these ‘‘Final
Results Margins’’ section, below, have
overcome that presumption, we are
applying a single antidumping rate (i.e.,
the PRC-wide rate) to all other exporters
of subject merchandise from the PRC.
Such companies did not demonstrate
entitlement to a separate rate. See e.g.,
Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: Synthetic
Indigo from the People’s Republic of
China, 65 FR 25706, 25707 (May 3,
2000). The PRC-wide rate applies to all
entries of subject merchandise except
for entries from the respondents that are
listed in the ‘‘Final Results Margins’’
section, below (except as noted).
The Department based the margin for
the PRC-wide entity on adverse facts
available. See Preliminary Results, 72
FR at 6212, 6214. Pursuant to section
776(a) of the Act, the Department found
that because the PRC-wide entity failed
to respond to the Department’s
questionnaires, withheld or failed to
provide information in a timely manner
or in the form or manner requested by
the Department, submitted information
that could not be verified, or otherwise
impeded the process, it was appropriate
to apply a dumping margin for the PRCwide entity using facts otherwise
available on the record. The Department
further determined that an adverse
inference was appropriate because the
PRC-wide entity failed to respond to
requests for information and therefore
failed to cooperate by not acting to the
best of its ability. As AFA we are
applying the highest calculated rate
from the history of this proceeding, a
rate calculated for a respondent in the
most recently completed new shipper
reviews of wooden bedroom furniture
from the PRC, covering the first 12
months of this administrative review.
See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from
the People ’s Republic of China: Final
Results of the 2004–2005 Semi-Annual
New Shipper Reviews, 71 FR 70739
(December 6, 2006).
E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM
22AUN1
46964
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 22, 2007 / Notices
Final Results Margins
We determine that the following
percentage weighted-average margins
exist for the POR:
WOODEN BEDROOM FURNITURE FROM THE PRC
Weighted-average
margin (percent)
Producer/exporter
Fujian Lianfu Forestry Co. Ltd /Fujian Wonder Pacific Inc. (Dare Group) ..............................................................................
Fuzhou Huan Mei Furniture Co., Ltd (Dare Group) ................................................................................................................
Jiangsu Dare Furniture Co., Ltd (Dare Group) .......................................................................................................................
Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited ...........................................................................................................................................
Foshan Guanqiu Furniture Co., Ltd .........................................................................................................................................
Shanghai Aosen Furniture Co., Ltd .........................................................................................................................................
Starcorp Funiture Co., Ltd, Starcorp Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd, Orin Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd, Shanghai Star
Furniture Co., Ltd, and Shanghai Xing Ding Furniture Industrial Co., Ltd * .......................................................................
Tianjin First Wood Co., Ltd ......................................................................................................................................................
Ace Furniture & Crafts Ltd (a.k.a. Deqing Ace Furniture and Crafts Limited) ........................................................................
Baigou Crafts Factory of Fengkai ............................................................................................................................................
Best King International Ltd ......................................................................................................................................................
Dalian Pretty Home Furniture ..................................................................................................................................................
Decca Furniture Limited ..........................................................................................................................................................
Der Cheng Wooden Works of Factory ....................................................................................................................................
Dongguan Dihao Furniture Co., Ltd ........................................................................................................................................
Dongguan Hua Ban Furniture Co., Ltd ...................................................................................................................................
Dongguan Mingsheng Furniture Co., Ltd ................................................................................................................................
Dongguan New Technology Import & Export Co., Ltd ............................................................................................................
Dongguan Sunpower Enterprise Co., Ltd ...............................................................................................................................
Dongguan Yihaiwei Furniture Limited .....................................................................................................................................
Kalanter (Hong Kong) Furniture Company Limited .................................................................................................................
Furnmart Ltd ............................................................................................................................................................................
Guangdong New Four Seas Furniture Manufacturing Ltd ......................................................................................................
Guangzhou Lucky Furniture Co. Ltd .......................................................................................................................................
Hong Yu Furniture (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd ..................................................................................................................................
Hung Fai Wood Products Factory, Ltd ....................................................................................................................................
Hwang Ho International Holdings Limited ...............................................................................................................................
King Kei Furniture Factory .......................................................................................................................................................
King Wood Furniture Co., Ltd ..................................................................................................................................................
Meikangchi Nantong Furniture Company Ltd ..........................................................................................................................
Nantong Yangzi Furniture Co., Ltd ..........................................................................................................................................
Po Ying Industrial Co. ..............................................................................................................................................................
Profit Force Ltd ........................................................................................................................................................................
Qingdao Beiyuan-Shengli Furniture Co., Ltd ..........................................................................................................................
Qingdao Shenchang Wooden Co., Ltd ...................................................................................................................................
Red Apple Trading Co. Ltd ......................................................................................................................................................
Shenyang Kunyu Wood Industry Co., Ltd ...............................................................................................................................
Shenzhen Dafuhao Industrial Development Co., Ltd ..............................................................................................................
Shenzhen Shen Long Hang Industry Co., Ltd ........................................................................................................................
Sino Concord International Corporation ..................................................................................................................................
T.J. Maxx International Co., Ltd ..............................................................................................................................................
Top Art Furniture Factory/Sanxiang Top Art Funiture/Ngai Kun Trading ...............................................................................
Top Goal Development Co. .....................................................................................................................................................
Transworld (Zhangzhou) Furniture Co. Ltd .............................................................................................................................
Wan Bao Chen Group Hong Kong Co. Ltd .............................................................................................................................
Winmost Enterprises Limited ...................................................................................................................................................
Xilinmen Group Co. Ltd ...........................................................................................................................................................
Yongxin Industrial (Holdings) Limited ......................................................................................................................................
Zhongshan Gainwell Furniture Co. Ltd ...................................................................................................................................
PRC-Wide Rate .......................................................................................................................................................................
48.97
48.97
48.97
1.97
11.72
0.53
216.01
216.01
35.38
35.38
35.38
35.38
35.38
35.38
35.38
35.38
35.38
35.38
35.38
35.38
35.38
35.38
35.38
35.38
35.38
35.38
35.38
35.38
35.38
35.38
35.38
35.38
35.38
35.38
35.38
35.38
35.38
35.38
35.38
35.38
35.38
35.38
35.38
35.38
35.38
35.38
35.38
35.38
35.38
216.01
Starcorp is not subject to the PRC-wide rate.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Assessment Rates
The Department has determined, and
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(‘‘CBP’’) shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries. For
customers/importers of respondents that
did not report entered value, we
calculated customer/importer-specific
antidumping duty assessment amounts
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:26 Aug 21, 2007
Jkt 211001
based on the ratio of the total amount of
antidumping duties calculated for the
examined sales of subject merchandise
to the total quantity of subject
merchandise sold in those transactions.
For customers/importers of respondents
that reported entered value, we
calculated customer-specific
antidumping duty assessment amounts
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
based on customer/importer-specific ad
valorem rates in accordance with 19
CFR 351.212(b)(1). For the companies
receiving a separate rate that were not
selected for individual review (i.e.,
separate rate companies) we will
calculate an assessment rate based on
the weighted average of the cash deposit
rates calculated for the companies
E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM
22AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 22, 2007 / Notices
selected for individual review excluding
any that are zero, de minimis, or based
entirely on AFA pursuant to section
735(c)(5)(B) of the Act. The Department
intends to issue assessment instructions
to CBP within 15 days after the date of
publication of these final results of
administrative and new shippers
review.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit
requirements will be effective upon
publication of these final results of this
administrative review and new shippers
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 exporters listed above, the cash
deposit rate will be the rates shown for
those companies (except if the rate is de
minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, no
cash deposit will be required for that
company); (2) for previously
investigated or reviewed PRC and nonPRC exporters not listed above that have
separate rates, the cash deposit rate will
continue to be the exporter-specific rate
published for the most recent period; (3)
for all PRC exporters of subject
merchandise which have not been
found to be entitled to a separate rate,
the cash deposit rate will be the PRCwide rate of 216.01 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
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 the APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which
continues to govern business
proprietary information in this segment
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:26 Aug 21, 2007
Jkt 211001
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.
