Uncovered Innerspring Units from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 45729-45738 [E8-18031]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Notices
Y. Law 341/95 Interest Contributions on
Debt Consolidation Loans (Formerly
Debt Consolidation Law 341/95)
Z. Interest Grants Financed by IRI Bonds
AA. Article 44 of Law 448/01
IV. Programs for Which More
Information is Required
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
A. Social Security Reductions and
Exemptions – Sgravi
1) Legislative Decree (‘‘L.D.’’) 276/03
De Matteis, Garofalo, and De Cecco
have reported receiving benefits under
L.D. 276/03. L.D. 276/03 is aimed at
making the labor market more flexible
by providing incentives for apprentice
contracts. See GOI’s April 1, 2008, SQR.
Companies receive benefits for hiring
workers under mixed contracts
possessing a work component and a
training component. See GOI
Verification Report, at 14–15.
Specifically, three categories of
employee contracts recognized under
this decree are: (1) working toward
completion of compulsory schooling, (2)
working toward completion of trade
schooling, and (3) high–level training of
special skills for a worker. Id.
Except for a weekly flat fee paid by
the employer on behalf of the employee,
the employer receives a total exemption
from its social security contribution. See
GOI Verification Report, at 14–15. The
contributions are applied in equal
measure across Italy and the decree may
be used in all sectors of activity. See
GOI’s May 19, 2008, SQR and Exhibit 1;
see also GOI Verification Report, at 14–
15.
Based on our review of the record of
this administrative review and our
verification, we find no basis for de jure
specificity. Additionally, based on
record evidence and our verification,
the law does not appear to be regionally
specific under section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of
the Act. However, at this time, we do
not have sufficient information to
determine whether this program is de
facto specific under section
771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Act. Therefore, we
intend to seek further information
regarding specificity of this program
from the GOI and we will provide
parties an opportunity to comment on
this information before the final results.
Verification
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.222(f)(2)(ii) and 351.307(b)(1)(v), we
verified information submitted by the
GOI for De Matteis in Rome, Italy on
May 26–28, 2008. See GOI Verification
Report. We verified information
submitted by De Matteis in Flumeri,
Italy on May 29–30, 2008. See De
Matteis Verification Report.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:46 Aug 05, 2008
Jkt 214001
Preliminary Results of Review
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated
individual subsidy rates for De Matteis,
Garofalo, and De Cecco. Felicetti had no
countervailable subsidies.
For the period January 1, 2006,
through December 31, 2006, we
preliminarily determine the net subsidy
rates for the producers/exporters under
review to be those specified in the chart
shown below:
Net Subsidy
Rate
Producer/Exporter
De Matteis Agroalimentare
S.p.A. ................................
Pastificio Lucio Garofalo
S.p.A. ................................
F.lli De Cecco di Filippo Fara
San Martino S.p.A. ............
Pastificio Felicetti SrL ...........
All–Others Rate ....................
2.65%
1.60%
0.83%
0.00%
3.85%
Consequently, if these preliminary
results are adopted in our final results
of this review, the Department will
instruct U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess
countervailing duties at these net
subsidy rates. The Department will
issue appropriate instructions directly
to CBP 15 days after publication of the
final results of this review.
For all other companies that were not
reviewed (except Barilla G. e R. F.lli
S.p.A. and Gruppo Agricoltura Sana
S.r.l., which are excluded from the
order, and Pasta Lensi S.r.l. which was
revoked from the order), the Department
has directed CBP to assess
countervailing duties on all entries
between January 1, 2006, and December
31, 2006, at the rates in effect at the time
of entry.
The Department also intends to
instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of
estimated countervailing duties in the
amounts shown above. No cash deposits
of estimated duties will be required for
Felicetti. For all non–reviewed firms
(except Barilla G. e R. F.lli S.p.A. and
Gruppo Agricoltura Sana S.r.l., which
are excluded from the order, and Pasta
Lensi S.r.l. which was revoked from the
order), we will instruct CBP to collect
cash deposits of estimated
countervailing duties at the most recent
company–specific or all–others rate
applicable to the company. These rates
shall apply to all non–reviewed
companies until a review of a company
assigned these rates is requested.
Public Comment
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the
Department will disclose to parties to
the proceeding any calculations
performed in connection with these
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45729
preliminary results within five days
after the date of the public
announcement of this notice.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii),
interested parties may submit written
arguments in case briefs within 30 days
of the date of publication of this notice.
Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised
in case briefs, may be filed no later than
five days after the date of filing the case
briefs, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.309(d). Parties who submit briefs in
this proceeding should provide a
summary of the arguments not to exceed
five pages and a table of statutes,
regulations, and cases cited. Copies of
case briefs and rebuttal briefs must be
served on interested parties in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f).
Interested parties may request a
hearing within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice, pursuant to
19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if
requested, will be held two days after
the scheduled date for submission of
rebuttal briefs.
The Department will publish a notice
of the final results of this administrative
review within 120 days from the
publication of these preliminary results,
in accordance with section 751(a)(3) of
the Act.
We are issuing and publishing these
results in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Dated: July 30, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E8–18030 Filed 8–5–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–928]
Uncovered Innerspring Units from the
People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 6, 2008.
SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine
that uncovered innerspring units
(‘‘innersprings’’) from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) are being, or
are likely to be, sold in the United States
at less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’), as
provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). The
estimated margins of sales at LTFV are
shown in the ‘‘Preliminary
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\06AUN1.SGM
06AUN1
45730
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Notices
interested parties on issues related to
the scope.
Determination’’ section of this notice.
Interested parties are invited to
comment on this preliminary
determination.
Erin
Begnal or Susan Pulongbarit, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 9, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–1442 or 482–4031,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Initiation
On December 31, 2007, the
Department of Commerce
(‘‘Department’’) received petitions on
imports of innersprings from the PRC,
South Africa, and the Socialist Republic
of Vietnam (‘‘Vietnam’’) filed in proper
form by Leggett & Platt Incorporated
(‘‘Petitioner’’). See Antidumping Duty
Petition: Uncovered Innerspring Units
from China, South Africa, and Vietnam
(December 31, 2007) (‘‘petition’’). These
investigations were initiated on January
22, 2008. See Uncovered Innerspring
Units From the People’s Republic of
China, South Africa, and the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of
Antidumping Duty Investigations, 73 FR
4817 (January 28, 2008) (‘‘Initiation
Notice’’).
On February 14, 2008, the United
States International Trade Commission
(‘‘ITC’’) issued its affirmative
preliminary determination that there is
a reasonable indication that an industry
in the United States is materially
injured or threatened with material
injury by reason of imports from the
PRC, South Africa, and Vietnam of
innersprings. The ITC’s determination
was published in the Federal Register
on November 30, 2007. See Uncovered
Innerspring Units From China, South
Africa, and Vietnam, 73 FR 13567
(March 13, 2008); see also Uncovered
Innerspring Units from China, South
Africa, and Vietnam: Investigation Nos.
731–TA–1140–1142 (Preliminary),
USITC Publication 3983 (February
2008).
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Scope Comments
In accordance with the preamble to
our regulations, we set aside a period of
time for parties to raise issues regarding
product coverage and encouraged all
parties to submit comments within 20
calendar days of publication of the
Initiation Notice. See Antidumping
Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final
Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19,
1997). See also Initiation Notice, 73 FR
at 4818. We received no comments from
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:46 Aug 05, 2008
Jkt 214001
Respondent Selection
In the Initiation Notice, the
Department stated that it intended to
select respondents based on U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’)
data of U.S. imports of innersprings. See
Initiation Notice, 73 FR at 4822. On
January 28, 2008, the Department placed
the CBP information on the record of the
investigation, and set aside a period for
interested parties to submit comments
on the CBP information. On February 4,
2008, the Department received
comments on respondent selection from
Petitioner. After receiving comments
from interested parties, the Department
determined to seek quantity and value
(‘‘Q&V’’) data from all known
producers/exporters of the subject
merchandise from the PRC. On February
22, 2008, the Department requested
Q&V information from 17 companies
that petitioner identified with sufficient
address information as potential
exporters or producers of innersprings
from the PRC. See Petition at Exhibit I–
8. Additionally, on February 25, 2008,
the Department posted the
questionnaire requesting Q&V
information from potential producers/
exporters of innersprings on its website
at www.trade.gov/ia. For a complete list
of all parties from which the
Department requested Q&V information,
see Memorandum to the File, from
Blaine Wiltse, International Trade
Compliance Analyst, regarding
‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation of
Uncovered Innerspring Units from the
People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’):
Delivery of Quantity and Value
Questionnaires,’’ dated March 10, 2008
(‘‘Q&V Delivery Memo’’). The
Department received timely Q&V
responses from twelve interested
parties. One of the Q&V responses that
the Department received on March 14,
2008, was from High Hope Int’l Group
Jiangsu Native Produce Imp. & Exp.
Corp. Ltd. (‘‘High Hope’’). On March 27,
2008, High Hope submitted a letter to
the Department withdrawing its Q&V
submission, stating that it would no
longer be participating in the
investigation.
On April 3, 2008, the Department
selected Jiangsu Soho International
Group Holding Co., Ltd. (‘‘Jiangsu
Soho’’) and Nanhai Animal By–Products
I&E Co. Ltd. Guangdong (‘‘Nanhai
Animal’’) as mandatory respondents in
this investigation. See Memorandum to
Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration,
through James C. Doyle, Director, Office
9, AD/CVD Operations, and Scot T.
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Fullerton, Program Manager, Office 9,
AD/CVD Operations, from Erin Begnal,
Senior International Trade Analyst,
‘‘Selection of Respondents for the
Antidumping Investigation of
Uncovered Innerspring Units from the
People’s Republic of China,’’ dated
April 3, 2008.
Separate Rates Applications
Between March 24, 2008, and March
31, 2008, we received timely separate–
rate applications from eight non–
mandatory respondent companies: Zibo
Senbao Furniture Co., Ltd. (‘‘Senbao’’),
Hebei Yililan Furniture Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Yililan’’), Anshan Yuhua Industrial
Trade Co., Ltd. (‘‘Yuhua’’), Xilinmen
Group Co., Ltd. (‘‘Xilinmen’’), East
Grace Corporation (‘‘East Grace’’),
Jiangsu Soho Technology Trading Co.,
Ltd. (‘‘Soho Tech’’), Nanjing Meihua I&E
Trade Co., Ltd. (‘‘Meihua’’), and
Zhejiang Sanmen Herod Mattress Co.,
Ltd. ( ‘‘Sanmen’’).
Product Characteristics &
Questionnaires
In the Initiation Notice, the
Department asked all parties in this
investigation and in the concurrent
antidumping duty investigations of
innersprings from South Africa and
Vietnam, for comments on the
appropriate product characteristics for
defining individual products. We
received comments from Petitioner on
February 15, 2008, with recommended
appropriate product characteristics and
proposed model matching criteria and
hierarchy.
On April 7, 2008, the Department
issued to Jiangsu Soho and Nanhai
Animal its sections A, C, D, and E
questionnaire,1 which included product
characteristics used in the designation
of CONNUMs and assigned to the
merchandise under consideration.
Between April 29, 2008, and May 29,
2008, the Department received section
A, C, and D questionnaire responses
from Jiangsu Soho and Nanhai Animal.
Jiangsu Soho and Nanhai Animal were
not required by the Department to
submit a Section E response, because
the Department determined that neither
company had further manufacturing in
the United States. Petitioner submitted
deficiency comments on the Section A
questionnaire responses of both
respondents on May 22, 2008,
1 Section A of the questionnaire requests general
information concerning a company’s corporate
structure and business practices, the merchandise
under investigation that it sells, and the manner in
which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets.
Section C requests a complete listing of U.S. sales.
Section D requests information on factors of
production, and Section E requests information on
further manufacturing.
E:\FR\FM\06AUN1.SGM
06AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Notices
deficiency comments on the
questionnaire responses to Sections C &
D of both respondents on June 27, 2008,
and deficiency comments on Nanhai
Animal’s response to the supplemental
Section A questionnaire on July 10,
2008. The Department issued
supplemental questionnaires to Jiangsu
Soho and Nanhai Animal and received
responses between June 13, 2008, and
July 15, 2008.
