Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review and Partial Rescission of Administrative Review, 8273-8287 [E8-2648]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 30 (Wednesday, February 13, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8273-8287]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-2648]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-890]


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

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the 
Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom 
furniture from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''). The period of 
review (``POR'') for this administrative review is January 1, 2006, 
through December 31, 2006. This administrative review covers multiple 
producers/exporters of the subject merchandise, three of which are 
being individually investigated as mandatory respondents. The 
Department is also conducting a new shipper review for an exporter/
producer. The POR for the new shipper review is also January 1, 2006, 
through December 31, 2006.
    We preliminarily determine that all three mandatory respondents in 
the administrative review made sales in the United States at prices 
below normal value (``NV''). With respect to the remaining respondents 
in the administrative review (herein after collectively referred to as 
the Separate-Rate Applicants), we preliminarily determine that 30 
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 three 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. In addition, we have determined to rescind the review 
with respect to three entities in this administrative review. See 
``Partial Rescission'' section below. Further, we preliminarily 
determine that the remaining separate-rate applicants have not 
demonstrated that they are entitled to a separate rate, and will thus 
be considered part of the PRC entity. Finally, we preliminarily 
determine that the new shipper made sales in the United States at 
prices below normal value. If these preliminary results are adopted in 
our final results of review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on entries of subject 
merchandise during the POR for which the importer-specific assessment 
rates are above de minimis.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit comments are requested to submit with each 
argument a statement of the issue and a brief summary of the argument. 
We intend to issue the final results of this review no later than 120 
days from the date of publication of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 13, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Stolz or Hua Lu, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4474 and (202) 482-6478, respectively.

Background

    On January 4, 2005, the Department published in the Federal 
Register the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from 
the PRC. See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Wooden Bedroom Furniture 
from the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 329 (January 4, 2005). On 
January 3, 2007, the Department published a notice of opportunity to 
request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC for the period January 1, 2006, 
through December 31, 2006. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 
Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation: Opportunity to Request 
Administrative Review, 72 FR 99 (January 3, 2007). On March 7, 2007, 
the Department initiated the second administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC. See 
Notice of Initiation of Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty 
Order on Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China, 
72 FR 10159 (March 7, 2007) (``Initiation Notice''). Additionally, on 
March 7, 2007, the Department initiated new shipper reviews of the 
order with respect to the following two companies: Golden Well 
International (HK), Ltd. (``Golden Well'') and its supplier Zhangzhou 
XYM Furniture Product Co., Ltd. and Mei Jia Ju Furniture Industrial 
(Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (``Mei Jia Ju''). See Notice of Initiation of New 
Shipper Reviews on Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the

[[Page 8274]]

