Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 3560-3563 [E9-1106]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
3560
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 21, 2009 / Notices
circular welded carbon steel pipes and
tubes from Taiwan, pursuant to section
751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act). See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Requests
for Revocation in Part, 73 FR 37409
(July 1, 2008).
On August 18, 2008, Yieh Hsing
submitted a letter to the Department
certifying that it had no shipments of
subject merchandise to the United
States during the POR. On August 20,
2008, Allied Tube & Conduit
Corporation submitted a letter
requesting that the review be extended
to cover Yieh Phui Enterprise Company,
Ltd. (Yieh Phui), noting that Yieh Phui
had been found to be the successor–ininterest to Yieh Hsing in a prior
proceeding. On August 25, 2008, Yieh
Hsing and another interested party,
SeAH Steel America (SeAH), each
submitted letters objecting to the
extension of the review to cover Yieh
Phui. On August 27, 2008, Allied Tube
& Conduit Corporation filed a response
to SeAH’s comments, reiterating its
request that the review be extended to
cover Yieh Phui. On November 14,
2008, the Department determined that
the review should not be extended to
Yieh Phui. See the November 14, 2008
memorandum to the file entitled
‘‘Treatment of Yieh Hsing Enterprise
Co., Ltd. (Yieh Hsing) and Yieh Phui
Enterprise Co. Ltd. (Yieh Phui): 2007/
2008 Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Circular
Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes
from Taiwan.’’
On November 18, 2008, the
Department conducted a data query of
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) import entry information, and
found no evidence of entries during the
POR involving subject merchandise
manufactured or shipped by Yieh Hsing.
See the December 23, 2008,
memorandum from Steve Bezirganian to
the File. The Department issued a ‘‘No
Shipment Inquiry’’ to CBP, to confirm
that there were no POR exports of
subject merchandise manufactured and/
or exported by Yieh Hsing. See CBP
message number 8357202, dated
December 22, 2008. CBP only responds
to the Department’s inquiry when CBP
finds that there have been shipments.
CBP did not respond to our inquiry.
Therefore, we preliminarily determine
there were no Yieh Hsing shipments or
entries of subject merchandise exported
by Yieh Hsing to the United States
during the POR.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise covered by the order
is certain circular welded carbon steel
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:54 Jan 16, 2009
Jkt 217001
pipes and tubes from Taiwan, which are
defined as: welded carbon steel pipes
and tubes, of circular cross section, with
walls not thinner than 0.065 inch, and
0.375 inch or more but not over 4.5
inches in outside diameter, currently
classified under Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)
item numbers 7306.30.5025,
7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, and
7306.30.5055. Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the scope of the
order is dispositive.
Intent To Rescind Administrative
Review
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the
Department may rescind an
administrative review if it concludes
that during the POR there were no
entries, exports, or sales of the subject
merchandise. The Department’s
practice, supported by precedent,
requires that there be entries during the
POR upon which to assess antidumping
duties. See, e.g., Stainless Steel Bar from
Italy: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and Preliminary Rescission of
Review, 70 FR 17656 (April 7, 2005)
unchanged in Stainless Steel Bar from
Italy: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Rescission
of Review, 70 FR 46480 (August 10,
2005).
Yieh Hsing certified that it had no
entries of subject merchandise during
the 2007–2008 POR, and the
Department’s review of official data
from CBP did not indicate otherwise.
Therefore, we have preliminarily
determined that Yieh Hsing had no
shipments of subject merchandise
during the POR, and we intend to
rescind the 2007–2008 administrative
review.
Public Comment
Interested parties may submit case
briefs not later than 30 days after the
date of publication of this notice. See 19
CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs, which
must be limited to issues raised in such
briefs, must be filed not later than five
days after the time limit for filing casing
briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties
who submit arguments are requested to
submit with the argument (1) a
statement of the issue, (2) a brief
summary of the argument, and (3) a
table of authorities. Further, parties
submitting written comments should
provide the Department with an
additional copy of the public version of
any such comments on diskette. An
interested party may request a hearing
within 30 days of publication of this
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
notice. Any hearing, if requested, will
be held 37 days after the date of
publication of this notice, or the first
working day thereafter. See 19 CFR
351.310. We will issue our final
decision concerning the conduct of the
review no later than 120 days from the
date of publication of this notice.
This notice is published in
accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Dated: January 13, 2009.
Gary Taverman,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretaryfor
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations.
