Uncovered Innerspring Units From the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 79443-79447 [E8-30852]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 249 (Monday, December 29, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79443-79447]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-30852]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-928]


Uncovered Innerspring Units From the People's Republic of China: 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

DATES: Effective Date: December 29, 2008.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``Department'') has determined 
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 
735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``Act''). The final dumping 
margins for this investigation are listed in the ``Final Determination 
Margins'' section below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Pulongbarit or Paul Walker, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-4031 or (202) 482-0413, 
respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Case History

    On August 6, 2008, the Department published in the Federal Register 
its preliminary determination that innersprings from the PRC are being, 
or are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV. See Uncovered 
Innerspring Units from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 45729 (August 6, 
2008) (``Preliminary Determination''). The Department conducted a 
verification of Foshan Jingxin Steel Wire & Spring Co., Ltd. (``Foshan 
Jingxin'') from September 22-26, 2008.\1\ In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.309(c)(i), we invited parties to comment on our Preliminary 
Determination. The Department received a case brief from Petitioner.\2\ 
No other party submitted case or rebuttal briefs. In addition, on 
December 2, 2008, we placed new factual information on the record 
regarding Foshan Jingxin's affiliate Foshan Ruixin Non-Woven Co., Ltd. 
(``Ruixin'').\3\ On December 8, 2008, we received comments on the new 
factual information from both Foshan Jingxin and Petitioner.\4\ No 
hearings were requested or held for this investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Memorandum to the File from Erin Begnal, Senior Case 
Analyst, and Susan Pulongbarit, Case Analyst, through Scot 
Fullerton, Program Manager, ``Verification of the Sales and Factors 
of Production Response of Foshan Jingxin Steel Wire & Spring Co., 
Ltd. in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Uncovered Innerspring 
Units from the People's Republic of China,'' dated November 4, 2008 
(``Foshan Jingxin Verification Report'').
    \2\ Leggett & Platt, Incorporated, hereafter known as 
``Petitioner''.
    \3\ See the Department's letter dated December 2, 2008.
    \4\ See Letter from Garvey Schubert Barer to Secretary of 
Commerce, Response to the Department Letter Dated December 3, 2008 
(December 8, 2008) and Letter from White & Case LLP to Secretary of 
Commerce, Petitioner Supplementary Information Response (December 8, 
2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by the parties to 
this investigation are addressed in the ``Uncovered Innerspring Units 
from the People's Republic of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum for 
the Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value,'' dated 
concurrently with this notice, which is hereby adopted by this notice 
in its entirety (``Issues and Decision Memorandum''). A list of the 
issues which parties raised and to which we respond in the Issues and 
Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The 
Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file in 
the Central Records Unit in the main Commerce building, Room 1117, and 
is accessible on the Web at https://www.trade.gov/ia. The paper copy and 
electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical 
in content.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (``POI'') is April 1, 2007, through 
September 30, 2007.

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

[[Page 79444]]

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, 
7326.20.0070, 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 this investigation is dispositive.

