Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 52277-52282 [E8-20921]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Notices
with this requirement could result in
the Department’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder
to parties subject to administrative
protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their
responsibility concerning the
disposition of proprietary information
disclosed under APO as explained in
the administrative protective order
itself. Timely written notification of the
return/destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is
hereby requested. Failure to comply
with the regulations and the terms of an
APO is a sanctionable violation.
This notice of final results of this
administrative review is issued and
published in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, 19 CFR
351.213, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Dated: September 2, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
Appendix I
Comment 1: Surrogate Country
Comment 2: Raw Shrimp Surrogate Value
Comment 3: Surrogate Financial Ratios
Comment 4: Wage Rate Calculation
Comment 5: Treatment of Sales with
Negative Margins (‘‘Zeroing’’)
Comment 6: Separate Rate (‘‘SR’’) Calculation
Methodology
Comment 7: Separate-Rate Status for
Additional Trade Names
Comment 8: Minh Phu Group’s ImporterSpecific Assessment Clerical Error
[FR Doc. E8–20927 Filed 9–8–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–888]
Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing
Tables and Certain Parts Thereof From
the People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from
interested parties, the Department of
Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is
conducting an administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on floorstanding, metal-top ironing tables and
certain parts thereof from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). The period
of review (‘‘POR’’) is August 1, 2006,
through July 31, 2007. We have
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:08 Sep 08, 2008
Jkt 214001
preliminarily determined that Since
Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. (‘‘Since
Hardware’’), has made sales to the
United States of the subject
merchandise at prices below normal
value and that Forever Holdings Limited
(‘‘Forever Holdings’’) has not sold
merchandise to the United States at
prices below normal value. We invite
interested parties to comment on these
preliminary results. Parties filing
comments are requested to submit with
each argument (1) a statement of the
issue and (2) a brief summary of the
argument(s).
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 9, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael J. Heaney or Robert James, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 7, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–4475 or (202) 482–
0649, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 6, 2004, the Department
published in the Federal Register the
antidumping duty order regarding floorstanding, metal-top ironing tables and
certain parts thereof (‘‘ironing tables’’)
from the PRC. See Notice of Amended
Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty
Order: Floor-Standing, Metal-Top
Ironing Tables and Certain Parts
Thereof From the People’s Republic of
China, 69 FR 47868 (August 6, 2004)
(Ironing Tables Order).
On August 2, 2007, the Department
published a notice of opportunity to
request an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order of ironing
tables from the People’s Republic of
China. See Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
to Request Administrative Review, 72
FR 42383 (August 2, 2007). On August
30, 2007, Home Products International
(the Petitioner in this proceeding)
requested, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(b)(2), that the Department
conduct a administrative review of this
order for Since Hardware. On August
31, 2007, Since Hardware and Forever
Holdings requested administrative
reviews of their sales under the
antidumping duty order. On September
25, 2007, the Department initiated an
administrative review of Since
Hardware and Forever Holdings. See
Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Requests for Revocation in
Part, 72 FR 54428 (September 25, 2007).
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
52277
On April 21, 2008, in accordance with
section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), and 19
CFR 351.213(h)(2), the Department
extended the deadline for the
preliminary results of review until
September 2, 2008. See Floor-Standing,
Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Parts
Thereof from the People’s Republic of
China: Extension of the Time Limit for
the Preliminary Results of the 2006/
2007 Administrative Review, 73 FR
21317 (April 21, 2008).
On March 3, 2008, we invited
interested parties to comment on the
Department’s surrogate country
selection and to submit publicly
available information to value the
factors of production. On April 24,
2008, we extended the period for filing
surrogate value and factor of production
comments in this review until June 6,
2008. On June 6, 2008, Since Hardware,
Forever Holdings, and the Petitioner
each submitted comments concerning
surrogate values and factors of
production.
The Department received timely filed
original and supplemental questionnaire
responses from both Since Hardware
and Forever Holdings.
Scope of the Order
For purposes of this order, the
product covered consists of floorstanding, metal-top ironing tables,
assembled or unassembled, complete or
incomplete, and certain parts thereof.
The subject tables are designed and
used principally for the hand ironing or
pressing of garments or other articles of
fabric. The subject tables have fullheight leg assemblies that support the
ironing surface at an appropriate (often
adjustable) height above the floor. The
subject tables are produced in a variety
of leg finishes, such as painted, plated,
or matte, and they are available with
various features, including iron rests,
linen racks, and others. The subject
ironing tables may be sold with or
without a pad and/or cover. All types
and configurations of floor-standing,
metal-top ironing tables are covered by
this review.
Furthermore, this order specifically
covers imports of ironing tables,
assembled or unassembled, complete or
incomplete, and certain parts thereof.
For purposes of this order, the term
‘‘unassembled’’ ironing table means a
product requiring the attachment of the
leg assembly to the top or the
attachment of an included feature such
as an iron rest or linen rack. The term
‘‘complete’’ ironing table means product
sold as a ready-to-use ensemble
consisting of the metal-top table and a
pad and cover, with or without
E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM
09SEN1
52278
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Notices
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
additional features, e.g., iron rest or
linen rack. The term ‘‘incomplete’’
ironing table means product shipped or
sold as a ‘‘bare board’’ i.e., a metal-top
table only, without the pad and cover
with or without additional features, e.g.,
iron rest or linen rack. The major parts
or components of ironing tables that are
intended to be covered by this order
under the term ‘‘certain parts thereof’’
consist of the metal top component
(with or without assembled supports
and slides) and/or the leg components,
whether or not attached together as a leg
assembly. The order covers separately
shipped metal top components and leg
components, without regard to whether
the respective quantities would yield an
exact quantity of assembled ironing
tables.
Ironing tables without legs (such as
models that mount on walls or over
doors) are not floor-standing and are
specifically excluded. Additionally,
tabletop or countertop models with
short legs that do not exceed 12 inches
in length (and which may or may not
collapse or retract) are specifically
excluded.
The subject ironing tables were
previously classified under Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States
(‘‘HTSUS’’) subheading 9403.20.0010.
Effective July 1, 2003, the subject
ironing tables are classified under new
HTSUS subheading 9403.20.0011. The
subject metal top and leg components
are classified under HTSUS subheading
9403.90.8040. Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for
convenience and for Customs and
Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) purposes, the
Department’s written description of the
scope remains dispositive.
Non-Market-Economy Status
Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of
the Act, any determination that a foreign
country is a Non-Market Economy
(‘‘NME’’) shall remain in effect until
revoked by the administering authority.
In every case conducted by the
Department involving the PRC, the PRC
has been treated as an NME. See, e.g.,
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From
the People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Results 2001–2002
Administrative Review and Partial
Rescission of Review, 68 FR 7500, 7500–
01 (February 14, 2003), unchanged in
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from
the People’s Republic of China: Final
Results of 2001–2002 Administrative
Review and Partial Rescission of
Review, 68 FR 70488 (December 18,
2003). None of the parties to these
reviews has contested such treatment.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:08 Sep 08, 2008
Jkt 214001
Accordingly, we calculated normal
value (‘‘NV’’) in accordance with section
773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME
countries.
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving NME
countries, the Department begins with a
rebuttable presumption that all
companies within the country are
subject to government control and, thus,
should be assigned a single
antidumping duty rate unless an
exporter can affirmatively demonstrate
an absence of government control, both
in law (‘‘de jure’’) and in fact (‘‘de
facto’’), with respect to its export
activities. See Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Sparklers from the People’s
Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 at
Comment 1 (May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’).