[FR Doc. E9–1115 Filed 1–16–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–868]
Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from
the People’s Republic of China: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(‘‘Department’’) published its
preliminary results of the administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
on folding metal tables and chairs
(‘‘FMTCs’’) from the People’s Republic
of China (‘‘PRC’’) on July 14, 2008.1 The
period of review (‘‘POR’’) is June 1,
2006, through May 31, 2007. We invited
interested parties to comment on our
preliminary results. Based on our
analysis of the comments received, we
have made changes to our margin
calculations. Therefore, the final results
differ from the preliminary results. The
final dumping margins for this review
are listed in the ‘‘Final Results of
Review’’ section below.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 21, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lilit
Astvatsatrian or Charles Riggle, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 8, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–6412 or (202) 482–
0650, respectively.
1 See Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the
People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and
Intent to Revoke in Part, 73 FR 40285 (July 14, 2008)
(‘‘Preliminary Results’’).
E:\FR\FM\21JAN1.SGM
21JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 21, 2009 / Notices
Scope of Order
On July 14, 2008, the Department
published its preliminary results. On
August 4, 2008, Meco Corporation
(‘‘Meco’’), the petitioner in the
underlying investigation, and Cosco
Home and Office Products (‘‘Cosco’’), a
U.S. importer of subject merchandise,
provided additional comments on the
appropriate surrogate values to use as a
means of valuing the factors of
production, including financial
statements from Zuari Industries
Limited (2006–2007) (‘‘Zuari’’) and
Maximaa Systems Limited (2006–2007)
(‘‘Maximaa’’), Indian producers of
merchandise that is identical or
comparable to the subject merchandise.
On August 13, 2008, the Department
received a request for a hearing from
Meco. On August 14, 2008, Cosco and
Feili Furniture Development Limited
Quanzhou City, Feili Furniture
Development Co., Ltd., Feili Group
(Fujian) Co., Ltd., and Feili (Fujian) Co.,
Ltd. (collectively ‘‘Feili’’), a respondent,
submitted rebuttals to the surrogate
value information. On August 19, 2008,
Meco provided a rebutting exhibit to
Cosco’s August 14, 2008, rebuttal
submission. As provided in section
782(i) of the Act, we verified the
information submitted by Feili for use
in our final results.2 On October 1 and
3, 2008, the Department received case
briefs from Meco and New–Tec
Integration (Xiamen) Co., Ltd. and New–
Tec Integration Co., Ltd. (collectively
‘‘New–Tec’’), a respondent, respectively.
On October 6, 8, and 20, 2008, New–
Tec, Cosco, Meco, and Feili submitted
rebuttal briefs, respectively. On
November 6, 2008, the Department held
a public hearing. On November 10,
2008, the Department extended the time
period for completion of the final results
until December 11, 2008.3 On December
17, 2008, the Department fully extended
the time period of the final results until
January 12, 2009.4
We have conducted this
administrative review in accordance
with section 751 of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), and 19
CFR 351.213.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Background
The products covered by this order
consist of assembled and unassembled
folding tables and folding chairs made
primarily or exclusively from steel or
other metal, as described below:
1) Assembled and unassembled
folding tables made primarily or
exclusively from steel or other metal
(folding metal tables). Folding metal
tables include square, round,
rectangular, and any other shapes with
legs affixed with rivets, welds, or any
other type of fastener, and which are
made most commonly, but not
exclusively, with a hardboard top
covered with vinyl or fabric. Folding
metal tables have legs that mechanically
fold independently of one another, and
not as a set. The subject merchandise is
commonly, but not exclusively, packed
singly, in multiple packs of the same
item, or in five piece sets consisting of
four chairs and one table. Specifically
excluded from the scope of the order
regarding folding metal tables are the
following:
Lawn furniture;
Trays commonly referred to as ‘‘TV
trays;’’
2 See ‘‘Verification of the Sales and Factors
Response of Feili in the Antidumping Review of
Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the Peoples
Republic of China,’’ (September 5, 2008).
3 See Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the
People’s Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit
for the Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 73 FR 66595 (November 10,
2008).
4 See Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the
People’s Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit
for the Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 73 FR 76615 (December 17,
2008).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:54 Jan 16, 2009
Jkt 217001
Side tables;
Child–sized tables;
Portable counter sets consisting of
rectangular tables 36’’ high and
matching stools; and, Banquet
tables. A banquet table is a
rectangular table with a plastic or
laminated wood table top
approximately 28’’ to 36’’ wide by
48’’ to 96’’ long and with a set of
folding legs at each end of the table.