Disclosure
We will disclose the calculations
performed within five days of the date
of publication of this notice to parties in
this proceeding in accordance with 19
CFR 351.224(b).
We are issuing and publishing this
determination and notice in accordance
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of
the Act.
Dated: August 15, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
Appendix
Issues in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum
I. General Issues
Comment 1: Surrogate Country Selection
A. Economic Comparability
B. Significant Producer
C. Data Considerations
D. Burden and Predictability
Comment 2: Labor Rate Methodology
Comment 3: Application of the 33 Percent
Threshold for Market Economy
Purchases
Comment 4: Zeroing
Comment 5: Department Should Apply
Combination Rates to Separate Rate
Companies
Comment 6: Use of Values Versus
Quantities To Determine the WeightedAverage Separate Rate Margin
Comment 7: Incorporation of Zero, De
Minimis, and Total Adverse Facts
Available Margins in Non-selected
Respondents’ Rate
Comment 8: Standard for Accepting
Respondents Factor Descriptions and
Appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule
of India Categories
Comment 9: Time Period Used To
Calculate Surrogate Values
Comment 10: Ministerial Error in the
Valuation of Polymers of Styrene
Comment 11: Exclusion of Myanmar and
Bhutan Data in the Surrogate Value
Calculation for Plywood
Comment 12: Surrogate Value Source for
Mirrors
Comment 13: HTS Classification for
Corrugated Paper
Comment 14: HTS Classification for
Cardboard
Comment 15: Surrogate Value Source for
Electricity
Comment 16: Electricity and Coal Inflator
II. Surrogate Financial Ratio Issues
Comment 17: Use of Certain Financial
Statements for the Calculation of
Surrogate Financial Ratios
A. Ahuja
B. Evergreen
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
46965
C. Huzaifa (2005–2006)
D. IFP (2004–2005 and 2005–2006)
E. Imperial (2006)
F. Jayabharatham (2006)
G. Newton (2005)
H. Nikhil (2005)
I. Nizamuddin (2005–2006)
J. Raghbir (2004–2005 & 2005–2006)
K. Usha Shriram (2005 & 2006)
Comment 18: Treatment of Polish, Contract
Manufacturing, and Manufacturing Glass
in Ahuja’s Financial Statement
Comment 19: Treatment of Job Work
Expense in Huzaifa and IFP’s Financial
Statement
Comment 20: Treatment of Labor-Related
Expenses in Multiple Surrogate
Financial Statement
Comment 21: Treatment of Consumables in
Akriti’s Financial Statement
Comment 22: Treatment of ‘‘Designing
Charges,’’ Consumables, and Profit on
Sale of Assets in Imperial’s 2004–2005
Financial Statements
Comment 23: Treatment of Nizamuddin’s
2004–2005 Financial Statement and
Treatment of Manufacturing Charges
Labour in Nizamuddin’s 2005–2006
Financial Statement
Comment 24: Use of 2004–2005 Data from
Jayabharathan’s 2005–2006 Financial
Statements
Comment 25: Treatment of Octroi Expenses
in Huzaifa’s Financial Statement
Comment 26: Allocation of Aggregated
Personnel Expenses in the Calculation of
Surrogate Financial Ratios Based on ASI
Data
Comment 27: Allocation of Aggregated
Personnel Expenses in the Calculation of
Surrogate Financial Ratios Based on
Record Financial Statements
III. Aosen-Specific Issues
Comment 28: Application of Partial AFA
for Nails
Comment 29: HTS Classification for
‘‘PLYWOOD,’’ ‘‘MDBD,’’ ‘‘PINE,’’
‘‘ASHVEN,’’ ‘‘EXPLYSHT,’’ and
‘‘POLYFOAM’’
IV. Baigou Crafts
Comment 30: Application of Total AFA to
Baigou Crafts
V. Dare Group-Specific Issues
Comment 31: HTS Classification for
‘‘PIGMENT_O’’
Comment 32: HTS Classification for
‘‘CURVINGWOODY’’ and
‘‘VENEERPLY’’
Comment 33: HTS Classification for
‘‘WOODSALICACEAE’’
Comment 34: HTS Classification for Box/
Carton
Comment 35: Unit of Measure for
‘‘TURNINGDY’’
Comment 36: Assessment Rate
Calculations
Comment 37: Certain Non-Scope
Merchandise Should be Excluded from
the Margin Calculation
Comment 38: Post Preliminary Results
Updated FOP database to Reflect
Correction for Previously Unreported
Labor Hours Data
Comment 39: Updated Sales Database
Which Includes Previously Unreported
Weight Information
E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM
22AUN1
46966
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 22, 2007 / Notices
Comment 40: Use of Material-Specific
Conversion Rate for FIBERBOARDMD,
PAPEREDFIBERBOARDMD, and
FIBERBOARDPACKING
Comment 41: WOODPLUG—Clerical Error
Allegation
Comment 42: OKOUEMEVEMEER—
Clerical Error Allegation
VI. First Wood-Specific Issues
Comment 43: Rescission of First Wood’s
New Shipper Review is Consistent With
Department Precedent
VII. Guanqiu-Specific Issues
Comment 44: HTS Classification for
Plywood
Comment 45: HTS Classification for MDF
Comment 46: HTS Classification for Resin
Comment 47: HTS Classification for Paint
Comment 48: Surrogate Value Selection for
Ocean Freight
VIII. Starcorp-Specific Issues
Comment 49: Total Labor Hour
Consumption
Comment 50: Market Economy Purchases,
Wood Materials and Wood Screws
Comment 51: Department’s Conduct at
Verification
Comment 52: Timing of Verification
Outline
Comment 53: Appropriateness of PlantSpecific versus Combined FOP Data and
Valuation of the Appropriate Data
Comment 54: Application of Partial
Adverse Facts Available for CONNUMs
Consisting of Sets and ‘‘Sold But Not
Produced’’
Comment 55: Starcorp’s Financial
Statements
Comment 56: Raw Material Consumption
Methodology
Comment 57: Non-Wood Materials
Comment 58: Valuation of Thinner
Comment 59: Electricity
Comment 60: Packing Materials
Comment 61: Minor Corrections
Comment 62: Application of Total Adverse
Facts Available
IX. Separate Rate Company-Specific Issues
Comment 63: Separate-Rate Status for New
Four Seas
Comment 64: Separate-Rate Status for
Winny and Triple J
Comment 65: Separate-Rate Status for ZY
Wooden/MY Trading
[FR Doc. E7–16584 Filed 8–21–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Proposed Information Collection;
Comment Request; Certification
Requirements for NOAA’s
Hydrographic Product Quality
Assurance Program
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
Notice.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:26 Aug 21, 2007
Jkt 211001
SUMMARY: The Department of
Commerce, as part of its continuing
effort to reduce paperwork and
respondent burden, invites the general
public and other Federal agencies to
take this opportunity to comment on
proposed and/or continuing information
collections, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
DATES: Written comments must be
submitted on or before October 22,
2007.
IV. Request for Comments
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether
the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information shall have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden
(including hours and cost) of the
proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on respondents.
Comments submitted in response to
this notice will be summarized and/or
included in the request for OMB
approval of this information collection;
they also will become a matter of public
record.
Direct all written comments
to Diana Hynek, Departmental
Paperwork Clearance Officer,
Department of Commerce, Room 6625,
14th and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230 (or via the
Internet at dHynek@doc.gov).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection
instrument and instructions should be
directed to David Enabnit, 301–
71302770 x132,
Dave.Enabnit@NOAA.gov.
Dated: August 16, 2007.
Gwellnar Banks,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. E7–16543 Filed 8–21–07; 8:45 am]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
BILLING CODE 3510–JE–P
ADDRESSES:
I. Abstract
The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
was mandated to develop and
implement a quality assurance program
under which the Administrator may
certify privately-made hydrographic
products. The Administrator fulfilled
this mandate by establishing procedures
by which hydrographic products are
proposed for certification; by which
standards and compliance tests are
developed, adopted, and applied for
those products; and by which
certification is awarded or denied.
These procedures are now 15 CFR part
996. The application and recordkeeping
requirements at 15 CFR part 996 are
basis for this collection of information.
