Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of January 1, 2007 July 31, 2007 Semi-Annual New Shipper Reviews, 32292-32298 [E8-12762]
Download as PDF
32292
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 110 / Friday, June 6, 2008 / Notices
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing this
notice in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act
and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Dated: May 29, 2008.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E8–12751 Filed 6–5–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DR–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A–570–890
Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the
People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of January 1, 2007
July 31, 2007 Semi–Annual New
Shipper Reviews
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On August 31, 2007, the
Department of Commerce (‘‘the
Department’’) initiated semi–annual
new shipper reviews (‘‘NSRs’’) of the
antidumping duty order on wooden
bedroom furniture from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) covering
sales of subject merchandise made by
Dongguan Mu Si Furniture Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Mu Si’’) and Dongguan Bon Ten
Furniture Co., Ltd. (‘‘Bon Ten’’). See
Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the
People’s Republic of China: Initiation of
New Shipper Reviews, 72 FR 52083
(September 12, 2007) (‘‘Initiation of
NSRs’’).
The Department preliminarily
determines that Mu Si has made sales at
less than normal value (‘‘NV’’), and Bon
Ten has not made sales in the United
States at less than NV. If these
preliminary results are adopted in our
final results of review, the Department
will instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess
antidumping duties on entries of subject
merchandise during the period of
review (‘‘POR’’) for which the importer–
specific assessment rates are above de
minimis.
AGENCY:
PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
EFFECTIVE DATE:
June 6, 2008.
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)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:09 Jun 05, 2008
Jkt 214001
482–4474 and (202) 482–6478,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Department published an
antidumping duty order on wooden
bedroom furniture from the PRC on
January 4, 2005. 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) (‘‘the Order’’). On
July 27, 2007, Mu Si and Bon Ten
requested that the Department conduct
NSRs of sales of their subject
merchandise during the period of
review POR January 1, 2007 through
June 30, 2007. On July 31, 2007,
Dongguan Sunshine Furniture Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Sunshine’’) requested that the
Department conduct an NSR covering
its sales of subject merchandise. On
August 31, 2007, the Department
initiated semi–annual NSRs of Mu Si
and Bon Ten. See Initiation of NSRs.
The Department did not initiate a
review of Sunshine’s sales because CBP
import data did not demonstrate that
Sunshine sold subject merchandise to
the United States during the POR.
On October 5, 2007, the Department
issued antidumping duty questionnaires
to Mu Si and Bon Ten. Mu Si and Bon
Ten submitted their section A
questionnaire responses on November 5,
2007, and submitted their sections C
and D questionnaire responses on
November 20, 2007. The Department
subsequently issued supplemental
questionnaires to Bon Ten and to Mu Si
on March 21, 2008 and April 2, 2008,
respectively, to which they responded
on April 14, 2008 and April 25, 2008,
respectively.
On February 28, 2008, the Department
extended the deadline for the issuance
of the preliminary results of these NSRs
until May 27, 2008. See Wooden
Bedroom Furniture from the People’s
Republic of China: Extension of Time
Limit for the Preliminary Results of New
Shipper Reviews, 73 FR 11395 (March 3,
2008).
Period of Review
The POR is January 1, 2007, through
July 31, 2007.1
1 In the Initiation of NSRs the Department stated,
‘‘As discussed above, under 19 CFR 351.214
(f)(2)(ii), when the sale of the subject merchandise
occurs within the POR, but the entry occurs after
the normal POR, the POR may be extended.
Therefore, the POR for the new shipper reviews of
Bon Ten and Mu Si is January 1 through July 31,
2007.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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,2
highboys,3 lowboys,4 chests of drawers,5
chests,6 door chests,7 chiffoniers,8
2 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.
3 A highboy is typically a tall chest of drawers
usually composed of a base and a top section with
drawers, and supported on four legs or a small chest
(often 15 inches or more in height).
4 A lowboy is typically a short chest of drawers,
not more than four feet high, normally set on short
legs.
5 A chest of drawers is typically a case containing
drawers for storing clothing.
6 A chest is typically a case piece taller than it
is wide featuring a series of drawers and with or
without one or more doors for storing clothing. The
piece can either include drawers or be designed as
a large box incorporating a lid.
7 A door chest is typically a chest with hinged
doors to store clothing, whether or not containing
drawers. The piece may also include shelves for
televisions and other entertainment electronics.
8 A chiffonier is typically a tall and narrow chest
of drawers normally used for storing undergarments
and lingerie, often with mirror(s) attached.
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 110 / Friday, June 6, 2008 / Notices
PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
hutches,9 and armoires;10 (6) desks,
computer stands, filing cabinets, book
cases, or writing tables that are attached
to or incorporated in the subject
merchandise; and (7) other bedroom
furniture consistent with the above list.
The scope of the Order excludes the
following items: (1) seats, chairs,
benches, couches, sofas, sofa beds,
stools, and other seating furniture; (2)
mattresses, mattress supports (including
box springs), infant cribs, water beds,
and futon frames; (3) office furniture,
such as desks, stand–up desks,
computer cabinets, filing cabinets,
credenzas, and bookcases; (4) dining
room or kitchen furniture such as dining
tables, chairs, servers, sideboards,
buffets, corner cabinets, china cabinets,
and china hutches; (5) other non–
bedroom furniture, such as television
cabinets, cocktail tables, end tables,
occasional tables, wall systems, book
cases, and entertainment systems; (6)
bedroom furniture made primarily of
wicker, cane, osier, bamboo or rattan; (7)
side rails for beds made of metal if sold
separately from the headboard and
footboard; (8) bedroom furniture in
which bentwood parts predominate;11
(9) jewelry armoires;12 (10) cheval
9 A hutch is typically an open case of furniture
with shelves that typically sits on another piece of
furniture and provides storage for clothes.
10 An armoire is typically a tall cabinet or
wardrobe (typically 50 inches or taller), with doors,
and with one or more drawers (either exterior below
or above the doors or interior behind the doors),
shelves, and/or garment rods or other apparatus for
storing clothes. Bedroom armoires may also be used
to hold television receivers and/or other audiovisual entertainment systems.
11 As used herein, bentwood means solid wood
made pliable. Bentwood is wood that is brought to
a curved shape by bending it while made pliable
with moist heat or other agency and then set by
cooling or drying. See Customs’ Headquarters’
Ruling Letter 043859, dated May 17, 1976.
12 Any armoire, cabinet or other accent item for
the purpose of storing jewelry, not to exceed 24″ in
width, 18″ in depth, and 49″ in height, including
a minimum of 5 lined drawers lined with felt or
felt-like material, at least one side door (whether or
not the door is lined with felt or felt-like material),
with necklace hangers, and a flip-top lid with inset
mirror. See 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).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:09 Jun 05, 2008
Jkt 214001
mirrors;13 (11) certain metal parts;14 (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.15
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.
13 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).
14 Metal furniture parts and unfinished furniture
parts made of wood products (as defined above)
that are not otherwise specifically named in this
scope (i.e., wooden headboards for beds, wooden
footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and
wooden canopies for beds) and that do not possess
the essential character of wooden bedroom
furniture in an unassembled, incomplete, or
unfinished form. Such parts are usually classified
under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) subheading 9403.90.7000.
15 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, 7015 (February 14, 2007).
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
32293
Bona Fide Analysis
Consistent with the Department’s
practice, the Department investigated
the bona fide nature of the sales made
by Mu Si and Bon Ten for these reviews.
In evaluating whether or not a single
sale in an NSR is commercially
reasonable, and therefore bona fide, the
Department considers, inter alia, such
factors as: (1) the timing of the sale; (2)
the price and quantity; (3) the expenses
arising from the transaction; (4) whether
the goods were resold at a profit; and (5)
whether the transaction was made on an
arm’s–length basis. See, e.g., Tianjin
Tiancheng Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v.
United States, 366 F. Supp. 2d 1246,
1250 (CIT 2005). Accordingly, the
Department considers a number of
factors in its bona fide analysis, ‘‘all of
which may speak to the commercial
realities surrounding an alleged sale of
subject merchandise.’’ See Hebei New
Donghua Amino Acid Co., Ltd. v. United
States, 374 F. Supp. 2d 1333, 1342 (CIT
2005) (citing Fresh Garlic From the
People’s Republic of China: Final
Results of Antidumping Administrative
Review and Rescission of New Shipper
Review, 67 FR 11283 (March 13, 2002),
and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum).