People's Republic of China, 72 FR 10158 (March 7, 2007) (``New Shipper 
Initiation Notice''). Further, on May 30, 2007, the Department added 
one company to the administrative review which was inadvertently 
omitted from the Initiation Notice. See Initiation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation 
in Part, 72 FR 29968 (May 30, 2007).
    Between March 7 and March 14, 2007, the Department issued quantity 
and value (``Q&V'') questionnaires, separate-rate certifications, and 
separate-rate applications to the 197 named firms for which the 
Department initiated an administrative review. Between March 21 and May 
7, 2007, the Department received separate-rate certifications from 124 
entities, separate-rate applications from 25 entities, and Q&V 
questionnaire responses from 183 entities.
    On April 5, 2007, Petitioners \1\ requested that the Department 
determine whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by certain 
exporters or producers. Also, on April 5, 2007, Petitioners submitted 
comments with respect to respondent selection. On April 20, 2007, Shing 
Mark Enterprises Co. Ltd., Carven Industries Limited (VI), Carven 
Industries Limited (HK), Dongguan Zhenxin Furniture Co., Ltd. And 
Dongguan Yongpeng Furniture Co., Ltd. (collectively, ``Shing Mark'') 
submitted comments with respect to respondent selection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Because of the large number of companies subject to this review, on 
June 20, 2007, the Department issued its respondent-selection 
memorandum, selecting the following three companies as mandatory 
respondents in this administrative review: (1) 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''); (2) Jiangsu Dare Furniture Co., Ltd., Fujian Lianfu 
Forestry Co, Ltd. aka Fujian Wonder Pacific Inc., and Fuzhou Huan Mei 
Furniture Co., Ltd. (collectively ``Dare Group''); and (3) Teamway 
Furniture (Dong Guan) Co. Ltd., and Brittomart Inc. (collectively 
``Teamway''). See Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Wooden 
Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Selection of 
Respondents, dated June 20, 2007.
    On June 21, 2007, the Department issued its questionnaire to the 
Dare Group, Starcorp and Teamway. On August 20, 2007, Starcorp withdrew 
its request for the Department to conduct the second administrative 
review and its participation in this review. On August 31, 2007, 
Petitioners requested that the Department conduct verification of the 
Dare Group and Teamway.
    Between March 7 and June 6, 2007, several parties withdrew their 
requests for administrative review. On August 2, 2007, the Department 
published a notice rescinding the review with respect to the entities 
for whom all review requests had been withdrawn. See Notice of Partial 
Rescission of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Wooden 
Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 42396 
(August 2, 2007).
    On May 29, 2007, Golden Well withdrew its request for a new shipper 
review. See Notice of Partial Rescission of New Shipper Review on 
Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 
50933 (September 5, 2007).
    On August 20, 2007, Leefu Wood (Dongguan) Co., Ltd. (``Leefu'') and 
King Rich International Ltd. (``King Rich'') sent a letter to the 
Department informing us that one of Leefu's shareholders had set up two 
companies which will export subject merchandise in the future and that 
all of Leefu's subject merchandise will be exported through King Rich, 
Unique Furniture Co., Ltd. (``Unique Furniture'') and Classic Furniture 
Co., Ltd. (``Classic Furniture''). None of the aforementioned firms, 
(i.e., Unique Furniture, Classic Furniture, Leefu or King Rich) are 
being reviewed in this proceeding. On September 5, 2007, Petitioners 
responded to Leefu and King Rich's letter, stating that while Leefu and 
King Rich collectively have a separate-rate from the investigation, 
neither Unique Furniture nor Classic Furniture has been granted 
separate rate status, and therefore, entries should receive the cash 
deposit rate of 216.01 percent.
    Additionally, Petitioners state that the proper venue to address a 
change in legal structure would be the next review period. Consistent 
with our normal practice, we find the proper place to address Leefu's 
change in ownership would be either a changed circumstances review or 
within the context of an administrative review. See Wooden Bedroom 
Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 72 FR 60812 (October 26, 
2007). Because neither Leefu or King Rich are part of the current 
administrative review, we will not address whether Unique Furniture or 
Classic Furniture are part of the Leefu and King Rich group of 
companies.
    On August 27, 2007, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(j)(3), Mei Jia Ju 
agreed to waive the time limits applicable to the new shipper review 
and to allow for the conduct of its new shipper review concurrently 
with the administrative review. See Memorandum to the file, Wooden 
Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China--Alignment of the 
1/1/06-12/31/06 Annual Administrative and New Shipper Review, dated 
August 27, 2007.
    On September 28, 2007, Petitioners withdrew their review request of 
Zhangjiagang Zhen Yan Decoration Co. Ltd. (``Zheng Yan'') (see the 
``Partial Rescission'' section of this notice, below).
    On October 5, 2007, the Department issued a letter to interested 
parties seeking comments on surrogate country selection and surrogate 
values. On October 19, 2007, Petitioners, Teamway, and American 
Signature, Inc. (``ASI'') submitted comments regarding the selection of 
a surrogate country. Additionally, on October 29 and November 8, 19, 
and 29, 2007, Petitioners and ASI submitted rebuttal surrogate country 
comments. Also, on November 8, 2007, Teamway and Petitioners submitted 
surrogate value information.
    On October 1, 2007, we extended the deadline for the issuance of 
the preliminary results of the administrative review and new shipper 
review until January 31, 2008. See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the 
People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limits for the 
Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
New Shipper Reviews, 72 FR 57913 (October 11, 2007).
    Between November 8 and November 29, 2007, ASI, Teamway and 
Petitioners submitted surrogate value information and comments 
regarding selection of surrogate values.
    On November 19, 2007, Petitioners made submissions to the 
Department in which they argued that ASI, a U.S. importer of subject 
merchandise, does not have a stake in the outcome of this segment of 
the proceeding and, therefore, the Department should reject ASI's 
submissions concerning surrogate country selection and surrogate 
values. Moreover, Petitioners argued that the Department should deny 
ASI's representatives' access to business proprietary information under

[[Page 8275]]

administrative protective order (``APO'').\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See also Petitioner's January 14, 2008, submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 21, 2007, ASI submitted a rebuttal to Petitioners' 
comments. ASI argued that Petitioners' standing in this review could be 
challenged on the basis that Petitioners did not submit supporting 
documentation establishing that they produced subject merchandise 
during the POR. Moreover, ASI contended that Petitioners have not 
submitted any documentation supporting their arguments with respect to 
ASI's standing.
    Pursuant to the Act, ASI, as an importer of subject merchandise, is 
an interested party to the proceeding. See Section 771(9)(A) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act'') which defines an 
interested party as ``a foreign manufacturer, producer, or exporter, or 
the United States importer, of subject merchandise * * *.'' 
Additionally, the Act does not further detail any specifications, 
conditions, or restrictions with respect to the eligibility of an 
importer of subject merchandise in terms of its designation as an 
interested party or its rights thereas. As Petitioners point out in 
their November 20, 2007, submission at 3-4, on July 26, 2007, ASI 
submitted a CBP form (i.e., CF 7501 Entry Summary), confirming that ASI 
imported subject merchandise during the POR. Thus, we find that ASI is 
an interested party that is eligible to make submissions on the record 
of this review and whose representative is eligible to receive business 
proprietary information under APO as long as it meets the APO 
eligibility requirements.