One set of legs is composed of two
individual legs that are affixed
together by one or more cross–
braces using welds or fastening
hardware. In contrast, folding metal
tables have legs that mechanically
fold independently of one another,
and not as a set.
2) Assembled and unassembled
folding chairs made primarily or
exclusively from steel or other metal
(folding metal chairs). Folding metal
chairs include chairs with one or more
cross–braces, regardless of shape or size,
affixed to the front and/or rear legs with
rivets, welds or any other type of
fastener. Folding metal chairs include:
those that are made solely of steel or
other metal; those that have a back pad,
a seat pad, or both a back pad and a seat
pad; and those that have seats or backs
made of plastic or other materials. The
subject merchandise is commonly, but
not exclusively, packed singly, in
multiple packs of the same item, or in
five piece sets consisting of four chairs
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3561
and one table. Specifically excluded
from the scope of the order regarding
folding metal chairs are the following:
Folding metal chairs with a wooden
back or seat, or both;
Lawn furniture;
Stools;
Chairs with arms; and
Child–sized chairs.
The subject merchandise is currently
classifiable under subheadings
9401.71.0010, 9401.71.0030,
9401.79.0045, 9401.79.0050,
9403.20.015, 9403.20.0030,
9403.70.8010, 9403.70.8020, and
9403.70.8030 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States
(‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
Department’s written description of the
merchandise is dispositive.
Based on a request by RPA
International Pty., Ltd. and RPS, LLC
(collectively, ‘‘RPA’’), the Department
ruled on January 13, 2003, that RPA’s
poly–fold metal folding chairs are
within the scope of the order because
they are identical in all material
respects to the merchandise described
in the petition, the initial investigation,
and the determinations of the Secretary.
On May 5, 2003, in response to a
request by Staples, the Office Superstore
Inc. (‘‘Staples’’), the Department issued
a scope ruling that the chair component
of Staples’ ‘‘Complete Office–To-Go,’’ a
folding chair with a tubular steel frame
and a seat and back of plastic, with
measurements of: height: 32.5 inches;
width: 18.5 inches; and depth: 21.5
inches, is covered by the scope of the
order because it is identical in all
material respects to the scope
description in the order, but that the
table component, with measurements of:
width (table top): 43 inches; depth (table
top): 27.375 inches; and height: 34.875
inches, has legs that fold as a unit and
meets the requirements for an
exemption from the scope of the order.
On September 7, 2004, the
Department found that table styles 4600
and 4606 produced by Lifetime Plastic
Products Ltd. are within the scope of the
order because these products have all of
the components that constitute a folding
metal table as described in the scope.
On July 13, 2005, the Department
issued a scope ruling determining that
‘‘butterfly’’ chairs are not within the
scope of the antidumping duty order
because they do not meet the physical
description of merchandise covered by
the scope of the order as they do not
have cross braces affixed to the front
and/or rear legs, and the seat and back
is one piece of cloth that is not affixed
E:\FR\FM\21JAN1.SGM
21JAN1
3562
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 21, 2009 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
to the frame with screws, rivets, welds,
or any other type of fastener.
On July 13, 2005, the Department
issued a scope ruling determining that
folding metal chairs imported by
Korhani of America Inc. are within the
scope of the antidumping duty order
because the imported chair has a
wooden seat, which is padded with
foam and covered with fabric or
polyvinyl chloride, attached to the
tubular steel seat frame with screws,
and has cross braces affixed to its legs.
On May 1, 2006, the Department
issued a scope ruling determining that
‘‘moon chairs’’ are not included within
the scope of the antidumping duty order
because moon chairs have different
physical characteristics, different uses,
and are advertised differently than
chairs covered by the scope of the order.
On October 4, 2007, the Department
issued a scope ruling determining that
International E–Z Up Inc.’s (‘‘E–Z Up’’)
Instant Work Bench is not included
within the scope of the antidumping
duty order because its legs and weight
do not match the description of the
folding metal tables in the scope of the
order.