Scope-Clarification Request

    Caye Home Furnishings LLC (Caye Furnishings), a U.S. manufacturer 
of living room furniture, requested that we clarify the scope language 
of the antidumping duty investigations on uncovered innerspring units 
from the PRC, South Africa, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. See 
August 25, 2008, letter from Caye Furnishings. Specifically, Caye 
Furnishings requested that we modify the scope of the investigations to 
exclude springs and individually wrapped pocket coils for upholstery 
seating that are not suitable for mattresses or mattress supports.
    Caye Furnishings asserted that the reference to mattresses in the 
scope language makes clear that Petitioner intended to cover 
innersprings that are used in the manufacture of innerspring mattresses 
and did not intend to cover innersprings that are not suitable for use 
in mattresses or mattress supports. Caye Furnishings asserted that 
innersprings and individually wrapped pocket coils that it imports for 
use in upholstery seating in the manufacture of living room furniture 
are not suitable for mattresses or mattress supports. Caye Furnishings 
also explained that, although the products it imports are normally 
classified under subheading 7320.20.5020 of the HTSUS, which is not one 
of the HTSUS subheadings covered by the scope of the investigations, 
the scope description as written could result in the treatment of its 
imports as subject merchandise.
    In its September 11, 2008, comments on the issue, Petitioner stated 
that it believes the scope language is clear and that the merchandise 
described by Caye Furnishings is outside the scope of the 
investigations. Petitioner stated, however, that it does not object to 
the clarification of the scope for the reasons Caye Furnishings cited. 
See Memorandum to the File from Dmitry Vladamirov, Case Analyst, Re: 
Less-Than-Fair Value Investigations of Uncovered Innerspring Units from 
the PRC, South Africa, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, dated 
September 16, 2008. In its September 17, 2008, comments responding to 
the alternative versions of the scope-clarification language that we 
proposed, Petitioner stated that it does not object to amending the 
scope description of the investigations by excluding individual springs 
and individually wrapped pocket coils for upholstery seating 
(Petitioner stated that it objects to the proposed language which 
excludes any mention of end-use of the merchandise).
    We have considered the various alternatives on the record for 
modifications of the scope language. In addition to the difficulties 
associated with administering antidumping duty orders with end-use as a 
basis for whether certain products may be considered subject 
merchandise, we agree with Petitioner that the merchandise Caye 
Furnishings described in its request is not within the scope of the 
investigations. Therefore, we have not modified the scope language as 
suggested by any of the parties.

Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our findings at verification, and additional information 
placed on the record of this investigation, we have made changes since 
the Preliminary Determination. As further discussed below, we have 
determined to apply total adverse facts available (``AFA'') to Foshan 
Jingxin for purposes of this final determination. See Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.

Adverse Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
apply ``facts otherwise available'' if, inter alia, an interested party 
or any other person (A) Withholds information that has been requested, 
(B) fails to provide information within the deadlines established, or 
in the form or manner requested by the Department, subject to 
subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 of the Act, (C) significantly 
impedes a proceeding, or (D) provides information that cannot be 
verified as provided by section 782(i) of the Act. Section 776(b) of 
the Act provides further that the Department may use an adverse 
inference when a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the 
best of its ability to comply with a request for information.
    Pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (C) and (D) of the Act, we are 
applying facts otherwise available to Foshan Jingxin because it 
withheld certain information that was specifically requested by the 
Department and significantly impeded the proceeding by not providing 
accurate or complete responses to the Department's questions regarding 
the activities of its majority-owned affiliate, Ruixin, in the 
production of the merchandise under consideration and sale of subject 
merchandise to the United States. Additionally, because information 
discovered at verification directly contradicted information contained 
in Foshan Jingxin's questionnaire responses, the Department was unable 
to verify certain statements in Foshan Jingxin's questionnaire 
responses. See Foshan Jingxin Verification Report.
    Furthermore, based on the record evidence and pursuant to section 
776(b) of the Act, the Department has determined that Foshan Jingxin 
did not cooperate to the best of its ability to comply with the 
Department's requests for information. Specifically, the Department 
explained the nature of information on affiliates that it required in 
the investigation, gave Foshan Jinxing numerous opportunities to 
provide such information, received only denials from Foshan Jingxin 
that Ruixin was involved in the sale or production of the merchandise 
under consideration, discovered only at verification that Ruixin was in 
fact involved in the production of the merchandise under consideration, 
discovered after verification that Ruixin was involved in the sale of 
subject merchandise, and found that Foshan Jingxin, though its general 
manager, possessed this information throughout the investigation, yet 
failed to report it.

[[Page 79445]]

Therefore, in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act, we have 
applied total AFA to Foshan Jinxing. Accordingly, Foshan Jingxin will 
be assigned the PRC-wide rate as total AFA. For a complete analysis of 
comments received on this issue, see Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 1.