II. Method of Collection
Paper applications and electronic
reports are required from participants.
Methods of submittal include mail,
Internet, and facsimile transmission of
paper forms.
III. Data
OMB Number: 0648–0507.
Form Number: None.
Type of Review: Regular submission.
Affected Public: Business or other forprofit.
Estimated Number of Respondents: 2.
Estimated Time per Response: 4
hours.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 24.
Estimated Total Annual Cost to
Public: $0.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XB42
Endangered and Threatened Species;
Recovery Plans
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration,
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of availability; recovery
plan and 5-year review for the Hawaiian
monk seal.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) announces the
adoption of an Endangered Species Act
(ESA) Recovery Plan (Recovery Plan)
and 5-year review for the Hawaiian
monk seal (Monachus schauinslandi).
The Recovery Plan contains revisions
and additions in consideration of public
comments on the proposed draft
Recovery Plan for the Hawaiian Monk
Seal. This is the first 5-year review
completed for the Hawaiian monk seal.
ADDRESSES: Additional information
about the Recovery Plan and 5-year
review may be obtained by writing to
Dr. Michelle Yuen, National Marine
Fisheries Service, Pacific Islands
Regional Office, Protected Resources
Division, 1601 Kapiolani Boulevard
Suite 1110, Honolulu, HI, 96814 or send
an electronic message to
michelle.yuen@noaa.gov.
E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM
22AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 162 (Wednesday, August 22, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46957-46966]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-16584]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-890]
Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
and New Shipper Reviews: Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's
Republic of China
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On February 9, 2007, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') published its preliminary results in the antidumping duty
administrative review and new shipper reviews and notice of partial
rescission for wooden bedroom furniture from the People's Republic of
China. The period of review (``POR'') for the administrative review and
the new shipper reviews is June 24, 2004 through December 31, 2005. For
the final results of administrative review, see this notice. As a
result of an inadvertent error, the version of this notice released on
Wednesday, August 8, 2007, contained the appendix from the
investigation of this proceeding, rather than the appendix intended for
this administrative review. These amended final results correct this
error. No changes to the analysis, methodologies employed, or the rates
calculated were made. Because this error was discovered prior to
publication in the Federal Register, this amendment is being published
in place of the original version released on August 8, 2007.
In the administrative review, we have determined that all five
mandatory respondents (i.e., Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited and its
affiliates (``Fine Furniture''); Foshan Guanqiu Furniture Co., Ltd.
(``Foshan Guanqiu''); Fujian Lianfu Forestry Co./Fujian Wonder Pacific
Inc./Fuzhou Huan Mei Furniture Co., Ltd./Jiangsu Dare Furniture Co.,
Ltd. (``Dare Group''); Shanghai Aosen Furniture Co., Ltd. (``Shanghai
Aosen'') and Shanghai Starcorp Furniture Co., Ltd, Starcorp Furniture
(Shanghai) Co., Ltd., Orin Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., Shanghai
Star Furniture Co., Ltd., and Shanghai Xing Ding Furniture Industrial
Co., Ltd. (collectively, ``Starcorp'')) made sales in the United States
at prices below normal value. With respect to the remaining respondents
in the administrative review (collectively, ``Separate Rate
Applicants''), we have determined that 42 entities have provided
sufficient evidence that they are separate from the state-controlled
entity, and we have established a weighted-average margin based on the
rates we have calculated for the five mandatory respondents, excluding
any rates that are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on adverse facts
available, to be applied to these separate-rate entities. We invited
interested parties to comment on our preliminary results of review. For
the new shipper reviews, the Department also reviewed two exporters/
producers, i.e., Dongguan Huanghouse Furniture Co., Ltd.
(``Huanghouse'') and Tianjin First Wood Co., Ltd. (``First Wood'').
Based on our analysis of the comments we received, we have made certain
changes to our calculations for all mandatory respondents. The final
dumping margins for this review are listed in the ``Final Results
Margins'' section below.
DATES: Effective Date: August 22, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gene Degnan or Robert Bolling, Import
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20230; telephone: (202) 482-0414 and (202) 482-3434, respectively.
Background
The Department published its preliminary results on February 9,
2007. See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
Preliminary Results of New Shipper Reviews and Notice of Partial
Rescission, 72 FR 6201 (February 9, 2007) (``Preliminary Results'').
The Department conducted verification of two of the mandatory
respondents' and certain Separate-Rate Applicants' data in the People's
Republic of China (``PRC''). See Verification section, below, for
additional information.
On June 12, 2007, the Department extended the deadline for the
final results of review to August 8, 2007. See Wooden Bedroom Furniture
from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limits for the
Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New
Shipper Reviews, 72 FR 32281 (June 12, 2007).
We invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. We
received comments from the Petitioners, certain mandatory respondents,
certain Separate-Rate Applicants, and other interested parties to this
review. On June 18, 2007, parties submitted case briefs. On June 26,
2007, parties submitted rebuttal briefs. On July 12, 2007, the
Department held public and closed hearings.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in
this review are addressed in the memorandum from Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M.
Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, ``Issues and
Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews on Wooden Bedroom
Furniture from the People's Republic of China,'' Issues and Decision
Memorandum, dated August 8, 2007, which is hereby adopted by this
notice (``Issues and Decision Memorandum''). A list of the issues which
parties raised and to which we respond in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Issues and
Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file in the Central
Records Unit (``CRU''), Main Commerce Building, Room B-099, and is
accessible on the Web at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and
electronic version of the memorandum are identical in content.
Period of Review
The POR is June 24, 2004 through December 31, 2005.
Scope of Order
The product covered by the order is wooden bedroom furniture.
Wooden bedroom furniture is generally, but not
[[Page 46958]]
exclusively, designed, manufactured, and offered for sale in
coordinated groups, or bedrooms, in which all of the individual pieces
are of approximately the same style and approximately the same material
and/or finish. The subject merchandise is made substantially of wood
products, including both solid wood and also engineered wood products
made from wood particles, fibers, or other wooden materials such as
plywood, oriented strand board, particle board, and fiberboard, with or
without wood veneers, wood overlays, or laminates, with or without non-
wood components or trim such as metal, marble, leather, glass, plastic,
or other resins, and whether or not assembled, completed, or finished.
The subject merchandise includes the following items: (1) Wooden
beds such as loft beds, bunk beds, and other beds; (2) wooden
headboards for beds (whether stand-alone or attached to side rails),
wooden footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and wooden
canopies for beds; (3) night tables, night stands, dressers, commodes,
bureaus, mule chests, gentlemen's chests, bachelor's chests, lingerie
chests, wardrobes, vanities, chessers, chifforobes, and wardrobe-type
cabinets; (4) dressers with framed glass mirrors that are attached to,
incorporated in, sit on, or hang over the dresser; (5) chests-on-
chests, \1\ highboys, \2\ lowboys, \3\ chests of drawers, \4\ chests,
\5\ door chests, \6\ chiffoniers, \7\ hutches, \8\ and armoires; \9\
(6) desks, computer stands, filing cabinets, book cases, or writing
tables that are attached to or incorporated in the subject merchandise;
and (7) other bedroom furniture consistent with the above list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A chest-on-chest is typically a tall chest-of-drawers in two
or more sections (or appearing to be in two or more sections), with
one or two sections mounted (or appearing to be mounted) on a
slightly larger chest; also known as a tallboy.
\2\ A highboy is typically a tall chest of drawers usually
composed of a base and a top section with drawers, and supported on
four legs or a small chest (often 15 inches or more in height).
\3\ A lowboy is typically a short chest of drawers, not more
than four feet high, normally set on short legs.
\4\ A chest of drawers is typically a case containing drawers
for storing clothing.
\5\ A chest is typically a case piece taller than it is wide
featuring a series of drawers and with or without one or more doors
for storing clothing. The piece can either include drawers or be
designed as a large box incorporating a lid.
\6\ A door chest is typically a chest with hinged doors to store
clothing, whether or not containing drawers. The piece may also
include shelves for televisions and other entertainment electronics.
\7\ A chiffonier is typically a tall and narrow chest of drawers
normally used for storing undergarments and lingerie, often with
mirror(s) attached.