In this review, Since Hardware and
Forever Holdings submitted information
in support of their respective claims for
a company-specific rate.
Accordingly, we have considered
whether Since Hardware and Forever
Holdings are independent from
government control, and therefore
eligible for a separate rate. The
Department’s separate-rate test to
determine whether the exporters are
independent from government control
does not consider, in general,
macroeconomic/border-type controls,
e.g., export licenses, quotas, and
minimum export prices, particularly if
these controls are imposed to prevent
dumping. 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,
e.g., Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain
Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from
Ukraine, 62 FR 61754, 61758 (November
19, 1997), see also 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
Sparklers, further discussed in Notice of
Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR
22585, 22586–87 (May 2, 1994)
(‘‘Silicon Carbide’’). In accordance with
the separate-rates criteria, the
Department assigns separate rates in
NME cases only if respondents can
demonstrate the absence of both de jure
and de facto government control over
export activities. See Sparklers, 56 FR
20588 at Comment 1, and Silicon
Carbide, 56 FR at 22586.
Since Hardware and Forever Holdings
provided complete separate-rate
information in their respective
responses to our original and
supplemental questionnaires.
Accordingly, we performed a separaterates analysis to determine whether both
Since Hardware and Forever Holdings
are independent from government
control.
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 20588 at Comment 1.
As discussed below, our analysis shows
that the evidence on the record supports
a preliminary finding of an absence of
de jure government control for both
Since Hardware and Forever Holdings
based on each of these factors.
Since Hardware and Forever Holdings
have placed on the record a number of
documents to demonstrate absence of de
jure control, including documentation
substantiating their claims that both are
wholly foreign-owned enterprises
registered in China. This documentation
includes the ‘‘Foreign Trade Law of the
People’s Republic of China’’ (May 12,
1994) (‘‘Foreign Trade Law’’), and
‘‘Administrative Regulations of the
People’s Republic of China Governing
the Registration of Legal Corporations’’
(June 3, 1988) (‘‘Legal Corporations
Regulations’’). See Since Hardware’s
Section A questionnaire response dated
October 25, 2007 (‘‘Since Hardware
Section A’’) at Exhibits A–2 and A–5;
see also Forever Holdings October 25,
2007 questionnaire response (‘‘Forever
Holdings Section A’’) at Exhibits A–2
and A–5. Both Since Hardware and
Forever Holdings also submitted copies
of their respective business licenses.
Since Hardware’s business license was
issued by the Guangzhou Municipal
Industrial and Commercial
Administration. See Since Hardware
E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM
09SEN1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Notices
Section A at Exhibit A–4. Forever
Holdings business license was issued by
the Foshun City Shunde District and
Industrial and Commercial
Administration Bureau. See Forever
Holdings Section A at Exhibits 3 and 4.
Since Hardware and Forever Holdings
both indicated their respective business
licenses require that they maintain
sufficient capital and operating capacity
to engage in normal business operations
and that only the company to which the
business license was issued may use the
business license. See Since Hardware
Section A at 4, and Forever Holdings
Section A at 7. Also, Since Hardware
and Forever Holdings both affirmed
there are no limitations imposed on
company operations by the business
license. See Since Hardware Section A
at 5, and Forever Holdings Section A at
8. The business licenses of both Since
Hardware and Forever Holdings may be
revoked only if a situation arises where,
consistent with Article 30 of the Legal
Corporations Regulations, Since
Hardware or Forever Holdings engage in
prohibited activities or possess
insufficient business capital. Further,
both Since Hardware and Forever
Holdings stated that to obtain a renewal
of their respective business licenses,
they each must submit balance sheets
and profit and loss (‘‘P&L’’) statements
to the issuing authority. Id.
Forever Holdings has placed on the
record the Foreign Trade Law. See
Forever Holdings Section A at Exhibit 2.
Both Since Hardware and Forever
Holdings contend that this law allows
them full autonomy from the central
authority in governing their business
operations. See Since Hardware Section
A at 3, and Forever Holdings Section A
at 4–6. We have reviewed Article 11 of
Chapter II of the Foreign Trade Law,
which states, ‘‘foreign trade dealers
shall enjoy full autonomy in their
business operation and be responsible
for their own profits and losses in
accordance with the law.’’ As in prior
cases, we have analyzed such PRC laws
and found they establish an absence of
de jure control. See, e.g., Preliminary
Results of New Shipper Review: Certain
Preserved Mushrooms From the People’s
Republic of China, 66 FR 30695, 30696
(June 7, 2001), unchanged in Final
Results of New Shipper Review: Certain
Preserved Mushrooms From the People’s
Republic of China, 66 FR 45006 (August
27, 2001). Therefore, we preliminarily
determine that there is an absence of de
jure control over the export activities of
both Since Hardware and Forever
Holdings.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:08 Sep 08, 2008
Jkt 214001
52279
Absence of De Facto Control
Fair Value Comparisons
As stated in previous cases, there is
some evidence that certain enactments
of the PRC central government have not
been implemented uniformly among
different sectors and/or jurisdictions in
the PRC. See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
Therefore, the Department has
determined that an analysis of de facto
control is critical in determining
whether respondents are, in fact, subject
to a degree of government control which
would preclude the Department from
assigning separate rates. See id.
Typically, the Department considers
four factors in evaluating whether a
respondent is subject to de facto
government control of its export
functions: (1) whether the export prices
are set by, or subject to, the approval of
a government authority; (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 its management; and (4)
whether the respondent retains the
proceeds of its export sales and makes
independent decisions regarding
disposition of profits or financing of
losses. See id.
Since Hardware and Forever Holdings
have asserted the following: (1) they are
both wholly foreign-owned companies;
(2) there is no government participation
in the setting of export prices; (3)
company management has the authority
to enter into sales contracts; (4) the
companies’ owner appoints the
company’s management and do not
have to notify government authorities of
their management selections; (5) there
are no restrictions on the use of the
companies’ export revenue; and (6) the
companies’ board of directors decide
how profits will be used. See Since
Hardware Section A at 3–9, and Forever
Holdings Section A at 3–11. We have
examined the documentation provided
by Since Hardware and Forever
Holdings and note no discrepancies
between the information on the record
and the two companies’ statements on
the record with respect to de facto
control over its export activities.
Consequently, because evidence on
the record indicates an absence of
government control, both in law and in
fact, over the export activities of both
Since Hardware and Forever Holdings,
we preliminarily determine that both
Since Hardware and Forever Holdings
have met the criteria for the application
of a separate rate.
To determine whether respondents’
sales of the subject merchandise to the
United States were made at prices below
normal value, we compared their United
States prices to normal values, as
described in the ‘‘U.S. Price’’ and
‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice.
See section 773(a) of the Act.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
U.S. Price
Export Price
We based U.S. price for both Since
Hardware and Forever Holdings on
export price (‘‘EP’’) in accordance with
section 772(a) of the Act, because the
first sale to an unaffiliated purchaser
was made prior to importation, and
constructed export price (‘‘CEP’’) was
not otherwise warranted by the facts on
the record. We calculated EP based on
the packed price from the exporter to
the first unaffiliated customer in the
United States. We deducted foreign
inland freight, and foreign brokerage
and handling expenses from the starting
price (gross unit price), in accordance
with section 772(c) of the Act. Also, for
Since Hardware we added billing
adjustments to the gross unit price,
where applicable.