On April 18, 2008, the Department
issued a scope ruling determining that
the VIKA Twofold 2–in–1 Workbench/
Scaffold (‘‘Twofold Workbench/
Scaffold’’) imported by Ignite USA, LLC
from the PRC is not included within the
scope of the antidumping duty order
because its rotating leg mechanism
differs from the folding metal tables
subject to the order, and its weight is
twice as much as the expected
maximum weight for folding metal
tables within the scope of the order.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the post–
preliminary comments by parties in this
review are addressed in the
memorandum from Gary Taverman,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, to Ronald K.
Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary
for Import Administration, ‘‘Issues and
Decision Memorandum for the 2006–
2007 Administrative Review of Folding
Metal Tables and Chairs from the
People’s Republic of China’’ (January
12, 2009) (‘‘Issues and Decision
Memorandum’’), which is hereby
adopted by this notice. A list of the
issues that parties raised and to which
we responded in the Issues and
Decision Memorandum is attached to
this notice as an appendix. The Issues
and Decision Memorandum is a public
document and is on file in the Central
Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’) in room 1117 in
the main Department building, and is
also accessible on the Web at https://
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:54 Jan 16, 2009
Jkt 217001
ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and
electronic version of the memorandum
are identical in content.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on our analysis of comments
received, we have made changes in the
margin calculations for Feili, Dongguan
Shichang Metals Factory Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Shichang’’), a respondent, and New–
Tec.
General Issues
We have revised the surrogate value
for electricity. For the final results, we
find that the best available information
with which to value electricity is the
electricity price data for small, medium,
and large industries, as published by the
Central Electricity Authority of the
Government of India in its publication
titled Electricity Tariff & Duty and
Average Rates of Electricity Supply in
India, dated July 2006.5 These
electricity rates represent actual
country–wide, publicly–available
information on tax–exclusive electricity
rates charged to industries in India.
Since the rates are contemporaneous
with the POR, we have not inflated the
values.
We excluded the financial statement
of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co.
Ltd. for the year ending March 31, 2007,
and used the 2007 financial statement of
Maximaa Systems Limited for the
calculation of surrogate financial ratios.6
Feili
In light of the Department’s pending
anti–circumvention investigation, we
find that Feili has not satisfied all three
requirements for revocation under 19
CFR 351.222. Accordingly, we are not
revoking the antidumping order with
respect to Feili.
Final Results of Review
We determine that the following
dumping margins exist for the POR:
Assessment
The Department will determine, and
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(‘‘CBP’’) shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries of
subject merchandise in accordance with
the final results of this review. For
assessment purposes, we calculated
exporter/importer- (or customer)
-specific assessment rates for
merchandise subject to this review.
Where appropriate, we calculated an ad
valorem rate for each importer (or
customer) by dividing the total dumping
margins for reviewed sales to that party
by the total entered values associated
with those transactions. For duty–
assessment rates calculated on this
basis, we will direct CBP to assess the
resulting ad valorem rate against the
entered customs values for the subject
merchandise. Where appropriate, we
calculated a per–unit rate for each
importer (or customer) by dividing the
total dumping margins for reviewed
sales to that party by the total sales
quantity associated with those
transactions. For duty–assessment rates
calculated on this basis, we will direct
CBP to assess the resulting per–unit rate
against the entered quantity of the
subject merchandise. Where an
importer- (or customer) -specific
assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less
than 0.50 percent), the Department will
instruct CBP to assess that importer (or
customer’s) entries of subject
merchandise without regard to
antidumping duties. We intend to
instruct CBP to liquidate entries
containing subject merchandise
exported by the PRC–wide entity at the
PRC–wide rate we determine in the final
results of this review. The Department
intends to issue appropriate assessment
instructions directly to CBP 15 days
after publication of the final results of
this review.
Cash–Deposit Requirements
The following cash–deposit
Weighted–Average
Exporter/Manufacturer
Margin Percentage requirements will be effective upon
publication of these final results of this
Feili* ..............................
0.02 administrative review for all shipments
New–Tec* .....................
0.06 of the subject merchandise entered, or
Shichang* .....................
