Certain Tow Behind Lawn Groomers and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 4929-4936 [E9-1721]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 28, 2009 / Notices
presumption that reimbursement of
antidumping duties occurred and the
subsequent assessment of double
antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing this
determination in accordance with
sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the
Act, and 19 CFR 351.214(h) and
351.221(b)(4).
Dated: January 16, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E9–1711 Filed 1–27–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A–570–939)
Certain Tow Behind Lawn Groomers
and Certain Parts Thereof from the
People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value and
Postponement of Final Determination
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 28, 2009.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(the ‘‘Department’’) preliminarily
determines that certain tow behind lawn
groomers and certain parts thereof
(‘‘lawn groomers’’) from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) are being, or
are likely to be, sold in the United States
at less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’), as
provided in section 733(b) of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (the ‘‘Act’’).
The estimated dumping margins are
shown in the ‘‘Preliminary
Determination Margins’’ section of this
notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Karine Gziryan or Thomas Martin, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 4, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–4081or (202) 482–
3936, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On June 24, 2008, the Department
received a petition concerning imports
of certain non–motorized tow behind
lawn groomers and certain parts thereof
from the PRC filed in proper form by
Agri–Fab Inc. (‘‘Agri–Fab’’, hereafter
referred to as ‘‘Petitioner’’). See Petition
for the Imposition of Antidumping
Duties: Certain Tow Behind Lawn
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:30 Jan 27, 2009
Jkt 217001
Groomers and Parts Thereof from the
People’s Republic of China, dated June
24, 2008 (‘‘Petition’’). The Department
initiated an antidumping duty
investigation of lawn groomers from the
PRC on July 21, 2008. See Certain Tow
Behind Lawn Groomers and Certain
Parts Thereof from the People’s
Republic of China: Initiation of
Antidumping Duty Investigation, 73 FR
42315 (July 21, 2008) (‘‘Initiation
Notice’’).
On July 14, 2008, the Department
requested quantity and value (‘‘Q&V’’)
information from the twelve companies
that were identified in the Petition as
potential producers or exporters of lawn
groomers from the PRC. See Exhibit I–
19 of the Petition. The Department
received timely responses to its Q&V
questionnaire from the following
companies: Qingdao Huatian Hand
Truck Co., Ltd., Jiashan Superpower
Tools Co., Ltd., T.N. International, Inc.,
Nantong Duobang Machinery Co., Ltd.,
and Princeway Furniture (Dong Guan)
Co., Ltd. Five companies to which the
Department sent the Q&V questionnaire
received the questionnaire but did not
respond. These non–responsive
companies were: Hangzhou Geesun
International Co., Ltd., Qingdao
Huandai Tools Co., Ltd., Qingdao Taifa
Group Co., Ltd., Maxchief Investments
Ltd., and Qingdao EA Huabang
Instrument Co., Ltd.
With regard to two additional
companies, World Factory, Inc., and
Sidepin, Ltd., on July 21, 2008, we
spoke with Federal Express, via
telephone, and were informed that,
although World Factory, Inc., originally
accepted delivery of the Q&V
questionnaire, it ultimately rejected our
mailing and returned the package to
Federal Express. In addition, on July 21,
2008, we spoke via telephone with DHL
and were informed that DHL was unable
to deliver our mailing to Sidepin, Ltd.,
due to a ‘‘bad address.’’1 See
Memorandum to The File, from Maisha
Cryor, Senior Import Compliance
Specialist, Regarding ‘‘Certain Tow
Behind Lawn Groomers and Certain
1 The petitioner provided contact information for
the twelve Chinese producers/exporters of lawn
groomers named in the Petition. See Petition at
Exhibit I-19. However, upon noticing that several of
the addresses provided were incomplete, the
Department asked the petitioner to update the
aforementioned contact information to account for
full addresses, e.g., contact name, postal code, street
names and numbers, etc. See the Department’s July
3, 2008, supplemental questionnaire at 3. In
response, the petitioner provided updated contact
information, but noted that this information
represented its ‘‘best attempt using reasonably
available information to update the Chinese
manufacturer and exporter contact information.’’
See Supplement to the Petition at 2 and Exhibit 2,
dated July 8, 2008.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
4929
Parts Thereof from the People’s
Republic of China: Summary of Issuance
of Quantity and Value Questionnaires,’’
dated July 21, 2008.
On August 21, 2008, the International
Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’)
preliminarily determined that there is a
reasonable indication that an industry
in the United States is materially
injured by reason of imports of lawn
groomers from the PRC. See
CertainTow–Behind Lawn Groomers
and Certain Parts Thereof from China
Determinations Investigation Nos. 701–
TA–457 and 731–TA–1153
(Preliminary), 73 FR 49489 (August 21,
2008).
On August 18, 2008, the Department
selected Jiashan Superpower Tools Co.,
Ltd. (‘‘Superpower’’), and Princeway
Furniture (Dong Guan) Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Princeway’’), as mandatory
respondents and issued antidumping
duty questionnaires to the companies.
See Memorandum regarding ‘‘Selection
of Respondents for the Antidumping
Duty Investigation of Certain Tow
Behind Lawn Groomers and Parts
Thereof from the People’s Republic of
China,’’ dated August 18, 2008
(‘‘Respondent Selection
Memorandum’’).
Superpower and Princeway submitted
timely responses to the Department’s
antidumping duty questionnaire on
September 24, 2008, and October 14,
2008, respectively. On July 23, 2008,
and July 30, 2008, the Department
received separate–rate applications from
Nantong D&B Machinery Co., Ltd., and
Qingdao Huatian Truck Co., Ltd.,
respectively.
The Department issued supplemental
questionnaires to, and received
responses from, Superpower and
Princeway from September through
December 2008. Petitioner submitted
comments to the Department regarding
Princeway’s and Superpower’s
responses to sections C and D of the
antidumping duty questionnaire on
October 24, 2008 and additional
comments on Princeway’s submissions
on December 2, 2008.
On September 30, 2008, the
Department released a memorandum to
interested parties which listed potential
surrogate countries and invited
interested parties to comment on
surrogate country and surrogate value
selection. See Memorandum to All
Interested Parties Regarding
Antidumping Duty Investigation of
Certain Tow Behind Lawn Groomers
and Certain Parts Thereof from the
People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). On
October 17, 2008, and October 28, 2008,
Petitioner and Princeway submitted
comments and rebuttal comments,
E:\FR\FM\28JAN1.SGM
28JAN1
4930
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 28, 2009 / Notices
respectively, on the appropriate
surrogate country and surrogate values.
On November 5, 2008, the Petitioner
made a request for a 50–day
postponement of the preliminary
determination. On November 17, 2008,
the Department extended this
preliminary determination by fifty days.
See Certain Tow Behind Lawn Groomers
and Certain Parts Thereof from the
People’s Republic of China:
Postponement of Preliminary
Determination of Antidumping Duty
Investigation, 73 FR 67836 (November
17, 2008).
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is
October 1, 2007, through March 31,
2008. This period corresponds to the
two most recent fiscal quarters prior to
the month of the filing of the petition,
i.e., June 2008. See 19 CFR
351.204(b)(1).
Scope of the Investigation
The scope of this investigation covers
certain non–motorized tow behind lawn
groomers (‘‘lawn groomers’’),
manufactured from any material, and
certain parts thereof. Lawn groomers are
defined as lawn sweepers, aerators,
dethatchers, and spreaders. Unless
specifically excluded, lawn groomers
that are designed to perform at least one
of the functions listed above are
included in the scope of these
investigations, even if the lawn groomer
is designed to perform additional non–
subject functions (e.g., mowing).
