Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China; Final Results of 2005-2006 Administrative Review, 43684-43689 [E8-17252]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 145 (Monday, July 28, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43684-43689]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-17252]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

A-570-891


Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic 
of China; Final Results of 2005-2006 Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') published its 
preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping duty 
order on hand trucks and certain parts thereof (``hand trucks'') from 
the People's Republic of China (``PRC'') on January 14, 2008. The 
period of review (``POR'') is December 1, 2005, through November 30, 
2006. We invited interested parties to comment on our preliminary 
results. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made 
changes to our preliminary results. Therefore, the final results differ 
from the preliminary results. The final dumping margin for this review 
is listed in the ``Final Results of Review'' section below.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 28, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Stolz or Eugene Degnan, AD/CVD

[[Page 43685]]

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 
or (202) 482-0414, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On January 14, 2008, the Department published its preliminary 
results. See Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's 
Republic of China; Preliminary Results, Partial Intent to Rescind and 
Partial Rescission of the 2005-06 Administrative Review, 73 FR 2214 
(January 14, 2008) (``Preliminary Results''). On February 19, 2008, the 
Department informed interested parties that it was postponing the due 
dates for submission of case briefs and rebuttal briefs. The Department 
conducted on-site verification of Qingdao Taifa Group Co., Ltd.'s 
(``Taifa'') questionnaire response from April 15 through April 18, 
2008, in Qingdao, PRC. On May 16, 2008, the Department published an 
extension of the time limit for the final results to July 14, 2008. See 
Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of 
China: Extension of Time Limits for the Final Results of the 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 28431 (May 16, 2008). On 
June 13, 2008, the Department released the verification report covering 
the verification of Taifa and informed interested parties that case 
briefs were due on June 20, 2008, and rebuttal briefs were due on June 
25, 2008. On June 20, 2008, Gleason Industrial Products, Inc. and 
Precision Products, Inc. (i.e., Petitioners) submitted a case brief. No 
other interested party submitted a case brief. No interested party 
submitted a rebuttal brief. On January 24, 2008, Petitioners requested 
a hearing. On June 23, 2008, Petitioners withdrew their request for a 
hearing. We have conducted this administrative review in accordance 
with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''), 
and 19 CFR 351.213 and 351.221, as appropriate.

Period of Review

    The POR is December 1, 2005, through November 30, 2006.

Scope of Order

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

Rescission of Review

    In our Preliminary Results, we preliminarily rescinded the review 
with respect to Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. (``Since 
Hardware''); Formost Plastics & Metalworks (Jiazing) Co., Ltd. 
(``Formost''); and Forecarry Corp (``Forecarry''), in accordance with 
19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), because we found no evidence of exports from 
these three entities during the POR. We reviewed U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection (``CBP'') entry data for the POR, which indicated no 
exports from these three entities during the POR. See the memorandum to 
the file ``U.S. Customs and Border Protection Data - No Shipments'' 
dated July 1, 2008. Therefore, we are rescinding the administrative 
review with respect to Since Hardware, Formost, and Forecarry.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the post-preliminary comments by parties in 
this review are addressed in the memorandum from Stephen J. Claeys, 
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. 
Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, ``Issues and 
Decision Memorandum for the -Antidumping DutyAdministrative Review of 
Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of 
China'' dated July 14, 2008 (``Issues and Decision Memorandum''), which 
is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties 
raised and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum 
is attached to this notice as an appendix. The Issues and Decision 
Memorandum is a public document which is on file in the Central Records 
Unit, Room 1117, of the main Department building, and is accessible on 
the Web at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic 
version of the memorandum are identical in content.

Facts Available

A. Application of Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act provides that the Department 
shall apply ``facts otherwise available'' if, inter alia, necessary 
information is not on the record or an interested party or any other 
person (A) withholds