Surrogate Country
On April 11, 2008, the Department
determined that India, Indonesia, the
Philippines, Colombia, and Thailand are
countries comparable to the PRC in
terms of economic development. See
Letter to All Interested Parties, from
Scot T. Fullerton, Program Manager,
Office 9, AD/CVD Operations, regarding
‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation of
Uncovered Innerspring Units from the
People’s Republic of China,’’ dated
April 14, 2008 (‘‘Surrogate Country
Letter’’), attaching Memorandum to Scot
T. Fullerton, Program Manager, Office 9,
AD/CVD Operations, from Carole
Showers, Acting Director, Office of
Policy, regarding ‘‘Antidumping Duty
Investigation of Uncovered Innerspring
Units from the People’s Republic of
China (PRC): Request for List of
Surrogate Countries,’’ dated March 25,
2008.
On April 11, 2008, the Department
requested comments on surrogate
country selection from the interested
parties in this investigation. On June 2,
2008, the Department extended the
deadline for interested parties to submit
comments on surrogate country
selection. Petitioner submitted surrogate
country comments on June 16, 2008. No
other interested parties commented on
the selection of a surrogate country. For
a detailed discussion of the selection of
the surrogate country, see ‘‘Surrogate
Country’’ section below.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Surrogate Value Comments
On June 27, 2008, the Department
extended the deadline for interested
parties to submit surrogate information
with which to value the factors of
production in this proceeding. On July
7, 2008, Petitioner submitted surrogate
value comments.
Postponement of Preliminary
Determination
On May 20, 2008, Petitioner made a
request, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.205(b)(2) and (e), for a 50-day
postponement of the preliminary
determinations with respect to China,
South Africa, and Vietnam. The
Department published a postponement
of the preliminary determination on
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:46 Aug 05, 2008
Jkt 214001
May 28, 2008. See Postponement of
Preliminary Determinations of
Antidumping Duty Investigations;
Uncovered Innerspring Units from the
People’s Republic of China, South
Africa, and the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam, 73 FR 30604 (May 28, 2008).
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is
April 1, 2007, through September 30,
2007. This period corresponds to the
two most recent fiscal quarters prior to
the month of the filing of the petition,
December, 2007. See 19 CFR
351.204(b)(1).
Scope of Investigation
The merchandise covered by this
investigation is uncovered innerspring
units composed of a series of individual
metal springs joined together in sizes
corresponding to the sizes of adult
mattresses (e.g., twin, twin long, full,
full long, queen, California king, and
king) and units used in smaller
constructions, such as crib and youth
mattresses. All uncovered innerspring
units are included in this scope
regardless of width and length. Included
within this definition are innersprings
typically ranging from 30.5 inches to 76
inches in width and 68 inches to 84
inches in length. Innersprings for crib
mattresses typically range from 25
inches to 27 inches in width and 50
inches to 52 inches in length.
Uncovered innerspring units are
suitable for use as the innerspring
component in the manufacture of
innerspring mattresses, including
mattresses that incorporate a foam
encasement around the innerspring.
Pocketed and non–pocketed
innerspring units are included in this
definition. Non–pocketed innersprings
are typically joined together with helical
wire and border rods. Non–pocketed
innersprings are included in this
definition regardless of whether they
have border rods attached to the
perimeter of the innerspring. Pocketed
innersprings are individual coils
covered by a ‘‘pocket’’ or ‘‘sock’’ of a
nonwoven synthetic material or woven
material and then glued together in a
linear fashion.
Uncovered innersprings are classified
under subheading 9404.29.9010 and
have also been classified under
subheadings 9404.10.0000,
7326.20.00.70, 7320.20.5010, or
7320.90.5010 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States
(‘‘HTSUS’’). The HTSUS subheadings
are provided for convenience and
customs purposes only; the written
description of the scope of these
investigations is dispositive.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45731
Non–Market-Economy Country
For purposes of initiation, Petitioner
submitted LTFV analyses for the PRC as
a non–market economy (‘‘NME’’). See
Initiation Notice, 73 FR at 4819. The
Department considers the PRC to be a
NME country. See, e.g., Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Postponement of Final
Determination: Coated Free Sheet Paper
from the People’s Republic of China, 72
FR 30758, 30760 (June 4, 2007),
unchanged in Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated
Free Sheet Paper from the People’s
Republic of China, 72 FR 60632
(October 25, 2007). In accordance with
section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any
determination that a foreign country is
an NME country shall remain in effect
until revoked by the administering
authority. No party has challenged the
designation of the PRC as an NME
country in this investigation. Therefore,
we continue to treat the PRC as an NME
country for purposes of this preliminary
determination.
Surrogate Country
When the Department is investigating
imports from an NME, section 773(c)(1)
of the Act directs it to base normal
value, in most circumstances, on the
NME producer’s factors of production
(‘‘FOP’’) 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
factors of production, the Department
shall utilize, to the extent possible, the
prices or costs of factors of production
in one or more market–economy
countries that are at a level of economic
development comparable to that of the
NME country and are significant
producers of comparable merchandise.
The sources of the surrogate values we
have used in this investigation are
discussed under the ‘‘Normal Value’’
section below.
The Department’s practice with
respect to determining economic
comparability is explained in Policy
Bulletin 04.1,2 which states that ‘‘OP
{Office of Policy} determines per capita
economic comparability on the basis of
per capita gross national income, as
reported in the most current annual
issue of the World Development Report
(The World Bank).’’ The Department
considers the five countries identified in
2 See Policy Bulletin 04.1: Non-Market Economy
Surrogate Country Selection Process, (March 1,
2004), (‘‘Policy Bulletin 04.1’’) at Attachment II of
the Department’s Surrogate Country Letter, also
available at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull041.html.
E:\FR\FM\06AUN1.SGM
06AUN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
45732
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Notices
its Surrogate Country List as ‘‘equally
comparable in terms of economic
development.’’ See Policy Bulletin 04.1
at 2. Thus, we find that India, Indonesia,
the Philippines, Colombia, and
Thailand are all at an economic level of
development equally comparable to that
of the PRC.
Second, Policy Bulletin 04.1 provides
some guidance on identifying
comparable merchandise and selecting a
producer of comparable merchandise.
Based on the data provided by
Petitioner, we find that India is a
producer of identical merchandise. See
Petition at 5–6 and Exhibit PRC–6.
Additionally, Petitioner submitted
information for Indian companies that
produce comparable merchandise, such
as comparable spring products, and
noted that the Department has found
India to be a significant producer of
related steel wire products. Id. See also
Certain Steel Nails from the People’s
Republic of China: Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Partial Affirmative Determination of
Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 33977
(June 16, 2008). Because the Department
was unable to find production data, we
are relying on export data as a substitute
for overall production data in this case.
The Department first attempted to
obtain export data for innersprings from
the World Trade Atlas (‘‘WTA’’) and
was unable to find data for any of the
countries on the Surrogate Country List.
Thus, the Department obtained
worldwide export data for steel wire
products, which Petitioner also stated
were comparable to innersprings.
Specifically, we reviewed export data
from the WTA for the HTS heading
7326.20, ‘‘Other Articles of Iron/Steel
Wire,’’ for 2007. The Department found
that, of the countries provided in the
Surrogate Country List, all five countries
were exporters of comparable
merchandise: steel wire products. Thus,
all countries on the Surrogate Country
List are considered as appropriate
surrogates because each exported
comparable merchandise.
The Policy Bulletin 04.1 also provides
some guidance on identifying
significant producers of comparable
merchandise and selecting a producer of
comparable merchandise. Further
analysis was required to determine
whether any of the countries which
produce comparable merchandise are
significant producers of that comparable
merchandise. The data we obtained
show that, in 2007, worldwide exports
for HTS 7326.20 from: India were
approximately 7,375,861 kg; Indonesia
were approximately 431,376 kg;
Colombia were approximately 9,309,295
units; the Philippines were
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:46 Aug 05, 2008
Jkt 214001
approximately 271,308 kg; and Thailand
were approximately 8,193,889 kg.
Although India, Colombia, and Thailand
appear to be significant producers of
comparable merchandise, no party in
this proceeding requested that Colombia
or Thailand be selected as the surrogate
country.
With respect to data considerations in
selecting a surrogate country, it is the
Department’s practice that, ’’. . . if more
than one country has survived the
selection process to this point, the
country with the best factors data is
selected as the primary surrogate
country.’’ See Policy Bulletin 04.1 at 4.
Currently, the record contains surrogate
value information, including possible
surrogate financial statements, only
from India.
Thus, the Department is preliminarily
selecting India as the surrogate country
on the basis that: (1) it is at a similar
level of economic development to the
PRC, pursuant to 773(c)(4) of the Act; (2)
it is a significant producer of
comparable merchandise; and (3) we
have reliable data from India that we
can use to value the factors of
production. Thus, we have calculated
normal value using Indian prices when
available and appropriate to value
Foshan Jingxin Steel Wire & Spring Co.,
Ltd.’s (‘‘Foshan Jingxin’’)3 factors of
production. See Memorandum to the
File through Scot T. Fullerton, Program
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9,
from Susan Pulongbarit, International
Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 9, regarding ‘‘Antidumping Duty
Investigation of Uncovered Innerspring
Units from the People’s Republic of
China: Selection of Factor Values,’’
dated July 30, 2008 (‘‘Surrogate Value
Memorandum’’).
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.301(c)(3)(i), for the final
determination in an antidumping
investigation, interested parties may
submit publicly available information to
value the factors of production within
40 days after the date of publication of
the preliminary determination.4
3 See section ‘‘Determination of Seller’’ regarding
the Department’s determination to treat Foshan
Jingxin, Nanhai Animal’s unaffiliated producer, as
the mandatory respondent.
4 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the
final determination of this investigation, interested
parties may submit factual information to rebut,
clarify, or correct factual information submitted by
an interested party less than ten days before, on, or
after, the applicable deadline for submission of
such factual information. However, the Department
notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1) permits new
information only insofar as it rebuts, clarifies, or
corrects information recently placed on the record.
The Department generally will not accept the
submission of additional, previously absent-fromthe-record alternative surrogate value information
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). See Glycine from
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Determination of Seller
For purposes of the preliminary
determination, we find that Nanhai
Animal should not be considered the
mandatory respondent for purposes of
calculating a dumping margin because
we determine that Nanhai Animal did
not make any sales of innersprings to
the United States during the POI. In its
questionnaire responses, Nanhai Animal
stated that all of the sales negotiations
for exports of innersprings to the United
States take place directly between its
producer, Foshan Jingxin, and the U.S.
customer. In addition, Nanhai Animal
stated that it is solely responsible for
PRC customs declaration and receipt of
payment from the U.S. customer, which
is sent directly to Foshan Jingxin minus
a commission. Nanhai Animal also
stated in its questionnaire responses
that it does not take title to the
merchandise, and the merchandise is
shipped directly from the producer’s
location to the U.S. customer. Therefore,
we find that Nanhai Animal acts as an
export agent for Foshan Jingxin and that
all essential terms of sale are negotiated
and executed between Foshan Jingxin
and its U.S. customer. Thus, we find
that Foshan Jingxin should be
considered the seller for purposes of
calculating a dumping margin. See, e.g.,
Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value and Final Partial
Affirmative Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades
and Parts Thereof from the People’s
Republic of China, 71 FR 29303 (May
22, 2006) and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 17.
Separate Rates
Additionally, in the Initiation Notice,
the Department notified parties of the
application process by which exporters
and producers may obtain separate–rate
status in NME investigations. See
Initiation Notice, 73 FR at 4822. The
process requires exporters and
producers to submit a separate–rate
status application. The Department’s
practice is discussed further in Policy
Bulletin 05.1: Separate–Rates Practice
and Application of Combination Rates
in Antidumping Investigations involving
Non–Market Economy Countries, (April
5, 2005), (‘‘Policy Bulletin 05.1’’)
available at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/
bull05–1.pdf.5 However, the standard
the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and
Final Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809 (October 17,
2007) and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 2.
5 The Policy Bulletin 05.1, states: ‘‘{w}hile
continuing the practice of assigning separate rates
only to exporters, all separate rates that the
Department will now assign in its NME
E:\FR\FM\06AUN1.SGM
06AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
for eligibility for a separate rate (which
is whether a firm can demonstrate an
absence of both de jure and de facto
governmental control over its export
activities) has not changed.