The Department preliminarily finds
that the new shipper sales made by Mu
Si and Bon Ten were made on a bona
fide basis. Specifically, the Department
finds that: (1) the price and quantity of
each new shipper sale was within the
range of the prices and quantities of
other entries of subject merchandise
from the PRC into the United States
during the POR; (2) the new shippers
and their respective customers did not
incur any extraordinary expenses
arising from the transactions; (3) each
new shipper sale was made between
unaffiliated parties at arm’s length; (4)
there is no record evidence that
indicates that each new shipper sale
was not made based on commercial
principles; (5) the merchandise was
resold at a profit; and (6) the timing of
each of the new shipper sales does not
indicate the sales were made on a nonbona fide basis. See the Memorandum
regarding, ‘‘Antidumping Duty New
Shipper Review of Wooden Bedroom
Furniture from the People’s Republic of
China: Bona Fide Nature of the Sale
Under Review for Dongguan Mu Si
Furniture Co., Ltd.’’ dated May 27, 2008;
and the Memorandum regarding,
‘‘Antidumping Duty New Shipper
Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture
from the People’s Republic of China:
Bona Fide Nature of the Sale Under
Review for Dongguan Bon Ten Furniture
Co., Ltd.’’ dated May 27, 2008.
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
32294
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 110 / Friday, June 6, 2008 / Notices
Therefore, the Department has
preliminarily found that Mu Si’s and
Bon Ten’s sales of subject merchandise
to the United States were bona fide for
purposes of these NSRs.
PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Non–Market Economy Country Status
In every antidumping case conducted
by the Department involving the PRC,
the PRC has been treated as a non–
market economy (‘‘NME’’) country. See,
e.g., Brake Rotors From the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results and
Partial Rescission of the 2004/2005
Administrative Review and Notice of
Rescission of 2004/2005 New Shipper
Review, 71 FR 66304 (November 14,
2006). In accordance with section
771(18)(C)(i) of the the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), any
determination that a foreign country is
an NME country shall remain in effect
until revoked by the administering
authority. None of the parties to this
proceeding has contested such
treatment. Accordingly, the Department
calculated NV in accordance with
section 773(c) of the Act, which applies
to NME countries.
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving NME
countries, the Department has a
rebuttable presumption that all
companies within the country are
subject to government control and thus
should be assessed a single antidumping
duty rate. It is the Department’s policy
to assign all exporters of merchandise
subject to investigation in an NME
country this single rate unless an
exporter can demonstrate that it is
sufficiently independent so as to be
entitled to a separate rate. Exporters can
demonstrate this independence through
the absence of both de jure and de facto
government control over export
activities. 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 further
developed in the 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’’). See also Policy
Bulletin 05.1: Separate–Rates Practice
and Application of Combination Rates
in Antidumping Investigations
involving Non–Market Economy
Countries (April 5, 2005), available at
https://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bulletin05–
1.pdf at p. 6 (stating: ‘‘ [w]hile
continuing the practice of assigning
separate rates only to exporters, all
separate rates that the Department will
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:09 Jun 05, 2008
Jkt 214001
now assign in its NME investigations
will be specific to those producers that
supplied the exporter during the period
of investigation. Note, however, that one
rate is calculated for the exporter and all
of the producers which supplied subject
merchandise to it during the period of
investigation. This practice applies both
to mandatory respondents receiving an
individually calculated separate rate as
well as the pool of non–investigated
firms receiving the weighted–average of
the individually calculated rates. This
practice is referred to as the application
of ‘‘combination rates’’ because such
rates apply to specific combinations of
exporters and one or more producers.
The cash–deposit rate assigned to an
exporter will apply only to merchandise
both exported by the firm in question
and produced by a firm that supplied
the exporter during the period of
investigation. However, if the
Department determines that a company
is wholly foreign–owned or located in a
market economy, then a separate–rate
analysis is not necessary to determine
whether it is independent from
government control.’’)
Mu Si and Bon Ten are wholly
Chinese–owned companies and are
located in the PRC. Therefore, the
Department must analyze whether they
can demonstrate the absence of both de
jure and de facto government control
over their export activities.
A. Absence of De Jure Control
The Department considers the
following de jure criteria in determining
whether an individual company may be
granted a separate rate: (1) an absence of
restrictive stipulations associated with
an individual exporter’s business and
export licenses; (2) any legislative
enactments decentralizing control of
companies; and (3) other formal
measures by the government
decentralizing control of companies. See
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
Throughout the course of this
proceeding, Mu Si and Bon Ten have
placed a number of documents on the
record to demonstrate absence of de jure
control including: business licenses,
financial statements, and narrative
information regarding government laws
and regulations on corporate ownership,
and the companies’ operations and
selection of management. For example,
Mu Si and Bon Ten have placed on the
record their articles of association, the
‘‘Foreign Trade Law of the People’s
Republic of China’’ and the ‘‘The
Company Law of the People’s Republic
of China.’’ See Exhibit 1 of their
respective Section A questionnaire
responses dated November 5, 2007. The
evidence provided by Mu Si and Bon
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Ten supports a preliminary finding of
de jure absence of government control
based on the following: (1) an absence
of restrictive stipulations associated
with the individual exporters’ business
and export licenses; (2) there are
applicable legislative enactments
decentralizing control of the companies;
and (3) and there are formal measures
by the government decentralizing
control of companies.
B. Absence of De Facto Control
Typically the Department considers
four factors in evaluating whether each
respondent is subject to de facto
government control of its export
functions: (1) whether the export prices
are set by or are subject to the approval
of a government agency; (2) whether the
respondent has authority to negotiate
and sign contracts and other
agreements; (3) whether the respondent
has autonomy from the government in
making decisions regarding the
selection of management; and (4)
whether the respondent retains the
proceeds of its export sales and makes
independent decisions regarding
disposition of profits or financing of
losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at
22586–87; see also Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the
People’s Republic of China, 60 FR
22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995). The
Department has determined that an
analysis of de facto control is critical in
determining whether respondents are
subject to a degree of government
control which would preclude the
Department from assigning separate
rates.
The Department conducted a
separate–rates analysis for both Mu Si
and Bon Ten. In their questionnaire
responses, Mu Si and Bon Ten
submitted evidence indicating an
absence of de facto government control
over their export activities. The
evidence placed on the record of this
review by Mu Si and Bon Ten
demonstrates an absence of de facto
government control with respect to each
of the exporters’ exports of the
merchandise under review, in
accordance with the criteria identified
in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide.
Specifically, this evidence indicates
that:
(1) Mu Si and Bon Ten set their own
export prices independent of the
government and without the approval of
a government authority; (2) Mu Si and
Bon Ten retain the proceeds from their
sales and make independent decisions
regarding the disposition of profits or
financing of losses; (3) Mu Si and Bon
Ten each has an executive director/
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 110 / Friday, June 6, 2008 / Notices
PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
general manager who has the authority
to negotiate and bind the company in an
agreement; (4) the executive director/
general manager, the vice–manager, and
the department managers are selected by
the respective shareholders of each
company; and (5) there is no restriction
on Mu Si’s or Bon Ten’s use of export
revenues. Therefore, because Mu Si and
Bon Ten have demonstrated a lack of de
jure and de facto control, we have
preliminarily determined they are
eligible for a separate rate.
Surrogate Country
When the Department is reviewing
imports from an NME country, section
773(c)(1) of the the Act directs it to base
NV, in most circumstances, on the NME
producer’s factors of production
(‘‘FOPs’’), valued in a surrogate market
economy country or countries
considered to be appropriate by the
Department. In accordance with section
773(c)(4) of the Act, in 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. The sources of the
surrogate factor values are discussed
under the ‘‘Normal Value’’ section
below and in the Memorandum to the
File, ‘‘New Shipper Review of Wooden
Bedroom Furniture from the People’s
Republic of China: Surrogate Values for
the Preliminary Results,’’ dated May 27,
2008 (‘‘Factor Valuation
Memorandum’’).
The Department has determined that
India, Sri Lanka, Egypt, Indonesia, and
the Philippines, are comparable to the
PRC in terms of economic development.
See the Memorandum regarding, ‘‘New
Shipper Review of Wooden Bedroom
Furniture from the People’s Republic of
China: Request for a List of Surrogate
Countries,’’ dated October 3, 2007. It is
the Department’s practice to select from
among these countries based on the
availability and reliability of data. See
Department Policy Bulletin No. 04.1:
Non–Market Economy Surrogate
Country Selection Process (March 1,
2004).