\8\ A hutch is typically an open case of furniture with shelves
that typically sits on another piece of furniture and provides
storage for clothes.
\9\ An armoire is typically a tall cabinet or wardrobe
(typically 50 inches or taller), with doors, and with one or more
drawers (either exterior below or above the doors or interior behind
the doors), shelves, and/or garment rods or other apparatus for
storing clothes. Bedroom armoires may also be used to hold
television receivers and/or other audio-visual entertainment
systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The scope of the order excludes the following items: (1) Seats,
chairs, benches, couches, sofas, sofa beds, stools, and other seating
furniture; (2) mattresses, mattress supports (including box springs),
infant cribs, water beds, and futon frames; (3) office furniture, such
as desks, stand-up desks, computer cabinets, filing cabinets,
credenzas, and bookcases; (4) dining room or kitchen furniture such as
dining tables, chairs, servers, sideboards, buffets, corner cabinets,
china cabinets, and china hutches; (5) other non-bedroom furniture,
such as television cabinets, cocktail tables, end tables, occasional
tables, wall systems, book cases, and entertainment systems; (6)
bedroom furniture made primarily of wicker, cane, osier, bamboo or
rattan; (7) side rails for beds made of metal if sold separately from
the headboard and footboard; (8) bedroom furniture in which bentwood
parts predominate \10\; (9) jewelry armories \11\; (10) cheval mirrors
\12\; (11) certain metal parts \13\;(12) mirrors that do not attach to,
incorporate in, sit on, or hang over a dresser if they are not designed
and marketed to be sold in conjunction with a dresser as part of a
dresser-mirror set; and (13) upholstered beds. \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ As used herein, bentwood means solid wood made pliable.
Bentwood is wood that is brought to a curved shape by bending it
while made pliable with moist heat or other agency and then set by
cooling or drying. See Customs' Headquarters' Ruling Letter 043859,
dated May 17, 1976.
\11\ Any armoire, cabinet or other accent item for the purpose
of storing jewelry, not to exceed 24'' in width, 18'' in depth, and
49'' in height, including a minimum of 5 lined drawers lined with
felt or felt-like material, at least one side door (whether or not
the door is lined with felt or felt-like material), with necklace
hangers, and a flip-top lid with inset mirror. See Issues and
Decision Memorandum from Laurel LaCivita to Laurie Parkhill, Office
Director, Concerning Jewelry Armoires and Cheval Mirrors in the
Antidumping Duty Investigation of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the
People's Republic of China, dated August 31, 2004. See also Wooden
Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Notice of
Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review and Revocation in
Part, 71 FR 38621 (July 7, 2006).
\12\ Cheval mirrors are, i.e., any framed, tiltable mirror with
a height in excess of 50'' that is mounted on a floor-standing,
hinged base. Additionally, the scope of the order excludes
combination cheval mirror/jewelry cabinets. The excluded merchandise
is an integrated piece consisting of a cheval mirror, i.e., a framed
tiltable mirror with a height in excess of 50 inches, mounted on a
floor-standing, hinged base, the cheval mirror serving as a door to
a cabinet back that is integral to the structure of the mirror and
which constitutes a jewelry cabinet lined with fabric, having
necklace and bracelet hooks, mountings for rings and shelves, with
or without a working lock and key to secure the contents of the
jewelry cabinet back to the cheval mirror, and no drawers anywhere
on the integrated piece. The fully assembled piece must be at least
50 inches in height, 14.5 inches in width, and 3 inches in depth.
See Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China:
Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review and Determination To
Revoke Order in Part, 72 FR 948 (January 9, 2007).
\13\ Metal furniture parts and unfinished furniture parts made
of wood products (as defined above) that are not otherwise
specifically named in this scope (i.e., wooden headboards for beds,
wooden footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and wooden
canopies for beds) and that do not possess the essential character
of wooden bedroom furniture in an unassembled, incomplete, or
unfinished form. Such parts are usually classified under the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'')
subheading 9403.90.7000.
\14\ Upholstered beds that are completely upholstered, i.e.,
containing filling material and completely covered in sewn genuine
leather, synthetic leather, or natural or synthetic decorative
fabric. To be excluded, the entire bed (headboards, footboards, and
side rails) must be upholstered except for bed feet, which may be of
wood, metal, or any other material and which are no more than nine
inches in height from the floor. See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from
the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Changed
Circumstances Review and Determination to Revoke Order in Part, 72
FR 7013 (February 14, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Imports of subject merchandise are classified under subheading
9403.50.9040 of the HTSUS as ``wooden * * * beds'' and under subheading
9403.50.9080 of the HTSUS as ``other * * * wooden furniture of a kind
used in the bedroom.'' In addition, wooden headboards for beds, wooden
footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and wooden canopies
for beds may also be entered under subheading 9403.50.9040 of the HTSUS
as ``parts of wood'' and framed glass mirrors may also be entered under
subheading 7009.92.5000 of the HTSUS as ``glass mirrors * * * framed.''
This order covers all wooden bedroom furniture meeting the above
description, regardless of tariff classification. Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our
written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
[[Page 46959]]
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(``Act''), we verified the information submitted by certain mandatory
respondents and certain Separate-Rate Applicants for use in our final
results. See the Department's verification reports on the record of
this review in the CRU with respect to Shanghai Aosen; Starcorp; Baigou
Crafts Factory of Fengkai (``Baigou Crafts''); Dongguan Dihao Furniture
Co., Ltd. (``Dihao''); and Transworld (Zhangzhou) Furniture Co., Ltd.
(``Transworld''). For all verified companies, we used standard
verification procedures, including examination of relevant accounting
and production records, as well as original source documents provided
by respondents. For the further details on the verifications, see the
aforementioned verification reports.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on an analysis of comments received, the Department has made
certain changes in the margin calculations. For the final results, the
Department has made the following changes with respect to Shanghai
Aosen, Dare Group, Foshan Guanqui, Starcorp, and Fine Furniture.
General Issues
Calculation of Surrogate Financial Ratios
For the final results, the Department is no longer using
the Nizamuddin Furnitures Private Limited 2004-2005 financial statement
in the calculation of the surrogate financial ratios. See Issues and
Decision Memorandum.
For the final results, the Department is using the
following additional financial statements (not used in the preliminary
results) to calculate surrogate financial ratios: (1) Nizamuddin
Furnitures Private Limited (2005-2006); (2) James Andrew Newton Art
Export Pvt. Ltd. (2004-2005); (3) Nikhil Decore Industries Pvt. Ltd.
(2004-2005); and (4) Indian Furniture Products Limited (2005-2006). See
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 17, and ``First
Administrative Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's
Republic of China: Factor Valuation Memorandum for the Final Results''
dated August 8, 2007 (``WBF Final Factor Valuation Memorandum'').
For the final results, in the calculation of Akriti
Perfections India Pvt. Ltd.'s surrogate financial ratios, the
Department has reclassified ``Consumables'' from raw material to
manufacturing overhead. See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment
21, and WBF Final Factor Valuation Memorandum.
For the final results, the Department has excluded
``Octroi'' expenses from the calculation of Huzaifa Furniture
Industries Pvt. Ltd.'s surrogate financial ratios. See Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 25.
For the final results, the Department has included the
line-item ``Contract Manufacturing'' in manufacturing overhead of Ahuja
Furnishers Private Limited's surrogate financial ratios. See Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 18, and WBF Final Factor Valuation
Memorandum.
For the final results, the Department has re-classified
``Bonuses'' and ``Gratuities'' from manufacturing overhead or selling,
general and administrative expenses to the direct labor portion of
Materials, Labor and Energy (``ML&E'') in the calculation of surrogate
financial ratios for Ahuja Furnishers Private Limited, Huzaifa
Furniture Industries Pvt. Ltd., and Indian Furniture Products Limited.
See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 20 and WBF Final Factor
Valuation Memorandum.
For the final results, the Department has included
``Closing Stock'' and ``Opening Stock'' in the material portion of ML&E
in the calculation of Fusion Design Private Ltd.'s surrogate financial
ratios. See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 23, and WBF Final
Factor Valuation Memorandum.