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. Senbao,
Yililan, Yuhua, Xilinmen, East Grace,
Meihua, and Sanmen, (hereinafter
referred to as ‘‘Separate Rate
Companies’’) have provided company–
specific information to demonstrate that
they operate independently of de jure
and de facto government control, and
therefore satisfy the standards for the
assignment of a separate rate.
We have considered whether each
PRC company that submitted a complete
application is eligible for a separate rate.
The Department’s separate–rate test is
not concerned, in general, with
macroeconomic/border–type controls,
e.g., export licenses, quotas, and
minimum export prices, particularly if
these controls are imposed to prevent
dumping. See Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Certain Preserved
Mushrooms from the People’s Republic
of China, 63 FR 72255, 72256
(December 31, 1998). The test focuses,
rather, on controls over the investment,
pricing, and output decision–making
process at the individual firm level. See
Certain Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel
Plate from Ukraine: Final Determination
of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 62 FR
61754, 61758 (November 19, 1997), and
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from
the People’s Republic of China: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
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.’’ See Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:46 Aug 05, 2008
Jkt 214001
Administrative Review, 62 FR 61276,
61279 (November 17, 1997).
To establish whether a firm is
sufficiently independent from
government control of its export
activities to be entitled to a separate
rate, the Department analyzes each
entity exporting the subject
merchandise under a test arising from
the Notice of 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 Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the
People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585
(May 2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon Carbide’’). In
accordance with the separate–rates
criteria, the Department assigns separate
rates in NME cases only if respondents
can demonstrate the absence of both de
jure and de facto governmental control
over export activities.
1. Absence of De Jure Control
The Department considers the
following de jure criteria in determining
whether an individual company may be
granted a separate rate: (1) an absence of
restrictive stipulations associated with
an individual exporter’s business and
export licenses; (2) any legislative
enactments decentralizing control of
companies; and (3) other formal
measures by the government
decentralizing control of companies. See
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
The evidence provided by the
Separate Rate Companies supports a
preliminary finding of de jure absence
of governmental control based on the
following: 1) an absence of restrictive
stipulations associated with the
individual exporter’s business and
export licenses; 2) the applicable
legislative enactments decentralizing
control of the companies; and 3) any
other formal measures by the
government decentralizing control of
companies. See, e.g., Yililan’s March 28,
2008, Separate Rate Application
(‘‘SRA’’) at 6–9; East Grace’s March 28,
2008, SRA at 5–9; and Yuhua’s March
28, 2008, SRA at 6–9.
2. Absence of De Facto Control
Typically the Department considers
four factors in evaluating whether each
respondent is subject to de facto
governmental control of its export
functions: (1) whether the export prices
are set by or are subject to the approval
of a governmental 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
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45733
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,
in fact, subject to a degree of
governmental control which would
preclude the Department from assigning
separate rates.
We determine that, for the Separate
Rate Companies, the evidence on the
record supports a preliminary finding of
de facto absence of governmental
control based on record statements and
supporting documentation showing the
following: 1) each exporter sets its own
export prices independent of the
government and without the approval of
a government authority; 2) each exporter
retains the proceeds from its sales and
makes independent decisions regarding
disposition of profits or financing of
losses; 3) each exporter has the
authority to negotiate and sign contracts
and other agreements; and 4) each
exporter has autonomy from the
government regarding the selection of
management. See, e.g., Meihua’s March
28, 2008, SRA at Exhibit 7; Xilinmen’s
March 28, 2008, SRA at Exhibit 8;
Sanmen’s March 31, 2008, SRA at
Exhibit 7; and Senbao’s March 24, 2008,
SRA at Exhibit 5.
As the Department has preliminarily
determined that Foshan Jingxin is
properly considered the seller of the
subject merchandise for purposes of
calculating a dumping margin, and
because we have changed the
designation of the appropriate party to
serve as the mandatory respondent, we
are preliminarily granting Foshan
Jingxin a separate rate. Although the
information on the record
demonstrating Foshan Jingxin’s
eligibility for a separate rate is not
complete, as information regarding
separate rate status was submitted by its
exporting agent, Nanhai Animal, the
Department finds that it cannot
preliminarily deny Foshan Jingxin a
separate rate because the Department
did not specifically ask for additional
information to determine Foshan
Jingxin’s separate rate eligibility. Thus,
we intend to request additional
information from Foshan Jingxin
subsequent to the preliminary
determination in order to determine
Foshan Jingxin’s separate rate status for
E:\FR\FM\06AUN1.SGM
06AUN1
45734
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
the final determination. Moreover, as
mentioned above, because we have
determined that Nanhai Animal had no
sales of subject merchandise during the
POI, we preliminarily determine that
Nanhai Animal is not eligible to receive
a separate rate.
With respect to Soho Tech, we
determine that it failed to provide
evidence regarding its affiliations,
specifically whether any of its affiliates
were involved in the export or
production of the subject merchandise.
The separate rate application requires
that the applicant provide specific
documentation regarding its affiliation
with any entities that exported
merchandise to the United States that
would fall under the description of the
merchandise covered by the scope of the
proceeding. Although Soho Tech stated
that it was not affiliated with any
entities involved in the production or
export of the subject merchandise,
information submitted on the record by
Jiangsu Soho proves otherwise.
Specifically, Jiangsu Soho stated that
Soho Tech is a subsidiary of Jiangsu
Soho, and that Soho Tech is responsible
for exporting Jiangsu Soho’s sales of
innersprings to the United States as well
as its own exports of innersprings. See
Jiangsu Soho’s July 2, 2008,
Supplemental Section A response at 13.
Therefore, we determine that Soho Tech
has failed to provide accurate
information with respect to its affiliates
and therefore has failed to establish its
eligibility for a separate rate. As a result,
Soho Tech will be considered a part of
the PRC–wide Entity.
The evidence placed on the record of
this investigation by the Separate Rate
Companies demonstrates an absence of
de jure and de facto government control
with respect to each of the exporter’s
exports of the merchandise under
investigation, in accordance with the
criteria identified in Sparklers and
Silicon Carbide. As a result, we have
granted the Separate Rate Companies a
weighted–average margin based on the
experience of mandatory respondents
and excluding any de minimis or zero
rates or rates based on total AFA for the
purposes of this preliminary
determination. In addition, for the
reasons outlined above, we have
preliminarily granted Foshan Jingxin
separate rate status and assigned Foshan
Jingxin a rate based on the data
submitted by Nanhai Animal.
Use of Total Adverse Facts Available
The PRC–Wide Entity PRC–Wide Rate
The Department has data that indicate
there were more exporters of
innersprings from the PRC than those
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:46 Aug 05, 2008
Jkt 214001
indicated in the response to our request
for Q&V information during the POI. See
Respondent Selection Memorandum.
We issued our request for Q&V
information to 17 potential Chinese
exporters of the subject merchandise, in
addition to posting the Q&V
questionnaire on the Department’s
website. See Q&V Delivery Memo. While
information on the record of this
investigation indicates that there are
numerous producers/exporters of
innersprings in the PRC, we received
only twelve timely filed Q&V responses.
Although all exporters were given an
opportunity to provide Q&V
information, not all exporters provided
a response to the Department’s Q&V
letter. Further, we received a Q&V
response from High Hope, who
subsequently withdrew it and informed
the Department that it was not going to
participate further in the investigation.
Additionally, Jiangsu Soho, the
mandatory respondent, did not
cooperate to the best of its ability in
responding to the Department’s requests
for information. Therefore, the
Department has preliminarily
determined that there were exporters/
producers of the subject merchandise
during the POI from the PRC that did
not respond to the Department’s request
for information. We have treated these
PRC producers/exporters as part of the
PRC–wide entity because they did not
qualify for a separate rate.
Jiangsu Soho
Jiangsu Soho withheld or failed to
provide information specifically
requested by the Department during the
course of this investigation. First, in its
response to Sections C and D of the
Department’s questionnaire, Jiangsu
Soho did not submit a sales or cost
reconciliation, as required in the
Department’s questionnaire. The
company offered no explanation as to
why, but simply stated that it did not
complete them. We gave Jiangsu Soho
additional time to submit the
reconciliations, but the information that
Jiangsu Soho submitted was incomplete,
and unusable for purposes of
reconciling Jiangsu Soho’s reported
sales and FOP information to its
financial statements.
Next, Jiangsu Soho withheld
information requested by the
Department and provided information
that cannot be verified. In its
questionnaire responses, Jiangsu Soho
reported that its POI sales were sourced
from four producers. Of the four
producers, only one producer has
provided factors of production data. The
remaining three producers have been
uncooperative and have not responded
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
to the Department’s requests for
information. Therefore, the Department
has incomplete information with respect
to the factors of production for all of
Jiangsu Soho’s sales during the POI.
Additionally, Jiangsu Soho has provided
very limited information with regard to
its accounting system and that of the
one cooperative producer. Moreover,
there are a number of data issues that
have prevented the Department from
being able to calculate a dumping
margin.6 Due to the proprietary nature
of these issues, see the Memorandum to
James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 9, through Scot T.
Fullerton, Program Manager, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 9, from Erin Begnal,
Senior International Trade Analyst,
‘‘Uncovered Innerspring Units from the
People’s Republic of China: Preliminary
Application of Adverse Facts Available
to Jiangsu Soho International Group
Holding Co., Ltd.,’’ dated July 30, 2008.
Finally, as mentioned above, Jiangsu
Soho did not cooperate to the best of its
ability to provide the Department with
timely information regarding its
affiliations with other exporters/
producers of the subject merchandise.
Jiangsu Soho initially stated that it was
not affiliated with any other exporters/
producers of the subject merchandise
during the POI, but the Department,
through deficiency questionnaires,
learned that Jiangsu Soho is affiliated
with Soho Tech, another exporter of
innersprings to the United States during
the POI. Because the Department was
given this information only a few weeks
prior to the preliminary determination,
we were unable to sufficiently
investigate this matter over the course of
the investigation, as the information was
initially withheld by Jiangsu Soho.
Therefore, because of the number of
deficiencies with respect to Jiangsu
Soho’s questionnaire responses and the
amount of misleading and inadequate
information, we find that the
information provided by Jiangsu Soho to
be so deficient that there is insufficient
information to analyze and verify. Thus,
we find that Jiangsu Soho does not merit
a separate rate, and will be subject to the
PRC–wide rate. See Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the
People’s Republic of China, 69 FR 67313
(November 17, 2004) and accompanying
6 We note that Jiangsu Soho made an additional
submission on July 25, 2008. Because this
submission was received so close to the due date
for this preliminary determination, the Department
did not have sufficient time to analyze its contents
and incorporate any findings into this preliminary
determination. Thus, we will consider the
submission in its entirety for purposes of the final
determination.
E:\FR\FM\06AUN1.SGM
06AUN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Notices
Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 4.
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides
that, if an interested party (A) withholds
information that has been requested by
the Department, (B) fails to provide such
information in a timely manner or in the
form or manner requested, subject to
subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act,
(C) significantly impedes a proceeding
under the antidumping statute, or (D)
provides such information but the
information cannot be verified, the
Department shall, subject to subsection
782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise
available in reaching the applicable
determination.
Information on the record of this
investigation indicates that the PRC–
wide entity was non–responsive.
Certain companies did not respond to
our request for Q&V information and
did not respond to the Department’s
questionnaire. In addition, Jiangsu Soho
withheld information requested by the
Department and provided insufficient
information to analyze and verify. As a
result, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A)
of the Act, we find that the use of facts
available is appropriate to determine the
PRC–wide rate. See Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, Affirmative Preliminary
Determination of Critical Circumstances
and Postponement of Final
Determination: Certain Frozen Fish
Fillets from the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam, 68 FR 4986 (January 31, 2003),
unchanged in Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Affirmative Critical Circumstances:
Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR
37116 (June 23, 2003).
Section 776(b) of the Act provides
that, in selecting from among the facts
otherwise available, the Department
may employ an adverse inference if an
interested party fails to cooperate by not
acting to the best of its ability to comply
with requests for information. See
Statement of Administrative Action,
accompanying the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’), H.R. Rep.