[[Page 43686]]

information that has been requested, (B) fails to provide information 
within the deadlines established, or in the form and manner requested 
by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 
of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D) provides 
information that cannot be verified as provided by section 782(i) of 
the Act.
    Where the Department determines that a response to a request for 
information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act 
provides that the Department will so inform the party submitting the 
response and will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the 
opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to 
remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits and subject to 
section 782(e) of the Act, the Department may disregard all or part of 
the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Section 776(b) 
of the Act further provides that the Department may use an adverse 
inference in applying the facts otherwise available when a party has 
failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply 
with a request for information. Such an adverse inference may include 
reliance on information derived from the petition, the final 
determination, a previous administrative review, or other information 
placed on the record.
    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies 
on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the 
course of an investigation or review, it shall, to the extent 
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that 
are reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is defined as 
``[i]nformation derived from the petition that gave rise to the 
investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject 
merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the 
subject merchandise.'' See Statement of Administrative Action to the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. 103-316 at 870 (1994) 
(``SAA''). Corroborate means that the Department will satisfy itself 
that the secondary information to be used has probative value. Id. To 
corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent 
practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information 
to be used.

Taifa

    We conducted verification of Taifa from April 15 through April 18, 
2008. See ``Verification of the Sales and Factors Response of Qingdao 
Taifa Group Import and Export Co., Ltd. and Qingdao Taifa Group Co., 
Ltd. in the Review of Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof From the 
People's Republic of China'' (``Taifa Verification Report''), dated 
June 12, 2008. During verification, Taifa withheld information that had 
been requested and significantly impeded the proceeding by not 
cooperating to the best of its ability at verification. Additionally, 
the Department could not verify information that Taifa had provided in 
its questionnaire response. For example, Taifa consistently maintained 
in its questionnaire responses that the hand trucks that it sold did 
not have wheels attached and that it did not sell wheels in conjunction 
with hand trucks. All control numbers reported in Taifa's U.S. sales 
and factors-of production (``FOP'') databases submitted to the 
Department begin with the number ``2'' indicating that the hand truck 
is ``Fully Assembled Hand Truck Without Wheels.'' See Taifa's August 
14, 2007, Sections C and D questionnaire response (``August 14 
Response'') at page 9 and Exhibit C-1 and D-4 thereto. See also Taifa's 
December 26, 2007, supplemental questionnaire response (``December 26 
Response'') in which Taifa states at page 2, `` . . . Taifa sold hand 
trucks to the United States without wheels, tires or tyres.'' In 
addition, Taifa states at page 3 of the December 26 Response: 1) `` . . 
. Taifa's customers purchase hand trucks (without wheels) and wheels 
separately``; and 2) Taifa's U.S. customers may purchase wheels from 
any companies in China, though they purchased hand trucks (without 
wheels) from Taifa with Taifa's anti-dumping duty rate.'' Taifa stated 
again at page 6 of the December 26 Response `` . . . Taifa sold hand 
trucks to the United States without wheels.'' Moreover, Taifa did not 
report wheels or the FOP for wheels in its FOP database. See Taifa's 
August 14 Response at Exhibit D-4. See also, Taifa's March 26, 2008, 
Supplemental Questionnaire Response at Question 11, where it submitted 
a chart indicating it made no sales of hand trucks with wheels to any 
market during the POR. At verification Department officials found hand 
truck production notices that included requirements/specifications for 
wheels. In addition, Department officials found commercial invoices 
that covered both hand trucks and wheels sold to the United States. 
Company officials stated that the hand trucks and wheels produced by 
Taifa (as well as wheels purchased by Taifa's customers from other 
parties) were packed in the same shipping container. Moreover, Taifa 
admitted that it did not attach wheels to the hand trucks to avoid 
paying dumping duties on the wheels. See Taifa Verification Report at 
pages 13 - 15. In addition, Department officials could not verify the 
ownership structure of Taifa because Taifa had failed to file a share 
transfer agreement with government authorities as required by Chinese 
law. See Taifa Verification Report at pages 5 - 7. Moreover, during 
verification at Taifa's production facility, Department officials 
requested that Taifa provide copies of warehouse out slips and 
production notices. Taifa officials repeatedly claimed that Taifa did 
not maintain copies of these records at the production facility and 
refused to answer certain questions with respect to these records. 
Department officials subsequently located these records, unassisted by 
Taifa officials, in the same building in which they had been requested. 
In addition, Department officials requested that Taifa provide its 
current production subledger to demonstrate that Taifa was currently in 
production of subject merchandise. Department officials requested this 
subledger five times over a period of 45 minutes, but it was not 
provided by Taifa officials. Subsequently, a Department official 
discovered company officials removing pages from this subledger. 
Further investigation by Department officials revealed that Taifa 
managers and employees were attempting to replace the removed pages 
with new pages that had just been created. See Taifa Verification 
Report at pages 11 -13. See also the accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at comment 1 and the memorandum to the file ``Application of 
Adverse Facts Available for Qingdao Taifa Group Co., Ltd. in the Final 
Results in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Hand Trucks 
and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China,'' dated 
July 14, 2008 (``AFA Memo''). Accordingly, because Taifa withheld 
information, significantly impeded the proceeding and provided 
information that could not be verified, we find that application of 
facts available is appropriate under sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and 
(C) of the Act. We further find that application of adverse facts 
available (``AFA'') is appropriate under section 776(b) because Taifa 
failed to cooperate to the best of its ability in responding to the 
Department's requests for information. Therefore, we are denying Taifa 
a separate rate and assigning it the PRC entity rate.