0.00 withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication
* This rate is de minimis.
date, as provided for by section
5 See Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Final Results of
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for subject
the 2006-2007 Administrative Review of Folding
merchandise exported by Feili, New–
Metal Tables and Chairs from the People’s Republic
Tec, and Shichang, the final weighted–
of China: Surrogate Value Memorandum,’’ at 2
average margins are below de minimis;
(January 12, 2009) (‘‘Final Surrogate Value
therefore, no cash deposit of estimated
Memorandum’’), and attachment to Letter to All
Interested Parties, titled ‘‘Source for Electricity
antidumping duties will be required; (2)
Valuation and Final Briefing Schedule,’’ September
for previously reviewed or investigated
15, 2008.
exporters not listed above that have
6 See Final Surrogate Value Memorandum, at 2
separate rates, the cash–deposit rate will
and Attachment III, and Issues and Decision
Memorandum, at Comment 1.
continue to be the exporter–specific rate
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\21JAN1.SGM
21JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 21, 2009 / Notices
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 70.71 percent; and (4) for
all non–PRC exporters of subject
merchandise that have not received
their own rate, the cash–deposit rate
will be the rate applicable to the PRC
exporter that supplied that non–PRC
exporter. These deposit requirements
shall remain in effect until further
notice.
Notification to Interested Parties
Comment 3B: Whether to Revoke Order
in Part While the Circumvention Inquiry
is Pending
[FR Doc. E9–1106 Filed 1–16–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–423–808]
Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from
Belgium: Notice of Extension of Time
Limit for Preliminary Results of
Administrative Review
This notice serves as a final reminder
to importers of their responsibility
under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a
certificate regarding the reimbursement
of antidumping duties prior to
liquidation of the relevant entries
during the review period. Pursuant to 19
CFR 351.402(f)(3), failure to comply
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 the final results of this
administrative review is issued and
published in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 21, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joy
Zhang or George McMahon at (202)
482–1168 and (202) 482–1167,
respectively; AD/CVD Operations,
Office 3, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20230.
Dated: January 12, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretaryfor Import
Administration.
Extension of Time Limits for
Preliminary Results
Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires
the Department to make a preliminary
determination within 245 days after the
last day of the anniversary month of an
order or finding for which a review is
requested. Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the
Act further states that if it is not
practicable to complete the review
within the time period specified, the
administering authority may extend the
245–day period to issue its preliminary
results by up to 120 days.
We determine that completion of the
preliminary results of this review within
the 245-day period is not practicable for
the following reasons. This review
requires the Department to gather and
Appendix
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
List of Comments and Issues in the
Issues and Decision Memorandum
Comment 1: Use of the Appropriate
Financial Statements for Calculation of
Surrogate Financial Ratios
Comment 2: Use of Market Economy
Purchase Prices for Certain New–Tec
Factors of Production
Comment 3A: Likelihood of Future
Dumping as a Result of Raw Material
Price Increases if the Order is Revoked,
in Part
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:54 Jan 16, 2009
Jkt 217001
Background
On July 1, 2008, the Department of
Commerce (the ‘‘Department’’) initiated
an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on stainless
steel plate in coils from Belgium with
respect to Ugine & ALZ Belgium (‘‘U&A
Belgium’’). See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews, Request for
Revocation in Part and Deferral of
Administrative Review, 73 FR 37409
(July 1, 2008). The period of review
(POR) is May 1, 2007 through April 30,
2008. The preliminary results of this
review are currently due no later than
January 31, 2009.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3563
analyze a significant amount of
information pertaining to the company’s
sales practices, manufacturing costs and
corporate relationships, which is
complicated due to recent changes in its
corporate structure. Furthermore, the
company subject to this review recently
converted its accounting system, which
resulted in a request for additional time
to submit its questionnaire response to
the Department. Given the number and
complexity of issues in this case, and in
accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of
the Act, we are extending the time
period for issuing the preliminary
results of review by 120 days. Therefore,
the preliminary results are now due no
later than June 1, 2009. The final results
continue to be due 120 days after
publication of the preliminary results.
We are issuing and publishing this
notice in accordance with sections
751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: January 13, 2009.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretaryfor Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Operations.
[FR Doc. E9–1114 Filed 1–16–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
Imports of Certain Apparel Articles:
Interim Procedures for the
Implementation of the Earned Import
Allowance Program Established Under
the Andean Trade Preference Act of
2008
AGENCY: Department of Commerce,
International Trade Administration.
ACTION: Interim Procedures, Request for
Comments
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
is issuing interim procedures
implementing provisions under the
Andean Trade Preference Act of 2008
(‘‘the Act’’), enacted in its entirety by
Congress on October 3, 2008. Section 2
of the Act contains amendments to Title
IV of the Dominican Republic-Central
America-United States Free Trade
Agreement Implementation Act (Public
Law 109-53; 119 Stat. 495). Under
Section 2 of the Act, Title IV of the
Dominican Republic-Central AmericaUnited States Free Trade Agreement
Implementation Act is amended by
adding Section 404 of the Act creating
a benefit for eligible apparel articles
wholly assembled in the Dominican
Republic that meet the requirements for
a ‘‘2 for 1’’ earned import allowance.