All lawn groomers are designed to
incorporate a hitch, of any
configuration, which allows the product
to be towed behind a vehicle. Lawn
groomers that are designed to
incorporate both a hitch and a push
handle, of any type, are also covered by
the scope of these investigations. The
hitch and handle may be permanently
attached or removable, and they may be
attached on opposite sides or on the
same side of the lawn groomer. Lawn
groomers designed to incorporate a
hitch, but where the hitch is not
attached to the lawn groomer, are also
included in the scope of the
investigations.
Lawn sweepers consist of a frame, as
well as a series of brushes attached to
an axle or shaft which allows the
brushing component to rotate. Lawn
sweepers also include a container
(which is a receptacle into which debris
swept from the lawn or turf is
deposited) supported by the frame.
Aerators consist of a frame, as well as
an aerating component that is attached
to an axle or shaft which allows the
aerating component to rotate. The
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:30 Jan 27, 2009
Jkt 217001
aerating component is made up of a set
of knives fixed to a plate (known as a
‘‘plug aerator’’), a series of discs with
protruding spikes (a ‘‘spike aerator’’), or
any other configuration, that are
designed to create holes or cavities in a
lawn or turf surface. Dethatchers consist
of a frame, as well as a series of tines
designed to remove material (e.g., dead
grass or leaves) or other debris from the
lawn or turf. The dethatcher tines are
attached to and suspended from the
frame. Lawn spreaders consist of a
frame, as well as a hopper (i.e., a
container of any size, shape, or material)
that holds a media to be spread on the
lawn or turf. The media can be
distributed by means of a rotating
spreader plate that broadcasts the media
(‘‘broadcast spreader’’), a rotating
agitator that allows the media to be
released at a consistent rate (‘‘drop
spreader’’), or any other configuration.
Lawn dethatchers with a net fully–
assembled weight (i.e., without packing,
additional weights, or accessories) of
100 pounds or less are covered by the
scope of the investigations. Other lawn
groomers–sweepers, aerators, and
spreaders–with a net fully–assembled
weight (i.e., without packing, additional
weights, or accessories) of 200 pounds
or less are covered by the scope of the
investigations.
Also included in the scope of the
investigations are modular units,
consisting of a chassis that is designed
to incorporate a hitch, where the hitch
may or may not be included, which
allows modules that perform sweeping,
aerating, dethatching, or spreading
operations to be interchanged. Modular
units–when imported with one or more
lawn grooming modules–with a fully
assembled net weight (i.e., without
packing, additional weights, or
accessories) of 200 pounds or less when
including a single module, are included
in the scope of the investigations.
Modular unit chasses, imported without
a lawn grooming module and with a
fully assembled net weight (i.e., without
packing, additional weights, or
accessories) of 125 pounds or less, are
also covered by the scope of the
investigations. When imported
separately, modules that are designed to
perform subject lawn grooming
functions (i.e., sweeping, aerating,
dethatching, or spreading), with a fully
assembled net weight (i.e., without
packing, additional weights, or
accessories) of 75 pounds or less, and
that are imported with or without a
hitch, are also covered by the scope.
Lawn groomers, assembled or
unassembled, are covered by these
investigations. For purposes of these
investigations, ‘‘unassembled lawn
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
groomers’’ consist of either 1) all parts
necessary to make a fully assembled
lawn groomer, or 2) any combination of
parts, constituting a less than complete,
unassembled lawn groomer, with a
minimum of two of the following
‘‘major components’’:
1) an assembled or unassembled
brush housing designed to be used
in a lawn sweeper, where a brush
housing is defined as a component
housing the brush assembly, and
consisting of a wrapper which
covers the brush assembly and two
end plates attached to the wrapper;
2) a sweeper brush;
3) an aerator or dethatcher weight
tray, or similar component designed
to allow weights of any sort to be
added to the unit;
4) a spreader hopper;
5) a rotating spreader plate or agitator,
or other component designed for
distributing media in a lawn
spreader;
6) dethatcher tines;
7) aerator spikes, plugs, or other
aerating component; or
8) a hitch.
The major components or parts of
lawn groomers that are individually
covered by these investigations under
the term ‘‘certain parts thereof’’ are: (1)
brush housings, where the wrapper and
end plates incorporating the brush
assembly may be individual pieces or a
single piece; and (2) weight trays, or
similar components designed to allow
weights of any sort to be added to a
dethatcher or an aerator unit.
The products for which relief is
sought specifically exclude the
following: 1) agricultural implements
designed to work (e.g., churn, burrow,
till, etc.) soil, such as cultivators,
harrows, and plows; 2) lawn or farm
carts and wagons that do not groom
lawns; 3) grooming products
incorporating a motor or an engine for
the purpose of operating and/or
propelling the lawn groomer; 4) lawn
groomers that are designed to be hand
held or are designed to be attached
directly to the frame of a vehicle, rather
than towed; 5) ‘‘push’’ lawn grooming
products that incorporate a push handle
rather than a hitch, and which are
designed solely to be manually
operated; 6) dethatchers with a net
assembled weight (i.e., without packing,
additional weights, or accessories) of
more than 100 pounds, or lawn
groomers–sweepers, aerators, and
spreaders–with a net fully–assembled
weight (i.e., without packing, additional
weights, or accessories) of more than
200 pounds; and 7) lawn rollers
designed to flatten grass and turf,
including lawn rollers which
E:\FR\FM\28JAN1.SGM
28JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 28, 2009 / Notices
incorporate an aerator component (e.g.,
‘‘drum–style’’ spike aerators).
The lawn groomers that are the
subject of these investigations are
currently classifiable in the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States
(‘‘HTSUS’’) statistical reporting numbers
8432.40.0000, 8432.80.0000,
8432.80.0010, 8432.90.0030,
8432.90.0080, 8479.89.9896,
8479.89.9897, 8479.90.9496, and
9603.50.0000. These HTSUS provisions
are given for reference and customs
purposes only, and the description of
merchandise is dispositive for
determining the scope of the product
included in these investigations.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Scope Comments
In accordance with the preamble to
the Department’s regulations, we set
aside a period of time in our Initiation
Notice for parties to raise issues
regarding product coverage, and
encouraged all parties to submit
comments within 21 calendar days of
issuance of that notice. See
Antidumping Duties; Countervailing
Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19,
1997) and Initiation Notice, 73 FR at
42316. On December 30, 2008, Brinly–
Hardy Company (‘‘Brinly–Hardy’’), a
domestic producer of the subject
merchandise, submitted comments on
the scope of the investigation. We have
given all interested parties an
opportunity to submit comments. See
Memorandum from Thomas Martin,
International Trade Compliance
Analyst, to file, ‘‘Deadline for
Comments on Brinly–Hardy Company’s
December 30, 2008 Submission:
Antidumping Duty Investigation of
Certain Tow Behind Lawn Groomers
from the People’s Republic of China,’’
dated January 5, 2009. We will evaluate
the comments for the final results.
Non–Market Economy Treatment
The Department considers the PRC to
be a non–market economy (‘‘NME’’)
country. In accordance with section
771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any
determination that a country is an NME
country shall remain in effect until
revoked by the administering authority.
See, e.g., Tapered Roller Bearings and
Parts Thereof (TRBs), Finished and
Unfinished, From the People’s Republic
of China: Preliminary Results of 2001–
2002 Administrative Review and Partial
Rescission of Review, 68 FR 7500
(February 14, 2003), unchanged in
TRBs, 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). The Department has not revoked
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:30 Jan 27, 2009
Jkt 217001
the PRC’s status as an NME country.
Therefore, in this preliminary
determination, we have treated the PRC
as an NME country and applied our
current NME methodology.