Surrogate Country

    In the Preliminary Determination, we stated that we had selected 
India as the appropriate surrogate country to use in this investigation 
for the following reasons: (1) It is a significant producer of 
comparable merchandise; (2) it is at a level of economic development 
comparable to that of the PRC; and (3) we have reliable data from India 
that we can use to value FOPs. See Preliminary Determination. We 
received no comments on our surrogate country selection. Accordingly, 
for the final determination, we made no changes to our finding with 
respect to the selection of India as a surrogate country.

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving non-market economy (``NME'') countries, 
the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies 
within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should 
be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the 
Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to 
an 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. See Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 
20589 (May 6, 1991), as amplified by Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's 
Republic of China, 59 FR at 22585, 22587 (May 2, 1994), and 19 CFR 
351.107(d).
    In the Preliminary Determination, we found that the following 
separate rate applicants demonstrated their eligibility for separate-
rate status: Zibo Senbao Furniture Co., Ltd., Hebei Yililan Furniture 
Co., Ltd., Xilinmen Group Co., Ltd., East Grace Corporation, Nanjing 
Meihua I&E Trade Co., Ltd., and Zhejiang Sanmen Herod Mattress Co., 
Ltd. (collectively ``SR applicants'').
    No party has commented on the eligibility of these companies for 
separate-rate status. For the final determination, we continue to find 
that the evidence placed on the record of this investigation by these 
companies demonstrates both a de jure and de facto absence of 
government control with respect to their respective exports of the 
merchandise under investigation. Thus, we continue to find that they 
are eligible for separate rate status. Normally the separate rate is 
determined based on the estimated weighted-average dumping margins 
established for exporters and producers individually investigated, 
excluding de minimis margins or margins based entirely on AFA. See 
section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act.
    We determined in the Preliminary Determination that Jiangsu Soho 
Technology Trading Co., Ltd. (``Soho Tech.'') is not entitled to a 
separate rate. We received no comments on this denial of a separate 
rate and, for the final determination, continue to find that Soho Tech. 
is not entitled to a separate rate.
    In the Preliminary Determination, we determined that Foshan Jingxin 
was eligible for a separate rate because it demonstrated an absence of 
de jure and de facto government control. At verification we found no 
discrepancies in Foshan Jingxin's responses to the Department's 
separate rate questions. Consequently, for the final determination we 
continue to find that the evidence placed on the record of this 
investigation by Foshan Jingxin demonstrates it is eligible for a 
separate rate. In past cases where a respondent company satisfies the 
separate-rates test, but fails to participate to the best of its 
ability in other aspects of the antidumping proceeding, resulting in 
the application of AFA, the Department may assign the AFA rate as a 
separate rate for that company. See, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's 
Republic of China, 72 FR 52355 (September 13, 2007) and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. Thus, for this final 
determination, the Department has assigned the AFA rate of 234.51 
percent to Foshan Jingxin as its separate rate.
    In the Preliminary Determination, the Department assigned a 
separate rate to six exporter/producer combinations that qualified for 
a separate rate using a weighted-average margin based on the experience 
of the mandatory respondents and excluding any de minimis or zero rates 
or rates based on total AFA. See Preliminary Determination. In light of 
the application of AFA for both mandatory respondents, this methodology 
is no longer appropriate. In cases where the estimated weighted-average 
margins for all individually investigated respondents are zero, de 
minimis, or based entirely on AFA, the Department may use any 
reasonable method to assign the separate rate. See section 735(c)(5)(B) 
of the Act. In this case, where there are no mandatory respondents 
receiving a calculated rate and the PRC-wide entity's rate is based 
upon total AFA, we find that applying the simple average of the rates 
alleged in the petition is both reasonable and reliable for purposes of 
establishing a separate rate. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Sodium Hexametaphosphate From the People's 
Republic of China, 73 FR 6479 (February 4, 2008) and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2; see also Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Final 
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Circular Welded Carbon Quality 
Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China, 73 FR 31970 (June 5, 
2008) (``Steel Pipe Final'') and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 7. Therefore, the Department will assign a 
separate rate to the six exporter/producer combinations using the 
simple average of the margins alleged in the petition, pursuant to its 
practice. This rate is corroborated, to the extent practicable, for the 
reasons stated below. See ``Corroboration'' section below.