The amendment requires the Secretary
of Commerce to establish a program to
E:\FR\FM\21JAN1.SGM
21JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 21, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3560-3563]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1106]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-868]
Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``Department'') published its
preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping
duty order on folding metal tables and chairs (``FMTCs'') from the
People's Republic of China (``PRC'') on July 14, 2008.\1\ The period of
review (``POR'') is June 1, 2006, through May 31, 2007. We invited
interested parties to comment on our preliminary results. Based on our
analysis of the comments received, we have made changes to our margin
calculations. Therefore, the final results differ from the preliminary
results. The final dumping margins for this review are listed in the
``Final Results of Review'' section below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's
Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Intent to Revoke in Part, 73 FR 40285
(July 14, 2008) (``Preliminary Results'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 21, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lilit Astvatsatrian or Charles Riggle,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
6412 or (202) 482-0650, respectively.
[[Page 3561]]
Background
On July 14, 2008, the Department published its preliminary results.
On August 4, 2008, Meco Corporation (``Meco''), the petitioner in the
underlying investigation, and Cosco Home and Office Products
(``Cosco''), a U.S. importer of subject merchandise, provided
additional comments on the appropriate surrogate values to use as a
means of valuing the factors of production, including financial
statements from Zuari Industries Limited (2006-2007) (``Zuari'') and
Maximaa Systems Limited (2006-2007) (``Maximaa''), Indian producers of
merchandise that is identical or comparable to the subject merchandise.
On August 13, 2008, the Department received a request for a hearing
from Meco. On August 14, 2008, Cosco and Feili Furniture Development
Limited Quanzhou City, Feili Furniture Development Co., Ltd., Feili
Group (Fujian) Co., Ltd., and Feili (Fujian) Co., Ltd. (collectively
``Feili''), a respondent, submitted rebuttals to the surrogate value
information. On August 19, 2008, Meco provided a rebutting exhibit to
Cosco's August 14, 2008, rebuttal submission. As provided in section
782(i) of the Act, we verified the information submitted by Feili for
use in our final results.\2\ On October 1 and 3, 2008, the Department
received case briefs from Meco and New-Tec Integration (Xiamen) Co.,
Ltd. and New-Tec Integration Co., Ltd. (collectively ``New-Tec''), a
respondent, respectively. On October 6, 8, and 20, 2008, New-Tec,
Cosco, Meco, and Feili submitted rebuttal briefs, respectively. On
November 6, 2008, the Department held a public hearing. On November 10,
2008, the Department extended the time period for completion of the
final results until December 11, 2008.\3\ On December 17, 2008, the
Department fully extended the time period of the final results until
January 12, 2009.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See ``Verification of the Sales and Factors Response of
Feili in the Antidumping Review of Folding Metal Tables and Chairs
from the Peoples Republic of China,'' (September 5, 2008).
\3\ See Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's
Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 66595 (November 10,
2008).
\4\ See Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's
Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 76615 (December 17,
2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have conducted this administrative review in accordance with
section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''), and 19
CFR 351.213.
Scope of Order
The products covered by this order consist of assembled and
unassembled folding tables and folding chairs made primarily or
exclusively from steel or other metal, as described below:
1) Assembled and unassembled folding tables made primarily or
exclusively from steel or other metal (folding metal tables). Folding
metal tables include square, round, rectangular, and any other shapes
with legs affixed with rivets, welds, or any other type of fastener,
and which are made most commonly, but not exclusively, with a hardboard
top covered with vinyl or fabric. Folding metal tables have legs that
mechanically fold independently of one another, and not as a set. The
subject merchandise is commonly, but not exclusively, packed singly, in
multiple packs of the same item, or in five piece sets consisting of
four chairs and one table. Specifically excluded from the scope of the
order regarding folding metal tables are the following:
Lawn furniture;
Trays commonly referred to as ``TV trays;''
Side tables;
Child-sized tables;
Portable counter sets consisting of rectangular tables 36'' high
and matching stools; and, Banquet tables. A banquet table is a
rectangular table with a plastic or laminated wood table top
approximately 28'' to 36'' wide by 48'' to 96'' long and with a set of
folding legs at each end of the table. One set of legs is composed of
two individual legs that are affixed together by one or more cross-
braces using welds or fastening hardware. In contrast, folding metal
tables have legs that mechanically fold independently of one another,
and not as a set.