The PRC Entity

    In the preliminary results, the Department preliminarily determined

[[Page 43687]]

that there were exports of merchandise under review from Qingdao Future 
Tool, Inc. (``Future Tool'') and Shandong Machinery I&E Group Corp. 
(``Shandong Machinery''), PRC producers/exporters that did not respond 
to the Department's questionnaire and consequently did not demonstrate 
their eligibility for separate-rate status. See Preliminary Results at 
2217. As a result, the Department is treating these PRC producers/
exporters as part of the PRC-wide entity, in addition to Taifa.
    Additionally, because we determined that Future Tool, Shandong 
Machinery and Taifa are part of the PRC entity, the PRC entity is under 
review. Pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act, we further find that 
because the PRC entity (including the companies discussed above) failed 
to respond to the Department's questionnaires, withheld or failed to 
provide information in a timely manner or in the form or manner 
requested by the Department, submitted information that cannot be 
verified, or otherwise impeded the proceeding, it is appropriate to 
apply a dumping margin for the PRC entity using the facts otherwise 
available on the record.

B. Adverse Facts Available

    According to section 776(b) of the Act, if the Department finds 
that an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best 
of its ability to comply with requests for information, the Department 
may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in 
selecting from the facts otherwise available. See, e.g., Notice of 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless 
Steel Bar from India, 70 FR 54023, 54025-26 (September 13, 2005); see 
also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Final Negative Critical Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel 
Wire Rod from Brazil, 67 FR 55792, 55794-96 (August 30, 2002). Adverse 
inferences are appropriate ``to ensure that the party does not obtain a 
more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated 
fully.'' See SAA at 870. Furthermore, ``affirmative evidence of bad 
faith on the part of a respondent is not required before the Department 
may make an adverse inference.'' See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 
Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997); see also Nippon 
Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 
(``Nippon''). The Department stated in the verification outline issued 
to Taifa on April 4, 2008, that ``it is in your client's interest to 
cooperate since failure to permit verification may result in the 
Department relying on adverse ``facts available'' under section 776 of 
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended . . . .'' Taifa has not challenged 
the Department's characterization of Taifa's actions at verification as 
described in our verification report, and Taifa did not submit a case 
brief or rebuttal brief explaining its actions at verification.
    Therefore, we find that the PRC entity has failed to cooperate by 
not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the Department's 
requests for information in this proceeding, within the meaning of 
section 776(b) of the Act. Therefore, an adverse inference is warranted 
in selecting from the facts otherwise available. See Nippon, 337 F.3d 
at 1382-83.