Both Since Hardware and Forever
Holdings incurred foreign inland freight
and foreign brokerage and handling
expenses from PRC service providers.
We therefore valued these services using
Indian surrogate values (see ‘‘Factors of
Production’’ section below for further
discussion).
Normal Value
Surrogate Country
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the
Department to base NV on the NME
producer’s factors of production valued
in a surrogate market economy country
or countries if available information
does not permit the calculation of NV
pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act. In
this instance such information is not
available. Therefore, section 773(c)(4) of
the Act requires the Department to value
an NME producer’s factors of
production based on the prices or costs
of the factors of production, in one or
more market-economy countries that to
the extent possible are: (1) at a level of
economic development comparable to
that of the NME country; and (2)
significant producers of comparable
merchandise. India is among the
countries comparable to the PRC in
terms of overall economic development,
as identified in the Memorandum from
Carole Showers, Acting Director Office
of Policy, to Scot Fullerton, Program
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9,
E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM
09SEN1
52280
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Notices
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
dated February 28, 2008. See
Memorandum to the File from Michael
J. Heaney regarding Selection of a
Surrogate Country in the Third
Administrative Review of FloorStanding, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and
Parts Thereof from the People’s
Republic of China, dated September 2,
2008 (‘‘Surrogate Country
Memorandum’’). In addition, based on
information from the investigation of
ironing tables, India is a significant
producer of comparable merchandise.
See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping
Investigation: Floor-Standing, MetalTop Ironing Tables and Certain Parts
Thereof from the People’s Republic of
China, 68 FR 44040, 44042 (July 25,
2003), unchanged in Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Floor-Standing, Metal-Top
Ironing Tables and Certain Parts
Thereof From the People’s Republic of
China, 69 FR 35296, 35297 (June 24,
2004).
Accordingly, we selected India as the
surrogate country for purposes of
valuing the factors of production
because it satisfies the Department’s
criteria for surrogate-country selection.
See Surrogate Country Memorandum.
Market Economy Purchases
Since Hardware purchased certain
inputs used in the production of the
subject merchandise from market
economy (‘‘ME’’) suppliers and paid for
these inputs in ME currencies. We used
the weight-averaged ME prices paid by
Since Hardware when the inputs were
obtained from a ME supplier, paid for in
a ME currency, and were a significant
portion of the total purchases of that
input. See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1).
Section IV of the Department’s
standard Section D questionnaire
requires respondents to report for each
raw material the percentage purchased
from an ME country and the percentage
purchased from an NME. In its
responses to the Department, Since
Hardware reported the percentages of
each raw material purchased from ME
countries and paid for in a ME currency.
For each of the ME inputs purchased by
Since Hardware during the POR, the
Department found that the percentage
purchased from ME suppliers
constituted more than a third of the
input utilized in production of the
merchandise. Thus, consistent with the
policy set forth in Antidumping
Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs,
Expected Non-Market Economy Wages,
Duty Drawback; and Request for
Comment, 71 FR 61716, 61718 (October
19, 2006) (‘‘Antidumping
Methodologies’’), we used those ME
purchases in our calculations. Due to
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:08 Sep 08, 2008
Jkt 214001
the proprietary nature of Since
Hardware’s ME purchases and
quantities, we are not able to discuss the
details of these purchases here. For a
complete discussion, see Memorandum
from Michael J. Heaney regarding Since
Hardware Analysis (‘‘Since Hardware
Analysis Memorandum’’) dated
September 2, 2008. As a result, the
Department found that Since
Hardware’s ME purchases of cold rolled
steel, hot rolled steel, steel wire rod,
powder coating, cotton fabric, springs,
bolts, center nail and nail heads, rivets,
cartons, corrugated paper and labels
were a meaningful portion of total
purchases of that input. See
Antidumping Methodologies, 71 FR at
61718. Therefore, in accordance with
section 351.408(c)(1) of the
Department’s regulations, we have
preliminarily valued these inputs using
the actual ME prices paid.
Factors of Production
In accordance with section 773(c) of
the Act, we calculated NV based on the
factors of production which included,
but were not limited to: (A) hours of
labor required; (B) quantities of raw
materials employed; (C) amounts of
energy and other utilities consumed;
and (D) representative capital costs,
including depreciation. We used the
factors of production reported by the
producers for materials, energy, labor,
and packing. To calculate NV, we
multiplied the reported unit factor
quantities by publicly available values
in the surrogate country, India.
Since Hardware and Forever Holdings
both reported by-product sales. With
respect to the application of the byproduct offset to normal value,
consistent with the Department’s
determination in the investigation of
Diamond Sawblades from the PRC, we
will deduct the surrogate value from
normal value because the surrogate
financial statements on the record of
this administrative review contain no
references to the treatment of byproducts and because Since Hardware
and Forever Holdings reported that they
sold their by-products. See 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) (‘‘Diamond Sawblades from
the PRC’’), and accompanying Issues
and Decision Memorandum at Comment
9, unchanged in Notice of Amended
Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Diamond Sawblades
and Parts Thereof from the People’s
Republic of China, 71 FR 35864 (June
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
22, 2006). This is consistent with
accounting principles based on a
reasonable assumption that if a
company sells a by-product, the byproduct necessarily incurs expenses for
overhead, SG&A, and profit. Id.
In selecting the surrogate Indian
values, we considered the quality,
specificity, and contemporaneity of the
data, in accordance with our practice.
See, e.g., Fresh Garlic From the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review,
67 FR 72139 (December 4, 2002), and
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum (‘‘Garlic Decision
Memorandum’’) at Comment 6; see also
Final Results of First New Shipper
Review and First Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Certain
Preserved Mushrooms From the People’s
Republic of China, 66 FR 31204 (June
11, 2001), and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 5.
When we used publicly available import
data from the Ministry of Commerce of
India (‘‘Indian Import Statistics’’) for the
POR to value inputs sourced
domestically from PRC suppliers, we
added to the Indian surrogate values a
surrogate freight cost calculated using
the shorter of the reported distance from
the domestic supplier to the factory or
the distance from the closest seaport to
the factory. This adjustment is in
accordance with the Federal Circuit’s
decision in Sigma Corp. v. United
States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1408 (Fed. Cir.
1997). When we used non-import
surrogate values for factors sourced
domestically by PRC suppliers, we
based freight for inputs on the actual
distance from the input supplier to the
site at which the input was used. In
addition, in instances where we relied
on Indian import data to value inputs,
in accordance with the Department’s
practice, we excluded imports from both
NME countries and countries deemed to
maintain broadly available, nonindustry-specific subsidies which may
benefit all exporters to all export
markets (i.e., Indonesia, South Korea,
and Thailand) from our surrogate value
calculations. See, e.g., Tapered Roller
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished
and Unfinished, From the People’s
Republic of China; Final Results of
1999–2000 Administrative Review,
Partial Rescission of Review, and
Determination Not to Revoke Order in
Part, 66 FR 57420 (November 15, 2001)
and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 1; see also
Factors of Production Valuation
Memorandum for the Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Floor-
E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM
09SEN1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Notices
Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and
Certain Parts Thereof from the People’s
Republic of China, dated September 2,
2008 (‘‘Factor Valuation
Memorandum’’) (for a complete
discussion of the import data that we
excluded from our calculation of
surrogate values).