Recalculation of Surrogate Values
For the final results, the Department has recalculated
surrogate values for the polymers of styrene, cardboard, paint, and
resin. See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 10, 13, 14, 47,
and 48 and WBF Final Factor Valuation Memorandum.
For the final results, the Department has calculated a
surrogate value for mirrors using Glass Yug instead of the Monthly
Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India, Volume II: Imports. See
https://www.gtis.com/wta.htm, which we used for the preliminary results.
See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 12 and WBF Final Factor
Valuation Memorandum.
For the final results, the Department has recalculated the
surrogate value for labor using the surrogate value of $0.83 per hour
instead of $0.97 per hour used for the preliminary results. See Issues
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 17 and WBF Final Factor Valuation
Memorandum.
Company-Specific Issues
Dare Group
For the final results, the Department has revised the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (``HTS'') category used to calculate the
surrogate value for cardboard. See Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 34 and WBF Final Factor Valuation Memorandum.
For the final results, the Department has revised certain
assessment rate calculations. See Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 36 and ``Analysis Memorandum for the Final Results of
Administrative Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's
Republic of China for Fujian Lianfu Forestry Co., Ltd., Fuzhou Huan Mei
Furniture Co. Ltd., and Jiangsu Dare Furniture Co, Ltd.'' dated (August
8, 2007) (``WBF Dare Group Final Results Analysis Memo 08/08/07'').
For the final results, the Department has excluded certain
non-scope merchandise from the margin calculation. See Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 37 and WBF Dare Group Final Results
Analysis Memo 08/08/07.
For the final results, the Department is using a material-
specific conversion rate to calculate surrogate values for
``FIBERBOARDMD'', ``PAPEREDFIBERBOARDMD'', and ``FIBERBOARDPACKING.''
See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 40 and WBF Dare Group
Final Results Analysis Memo 08/08/07.
For the final results, the Department has corrected a
conversion error in the calculation of the surrogate values for
``WOODPLUG'' and ``OKOUEMEVEMEER.'' See Issues and Decision Memorandum
at Comments 41 and 42 and WBF Dare Group Final Results Analysis Memo
08/08/07.
For the final results, the Department is using data from a
different HTS category to calculate the surrogate value of ``PIGMENT--
O''. See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 31 and WBF Dare
Group Final Results Analysis Memo 08/08/07.
For the final results, the Department is using updated
quantity data submitted by Dare Group and is no longer applying facts
available to certain sales where Dare Group reported zero quantity in
gross unit kilograms. See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 39
and WBF Dare Group Final Results Analysis Memo 08/08/07.
In the preliminary results, the Department used partial
adverse facts available (``AFA'') to value the indirect and packing
labor which was not reported for certain control numbers (``CONNUMs'').
For the final results, the
[[Page 46960]]
Department is continuing to apply as partial AFA the highest labor
values reported by Dare Group for any CONNUM. See ``Application of
Partial Facts Available'' section, below, the Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 38, and WBF Dare Group Final Results Analysis
Memo 08/08/07.
Fine Furniture
For the final results, the Department has determined not
to apply partial facts available with respect to certain of Fine
Furniture's sample sales. With respect to Fine Furniture's sample
sales, we are using Fine Furniture's reported data in our margin
calculation. See ``Analysis Memorandum for the Final Results of the
First Administrative Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the
People's Republic of China: Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited'' dated
August 8, 2007.
Foshan Guanqiu
For the final results, the Department has recalculated
surrogate values for resin and paint used by Foshan Guanqiu. See Issues
and Decision Memorandum at Comments 47 and 48, and ``Analysis
Memorandum for the Final Results of the First Administrative Review of
Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Foshan
Guanqiu'' dated August 8. 2007.
Starcorp
For the preliminary results, we calculated a dumping
margin of 74.69 percent for Starcorp, using partial adverse facts
available. However, for the final results, we are applying total AFA.
See Adverse Facts Available section, below. See also Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 63, and the companion Memorandum
regarding ``Application of Adverse Facts Available for Shanghai
Starcorp Funiture Co., Ltd, Starcorp Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.,
Orin Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., Shanghai Star Furniture Co., Ltd.,
and Shanghai Xing Ding Furniture Industrial Co., Ltd. in the Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Wooden Bedroom
Furniture from the People's Republic of China,'' dated August 8, 2007
(``Starcorp AFA Memorandum'').
Surrogate Country
In the preliminary results, the Department stated that it treats
the PRC as a non-market economy (``NME'') country, and therefore, the
Department calculated normal value in accordance with section 773(c) of
the Act, which applies to NME countries. Also, the Department stated
that it selected India as the appropriate surrogate country to use in
this review for the following reasons: (1) India is at a level of
economic development comparable to that of the PRC; (2) India is a
significant producer of comparable merchandise; and (3) India provides
the best opportunity to use quality, publicly available data to value
the factors of production (``FOP''). See Preliminary Results, 72 FR at
6208. For the final results, the Department has made no changes to its
findings with respect to the selection of a surrogate country. See
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
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 (``PRC-wide rate''). It is the
Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to
review in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can
demonstrate that it is free of de jure (in law) and de facto (in fact)
control over its export decisions, so as to be entitled to a separate
rate.
In the Preliminary Results, the Department found that the mandatory
respondents and numerous companies which provided responses to the
separate-rate application or separate-rate certification were eligible
for a rate separate from the PRC-wide rate. See Preliminary Results, 72
FR at 6208, 6210. For the final results, we have determined that
additional companies qualify for separate-rate status. For a complete
listing of all the companies that received a separate rate, see the
Final Results Margins section, below. See also, Memorandum regarding
``Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China:
Separate Rates for Producers/Exporters that Submitted Separate Rate
Certifications and Applications'' (``Final Separate-Rates Memo''),
dated August 8, 2007.
In the Preliminary Results, we did not grant separate-rate status
for 14 companies. See Preliminary Results 72 FR at 6209, 6210. Of
those, we stated that we would request additional information from six
applicants after the Preliminary Results, whereupon we would reevaluate
their eligibility for a separate rate for the final results. See
Preliminary Results 72 FR at 6210. Also, three additional companies
(i.e., Zhejiang Niannian Hong Industrial Co. Ltd. (``Nanaholy'');
Triple J Enterprises Co. Ltd. (``Triple J''), Zhongshan Winny Furniture
Ltd. (``Winny'')) filed post-preliminary submissions asking that the
Department reconsider its preliminary decision to deny them separate-
rate status. See Final Separate-Rates Memo.
Based on the information submitted in response to our post-
preliminary supplemental questionnaires, we find that Guangdong New
Four Seas Furniture Manufacturing Ltd.; King Kei Furniture Factory/King
Kei Trading Co., Ltd./Jin Ching Trading Co. Ltd.; and Top Art Furniture
Factory/Sanxig Top Art Funiture/Ngai Kun Trading have provided
sufficient information to establish an absence of government control
and eligibility for separate-rate status. Therefore, the evidence
placed on the record of this administrative review by these separate-
rate respondents demonstrates an absence of government control, both in
law and in fact, with respect to each of the exporter's exports of the
subject merchandise, in accordance with the criteria identified in
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from
the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), and Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from
the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2,1994). As a result,
for the purposes of these final results, we have granted separate rate
status to the above-named separate-rate applicants that shipped wooden
bedroom furniture to the United States during the POR. Additionally, we
have granted a separate rate to other separate-rate applicants.\15\ See
Final Separate-Rates Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Ace Furniture & Crafts Ltd. (a.k.a. Deqing Ace Furniture &
Crafts Limited); Baigou Crafts Factory of Fengkai; Best King
International Ltd.; Dalian Pretty Home Furniture; Decca Furniture
Limited; Der Cheng Wooden Works of Factory; Dongguan Dihao Furniture
Co., Ltd.; Dongguan Hua Ban Furniture Co., Ltd.; Dongguan Mingsheng
Furniture Co., Ltd.; Dongguan New Technology Import & Export Co.,
Ltd.; Dongguan Sunpower Enterprise Co., Ltd.; Dongguan Yihaiwei
Furniture Limited; Kalanter (Hong Kong) Furniture Company Limited;
Foshan Guanqiu Furniture Co., Ltd.; Fujian Lianfu Forestry Co.,
Ltd./Fujian Wonder Pacific Inc.; Furnmart Ltd.; Fuzhou Huan Mei
Furniture Co. Ltd.; Guangdong New Four Seas Furniture Manufacturing
Ltd.; Guangzhou Lucky Furniture Co. Ltd.; Hong Yu Furniture
(Shenzhen) Co. Ltd.; Hung Fai Wood Products Factory, Ltd.; Hwang Ho
International Holdings Limited; Jiangsu Dare Furniture Co, Ltd.;
King Kei Furniture Factory; Kingwood Furniture Co. Ltd.; Meikangchi
Nantong Furniture Company Ltd.; Nantong Yangzi Furniture Co., Ltd.;
Po Ying Industrial Co.; Profit Force Ltd.; Qingdao Beiyuan-Shengli
Furniture Co., Ltd.; Qingdao Shenchang Wooden Co., Ltd.; Red Apple
Trading Co. Ltd.; Shanghai Aosen Furniture Co., Ltd.; Starcorp
Furniture Co., Ltd., Starcorp Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., Orin
Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., Shanghai Star Furniture Co., Ltd.,
and Shanghai Xing Ding Furniture Industrial Co., Ltd. (collectively
``Starcorp''); Shenyang Kunyu Wood Industry Co., Ltd.; Shenzhen
Dafuhao Industrial Development Co., Ltd.; Shenzhen Shen Long Hang
Industry Co., Ltd.; Sino Concord International Corporation; T.J.