Company-Specific Chronology

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

Dare Group

    On June 21, 2007, the Department issued its antidumping 
questionnaire to the Dare Group. The Dare Group submitted its response 
to section A of the Department's questionnaire on July 26, 2007, and 
submitted its responses to sections C and D of the Department's 
questionnaire on August 20, 2007. The Department issued supplemental 
questionnaires with respect to sections A and C to the Dare Group on 
November 7, 2007. The Department issued a supplemental questionnaire 
with respect to section D to the Dare Group on November 9, 2007. The 
Dare Group submitted its response to the sections A and C supplemental 
questionnaire on December 5, 2007, and to the section D supplemental 
questionnaire on December 14, 2007.

Teamway

    On June 21, 2007, the Department issued its antidumping 
questionnaire to Teamway. On July 31, 2007, Teamway submitted its 
response to section A of the Department's questionnaire. On August 21 
and August 23, 2007, Teamway submitted its response to sections C and D 
of the Department's questionnaire. The Department issued a supplemental 
questionnaire with respect to sections A, C, and D to Teamway on 
November 1, 2007, to which Teamway responded on December 4, 2007. On 
November 8, 2007, Teamway submitted surrogate value information. The 
Department issued a supplemental factors-of-production (``FOP'') 
questionnaire to Teamway on November 3, 2007, and received a response 
on November 26, 2007. On January 2 and January 4, 2008, Teamway 
submitted revised databases with the FOP information.

Mei Jia Ju and Starcorp

    For a complete discussion of Mei Jia Ju's and Starcorp's company-
specific chronologies, see the ``Facts Available'' section of this 
notice, below.

Period of Review

    The POR is January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006.

Scope of the Order

    The product covered by the order is wooden bedroom furniture. 
Wooden bedroom furniture is generally, but not exclusively, designed, 
manufactured, and offered for sale in coordinated groups, or bedrooms, 
in which all of the individual pieces are of approximately the same 
style and approximately the same material and/or finish. The subject 
merchandise is made substantially of wood products, including both 
solid wood and also engineered wood products made from wood particles, 
fibers, or other wooden materials such as plywood, oriented strand 
board, particle board, and fiberboard, with or without wood veneers, 
wood overlays, or laminates, with or without non-wood components or 
trim such as metal, marble, leather, glass, plastic, or other resins, 
and whether or not assembled, completed, or finished.
    The subject merchandise includes the following items: (1) Wooden 
beds such as loft beds, bunk beds, and other beds; (2) wooden 
headboards for beds (whether stand-alone or attached to side rails), 
wooden footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and wooden 
canopies for beds; (3) night tables, night stands, dressers, commodes, 
bureaus, mule chests, gentlemen's chests, bachelor's chests, lingerie 
chests, wardrobes, vanities, chessers, chifforobes, and wardrobe-type 
cabinets; (4) dressers with framed glass mirrors that are attached to, 
incorporated in, sit on, or hang over the dresser; (5) chests-on-
chests,\3\ highboys,\4\ lowboys,\5\ chests of drawers,\6\ chests,\7\ 
door chests,\8\ chiffoniers,\9\ hutches,\10\ and armoires; \11\ (6) 
desks, computer stands, filing cabinets, bookcases, or writing tables 
that are attached to or incorporated in the subject merchandise; and 
(7) other bedroom furniture consistent with the above list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 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.
    \4\ 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).
    \5\ A lowboy is typically a short chest of drawers, not more 
than four feet high, normally set on short legs.
    \6\ A chest of drawers is typically a case containing drawers 
for storing clothing.
    \7\ 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.
    \8\ 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.
    \9\ A chiffonier is typically a tall and narrow chest of drawers 
normally used for storing undergarments and lingerie, often with 
mirror(s) attached.
    \10\ A hutch is typically an open case of furniture with shelves 
that typically sits on another piece of furniture and provides 
storage for clothes.
    \11\ 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

[[Page 8276]]

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; \12\ (9) 
jewelry armoires; \13\ (10) cheval mirrors; \14\ (11) certain metal 
parts; \15\ (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.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 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.
    \13\ 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).
    \14\ Cheval mirrors are 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).
    \15\ 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.
    \16\ 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.