C. Selection of An AFA Rate

    In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act 
and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize the Department to rely on 
information derived from: 1) the petition; 2) a final determination in 
the investigation; 3) any previous review or determination; or 4) any 
information placed on the record. The Department's practice, when 
selecting an AFA rate from among the possible sources of information, 
has been to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse ``as to 
effectuate the statutory purposes of the adverse facts available rule 
to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and 
accurate information in a timely manner.'' See, e.g., Certain Polyester 
Staple Fiber from Korea: Final Results of the 2005-2006 Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 69663, 69664-65 (December 10, 2007) 
(selecting the petition rate, as adjusted at the initiation of the less 
than fair value investigation, as the AFA rate); Certain Warmwater 
Shrimp from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results and 
Rescission, in Part, of 2004-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative and 
New Shipper Reviews, 72 FR 52049, 52051 (Sept. 12, 2007) (assigning the 
petition rate from the less-than-fair-value investigation as the AFA 
rate). The Department's practice also ensures ``that the party does not 
obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had 
cooperated fully.'' See SAA at 870; see also Final Determination of 
Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater 
Shrimp from Brazil, 69 FR 76910, 76912 (December 23, 2004); 
Accordingly, the Department has assigned the rate of 383.60 percent to 
the PRC entity (including Taifa, Future Tool and Shandong Machinery) as 
AFA. This rate was assigned in the investigation of this proceeding and 
is the highest rate determined for any party in any segment of this 
proceeding. See Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic 
of China, 69 FR 65410 (November 12, 2004) (Amended Final 
Determination).

Corroboration

    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies 
on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the 
course of an investigation or review, it shall, to the extent 
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that 
are reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is defined as 
``information derived from the petition that gave rise to the 
investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject 
merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the 
subject merchandise.'' See SAA at 870. The SAA clarifies that 
``corroborate'' means that the Department will satisfy itself that the 
secondary information to be used has probative value. See SAA at 870. 
To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the 
extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the 
information to be used. The Department, however, need not prove that 
the selected facts available are the best alternative information. See 
SAA at 869; see also Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 
Finished and Unfinished From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four 
Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan; 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and 
Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 
(November 6, 1996) (unchanged in the final results). Independent 
sources used to corroborate such evidence may include, for example, 
``published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, 
and information obtained from interested parties during the instant 
investigation or review.'' See 19 CFR 351.308(d) and SAA at 870; see 
also Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: High and Ultra-High Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators from 
Japan, 68 FR 35627, 35629 (June 16, 2003) (where the Department 
reviewed the adequacy and accuracy of the information in the petition) 
(unchanged in final determination); and Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Live Swine From Canada, 70 FR 12181, 
12183 (March 11, 2005)

[[Page 43688]]

(where the Department compared the normal values and U.S. prices 
submitted by the petitioners to data submitted by the respondents for 
whom the Department calculated a margin).
    The reliability of the 383.60 percent AFA rate was determined in 
the final determination of the investigation when the Department 
compared the U.S. prices from the price quotations in the petition to 
prices of comparable products sold by a mandatory respondent in the 
investigation, and found them to be comparable. See Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Hand Trucks and Certain 
Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China; 69 FR 60980, 60982 
(October 14, 2004) and the memorandum cited therein: ``Memorandum from 
John Brinkmann to the File,'' dated October 6, 2004 (``October 6, 2004, 
Memo''). The Department applied this rate as AFA to the PRC entity, 
which included Qingdao Xinghua Group Co., Ltd. (``Xinghua''), in the 
Amended Final Determination.\1\ The Department also compared the 
surrogate values used in the petition to the surrogate values selected 
for the final determination, and then adjusted and replaced certain 
values to make them more accurate. Finally, the Department replaced the 
surrogate value ratios in the petition with those used in the final 
investigation. Therefore, in the investigation, the Department found 
this margin to be reliable. See Amended Final Determination at 60982 
and the October 6, 2004, Memo. The Department applied this rate in the 
first administrative review and new shipper review and in the 
preliminary results of this review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In the final determination, the Department applied total AFA 
to Xinghua, and assigned Xinghua the PRC-wide rate of 386.75 
percent. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's 
Republic of China, 69 FR 60980, 60984 (October 14, 2004). The 
Department revised the PRC-wide rate in the amended final 
determination from 386.75 percent to 383.60 percent. See Amended 
Final Determination, 69 FR at 65411.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The application of this 383.60 percent rate was subject to comment 
in the first administrative review of this proceeding. See Hand Trucks 
and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results of Administrative Review and Final Results of New Shipper 
Review, 72 FR 27287 (May 15, 2007) (``2004 - 2005 Review'') and after 
the preliminary results in this segment were issued. See Preliminary 
Results. The Department has received no information to date that 
warrants revisiting the issue of the reliability of the rate 
calculation itself. See, e.g., Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the 
People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 
New Shipper Review and Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 
Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 41304, 41307-41308 
(July 11, 2003). Since no information has been presented in the current 
review that calls into question the reliability of this information, 
the Department finds the selected rate reliable.
    With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the 
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to 
determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where 
circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as 
AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an 
appropriate margin. For example, in Fresh Cut Flowers From Mexico: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812 
(February 22, 1996), the Department disregarded the highest margin in 
that case as adverse best information available (the predecessor to 
facts available) because the margin was based on another company's 
uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high 
margin. Similarly, the Department does not apply a margin that has been 
discredited. See D&L Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1221 
(Fed. Cir. 1997) (where the Court ruled that the Department will not 
use a margin that has been judicially invalidated). Nothing on the 
record of this review calls into question the relevance of the margin 
selected as AFA. We cannot rely on data submitted by Taifa in the 
instant POR to corroborate the PRC-wide rate because Taifa did not 
submit FOP data for wheels and U.S. sales prices reported by Taifa did 
not cover wheels. Therefore, because Taifa did not provide certain data 
(as mentioned above), the Department is unable to calculate accurate 
dumping margins for corroboration purposes.
    Moreover, this rate has not been invalidated judicially. Thus, it 
is appropriate to use the selected rate as AFA in the instant review. 
Therefore, we determine that the rate from the Amended Final 
Determination continues to be relevant for use in this administrative 
review.
    As the recalculated Amended Final Determination rate is both 
reliable and relevant, we determine that it has probative value. As a 
result, the Department determines that the rate is corroborated for the 
purposes of this administrative review and may reasonably be applied to 
the PRC entity, as AFA. Accordingly, we determine that the rate of 
383.60 percent, which is the highest rate from any segment of this 
administrative proceeding, meets the corroboration criteria established 
in section 776(c) of the Act that secondary information have probative 
value.