Selection of a Surrogate Country
In antidumping proceedings involving
NME countries, where the available
information does not allow the
Department to determine normal value
(‘‘NV’’) pursuant to section 773(a) of the
Act, the Department will base NV on the
value of the NME producer’s factors of
production. See section 773(c)(1) of the
Act. In accordance with section
773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the
factors of production, the Department
shall utilize, to the extent possible, the
prices or costs of factors of production
in one or more market economy
countries that are at a level of economic
development comparable to that of the
NME country and are significant
producers of merchandise comparable
to the subject merchandise. The
Department has determined that India,
Indonesia, the Philippines, Colombia,
and Thailand are countries that are at a
level of economic development
comparable to that of the PRC. See
Memorandum regarding Request for a
List of Surrogate Countries for the
Antidumping Duty Investigation of
Tow–Behind Lawn Groomers (‘‘TBLG’’)
from the People’s Republic of China
(‘‘PRC’’)’’ dated September 30, 2008
(‘‘Policy Memorandum’’).
As noted above, in October 2008,
Petitioner and Princeway submitted
comments on the appropriate surrogate
country. In their comments, each party
stated that India satisfies the statutory
criteria for surrogate country selection
because it is at a comparable level of
economic development with the PRC
and it is a significant producer of
comparable merchandise that is
sufficiently similar to the subject
merchandise. However, since India does
not produce or export lawn groomers,
Petitioner and Princeway disagreed on
the definition of what constitutes
comparable merchandise. In its
comments, Petitioner claimed that hand
trucks represent the most comparable
merchandise to lawn groomers.
Princeway, in its comments, argued that
agricultural implements should be used
as comparable merchandise.
After evaluating interested parties’
comments, the Department selected
India as the surrogate country for this
investigation and decided that because
the lawn groomers and hand trucks
industries use many of the same raw
material inputs and similar production
processes, hand trucks constitute
comparable merchandise. For further
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
4931
discussion, see Memorandum from
Zhulieta Willbrand, International Trade
Compliance Analyst, to Abdelali
Elouaradia, Office Director,
‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation of
Certain Tow Behind Lawn Groomers
and Certain Parts Thereof from the
People’s Republic of China: Selection of
a Surrogate Country,’’ dated January 21,
2009. In sum, the Department
determined that: 1) India is at a level of
economic development comparable to
that of the PRC; and 2) India is a
significant producer of merchandise
comparable to the subject merchandise.
Upon the publication of the preliminary
results, the Department notes that
interested parties may submit additional
information on comparable merchandise
within the confines of the new factual
information submission deadlines. See
19 CFR 351.301(b)(1).
Separate Rates
In the Initiation Notice, the
Department notified parties of the
application process by which exporters
and producers may obtain separate–rate
status in NME investigations. See
Initiation Notice, 73 FR at 42318–19.
The process requires exporters and
producers to submit a separate–rate
status application. See Policy Bulletin
05.1: Separate–Rates Practice and
Application of Combination Rates in
Antidumping Investigations involving
Non–Market Economy Countries, (April
5, 2005) (‘‘Policy Bulletin 05.1’’),
available at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/
bull05–1.pdf. However, the standard for
eligibility for a separate rate, which is
whether a firm can demonstrate an
absence of both de jure and de facto
governmental control over its export
activities, has not changed.
In proceedings involving NME
countries, the Department begins with a
rebuttable presumption that all
companies within the country are
subject to government control and thus
should be assessed a single antidumping
duty rate. It is the Department’s practice
to assign all exporters of merchandise
subject to investigation in an NME
country this single rate unless an
exporter can demonstrate that it is
sufficiently independent so as to be
entitled to a separate rate. Exporters can
demonstrate this independence through
the absence of both de jure and de facto
governmental control over export
activities. The Department analyzes
each entity exporting the subject
merchandise under a test arising from
the Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the
People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 20588
(May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’), as further
developed in Notice of Final
E:\FR\FM\28JAN1.SGM
28JAN1
4932
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 28, 2009 / Notices
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the
People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585
(May 2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon Carbide’’). In
accordance with the separate–rate
criteria, the Department assigns separate
rates in NME cases only if respondents
can demonstrate the absence of both de
jure and de facto governmental control
over export activities.
Two separate rate applicants, Qingdao
Huatian Truck Co., Ltd. (‘‘Huatian’’),
and Nantong D & B Machinery Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Nantong’’), and one mandatory
respondent, Superpower, stated that
they are partially Chinese–owned
companies. Therefore, the Department
must analyze whether the mandatory
respondent and separate rate applicants
can demonstrate the absence of both de
jure and de facto governmental control
over export activities. Each company
provided company–specific information
to demonstrate that it operates free from
de jure and de facto government control,
and therefore, is entitled to a separate
rate.
An additional mandatory respondent,
Princeway, provided company–specific
separate–rate information and stated
that the standards for the assignment of
separate rates have been met because it
is a privately–owned company
incorporated in the British Virgin
Islands and based in Hong Kong. See
Princeway’s ‘‘Separate Rate
Application,’’ dated September 19,
2008, and ‘‘Separate Rate Application
Supplemental Response Questionnaire,’’
dated October 21, 2008. Because
Princeway is foreign owned, it is not
necessary to undertake additional
separate–rates analysis for the
Department to determine that the export
activities of Princeway are independent
from the PRC government’s control.
Accordingly, Princeway is eligible for a
separate rate. See, e.g., Brake Rotors
From the People’s Republic of China:
Final Results of the Tenth New Shipper
Review, 69 FR 52228 (August 25, 2004).
Absence of De Jure Control
The Department considers the
following de jure criteria in determining
whether an individual company may be
granted a separate rate: (1) an absence of
restrictive stipulations associated with
an individual exporter’s business and
export licenses; (2) any legislative
enactments decentralizing control of
companies; and (3) other formal
measures by the government
decentralizing control of companies. See
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
The evidence provided by Huatian,
Nantong and Superpower indicates that
there are no restrictive stipulations
associated with their export and/or
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:30 Jan 27, 2009
Jkt 217001
business licenses and that there are
legislative enactments decentralizing
control of the companies. The
Department’s analysis of the record
evidence supports a preliminary finding
of absence of de jure control. See
‘‘Response to the Separate Rate
Application’’, dated September 4, 2008,
‘‘Response to the Separate Rate
Application Supplemental
Questionnaire,’’ dated September 27,
2008, and ‘‘Response to the Separate
Rate Application Supplemental
Questionnaire dated October 7, 2008,’’
dated October 15, 2008, from Nantong
(‘‘Nantong’s SRA’’). See also ‘‘Huatian’s
Separate Rate Application,’’ dated
September 29, 2008, ‘‘Response to the
Separate Rate Application
Supplemental Questionnaire,’’ dated
October 9, 2008, and ‘‘Response to the
Separate Rate Application
Supplemental Questionnaire,’’ dated
November 4, 2008 (‘‘Huatian’s SRA’’).
For Superpower, see ‘‘Response to the
Separate Rate Application,’’ dated
September 24, 2008, and ‘‘Response to
the Separate Rate Application
Supplemental Questionnaire,’’ dated
October 23, 2008 (‘‘Superpower’s
SRA’’).
Absence of De Facto Control
Typically the Department considers
four factors in evaluating whether each
respondent is subject to de facto
governmental control of its export
functions: (1) whether the export prices
are set by or are subject to the approval
of a governmental agency; (2) whether
the respondent has authority to
negotiate and sign contracts and other
agreements; (3) whether the respondent
has autonomy from the government in
making decisions regarding the
selection of management; and (4)
whether the respondent retains the
proceeds of its export sales and makes
independent decisions regarding
disposition of profits or financing of
losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at
22586–87; see also Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the
People’s Republic of China, 60 FR
22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995). The
Department has determined that an
analysis of de facto control is critical in
determining whether respondents are,
in fact, subject to a degree of
governmental control which would
preclude the Department from assigning
separate rates.