The PRC-Wide Rate

    In the Preliminary Determination, the Department found that certain 
companies did not respond to our requests for information. See 
Preliminary Determination, 73 FR at 45734. In the Preliminary 
Determination we treated these PRC producers/exporters as part of the 
PRC-wide entity because they did not demonstrate that they operate free 
of government control over their export activities. In addition, in the 
Preliminary Determination we determined that High Hope Int'l Group 
Jiangsu Native Produce Imp. & Exp. Corp. Ltd. would be treated as part 
of the PRC-wide entity due to its withdrawal from the investigation 
and, thus, its failure to demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate. 
Further, in the Preliminary Determination, the Department found that 
Jiangsu Soho International Group Holding Co., Ltd. (``Jiangsu Soho'') 
was not eligible for a separate rate and, for the final determination, 
we are treating Jiangsu Soho as part of the PRC-wide entity. No 
additional information was placed on the record with respect to any of 
these companies after the Preliminary Determination. Therefore, 
pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the Department continues 
to find that the use of facts available is appropriate to determine the 
PRC-wide rate.

[[Page 79446]]

    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 
Notice of 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). See also Statement of 
Administrative Action accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, 
vol. 1, at 870 (1994) (``SAA''). We determined that, because the PRC-
wide entity did not respond to our request for information, it has 
failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. Therefore, the 
Department finds that, in selecting from among the facts otherwise 
available, an adverse inference is appropriate for the PRC-wide entity.
    Because we begin with the presumption that all companies within an 
NME country are subject to government control and because only the 
companies listed under the ``Final Determination Margins'' section 
below have overcome that presumption, we are applying a single 
antidumping rate (i.e., the PRC-wide entity rate) to all other 
exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC. Such companies did not 
demonstrate entitlement to a separate rate. See, e.g., Synthetic Indigo 
From the People's Republic of China; Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 65 FR 25706 (May 3, 2000). The PRC-wide 
entity rate applies to all entries of subject merchandise except for 
entries from the respondents which are listed in the ``Final 
Determination Margins'' section below.
    In the Preliminary Determination, we assigned to the PRC-wide 
entity the highest rate calculated from the petition, 234.51 percent. 
See Preliminary Determination, 73 FR at 45735. We received no comments 
on this rate. Therefore, for the final determination, we have continued 
to assign to the PRC-wide entity the rate of 234.51 percent.

Corroboration

    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies 
on secondary information in using the facts otherwise available, it 
must, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from 
independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. We have 
interpreted ``corroborate'' to mean that we will, to the extent 
practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information 
submitted. 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 Notice of Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality 
Steel Products From Brazil, 65 FR 5554, 5568 (February 4, 2000); see, 
e.g., 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).
    Because there are no cooperating mandatory respondents to 
corroborate the 234.51 percent margin used as AFA for the PRC-wide 
entity, we relied upon our pre-initiation analysis of the adequacy and 
accuracy of the information in the petition. See Antidumping 
Investigation Initiation Checklist: Uncovered Innersprings from the 
People's Republic of China (January 22, 2008). During the initiation 
stage, we examined evidence supporting the calculations in the petition 
and the supplemental information provided by Petitioners to determine 
the probative value of the margins alleged in the petition. During our 
pre-initiation analysis, we examined the information used as the basis 
of export price and normal value (``NV'') in the petition, and the 
calculations used to derive the alleged margins. Also during our pre-
initiation analysis, we examined information from various independent 
sources provided either in the petition or, based on our requests, in 
supplements to the petition, which corroborated key elements of the 
export price and NV calculations. Id. We received no comments as to the 
relevance or probative value of this information. In past cases where 
there were no cooperating mandatory respondents with which to 
corroborate the margin used as AFA, the Department relied upon our pre-
initiation analysis of the adequacy and accuracy of the information in 
the petition. See Steel Pipe Final, 73 FR at 31972. Therefore, for the 
final determination, the Department finds that the rates derived from 
the petition for purposes of initiation have probative value for the 
purpose of being selected as the AFA rate assigned to the PRC-wide 
entity.