In the final results of the first
administrative review of the Order, the
most recently completed segment of this
proceeding, the Department used India
as the surrogate country for the PRC.
However, in the ongoing second
administrative review, the Department
preliminarily selected the Philippines as
the surrogate country because, in
addition to the Philippines meeting the
economic comparability and significant
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:09 Jun 05, 2008
Jkt 214001
producer factors, the financial data from
the Philippines better reflected the
overall experience of producers of
comparable merchandise in a surrogate
country. Unlike the ongoing
administrative review, for these new
shipper reviews, there is no information
on the record which would enable us to
consider the Philippines as a surrogate
country. Therefore, the Department is
preliminarily selecting India as the
surrogate country for the PRC. India is
at a level of economic development
comparable to that of the PRC; it is a
significant producer of comparable
merchandise; and the Department has
reliable, publicly available data from
India that it can use to value the FOPs.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of the
subject merchandise made by Mu Si and
Bon Ten to the United States were at
prices below NV, the Department
compared each company’s export price
(‘‘EP’’) to NV, as described below.
Export Price
In accordance with section 772(a) of
the Act, the Department calculated the
EP for sales to the United States for Mu
Si and Bon Ten because the first sale to
an unaffiliated party was made before
the date of importation and the use of
constructed EP was not otherwise
warranted. The Department calculated
EP based on the price to unaffiliated
purchasers in the United States. In
accordance with section 772(c) of the
Act, as appropriate, the Department
deducted from the starting price to
unaffiliated purchasers foreign inland
freight, and brokerage and handling. For
Mu Si and Bon Ten, each of these
services was either provided by an NME
vendor or paid for using an NME
currency. Thus, the Department based
the deduction of these movement
charges on surrogate values. See Factor
Valuation Memorandum for details
regarding the surrogate values for
movement expenses.
Normal Value
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides
that the Department shall determine NV
using an FOP methodology if: (1) the
merchandise is exported from an NME
country; and (2) the information does
not permit the calculation of NV using
home market prices, third country
prices, or constructed value under
section 773(a) of the Act. When
determining NV in an NME context, the
Department will base NV on FOPs
because the presence of government
controls on various aspects of these
economies renders price comparisons
and the calculation of production costs
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
32295
invalid under our normal
methodologies. Under section 773(c)(3)
of the Act, FOPs include but are not
limited to: (1) hours of labor required;
(2) quantities of raw materials
employed; (3) amounts of energy and
other utilities consumed; and (4)
representative capital costs. The
Department used FOPs reported by
respondents for materials, energy, labor
and packing.
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.408(c)(1), the Department will
normally use publicly available
information to find an appropriate SV to
value FOPs, but when a producer
sources an input from a market
economy and pays for it in market–
economy currency, the Department may
value the factor using the actual price
paid for the input. See Lasko Metal
Products, Inc. v. United States, 43 F.3d
1442, 1446 (Fed. Cir. 1994). However,
when the Department has reason to
believe or suspect that such prices may
be distorted by subsidies, the
Department will disregard the market
economy purchase prices and use SVs
to determine the NV. See Brake Rotors
From the People’s Republic of China:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative and New Shipper
Reviews and Partial Rescission of the
2005–2006 Administrative Review, 72
FR 42386 (August 2, 2007) (‘‘Brake
Rotors’’), and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
In avoiding the use of prices that may
be subsidized, the Department does not
conduct a formal investigation to ensure
that such prices are not subsidized, but
rather relies on information that is
generally available at the time of its
determination. See H.R. Rep. 100–576,
at 590–91 (1988), reprinted in 1988
U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 1623–24. It is the
Department’s practice to find a reason to
believe or suspect that inputs may be
subsidized if the facts developed in the
United States or third country
countervailing duty findings indicate
the existence of subsidies that appear to
be used generally (in particular, broadly
available, non–industry-specific export
subsidies. See Brake Rotors and China
National Machinery Imp. & Exp. Corp.
v. United States, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334,
1338–39 (CIT 2003). The Department
has reason to believe or suspect that
prices of inputs from Indonesia, South
Korea, and Thailand may have been
subsidized. Through other proceedings,
the Department has learned that these
countries maintain broadly available,
non–industry-specific export subsidies
and, therefore, finds it reasonable to
infer that all exports to all markets from
these countries may be subsidized. See
e.g., Brake Rotors at Comment 1.
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
32296
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 110 / Friday, June 6, 2008 / Notices
PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Accordingly, the Department has
disregarded prices from Indonesia,
South Korea, and Thailand in
calculating the Indian import–based
SVs.
Factor Valuations
In accordance with section 773(c) of
the Act, the Department calculated NV
based on FOPs reported by respondents
for the POR. To calculate NV, the
Department multiplied the reported
per–unit factor consumption quantities
by publicly available Indian SVs (except
as noted below). In selecting the SVs,
the Department considered the quality,
specificity, and contemporaneity of the
data. As appropriate, the Department
adjusted input prices by including
freight costs to make them delivered
prices. Specifically, the Department
added to Indian import SVs a surrogate
freight cost using the shorter of the
reported distance from the domestic
supplier to the factory or the distance
from the nearest seaport to the factory
where appropriate (i.e., where the sales
terms for the market–economy inputs
were not delivered to the factory). This
adjustment is in accordance with the
decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit in Sigma Corp. v.
United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407–08
(Fed. Cir. 1997). For a detailed
description of all SVs used to value the
respondents’ reported FOPs, see Factor
Valuation Memorandum.
During the POR, Mu Si and Bon Ten
purchased all or a portion of certain
inputs from a market economy supplier
and paid for these inputs in a market
economy currency. The Department has
instituted a rebuttable presumption that
market economy input prices are the
best available information for valuing an
input when the total volume of the
input purchased from all market
economy sources during the period of
investigation or review exceeds 33
percent of the total volume of the input
purchased from all sources during the
period. See Antidumping
Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs,
Expected Non–Market Economy Wages,
Duty Drawback; and Request for
Comments, 71 FR 61716 (October 19,
2006) (‘‘Market Economy Inputs’’). In
these cases, unless case–specific facts
provide adequate grounds to rebut the
Department’s presumption, the
Department will use the weighted–
average market economy purchase price
to value the input. Alternatively, when
the volume of an NME firm’s purchases
of an input from market economy
suppliers during the period is below 33
percent of its total volume of purchases
of the input during the period, but
where these purchases are otherwise
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:09 Jun 05, 2008
Jkt 214001
valid and there is no reason to disregard
the prices, the Department will weight
average the weighted–average market
economy purchase price with an
appropriate SV according to their
respective shares of the total volume of
purchases, unless case–specific facts
provide adequate grounds to rebut the
presumption. Where the quantity of the
input purchased from market–economy
suppliers is insignificant, the
Department will not rely on the price
paid by an NME producer to a market–
economy supplier because it cannot
have confidence that a company could
fulfill all its needs at that price.
Furthermore, when a firm has made
market economy input purchases that
may have been dumped or subsidized,
are not bona fide, or are otherwise not
acceptable for use in a dumping
calculation, the Department will
exclude them from the numerator of the
ratio to ensure a fair determination of
whether valid market economy
purchases meet the 33–percent
threshold.
Consistent with the aforementioned
methodology, the Department valued
Mu Si’s and Bon Ten’s inputs using the
market economy prices paid for the
inputs where the total volume of the
input purchased from all market
economy sources during the POR
exceeded 33 percent of the total volume
of the input purchased from all sources
during that period. Alternatively, when
the volume of Mu Si’s and Bon Ten’s
purchases of an input from market
economy suppliers during the POR was
below 33 percent of the company’s total
volume of purchases of the input during
the POR, the Department weight
averaged the weighted–average market
economy purchase price with an
appropriate SV according to their
respective shares of the total volume of
purchases, as appropriate. Where
appropriate, the Department increased
the market economy prices of inputs by
freight and brokerage and handling
expenses. See Factor Valuation
Memorandum; see also Memorandum to
the File, ‘‘Company Analysis
Memorandum in the Antidumping Duty
New Shipper Review of Wooden
Bedroom Furniture from the People’s
Republic of China: Mu Si,’’ dated May
27, 2008 and Memorandum to the File
‘‘Company Analysis Memorandum in
the Antidumping Duty New Shipper
Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture
from the People’s Republic of China:
Bon Ten,’’ dated May 27, 2008 (for a
detailed description of all actual values
used for market–economy inputs.).