In this case, we determine that the
evidence on the record supports a
preliminary finding of de facto absence
of governmental control with respect to
Huatian, Nantong and Superpower
based on record statements and
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
supporting documentation showing that
the companies: (1) set their own export
prices independent of the government
and without the approval of a
government authority; (2) retain their
proceeds from sales and make
independent decisions regarding
disposition of profits or financing of
losses; (3) have the authority to
negotiate and sign contracts and other
agreements; and (4) have autonomy
from the government regarding the
selection of management. See Nantong’s
SRA, Huatian’s SRA and Superpower’s
SRA.
The evidence placed on the record of
this investigation by Huatian, Nantong
and Superpower demonstrates an
absence of de jure and de facto
government control with respect to
these exporters’ sales of the
merchandise under investigation, in
accordance with the criteria identified
in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide.
Therefore, we have preliminarily
granted a separate rate to all three
exporters. The Department has
calculated company–specific dumping
margins for the two mandatory
respondents, Superpower and
Princeway, and assigned to Huation and
Nantong, a dumping margin equal to a
simple average of the dumping margins
calculated for the two mandatory
respondents.
Additionally, we note that while we
received the Q&V information from T.N.
International, Inc., one of the five
companies which responded to the Q&V
questionnaire, the company was not
selected by the Department as a
mandatory respondent. As indicated in
the Initiation Notice, where T.N.
International, Inc., had an opportunity
to request a separate rate, it failed to do
so. Consequently and according to our
practice, we assigned to T.N.
International, Inc., preliminarily the
PRC–wide rate.
The PRC–Wide Entity
Although PRC exporters of subject
merchandise to the United States were
given an opportunity to provide Q&V
information to the Department, not all
exporters responded to the Department’s
request for Q&V information.2 Based
upon our knowledge of the volume of
imports of subject merchandise from the
PRC, we have concluded that the
companies that responded to the Q&V
questionnaire do not account for all U.S.
imports of subject merchandise from the
PRC made during the POI.3 We have
2 The Department received only five timely
responses to the requests for Q&V information that
it sent to twelve potential exporters identified in the
Petition.
3 See Respondent Selection Memorandum.
E:\FR\FM\28JAN1.SGM
28JAN1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 28, 2009 / Notices
treated the non–responsive PRC
producers/exporters as part of the PRC–
wide entity because they have not
demonstrated their eligibility for a
separate rate.
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides
that the Department shall, subject to
subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts
otherwise available in reaching the
applicable determination if an
interested party: (A) withholds
information that has been requested by
the Department; (B) fails to provide such
information in a timely manner or in the
form or manner requested, subject to
subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act;
(C) significantly impedes a proceeding
under the antidumping statute; or (D)
provides such information but the
information cannot be verified.
As noted above, the PRC–wide entity
withheld information requested by the
Department. As a result, pursuant to
section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we find
it appropriate to base the PRC–wide
dumping margin on facts available. See,
e.g., Notice of Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, Affirmative Preliminary
Determination of Critical Circumstances
and Postponement of Final
Determination: Certain Frozen Fish
Fillets From the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam, 68 FR 4986, 4991–92 (January
31, 2003), unchanged in Notice of Final
Antidumping Duty Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Affirmative Critical Circumstances:
Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR
37116 (June 23, 2003).
Section 776(b) of the Act provides
that, in selecting from among the facts
otherwise available, the Department
may employ an adverse inference if an
interested party fails to cooperate by not
acting to the best of its ability to comply
with requests for information. See, e.g.,
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 Uruguay
Round Agreements Act , H.R. Rep. No.
103–316, Vol. I at 843 (1994) (‘‘SAA’’),
reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040 at
870. Because the PRC–wide entity did
not respond to the Department’s request
for information, the Department has
concluded that the PRC–wide entity has
failed to cooperate to the best of its
ability. Therefore, the Department
preliminarily finds that, in selecting
from among the facts available, an
adverse inference is appropriate.
Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes
the Department to use, as adverse facts
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:30 Jan 27, 2009
Jkt 217001
available (‘‘AFA’’): (1) information
derived from the petition; (2) the final
determination from the LTFV
investigation; (3) a previous
administrative review; or (4) any other
information placed on the record. In
selecting a rate for AFA, the Department
selects one that is sufficiently adverse
‘‘as to effectuate the statutory purposes
of the adverse facts available rule to
induce respondents to provide the
Department with complete and accurate
information in a timely manner.’’ See
Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: Static Random
Access Memory Semiconductors From
Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23,
1998). It is the Department’s practice to
select, as AFA, the higher of: (a) the
highest margin alleged in the petition,
or (b) the highest calculated rate for any
respondent in the investigation. See
Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Certain Cold–Rolled
Flat–Rolled Carbon Quality Steel
Products From the People’s Republic of
China, 65 FR 34660 (May 31, 2000), and
accompanying Issues and Decisions
Memorandum at ‘‘Facts Available.’’
Here, we assigned the PRC–wide entity
the dumping margin calculated for
Superpower, which exceeds the highest
margin alleged in the petition and is the
highest rate calculated in this
investigation. Pursuant to section 776(c)
of the Act, we do not need to
corroborate this rate because it is based
on information obtained during the
course of this investigation rather than
secondary information. See also SAA at
870. The PRC–wide dumping margin
applies to all entries of the merchandise
under investigation except for entries of
subject merchandise from Superpower,4
Princeway, Nandong and Huatian.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether Princeway and
Superpower sold lawn groomers to the
United States at LTFV, we compared the
weighted–average export price (‘‘EP’’) of
the lawn groomers to the NV of the lawn
groomers, as described in the ‘‘U.S.
Price,’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of
this notice.
U.S. Price
In accordance with section 772(a) of
the Act, for both Superpower and
Princeway, we based the U.S. price of
sales on EP because the first sale to
unaffiliated purchasers was made prior
to importation and the use of
constructed export price was not
4 Because the Department based the PRC-wide
dumping margin on Superpower’s dumping rate,
both rates are equal. However, Superpower has its
own separate rate and is not part of the PRC-wide
entity.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
4933
otherwise warranted. In accordance
with section 772(c) of the Act, we
calculated EP for Superpower and
Princeway by deducting the following
expenses from the starting price (gross
unit price) charged to the first
unaffiliated customer in the United
States: foreign movement expenses and
foreign brokerage and handling
expenses.
We based these movement expenses
on surrogate values where the service
was purchased from a PRC company.
For details regarding our EP calculation,
see Analysis Memoranda for
Superpower and Princeway, dated
January 21, 2009.
Normal Value
In accordance with section 773(c) of
the Act, we constructed NV from the
factors of production employed by
Princeway and Superpower to
manufacture subject merchandise
during the POI. Specifically, we
calculated NV by adding together the
value of the factors of production,
general expenses, profit, and packing
costs, as well as an adjustment for the
byproduct. We valued the factors of
production using prices and financial
statements from India, the surrogate
country selected for this investigation or
where appropriate, the prices paid for
the input, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.408(c)(1).5 In selecting surrogate
values, we followed, to the extent
practicable, the Department’s practice of
choosing values which are non–export
average values, product–specific, tax–
exclusive, and contemporaneous with,
or closest in time to, the POI. See, e.g.,
Notice of Preliminary Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative
Preliminary Determination of Critical
Circumstances and Postponement of
Final Determination: Certain Frozen
and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR
42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged
in Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and
Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR
71005 (December 8, 2004). We also
considered the quality of the source of
surrogate information in selecting
surrogate values.