No. 103–316, 870 (1994) (‘‘SAA’’); see
also Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Certain Cold–Rolled
Flat–Rolled Carbon–Quality Steel
Products from the Russian Federation,
65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000). We
find that, because the PRC–wide entity
did not respond to our requests for
information, it has failed to cooperate to
the best of its ability. Therefore, the
Department preliminarily finds that, in
selecting from among the facts available,
an adverse inference is appropriate.
When employing an adverse
inference, the statute indicates that the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:46 Aug 05, 2008
Jkt 214001
Department may rely upon information
derived from the petition, the final
determination from the LTFV
investigation, a previous administrative
review, or any other information placed
on the record. In selecting a rate for
adverse facts available (‘‘AFA’’), the
Department selects a rate that is
sufficiently adverse to ensure that the
uncooperative party does not obtain a
more favorable result by failing to
cooperate than if it had fully
cooperated. See SAA at 870. It is the
Department’s practice to select, as AFA,
the higher of the (a) highest margin
alleged in the petition, or (b) the highest
calculated rate of any respondent in the
investigation. See Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Certain Cold–Rolled Carbon Quality
Steel Products from the People’s
Republic of China, 65 FR 34660 (May
21, 2000) and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum, at ‘‘Facts
Available.’’ As AFA, we have
preliminarily assigned to the PRC–wide
entity a rate of 234.51 percent, the
highest calculated rate from the petition.
The Department preliminarily
determines that this information is the
most appropriate from the available
sources to effectuate the purposes of
AFA. The Department’s reliance on the
petition rate to determine an AFA rate
is subject to the requirement to
corroborate secondary information.7
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 as facts available, it must,
to the extent practicable, corroborate
that information from independent
sources reasonably at its disposal.
Secondary information is described in
the SAA as ‘‘information derived from
the petition that gave rise to the
investigation or review, the final
determination concerning subject
merchandise, or any previous review
under section 751 concerning the
subject merchandise.’’8 The SAA
explains that to ‘‘corroborate’’ means
simply that the Department will satisfy
itself that the secondary information to
be used has probative value. Id. The
SAA also explains that independent
sources used to corroborate may
include, for example, published price
lists, official import statistics and
customs data, and information obtained
from interested parties during the
particular investigation. Id. To
corroborate secondary information, the
7 See
8 See
PO 00000
the ‘‘Corroboration’’ section below.
SAA at 870.
Frm 00043
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45735
Department will, to the extent
practicable, examine the reliability and
relevance of the information used.9
We corroborated the U.S. price used
to calculate the highest calculated rate
from the petition listed in the Initiation
Notice by comparing it to the U.S. prices
calculated for Foshan Jingxin. We found
that the U.S. price used to calculate the
highest petition margin was within the
range of net U.S. prices in our margin
calculations for Foshan Jingxin in this
investigation. See Memorandum to the
File, through Scot T. Fullerton, Program
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9,
from Susan Pulongbarit, International
Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 9, regarding ‘‘Program Analysis
for the Preliminary Determination of
Antidumping Duty Investigation of
Uncovered Innerspring Units from the
People’s Republic of China,’’ dated July
30, 2008 (‘‘Foshan Jingxin Analysis
Memorandum’’).
We then corroborated the normal
value used to calculate the highest
calculated rate from the petition listed
in the Initiation Notice with the normal
values calculated for Foshan Jingxin
based on its reported factors of
production. We found that the normal
value used to calculate the highest
petition margin was within the range of
normal values in our margin
calculations for Foshan Jingxin in this
investigation. See Foshan Jingxin
Analysis Memorandum.
Consequently, we are applying the
234.51 percent rate from the petition as
the AFA antidumping rate to the PRC–
wide entity, which includes Jiangsu
Soho. The PRC–wide rate applies to all
entries of the merchandise under
investigation except for entries from
Foshan Jingxin, and the Separate Rate
Companies.
Margin for the Separate Rate Companies
The Department received timely and
complete separate rate applications from
the Separate Rate Companies, who are
all exporters of innersprings from the
PRC, which were not selected as
mandatory respondents in this
investigation. Through the evidence in
their applications, these companies
9 See 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 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: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Reviews and Termination in Part:, 62 FR 11825
(March 13, 1997).
E:\FR\FM\06AUN1.SGM
06AUN1
45736
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Notices
have demonstrated their eligibility for a
separate rate, as discussed above.
Consistent with the Department’s
practice, as the separate rate, we have
established a margin for the Separate
Rate Companies based on the rate we
calculated for the cooperating
mandatory respondent, Foshan
Jingxin.10 Companies receiving this rate
are identified by name in the
‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section of
this notice.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Date of Sale
Section 351.401(i) of the Department’s
regulations states that, ‘‘{i}n identifying
the date of sale of the subject
merchandise or foreign like product, the
Secretary normally will use the date of
invoice, as recorded in the exporter or
producer’s records kept in the ordinary
course of business.’’ However, the
Secretary may use a date other than the
date of invoice if the Secretary is
satisfied that a different date better
reflects the date on which the exporter
or producer establishes the material
terms of sale. See 19 CFR 351.401(i); see
also Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v.
United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1087,
1090–1093 (CIT 2001) (‘‘Allied Tube’’).
The date of sale is generally the date on
which the parties agree upon all
substantive terms of the sale. This
normally includes the price, quantity,
delivery terms and payment terms. In
Allied Tube, the Court of International
Trade (‘‘CIT’’) noted that a ‘‘party
seeking to establish a date of sale other
than invoice date bears the burden of
producing sufficient evidence to
satisf{y}’ the Department that a different
date better reflects the date on which
the exporter or producer establishes the
material terms of sale.’’’ Allied Tube 132
F. Supp. 2d at 1090 (quoting 19 CFR
351.401(i)). In order to simplify the
determination of date of sale for both
the respondent and the Department and
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(i),
the date of sale will normally be the
date of the invoice, as recorded in the
exporter’s or producer’s records kept in
the ordinary course of business, unless
satisfactory evidence is presented that
the exporter or producer establishes the
material terms of sale on some other
date. In other words, the date of the
invoice is the presumptive date of sale,
although this presumption may be
10 See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain
Polyester Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic of
China, 71 FR 77373, 77377 (December 26, 2006),
unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain
Polyester Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic of
China, 72 FR 19690 (April 19, 2007).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:46 Aug 05, 2008
Jkt 214001
overcome. For instance, in Notice of
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, Intent to
Rescind and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India,
72 FR 10151 (March 7, 2007),
unchanged in Notice of Final Results
and Final Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India,
72 FR 51595 (September 10, 2007), the
Department used the date of the
purchase order as the date of sale
because the terms of sale were
established at that point.
We note that Nanhai Animal reported
that Foshan Jingxin did not issue any
commercial invoices because the U.S.
customer did not require Foshan Jingxin
to do so. However, after examining the
questionnaire responses and the sales
documentation that Foshan Jingxin
placed on the record, we preliminarily
determine that the factory delivery note
date, otherwise known as the date of
loading and date of exit of factory, is the
most appropriate date of sale for all EP
sales made by Foshan Jingxin, as it is
the date on which the seller’s obligation
of delivery has been fulfilled and the
exact sales quantity and unit price are
confirmed and finalized. See Nanhai
Animal May 29, 2008, Section C
questionnaire response at C–13 and July
8, 2008, supplemental response at A–13.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of
innersprings to the United States by
Foshan Jingxin were made at less than
fair value, we compared EP to NV, as
described in the ‘‘U.S. Price’’ and
‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice.
U.S. Price
For Foshan Jingxin, we based U.S.
price on EP in accordance with section
772(a) of the Act, because the first sale
to an unaffiliated purchaser was made
prior to importation, and CEP was not
otherwise warranted by the facts on the
record. We calculated EP based on the
packed price from Foshan Jingxin to the
first unaffiliated customer in the United
States. Where applicable, we deducted a
commission from the starting price
(gross unit price), in accordance with
section 772(c) of the Act.
For a complete discussion of the
calculation of the U.S. price for Foshan
Jingxin, see Foshan Jingxin Analysis
Memorandum.
Normal Value
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides
that the Department shall determine the
NV using a FOP methodology if the
merchandise is exported from an NME
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
and the information does not permit the
calculation of NV using home–market
prices, third–country prices, or
constructed value under section 773(a)
of the Act. The Department bases NV on
the FOP because the presence of
government controls on various aspects
of non–market economies renders price
comparisons and the calculation of
production costs invalid under the
Department’s normal methodologies.
Factor Valuation Methodology
In accordance with section 773(c) of
the Act, we calculated NV based on FOP
data reported by Foshan Jingxin. To
calculate NV, we multiplied the
reported per–unit factor–consumption
rates by publicly available surrogate
values (except as discussed below). In
selecting the surrogate values, we
considered the quality, specificity, and
contemporaneity of the data. A detailed
description of all surrogate values used
for Foshan Jingxin can be found in the
Surrogate Value Memorandum and
Foshan Jingxin Analysis Memorandum.
For this preliminary determination, in
accordance with the Department’s
practice, we used data from the Indian
Import Statistics and other publicly
available Indian sources in order to
calculate surrogate values for Foshan
Jingxin FOPs (direct materials, energy,
and packing materials) and certain
movement expenses. In selecting the
best available information for valuing
FOPs in accordance with section
773(c)(1) of the Act, the Department’s
practice is to select, to the extent
practicable, surrogate values which are
non–export average values, most
contemporaneous with the POI,
product–specific, and tax–exclusive.
See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, Negative Preliminary
Determination of Critical Circumstances
and Postponement of Final
Determination: Certain Frozen and
Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR
42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged
in Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and
Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR
71005 (December 8, 2004). The record
shows that data in the Indian Import
Statistics, as well as those from the
other Indian sources, are
contemporaneous with the POI,
product–specific, and tax–exclusive. In
those instances where we could not
obtain publicly available information
contemporaneous to the POI with which
to value factors, we adjusted the
surrogate values using, where
appropriate, the Indian Wholesale Price
E:\FR\FM\06AUN1.SGM
06AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Notices
Index (‘‘WPI’’) as published in the
International Financial Statistics of the
International Monetary Fund.
Furthermore, with regard to the
Indian import–based surrogate values,
we have disregarded import prices that
we have reason to believe or suspect
may be subsidized. We have reason to
believe or suspect that prices of inputs
from Indonesia, South Korea, and
Thailand may have been subsidized. We
have found in other proceedings that
these countries maintain broadly
available, non–industry-specific export
subsidies and, therefore, it is reasonable
to infer that all exports to all markets
from these countries may be subsidized.
See Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Negative Final Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Certain Color Television
Receivers From the People’s Republic of
China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004) and
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 7 (‘‘CTVs
from the PRC’’). Further, guided by the
legislative history, it is the Department’s
practice not to conduct a formal
investigation to ensure that such prices
are not subsidized. See H.R. Rep. 100–
576 at 590 (1988). Rather, the
Department bases its decision on
information that is available to it at the
time it makes its determination.
Therefore, we have not used prices from
these countries in calculating the Indian
import–based surrogate values.
Additionally, we disregarded prices
from NME countries. Finally, imports
that were labeled as originating from an
‘‘unspecified’’ country were excluded
from the average value, because the
Department could not be certain that
they were not from either an NME
country or a country with general export
subsidies.
The Department used the Indian
Import Statistics to value the raw
material and packing material inputs
that Foshan Jingxin used to produce the
subject merchandise during the POI,
except where listed below.
For direct, indirect, and packing
labor, consistent with 19 CFR
351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC
regression–based wage rate as reported
on Import Administration’s home page,
Import Library, Expected Wages of
Selected NME Countries, revised in May
2008, see Corrected 2007 Calculation of
Expected Non–Market Economy Wages,
73 FR 27795 (May 14, 2008), and https://
ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/. The
source of these wage–rate data on the
Import Administration’s web site is the
Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2005, ILO
(Geneva: 2007), 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, we have applied the same
wage rate to all skill levels and types of
labor reported by the respondent. See
Surrogate Value Memorandum.
We used Indian transport information
in order to value the freight–in cost of
the raw materials. Due to the proprietary
nature of this information, see Surrogate
Value Memorandum.
To value electricity, the Department
used rates from Key World Energy
Statistics 2003, published by the
International Energy Agency (‘‘IEA’’).
Because the data were not
45737
contemporaneous to the POI, we
adjusted for inflation using WPI. See
Surrogate Value Memorandum.