Where we could not obtain publicly
available information contemporaneous
with the POR to value factors, we
adjusted the surrogate values using the
Indian Wholesale Price Index (‘‘WPI’’)
as published in the International
Financial Statistics of the International
Monetary Fund, for those surrogate
values in Indian rupees. We made
currency conversions, where necessary,
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.415, to U.S.
dollars using the daily exchange rate
corresponding to the reported date of
each sale. We relied on the daily
exchange rates posted on the Import
Administration website (https://
www.trade.gov/ia/).
We valued the factors of production
as follows:
The Department used the Indian
Import Statistics to value the raw
material and packing material inputs
Since Hardware and Forever Holdings
used to produce the merchandise under
review during the POR, except where
noted below. Detailed descriptions of all
surrogate values are discussed in the
Factor Valuation Memorandum.
To value water, we calculated the
average rate of inside and outside
industrial water rates from various
regions as reported by the Maharashtra
Industrial Development Corporation,
https://midcindia.org, dated June 1,
2003. We inflated the value for water
using the POR average WPI rate. See
Factor Valuation Memorandum.
We valued electricity using the 2000
electricity price in India reported by the
International Energy Agency statistics
for Energy Prices & Taxes, Second
Quarter 2003. We inflated the value for
electricity using the POR average WPI
rate. See Factor Valuation
Memorandum.
We valued diesel using the rates
provided by the OECD’s International
Energy Agency’s publication: Key World
Energy Statistics from 2004 and 2005.
The prices are based on 2004 and 2005
first quarter prices of automotive diesel
fuel retail prices. See Factor Valuation
Memorandum.
With respect to valuation of factory
overhead, selling, general and
administrative expenses, and profit, in
the Final Results of the 2004–2005
Administrative Review of this Order,
the Department relied on the 2005–2006
Infiniti Modules Pvt. Ltd. (‘‘Infiniti
Modules’’) financial statements, because
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:08 Sep 08, 2008
Jkt 214001
it provides the most contemporaneous
and publicly available information. See
Floor Standing, Metal-Top Ironing
Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from
the People’s Republic of China: Final
Results and Final Recisssion, In Part, of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review 72 FR 13239,
(March 21, 2007) and Accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 1 (‘‘AR 1 Final Results’’).
Petitioner placed on the record Infiniti
Modules 2005–2006 financial
statements in its July 14, 2008
submission at Exhibit 1. Petitioner
included in its July 14, 2008 submission
the profit and loss statement for Infiniti
Modules for the 2005–2006 financial
period.
In valuing factors of production,
section 773(c)(1) of the Act instructs the
Department to use ‘‘the best available
information’’ from the appropriate
market economy country. As discussed
above, in choosing the most appropriate
surrogate value, the Department
considers several factors, including the
quality, specificity, and
contemporaneity of the source
information. See, e.g., Garlic Decision
Memorandum, at Comment 6. For these
preliminary results, the Department has
determined that the 2005–2006 Infiniti
Modules financial statements are
complete, publicly available, and reflect
merchandise comparable to ironing
tables. We note the 2005–2006 Infiniti
Modules financial statements were
obtained from the Indian Registrar of
Companies, and are publicly available.
See Petitioner’s July 14, 2008 surrogate
value submission. With respect to
quality, we note the 2005–2006 Infiniti
Modules financial statements are
complete, audited financial statements
with all auditors notes and schedules, as
well a complete balance sheet and P&L.
Regarding specificity, we preliminarily
find, consistent with our determination
in the 2004–2005 review of this
proceeding, that Infiniti Modules
manufactures merchandise that closely
reflects merchandise comparable to
ironing tables. (See AR1 Final Results.)
Therefore, we preliminarily find that the
2005–2006 Infinity Modules financial
statements are publicly available,
quality data specific to the merchandise
under review.
Thus, the Department preliminarily
finds, consistent with section 773(c)(1)
of the Act and the AR1 Final Results,
that the 2005–2006 Infiniti Modules
financial statements are the best
information available on the record of
this review, from which to value the
surrogate financial ratios of factory
overhead, selling, general &
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
52281
administrative expenses, and profit. See
Factor Valuation Memorandum for
details concerning the calculation of
these ratios.
Because of the variability of wage
rates in countries with similar levels of
per capita gross domestic product, 19
CFR 351.408(c)(3) requires the use of a
regression-based wage rate. Therefore, to
value the labor input, we used the PRC’s
regression-based wage rate published by
Import Administration on its website,
https://www.trade.gov/ia/. See Factor
Valuation Memorandum.
To value truck freight, we calculated
a weighted-average freight cost based on
publicly available data from
www.infreight.com, an Indian inland
freight logistics resource website. See
Factor Valuation Memorandum.
To value brokerage and handling, the
Department used a simple average of the
publicly summarized version of the
average value for brokerage and
handling expenses reported in the U.S.
sales listings in the submission from
Essar Steel Ltd. (‘‘Essar Steel’’), dated
February 28, 2005, in the antidumping
duty review of Certain Hot-Rolled
Carbon Steel Flat Products from India;
the submission from Agro Dutch
Industries Limited (‘‘Agro Dutch’’),
dated May 24, 2005, at Exhibit B-1, in
the antidumping duty administrative
review of Certain Preserved Mushrooms
from India; and the submission from
Kejriwal Paper Ltd. (‘‘Kejriwal’’), dated
January 9, 2006, in the antidumping
duty review of Lined Paper from India.
(The information used to derive
brokerage and handling surrogate values
from Essar Steel’s February 28, 2005
U.S. sales listing, Exhibit B–1 of Agro
Dutch’s May 24, 2005 submission, and
Kejriwal’s January 9, 2006 submission is
on the record of this proceeding. See
Factors Valuation Memorandum at
Attachment 3.) Use of these averages is
consistent with the Department’s
normal practice to calculate brokerage
and handling expenses. The
Department’s preference is to average
these data sources because they
represent values for numerous
transactions that are available for a
range of products and minimize the
potential distortions that might arise
from a single price source. One value,
taken in isolation, could differ
significantly when compared across a
range of products, values, and special
circumstances of a single transaction.
See 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),
and accompanying Issues and Decision
E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM
09SEN1
52282
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Notices
consumption on or after the publication
date, as provided for by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for the
exporters listed above, the cash deposit
rate will be established in the final
results of this review (except, if the rate
is zero or de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5
percent, no cash deposit will be
required for that company); (2) for
previously investigated or reviewed PRC
and non-PRC exporters not listed above
Preliminary Results of Review
that have separate rates, the cash
We preliminarily determine that the
deposit rate will continue to be the
following antidumping duty margins
exporter-specific rate published for the
exist:
most recent period; (3) for all PRC
exporters of subject merchandise which
Exporter
Margin (percent)
have not been found to be entitled to a
Forever Holdings ..........
0% separate rate, the cash deposit rate will
be the PRC-wide rate of 157.68 percent
Since Hardware
(see Ironing Tables Order); and (4) for
(Guangzhou) Co.,
Ltd. ............................