We valued material inputs and
packing materials by multiplying the
amount of the factor consumed in
producing subject merchandise by the
5 Superpower reported that it purchased no
factors of production from market economy
suppliers during the POI. See Superpower’s October
14, 2008, Section D Response at D-5. Princeway
purchased certain factors of production from market
economy suppliers. See Princeway’s October 10,
2008, Section D Response at 8
E:\FR\FM\28JAN1.SGM
28JAN1
4934
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 28, 2009 / Notices
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
average unit value of the factor. In
addition, we added freight costs to the
surrogate costs that we calculated for
material inputs. We calculated freight
costs by multiplying surrogate freight
rates by the shorter of the reported
distance from the domestic supplier to
the factory that produced the subject
merchandise or the distance from the
nearest seaport to the factory that
produced the subject merchandise, as
appropriate. This adjustment is in
accordance with the Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit’s decision in
Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d
1401, 1407 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Where we
could only obtain surrogate values that
were not contemporaneous with the
POI, we inflated (or deflated) the
surrogate values using the Wholesale
Price Index (‘‘WPI’’).
Further, in calculating surrogate
values from Indian imports, we
disregarded imports from Indonesia,
South Korea and Thailand because in
other proceedings the Department found
that these countries maintain broadly
available, non–industry-specific export
subsidies. Therefore, it is reasonable to
infer that all exports to all markets from
these countries may be subsidized. See
Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Certain Automotive
Replacement Glass Windshields from
the People’s Republic of China, 67 FR
6482 (February 12, 2002), and
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 1; see also
Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value and Negative
Final Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Certain Color Television
Receivers From the People’s Republic of
China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004),
and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 7.6 Thus, we
have not used prices from these
countries in calculating the Indian
import–based surrogate values.
We valued raw materials and packing
materials obtained from non–market
economy suppliers using Indian import
statistics. See Surrogate Value
Memorandum. We valued water using
data from the Maharashtra Industrial
Development Corporation 7 because that
data include a wide range of industrial
water tariffs. This source provides 344
industrial water rates within the
6 In addition, as explained in the legislative
history, it is the Department’s practice not to
conduct a formal investigation to ensure that such
prices are not subsidized. See Omnibus Trade and
Competitiveness Act of 1988, Conference Report to
Accompanying H.R. Rep. 100-576 at 590 (1988). As
such, it is the Department’s practice to base its
decision on information that is available to it at the
time it makes its determination.
7 Website available at https://www.midcindia.org.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:30 Jan 27, 2009
Jkt 217001
Maharashtra province from June 2003:
172 for the ‘‘inside industrial areas’’
usage category, and 172 for the ‘‘outside
industrial areas’’ usage category. See
Surrogate Value Memorandum.
We valued electricity using 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. These
electricity rates represent actual
country–wide, publicly–available
information on tax–exclusive electricity
rates charged to industries in India.
Since the rates are not contemporaneous
with the POI, we inflated the values
using the WPI. See Surrogate Value
Memorandum.
For direct labor, indirect labor, and
packing labor, consistent with 19 CFR
351.408(c)(3), we used the most recently
calculated regression–based wage rate,
which relies on 2005 data. This wage
rate can be found on the Import
Administration’s home page. See
‘‘Expected Wages of Selected NME
Countries,’’ available at https://
ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/ (revised
May 2008). The source of these wage
rate data on the Import Administration’s
web site is the International Labour
Organization, Geneva, Labour Statistics
Database Chapter 5B: Wages in
Manufacturing. Since this regression–
based wage rate does not separate the
labor rates into different skill levels or
types of labor, we have applied the same
wage rate to all skill levels and types of
labor reported by Princeway and
Superpower. See Surrogate Value
Memorandum.
As noted above, we valued inland
truck freight expenses using a deflated
per–unit average rate calculated from
data on the following web site: https://
www.infobanc.com/logistics/
logtruck.htm. See Surrogate Value
Memorandum. The logistics section of
this website contains inland freight
truck rates between many large Indian
cities. Since this value is not
contemporaneous with the POI, we
deflated the rate using WPI data.
We valued brokerage and handling
using a simple average of the brokerage
and handling costs that were reported in
public submissions that were filed in
three antidumping duty cases.
Specifically, we averaged the public
brokerage and handling expenses
reported by: (1) Agro Dutch Industries
Ltd. in the antidumping duty
administrative review of certain
preserved mushrooms from India, (2)
Kejirwal Paper Ltd. in the less than fair
value investigation of certain lined
paper products from India, and (3) Essar
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Steel in the antidumping duty
administrative review of hot–rolled
carbon steel flat products from
India.8 See Certain Preserved
Mushrooms From India: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 71 FR 10646 (March 2, 2006);
Notice of Preliminary Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value,
Postponement of Final Determination,
and Affirmative Preliminary
Determination of Critical Circumstances
in Part: Certain Lined Paper Products
From India, 71 FR 19706 (April 17,
2006), unchanged in Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, and Negative Determination
of Critical Circumstances: Certain Lined
Paper Products from India, 71 FR 45012
(August 8, 2006); and Certain Hot–
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From
India: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 71 FR 2018, 2021 (January 12,
2006), unchanged in Certain Hot–Rolled
Carbon Steel Flat Products From India:
Final Results of Antidumping
Administrative Review, 71 FR 40694
(July 18, 2006). We inflated the
brokerage and handling rate using the
appropriate WPI inflator. See Surrogate
Value Memorandum.
We valued factory overhead, selling,
general, and administrative (‘‘SG&A’’)
expenses, and profit, using the financial
ratios calculated from the 2006–2007
audited financial statement of one
Indian producer of hand trucks: Godrej
& Boyce Manufacturing Company
Limited. See Surrogate Value
Memorandum.
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.301(c)(3)(i), interested parties may
submit publicly available information
with which to value factors of
production in the final determination
within 40 days after the date of
publication of the preliminary
determination.
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions into
U.S. dollars, in accordance with section
773A(a) of the Act, based on the
8 Use of these averages is consistent with the
Department’s normal practice to calculate brokerage
and handling expenses. Absent product-specific
data, 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 Memorandum at Comment 5.
E:\FR\FM\28JAN1.SGM
28JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 28, 2009 / Notices
exchange rates in effect on the dates of
the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal
Reserve Bank.
Manufacturer/Exporter
Weighted–
Average
Margin
(Percent)
Verification
As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the
Act, we intend to verify the information
upon which we will rely in making our
final determination.
Combination Rates
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
In the Initiation Notice, the
Department stated that it would
calculate combination rates for
respondents that are eligible for a
separate rate in this investigation. See
Initiation Notice, 73 FR at 42319. This
change in practice is described in Policy
Bulletin 05.1, which states:
{W}hile continuing the practice of
assigning separate rates only to
exporters, all separate rates that the
Department will now assign in its
NME investigations will be specific
to those producers that supplied the
exporter during the period of
investigation. Note, however, that
one rate is calculated for the
exporter and all of the producers
which supplied subject
merchandise to it during the period
of investigation. This practice
applies both to mandatory
respondents receiving an
individually calculated separate
rate as well as the pool of non–
investigated firms receiving the
weighted–average of the
individually calculated rates. This
practice is referred to as the
application of ‘‘combination rates’’
because such rates apply to specific
combinations of exporters and one
or more producers. The cash–
deposit rate assigned to an exporter
will apply only to merchandise
both exported by the firm in
question and produced by a firm
that supplied the exporter during
the period of investigation.
See Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6.
PRC–wide Entity .........................