Partial Rescission of Administrative Review

    On September 28, 2007, Petitioners withdrew their administrative 
review request with respect to Zheng Yan. Petitioners stated that 
although the regulatory deadline for withdrawal of requests for review 
had passed, the Department could still exercise its discretion to 
extend the time for accepting for withdrawal and therefore could 
rescind the review for Zheng Yan. We have determined to grant 
Petitioners' withdrawal of its request to review Zheng Yan. Although 
Petitioners submitted their withdrawal request after the 90-day 
regulatory deadline at 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department had already 
completed its selection of mandatory respondents and Zheng Yan was not 
selected as a mandatory respondent in this administrative review. 
Therefore, the Department's selection process of the mandatory 
respondents for this administrative review was not compromised by 
Petitioners' late withdrawal request. Furthermore, the Department had 
not expended significant resources as of the date of Petitioners' 
withdrawal request. Therefore, the Department is extending the time for 
accepting requests for withdrawal and is partially rescinding the 
administrative review with respect to Zheng Yan.
    Further, the Department is partially rescinding this review with 
respect to Winny Universal, Ltd. and Zhongshan Winny Furniture Ltd. In 
Winny Overseas Ltd.'s separate-rate application, it stated that neither 
Winny Universal, Ltd. nor Zhongshan Winny Furniture Ltd. had exports of 
subject merchandise during the POR. See Winny Overseas Ltd. Separate 
Rate Application, dated April 5, 2007. Our review of the CBP import 
data did not reveal any contradictory information.

Duty Absorption

    On April 5, 2007, Petitioners requested that the Department 
determine whether the mandatory respondents and separate-rate 
respondents had absorbed antidumping duties for U.S. sales of wooden 
bedroom furniture made during the POR. Section 751(a)(4) of the Act 
provides for the Department, if requested, to determine during an 
administrative review initiated two or four years after publication of 
the order, whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by a foreign 
producer or exporter, if the subject merchandise is sold in the United 
States through an affiliated importer. Pursuant to section 
777A(f)(2)(B) of the Act, we selected three exporters (i.e., the Dare 
Group, Starcorp, and Teamway) as mandatory respondents in this 
administrative review. Both the Dare Group and Teamway only sold 
subject merchandise as export price sales. Because neither of these 
companies sold subject merchandise through an affiliated U.S. importer, 
we did not investigate whether the Dare Group and Teamway absorbed 
duties. See section 751(a)(4) of the Act. Also, because Starcorp 
decided not to participate in this review, we did not have adequate 
information to investigate whether Starcorp absorbed duties. See 
section 751(a)(4) of the Act.
    Petitioners also requested that the Department investigate whether 
separate-rate respondents had absorbed duties. Because of the large 
number of companies subject to this review, the Department only 
selected three companies as mandatory respondents in this 
administrative review and thus only issued its complete questionnaire 
to these companies. In determining whether antidumping duties have been 
absorbed, the Department requires certain specific data (i.e., U.S. 
sales data) to ascertain whether those sales have been made at less 
than NV. Since U.S. sales data is only obtained from the

[[Page 8277]]

complete questionnaire (i.e., only mandatory respondents submit U.S. 
sales data), and the separate-rate respondents were required only to 
provide information on their separate-rate status (i.e., not required 
to provide any U.S. sales data), we do not have the information 
necessary to assess whether the separate-rate respondents absorbed 
duties. Accordingly, the separate-rate respondents were not selected as 
mandatory respondents and, therefore, we cannot make duty absorption 
determinations with respect to these companies.