To value factory overhead, selling,
general, and administrative expenses,
and profit, we used the audited 2006–
2007 financial statements from Lakshmi
Precision Screws Limited, a producer of
merchandise comparable to
innersprings in India.
For a detailed discussion of all
surrogate values used for this
preliminary determination, see
Surrogate Values Memorandum.
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions into
U.S. dollars, in accordance with section
773A(a) of the Act, based on the
exchange rates in effect on the dates of
the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal
Reserve Bank.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the
Act, we intend to verify the information
upon which we will rely in making our
final determination.
Combination Rates
In the Initiation Notice, the
Department stated that it would
calculate combination rates for certain
respondents that are eligible for a
separate rate in this investigation. See
Initiation Notice, 72 FR at 60806. This
practice is described in Policy Bulletin
05.1, available at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/.
Preliminary Determination
The weighted–average dumping
margins are as follows:
UNCOVERED INNERSPRING UNITS FROM THE PRC
Exporter
Producer
Foshan Jingxin Steel Wire & Spring Co., Ltd. ....................................................
Foshan Jingxin Steel Wire &
Spring Co., Ltd.
Anshan Yuhua Industrial Trade
Co., Ltd.
Wuxi Xihuisheng Commercial
Co., Ltd.
Hebei Yililan Furniture Co.,
Ltd.
Nanjing Dongdai Furniture Co.,
Ltd.
Xilinmen Furniture Co., Ltd.
Zhejiang Sanmen Herod
Mattress Co., Ltd.
Zibo Senbao Furniture Co.,
Ltd.
..................................................
Anshan Yuhua Industrial Trade Co., Ltd. ............................................................
East Grace Corporation .......................................................................................
Hebei Yililan Furniture Co., Ltd. ..........................................................................
Nanjing Meihua Import & Export Trade Co., Ltd. ................................................
Xilinmen Group Co., Ltd. .....................................................................................
Zhejiang Sanmen Herod Mattress Co., Ltd. ........................................................
Zibo Senbao Furniture Co., Ltd. ..........................................................................
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
PRC–wide (including Jiangsu Soho International Group Holding Co., Ltd.) ......
Disclosure
We will disclose the calculations
performed within five days of the date
of publication of this notice to parties in
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:46 Aug 05, 2008
Jkt 214001
this proceeding in accordance with 19
CFR 351.224(b).
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Weighted–Average Margin
118.17%
118.17%
118.17%
118.17%
118.17%
118.17%
118.17%
118.17%
234.51%
Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 733(d) of
the Act, we will instruct CBP to suspend
liquidation of all entries of innersprings
E:\FR\FM\06AUN1.SGM
06AUN1
45738
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Notices
from the PRC as described in the ‘‘Scope
of Investigation’’ section, entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption from Foshan Jingxin,
Senbao, Yililan, Yuhua, Xilinmen, East
Grace, Meihua, and Sanmen, and the
PRC–wide entity on or after the date of
publication of this notice in the Federal
Register. We will instruct CBP to
require a cash deposit or the posting of
a bond equal to the weighted–average
amount by which the normal value
exceeds U.S. price, as indicated above.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
International Trade Commission
Notification
In accordance with section 733(f) of
the Act, we have notified the ITC of our
preliminary affirmative determination of
sales at less than fair value. Section
735(b)(2) of the Act requires the ITC to
make its final determination as to
whether the domestic industry in the
United States is materially injured, or
threatened with material injury, by
reason of imports of innersprings, or
sales (or the likelihood of sales) for
importation, of the subject merchandise
within 45 days of our final
determination.
Public Comment
Case briefs or other written comments
may be submitted to the Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration no
later than seven days after the date of
the final verification report is issued in
this proceeding and rebuttal briefs
limited to issues raised in case briefs no
later than five days after the deadline
date for case briefs (see 19 CFR
351.309(c)(i) and (d)). A list of
authorities used and an executive
summary of issues should accompany
any briefs submitted to the Department.
This summary should be limited to five
pages total, including footnotes.
In accordance with section 774 of the
Act, and if requested, we will hold a
public hearing, to afford interested
parties an opportunity to comment on
arguments raised in case or rebuttal
briefs. If a request for a hearing is made,
we intend to hold the hearing shortly
after the deadline of submission of
rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20230, at a
time and location to be determined.
Parties should confirm by telephone the
date, time, and location of the hearing
two days before the scheduled date.
Interested parties who wish to request
a hearing, or to participate if one is
requested, must submit a written
request to the Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30
days after the date of publication of this
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:46 Aug 05, 2008
Jkt 214001
notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests
should contain the party’s name,
address, and telephone number, the
number of participants, and a list of the
issues to be discussed. At the hearing,
each party may make an affirmative
presentation only on issues raised in
that party’s case brief and may make
rebuttal presentations only on
arguments included in that party’s
rebuttal brief.
Unless the deadline is extended
pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act,
the Department will make its final
determination within 75 days after the
date of this preliminary determination,
pursuant to section 735(a)(1) of the Act.
This determination is issued and
published in accordance with sections
733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: July 30, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E8–18031 Filed 8–5–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–522–803]
Uncovered Innerspring Units from the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice
of Preliminary Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 6, 2008.
SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine
that uncovered innerspring units
(‘‘innersprings’’) from the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam (‘‘Vietnam’’) are
being, or are likely to be, sold in the
United States at less than fair value
(‘‘LTFV’’), as provided in section 733 of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the
Act’’). The estimated margins of sales at
LTFV are shown in the ‘‘Preliminary
Determination’’ section of this notice.
Interested parties are invited to
comment on this preliminary
determination. We intend to make our
final determination within 75 days after
the date of this preliminary
determination pursuant to section 735
of the Act.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Eugene Degnan or Robert Bolling, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 8, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230;
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
telephone: (202) 482–0414 or 482–3434,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Case History
On December 31, 2007, Leggett and
Platt, Incorporated (‘‘Petitioner’’), filed
petitions in proper form on behalf of the
domestic industry, concerning imports
of innersprings from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘the PRC’’), South
Africa, and Vietnam (collectively, the
Petitions). On January 28, 2008, the
Department of Commerce (‘‘the
Department’’) published in the Federal
Register the initiation of a antidumping
investigations on innersprings from the
PRC, South Africa, and Vietnam. See
Uncovered Innerspring Units From the
People’s Republic of China, South
Africa, and the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam: Initiation of Antidumping
Duty Investigations, 73 FR 4817 (January
28, 2008) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). The
Department set aside a period for all
interested parties to raise issues
regarding product coverage. See
Initiation Notice, 73 FR at 4818. We did
not receive comments regarding product
coverage from any interested party.
Additionally, in the Initiation Notice,
the Department applied a process by
which exporters and producers may
obtain separate–rate status in non–
market economy (‘‘NME’’)
investigations. The process requires
exporters and producers to submit a
separate–rate status application
(‘‘SRA’’),1 rather than a full response to
Section A of the Department’s
Questionnaire. The standard for
eligibility for a separate rate (which is
whether a firm can demonstrate an
absence of both de jure and de facto
government control over its export
activities), however, has not changed.
The SRA for this investigation was
posted on the Department’s website at
https://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia–highlights-and–
news.html on January 28, 2008. The due
date for filing an SRA was March 28,
2008. No party filed an SRA in this
investigation.
In our Initiation Notice, we requested
parties to provide comments regarding
the physical characteristics of subject
merchandise by February 11, 2008, and
rebuttal comments by February 21,
2008. On February 8, 2008, we extended
the deadline for submission of
comments regarding physical
characteristics to February 15, 2008, and
the deadline for rebuttal comments to
1 See 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/bull05-1.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\06AUN1.SGM
06AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 6, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45729-45738]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18031]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-928]
Uncovered Innerspring Units from the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 6, 2008.
SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine that uncovered innerspring units
(``innersprings'') from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'') are
being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair
value (``LTFV''), as provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended (``the Act''). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are
shown in the ``Preliminary
[[Page 45730]]
Determination'' section of this notice. Interested parties are invited
to comment on this preliminary determination.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin Begnal or Susan Pulongbarit, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1442 or 482-4031, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Initiation
On December 31, 2007, the Department of Commerce (``Department'')
received petitions on imports of innersprings from the PRC, South
Africa, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (``Vietnam'') filed in
proper form by Leggett & Platt Incorporated (``Petitioner''). See
Antidumping Duty Petition: Uncovered Innerspring Units from China,
South Africa, and Vietnam (December 31, 2007) (``petition''). These
investigations were initiated on January 22, 2008. See Uncovered
Innerspring Units From the People's Republic of China, South Africa,
and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Antidumping Duty
Investigations, 73 FR 4817 (January 28, 2008) (``Initiation Notice'').
On February 14, 2008, the United States International Trade
Commission (``ITC'') issued its affirmative preliminary determination
that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United
States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by
reason of imports from the PRC, South Africa, and Vietnam of
innersprings. The ITC's determination was published in the Federal
Register on November 30, 2007. See Uncovered Innerspring Units From
China, South Africa, and Vietnam, 73 FR 13567 (March 13, 2008); see
also Uncovered Innerspring Units from China, South Africa, and Vietnam:
Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1140-1142 (Preliminary), USITC Publication
3983 (February 2008).
Scope Comments
In accordance with the preamble to our regulations, we set aside a
period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage
and encouraged all parties to submit comments within 20 calendar days
of publication of the Initiation Notice. See Antidumping Duties;
Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).
See also Initiation Notice, 73 FR at 4818. We received no comments from
interested parties on issues related to the scope.
Respondent Selection
In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that it intended to
select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(``CBP'') data of U.S. imports of innersprings. See Initiation Notice,
73 FR at 4822. On January 28, 2008, the Department placed the CBP
information on the record of the investigation, and set aside a period
for interested parties to submit comments on the CBP information. On
February 4, 2008, the Department received comments on respondent
selection from Petitioner. After receiving comments from interested
parties, the Department determined to seek quantity and value (``Q&V'')
data from all known producers/exporters of the subject merchandise from
the PRC. On February 22, 2008, the Department requested Q&V information
from 17 companies that petitioner identified with sufficient address
information as potential exporters or producers of innersprings from
the PRC. See Petition at Exhibit I-8. Additionally, on February 25,
2008, the Department posted the questionnaire requesting Q&V
information from potential producers/exporters of innersprings on its
website at www.trade.gov/ia. For a complete list of all parties from
which the Department requested Q&V information, see Memorandum to the
File, from Blaine Wiltse, International Trade Compliance Analyst,
regarding ``Antidumping Duty Investigation of Uncovered Innerspring
Units from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''): Delivery of
Quantity and Value Questionnaires,'' dated March 10, 2008 (``Q&V
Delivery Memo''). The Department received timely Q&V responses from
twelve interested parties. One of the Q&V responses that the Department
received on March 14, 2008, was from High Hope Int'l Group Jiangsu
Native Produce Imp. & Exp. Corp. Ltd. (``High Hope''). On March 27,
2008, High Hope submitted a letter to the Department withdrawing its
Q&V submission, stating that it would no longer be participating in the
investigation.
On April 3, 2008, the Department selected Jiangsu Soho
International Group Holding Co., Ltd. (``Jiangsu Soho'') and Nanhai
Animal By-Products I&E Co. Ltd. Guangdong (``Nanhai Animal'') as
mandatory respondents in this investigation. See Memorandum to Stephen
J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration,
through James C. Doyle, Director, Office 9, AD/CVD Operations, and Scot
T. Fullerton, Program Manager, Office 9, AD/CVD Operations, from Erin
Begnal, Senior International Trade Analyst, ``Selection of Respondents
for the Antidumping Investigation of Uncovered Innerspring Units from
the People's Republic of China,'' dated April 3, 2008.
Separate Rates Applications
Between March 24, 2008, and March 31, 2008, we received timely
separate-rate applications from eight non-mandatory respondent
companies: Zibo Senbao Furniture Co., Ltd. (``Senbao''), Hebei Yililan
Furniture Co., Ltd. (``Yililan''), Anshan Yuhua Industrial Trade Co.,
Ltd. (``Yuhua''), Xilinmen Group Co., Ltd. (``Xilinmen''), East Grace
Corporation (``East Grace''), Jiangsu Soho Technology Trading Co., Ltd.