In order to calculate SVs for the
reported FOPs purchased from NME
sources, the Department used
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
contemporaneous import data from the
World Trade Atlas online, published by
the Directorate General of Commercial
Intelligence and Statistics, Ministry of
Commerce of India. Among the FOPs for
which the Department calculated SVs
using Indian Import Statistics are
plywood, woodscrews, dowels, glue,
paint, drawerslides, abrasive paper, and
packing materials. For a complete listing
of all the inputs and the valuation for
each mandatory respondent. See Factor
Valuation Memorandum.
Where the Department could not
obtain information contemporaneous
with the POR with which to value FOPs,
the Department adjusted the SVs using,
where appropriate, the Indian
Wholesale Price Index (‘‘WPI’’) available
at the website of the Office of the
Economic Adviser, Ministry of
Commerce and Industry, Government of
India, https://eaindustry.nic.in/. See
Factor Valuation Memorandum.
For direct labor, indirect labor, and
packing labor, consistent with 19 CFR
351.408(c)(3), the Department used the
PRC regression–based wage rate as
reported on Import Administration’s
website, Import Library, Expected
Wages of Selected NME Countries,
revised in May 2008, using 2005 data,
https://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/05wages/
05wages–051608.html#table1. The
source of these wage–rate data is the
International Labour Organization,
Geneva, Labour Statistics Database,
Copyright International Labour
Organization, 1998–2007 Yearbook,
Selection: years: 2004–2005, Chapter
5B: Wages in Manufacturing. Because
this regression–based wage rate does not
separate the labor rates into different
skill levels or types of labor, the
Department has applied the same wage
rate to all skill levels and types of labor
reported by the respondents. See Factor
Valuation Memorandum.
To value electricity, the Department
used data from the International Energy
Agency Key World Energy Statistics
(2003 edition). See Factor Valuation
Memorandum. Because the value was
not contemporaneous with the POR, the
Department adjusted the rate for
inflation.
To calculate the value for domestic
brokerage and handling, the Department
used information from the public
version of two questionnaire responses
placed on the record of two separate
antidumping proceedings. The first
source was December 2003–November
2004 data contained in the public
version of Essar Steel’s February 28,
2005 questionnaire response submitted
in the antidumping duty administrative
review of hot–rolled carbon steel flat
products from India. See Certain Hot–
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 110 / Friday, June 6, 2008 / Notices
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from
India: Notice of Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 71 FR 2018 (January 12, 2006)
(unchanged in the final results, Certain
Hot–Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products
From India: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 71 FR 40694 (July 18, 2006)).
This value was averaged with the
February 2004–January 2005 data
contained in the public version of Agro
Dutch Industries Limited’s (‘‘Agro
Dutch’’) May 24, 2005 questionnaire
response submitted in the
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain
preserved mushrooms from India. See
Certain Preserved Mushrooms From
India: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR
37757 (June 30, 2005). The brokerage
expense data reported by Essar Steel
and Agro Dutch in their public versions
are ranged data. The Department
derived an average per–unit amount
from each source and then adjusted
each average rate for inflation using the
WPI. The Department then averaged the
two per–unit amounts to derive an
overall average rate for the POR. See
Factor Valuation Memorandum.
The Department used Indian transport
information in order to value the
freight–in cost of the raw materials. The
Department determined the best
available information for valuing truck
and rail freight to be from
www.infreight.com. This source
provides daily rates from six major
points of origin to five destinations in
India during the POR. The Department
obtained a price quote on the first day
of each month of the POR from each
point of origin to each destination and
averaged the data accordingly. See
Factor Valuation Memorandum.
To value factory overhead, selling,
general, and administrative expenses
(‘‘SG&A’’), and profit, the Department
used the audited financial statements
for the fiscal year ending March 31,
2007, from twelve Indian producers of
comparable merchandise. From this
information, the Department was able to
determine factory overhead as a
percentage of the total raw materials,
labor and energy (‘‘ML&E’’) costs; SG&A
as a percentage of ML&E plus overhead
(i.e., cost of manufacture); and the profit
rate as a percentage of the cost of
manufacture plus SG&A. For further
discussion, see Factor Valuation
Memorandum.
Preliminary Results of Reviews
The Department preliminarily
determines that the following weighted–
average dumping margins exist for the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:09 Jun 05, 2008
Jkt 214001
period January 1, 2007, through July 31,
2007:
WOODEN BEDROOM FURNITURE FROM
THE PRC
Producer/Exporter
Dongguan Bon Ten Furniture
Co., Ltd./Dongguan Bon Ten
Furniture Co., Ltd. ...................
Dongguan Mu Si Furniture Co.,
Ltd./Dongguan Mu Si Furniture
Co., Ltd. ..................................
Weighted–
Average
Margin
(Percent)
0.00
103.55
Disclosure and Public Comment
The Department will disclose
calculations performed for these
preliminary results to the parties within
five days of the date of publication of
this notice in accordance with 19 CFR
351.224(b). Interested parties may
submit written comments no later than
30 days after the date of publication of
these preliminary results of review. See
19 CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttals to written
comments may be filed no later than
five days after the written comments are
filed. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Further,
parties submitting written comments
and rebuttal comments are requested to
provide the Department with an
additional copy of those comments on
diskette. Any interested party may
request a hearing within 30 days of
publication of these preliminary results.
See 19 CFR 351.310(c). If requested, a
hearing normally will be held seven
days after the scheduled date for
submission of rebuttal comments. See
19 CFR 351.310(d).
The Department will issue the final
results of these NSRs, which will
include the results of its analysis of any
issues raised in written comments,
within 90 days of the date on which
these preliminary results are issued, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(i)(1),
unless the time limit is extended. See 19
CFR 351.214(i)(1).
Assessment Rates
Upon completion of the final results,
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the
Department will determine, and CBP
shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries. The Department
intends to issue assessment instructions
to CBP 15 days after the date of
publication of the final results of
reviews. If these preliminary results are
adopted in our final results of reviews,
the Department shall determine, and
CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on
all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19
CFR 351.212(b)(1), the Department will
calculate importer–specific (or
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
32297
customer) ad valorem duty assessment
rates based on the ratio of the total
amount of the dumping margins
calculated for the examined sales to the
total entered value of those same sales.
The Department will instruct CBP to
assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries covered by these
reviews if any importer–specific
assessment rate calculated in the final
results of these reviews is above de
minimis.
Cash Deposit Requirements
On August 17, 2006, the Pension
Protection Act of 2006 (‘‘H.R. 4’’) was
signed into law. Section 1632 of H.R. 4
temporarily suspends the authority of
the Department to instruct CBP to
collect a bond or other security in lieu
of a cash deposit in NSRs. Therefore, the
posting of a bond under section
751(a)(B)(iii) of the Act in lieu of a cash
deposit is not available in this case.
The following cash deposit
requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of these
NSRs for shipments of subject
merchandise from the Mu Si and Bon
Ten entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after
the publication date, as provided by
section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1)
Subject merchandise produced and
exported by Mu Si or produced and
exported by Bon Ten, the cash deposit
rate will be that established in the final
results of these reviews; (2) subject
merchandise exported by Mu Si but not
produced by MuSi and subject
merchandise exported by Bon Ten but
not produced by Bon Ten, the cash
deposit rate will continue to be the
PRC–wide rate of 216.01 percent; (3) for
subject merchandise produced by Mu Si
or Bon Ten, and exported by any party
but themselves, the cash deposit rate
will be the rate applicable to the
exporter. These cash deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until further notice.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice serves as a preliminary
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 POR.
Failure to comply with this requirement
could result in the Secretary’s
presumption that reimbursement of
antidumping duties occurred and the
subsequent assessment of double
antidumping duties.
The Department is issuing and
publishing this determination in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1),
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
32298
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 110 / Friday, June 6, 2008 / Notices
751(a)(2)(B), and 777(i) of the Act, and
19 CFR 351.214(h) and 351.221(b)(4).
Dated: May 27, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E8–12762 Filed 6–5–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DR–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–423–808]
Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From
Belgium: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(the Department) is conducting an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on stainless
steel plate in coils (SSPC) from Belgium.