324.43
9 Jiashan
Superpower Tools Co., Ltd., manufactures and exports subject merchandise.
10 Princeway Furniture (Dong Guan) Co.,
Ltd., manufactures and exports subject merchandise.
11 Nantong D & B Machinery Co., Ltd., manufactures and exports subject merchandise.
12 Qingdao Huatian Truck Co., Ltd., manufactures and exports subject merchandise.
Disclosure
We will disclose the calculations
performed within five days of the date
of publication of this notice to parties in
this proceeding in accordance with 19
CFR 351.224(b).
Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 733(d)(2)
of the Act, we will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’)
to suspend liquidation of all entries of
lawn groomers from the PRC as
described in the ‘‘Scope of
Investigation’’ section, entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the date of
publication of this notice in the Federal
Register.
The Department has determined in its
Certain Tow–Behind Lawn Groomers
and Certain Parts Thereof from the
People’s Republic of China: Preliminary
Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination and Alignment of Final
Countervailing Duty Determination with
Final Antidumping Duty Determination,
73 FR 70971 (November 24, 2008)
(‘‘CVD Lawn Groomers Prelim’’), that
the product under investigation,
exported and produced by Superpower,
benefitted from an export subsidy.
Normally, where the product under
investigation is also subject to a
concurrent countervailing duty
investigation, we instruct CBP to require
an antidumping cash deposit or posting
of a bond equal to the weighted–average
amount by which the NV exceeds the
Preliminary Determination Margins
EP, as indicated above, minus the
The Department has determined that
amount determined to constitute an
the following weighted–average
export subsidy. See, e.g., Notice of Final
dumping margins exist for the POI:
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Carbazole Violet Pigment 23
Weighted–
From India, 69 FR 67306, 67307
Average
Manufacturer/Exporter
(November 17, 2007). Therefore, for
Margin
(Percent)
merchandise under consideration
exported and produced by Superpower
Jiashan Superpower Tools Co.,
entered or withdrawn from warehouse,
9 .........................................
Ltd.
324.43
for consumption on or after publication
Princeway Furniture (Dong
Guan) Co., Ltd.10 ....................
12.07 date of this preliminary determination,
we will instruct CBP to require an
Nantong D & B Machinery Co.,
Ltd.11 .......................................
168.25 antidumping cash deposit or the posting
of a bond for each entry equal to the
Qingdao Huatian Truck Co.,
Ltd.12 .......................................
168.25 weighted–average margin indicated
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:30 Jan 27, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
4935
above, adjusted for the export subsidy
rate determined in CVD Lawn Groomers
Prelim (i.e., Income Tax Reduction for
Export–Oriented Enterprises
countervailable subsidy of 0.15 percent
ad valorem). The adjusted cash deposit
rate is 324.28 percent. Furthermore,
CVD Lawn Groomers Prelim indicates
preliminarily that Superpower received
a countervailable subsidy of 0.64
percent ad valorem under the ‘‘Refund
of Enterprise Income Taxes on FIE
Profits Reinvested in an EOE’’ program.
See CVD Lawn Groomers Prelim at
70978. This subsidy contains both
domestic and export subsidy
components. However, for the
preliminary results of this investigation,
the Department will not be able to apply
the export subsidy component to
Superpower’s antidumping margin. For
the final results, if applicable, the
Department will calculate the subsidy
rates for each component and apply the
export subsidy portion to Superpower’s
antidumping margin.
Regarding all separate–rate recipients
that were not selected as mandatory
respondents, we will instruct CBP to
require an antidumping cash deposit or
the posting of a bond for each entry
equal to the average of the margins
calculated for the mandatory
respondents, adjusted for their
respective export subsidy rates, if
applicable, from CVD Lawn Groomers
Prelim.
For the remaining exporters, pursuant
to section 733(d)(1)(B), we will instruct
CBP to require a cash deposit or the
posting of a bond equal to the weighted–
average amount by which the normal
value exceeds U.S. price, as follows: (1)
the rate for the exporter/producer
combinations listed in the chart above
will be the rate we have determined in
this preliminary determination; (2) for
all PRC exporters of subject
merchandise which have not received
their own rate, the cash–deposit rate
will be the PRC–wide rate; and (3) for
all non–PRC exporters of subject
merchandise which have not received
their own rate, the cash–deposit rate
will be the rate applicable to the PRC
exporter/producer combination that
supplied that non–PRC exporter. These
suspension–of-liquidation instructions
will remain in effect until further notice.
International Trade Commission
Notification
In accordance with section 733(f) of
the Act, we have notified the ITC of our
preliminary affirmative determination of
sales at LTFV. Section 735(b)(2) of the
Act requires the ITC to make its final
determination as to whether the
domestic industry in the United States
E:\FR\FM\28JAN1.SGM
28JAN1
4936
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 28, 2009 / Notices
is materially injured, or threatened with
material injury, by reason of imports of
lawn groomers, or sales (or the
likelihood of sales) for importation, of
the subject merchandise within 45 days
of our final determination.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Public Comment
Case briefs or other written comments
may be submitted to the Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration no
later than seven days after the date the
final verification report is issued in this
proceeding and rebuttal briefs, limited
to issues raised in case briefs, no later
than five days after the deadline for
submitting case briefs. See 19 CFR
351.309(c)(1)(i) and 19 CFR
351.309(d)(1) and (2). A list of
authorities used and an executive
summary of issues should accompany
any briefs submitted to the Department.
This summary should be limited to five
pages total, including footnotes. See 19
CFR 351.309(c)(2) and 19 CFR
351.309(d)(2).
In accordance with section 774(a)(1)
of the Act, we will hold a public
hearing, if requested, to afford interested
parties an opportunity to comment on
arguments raised in case or rebuttal
briefs. If a request for a hearing is made,
we intend to hold the hearing three days
after the deadline of submission of
rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20230, at a
time and location to be determined.
Parties should confirm by telephone the
date, time, and location of the hearing
two days before the scheduled date.
Interested parties that wish to request
a hearing, or to participate if one is
requested, must submit a written
request to the Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30
days after the date of publication of this
notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests
should contain the party’s name,
address, and telephone number, the
number of participants, and a list of the
issues to be discussed. At the hearing,
each party may make an affirmative
presentation only on issues raised in
that party’s case brief and may make
rebuttal presentations only on
arguments included in that party’s
rebuttal brief. See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
Postponement of Final Determination
Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the
Act, on December 18, 2008, and
December 23, 2008, Princeway and
Superpower, respectively, requested
that in the event of an affirmative
preliminary determination in this
investigation, the Department postpone
its final determination by 60 days. At
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:30 Jan 27, 2009
Jkt 217001
the same time, Princeway and
Superpower agreed that the Department
may extend the application of the
provisional measures prescribed under
19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) from a 4–month
period to a 6–month period. In
accordance with section 733(d) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), we are
granting the request and are postponing
the final determination until no later
than 135 days after the publication of
this notice in the Federal Register
because: (1) our preliminary
determination is affirmative, (2) the
requesting exporters account for a
significant proportion of exports of the
subject merchandise (see Respondent
Selection Memorandum), and (3) no
compelling reasons for denial exist.
Suspension of liquidation will be
extended accordingly.
This determination is issued and
published in accordance with sections
733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: January 16, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E9–1721 Filed 1–28–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(C–570–931)
Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless
Pressure Pipe from the People’s
Republic of China: Final Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determination
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(the Department) has made a final
determination that countervailable
subsidies are being provided to
producers and exporters of circular
welded austenitic stainless pressure
pipe (CWASPP) from the People’s
Republic of China (PRC). For
information on the estimated subsidy
rates, see the ‘‘Suspension of
Liquidation’’ section of this notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 28, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Copyak, IA Operations, Office 3,
Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, Room 4012, 14th Street
and Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202–
482–2209.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Petitioner
The petitioners in this investigation
are Bristol Metals LLP, Felker Brothers
Corp., Marcegaglia U.S.A., Inc.,
Outokumpu Stainless Pipe, Inc., and the
United Steelworkers (petitioners).