(``Soho Tech''), Nanjing Meihua I&E Trade Co., Ltd. (``Meihua''), and
Zhejiang Sanmen Herod Mattress Co., Ltd. ( ``Sanmen'').
Product Characteristics & Questionnaires
In the Initiation Notice, the Department asked all parties in this
investigation and in the concurrent antidumping duty investigations of
innersprings from South Africa and Vietnam, for comments on the
appropriate product characteristics for defining individual products.
We received comments from Petitioner on February 15, 2008, with
recommended appropriate product characteristics and proposed model
matching criteria and hierarchy.
On April 7, 2008, the Department issued to Jiangsu Soho and Nanhai
Animal its sections A, C, D, and E questionnaire,\1\ which included
product characteristics used in the designation of CONNUMs and assigned
to the merchandise under consideration. Between April 29, 2008, and May
29, 2008, the Department received section A, C, and D questionnaire
responses from Jiangsu Soho and Nanhai Animal. Jiangsu Soho and Nanhai
Animal were not required by the Department to submit a Section E
response, because the Department determined that neither company had
further manufacturing in the United States. Petitioner submitted
deficiency comments on the Section A questionnaire responses of both
respondents on May 22, 2008,
[[Page 45731]]
deficiency comments on the questionnaire responses to Sections C & D of
both respondents on June 27, 2008, and deficiency comments on Nanhai
Animal's response to the supplemental Section A questionnaire on July
10, 2008. The Department issued supplemental questionnaires to Jiangsu
Soho and Nanhai Animal and received responses between June 13, 2008,
and July 15, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Section A of the questionnaire requests general information
concerning a company's corporate structure and business practices,
the merchandise under investigation that it sells, and the manner in
which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. Section C
requests a complete listing of U.S. sales. Section D requests
information on factors of production, and Section E requests
information on further manufacturing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surrogate Country
On April 11, 2008, the Department determined that India, Indonesia,
the Philippines, Colombia, and Thailand are countries comparable to the
PRC in terms of economic development. See Letter to All Interested
Parties, from Scot T. Fullerton, Program Manager, Office 9, AD/CVD
Operations, regarding ``Antidumping Duty Investigation of Uncovered
Innerspring Units from the People's Republic of China,'' dated April
14, 2008 (``Surrogate Country Letter''), attaching Memorandum to Scot
T. Fullerton, Program Manager, Office 9, AD/CVD Operations, from Carole
Showers, Acting Director, Office of Policy, regarding ``Antidumping
Duty Investigation of Uncovered Innerspring Units from the People's
Republic of China (PRC): Request for List of Surrogate Countries,''
dated March 25, 2008.
On April 11, 2008, the Department requested comments on surrogate
country selection from the interested parties in this investigation. On
June 2, 2008, the Department extended the deadline for interested
parties to submit comments on surrogate country selection. Petitioner
submitted surrogate country comments on June 16, 2008. No other
interested parties commented on the selection of a surrogate country.
For a detailed discussion of the selection of the surrogate country,
see ``Surrogate Country'' section below.
Surrogate Value Comments
On June 27, 2008, the Department extended the deadline for
interested parties to submit surrogate information with which to value
the factors of production in this proceeding. On July 7, 2008,
Petitioner submitted surrogate value comments.
Postponement of Preliminary Determination
On May 20, 2008, Petitioner made a request, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.205(b)(2) and (e), for a 50-day postponement of the preliminary
determinations with respect to China, South Africa, and Vietnam. The
Department published a postponement of the preliminary determination on
May 28, 2008. See Postponement of Preliminary Determinations of
Antidumping Duty Investigations; Uncovered Innerspring Units from the
People's Republic of China, South Africa, and the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam, 73 FR 30604 (May 28, 2008).
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation (``POI'') is April 1, 2007, through
September 30, 2007. This period corresponds to the two most recent
fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition,
December, 2007. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
Scope of Investigation
The merchandise covered by this investigation is uncovered
innerspring units composed of a series of individual metal springs
joined together in sizes corresponding to the sizes of adult mattresses
(e.g., twin, twin long, full, full long, queen, California king, and
king) and units used in smaller constructions, such as crib and youth
mattresses. All uncovered innerspring units are included in this scope
regardless of width and length. Included within this definition are
innersprings typically ranging from 30.5 inches to 76 inches in width
and 68 inches to 84 inches in length. Innersprings for crib mattresses
typically range from 25 inches to 27 inches in width and 50 inches to
52 inches in length.
Uncovered innerspring units are suitable for use as the innerspring
component in the manufacture of innerspring mattresses, including
mattresses that incorporate a foam encasement around the innerspring.
Pocketed and non-pocketed innerspring units are included in this
definition. Non-pocketed innersprings are typically joined together
with helical wire and border rods. Non-pocketed innersprings are
included in this definition regardless of whether they have border rods
attached to the perimeter of the innerspring. Pocketed innersprings are
individual coils covered by a ``pocket'' or ``sock'' of a nonwoven
synthetic material or woven material and then glued together in a
linear fashion.
Uncovered innersprings are classified under subheading 9404.29.9010
and have also been classified under subheadings 9404.10.0000,
7326.20.00.70, 7320.20.5010, or 7320.90.5010 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''). The HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs purposes only; the written
description of the scope of these investigations is dispositive.
Non-Market-Economy Country
For purposes of initiation, Petitioner submitted LTFV analyses for
the PRC as a non-market economy (``NME''). See Initiation Notice, 73 FR
at 4819. The Department considers the PRC to be a NME country. See,
e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Postponement of Final Determination: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the
People's Republic of China, 72 FR 30758, 30760 (June 4, 2007),
unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR
60632 (October 25, 2007). In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of
the Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME country
shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. No
party has challenged the designation of the PRC as an NME country in
this investigation. Therefore, we continue to treat the PRC as an NME
country for purposes of this preliminary determination.
Surrogate Country
When the Department is investigating imports from an NME, section
773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base normal value, in most
circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of production (``FOP'')
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 factors of production, the Department shall
utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of factors of
production in one or more market-economy countries that are at a level
of economic development comparable to that of the NME country and are
significant producers of comparable merchandise. The sources of the
surrogate values we have used in this investigation are discussed under
the ``Normal Value'' section below.
The Department's practice with respect to determining economic
comparability is explained in Policy Bulletin 04.1,\2\ which states
that ``OP {Office of Policy{time} determines per capita economic
comparability on the basis of per capita gross national income, as
reported in the most current annual issue of the World Development
Report (The World Bank).'' The Department considers the five countries
identified in
[[Page 45732]]
its Surrogate Country List as ``equally comparable in terms of economic
development.'' See Policy Bulletin 04.1 at 2. Thus, we find that India,
Indonesia, the Philippines, Colombia, and Thailand are all at an
economic level of development equally comparable to that of the PRC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Policy Bulletin 04.1: Non-Market Economy Surrogate
Country Selection Process, (March 1, 2004), (``Policy Bulletin
04.1'') at Attachment II of the Department's Surrogate Country
Letter, also available at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull04-
1.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, Policy Bulletin 04.1 provides some guidance on identifying
comparable merchandise and selecting a producer of comparable
merchandise. Based on the data provided by Petitioner, we find that
India is a producer of identical merchandise. See Petition at 5-6 and
Exhibit PRC-6. Additionally, Petitioner submitted information for
Indian companies that produce comparable merchandise, such as
comparable spring products, and noted that the Department has found
India to be a significant producer of related steel wire products. Id.
See also Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China: Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative
Determination of Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 33977 (June 16, 2008).
Because the Department was unable to find production data, we are
relying on export data as a substitute for overall production data in
this case. The Department first attempted to obtain export data for
innersprings from the World Trade Atlas (``WTA'') and was unable to
find data for any of the countries on the Surrogate Country List. Thus,
the Department obtained worldwide export data for steel wire products,
which Petitioner also stated were comparable to innersprings.
Specifically, we reviewed export data from the WTA for the HTS heading
7326.20, ``Other Articles of Iron/Steel Wire,'' for 2007. The
Department found that, of the countries provided in the Surrogate
Country List, all five countries were exporters of comparable
merchandise: steel wire products. Thus, all countries on the Surrogate
Country List are considered as appropriate surrogates because each
exported comparable merchandise.
The Policy Bulletin 04.1 also provides some guidance on identifying
significant producers of comparable merchandise and selecting a
producer of comparable merchandise. Further analysis was required to
determine whether any of the countries which produce comparable
merchandise are significant producers of that comparable merchandise.
The data we obtained show that, in 2007, worldwide exports for HTS
7326.20 from: India were approximately 7,375,861 kg; Indonesia were
approximately 431,376 kg; Colombia were approximately 9,309,295 units;
the Philippines were approximately 271,308 kg; and Thailand were
approximately 8,193,889 kg. Although India, Colombia, and Thailand
appear to be significant producers of comparable merchandise, no party
in this proceeding requested that Colombia or Thailand be selected as
the surrogate country.
With respect to data considerations in selecting a surrogate
country, it is the Department's practice that, ''. . . if more than one
country has survived the selection process to this point, the country
with the best factors data is selected as the primary surrogate
country.'' See Policy Bulletin 04.1 at 4. Currently, the record
contains surrogate value information, including possible surrogate
financial statements, only from India.
Thus, the Department is preliminarily selecting India as the
surrogate country on the basis that: (1) it is at a similar level of
economic development to the PRC, pursuant to 773(c)(4) of the Act; (2)
it is a significant producer of comparable merchandise; and (3) we have
reliable data from India that we can use to value the factors of
production. Thus, we have calculated normal value using Indian prices
when available and appropriate to value Foshan Jingxin Steel Wire &
Spring Co., Ltd.'s (``Foshan Jingxin'')\3\ factors of production. See
Memorandum to the File through Scot T. Fullerton, Program Manager, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 9, from Susan Pulongbarit, International Trade
Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding ``Antidumping Duty
Investigation of Uncovered Innerspring Units from the People's Republic
of China: Selection of Factor Values,'' dated July 30, 2008
(``Surrogate Value Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See section ``Determination of Seller'' regarding the
Department's determination to treat Foshan Jingxin, Nanhai Animal's
unaffiliated producer, as the mandatory respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), for the final
determination in an antidumping investigation, interested parties may
submit publicly available information to value the factors of
production within 40 days after the date of publication of the
preliminary determination.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final
determination of this investigation, interested parties may submit
factual information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual
information submitted by an interested party less than ten days
before, on, or after, the applicable deadline for submission of such
factual information. However, the Department notes that 19 CFR
351.301(c)(1) permits new information only insofar as it rebuts,
clarifies, or corrects information recently placed on the record.
The Department generally will not accept the submission of
additional, previously absent-from-the-record alternative surrogate
value information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). See Glycine from
the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Final Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809
(October 17, 2007) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum
at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Determination of Seller
For purposes of the preliminary determination, we find that Nanhai
Animal should not be considered the mandatory respondent for purposes
of calculating a dumping margin because we determine that Nanhai Animal
did not make any sales of innersprings to the United States during the
POI. In its questionnaire responses, Nanhai Animal stated that all of
the sales negotiations for exports of innersprings to the United States
take place directly between its producer, Foshan Jingxin, and the U.S.
customer. In addition, Nanhai Animal stated that it is solely
responsible for PRC customs declaration and receipt of payment from the
U.S. customer, which is sent directly to Foshan Jingxin minus a
commission. Nanhai Animal also stated in its questionnaire responses
that it does not take title to the merchandise, and the merchandise is
shipped directly from the producer's location to the U.S. customer.
Therefore, we find that Nanhai Animal acts as an export agent for
Foshan Jingxin and that all essential terms of sale are negotiated and
executed between Foshan Jingxin and its U.S. customer. Thus, we find
that Foshan Jingxin should be considered the seller for purposes of
calculating a dumping margin. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value and Final Partial Affirmative Determination of
Critical Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the
People's Republic of China, 71 FR 29303 (May 22, 2006) and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 17.