1.53 % all non-PRC exporters of subject
merchandise which have not received
For details on the calculation of the
their own rate, the cash deposit rate will
antidumping duty weighted-average
be the rate applicable to the PRC
margin for Since Hardware and Forever
exporters that supplied that non-PRC
Holdings, see the respective Since
exporter. These deposit requirements,
Hardware Analysis Memorandum and
when imposed, shall remain in effect
the Forever Holdings Analysis
until publication of the final results of
Memorandum. Public versions of these
the next administrative review.
memoranda are on file in the
Schedule for Final Results of Review
Department’s Central Records Unit,
The Department will disclose
Room 1117 of the main commerce
calculations performed in connection
building (‘‘CRU’’).
with the preliminary results of this
Assessment Rates
review within five days of the date of
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the
publication of this notice in accordance
Department will determine, and CBP
with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested
shall assess, antidumping duties on all
party may request a hearing within 30
appropriate entries. The Department
days of publication of this notice in
will issue appropriate assessment
accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c).
instructions directly to CBP 15 days
Any hearing will be held 37 days after
after the date of publication of the final
the publication of this notice, or the first
results of this review. For assessment
workday thereafter unless the
purposes, where possible, we calculated Department alters the date pursuant to
importer-specific ad valorem
19 CFR 351.310(d). Individuals who
assessment rates for ironing tables from
wish to request a hearing must submit
the PRC based on the ratio of the total
a written request within 30 days of the
publication of this notice in the Federal
amount of the dumping duties
Register to the Assistant Secretary for
calculated for the examined sales to the
Import Administration, U.S. Department
total entered value of those same sales.
of Commerce, Room 1870, 14th Street
We will instruct CBP to assess
and Constitution Avenue, NW,
antidumping duties on all appropriate
Washington, DC 20230. Requests for a
entries covered by this review if any
public hearing should contain: (1) the
assessment rate calculated in the final
party’s name, address, and telephone
results of this review is above de
minimis. The final results of this review number; (2) the number of participants;
and (3) to the extent practicable, an
shall be the basis for the assessment of
identification of the arguments to be
antidumping duties on entries of
merchandise covered by the final results raised at the hearing.
Unless otherwise notified by the
of these reviews and for future deposits
Department, interested parties may
of estimated duties, where applicable.
submit case briefs within 30 days of the
Cash Deposit Requirements
date of publication of this notice in
The following cash deposit
accordance with 19 CFR
requirements will be effective upon
351.309(c)(1)(ii). As part of the case
publication of the final results of this
brief, parties are encouraged to provide
administrative review for all shipments
a summary of the arguments not to
of the subject merchandise entered, or
exceed five pages and a table of statutes,
withdrawn from warehouse, for
regulations, and cases cited in
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
memo at Comment 5. See also Factor
Valuation Memorandum.
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results of
this administrative review, interested
parties may submit publicly available
information to value the factors of
production until 20 days following the
date of publication of these preliminary
results.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:08 Sep 08, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2).
Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited
to issues raised in the case briefs, must
be filed within five days after the case
brief is filed in accordance with 19 CFR
351.309(d). If a hearing is held, an
interested party may make an
affirmative presentation only on
arguments included in that party’s case
brief and may make a rebuttal
presentation only on arguments
included in that party’s rebuttal brief in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c).
Parties should confirm by telephone the
time, date, and place of the hearing
within 48 hours before the scheduled
time. The Department will issue the
final results of this review, which will
include the results of its analysis of
issues raised in the briefs, not later than
120 days after the date of publication of
this notice in accordance with section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.213(h)(1).
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a
preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding
the reimbursement of antidumping
duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during these review
periods. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in the
Secretary’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
These preliminary results of
administrative review are issued and
this notice is published in accordance
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of
the Act.
Dated: September 2, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E8–20921 Filed 9–8–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–886]
Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From
the People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from
interested parties, the Department of
Commerce (the Department) is
conducting an administrative review of
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM
09SEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 9, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52277-52282]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20921]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-888]
Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts
Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the
Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on floor-standing,
metal-top ironing tables and certain parts thereof from the People's
Republic of China (``PRC''). The period of review (``POR'') is August
1, 2006, through July 31, 2007. We have preliminarily determined that
Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. (``Since Hardware''), has made
sales to the United States of the subject merchandise at prices below
normal value and that Forever Holdings Limited (``Forever Holdings'')
has not sold merchandise to the United States at prices below normal
value. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary
results. Parties filing comments are requested to submit with each
argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the
argument(s).
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 9, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael J. Heaney or Robert James, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4475 or (202) 482-0649, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 6, 2004, the Department published in the Federal Register
the antidumping duty order regarding floor-standing, metal-top ironing
tables and certain parts thereof (``ironing tables'') from the PRC. See
Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
and Antidumping Duty Order: Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables
and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR
47868 (August 6, 2004) (Ironing Tables Order).
On August 2, 2007, the Department published a notice of opportunity
to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order of
ironing tables from the People's Republic of China. See Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation;
Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 72 FR 42383 (August 2,
2007). On August 30, 2007, Home Products International (the Petitioner
in this proceeding) requested, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2),
that the Department conduct a administrative review of this order for
Since Hardware. On August 31, 2007, Since Hardware and Forever Holdings
requested administrative reviews of their sales under the antidumping
duty order. On September 25, 2007, the Department initiated an
administrative review of Since Hardware and Forever Holdings. See
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 72 FR 54428 (September 25,
2007).
On April 21, 2008, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''), and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2),
the Department extended the deadline for the preliminary results of
review until September 2, 2008. See Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing
Tables and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Extension
of the Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the 2006/2007
Administrative Review, 73 FR 21317 (April 21, 2008).
On March 3, 2008, we invited interested parties to comment on the
Department's surrogate country selection and to submit publicly
available information to value the factors of production. On April 24,
2008, we extended the period for filing surrogate value and factor of
production comments in this review until June 6, 2008. On June 6, 2008,
Since Hardware, Forever Holdings, and the Petitioner each submitted
comments concerning surrogate values and factors of production.
The Department received timely filed original and supplemental
questionnaire responses from both Since Hardware and Forever Holdings.
Scope of the Order
For purposes of this order, the product covered consists of floor-
standing, metal-top ironing tables, assembled or unassembled, complete
or incomplete, and certain parts thereof. The subject tables are
designed and used principally for the hand ironing or pressing of
garments or other articles of fabric. The subject tables have full-
height leg assemblies that support the ironing surface at an
appropriate (often adjustable) height above the floor. The subject
tables are produced in a variety of leg finishes, such as painted,
plated, or matte, and they are available with various features,
including iron rests, linen racks, and others. The subject ironing
tables may be sold with or without a pad and/or cover. All types and
configurations of floor-standing, metal-top ironing tables are covered
by this review.
Furthermore, this order specifically covers imports of ironing
tables, assembled or unassembled, complete or incomplete, and certain
parts thereof. For purposes of this order, the term ``unassembled''
ironing table means a product requiring the attachment of the leg
assembly to the top or the attachment of an included feature such as an
iron rest or linen rack. The term ``complete'' ironing table means
product sold as a ready-to-use ensemble consisting of the metal-top
table and a pad and cover, with or without
[[Page 52278]]
additional features, e.g., iron rest or linen rack. The term
``incomplete'' ironing table means product shipped or sold as a ``bare
board'' i.e., a metal-top table only, without the pad and cover with or
without additional features, e.g., iron rest or linen rack. The major
parts or components of ironing tables that are intended to be covered
by this order under the term ``certain parts thereof'' consist of the
metal top component (with or without assembled supports and slides)
and/or the leg components, whether or not attached together as a leg
assembly. The order covers separately shipped metal top components and
leg components, without regard to whether the respective quantities
would yield an exact quantity of assembled ironing tables.