For the period May 1, 2006, through
April 30, 2007, we have preliminarily
determined that U.S. sales have been
made below normal value (NV). If these
preliminary results are adopted in our
final results, we will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to
assess antidumping duties based on the
difference between the constructed
export price (CEP) and NV. See
‘‘Preliminary Results of Review’’ section
of this notice. Interested parties are
invited to comment on these
preliminary results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 6, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Cindy Robinson or George McMahon,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230;
telephone (202) 482–3797 or (202) 482–
1167, respectively.
PWALKER on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
Background
On May 1, 2007, the Department
issued a notice of opportunity to request
an administrative review of this order
for the period of review (POR) May 1,
2006, through April 30, 2007. See
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty
Order, Finding, or Suspended
Investigation; Opportunity to Request
Administrative Review, 72 FR 23796
(May 1, 2007). On May 31, 2007, the
Department received timely requests for
an administrative review of this order
from the Petitioners, Allegheny Ludlum
Corporation, North American Stainless,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:09 Jun 05, 2008
Jkt 214001
United Auto Workers Local 3303,
Zanesville Armco Independent
Organization, and the United
Steelworkers of America, AFL–CIO/CLC
(collectively, Petitioners), and the
respondent, Ugine & ALZ Belgium (U&A
Belgium), respectively. On June 29,
2007, we published a notice initiating
an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on SSPC from
Belgium covering one respondent, U&A
Belgium. See Initiation of Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews, Request for Revocation in Part
and Deferral of Administrative Review,
72 FR 35690 (June 29, 2007).
On May 11, 2007, the Department
received a request from U&A Belgium
for a scope determination that the
antidumping and countervailing duty
orders on SSPC from Belgium exclude
stainless steel products with an actual
thickness less than 4.75mm, regardless
of nominal thickness. The Department
initiated a formal scope inquiry of the
SSPC orders 1 on July 23, 2007. On
November 16, 2007, and on January 15,
2008, the Department extended the
deadline to issue a final scope ruling
under 19 CFR 351.302(b). See
Memoranda To All Interested Parties
RE: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from
Belgium Scope Inquiry, dated November
16, 2007 and January 15, 2008,
respectively.
On July 13, 2007, the Department
issued a questionnaire to U&A Belgium.
We received U&A Belgium’s response to
Section A of the Department’s
questionnaire on September 11, 2007,
and Sections B–D on September 28,
2007. On January 18, 2008, the
Department issued an extension of the
deadline for the preliminary results of
this antidumping duty administrative
review from January 31, 2008, until May
30, 2008. See Stainless Steel Plate in
Coils From Belgium: Notice of Extension
of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of
Administrative Review, 73 FR 3453
(January 18, 2008).
On October 29, 2007, the Department
received comments from the Petitioners
on the Sections A through C responses
for U&A Belgium. On January 24, 2008,
1 See Notice of Amended Final Determinations:
Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium and
South Africa; and Notice of Countervailing Duty
Orders: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium,
Italy and South Africa, 64 FR 25288 (May 11, 1999);
Antidumping Duty Orders; Certain Stainless Steel
Plate in Coils From Belgium, Canada, Italy, the
Republic of Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan, 64 FR
27756 (May 21, 1999); Notice of Amended
Antidumping Duty Orders; Certain Stainless Steel
Plate in Coils From Belgium, Canada, Italy, the
Republic of Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan, 68 FR
11520 (March 11, 2003); and Amended
Countervailing Duty Orders; Certain Stainless Steel
Plate in Coils From Belgium, Italy, and South
Africa, 68 FR 11524 (March 11, 2003).
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the Petitioners submitted comments
requesting that the Department conduct
verification of the responses submitted
by U&A Belgium. On February 5, 2008,
U&A Belgium submitted comments
urging the Department to reject the
request for verification made by the
Petitioners. After reviewing the Sections
A through D responses from U&A
Belgium, the Department issued
supplemental questionnaires to U&A
Belgium. The Department issued
additional supplemental questions, after
reviewing U&A Belgium’s supplemental
questionnaire response. On January 18,
2008, the Department postponed the
preliminary results by 120 days. See
Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From
Belgium: Notice of Extension of Time
Limit for Preliminary Results of
Administrative Review, 73 FR 3453
(January 18, 2008).
U&A Belgium’s Reported Merger
U&A Belgium reported that it is
wholly owned by Arcelor S.A. and
stated that Arcelor S.A. is in the process
of merging with Mittal Steel, N.V.
(Mittal) to form Arcelor Mittal S.A.
Specifically, U&A Belgium reported that
‘‘{i}n June 2006, Arcelor and Mittal
Steel signed a memorandum of
understanding outlining the terms of a
merger. The subsequent merger
agreement was signed in May 2007.’’
See U&A Belgium’s September 11, 2007,
Section A Questionnaire Response at 10.
U&A Belgium stated that the merger was
structured as a two-step process. The
first step, the merger of Mittal Steel into
its wholly owned non-operating
subsidiary ArcelorMittal, was
completed in August 2007. The second
step, the integration of ArcelorMittal
into Arcelor S.A., was completed in
November 2007, and the company was
immediately renamed ArcelorMittal. As
a result, the entire merger is now
complete, effective November 2007.
U&A Belgium stated that ‘‘{w}hile the
merger was not technically completed
during the review period, U&A Belgium
prepared its responses to the
Department’s questionnaires as if
ArcelorMittal were fully consolidated.’’
See U&A Belgium’s April 15, 2008,
Sections A–C Supplemental
Questionnaire Response (April 15, 2008
SQR) at 1. U&A Belgium also reported
‘‘that the merger has had no impact on
U&A Belgium’s production and sale of
subject merchandise. In particular, there
has been no change to U&A Belgium’s
inputs from affiliates within the review
period resulting from the merger with
Mittal Steel. There has also been no
change to U&A Belgium’s sales to
affiliates within the POR resulting from
the merger with Mittal Steel.’’ Id. at 2.
E:\FR\FM\06JNN1.SGM
06JNN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 110 (Friday, June 6, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32292-32298]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-12762]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A-570-890
Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of January 1, 2007 July 31, 2007 Semi-Annual New
Shipper Reviews
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On August 31, 2007, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') initiated semi-annual new shipper reviews (``NSRs'') of
the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from the
People's Republic of China (``PRC'') covering sales of subject
merchandise made by Dongguan Mu Si Furniture Co., Ltd. (``Mu Si'') and
Dongguan Bon Ten Furniture Co., Ltd. (``Bon Ten''). See Wooden Bedroom
Furniture From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of New
Shipper Reviews, 72 FR 52083 (September 12, 2007) (``Initiation of
NSRs'').
The Department preliminarily determines that Mu Si has made sales
at less than normal value (``NV''), and Bon Ten has not made sales in
the United States at less than NV. If these preliminary results are
adopted in our final results of review, the Department will instruct
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess antidumping
duties on entries of subject merchandise during the period of review
(``POR'') for which the importer-specific assessment rates are above de
minimis.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 6, 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.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Department published an antidumping duty order on wooden
bedroom furniture from the PRC on January 4, 2005. 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) (``the Order''). On July
27, 2007, Mu Si and Bon Ten requested that the Department conduct NSRs
of sales of their subject merchandise during the period of review POR
January 1, 2007 through June 30, 2007. On July 31, 2007, Dongguan
Sunshine Furniture Co., Ltd. (``Sunshine'') requested that the
Department conduct an NSR covering its sales of subject merchandise. On
August 31, 2007, the Department initiated semi-annual NSRs of Mu Si and
Bon Ten. See Initiation of NSRs. The Department did not initiate a
review of Sunshine's sales because CBP import data did not demonstrate
that Sunshine sold subject merchandise to the United States during the
POR.
On October 5, 2007, the Department issued antidumping duty
questionnaires to Mu Si and Bon Ten. Mu Si and Bon Ten submitted their
section A questionnaire responses on November 5, 2007, and submitted
their sections C and D questionnaire responses on November 20, 2007.
The Department subsequently issued supplemental questionnaires to Bon
Ten and to Mu Si on March 21, 2008 and April 2, 2008, respectively, to
which they responded on April 14, 2008 and April 25, 2008,
respectively.
On February 28, 2008, the Department extended the deadline for the
issuance of the preliminary results of these NSRs until May 27, 2008.
See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China:
Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of New Shipper
Reviews, 73 FR 11395 (March 3, 2008).