Separate Rates
Additionally, in the Initiation Notice, the Department notified
parties of the application process by which exporters and producers may
obtain separate-rate status in NME investigations. See Initiation
Notice, 73 FR at 4822. The process requires exporters and producers to
submit a separate-rate status application. The Department's practice is
discussed further in Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and
Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations
involving Non-Market Economy Countries, (April 5, 2005), (``Policy
Bulletin 05.1'') available at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-
1.pdf.\5\ However, the standard
[[Page 45733]]
for eligibility for a separate rate (which is whether a firm can
demonstrate an absence of both de jure and de facto governmental
control over its export activities) has not changed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The Policy Bulletin 05.1, states: ``{w{time} 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.'' See Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Senbao, Yililan, Yuhua, Xilinmen, East Grace, Meihua, and Sanmen,
(hereinafter referred to as ``Separate Rate Companies'') have provided
company-specific information to demonstrate that they operate
independently of de jure and de facto government control, and therefore
satisfy the standards for the assignment of a separate rate.
We have considered whether each PRC company that submitted a
complete application is eligible for a separate rate. The Department's
separate-rate test is not concerned, in general, with macroeconomic/
border-type controls, e.g., export licenses, quotas, and minimum export
prices, particularly if these controls are imposed to prevent dumping.
See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China, 63 FR
72255, 72256 (December 31, 1998). The test focuses, rather, on controls
over the investment, pricing, and output decision-making process at the
individual firm level. See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate
from Ukraine: Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 62
FR 61754, 61758 (November 19, 1997), and Tapered Roller Bearings and
Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR
61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997).
To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from
government control of its export activities to be entitled to a
separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the
subject merchandise under a test arising from the Notice of 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 Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China,
59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (``Silicon Carbide''). In accordance with the
separate-rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates in NME
cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both de jure
and de facto governmental control over export activities.
1. Absence of De Jure Control
The Department considers the following de jure criteria in
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate
rate: (1) an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
The evidence provided by the Separate Rate Companies supports a
preliminary finding of de jure absence of governmental control based on
the following: 1) an absence of restrictive stipulations associated
with the individual exporter's business and export licenses; 2) the
applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of the
companies; and 3) any other formal measures by the government
decentralizing control of companies. See, e.g., Yililan's March 28,
2008, Separate Rate Application (``SRA'') at 6-9; East Grace's March
28, 2008, SRA at 5-9; and Yuhua's March 28, 2008, SRA at 6-9.
2. Absence of De Facto Control
Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating
whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of
its export functions: (1) whether the export prices are set by or are
subject to the approval of a governmental 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, in
fact, subject to a degree of governmental control which would preclude
the Department from assigning separate rates.
We determine that, for the Separate Rate Companies, the evidence on
the record supports a preliminary finding of de facto absence of
governmental control based on record statements and supporting
documentation showing the following: 1) each exporter sets its own
export prices independent of the government and without the approval of
a government authority; 2) each exporter retains the proceeds from its
sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits
or financing of losses; 3) each exporter has the authority to negotiate
and sign contracts and other agreements; and 4) each exporter has
autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management.
See, e.g., Meihua's March 28, 2008, SRA at Exhibit 7; Xilinmen's March
28, 2008, SRA at Exhibit 8; Sanmen's March 31, 2008, SRA at Exhibit 7;
and Senbao's March 24, 2008, SRA at Exhibit 5.
As the Department has preliminarily determined that Foshan Jingxin
is properly considered the seller of the subject merchandise for
purposes of calculating a dumping margin, and because we have changed
the designation of the appropriate party to serve as the mandatory
respondent, we are preliminarily granting Foshan Jingxin a separate
rate. Although the information on the record demonstrating Foshan
Jingxin's eligibility for a separate rate is not complete, as
information regarding separate rate status was submitted by its
exporting agent, Nanhai Animal, the Department finds that it cannot
preliminarily deny Foshan Jingxin a separate rate because the
Department did not specifically ask for additional information to
determine Foshan Jingxin's separate rate eligibility. Thus, we intend
to request additional information from Foshan Jingxin subsequent to the
preliminary determination in order to determine Foshan Jingxin's
separate rate status for
[[Page 45734]]
the final determination. Moreover, as mentioned above, because we have
determined that Nanhai Animal had no sales of subject merchandise
during the POI, we preliminarily determine that Nanhai Animal is not
eligible to receive a separate rate.
With respect to Soho Tech, we determine that it failed to provide
evidence regarding its affiliations, specifically whether any of its
affiliates were involved in the export or production of the subject
merchandise. The separate rate application requires that the applicant
provide specific documentation regarding its affiliation with any
entities that exported merchandise to the United States that would fall
under the description of the merchandise covered by the scope of the
proceeding. Although Soho Tech stated that it was not affiliated with
any entities involved in the production or export of the subject
merchandise, information submitted on the record by Jiangsu Soho proves
otherwise. Specifically, Jiangsu Soho stated that Soho Tech is a
subsidiary of Jiangsu Soho, and that Soho Tech is responsible for
exporting Jiangsu Soho's sales of innersprings to the United States as
well as its own exports of innersprings. See Jiangsu Soho's July 2,
2008, Supplemental Section A response at 13. Therefore, we determine
that Soho Tech has failed to provide accurate information with respect
to its affiliates and therefore has failed to establish its eligibility
for a separate rate. As a result, Soho Tech will be considered a part
of the PRC-wide Entity.
The evidence placed on the record of this investigation by the
Separate Rate Companies demonstrates an absence of de jure and de facto
government control with respect to each of the exporter's exports of
the merchandise under investigation, in accordance with the criteria
identified in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. As a result, we have
granted the Separate Rate Companies a weighted-average margin based on
the experience of mandatory respondents and excluding any de minimis or
zero rates or rates based on total AFA for the purposes of this
preliminary determination. In addition, for the reasons outlined above,
we have preliminarily granted Foshan Jingxin separate rate status and
assigned Foshan Jingxin a rate based on the data submitted by Nanhai
Animal.
Use of Total Adverse Facts Available
The PRC-Wide Entity PRC-Wide Rate
The Department has data that indicate there were more exporters of
innersprings from the PRC than those indicated in the response to our
request for Q&V information during the POI. See Respondent Selection
Memorandum. We issued our request for Q&V information to 17 potential
Chinese exporters of the subject merchandise, in addition to posting
the Q&V questionnaire on the Department's website. See Q&V Delivery
Memo. While information on the record of this investigation indicates
that there are numerous producers/exporters of innersprings in the PRC,
we received only twelve timely filed Q&V responses. Although all
exporters were given an opportunity to provide Q&V information, not all
exporters provided a response to the Department's Q&V letter. Further,
we received a Q&V response from High Hope, who subsequently withdrew it
and informed the Department that it was not going to participate
further in the investigation. Additionally, Jiangsu Soho, the mandatory
respondent, did not cooperate to the best of its ability in responding
to the Department's requests for information. Therefore, the Department
has preliminarily determined that there were exporters/producers of the
subject merchandise during the POI from the PRC that did not respond to
the Department's request for information. We have treated these PRC
producers/exporters as part of the PRC-wide entity because they did not
qualify for a separate rate.
Jiangsu Soho
Jiangsu Soho withheld or failed to provide information specifically
requested by the Department during the course of this investigation.
First, in its response to Sections C and D of the Department's
questionnaire, Jiangsu Soho did not submit a sales or cost
reconciliation, as required in the Department's questionnaire. The
company offered no explanation as to why, but simply stated that it did
not complete them. We gave Jiangsu Soho additional time to submit the
reconciliations, but the information that Jiangsu Soho submitted was
incomplete, and unusable for purposes of reconciling Jiangsu Soho's
reported sales and FOP information to its financial statements.
Next, Jiangsu Soho withheld information requested by the Department
and provided information that cannot be verified. In its questionnaire
responses, Jiangsu Soho reported that its POI sales were sourced from
four producers. Of the four producers, only one producer has provided
factors of production data. The remaining three producers have been
uncooperative and have not responded to the Department's requests for
information. Therefore, the Department has incomplete information with
respect to the factors of production for all of Jiangsu Soho's sales
during the POI. Additionally, Jiangsu Soho has provided very limited
information with regard to its accounting system and that of the one
cooperative producer. Moreover, there are a number of data issues that
have prevented the Department from being able to calculate a dumping
margin.\6\ Due to the proprietary nature of these issues, see the
Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9,
through Scot T. Fullerton, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office
9, from Erin Begnal, Senior International Trade Analyst, ``Uncovered
Innerspring Units from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary
Application of Adverse Facts Available to Jiangsu Soho International
Group Holding Co., Ltd.,'' dated July 30, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ We note that Jiangsu Soho made an additional submission on
July 25, 2008. Because this submission was received so close to the
due date for this preliminary determination, the Department did not
have sufficient time to analyze its contents and incorporate any
findings into this preliminary determination. Thus, we will consider
the submission in its entirety for purposes of the final
determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, as mentioned above, Jiangsu Soho did not cooperate to the
best of its ability to provide the Department with timely information
regarding its affiliations with other exporters/producers of the
subject merchandise. Jiangsu Soho initially stated that it was not
affiliated with any other exporters/producers of the subject
merchandise during the POI, but the Department, through deficiency
questionnaires, learned that Jiangsu Soho is affiliated with Soho Tech,
another exporter of innersprings to the United States during the POI.
Because the Department was given this information only a few weeks
prior to the preliminary determination, we were unable to sufficiently
investigate this matter over the course of the investigation, as the
information was initially withheld by Jiangsu Soho. Therefore, because
of the number of deficiencies with respect to Jiangsu Soho's
questionnaire responses and the amount of misleading and inadequate
information, we find that the information provided by Jiangsu Soho to
be so deficient that there is insufficient information to analyze and
verify. Thus, we find that Jiangsu Soho does not merit a separate rate,
and will be subject to the PRC-wide rate. See Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the
People's Republic of China, 69 FR 67313 (November 17, 2004) and
accompanying
[[Page 45735]]
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4.
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party
(A) withholds information that has been requested by the Department,
(B) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form
or manner requested, subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the
Act, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping
statute, or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be
verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the
Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable
determination.
Information on the record of this investigation indicates that the
PRC-wide entity was non-responsive. Certain companies did not respond
to our request for Q&V information and did not respond to the
Department's questionnaire. In addition, Jiangsu Soho withheld
information requested by the Department and provided insufficient
information to analyze and verify. As a result, pursuant to section
776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we find that the use of facts available is
appropriate to determine the PRC-wide rate. See Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Preliminary
Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final
Determination: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic
of Vietnam, 68 FR 4986 (January 31, 2003), unchanged in Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Critical
Circumstances: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic
of Vietnam, 68 FR 37116 (June 23, 2003).
Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among
the facts otherwise available, the Department may employ an adverse
inference if an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to
the best of its ability to comply with requests for information. See
Statement of Administrative Action, accompanying the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act (``URAA''), H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, 870 (1994) (``SAA'');
see also Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain
Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products from the Russian
Federation, 65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000). We find that, because
the PRC-wide entity did not respond to our requests for information, it
has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. Therefore, the
Department preliminarily finds that, in selecting from among the facts
available, an adverse inference is appropriate.
When employing an adverse inference, the statute indicates that the
Department may rely upon information derived from the petition, the
final determination from the LTFV investigation, a previous
administrative review, or any other information placed on the record.
In selecting a rate for adverse facts available (``AFA''), the
Department selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse to ensure that
the uncooperative party does not obtain a more favorable result by
failing to cooperate than if it had fully cooperated. See SAA at 870.
It is the Department's practice to select, as AFA, the higher of the
(a) highest margin alleged in the petition, or (b) the highest
calculated rate of any respondent in the investigation. See Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled
Carbon Quality Steel Products from the People's Republic of China, 65
FR 34660 (May 21, 2000) and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum, at ``Facts Available.'' As AFA, we have preliminarily
assigned to the PRC-wide entity a rate of 234.51 percent, the highest
calculated rate from the petition. The Department preliminarily
determines that this information is the most appropriate from the
available sources to effectuate the purposes of AFA. The Department's
reliance on the petition rate to determine an AFA rate is subject to
the requirement to corroborate secondary information.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See the ``Corroboration'' section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 as facts available, it must, to the extent
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources
reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is described in the
SAA as ``information derived from the petition that gave rise to the
investigation or review, the final determination concerning subject
merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the
subject merchandise.''\8\ The SAA explains that to ``corroborate''
means simply that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary
information to be used has probative value. Id. The SAA also explains
that independent sources used to corroborate may include, for example,
published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and
information obtained from interested parties during the particular
investigation. Id. To corroborate secondary information, the Department
will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance
of the information used.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See SAA at 870.