Combination Rates

    In the Preliminary Determination, the Department stated that it 
would calculate combination rates for the respondents that are eligible 
for a separate rate in this investigation. See Preliminary 
Determination, 73 FR at 45737. This change in practice is described in 
Policy Bulletin 05.1, available at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/. 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, ``Separate Rates Practice and Application 
of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations Involving Non-Market 
Economy Countries.''

Final Determination Margins

    We determine that the following percentage weighted-average margins 
exist for the POI:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Weighted-
             Exporter                     Producer        average margin
                                                             (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anshan Yuhua Industrial Trade Co.,  Anshan Yuhua                  164.75
 Ltd.                                Industrial Trade
                                     Co., Ltd.
East Grace Corporation............  Wuxi Xihuisheng               164.75
                                     Commercial Co., Ltd.
Foshan Jingxin Steel Wire & Spring  Foshan Jingxin Steel          234.51
 Co., Ltd.                           Wire & Spring Co.,
                                     Ltd.
Hebei Yililan Furniture Co., Ltd..  Hebei Yililan                 164.75
                                     Furniture Co., Ltd.

[[Page 79447]]

 
Nanjing Meihua Import & Export      Nanjing Dongdai               164.75
 Trade Co., Ltd.                     Furniture Co., Ltd.
Xilinmen Group Co., Ltd...........  Xilinmen Furniture            164.75
                                     Co., Ltd.
Zhejiang Sanmen Herod Mattress      Zhejiang Sanmen               164.75
 Co., Ltd.                           Herod Mattress Co.,
                                     Ltd.
Zibo Senbao Furniture Co., Ltd....  Zibo Senbao                   164.75
                                     Furniture Co., Ltd.
PRC-wide (including High Hope       ....................          234.51
 Int'l Group Jiangsu Native
 Produce Imp. & Exp. Corp. Ltd.
 and 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 this proceeding in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    We will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to 
continue the suspension of liquidation required by section 735(c)(1)(B) 
of the Act, of all entries of subject merchandise from Foshan Jingxin, 
the SR Applicants and the PRC-wide entity entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after August 6, 2008, the date of 
publication of the Preliminary Determination. CBP shall continue to 
require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the estimated 
amount by which the NV exceeds the U.S. price as shown above. See 
section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act. The suspension of liquidation 
instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the 
International Trade Commission (``ITC'') of our final determination of 
sales at LTFV. As our final determination is affirmative, in accordance 
with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, within 45 days the ITC will 
determine whether the domestic industry in the United States is 
materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of 
imports or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of the 
subject merchandise. If the ITC determines that material injury or 
threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be 
terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If 
the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will 
issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further 
instruction by the Department, antidumping duties on all imports of the 
subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of 
liquidation.

Notification Regarding APO

    This notice also serves as a reminder to the parties subject to 
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return or 
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 determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: December 19, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix

Comment 1: Application of Facts Available for
    A. Unreported Affiliate.
    B. Unreported Factors of Production.
Comment 2: Bona Fide Analysis of Foshan Jingxin's Sales.
Comment 3: Surrogate Financial Ratios.
Comment 4: Calculation of the Scrap Surrogate Value.

[FR Doc. E8-30852 Filed 12-24-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P