2) Assembled and unassembled folding chairs made primarily or
exclusively from steel or other metal (folding metal chairs). Folding
metal chairs include chairs with one or more cross-braces, regardless
of shape or size, affixed to the front and/or rear legs with rivets,
welds or any other type of fastener. Folding metal chairs include:
those that are made solely of steel or other metal; those that have a
back pad, a seat pad, or both a back pad and a seat pad; and those that
have seats or backs made of plastic or other materials. The subject
merchandise is commonly, but not exclusively, packed singly, in
multiple packs of the same item, or in five piece sets consisting of
four chairs and one table. Specifically excluded from the scope of the
order regarding folding metal chairs are the following:
Folding metal chairs with a wooden back or seat, or both;
Lawn furniture;
Stools;
Chairs with arms; and
Child-sized chairs.
The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under subheadings
9401.71.0010, 9401.71.0030, 9401.79.0045, 9401.79.0050, 9403.20.015,
9403.20.0030, 9403.70.8010, 9403.70.8020, and 9403.70.8030 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''). Although
the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise is
dispositive.
Based on a request by RPA International Pty., Ltd. and RPS, LLC
(collectively, ``RPA''), the Department ruled on January 13, 2003, that
RPA's poly-fold metal folding chairs are within the scope of the order
because they are identical in all material respects to the merchandise
described in the petition, the initial investigation, and the
determinations of the Secretary.
On May 5, 2003, in response to a request by Staples, the Office
Superstore Inc. (``Staples''), the Department issued a scope ruling
that the chair component of Staples' ``Complete Office-To-Go,'' a
folding chair with a tubular steel frame and a seat and back of
plastic, with measurements of: height: 32.5 inches; width: 18.5 inches;
and depth: 21.5 inches, is covered by the scope of the order because it
is identical in all material respects to the scope description in the
order, but that the table component, with measurements of: width (table
top): 43 inches; depth (table top): 27.375 inches; and height: 34.875
inches, has legs that fold as a unit and meets the requirements for an
exemption from the scope of the order.
On September 7, 2004, the Department found that table styles 4600
and 4606 produced by Lifetime Plastic Products Ltd. are within the
scope of the order because these products have all of the components
that constitute a folding metal table as described in the scope.
On July 13, 2005, the Department issued a scope ruling determining
that ``butterfly'' chairs are not within the scope of the antidumping
duty order because they do not meet the physical description of
merchandise covered by the scope of the order as they do not have cross
braces affixed to the front and/or rear legs, and the seat and back is
one piece of cloth that is not affixed
[[Page 3562]]
to the frame with screws, rivets, welds, or any other type of fastener.
On July 13, 2005, the Department issued a scope ruling determining
that folding metal chairs imported by Korhani of America Inc. are
within the scope of the antidumping duty order because the imported
chair has a wooden seat, which is padded with foam and covered with
fabric or polyvinyl chloride, attached to the tubular steel seat frame
with screws, and has cross braces affixed to its legs.
On May 1, 2006, the Department issued a scope ruling determining
that ``moon chairs'' are not included within the scope of the
antidumping duty order because moon chairs have different physical
characteristics, different uses, and are advertised differently than
chairs covered by the scope of the order.
On October 4, 2007, the Department issued a scope ruling
determining that International E-Z Up Inc.'s (``E-Z Up'') Instant Work
Bench is not included within the scope of the antidumping duty order
because its legs and weight do not match the description of the folding
metal tables in the scope of the order.
On April 18, 2008, the Department issued a scope ruling determining
that the VIKA Twofold 2-in-1 Workbench/Scaffold (``Twofold Workbench/
Scaffold'') imported by Ignite USA, LLC from the PRC is not included
within the scope of the antidumping duty order because its rotating leg
mechanism differs from the folding metal tables subject to the order,
and its weight is twice as much as the expected maximum weight for
folding metal tables within the scope of the order.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the post-preliminary comments by parties in
this review are addressed in the memorandum from Gary Taverman, Acting
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to Ronald K.
Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration,
``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the 2006-2007 Administrative
Review of Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of
China'' (January 12, 2009) (``Issues and Decision Memorandum''), which
is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues that parties
raised and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum
is attached to this notice as an appendix. The Issues and Decision
Memorandum is a public document and is on file in the Central Records
Unit (``CRU'') in room 1117 in the main Department building, and is
also accessible on the Web at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy
and electronic version of the memorandum are identical in content.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made changes in
the margin calculations for Feili, Dongguan Shichang Metals Factory
Co., Ltd. (``Shichang''), a respondent, and New-Tec.
General Issues
We have revised the surrogate value for electricity. For the final
results, we find that the best available information with which to
value electricity is the electricity price data for small, medium, and
large industries, as published by the Central Electricity Authority of
the Government of India in its publication titled Electricity Tariff &
Duty and Average Rates of Electricity Supply in India, dated July
2006.\5\ These electricity rates represent actual country-wide,
publicly-available information on tax-exclusive electricity rates
charged to industries in India. Since the rates are contemporaneous
with the POR, we have not inflated the values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Memorandum to the File, ``Final Results of the 2006-2007
Administrative Review of Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the
People's Republic of China: Surrogate Value Memorandum,'' at 2
(January 12, 2009) (``Final Surrogate Value Memorandum''), and
attachment to Letter to All Interested Parties, titled ``Source for
Electricity Valuation and Final Briefing Schedule,'' September 15,
2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We excluded the financial statement of Godrej and Boyce
Manufacturing Co. Ltd. for the year ending March 31, 2007, and used the
2007 financial statement of Maximaa Systems Limited for the calculation
of surrogate financial ratios.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Final Surrogate Value Memorandum, at 2 and Attachment
III, and Issues and Decision Memorandum, at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feili
In light of the Department's pending anti-circumvention
investigation, we find that Feili has not satisfied all three
requirements for revocation under 19 CFR 351.222. Accordingly, we are
not revoking the antidumping order with respect to Feili.
Final Results of Review
We determine that the following dumping margins exist for the POR:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-Average
Exporter/Manufacturer Margin Percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feili[ast].......................................... 0.02
New-Tec[ast]........................................ 0.06
Shichang[ast]....................................... 0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ast] This rate is de minimis.
Assessment
The Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (``CBP'') shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final
results of this review. For assessment purposes, we calculated
exporter/importer- (or customer) -specific assessment rates for
merchandise subject to this review. Where appropriate, we calculated an
ad valorem rate for each importer (or customer) by dividing the total
dumping margins for reviewed sales to that party by the total entered
values associated with those transactions. For duty-assessment rates
calculated on this basis, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting ad
valorem rate against the entered customs values for the subject
merchandise. Where appropriate, we calculated a per-unit rate for each
importer (or customer) by dividing the total dumping margins for
reviewed sales to that party by the total sales quantity associated
with those transactions. For duty-assessment rates calculated on this
basis, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting per-unit rate against
the entered quantity of the subject merchandise. Where an importer- (or
customer) -specific assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50
percent), the Department will instruct CBP to assess that importer (or
customer's) entries of subject merchandise without regard to
antidumping duties. We intend to instruct CBP to liquidate entries
containing subject merchandise exported by the PRC-wide entity at the
PRC-wide rate we determine in the final results of this review. The
Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions
directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this
review.
Cash-Deposit Requirements
The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of these 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 subject
merchandise exported by Feili, New-Tec, and Shichang, the final
weighted-average margins are below de minimis; therefore, no cash
deposit of estimated antidumping duties will be required; (2) for
previously reviewed or investigated exporters not listed above that
have separate rates, the cash-deposit rate will continue to be the
exporter-specific rate
[[Page 3563]]
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 70.71
percent; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise that
have not received their own rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the
rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that non-PRC
exporter. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until
further notice.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during the review period. Pursuant to 19 CFR
351.402(f)(3), failure to comply 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 the final results of this administrative review is
issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)
of the Act.
Dated: January 12, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.
Appendix
List of Comments and Issues in the Issues and Decision Memorandum
Comment 1: Use of the Appropriate Financial Statements for Calculation
of Surrogate Financial Ratios
Comment 2: Use of Market Economy Purchase Prices for Certain New-Tec
Factors of Production
Comment 3A: Likelihood of Future Dumping as a Result of Raw Material
Price Increases if the Order is Revoked, in Part
Comment 3B: Whether to Revoke Order in Part While the Circumvention
Inquiry is Pending
[FR Doc. E9-1106 Filed 1-16-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