Period of Review
The POR is January 1, 2007, through July 31, 2007.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In the Initiation of NSRs the Department stated, ``As
discussed above, under 19 CFR 351.214 (f)(2)(ii), when the sale of
the subject merchandise occurs within the POR, but the entry occurs
after the normal POR, the POR may be extended. Therefore, the POR
for the new shipper reviews of Bon Ten and Mu Si is January 1
through July 31, 2007.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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,\2\ highboys,\3\ lowboys,\4\ chests of drawers,\5\ chests,\6\
door chests,\7\ chiffoniers,\8\
[[Page 32293]]
hutches,\9\ and armoires;\10\ (6) desks, computer stands, filing
cabinets, book cases, or writing tables that are attached to or
incorporated in the subject merchandise; and (7) other bedroom
furniture consistent with the above list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ A chest-on-chest is typically a tall chest-of-drawers in two
or more sections (or appearing to be in two or more sections), with
one or two sections mounted (or appearing to be mounted) on a
slightly larger chest; also known as a tallboy.
\3\ A highboy is typically a tall chest of drawers usually
composed of a base and a top section with drawers, and supported on
four legs or a small chest (often 15 inches or more in height).
\4\ A lowboy is typically a short chest of drawers, not more
than four feet high, normally set on short legs.
\5\ A chest of drawers is typically a case containing drawers
for storing clothing.
\6\ A chest is typically a case piece taller than it is wide
featuring a series of drawers and with or without one or more doors
for storing clothing. The piece can either include drawers or be
designed as a large box incorporating a lid.
\7\ A door chest is typically a chest with hinged doors to store
clothing, whether or not containing drawers. The piece may also
include shelves for televisions and other entertainment electronics.
\8\ A chiffonier is typically a tall and narrow chest of drawers
normally used for storing undergarments and lingerie, often with
mirror(s) attached.
\9\ A hutch is typically an open case of furniture with shelves
that typically sits on another piece of furniture and provides
storage for clothes.
\10\ An armoire is typically a tall cabinet or wardrobe
(typically 50 inches or taller), with doors, and with one or more
drawers (either exterior below or above the doors or interior behind
the doors), shelves, and/or garment rods or other apparatus for
storing clothes. Bedroom armoires may also be used to hold
television receivers and/or other audio-visual entertainment
systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The scope of the Order excludes the following items: (1) seats,
chairs, benches, couches, sofas, sofa beds, stools, and other seating
furniture; (2) mattresses, mattress supports (including box springs),
infant cribs, water beds, and futon frames; (3) office furniture, such
as desks, stand-up desks, computer cabinets, filing cabinets,
credenzas, and bookcases; (4) dining room or kitchen furniture such as
dining tables, chairs, servers, sideboards, buffets, corner cabinets,
china cabinets, and china hutches; (5) other non-bedroom furniture,
such as television cabinets, cocktail tables, end tables, occasional
tables, wall systems, book cases, and entertainment systems; (6)
bedroom furniture made primarily of wicker, cane, osier, bamboo or
rattan; (7) side rails for beds made of metal if sold separately from
the headboard and footboard; (8) bedroom furniture in which bentwood
parts predominate;\11\ (9) jewelry armoires;\12\ (10) cheval
mirrors;\13\ (11) certain metal parts;\14\ (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.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ As used herein, bentwood means solid wood made pliable.
Bentwood is wood that is brought to a curved shape by bending it
while made pliable with moist heat or other agency and then set by
cooling or drying. See Customs' Headquarters' Ruling Letter 043859,
dated May 17, 1976.
\12\ Any armoire, cabinet or other accent item for the purpose
of storing jewelry, not to exceed 24 in width,
18 in depth, and 49 in height, including a
minimum of 5 lined drawers lined with felt or felt-like material, at
least one side door (whether or not the door is lined with felt or
felt-like material), with necklace hangers, and a flip-top lid with
inset mirror. See 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).
\13\ 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).
\14\ Metal furniture parts and unfinished furniture parts made
of wood products (as defined above) that are not otherwise
specifically named in this scope (i.e., wooden headboards for beds,
wooden footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and wooden
canopies for beds) and that do not possess the essential character
of wooden bedroom furniture in an unassembled, incomplete, or
unfinished form. Such parts are usually classified under the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'')
subheading 9403.90.7000.
\15\ 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, 7015 (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.
Bona Fide Analysis
Consistent with the Department's practice, the Department
investigated the bona fide nature of the sales made by Mu Si and Bon
Ten for these reviews. In evaluating whether or not a single sale in an
NSR is commercially reasonable, and therefore bona fide, the Department
considers, inter alia, such factors as: (1) the timing of the sale; (2)
the price and quantity; (3) the expenses arising from the transaction;
(4) whether the goods were resold at a profit; and (5) whether the
transaction was made on an arm's-length basis. See, e.g., Tianjin
Tiancheng Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. United States, 366 F. Supp. 2d
1246, 1250 (CIT 2005). Accordingly, the Department considers a number
of factors in its bona fide analysis, ``all of which may speak to the
commercial realities surrounding an alleged sale of subject
merchandise.'' See Hebei New Donghua Amino Acid Co., Ltd. v. United
States, 374 F. Supp. 2d 1333, 1342 (CIT 2005) (citing Fresh Garlic From
the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping
Administrative Review and Rescission of New Shipper Review, 67 FR 11283
(March 13, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum).
The Department preliminarily finds that the new shipper sales made
by Mu Si and Bon Ten were made on a bona fide basis. Specifically, the
Department finds that: (1) the price and quantity of each new shipper
sale was within the range of the prices and quantities of other entries
of subject merchandise from the PRC into the United States during the
POR; (2) the new shippers and their respective customers did not incur
any extraordinary expenses arising from the transactions; (3) each new
shipper sale was made between unaffiliated parties at arm's length; (4)
there is no record evidence that indicates that each new shipper sale
was not made based on commercial principles; (5) the merchandise was
resold at a profit; and (6) the timing of each of the new shipper sales
does not indicate the sales were made on a non- bona fide basis. See
the Memorandum regarding, ``Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of
Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Bona Fide
Nature of the Sale Under Review for Dongguan Mu Si Furniture Co.,
Ltd.'' dated May 27, 2008; and the Memorandum regarding, ``Antidumping
Duty New Shipper Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's
Republic of China: Bona Fide Nature of the Sale Under Review for
Dongguan Bon Ten Furniture Co., Ltd.'' dated May 27, 2008.
[[Page 32294]]
Therefore, the Department has preliminarily found that Mu Si's and Bon
Ten's sales of subject merchandise to the United States were bona fide
for purposes of these NSRs.
Non-Market Economy Country Status
In every antidumping case conducted by the Department involving the
PRC, the PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (``NME'')
country. See, e.g., Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China:
Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 2004/2005 Administrative
Review and Notice of Rescission of 2004/2005 New Shipper Review, 71 FR
66304 (November 14, 2006). In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of
the the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''), any determination
that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until
revoked by the administering authority. None of the parties to this
proceeding has contested such treatment. Accordingly, the Department
calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which
applies to NME countries.
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department has a
rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are
subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single
antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all
exporters of merchandise subject to investigation in an NME country
this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is
sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.
Exporters can demonstrate this independence through the absence of both
de jure and de facto government control over export activities. 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 further developed in the 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''). See also Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and
Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations
involving Non-Market Economy Countries (April 5, 2005), available at
https://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bulletin05-1.pdf at p. 6 (stating: ``
[lsqb]w[rsqb]hile continuing the practice of assigning separate rates
only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now
assign in its NME investigations will be specific to those producers
that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note,
however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the
producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the period of
investigation. This practice applies both to mandatory respondents
receiving an individually calculated separate rate as well as the pool
of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-average of the
individually calculated rates. This practice is referred to as the
application of ``combination rates'' because such rates apply to
specific combinations of exporters and one or more producers. The cash-
deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to merchandise
both exported by the firm in question and produced by a firm that
supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. However, if
the Department determines that a company is wholly foreign-owned or
located in a market economy, then a separate-rate analysis is not
necessary to determine whether it is independent from government
control.'')
Mu Si and Bon Ten are wholly Chinese-owned companies and are
located in the PRC. Therefore, the Department must analyze whether they
can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto government
control over their export activities.