Maxx International Co. Ltd.; Top Art Furniture Factory/Sanxig Top
Art Funiture/Ngai Kun Trading; Top Goal Development Co.; Transworld
(Zhangzhou) Furniture Co. Ltd.; Wan Bao Chen Group Hong Kong Co.
Ltd.; Winmost Enterprises Limited; Xilinmen Group Co. Ltd.; Yongxin
Industrial (Holdings) Limited; Zhongshan Gainwell Furniture Co. Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 46961]]
Furthermore, we continue to find that the following separate-rate
applicants have not demonstrated an absence of government control over
their export activities, both in law and in fact: Conghua J. L. George
Timber & Co. Ltd. (``Conghua''); Zhongshan Youcheng Wooden Arts &
Crafts Co., Ltd. (``ZY Wooden'') and Macau Youcheng Trading Co. (``MY
Trading'') (collectively, ``ZY Wooden/MY Trading''); Kunwa Enterprise
Company (``Kunwa''), Nanaholy; Triple J, Winny, Kong Fong Art Factory
and Kong Fong Mao Iek Hong (``Kong Fong''), Putian Ou Dian Furniture
Co., Ltd. (``Putian''), and Speedy International, Ltd. (``Speedy'').
Therefore, we determine that Conghua, Kunwa, Nanaholy, Triple J, Winny,
ZY Wooden/MY Trading, Kong Fong, Putian, and Speedy are part of the
PRC-wide entity and, therefore, do not qualify for a separate rate and
will be subject to PRC-wide rate. See Final Separate-Rates Memo.
The margin we calculated in the Preliminary Results for these
separate-rate companies was 62.94 percent. Because the rates of the
selected mandatory respondents have changed since the Preliminary
Results, we have recalculated the rate for Separate-Rate Applicants.
The final rate is 35.38 percent. See Memorandum to the File from Eugene
Degnan, ``Calculation of Separate Rate,'' dated August 8, 2007.
Affiliation
In the Preliminary Results, we stated Fujian Lianfu Forestry Co.
Ltd./Fujian Wonder Pacific Inc./Fuzhou Huan Mei Furniture Co., Ltd./
Jiangsu Dare Furniture Co., Ltd., collectively, (``Dare Group'') were
affiliated pursuant to sections 771(33)(A), (E) and (F) of the Act and
that these companies should be treated as a single entity for the
purposes of the antidumping administrative review of wooden bedroom
furniture from the PRC. See Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 6208. For the
final results, we have made no changes to our findings with respect to
Dare Group's affiliation.
Adverse Facts Available
Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the 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.
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 AFA information derived
from the petition, the final determination, a previous administrative
review, or other information placed on the record.
Application of Facts Available
First Wood
In the Preliminary Results, we determined pursuant to sections
776(a)(1), 776(a)(2), and 776(b) of the Act to apply AFA to First Wood
in the new shipper review because First Wood: withheld the sales and
cost reconciliations as well as extensive factors of production
(``FOP'') data requested by the Department; failed to provide the units
of measure for its FOP consumption in a form or manner requested by the
Department; reported its FOP consumption in units of measure in a
manner that does not allow the Department to identify the actual
consumption rates or calculate the value for the FOP consumed in the
production of subject merchandise, thereby significantly impeding the
proceeding, resulting in the sales and FOP data being unverifiable. See
Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 6212-13. We also determined that First
Wood did not act ``to the best of its ability,'' as required by the
statute. See Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 6212-13. Thus, based on
First Wood's actions, we preliminarily determined that it failed to
cooperate to the best of its ability in responding to the Department's
requests for information. Therefore, we preliminarily determined that,
when selecting from among the facts otherwise available, an adverse
inference is warranted for First Wood pursuant to section 776(b) of the
Act. See Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 6212, 6213. For the final
results, we have made no changes to our findings with respect to First
Wood's total AFA determination. See Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comments 43 and 44.
Huanghouse
In the Preliminary Results, we determined that because Huanghouse
ceased participating in the new shipper review, and none of its
submitted information could be verified, Huanghouse did not demonstrate
its entitlement to a separate rate and was, therefore, subject to the
PRC-wide rate. See Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 6212-13. For the final
results, we made no changes to our findings with respect to
Huanghouse's determination.
Kong Fong Art Factory and Kong Fong Mao Iek Hong
In the Preliminary Results, we determined that because Kong Fong
ceased participating in the administrative review and would not provide
a response to the Department's supplemental questionnaire, Kong Fong
did not demonstrate its entitlement to a separate rate and was,
therefore, subject to the PRC-wide rate. See Preliminary Results, 72 FR
at 6210-12. For the final results, we made no changes to our findings
with respect to Huanghouse's determination.
Putian Ou Dian Furniture Co., Ltd.
In the Preliminary Results, we determined that because Putian
submitted a withdrawal of its request for the administrative review
after the 90-day regulatory deadline (i.e., November 30, 2006), and
stated that it would not provide a response to the Department's
[[Page 46962]]
supplemental questionnaire. Thus Putian stopped participating in this
review, did not demonstrate its entitlement to a separate rate and was,
therefore, subject to the PRC-wide rate. See Preliminary Results, 72 FR
at 6211-12. For the final results, we made no changes to our findings
with respect to Putian's determination.
Speedy International, Ltd.
In the Preliminary Results, we determined that because Speedy
International, Ltd. (``Speedy'') failed to support its claim that its
owner was a citizen of Taiwan, and did not complete the sections of the
separate rate application for NME owned entities, thus, Speedy did not
demonstrate its entitlement to a separate rate and was, therefore,
subject to the PRC-wide rate. See Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 6211-
12. For the final results, we have made no changes to our findings with
respect to Speedy's determination.
Starcorp
The Department finds that the information necessary to calculate an
accurate and reliable margin is not available on the record with
respect to Starcorp. See Issues and Decision Memo at Comment 63; and
Starcorp AFA Memorandum. Specifically, Starcorp has significantly
impeded the Department's ability to calculate accurate margins for a
significant percentage of its U.S. sales as a direct result of its
misreporting and withholding of information that would have served as
the basis for the Department's analysis. Therefore, we find use of
facts available appropriate pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B) and
(C) of the Act, and as discussed in extensive detail in the Starcorp
AFA Memorandum. Despite having numerous opportunities to provide the
Department with requested information with respect to merchandise sold
but not produced during the POR, the facts on the record lead the
Department to the conclusion that Starcorp did not act as a reasonable
respondent by withholding certain information necessary to calculate an
accurate margin (i.e., it failed to disclose the methodology it used to
derive its proxy FOPs for merchandise sold but not produced during the
POR (i.e., proxy FOPs) and failed to provide forthcoming responses in a
timely manner to the Department's numerous direct questions regarding
its reporting methodology (i.e., use of proxy FOPs and use of sales
quantities instead of production quantities to weight certain FOPs
within numerous CONNUMs)). See Starcorp AFA Memorandum and Comment 63
of the Issues and Decision Memorandum. These failures significantly
impeded the Department's ability to comprehend and analyze Starcorp's
data adequately within the Department's statutory timeframe. As a
result of Starcorp's repeated misreporting and failure to provide
information that was responsive to the Department's requests, the
Department's ability to calculate accurate margins for a significant
portion of Starcorp's sales was compromised.