Period of Investigation
The period for which we are
measuring subsidies, or period of
investigation (POI), is January 1, 2007,
through December 31, 2007.
Case History
On July 10, 2008, we published in the
Federal Register the preliminary
determination that countervailable
subsidies are being provided to
producers and exporters of CWASPP
from the PRC, as provided under section
703 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act). See Circular Welded
Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe from
the People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing
Duty Determination and Alignment of
Final Countervailing Duty
Determination with Final Antidumping
Duty Determination, 73 FR 39657 (July
10, 2008) (Preliminary Determination).
On July 15, 2008, the Winner
Companies filed timely allegations of
significant ministerial errors contained
in the Department’s Preliminary
Determination. After reviewing the
allegations, we determined that the
Preliminary Determination included
significant ministerial errors as
described under 19 CFR 351.224(g).
Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.224(e), we made changes to the
Preliminary Determination. On August
7, 2008, we published in the Federal
Register the amended preliminary
determination. See Circular Welded
Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe From
the People’s Republic of China: Notice
of Amended Preliminary Countervailing
Duty Determination 73 FR 45954
(August 7, 2008) (Amended Preliminary
Determination).
On August 8, 2008, the GOC
requested a hearing. On August 11,
2008, petitioners requested a hearing.
On December 16, 2008, we received
case briefs regarding the Preliminary
Determination from the Government of
the People’s Republic of China (GOC),
petitioners, and Winner Stainless Tube
Co., Ltd. (Winner), Winner Steel
Products (Guangzhou)(WSP), and
Winner Machinery Enterprise Company
Limited (Winner HK) (collectively the
Winner Companies). On December 17,
2008, the GOC filed a letter correcting
inadvertent errors its case brief. On
December, 22, 2008, the GOC,
petitioners, and the Winner Companies
submitted rebuttal briefs.
E:\FR\FM\28JAN1.SGM
28JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 28, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4929-4936]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1721]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A-570-939)
Certain Tow Behind Lawn Groomers and Certain Parts Thereof from
the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 28, 2009.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the ``Department'') preliminarily
determines that certain tow behind lawn groomers and certain parts
thereof (``lawn groomers'') from the People's Republic of China
(``PRC'') are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at
less than fair value (``LTFV''), as provided in section 733(b) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the ``Act''). The estimated dumping
margins are shown in the ``Preliminary Determination Margins'' section
of this notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karine Gziryan or Thomas Martin, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4081or (202) 482-3936, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On June 24, 2008, the Department received a petition concerning
imports of certain non-motorized tow behind lawn groomers and certain
parts thereof from the PRC filed in proper form by Agri-Fab Inc.
(``Agri-Fab'', hereafter referred to as ``Petitioner''). See Petition
for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties: Certain Tow Behind Lawn
Groomers and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China, dated
June 24, 2008 (``Petition''). The Department initiated an antidumping
duty investigation of lawn groomers from the PRC on July 21, 2008. See
Certain Tow Behind Lawn Groomers and Certain Parts Thereof from the
People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty
Investigation, 73 FR 42315 (July 21, 2008) (``Initiation Notice'').
On July 14, 2008, the Department requested quantity and value
(``Q&V'') information from the twelve companies that were identified in
the Petition as potential producers or exporters of lawn groomers from
the PRC. See Exhibit I-19 of the Petition. The Department received
timely responses to its Q&V questionnaire from the following companies:
Qingdao Huatian Hand Truck Co., Ltd., Jiashan Superpower Tools Co.,
Ltd., T.N. International, Inc., Nantong Duobang Machinery Co., Ltd.,
and Princeway Furniture (Dong Guan) Co., Ltd. Five companies to which
the Department sent the Q&V questionnaire received the questionnaire
but did not respond. These non-responsive companies were: Hangzhou
Geesun International Co., Ltd., Qingdao Huandai Tools Co., Ltd.,
Qingdao Taifa Group Co., Ltd., Maxchief Investments Ltd., and Qingdao
EA Huabang Instrument Co., Ltd.
With regard to two additional companies, World Factory, Inc., and
Sidepin, Ltd., on July 21, 2008, we spoke with Federal Express, via
telephone, and were informed that, although World Factory, Inc.,
originally accepted delivery of the Q&V questionnaire, it ultimately
rejected our mailing and returned the package to Federal Express. In
addition, on July 21, 2008, we spoke via telephone with DHL and were
informed that DHL was unable to deliver our mailing to Sidepin, Ltd.,
due to a ``bad address.''\1\ See Memorandum to The File, from Maisha
Cryor, Senior Import Compliance Specialist, Regarding ``Certain Tow
Behind Lawn Groomers and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's
Republic of China: Summary of Issuance of Quantity and Value
Questionnaires,'' dated July 21, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The petitioner provided contact information for the twelve
Chinese producers/exporters of lawn groomers named in the Petition.
See Petition at Exhibit I-19. However, upon noticing that several of
the addresses provided were incomplete, the Department asked the
petitioner to update the aforementioned contact information to
account for full addresses, e.g., contact name, postal code, street
names and numbers, etc. See the Department's July 3, 2008,
supplemental questionnaire at 3. In response, the petitioner
provided updated contact information, but noted that this
information represented its ``best attempt using reasonably
available information to update the Chinese manufacturer and
exporter contact information.'' See Supplement to the Petition at 2
and Exhibit 2, dated July 8, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 21, 2008, the International Trade Commission (``ITC'')
preliminarily determined that there is a reasonable indication that an
industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of
imports of lawn groomers from the PRC. See CertainTow-Behind Lawn
Groomers and Certain Parts Thereof from China Determinations
Investigation Nos. 701-TA-457 and 731-TA-1153 (Preliminary), 73 FR
49489 (August 21, 2008).
On August 18, 2008, the Department selected Jiashan Superpower
Tools Co., Ltd. (``Superpower''), and Princeway Furniture (Dong Guan)
Co., Ltd. (``Princeway''), as mandatory respondents and issued
antidumping duty questionnaires to the companies. See Memorandum
regarding ``Selection of Respondents for the Antidumping Duty
Investigation of Certain Tow Behind Lawn Groomers and Parts Thereof
from the People's Republic of China,'' dated August 18, 2008
(``Respondent Selection Memorandum'').
Superpower and Princeway submitted timely responses to the
Department's antidumping duty questionnaire on September 24, 2008, and
October 14, 2008, respectively. On July 23, 2008, and July 30, 2008,
the Department received separate-rate applications from Nantong D&B
Machinery Co., Ltd., and Qingdao Huatian Truck Co., Ltd., respectively.
The Department issued supplemental questionnaires to, and received
responses from, Superpower and Princeway from September through
December 2008. Petitioner submitted comments to the Department
regarding Princeway's and Superpower's responses to sections C and D of
the antidumping duty questionnaire on October 24, 2008 and additional
comments on Princeway's submissions on December 2, 2008.
On September 30, 2008, the Department released a memorandum to
interested parties which listed potential surrogate countries and
invited interested parties to comment on surrogate country and
surrogate value selection. See Memorandum to All Interested Parties
Regarding Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Tow Behind Lawn
Groomers and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China
(``PRC''). On October 17, 2008, and October 28, 2008, Petitioner and
Princeway submitted comments and rebuttal comments,
[[Page 4930]]
respectively, on the appropriate surrogate country and surrogate
values.