Ironing tables without legs (such as models that mount on walls or
over doors) are not floor-standing and are specifically excluded.
Additionally, tabletop or countertop models with short legs that do not
exceed 12 inches in length (and which may or may not collapse or
retract) are specifically excluded.
The subject ironing tables were previously classified under
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') subheading
9403.20.0010. Effective July 1, 2003, the subject ironing tables are
classified under new HTSUS subheading 9403.20.0011. The subject metal
top and leg components are classified under HTSUS subheading
9403.90.8040. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and for Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') purposes,
the Department's written description of the scope remains dispositive.
Non-Market-Economy Status
Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination
that a foreign country is a Non-Market Economy (``NME'') shall remain
in effect until revoked by the administering authority. In every case
conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the PRC has been treated
as an NME. See, e.g., Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,
Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Results 2001-2002 Administrative Review and Partial
Rescission of Review, 68 FR 7500, 7500-01 (February 14, 2003),
unchanged in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 2001-
2002 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review, 68 FR
70488 (December 18, 2003). None of the parties to these reviews has
contested such treatment. Accordingly, we calculated normal value
(``NV'') in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to
NME countries.
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department begins with
a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are
subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single
antidumping duty rate unless an exporter can affirmatively demonstrate
an absence of government control, both in law (``de jure'') and in fact
(``de facto''), with respect to its export activities. See Notice of
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from
the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 at Comment 1 (May 6, 1991)
(``Sparklers''). In this review, Since Hardware and Forever Holdings
submitted information in support of their respective claims for a
company-specific rate.
Accordingly, we have considered whether Since Hardware and Forever
Holdings are independent from government control, and therefore
eligible for a separate rate. The Department's separate-rate test to
determine whether the exporters are independent from government control
does not consider, in general, macroeconomic/border-type controls,
e.g., export licenses, quotas, and minimum export prices, particularly
if these controls are imposed to prevent dumping. 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, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate
from Ukraine, 62 FR 61754, 61758 (November 19, 1997), see also 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 Sparklers, further
discussed in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR
22585, 22586-87 (May 2, 1994) (``Silicon Carbide''). In accordance with
the separate-rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates in
NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both de
jure and de facto government control over export activities. See
Sparklers, 56 FR 20588 at Comment 1, and Silicon Carbide, 56 FR at
22586.
Since Hardware and Forever Holdings provided complete separate-rate
information in their respective responses to our original and
supplemental questionnaires. Accordingly, we performed a separate-rates
analysis to determine whether both Since Hardware and Forever Holdings
are independent from government control.
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 20588 at Comment 1. As discussed below, our analysis
shows that the evidence on the record supports a preliminary finding of
an absence of de jure government control for both Since Hardware and
Forever Holdings based on each of these factors.
Since Hardware and Forever Holdings have placed on the record a
number of documents to demonstrate absence of de jure control,
including documentation substantiating their claims that both are
wholly foreign-owned enterprises registered in China. This
documentation includes the ``Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic
of China'' (May 12, 1994) (``Foreign Trade Law''), and ``Administrative
Regulations of the People's Republic of China Governing the
Registration of Legal Corporations'' (June 3, 1988) (``Legal
Corporations Regulations''). See Since Hardware's Section A
questionnaire response dated October 25, 2007 (``Since Hardware Section
A'') at Exhibits A-2 and A-5; see also Forever Holdings October 25,
2007 questionnaire response (``Forever Holdings Section A'') at
Exhibits A-2 and A-5. Both Since Hardware and Forever Holdings also
submitted copies of their respective business licenses. Since
Hardware's business license was issued by the Guangzhou Municipal
Industrial and Commercial Administration. See Since Hardware
[[Page 52279]]
Section A at Exhibit A-4. Forever Holdings business license was issued
by the Foshun City Shunde District and Industrial and Commercial
Administration Bureau. See Forever Holdings Section A at Exhibits 3 and
4. Since Hardware and Forever Holdings both indicated their respective
business licenses require that they maintain sufficient capital and
operating capacity to engage in normal business operations and that
only the company to which the business license was issued may use the
business license. See Since Hardware Section A at 4, and Forever
Holdings Section A at 7. Also, Since Hardware and Forever Holdings both
affirmed there are no limitations imposed on company operations by the
business license. See Since Hardware Section A at 5, and Forever
Holdings Section A at 8. The business licenses of both Since Hardware
and Forever Holdings may be revoked only if a situation arises where,
consistent with Article 30 of the Legal Corporations Regulations, Since
Hardware or Forever Holdings engage in prohibited activities or possess
insufficient business capital. Further, both Since Hardware and Forever
Holdings stated that to obtain a renewal of their respective business
licenses, they each must submit balance sheets and profit and loss
(``P&L'') statements to the issuing authority. Id.
Forever Holdings has placed on the record the Foreign Trade Law.
See Forever Holdings Section A at Exhibit 2. Both Since Hardware and
Forever Holdings contend that this law allows them full autonomy from
the central authority in governing their business operations. See Since
Hardware Section A at 3, and Forever Holdings Section A at 4-6. We have
reviewed Article 11 of Chapter II of the Foreign Trade Law, which
states, ``foreign trade dealers shall enjoy full autonomy in their
business operation and be responsible for their own profits and losses
in accordance with the law.'' As in prior cases, we have analyzed such
PRC laws and found they establish an absence of de jure control. See,
e.g., Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review: Certain Preserved
Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 30695, 30696 (June
7, 2001), unchanged in Final Results of New Shipper Review: Certain
Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 45006
(August 27, 2001). Therefore, we preliminarily determine that there is
an absence of de jure control over the export activities of both Since
Hardware and Forever Holdings.
Absence of De Facto Control
As stated in previous cases, there is some evidence that certain
enactments of the PRC central government have not been implemented
uniformly among different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. See
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. Therefore, the Department has determined
that an analysis of de facto control is critical in determining whether
respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of government control
which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates. See
id.
Typically, the Department considers four factors in evaluating
whether a respondent is subject to de facto government control of its
export functions: (1) whether the export prices are set by, or subject
to, the approval of a government authority; (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 its management; and (4) whether
the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes
independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of
losses. See id.
Since Hardware and Forever Holdings have asserted the following:
(1) they are both wholly foreign-owned companies; (2) there is no
government participation in the setting of export prices; (3) company
management has the authority to enter into sales contracts; (4) the
companies' owner appoints the company's management and do not have to
notify government authorities of their management selections; (5) there
are no restrictions on the use of the companies' export revenue; and
(6) the companies' board of directors decide how profits will be used.
See Since Hardware Section A at 3-9, and Forever Holdings Section A at
3-11. We have examined the documentation provided by Since Hardware and
Forever Holdings and note no discrepancies between the information on
the record and the two companies' statements on the record with respect
to de facto control over its export activities.
Consequently, because evidence on the record indicates an absence
of government control, both in law and in fact, over the export
activities of both Since Hardware and Forever Holdings, we
preliminarily determine that both Since Hardware and Forever Holdings
have met the criteria for the application of a separate rate.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether respondents' sales of the subject merchandise
to the United States were made at prices below normal value, we
compared their United States prices to normal values, as described in
the ``U.S. Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. See
section 773(a) of the Act.