Starcorp further impeded the Department's ability to calculate
accurate margins as a direct result of its failure to provide, in the
form and manner requested by the Department and within the Department's
established deadlines, the information that would have served as the
basis of the Department's analysis, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(B)
and (C) of the Act. Specifically, and as discussed in great detail in
the Starcorp AFA Memorandum, Starcorp did not provide plant-specific
plant data until very late in the proceeding, and did not disclose that
these data do not contain FOPs for all of the CONNUMs correlating to
its U.S. sales (i.e., the plant-specific databases did not contain the
requisite data for calculating normal values for all of Starcorp's U.S.
sales and thus do not contain the data necessary to calculate a dumping
margin for those sales). Despite having numerous opportunities to
provide the plant-specific and weighted-average data in a timely
manner, as evidenced by the Department's numerous supplemental
questionnaires addressing deficiencies in Starcorp's responses,
Starcorp did not do so. Thus, as explained in detail in the Starcorp
AFA Memorandum, the facts on the record lead the Department to the
conclusion that Starcorp failed to provide forthcoming responses in a
timely manner to the Department's numerous direct requests, and this
failure significantly impeded the Department's ability to comprehend
and analyze Starcorp's data adequately within the Department's
statutory time frame. As a result, the Department's ability to
calculate accurate margins for any of Starcorp's sales was compromised.
Further, the Department also found Starcorp's financial statements
to be unreliable. See Comment 56 of the Issues and Decision Memorandum
and the Starcorp AFA Memo. Because the Department finds that Starcorp's
submitted information cannot be tied to reliable financial statements
or a reliable financial recording system, the Department must conclude
that any submitted data are also not reliable.
Finally, there remain significant discrepancies between Starcorp's
numerous data files and the narrative descriptions Starcorp provided
purporting to explain those data files. For example, there are
inconsistencies related to: which unique products were not sold during
the POR and which FOPs were therefore based on proxy FOP data;
Starcorp's reported production quantities for sets, notwithstanding
Starcorp's repeated statements that it does not produce sets; and
Starcorp's inclusion of the same product in the FOP buildups for more
than one CONNUM.
Based on the analysis above, for the final results, we applied
facts available pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the
Act with respect to Starcorp's sales. Furthermore, it is apparent from
the facts on the record, i.e., Starcorp's repeated unresponsiveness to
information requests, its repeated failure to provide requested data in
a timely manner, its withholding of its methodology to determine the
product-specific source of proxy FOP data, and the significant level of
inconsistencies and contradictions in its data and narrative
submissions (including information obtained at verification), that
Starcorp did not act as a reasonable respondent because its failure to
be responsive was unnecessary. See Starcorp AFA Memorandum. Thus, we
find that Starcorp failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its
ability. For this reason, we find it appropriate that an adverse
inference be applied when selecting from among the facts available in
accordance with section 776(b) of the Act.
As AFA we are applying a rate of 216.01 percent, the rate
calculated for a respondent in the most recently completed new shipper
reviews of wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC, covering the first 12
months of this administrative review. See Final Results of the 2004-
2005 Semi-Annual New Shipper Reviews: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the
People's Republic of China, 71 FR 70739 (December 6, 2006) (``04-05 New
Shipper Reviews''). This represents the highest rate from the history
of this proceeding.
Application of Partial Facts Available
Sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Act provide for the use of
facts available when an interested party withholds information that has
been requested by the Department or when an interested party fails to
provide the information requested in a timely manner and in the form
required. Additionally, section 776(b) of the Act provides for the use
of
[[Page 46963]]
AFA when an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to
the best of its ability. We have concluded that the Dare Group did not
cooperate to the best of its ability.
Dare Group
Because the Dare Group did not provide complete information with
respect to indirect and packing labor for certain CONNUMs, as requested
in the Department's questionnaires, we preliminarily determined that
the use of an adverse inference was warranted to value these FOPs. See
Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 6214. For the final results, we have
determined to continue to apply sections 776(a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B), and
(b) of the Act because the Dare Group did not provide us with the
information we requested. Therefore, in accordance with sections
776(a)(2) and (b) of the Act, we have applied partial AFA in
calculating the Dare Group's margin. For each CONNUM for which zero
labor hours were reported, we have applied the highest labor hour value
for any CONNUM reported in the Dare Group's FOP database. See Issues
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 38.
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 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 e.g., Statement of Administration Action accompanying
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, (1994) (SAA)
at 870. Corroborate means that the Department will satisfy itself that
the secondary information to be used has probative value. To
corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent
practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information
to be used. See e.g., 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 Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392
(November 6, 1996) (unchanged in the final determination). 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 particular
investigation or review. See 19 CFR 351.308(d).
The AFA rate that the Department is now using was determined in the
recently published new shipper review. See 04-05 New Shipper Reviews 71
FR at 70741. In that new shipper review, the Department calculated a
company-specific rate of 216.01 percent, which was above the PRC-wide
rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation. Because
this new rate is a company-specific calculated rate concerning subject
merchandise, we have determined this rate to be 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 a company-specific calculated rate
for another respondent for a period covering 12 months (i.e., June 24,
2004, through June 30, 2005) of this 18-month administrative review.
Moreover, this rate has not been invalidated judicially, and falls
within the range of margins calculated for another respondent in this
review. Therefore, it is appropriate to use the selected rate as AFA
and we have determined the 216.01 percent rate to be relevant for use
in this administrative review.
As the adverse margin is both reliable and relevant, we determine
that it has probative value. Accordingly, we determine that this rate
meets the corroboration criteria established in section 776(c) that
secondary information have probative value. As a result, the Department
determines that the margin is corroborated for the purposes of this
administrative review and may reasonably be applied to First Wood,
Huanghouse, Kong Fong, Putian, Speedy, and Starcorp, and the PRC-wide
entity as AFA.
The PRC-Wide Rate
Because we begin with the presumption that all companies within an
NME country are subject to government control and because only the
companies listed under these ``Final Results Margins'' section, below,
have overcome that presumption, we are applying a single antidumping
rate (i.e., the PRC-wide rate) to all other exporters of subject
merchandise from the PRC. Such companies did not demonstrate
entitlement to a separate rate. See e.g., Notice of Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Synthetic Indigo from the People's
Republic of China, 65 FR 25706, 25707 (May 3, 2000). The PRC-wide rate
applies to all entries of subject merchandise except for entries from
the respondents that are listed in the ``Final Results Margins''
section, below (except as noted).
The Department based the margin for the PRC-wide entity on adverse
facts available. See Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 6212, 6214. Pursuant
to section 776(a) of the Act, the Department found that because the
PRC-wide entity failed to respond to the Department's questionnaires,
withheld or failed to provide information in a timely manner or in the
form or manner requested by the Department, submitted information that
could not be verified, or otherwise impeded the process, it was
appropriate to apply a dumping margin for the PRC-wide entity using
facts otherwise available on the record. The Department further
determined that an adverse inference was appropriate because the PRC-
wide entity failed to respond to requests for information and therefore
failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability. As AFA we
are applying the highest calculated rate from the history of this
proceeding, a rate calculated for a respondent in the most recently
completed new shipper reviews of wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC,
covering the first 12 months of this administrative review. See Wooden
Bedroom Furniture from the People 's Republic of China: Final Results
of the 2004-2005 Semi-Annual New Shipper Reviews, 71 FR 70739 (December
6, 2006).
[[Page 46964]]
Final Results Margins
We determine that the following percentage weighted-average margins
exist for the POR:
Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the PRC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-average
Producer/exporter margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fujian Lianfu Forestry Co. Ltd /Fujian Wonder 48.97
Pacific Inc. (Dare Group)........................