Non-Market Economy Country Status

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

Surrogate Country

    When the Department is investigating imports from an NME country, 
section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV on the NME 
producer's FOPs. The Act further instructs that valuation of the FOPs 
shall be based on the best available information in a surrogate market 
economy country or countries considered to be appropriate by the 
Department. See section 773(c)(1) of the Act. When valuing the FOPs, 
the Department shall utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or 
costs of FOPs in one or more market economy countries that are: (1) At 
a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country; 
and (2) significant producers of comparable merchandise. See section 
773(c)(4) of the Act. Further, the Department normally values all FOPs 
in a single surrogate country. See 19 CFR 351.308(c)(2). The sources of 
the surrogate values (``SV'') are discussed under the ``Normal Value'' 
section below and in the Memorandum to the File, Factors Valuations for 
the Preliminary Results of the Administrative Review, dated January 31, 
2008 (``Factor Valuation Memorandum''), which is on file in the Central 
Records Unit (``CRU''), Room 1117 of the main Department building.
    In examining which country to select as its primary surrogate for 
this proceeding, the Department first determined that India, Indonesia, 
Sri Lanka, the Philippines, and Egypt are countries comparable to the 
PRC in terms of economic development. See Memorandum to the File, 
Administrative Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's 
Republic of China (PRC): Request for a List of Surrogate Countries, 
dated October 2, 2007 (``Policy Memo''), which is on file in the CRU.
    On October 5, 2007, the Department issued a request for interested 
parties to submit comments on surrogate country selection. Petitioners 
submitted surrogate country comments on October 19, 2007 
(``Petitioners' Surrogate Country Letter''). ASI also submitted 
surrogate country comments on October 19, 2007. Petitioners submitted 
rebuttal comments with respect to surrogate country selection on 
October 29 and November 19, 2007. ASI submitted rebuttal comments with 
respect to surrogate country selection on November 8 and November 29, 
2007. In addition, Teamway submitted comments regarding surrogate 
country selection on October 19, 2007.
    Teamway claims that India is not at a level of economic development 
comparable to that of the PRC. Teamway argues that the gross national 
incomes (``GNI'') of the Philippines and Indonesia are closer to the 
GNI of the PRC than the GNI of India. Additionally, Teamway argues that 
the Philippines and Indonesia are significant producers of wooden 
bedroom furniture. Finally, Teamway argues that the Philippines or 
Indonesia should be selected as the surrogate country; however, Teamway 
did not submit surrogate value data for either country.
    ASI argues that India and the PRC are not at a comparable level of 
economic development because they are too dissimilar in terms of GNI. 
ASI contends that predictability is not a basis to continue to use 
India as the surrogate country if doing so results in inaccurate 
surrogate values. Additionally, ASI asserts that the Department has the 
authority to change surrogate countries during any segment of the 
proceeding, and cites two cases in which the Department used the 
Philippines as the surrogate country. Also, ASI claims that the 
Department's selection of economically comparable countries is flawed 
and unsupported by record evidence. Further, ASI argues that in 
determining whether countries are at a comparable level of economic 
development, the Department's regulations direct the Department to 
``place primary emphasis on per capita GDP as the measure of economic 
comparability'' and contends that the Department ``skipped over'' 16 
countries closer to the PRC in terms of GNI to include India on the 
Department's list of designated surrogate countries. Furthermore, ASI 
argues that [t]he Department's attempt to belittle the vast difference 
in GNI per capita between the PRC and India is unreasonable and 
inconsistent with the Department's obligation to use the ``best'' 
available information and to calculate dumping margins as accurately as 
possible. In addition, ASI cites reports and Infodrive data which it 
claims show that Indian import data are corrupted by mis-
classifications and mis-valuations, thus arguing Indian import 
statistics are not reliable. Finally, ASI argues that the Philippines 
is the appropriate surrogate country and provided extensive SV data 
from the Philippines.
    Petitioners argue that India satisfies the statutory requirements 
for the selection of the surrogate country because it is at a level of 
economic development comparable to that of the PRC and is a significant 
producer of comparable merchandise. Additionally, Petitioners argue 
that the Department is not required to select the country listed in the 
Policy Memo that is at a level of economic development most comparable 
to that of the PRC. Also, Petitioners contend that it is legally 
irrelevant that 16 countries may have a per-capita GNI closer to that 
of the PRC than the per-capita GNI of India. Further, Petitioners argue 
that other factors, such as total GNI should be used to determine 
economic comparability, and that India's total GNI is closer to that of 
the PRC than that of Indonesia or the Philippines. Furthermore, 
Petitioners cite a USTR \17\ report that they claim demonstrates 
inconsistencies, mis-classification, and mis-valuation in the 
Philippine import statistics. In addition, Petitioners claim that 
corruption in the Philippine customs service renders the Philippine 
import statistics unreliable. Moreover, Petitioners contend that the 
Department has used India as the surrogate country for the PRC in 
recent cases. Finally, Petitioners argue that India is the appropriate 
surrogate country and submitted Indian SV data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ USTR, 2006 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade 
Barriers, at pages 524-525.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After evaluating interested parties' comments, the Department 
determined that the Philippines is the appropriate surrogate country to 
use in this review.

[[Page 8278]]

The Department based its decision on the following facts: (1) The 
Philippines is at a level of economic development comparable to that of 
the PRC; (2) the Philippines is a significant producer of comparable 
merchandise; and (3) the Philippines provides the best opportunity to 
use quality, publicly available data to value the FOPs. While both 
India and the Philippines are comparable and provide reliable sources 
of data, we find surrogate financial data from the Philippines better 
reflects the overall experience of producers of comparable merchandise 
in a surrogate country. Specifically, after examining the financial 
statements submitted for both countries, we have concluded that we have 
two useable financial statements from the Philippines, but only one 
from India. Generally, where available, we prefer to use more than one 
financial statement in order to obtain a broader industry 
representation. See Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 67 FR 72139 
(December 4, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 5.
    Therefore, because the Philippines better represents the experience 
of producers of comparable merchandise operating in a surrogate 
country, we have selected the Philippines as the surrogate country and, 
accordingly, have calculated NV using Philippine prices to value the 
respondents' FOPs, when available and appropriate. We have obtained and 
relied upon publicly available information wherever possible. See 
Factor Valuation Memorandum. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.301(c)(3)(ii), interested parties may submit publicly available 
information to value FOPs until 20 days after the date of publication 
of these preliminary results.