U.S. Price
Export Price
We based U.S. price for both Since Hardware and Forever Holdings on
export price (``EP'') in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act,
because the first sale to an unaffiliated purchaser was made prior to
importation, and constructed export price (``CEP'') was not otherwise
warranted by the facts on the record. We calculated EP based on the
packed price from the exporter to the first unaffiliated customer in
the United States. We deducted foreign inland freight, and foreign
brokerage and handling expenses from the starting price (gross unit
price), in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. Also, for Since
Hardware we added billing adjustments to the gross unit price, where
applicable.
Both Since Hardware and Forever Holdings incurred foreign inland
freight and foreign brokerage and handling expenses from PRC service
providers. We therefore valued these services using Indian surrogate
values (see ``Factors of Production'' section below for further
discussion).
Normal Value
Surrogate Country
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to base NV on
the NME producer's factors of production valued in a surrogate market
economy country or countries if available information does not permit
the calculation of NV pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act. In this
instance such information is not available. Therefore, section
773(c)(4) of the Act requires the Department to value an NME producer's
factors of production based on the prices or costs of the factors of
production, in one or more market-economy countries that to the extent
possible are: (1) at a level of economic development comparable to that
of the NME country; and (2) significant producers of comparable
merchandise. India is among the countries comparable to the PRC in
terms of overall economic development, as identified in the Memorandum
from Carole Showers, Acting Director Office of Policy, to Scot
Fullerton, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9,
[[Page 52280]]
dated February 28, 2008. See Memorandum to the File from Michael J.
Heaney regarding Selection of a Surrogate Country in the Third
Administrative Review of Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and
Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China, dated September 2,
2008 (``Surrogate Country Memorandum''). In addition, based on
information from the investigation of ironing tables, India is a
significant producer of comparable merchandise. See Notice of
Initiation of Antidumping Investigation: Floor-Standing, Metal-Top
Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of
China, 68 FR 44040, 44042 (July 25, 2003), unchanged in Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Floor-Standing, Metal-
Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic
of China, 69 FR 35296, 35297 (June 24, 2004).
Accordingly, we selected India as the surrogate country for
purposes of valuing the factors of production because it satisfies the
Department's criteria for surrogate-country selection. See Surrogate
Country Memorandum.
Market Economy Purchases
Since Hardware purchased certain inputs used in the production of
the subject merchandise from market economy (``ME'') suppliers and paid
for these inputs in ME currencies. We used the weight-averaged ME
prices paid by Since Hardware when the inputs were obtained from a ME
supplier, paid for in a ME currency, and were a significant portion of
the total purchases of that input. See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1).
Section IV of the Department's standard Section D questionnaire
requires respondents to report for each raw material the percentage
purchased from an ME country and the percentage purchased from an NME.
In its responses to the Department, Since Hardware reported the
percentages of each raw material purchased from ME countries and paid
for in a ME currency. For each of the ME inputs purchased by Since
Hardware during the POR, the Department found that the percentage
purchased from ME suppliers constituted more than a third of the input
utilized in production of the merchandise. Thus, consistent with the
policy set forth in Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs,
Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for
Comment, 71 FR 61716, 61718 (October 19, 2006) (``Antidumping
Methodologies''), we used those ME purchases in our calculations. Due
to the proprietary nature of Since Hardware's ME purchases and
quantities, we are not able to discuss the details of these purchases
here. For a complete discussion, see Memorandum from Michael J. Heaney
regarding Since Hardware Analysis (``Since Hardware Analysis
Memorandum'') dated September 2, 2008. As a result, the Department
found that Since Hardware's ME purchases of cold rolled steel, hot
rolled steel, steel wire rod, powder coating, cotton fabric, springs,
bolts, center nail and nail heads, rivets, cartons, corrugated paper
and labels were a meaningful portion of total purchases of that input.
See Antidumping Methodologies, 71 FR at 61718. Therefore, in accordance
with section 351.408(c)(1) of the Department's regulations, we have
preliminarily valued these inputs using the actual ME prices paid.
Factors of Production
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV
based on the factors of production which included, but were not limited
to: (A) hours of labor required; (B) quantities of raw materials
employed; (C) amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; and (D)
representative capital costs, including depreciation. We used the
factors of production reported by the producers for materials, energy,
labor, and packing. To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported unit
factor quantities by publicly available values in the surrogate
country, India.
Since Hardware and Forever Holdings both reported by-product sales.
With respect to the application of the by-product offset to normal
value, consistent with the Department's determination in the
investigation of Diamond Sawblades from the PRC, we will deduct the
surrogate value from normal value because the surrogate financial
statements on the record of this administrative review contain no
references to the treatment of by-products and because Since Hardware
and Forever Holdings reported that they sold their by-products. See
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) (``Diamond Sawblades from the PRC''), and accompanying Issues
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 9, unchanged in Notice of Amended
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Diamond Sawblades
and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 35864
(June 22, 2006). This is consistent with accounting principles based on
a reasonable assumption that if a company sells a by-product, the by-
product necessarily incurs expenses for overhead, SG&A, and profit. Id.
In selecting the surrogate Indian values, we considered the
quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data, in accordance
with our practice. See, e.g., Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic
of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 67 FR
72139 (December 4, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum (``Garlic Decision Memorandum'') at Comment 6; see also
Final Results of First New Shipper Review and First Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's
Republic of China, 66 FR 31204 (June 11, 2001), and accompanying Issues
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5. When we used publicly available
import data from the Ministry of Commerce of India (``Indian Import
Statistics'') for the POR to value inputs sourced domestically from PRC
suppliers, we added to the Indian surrogate values a surrogate freight
cost calculated using the shorter of the reported distance from the
domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the closest
seaport to the factory. This adjustment is in accordance with the
Federal Circuit's decision in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d
1401, 1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). When we used non-import surrogate values
for factors sourced domestically by PRC suppliers, we based freight for
inputs on the actual distance from the input supplier to the site at
which the input was used. In addition, in instances where we relied on
Indian import data to value inputs, in accordance with the Department's
practice, we excluded imports from both NME countries and countries
deemed to maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific subsidies
which may benefit all exporters to all export markets (i.e., Indonesia,
South Korea, and Thailand) from our surrogate value calculations. See,
e.g., Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China; Final Results of 1999-
2000 Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and
Determination Not to Revoke Order in Part, 66 FR 57420 (November 15,
2001) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1; see
also Factors of Production Valuation Memorandum for the Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Floor-
[[Page 52281]]
Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the
People's Republic of China, dated September 2, 2008 (``Factor Valuation
Memorandum'') (for a complete discussion of the import data that we
excluded from our calculation of surrogate values).
Where we could not obtain publicly available information
contemporaneous with the POR to value factors, we adjusted the
surrogate values using the Indian Wholesale Price Index (``WPI'') as
published in the International Financial Statistics of the
International Monetary Fund, for those surrogate values in Indian
rupees. We made currency conversions, where necessary, pursuant to 19
CFR 351.415, to U.S. dollars using the daily exchange rate
corresponding to the reported date of each sale. We relied on the daily
exchange rates posted on the Import Administration website (https://
www.trade.gov/ia/).
We valued the factors of production as follows:
The Department used the Indian Import Statistics to value the raw
material and packing material inputs Since Hardware and Forever
Holdings used to produce the merchandise under review during the POR,
except where noted below. Detailed descriptions of all surrogate values
are discussed in the Factor Valuation Memorandum.
To value water, we calculated the average rate of inside and
outside industrial water rates from various regions as reported by the
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, https://midcindia.org,
dated June 1, 2003. We inflated the value for water using the POR
average WPI rate. See Factor Valuation Memorandum.