\9\ See 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 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: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part:, 62 FR 11825 (March
13, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We corroborated the U.S. price used to calculate the highest
calculated rate from the petition listed in the Initiation Notice by
comparing it to the U.S. prices calculated for Foshan Jingxin. We found
that the U.S. price used to calculate the highest petition margin was
within the range of net U.S. prices in our margin calculations for
Foshan Jingxin in this investigation. See Memorandum to the File,
through Scot T. Fullerton, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office
9, from Susan Pulongbarit, International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 9, regarding ``Program Analysis for the Preliminary
Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation of Uncovered
Innerspring Units from the People's Republic of China,'' dated July 30,
2008 (``Foshan Jingxin Analysis Memorandum'').
We then corroborated the normal value used to calculate the highest
calculated rate from the petition listed in the Initiation Notice with
the normal values calculated for Foshan Jingxin based on its reported
factors of production. We found that the normal value used to calculate
the highest petition margin was within the range of normal values in
our margin calculations for Foshan Jingxin in this investigation. See
Foshan Jingxin Analysis Memorandum.
Consequently, we are applying the 234.51 percent rate from the
petition as the AFA antidumping rate to the PRC-wide entity, which
includes Jiangsu Soho. The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of the
merchandise under investigation except for entries from Foshan Jingxin,
and the Separate Rate Companies.
Margin for the Separate Rate Companies
The Department received timely and complete separate rate
applications from the Separate Rate Companies, who are all exporters of
innersprings from the PRC, which were not selected as mandatory
respondents in this investigation. Through the evidence in their
applications, these companies
[[Page 45736]]
have demonstrated their eligibility for a separate rate, as discussed
above. Consistent with the Department's practice, as the separate rate,
we have established a margin for the Separate Rate Companies based on
the rate we calculated for the cooperating mandatory respondent, Foshan
Jingxin.\10\ Companies receiving this rate are identified by name in
the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's
Republic of China, 71 FR 77373, 77377 (December 26, 2006), unchanged
in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial
Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain
Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR
19690 (April 19, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Sale
Section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations states that,
``{i{time} n identifying the date of sale of the subject merchandise or
foreign like product, the Secretary normally will use the date of
invoice, as recorded in the exporter or producer's records kept in the
ordinary course of business.'' However, the Secretary may use a date
other than the date of invoice if the Secretary is satisfied that a
different date better reflects the date on which the exporter or
producer establishes the material terms of sale. See 19 CFR 351.401(i);
see also Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v. United States, 132 F. Supp.
2d 1087, 1090-1093 (CIT 2001) (``Allied Tube''). The date of sale is
generally the date on which the parties agree upon all substantive
terms of the sale. This normally includes the price, quantity, delivery
terms and payment terms. In Allied Tube, the Court of International
Trade (``CIT'') noted that a ``party seeking to establish a date of
sale other than invoice date bears the burden of producing sufficient
evidence to satisf{y{time} ' the Department that a different date
better reflects the date on which the exporter or producer establishes
the material terms of sale.''' Allied Tube 132 F. Supp. 2d at 1090
(quoting 19 CFR 351.401(i)). In order to simplify the determination of
date of sale for both the respondent and the Department and in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(i), the date of sale will normally be
the date of the invoice, as recorded in the exporter's or producer's
records kept in the ordinary course of business, unless satisfactory
evidence is presented that the exporter or producer establishes the
material terms of sale on some other date. In other words, the date of
the invoice is the presumptive date of sale, although this presumption
may be overcome. For instance, in Notice of Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Intent to Rescind and Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel
Bar from India, 72 FR 10151 (March 7, 2007), unchanged in Notice of
Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India, 72 FR 51595
(September 10, 2007), the Department used the date of the purchase
order as the date of sale because the terms of sale were established at
that point.
We note that Nanhai Animal reported that Foshan Jingxin did not
issue any commercial invoices because the U.S. customer did not require
Foshan Jingxin to do so. However, after examining the questionnaire
responses and the sales documentation that Foshan Jingxin placed on the
record, we preliminarily determine that the factory delivery note date,
otherwise known as the date of loading and date of exit of factory, is
the most appropriate date of sale for all EP sales made by Foshan
Jingxin, as it is the date on which the seller's obligation of delivery
has been fulfilled and the exact sales quantity and unit price are
confirmed and finalized. See Nanhai Animal May 29, 2008, Section C
questionnaire response at C-13 and July 8, 2008, supplemental response
at A-13.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of innersprings to the United States by
Foshan Jingxin were made at less than fair value, we compared EP to NV,
as described in the ``U.S. Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of
this notice.
U.S. Price
For Foshan Jingxin, we based U.S. price on EP in accordance with
section 772(a) of the Act, because the first sale to an unaffiliated
purchaser was made prior to importation, and CEP was not otherwise
warranted by the facts on the record. We calculated EP based on the
packed price from Foshan Jingxin to the first unaffiliated customer in
the United States. Where applicable, we deducted a commission from the
starting price (gross unit price), in accordance with section 772(c) of
the Act.
For a complete discussion of the calculation of the U.S. price for
Foshan Jingxin, see Foshan Jingxin Analysis Memorandum.
Normal Value
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall
determine the NV using a FOP methodology if the merchandise is exported
from an NME and the information does not permit the calculation of NV
using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value
under section 773(a) of the Act. The Department bases NV on the FOP
because the presence of government controls on various aspects of non-
market economies renders price comparisons and the calculation of
production costs invalid under the Department's normal methodologies.
Factor Valuation Methodology
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV
based on FOP data reported by Foshan Jingxin. To calculate NV, we
multiplied the reported per-unit factor-consumption rates by publicly
available surrogate values (except as discussed below). In selecting
the surrogate values, we considered the quality, specificity, and
contemporaneity of the data. A detailed description of all surrogate
values used for Foshan Jingxin can be found in the Surrogate Value
Memorandum and Foshan Jingxin Analysis Memorandum.
For this preliminary determination, in accordance with the
Department's practice, we used data from the Indian Import Statistics
and other publicly available Indian sources in order to calculate
surrogate values for Foshan Jingxin FOPs (direct materials, energy, and
packing materials) and certain movement expenses. In selecting the best
available information for valuing FOPs in accordance with section
773(c)(1) of the Act, the Department's practice is to select, to the
extent practicable, surrogate values which are non-export average
values, most contemporaneous with the POI, product-specific, and tax-
exclusive. See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary Determination of Critical
Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Frozen
and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69
FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged in Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater
Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 71005 (December 8,
2004). The record shows that data in the Indian Import Statistics, as
well as those from the other Indian sources, are contemporaneous with
the POI, product-specific, and tax-exclusive. In those instances where
we could not obtain publicly available information contemporaneous to
the POI with which to value factors, we adjusted the surrogate values
using, where appropriate, the Indian Wholesale Price
[[Page 45737]]
Index (``WPI'') as published in the International Financial Statistics
of the International Monetary Fund.
Furthermore, with regard to the Indian import-based surrogate
values, we have disregarded import prices that we have reason to
believe or suspect may be subsidized. We have reason to believe or
suspect that prices of inputs from Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand
may have been subsidized. We have found in other proceedings that these
countries maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export
subsidies and, therefore, it is reasonable to infer that all exports to
all markets from these countries may be subsidized. See Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color Television
Receivers From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16,
2004) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 7
(``CTVs from the PRC''). Further, guided by the legislative history, it
is the Department's practice not to conduct a formal investigation to
ensure that such prices are not subsidized. See H.R. Rep. 100-576 at
590 (1988). Rather, the Department bases its decision on information
that is available to it at the time it makes its determination.
Therefore, we have not used prices from these countries in calculating
the Indian import-based surrogate values. Additionally, we disregarded
prices from NME countries. Finally, imports that were labeled as
originating from an ``unspecified'' country were excluded from the
average value, because the Department could not be certain that they
were not from either an NME country or a country with general export
subsidies.
The Department used the Indian Import Statistics to value the raw
material and packing material inputs that Foshan Jingxin used to
produce the subject merchandise during the POI, except where listed
below.
For direct, indirect, and packing labor, consistent with 19 CFR
351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC regression-based wage rate as reported
on Import Administration's home page, Import Library, Expected Wages of
Selected NME Countries, revised in May 2008, see Corrected 2007
Calculation of Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, 73 FR 27795 (May 14,
2008), and https://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/. The source of these
wage-rate data on the Import Administration's web site is the Yearbook
of Labour Statistics 2005, ILO (Geneva: 2007), 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,
we have applied the same wage rate to all skill levels and types of
labor reported by the respondent. See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
We used Indian transport information in order to value the freight-
in cost of the raw materials. Due to the proprietary nature of this
information, see Surrogate Value Memorandum.
To value electricity, the Department used rates from Key World
Energy Statistics 2003, published by the International Energy Agency
(``IEA''). Because the data were not contemporaneous to the POI, we
adjusted for inflation using WPI. See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative
expenses, and profit, we used the audited 2006-2007 financial
statements from Lakshmi Precision Screws Limited, a producer of
merchandise comparable to innersprings in India.
For a detailed discussion of all surrogate values used for this
preliminary determination, see Surrogate Values Memorandum.
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with
section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on
the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we intend to verify
the information upon which we will rely in making our final
determination.
Combination Rates
In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that it would
calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible
for a separate rate in this investigation. See Initiation Notice, 72 FR
at 60806. This practice is described in Policy Bulletin 05.1, available
at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/.
Preliminary Determination
The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
Uncovered Innerspring Units from the PRC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exporter Producer Weighted-Average Margin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foshan Jingxin Steel Wire & Spring Co., Ltd......... Foshan Jingxin Steel Wire & 118.17%
Spring Co., Ltd.
Anshan Yuhua Industrial Trade Co., Ltd.............. Anshan Yuhua Industrial 118.17%
Trade Co., Ltd.
East Grace Corporation.............................. Wuxi Xihuisheng Commercial 118.17%
Co., Ltd.
Hebei Yililan Furniture Co., Ltd.................... Hebei Yililan Furniture Co., 118.17%
Ltd.
Nanjing Meihua Import & Export Trade Co., Ltd....... Nanjing Dongdai Furniture 118.17%
Co., Ltd.
Xilinmen Group Co., Ltd............................. Xilinmen Furniture Co., Ltd. 118.17%
Zhejiang Sanmen Herod Mattress Co., Ltd............. Zhejiang Sanmen Herod 118.17%
Mattress Co., Ltd.
Zibo Senbao Furniture Co., Ltd...................... Zibo Senbao Furniture Co., 118.17%
Ltd.
PRC-wide (including Jiangsu Soho International Group ............................ 234.51%
Holding Co., Ltd.).................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosure
We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the
date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we will instruct CBP
to suspend liquidation of all entries of innersprings
[[Page 45738]]
from the PRC as described in the ``Scope of Investigation'' section,
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption from Foshan
Jingxin, Senbao, Yililan, Yuhua, Xilinmen, East Grace, Meihua, and
Sanmen, and the PRC-wide entity on or after the date of publication of
this notice in the Federal Register. We will instruct CBP to require a
cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average
amount by which the normal value exceeds U.S. price, as indicated
above.
International Trade Commission Notification
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the
ITC of our preliminary affirmative determination of sales at less than
fair value. Section 735(b)(2) of the Act requires the ITC to make its
final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United
States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by
reason of imports of innersprings, or sales (or the likelihood of
sales) for importation, of the subject merchandise within 45 days of
our final determination.
Public Comment
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no later than seven days
after the date of the final verification report is issued in this
proceeding and rebuttal briefs limited to issues raised in case briefs
no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs (see 19
CFR 351.309(c)(i) and (d)). A list of authorities used and an executive
summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the
Department. This summary should be limited to five pages total,
including footnotes.
In accordance with section 774 of the Act, and if requested, we
will hold a public hearing, to afford interested parties an opportunity
to comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. If a request
for a hearing is made, we intend to hold the hearing shortly after the
deadline of submission of rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20230,
at a time and location to be determined. Parties should confirm by
telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before
the scheduled date.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate
if