Affiliation

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

The Dare Group

    Following these guidelines, we preliminarily determine that Fujian 
Lianfu Forestry Co. Ltd./Fujian Wonder Pacific Inc./Fuzhou Huan Mei 
Furniture Co., Ltd./Jiangsu Dare Furniture Co., Ltd., are affiliated 
pursuant to sections 771(33)(E) and (F) of the Act and that these 
companies should be treated as a single entity for the purposes of the 
antidumping administrative review of wooden bedroom furniture from the 
PRC. Based on our examination of the evidence presented in the Dare 
Group's questionnaire responses, we have determined that: (1) Fujian 
Lianfu Forestry Co. Ltd./Fujian Wonder Pacific Inc./Fuzhou Huan Mei 
Furniture Co., Ltd./Jiangsu Dare Furniture Co., Ltd. are affiliated 
producers of identical or similar merchandise; and (2) the potential 
for manipulation of price or production exists with respect to Fujian 
Lianfu Forestry Co. Ltd./Fujian Wonder Pacific Inc./Fuzhou Huan Mei 
Furniture Co., Ltd./Jiangsu Dare Furniture Co., Ltd. See Memorandum to 
Wendy Frankel, Director, Office 8, NME/China Group, through Robert 
Bolling, Program Manager, From Paul Stolz, Case Analyst, Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the 
People's Republic of China: Fujian Lianfu Forestry Co. Ltd./Fujian 
Wonder Pacific Inc./Fuzhou Huan Mei Furniture Co., Ltd./Jiangsu Dare 
Furniture Co., Ltd. and Treatment as a Single Entity, dated January 31, 
2008.

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department begins with 
a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are 
subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single 
antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign 
all exporters of merchandise in an NME country subject to review this 
single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently 
independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. Two mandatory 
respondents, the Dare Group and Teamway, the new shipper, Mei Jia Ju, 
and 25 separate-rate respondents have provided company-specific 
separate-rate information and each has further stated that it meets the 
standards for the assignment of a separate rate.
    We have examined the information submitted to determine whether 
each of these companies is eligible for a separate rate. The 
Department's separate-rate test to determine whether the exporters are 
independent from government control does not consider, in general, 
macroeconomic/border-type controls, e.g., export licenses, quotas, and 
minimum export prices, particularly if these controls are imposed to 
prevent dumping. The test focuses, rather, on controls over the 
investment, pricing, and output decision-making process at the 
individual firm level. See, e.g., Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel 
Plate from Ukraine: Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair 
Value, 62 FR 61754, 61758 (November 19, 1997); and Tapered Roller 
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from

[[Page 8279]]

the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997).
    To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from 
government control of its export activities to be entitled to a 
separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the 
subject merchandise under a test arising from the Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic 
of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (``Sparklers''), as amplified by 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide 
from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2,1994) 
(``Silicon Carbide''). In accordance with the separate-rates criteria, 
the Department assigns separate rates in NME cases only if respondents 
can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto government 
control over export activities.

1. Absence of De Jure Control

    The Department considers the following de jure criteria in 
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate 
rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an 
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative 
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal 
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See 
Sparklers, 56 FR 20589.
    Our analysis shows that, for mandatory respondents, the Dare Group 
and Teamway, and the new shipper, Mei Jia Ju, and certain separate-rate 
respondents, the evidence on the record supports a preliminary finding 
of de jure absence of government control based on record statements and 
supporting documentation showing the following: (1) An absence of 
restrictive stipulations associated with the individual exporter's 
business and export licenses; (2) the applicable legislative enactments 
decentralizing control of the companies; and (3) any other formal 
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See 
Memorandum to Wendy J. Frankel, Director, Office 8, Import 
Administration, from Robert Bolling, Program Manager, Wooden Bedroom 
Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Separate Rates for 
Producers/Exporters that Submitted Separate Rate Certifications and 
Applications (``Separate-Rates Memo''), dated January 31, 2008.