Fuzhou Huan Mei Furniture Co., Ltd (Dare Group)... 48.97
Jiangsu Dare Furniture Co., Ltd (Dare Group)...... 48.97
Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited................. 1.97
Foshan Guanqiu Furniture Co., Ltd................. 11.72
Shanghai Aosen Furniture Co., Ltd................. 0.53
Starcorp Funiture Co., Ltd, Starcorp Furniture 216.01
(Shanghai) Co., Ltd, Orin Furniture (Shanghai)
Co., Ltd, Shanghai Star Furniture Co., Ltd, and
Shanghai Xing Ding Furniture Industrial Co., Ltd
*................................................
Tianjin First Wood Co., Ltd....................... 216.01
Ace Furniture & Crafts Ltd (a.k.a. Deqing Ace 35.38
Furniture and Crafts Limited)....................
Baigou Crafts Factory of Fengkai.................. 35.38
Best King International Ltd....................... 35.38
Dalian Pretty Home Furniture...................... 35.38
Decca Furniture Limited........................... 35.38
Der Cheng Wooden Works of Factory................. 35.38
Dongguan Dihao Furniture Co., Ltd................. 35.38
Dongguan Hua Ban Furniture Co., Ltd............... 35.38
Dongguan Mingsheng Furniture Co., Ltd............. 35.38
Dongguan New Technology Import & Export Co., Ltd.. 35.38
Dongguan Sunpower Enterprise Co., Ltd............. 35.38
Dongguan Yihaiwei Furniture Limited............... 35.38
Kalanter (Hong Kong) Furniture Company Limited.... 35.38
Furnmart Ltd...................................... 35.38
Guangdong New Four Seas Furniture Manufacturing 35.38
Ltd..............................................
Guangzhou Lucky Furniture Co. Ltd................. 35.38
Hong Yu Furniture (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd.............. 35.38
Hung Fai Wood Products Factory, Ltd............... 35.38
Hwang Ho International Holdings Limited........... 35.38
King Kei Furniture Factory........................ 35.38
King Wood Furniture Co., Ltd...................... 35.38
Meikangchi Nantong Furniture Company Ltd.......... 35.38
Nantong Yangzi Furniture Co., Ltd................. 35.38
Po Ying Industrial Co............................. 35.38
Profit Force Ltd.................................. 35.38
Qingdao Beiyuan-Shengli Furniture Co., Ltd........ 35.38
Qingdao Shenchang Wooden Co., Ltd................. 35.38
Red Apple Trading Co. Ltd......................... 35.38
Shenyang Kunyu Wood Industry Co., Ltd............. 35.38
Shenzhen Dafuhao Industrial Development Co., Ltd.. 35.38
Shenzhen Shen Long Hang Industry Co., Ltd......... 35.38
Sino Concord International Corporation............ 35.38
T.J. Maxx International Co., Ltd.................. 35.38
Top Art Furniture Factory/Sanxiang Top Art 35.38
Funiture/Ngai Kun Trading........................
Top Goal Development Co........................... 35.38
Transworld (Zhangzhou) Furniture Co. Ltd.......... 35.38
Wan Bao Chen Group Hong Kong Co. Ltd.............. 35.38
Winmost Enterprises Limited....................... 35.38
Xilinmen Group Co. Ltd............................ 35.38
Yongxin Industrial (Holdings) Limited............. 35.38
Zhongshan Gainwell Furniture Co. Ltd.............. 35.38
PRC-Wide Rate..................................... 216.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Starcorp is not subject to the PRC-wide rate.
Assessment Rates
The Department has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (``CBP'') shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries. For customers/importers of respondents that did
not report entered value, we calculated customer/importer-specific
antidumping duty assessment amounts based on the ratio of the total
amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales of
subject merchandise to the total quantity of subject merchandise sold
in those transactions. For customers/importers of respondents that
reported entered value, we calculated customer-specific antidumping
duty assessment amounts based on customer/importer-specific ad valorem
rates in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). For the companies
receiving a separate rate that were not selected for individual review
(i.e., separate rate companies) we will calculate an assessment rate
based on the weighted average of the cash deposit rates calculated for
the companies
[[Page 46965]]
selected for individual review excluding any that are zero, de minimis,
or based entirely on AFA pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act.
The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP within
15 days after the date of publication of these final results of
administrative and new shippers review.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of these final results of this administrative review and
new shippers 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
exporters listed above, the cash deposit rate will be the rates shown
for those companies (except if the rate is de minimis, i.e., less than
0.5 percent, no cash deposit will be required for that company); (2)
for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not
listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will
continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent
period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not
been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate
will be the PRC-wide rate of 216.01 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 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 the APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), 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.
Disclosure
We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the
date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: August 15, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix
Issues in the Issues and Decision Memorandum
I. General Issues
Comment 1: Surrogate Country Selection
A. Economic Comparability
B. Significant Producer
C. Data Considerations
D. Burden and Predictability
Comment 2: Labor Rate Methodology
Comment 3: Application of the 33 Percent Threshold for Market
Economy Purchases
Comment 4: Zeroing
Comment 5: Department Should Apply Combination Rates to Separate
Rate Companies
Comment 6: Use of Values Versus Quantities To Determine the
Weighted-Average Separate Rate Margin
Comment 7: Incorporation of Zero, De Minimis, and Total Adverse
Facts Available Margins in Non-selected Respondents' Rate
Comment 8: Standard for Accepting Respondents Factor
Descriptions and Appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule of India
Categories
Comment 9: Time Period Used To Calculate Surrogate Values
Comment 10: Ministerial Error in the Valuation of Polymers of
Styrene
Comment 11: Exclusion of Myanmar and Bhutan Data in the
Surrogate Value Calculation for Plywood
Comment 12: Surrogate Value Source for Mirrors
Comment 13: HTS Classification for Corrugated Paper
Comment 14: HTS Classification for Cardboard
Comment 15: Surrogate Value Source for Electricity
Comment 16: Electricity and Coal Inflator
II. Surrogate Financial Ratio Issues
Comment 17: Use of Certain Financial Statements for the
Calculation of Surrogate Financial Ratios
A. Ahuja
B. Evergreen
C. Huzaifa (2005-2006)
D. IFP (2004-2005 and 2005-2006)
E. Imperial (2006)
F. Jayabharatham (2006)
G. Newton (2005)
H. Nikhil (2005)
I. Nizamuddin (2005-2006)
J. Raghbir (2004-2005 & 2005-2006)
K. Usha Shriram (2005 & 2006)
Comment 18: Treatment of Polish, Contract Manufacturing, and
Manufacturing Glass in Ahuja's Financial Statement
Comment 19: Treatment of Job Work Expense in Huzaifa and IFP's
Financial Statement
Comment 20: Treatment of Labor-Related Expenses in Multiple
Surrogate Financial Statement
Comment 21: Treatment of Consumables in Akriti's Financial
Statement
Comment 22: Treatment of ``Designing Charges,'' Consumables, and
Profit on Sale of Assets in Imperial's 2004-2005 Financial
Statements
Comment 23: Treatment of Nizamuddin's 2004-2005 Financial
Statement and Treatment of Manufacturing Charges Labour in
Nizamuddin's 2005-2006 Financial Statement
Comment 24: Use of 2004-2005 Data from Jayabharathan's 2005-2006
Financial Statements
Comment 25: Treatment of Octroi Expenses in Huzaifa's Financial
Statement
Comment 26: Allocation of Aggregated Personnel Expenses in the
Calculation of Surrogate Financial Ratios Based on ASI Data
Comment 27: Allocation of Aggregated Personnel Expenses in the
Calculation of Surrogate Financial Ratios Based on Record Financial
Statements
III. Aosen-Specific Issues
Comment 28: Application of Partial AFA for Nails
Comment 29: HTS Classification for ``PLYWOOD,'' ``MDBD,''
``PINE,'' ``ASHVEN,'' ``EXPLYSHT,'' and ``POLYFOAM''
IV. Baigou Crafts
Comment 30: Application of Total AFA to Baigou Crafts
V. Dare Group-Specific