A. Absence of De Jure Control
The Department considers the following de jure criteria in
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate
rate: (1) an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
Throughout the course of this proceeding, Mu Si and Bon Ten have
placed a number of documents on the record to demonstrate absence of de
jure control including: business licenses, financial statements, and
narrative information regarding government laws and regulations on
corporate ownership, and the companies' operations and selection of
management. For example, Mu Si and Bon Ten have placed on the record
their articles of association, the ``Foreign Trade Law of the People's
Republic of China'' and the ``The Company Law of the People's Republic
of China.'' See Exhibit 1 of their respective Section A questionnaire
responses dated November 5, 2007. The evidence provided by Mu Si and
Bon Ten supports a preliminary finding of de jure absence of government
control based on the following: (1) an absence of restrictive
stipulations associated with the individual exporters' business and
export licenses; (2) there are applicable legislative enactments
decentralizing control of the companies; and (3) and there are formal
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies.
B. Absence of De Facto Control
Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating
whether each respondent is subject to de facto government control of
its export functions: (1) whether the export prices are set by or are
subject to the approval of a government agency; (2) whether the
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government
in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4)
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or
financing of losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-87; see also
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544,
22545 (May 8, 1995). The Department has determined that an analysis of
de facto control is critical in determining whether respondents are
subject to a degree of government control which would preclude the
Department from assigning separate rates.
The Department conducted a separate-rates analysis for both Mu Si
and Bon Ten. In their questionnaire responses, Mu Si and Bon Ten
submitted evidence indicating an absence of de facto government control
over their export activities. The evidence placed on the record of this
review by Mu Si and Bon Ten demonstrates an absence of de facto
government control with respect to each of the exporters' exports of
the merchandise under review, in accordance with the criteria
identified in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. Specifically, this
evidence indicates that:
(1) Mu Si and Bon Ten set their own export prices independent of the
government and without the approval of a government authority; (2) Mu
Si and Bon Ten retain the proceeds from their sales and make
independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing
of losses; (3) Mu Si and Bon Ten each has an executive director/
[[Page 32295]]
general manager who has the authority to negotiate and bind the company
in an agreement; (4) the executive director/general manager, the vice-
manager, and the department managers are selected by the respective
shareholders of each company; and (5) there is no restriction on Mu
Si's or Bon Ten's use of export revenues. Therefore, because Mu Si and
Bon Ten have demonstrated a lack of de jure and de facto control, we
have preliminarily determined they are eligible for a separate rate.
Surrogate Country
When the Department is reviewing imports from an NME country,
section 773(c)(1) of the the Act directs it to base NV, in most
circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of production (``FOPs''),
valued in a surrogate market economy country or countries considered to
be appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4)
of the Act, in 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. The sources of the surrogate factor values are
discussed under the ``Normal Value'' section below and in the
Memorandum to the File, ``New Shipper Review of Wooden Bedroom
Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Values for the
Preliminary Results,'' dated May 27, 2008 (``Factor Valuation
Memorandum'').
The Department has determined that India, Sri Lanka, Egypt,
Indonesia, and the Philippines, are comparable to the PRC in terms of
economic development. See the Memorandum regarding, ``New Shipper
Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China:
Request for a List of Surrogate Countries,'' dated October 3, 2007. It
is the Department's practice to select from among these countries based
on the availability and reliability of data. See Department Policy
Bulletin No. 04.1: Non-Market Economy Surrogate Country Selection
Process (March 1, 2004).
In the final results of the first administrative review of the
Order, the most recently completed segment of this proceeding, the
Department used India as the surrogate country for the PRC. However, in
the ongoing second administrative review, the Department preliminarily
selected the Philippines as the surrogate country because, in addition
to the Philippines meeting the economic comparability and significant
producer factors, the financial data from the Philippines better
reflected the overall experience of producers of comparable merchandise
in a surrogate country. Unlike the ongoing administrative review, for
these new shipper reviews, there is no information on the record which
would enable us to consider the Philippines as a surrogate country.
Therefore, the Department is preliminarily selecting India as the
surrogate country for the PRC. India is at a level of economic
development comparable to that of the PRC; it is a significant producer
of comparable merchandise; and the Department has reliable, publicly
available data from India that it can use to value the FOPs.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of the subject merchandise made by Mu Si
and Bon Ten to the United States were at prices below NV, the
Department compared each company's export price (``EP'') to NV, as
described below.
Export Price
In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, the Department
calculated the EP for sales to the United States for Mu Si and Bon Ten
because the first sale to an unaffiliated party was made before the
date of importation and the use of constructed EP was not otherwise
warranted. The Department calculated EP based on the price to
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. In accordance with
section 772(c) of the Act, as appropriate, the Department deducted from
the starting price to unaffiliated purchasers foreign inland freight,
and brokerage and handling. For Mu Si and Bon Ten, each of these
services was either provided by an NME vendor or paid for using an NME
currency. Thus, the Department based the deduction of these movement
charges on surrogate values. See Factor Valuation Memorandum for
details regarding the surrogate values for movement expenses.
Normal Value
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall
determine NV using an FOP methodology if: (1) the merchandise is
exported from an NME country; and (2) the information does not permit
the calculation of NV using home market prices, third country prices,
or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. When determining
NV in an NME context, the Department will base NV on FOPs because the
presence of government controls on various aspects of these economies
renders price comparisons and the calculation of production costs
invalid under our normal methodologies. Under section 773(c)(3) of the
Act, FOPs include but are not limited to: (1) hours of labor required;
(2) quantities of raw materials employed; (3) amounts of energy and
other utilities consumed; and (4) representative capital costs. The
Department used FOPs reported by respondents for materials, energy,
labor and packing.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), the Department will
normally use publicly available information to find an appropriate SV
to value FOPs, but when a producer sources an input from a market
economy and pays for it in market-economy currency, the Department may
value the factor using the actual price paid for the input. See Lasko
Metal Products, Inc. v. United States, 43 F.3d 1442, 1446 (Fed. Cir.
1994). However, when the Department has reason to believe or suspect
that such prices may be distorted by subsidies, the Department will
disregard the market economy purchase prices and use SVs to determine
the NV. See Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative and New Shipper Reviews and
Partial Rescission of the 2005-2006 Administrative Review, 72 FR 42386
(August 2, 2007) (``Brake Rotors''), and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
In avoiding the use of prices that may be subsidized, the
Department does not conduct a formal investigation to ensure that such
prices are not subsidized, but rather relies on information that is
generally available at the time of its determination. See H.R. Rep.
100-576, at 590-91 (1988), reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 1623-
24. It is the Department's practice to find a reason to believe or
suspect that inputs may be subsidized if the facts developed in the
United States or third country countervailing duty findings indicate
the existence of subsidies that appear to be used generally (in
particular, broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies.
See Brake Rotors and China National Machinery Imp. & Exp. Corp. v.
United States, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1338-39 (CIT 2003). The Department
has reason to believe or suspect that prices of inputs from Indonesia,
South Korea, and Thailand may have been subsidized. Through other
proceedings, the Department has learned that these countries maintain
broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies and,
therefore, finds it reasonable to infer that all exports to all markets
from these countries may be subsidized. See e.g., Brake Rotors at
Comment 1.
[[Page 32296]]
Accordingly, the Department has disregarded prices from Indonesia,
South Korea, and Thailand in calculating the Indian import-based SVs.
Factor Valuations
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the Department
calculated NV based on FOPs reported by respondents for the POR. To
calculate NV, the Department multiplied the reported per-unit factor
consumption quantities by publicly available Indian SVs (except as
noted below). In selecting the SVs, the Department considered the
quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate,
the Department adjusted input prices by including freight costs to make
them delivered prices. Specifically, the Department added to Indian
import SVs a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported
distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from
the nearest seaport to the factory where appropriate (i.e., where the
sales terms for the market-economy inputs were not delivered to the
factory). This adjustment is in accordance with the decision of the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Sigma Corp. v. United
States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407-08 (Fed. Cir. 1997). For a detailed
description of all SVs used to value the respondents' reported FOPs,
see Factor Valuation Memorandum.