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving non-market economy (``NME'') countries, 
the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies 
within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should 
be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the 
Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to 
review 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. Since we determined it is appropriate to apply total 
AFA to the PRC entity (including Future Tool, Shandong Machinery, and 
Taifa) and it is the Department's current practice to deny a separate 
rate to respondents subject to an AFA rate, we are changing our 
preliminary determination and finding that Taifa is no longer eligible 
for a separate rate, and is subject to the PRC-wide rate of 383.60 
percent.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on our analysis of comments received, and as stated above, 
Taifa is no longer eligible for a separate rate and is subject to the 
PRC-wide AFA rate of 383.60 percent. See the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comments 1 and 2 and the AFA Memo for further discussion.

Final Results of Review

    We determine that the following dumping margin exists for the 
period June 1, 2005, through May 31, 2006:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted-Average
                      Exporter                         Margin (Percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRC Entity..........................................              383.60
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.212(b)(1), 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 these final results of review.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments

[[Page 43689]]

of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by 
section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for previously investigated or 
reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters that have separate rates, the cash 
deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published 
for the most recent period; (2) for all PRC exporters of subject 
merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, 
including Taifa, Shandong Machinery, Future Tool, and those companies 
for which this review has been rescinded, the cash deposit rate will be 
the PRC-wide rate of 383.60 percent; and (3) for all non-PRC exporters 
of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash 
deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporters that 
supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements shall remain 
in effect until further notice.

Notification of Interested Parties

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

    Dated: July 14, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.

List of Comments

Comment 1: Application of AFA to Taifa Based Upon Taifa's Failure at 
Verification
Comment 2: Application of the PRC-Wide Rate to Taifa
Comment 3: Use of FA or AFA to Because Taifa Failed to Report FOPs for 
Wheels
Comment 4: Domestic Inland Freight
Comment 5: Wage Rates
Comment 6: Application of AFA to Taifa's Unreported Sales
Comment 7: Surrogate Value for V-Belt
Comment 8: Inflation Adjustment for Surrogate Value for Electricity
Comment 9: Market-Economy Inputs from South Korea
Comment 10: Surrogate Value for Marine Insurance
Comment 11: International Freight
Comment 12: Surrogate Value for Coal
Comment 13: Deflation Adjustment for Surrogate Values for Diesel Oil 
and Coal
Comment 14: Inflation Adjustment for Foreign Inland Truck Freight
Comment 15: Calculation of Domestic Inland Freight and Domestic 
Brokerage and Handling
[FR Doc. E8-17252 Filed 7-25-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S