2. Absence of De Facto Control

    In previous cases, the Department learned that certain enactments 
of the PRC central government have not been implemented uniformly among 
different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. See e.g., Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Preserved 
Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China, 63 FR 72255, 72257 
(December 31, 1998). Therefore, the Department has determined that an 
analysis of de facto control is critical in determining whether 
respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of government control 
which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates. The 
Department considers four factors in evaluating whether each respondent 
is subject to de facto government control of its export functions: (1) 
Whether the exporter sets its own export prices independent of the 
government and without the approval of a government authority; (2) 
whether the respondent has the authority to negotiate and sign 
contracts, and other agreements; (3) whether the respondent has 
autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the 
selection of its management; and (4) whether the respondent retains the 
proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding 
disposition of profits or financing of losses.
    We determine that, for mandatory respondents, the Dare Group and 
Teamway, and the new shipper, Mei Jia Ju, and certain separate-rate 
respondents, the evidence on the record supports a preliminary finding 
of de facto absence of government control based on record statements 
and supporting documentation showing the following: (1) Each exporter 
sets its own export prices independent of the government and without 
the approval of a government authority; (2) each exporter retains the 
proceeds from its sales and makes independent decisions regarding 
disposition of profits or financing of losses; (3) each exporter has 
the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; and 
(4) each exporter has autonomy from the government regarding the 
selection of management.
    Therefore, the evidence placed on the record of this administrative 
review by the mandatory respondents, the Dare Group and Teamway, and 
the new shipper, Mei Jia Ju, and certain separate-rate respondents 
demonstrates an absence of government control, both in law and in fact, 
with respect to each exporter's exports of the subject merchandise, in 
accordance with the criteria identified in Sparklers and Silicon 
Carbide. As a result, for the purposes of these preliminary results, we 
have granted separate, company-specific rates to the Dare Group, 
Teamway, Mei Jia Ju, and certain separate-rate respondents \18\ that 
shipped wooden bedroom furniture to the United States during the POR. 
For a full discussion of this issue and list of separate-rate 
respondents, please see the Separate-Rates Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ For a complete listing entities receiving a separate rate, 
see preliminary results of review chart, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because Starcorp withdrew from participation in this segment of the 
proceeding and requested that all of its business proprietary 
submissions be returned or destroyed (including its April 4, 2007, 
proprietary version separate rate certification), the Department does 
not have any record evidence upon which to determine whether Starcorp 
is eligible for a separate rate for this review period. Thus, as 
Starcorp has not demonstrated its entitlement to a separate rate, it is 
considered to be part of the PRC-entity and will be subject to the PRC-
wide rate. (See ``The PRC-Wide Entity'' section below.)
    Furthermore, we have found that certain separate-rate applicants 
\19\ have not demonstrated an absence of government control over their 
export activities, both in law and in fact, and are therefore, subject 
to the PRC-entity rate. See Separate-Rates Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Beijing Mingyafeng Furniture Co., Ltd.; Country Roots; Hong 
Yu Furniture (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.; Kunwa Enterprise Company; 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Margins for Separate-Rate Applicants

    For the exporters subject to this review that were determined to be 
eligible for separate-rate status, but were not selected as mandatory 
respondents (``Separate-Rate Recipients''), we have established a 
weighted-average margin based on an average of the rates we calculated 
for the mandatory respondents, excluding any rates that are zero, de 
minimis, or based entirely on adverse facts available. That rate is 
39.49 percent. Entities receiving this rate are identified by name in 
the ``Preliminary Results of Review'' section of this notice and our 
Separate-Rates Memo.

Application of Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act provides that the Department 
shall apply ``facts otherwise available'' if, inter alia, necessary 
information is not

[[Page 8280]]

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 supplied 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. Such an adverse 
inference may include reliance on information derived from the 
petition, the final determination, a previous administrative review, or 
other information placed on the record.
    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies 
on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the 
course of an investigation or review, it shall, to the extent 
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that 
are reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is defined as 
``[i]nformation 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 SAA at 870. Corroborate means that the 
Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be 
used has probative value. Id. To corroborate secondary information, the 
Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and 
relevance of the information to be used.

Application of Total Adverse Facts Available

Mei Jia Ju

    As noted above, the Department initiated a new shipper review of 
Mei Jia Ju's exports of merchandise covered by the antidumping duty 
order on wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC. See New Shipper Review 
Initiation Notice. On April 11, 2007, the Department issued its 
antidumping duty questionnaire to Mei Jia Ju. Included in the 
Department's questionnaire are the Department's requirements and 
procedures for filing submissions. The Department's questionnaire 
specified that section A and sections C and D were due on May 2 and May 
18, 2007, respectively. On April 28, 2007, Mei Jia Ju emailed the 
Department to ask for clarification of the due date of the response to 
the Original Questionnaire. On that same day the Department responded 
to Mei Jia Ju's email and specified to Mei Jia Ju that submissions were 
due in the CRU of the Department by close of business on the due date 
specified in the questionnaire. See Memorandum to the File, Wooden 
Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Email from Mei 
Jia Ju Furniture Industrial (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. Regarding Deadlines 
(December 5, 2007) (``Mei Jia Ju Deadline Memo''). On May 1, 2007, the 
Department received an extension request from Mei Jia Ju for the 
submission of its responses to sections C & D of the Department's 
questionnaire, and on May 10, 2007, the Department granted Mei Jia Ju's 
extension request. On May 3, 2007, the Department received Mei Jia Ju's 
section A response, and on May 18, 2007, the Department received Mei 
Jia Ju's response to sections C & D of the Department's questionnaire. 
On October 30, 2007, the Department issued its supplemental A, C & D 
questionnaire to Mei Jia Ju, with a due date of November 14, 2007. On 
November 19, 2007, the Department received Mei Jia Ju's Sections A, C & 
D supplemental response. On December 18, 2007, the Department rejected 
and returned Mei Jia Ju's Sections A, C & D supplemental response as 
untimely, and informed Mei Jia Ju that its November 19, 2007, 
submission would not be considered by the Department. See December 18, 
2007, letter from Wendy J. Frankel to Dr. He Peihua.
    Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act provides 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.
    The Department has preliminarily determined that the use of facts 
otherwise available is warranted for Mei Jia Ju pursuant to section 
776(a)(2)(B) of the Act because Mei Jia Ju failed to provide 
information within the deadlines established by the Department. 
Specifically, Mei Jia Ju submitted its Sections A, C & D supplemental 
response to the Department five days after the deadline established for 
its submission, and did not request an extension prior to the deadline. 
The administration of antidumping reviews is conducted on a strict 
statutory time line. Provision is made to allow parties to notify the 
Department in writing prior to the established deadline, to request an 
extension if they are experiencing difficulty in meeting a given 
deadline. See 19 CFR 351.302(c). Effective allocation of administrative 
resources to conduct reviews within the statutory time line, however, 
is not possible if the Department is not informed of a party's need for 
an extension in a timely manner, and is left in the dark as to when, or 
if, parties will submit responses. In order for the Department to meet 
its own statutory deadlines and administer its cases effectively, 
parties must adhere to the due dates and deadlines the Department 
establishes for responding to questionnaires (i.e., original or 
supplementals). It is further necessary that parties follow the 
Department's regulations should they need to request an extension.
    Section 782(c)(1) of the Act provides that, if an interested party 
promptly notifies the Department that it is unable to submit the 
information requested in the requested form and manner, together with a 
full explanation and suggested alternative forms in which such party is 
able to submit the information, the Department shall take into 
consideration the ability of the party to submit the information in the 
requested form and manner and may modify such requirements to the 
extent necessary to