During the POR, Mu Si and Bon Ten purchased all or a portion of
certain inputs from a market economy supplier and paid for these inputs
in a market economy currency. The Department has instituted a
rebuttable presumption that market economy input prices are the best
available information for valuing an input when the total volume of the
input purchased from all market economy sources during the period of
investigation or review exceeds 33 percent of the total volume of the
input purchased from all sources during the period. See Antidumping
Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, Expected Non-Market Economy
Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for Comments, 71 FR 61716 (October
19, 2006) (``Market Economy Inputs''). In these cases, unless case-
specific facts provide adequate grounds to rebut the Department's
presumption, the Department will use the weighted-average market
economy purchase price to value the input. Alternatively, when the
volume of an NME firm's purchases of an input from market economy
suppliers during the period is below 33 percent of its total volume of
purchases of the input during the period, but where these purchases are
otherwise valid and there is no reason to disregard the prices, the
Department will weight average the weighted-average market economy
purchase price with an appropriate SV according to their respective
shares of the total volume of purchases, unless case-specific facts
provide adequate grounds to rebut the presumption. Where the quantity
of the input purchased from market-economy suppliers is insignificant,
the Department will not rely on the price paid by an NME producer to a
market-economy supplier because it cannot have confidence that a
company could fulfill all its needs at that price. Furthermore, when a
firm has made market economy input purchases that may have been dumped
or subsidized, are not bona fide, or are otherwise not acceptable for
use in a dumping calculation, the Department will exclude them from the
numerator of the ratio to ensure a fair determination of whether valid
market economy purchases meet the 33-percent threshold.
Consistent with the aforementioned methodology, the Department
valued Mu Si's and Bon Ten's inputs using the market economy prices
paid for the inputs where the total volume of the input purchased from
all market economy sources during the POR exceeded 33 percent of the
total volume of the input purchased from all sources during that
period. Alternatively, when the volume of Mu Si's and Bon Ten's
purchases of an input from market economy suppliers during the POR was
below 33 percent of the company's total volume of purchases of the
input during the POR, the Department weight averaged the weighted-
average market economy purchase price with an appropriate SV according
to their respective shares of the total volume of purchases, as
appropriate. Where appropriate, the Department increased the market
economy prices of inputs by freight and brokerage and handling
expenses. See Factor Valuation Memorandum; see also Memorandum to the
File, ``Company Analysis Memorandum in the Antidumping Duty New Shipper
Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China:
Mu Si,'' dated May 27, 2008 and Memorandum to the File ``Company
Analysis Memorandum in the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of
Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Bon
Ten,'' dated May 27, 2008 (for a detailed description of all actual
values used for market-economy inputs.).
In order to calculate SVs for the reported FOPs purchased from NME
sources, the Department used contemporaneous import data from the World
Trade Atlas online, published by the Directorate General of Commercial
Intelligence and Statistics, Ministry of Commerce of India. Among the
FOPs for which the Department calculated SVs using Indian Import
Statistics are plywood, woodscrews, dowels, glue, paint, drawerslides,
abrasive paper, and packing materials. For a complete listing of all
the inputs and the valuation for each mandatory respondent. See Factor
Valuation Memorandum.
Where the Department could not obtain information contemporaneous
with the POR with which to value FOPs, the Department adjusted the SVs
using, where appropriate, the Indian Wholesale Price Index (``WPI'')
available at the website of the Office of the Economic Adviser,
Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, https://
eaindustry.nic.in/. See Factor Valuation Memorandum.
For direct labor, indirect labor, and packing labor, consistent
with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), the Department used the PRC regression-based
wage rate as reported on Import Administration's website, Import
Library, Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries, revised in May 2008,
using 2005 data, https://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/05wages/05wages-
051608.htmltable1. The source of these wage-rate data is the
International Labour Organization, Geneva, Labour Statistics Database,
Copyright International Labour Organization, 1998-2007 Yearbook,
Selection: years: 2004-2005, Chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing.
Because this regression-based wage rate does not separate the labor
rates into different skill levels or types of labor, the Department has
applied the same wage rate to all skill levels and types of labor
reported by the respondents. See Factor Valuation Memorandum.
To value electricity, the Department used data from the
International Energy Agency Key World Energy Statistics (2003 edition).
See Factor Valuation Memorandum. Because the value was not
contemporaneous with the POR, the Department adjusted the rate for
inflation.
To calculate the value for domestic brokerage and handling, the
Department used information from the public version of two
questionnaire responses placed on the record of two separate
antidumping proceedings. The first source was December 2003-November
2004 data contained in the public version of Essar Steel's February 28,
2005 questionnaire response submitted in the antidumping duty
administrative review of hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from
India. See Certain Hot-
[[Page 32297]]
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India: Notice of Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 2018 (January
12, 2006) (unchanged in the final results, Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon
Steel Flat Products From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 71 FR 40694 (July 18, 2006)). This value was
averaged with the February 2004-January 2005 data contained in the
public version of Agro Dutch Industries Limited's (``Agro Dutch'') May
24, 2005 questionnaire response submitted in the administrative review
of the antidumping duty order on certain preserved mushrooms from
India. See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 37757 (June 30, 2005).
The brokerage expense data reported by Essar Steel and Agro Dutch in
their public versions are ranged data. The Department derived an
average per-unit amount from each source and then adjusted each average
rate for inflation using the WPI. The Department then averaged the two
per-unit amounts to derive an overall average rate for the POR. See
Factor Valuation Memorandum.
The Department used Indian transport information in order to value
the freight-in cost of the raw materials. The Department determined the
best available information for valuing truck and rail freight to be
from www.infreight.com. This source provides daily rates from six major
points of origin to five destinations in India during the POR. The
Department obtained a price quote on the first day of each month of the
POR from each point of origin to each destination and averaged the data
accordingly. See Factor Valuation Memorandum.
To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative
expenses (``SG&A''), and profit, the Department used the audited
financial statements for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2007, from
twelve Indian producers of comparable merchandise. From this
information, the Department was able to determine factory overhead as a
percentage of the total raw materials, labor and energy (``ML&E'')
costs; SG&A as a percentage of ML&E plus overhead (i.e., cost of
manufacture); and the profit rate as a percentage of the cost of
manufacture plus SG&A. For further discussion, see Factor Valuation
Memorandum.
Preliminary Results of Reviews
The Department preliminarily determines that the following
weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period January 1, 2007,
through July 31, 2007:
Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the PRC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
Producer/Exporter Average Margin
(Percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dongguan Bon Ten Furniture Co., Ltd./Dongguan Bon Ten 0.00
Furniture Co., Ltd....................................
Dongguan Mu Si Furniture Co., Ltd./Dongguan Mu Si 103.55
Furniture Co., Ltd....................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosure and Public Comment
The Department will disclose calculations performed for these
preliminary results to the parties within five days of the date of
publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Interested parties may submit written comments no later than 30 days
after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review.
See 19 CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttals to written comments may be filed no
later than five days after the written comments are filed. See 19 CFR
351.309(d). Further, parties submitting written comments and rebuttal
comments are requested to provide the Department with an additional
copy of those comments on diskette. Any interested party may request a
hearing within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results. See
19 CFR 351.310(c). If requested, a hearing normally will be held seven
days after the scheduled date for submission of rebuttal comments. See
19 CFR 351.310(d).
The Department will issue the final results of these NSRs, which
will include the results of its analysis of any issues raised in
written comments, within 90 days of the date on which these preliminary
results are issued, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(i)(1), unless the
time limit is extended. See 19 CFR 351.214(i)(1).
Assessment Rates
Upon completion of the final results, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.212(b), the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess,
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department intends
to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of
publication of the final results of reviews. If these preliminary
results are adopted in our final results of reviews, the Department
shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), the Department
will calculate importer-specific (or customer) ad valorem duty
assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of the dumping
margins calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of
those same sales. The Department will instruct CBP to assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by these reviews
if any importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final
results of these reviews is above de minimis.
Cash Deposit Requirements
On August 17, 2006, the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (``H.R. 4'')
was signed into law. Section 1632 of H.R. 4 temporarily suspends the
authority of the Department to instruct CBP to collect a bond or other
security in lieu of a cash deposit in NSRs. Therefore, the posting of a
bond under section 751(a)(B)(iii) of the Act in lieu of a cash deposit
is not available in this case.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of these NSRs for shipments of subject
merchandise from the Mu Si and Bon Ten entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as
provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) Subject merchandise
produced and exported by Mu Si or produced and exported by Bon Ten, the
cash deposit rate will be that established in the final results of
these reviews; (2) subject merchandise exported by Mu Si but not
produced by MuSi and subject merchandise exported by Bon Ten but not
produced by Bon Ten, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the PRC-
wide rate of 216.01 percent; (3) for subject merchandise produced by Mu
Si or Bon Ten, and exported by any party but themselves, the cash
deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the exporter. These cash
deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until
further notice.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice serves as a preliminary 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 POR. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
The Department is issuing and publishing this determination in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1),
[[Page 32298]]
751(a)(2)(B), and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.214(h) and
351.221(b)(4).
Dated: May 27, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-12762 Filed 6-5-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DR-S