We valued electricity using the 2000 electricity price in India
reported by the International Energy Agency statistics for Energy
Prices & Taxes, Second Quarter 2003. We inflated the value for
electricity using the POR average WPI rate. See Factor Valuation
Memorandum.
We valued diesel using the rates provided by the OECD's
International Energy Agency's publication: Key World Energy Statistics
from 2004 and 2005. The prices are based on 2004 and 2005 first quarter
prices of automotive diesel fuel retail prices. See Factor Valuation
Memorandum.
With respect to valuation of factory overhead, selling, general and
administrative expenses, and profit, in the Final Results of the 2004-
2005 Administrative Review of this Order, the Department relied on the
2005-2006 Infiniti Modules Pvt. Ltd. (``Infiniti Modules'') financial
statements, because it provides the most contemporaneous and publicly
available information. See Floor Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and
Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Final
Results and Final Recisssion, In Part, of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 72 FR
13239, (March 21, 2007) and Accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum
at Comment 1 (``AR 1 Final Results''). Petitioner placed on the record
Infiniti Modules 2005-2006 financial statements in its July 14, 2008
submission at Exhibit 1. Petitioner included in its July 14, 2008
submission the profit and loss statement for Infiniti Modules for the
2005-2006 financial period.
In valuing factors of production, section 773(c)(1) of the Act
instructs the Department to use ``the best available information'' from
the appropriate market economy country. As discussed above, in choosing
the most appropriate surrogate value, the Department considers several
factors, including the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the
source information. See, e.g., Garlic Decision Memorandum, at Comment
6. For these preliminary results, the Department has determined that
the 2005-2006 Infiniti Modules financial statements are complete,
publicly available, and reflect merchandise comparable to ironing
tables. We note the 2005-2006 Infiniti Modules financial statements
were obtained from the Indian Registrar of Companies, and are publicly
available. See Petitioner's July 14, 2008 surrogate value submission.
With respect to quality, we note the 2005-2006 Infiniti Modules
financial statements are complete, audited financial statements with
all auditors notes and schedules, as well a complete balance sheet and
P&L. Regarding specificity, we preliminarily find, consistent with our
determination in the 2004-2005 review of this proceeding, that Infiniti
Modules manufactures merchandise that closely reflects merchandise
comparable to ironing tables. (See AR1 Final Results.) Therefore, we
preliminarily find that the 2005-2006 Infinity Modules financial
statements are publicly available, quality data specific to the
merchandise under review.
Thus, the Department preliminarily finds, consistent with section
773(c)(1) of the Act and the AR1 Final Results, that the 2005-2006
Infiniti Modules financial statements are the best information
available on the record of this review, from which to value the
surrogate financial ratios of factory overhead, selling, general &
administrative expenses, and profit. See Factor Valuation Memorandum
for details concerning the calculation of these ratios.
Because of the variability of wage rates in countries with similar
levels of per capita gross domestic product, 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3)
requires the use of a regression-based wage rate. Therefore, to value
the labor input, we used the PRC's regression-based wage rate published
by Import Administration on its website, https://www.trade.gov/ia/. See
Factor Valuation Memorandum.
To value truck freight, we calculated a weighted-average freight
cost based on publicly available data from www.infreight.com, an Indian
inland freight logistics resource website. See Factor Valuation
Memorandum.
To value brokerage and handling, the Department used a simple
average of the publicly summarized version of the average value for
brokerage and handling expenses reported in the U.S. sales listings in
the submission from Essar Steel Ltd. (``Essar Steel''), dated February
28, 2005, in the antidumping duty review of Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon
Steel Flat Products from India; the submission from Agro Dutch
Industries Limited (``Agro Dutch''), dated May 24, 2005, at Exhibit B-
1, in the antidumping duty administrative review of Certain Preserved
Mushrooms from India; and the submission from Kejriwal Paper Ltd.
(``Kejriwal''), dated January 9, 2006, in the antidumping duty review
of Lined Paper from India. (The information used to derive brokerage
and handling surrogate values from Essar Steel's February 28, 2005 U.S.
sales listing, Exhibit B-1 of Agro Dutch's May 24, 2005 submission, and
Kejriwal's January 9, 2006 submission is on the record of this
proceeding. See Factors Valuation Memorandum at Attachment 3.) Use of
these averages is consistent with the Department's normal practice to
calculate brokerage and handling expenses. The Department's preference
is to average these data sources because they represent values for
numerous transactions that are available for a range of products and
minimize the potential distortions that might arise from a single price
source. One value, taken in isolation, could differ significantly when
compared across a range of products, values, and special circumstances
of a single transaction. See 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), and accompanying
Issues and Decision
[[Page 52282]]
memo at Comment 5. See also Factor Valuation Memorandum.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results
of this administrative review, interested parties may submit publicly
available information to value the factors of production until 20 days
following the date of publication of these preliminary results.
Preliminary Results of Review
We preliminarily determine that the following antidumping duty
margins exist:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exporter Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forever Holdings.................................... 0%
Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd................. 1.53 %
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For details on the calculation of the antidumping duty weighted-
average margin for Since Hardware and Forever Holdings, see the
respective Since Hardware Analysis Memorandum and the Forever Holdings
Analysis Memorandum. Public versions of these memoranda are on file in
the Department's Central Records Unit, Room 1117 of the main commerce
building (``CRU'').
Assessment Rates
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and
CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The
Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to
CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this
review. For assessment purposes, where possible, we calculated
importer-specific ad valorem assessment rates for ironing tables from
the PRC based on the ratio of the total amount of the dumping duties
calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those
same sales. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries covered by this review if any assessment rate
calculated in the final results of this review is above de minimis. The
final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of
antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final
results of these reviews and for future deposits of estimated duties,
where applicable.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for the exporters
listed above, the cash deposit rate will be established in the final
results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis,
i.e., less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit will be required for that
company); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC
exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit
rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the
most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise
which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash
deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 157.68 percent (see Ironing
Tables Order); and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise
which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be
the rate applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied that non-PRC
exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in
effect until publication of the final results of the next
administrative review.
Schedule for Final Results of Review
The Department will disclose calculations performed in connection
with the preliminary results of this review within five days of the
date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR
351.224(b). Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days
of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any
hearing will be held 37 days after the publication of this notice, or
the first workday thereafter unless the Department alters the date
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d). Individuals who wish to request a
hearing must submit a written request within 30 days of the publication
of this notice in the Federal Register to the Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. Requests for
a public hearing should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and
telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) to the extent
practicable, an identification of the arguments to be raised at the
hearing.
Unless otherwise notified by the Department, interested parties may
submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this
notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). As part of the case
brief, parties are encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not
to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases
cited in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2). Rebuttal briefs, which
must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed
within five days after the case brief is filed in accordance with 19
CFR 351.309(d). If a hearing is held, an interested party may make an
affirmative presentation only on arguments included in that party's
case brief and may make a rebuttal presentation only on arguments
included in that party's rebuttal brief in accordance with 19 CFR
351.310(c). Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and
place of the hearing within 48 hours before the scheduled time. The
Department will issue the final results of this review, which will
include the results of its analysis of issues raised in the briefs, not
later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice in
accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.213(h)(1).
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during these review periods. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
These preliminary results of administrative review are issued and
this notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and
777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: September 2, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-20921 Filed 9-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S