[[Page 8281]]

avoid imposing an unreasonable burden on that party. Section 782(c)(2) 
of the Act further provides that the Department shall consider the 
ability of the party submitting the information and shall provide such 
interested party assistance that is practicable. In this case, Mei Jia 
Ju did not notify the Department of any difficulty in submitting its 
response prior to the filing deadline. Further, the fact that Mei Jia 
Ju is aware of the Department's filing and service requirements and its 
right to request an extension is evident from the fact that Mei Jia Ju 
has properly requested an extension for filing a submission with the 
Department in the past. See, e.g., Mei Jia Ju's May 1, 2007, sections C 
and D extension request. The Department's April 11, 2007, Original 
Questionnaire to Mei Jia Ju specified the filing and service 
requirements of all submissions to the Department. The October 30, 
2007, sections A, C & D supplemental questionnaire reiterated these 
requirements. Additionally, the Department specifically instructed Mei 
Jia Ju on April 28, 2007, that submissions must be filed with the CRU 
on the due date specified in the questionnaire. See, e.g., Mei Jia Ju 
Deadline Memo. Further, the Department specifically informed Mei Jia Ju 
in an April 25, 2007, email that no request for an extension will be 
considered by the Department unless it is officially filed in the CRU. 
Id. On December 26, 2007, after the Department had rejected Mei Jia 
Ju's supplemental questionnaire, Mei Jia Ju sent a letter by facsimile 
requesting an extension to file its supplemental questionnaire. On 
January 10, 2008, we rejected Mei Jia Ju's request to reconsider our 
determination not to accept the late supplemental response because the 
letter did not satisfy numerous filing and service requirements (e.g., 
not properly filed, did not contain the requisite number of copies, 
etc.).
    Section 782(d) of the Act provides that, in the case of a deficient 
response by the respondent, 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. The Department issued a 
supplemental sections A, C & D questionnaire to Mei Jia Ju noting 
numerous deficiencies in its response to the Original Questionnaire. 
See October 30, 2007, sections A, C & D supplemental questionnaire. The 
Department issued Mei Jia Ju an extensive supplemental questionnaire 
because its original questionnaire response did not provide any 
information or usable data that would allow the Department to 
accurately calculate an antidumping duty margin. For example, our 
supplemental questionnaire requested that Mei Jia Ju report numerous 
raw material inputs that it failed to report in its original response, 
that it report the total usage of one of its main inputs, ``plywood,'' 
and that it report its U.S. sales information on a control number-
specific basis. Upon receipt of Mei Jia Ju's response, which was 
submitted five days late without an extension request, the Department 
rejected Mei Jia Ju's response without consideration. See December 18, 
2007, letter from Wendy J. Frankel to Dr. He Peihua. Because we have 
only Mei Jia Ju's original questionnaire response on the record, and 
this response lacks any meaningful data, we do not have sufficient U.S. 
sales and FOP data on the record to calculate an accurate dumping 
margin for Mei Jia Ju. Accordingly, we preliminarily determine to base 
Mei Jia Ju's margin on facts otherwise available. See section 776 (a) 
of the Act.
    Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may 
use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when 
a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its 
ability to comply with a request for information. Section 776(b) of the 
Act also authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available 
(``AFA'') information derived from the petition, the final 
determination, a previous administrative review, or other information 
placed on the record. While the standard for cooperation does ``not 
require perfection and recognizes that mistakes