On November 5, 2008, the Petitioner made a request for a 50-day
postponement of the preliminary determination. On November 17, 2008,
the Department extended this preliminary determination by fifty days.
See Certain Tow Behind Lawn Groomers and Certain Parts Thereof from the
People's Republic of China: Postponement of Preliminary Determination
of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 73 FR 67836 (November 17, 2008).
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation (``POI'') is October 1, 2007, through
March 31, 2008. This period corresponds to the two most recent fiscal
quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition, i.e., June
2008. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
Scope of the Investigation
The scope of this investigation covers certain non-motorized tow
behind lawn groomers (``lawn groomers''), manufactured from any
material, and certain parts thereof. Lawn groomers are defined as lawn
sweepers, aerators, dethatchers, and spreaders. Unless specifically
excluded, lawn groomers that are designed to perform at least one of
the functions listed above are included in the scope of these
investigations, even if the lawn groomer is designed to perform
additional non-subject functions (e.g., mowing).
All lawn groomers are designed to incorporate a hitch, of any
configuration, which allows the product to be towed behind a vehicle.
Lawn groomers that are designed to incorporate both a hitch and a push
handle, of any type, are also covered by the scope of these
investigations. The hitch and handle may be permanently attached or
removable, and they may be attached on opposite sides or on the same
side of the lawn groomer. Lawn groomers designed to incorporate a
hitch, but where the hitch is not attached to the lawn groomer, are
also included in the scope of the investigations.
Lawn sweepers consist of a frame, as well as a series of brushes
attached to an axle or shaft which allows the brushing component to
rotate. Lawn sweepers also include a container (which is a receptacle
into which debris swept from the lawn or turf is deposited) supported
by the frame. Aerators consist of a frame, as well as an aerating
component that is attached to an axle or shaft which allows the
aerating component to rotate. The aerating component is made up of a
set of knives fixed to a plate (known as a ``plug aerator''), a series
of discs with protruding spikes (a ``spike aerator''), or any other
configuration, that are designed to create holes or cavities in a lawn
or turf surface. Dethatchers consist of a frame, as well as a series of
tines designed to remove material (e.g., dead grass or leaves) or other
debris from the lawn or turf. The dethatcher tines are attached to and
suspended from the frame. Lawn spreaders consist of a frame, as well as
a hopper (i.e., a container of any size, shape, or material) that holds
a media to be spread on the lawn or turf. The media can be distributed
by means of a rotating spreader plate that broadcasts the media
(``broadcast spreader''), a rotating agitator that allows the media to
be released at a consistent rate (``drop spreader''), or any other
configuration.
Lawn dethatchers with a net fully-assembled weight (i.e., without
packing, additional weights, or accessories) of 100 pounds or less are
covered by the scope of the investigations. Other lawn groomers-
sweepers, aerators, and spreaders-with a net fully-assembled weight
(i.e., without packing, additional weights, or accessories) of 200
pounds or less are covered by the scope of the investigations.
Also included in the scope of the investigations are modular units,
consisting of a chassis that is designed to incorporate a hitch, where
the hitch may or may not be included, which allows modules that perform
sweeping, aerating, dethatching, or spreading operations to be
interchanged. Modular units-when imported with one or more lawn
grooming modules-with a fully assembled net weight (i.e., without
packing, additional weights, or accessories) of 200 pounds or less when
including a single module, are included in the scope of the
investigations. Modular unit chasses, imported without a lawn grooming
module and with a fully assembled net weight (i.e., without packing,
additional weights, or accessories) of 125 pounds or less, are also
covered by the scope of the investigations. When imported separately,
modules that are designed to perform subject lawn grooming functions
(i.e., sweeping, aerating, dethatching, or spreading), with a fully
assembled net weight (i.e., without packing, additional weights, or
accessories) of 75 pounds or less, and that are imported with or
without a hitch, are also covered by the scope.
Lawn groomers, assembled or unassembled, are covered by these
investigations. For purposes of these investigations, ``unassembled
lawn groomers'' consist of either 1) all parts necessary to make a
fully assembled lawn groomer, or 2) any combination of parts,
constituting a less than complete, unassembled lawn groomer, with a
minimum of two of the following ``major components'':
1) an assembled or unassembled brush housing designed to be used in
a lawn sweeper, where a brush housing is defined as a component housing
the brush assembly, and consisting of a wrapper which covers the brush
assembly and two end plates attached to the wrapper;
2) a sweeper brush;
3) an aerator or dethatcher weight tray, or similar component
designed to allow weights of any sort to be added to the unit;
4) a spreader hopper;
5) a rotating spreader plate or agitator, or other component
designed for distributing media in a lawn spreader;
6) dethatcher tines;
7) aerator spikes, plugs, or other aerating component; or
8) a hitch.
The major components or parts of lawn groomers that are
individually covered by these investigations under the term ``certain
parts thereof'' are: (1) brush housings, where the wrapper and end
plates incorporating the brush assembly may be individual pieces or a
single piece; and (2) weight trays, or similar components designed to
allow weights of any sort to be added to a dethatcher or an aerator
unit.
The products for which relief is sought specifically exclude the
following: 1) agricultural implements designed to work (e.g., churn,
burrow, till, etc.) soil, such as cultivators, harrows, and plows; 2)
lawn or farm carts and wagons that do not groom lawns; 3) grooming
products incorporating a motor or an engine for the purpose of
operating and/or propelling the lawn groomer; 4) lawn groomers that are
designed to be hand held or are designed to be attached directly to the
frame of a vehicle, rather than towed; 5) ``push'' lawn grooming
products that incorporate a push handle rather than a hitch, and which
are designed solely to be manually operated; 6) dethatchers with a net
assembled weight (i.e., without packing, additional weights, or
accessories) of more than 100 pounds, or lawn groomers-sweepers,
aerators, and spreaders-with a net fully-assembled weight (i.e.,
without packing, additional weights, or accessories) of more than 200
pounds; and 7) lawn rollers designed to flatten grass and turf,
including lawn rollers which
[[Page 4931]]
incorporate an aerator component (e.g., ``drum-style'' spike aerators).
The lawn groomers that are the subject of these investigations are
currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (``HTSUS'') statistical reporting numbers 8432.40.0000,
8432.80.0000, 8432.80.0010, 8432.90.0030, 8432.90.0080, 8479.89.9896,
8479.89.9897, 8479.90.9496, and 9603.50.0000. These HTSUS provisions
are given for reference and customs purposes only, and the description
of merchandise is dispositive for determining the scope of the product
included in these investigations.
Scope Comments
In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations, we
set aside a period of time in our Initiation Notice for parties to
raise issues regarding product coverage, and encouraged all parties to
submit comments within 21 calendar days of issuance of that notice. See
Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19,
1997) and Initiation Notice, 73 FR at 42316. On December 30, 2008,
Brinly-Hardy Company (``Brinly-Hardy''), a domestic producer of the
subject merchandise, submitted comments on the scope of the
investigation. We have given all interested parties an opportunity to
submit comments. See Memorandum from Thomas Martin, International Trade
Compliance Analyst, to file, ``Deadline for Comments on Brinly-Hardy
Company's December 30, 2008 Submission: Antidumping Duty Investigation
of Certain Tow Behind Lawn Groomers from the People's Republic of
China,'' dated January 5, 2009. We will evaluate the comments for the
final results.
Non-Market Economy Treatment
The Department considers the PRC to be a non-market economy
(``NME'') country. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act,
any determination that a country is an NME country shall remain in
effect until revoked by the administering authority. See, e.g., Tapered
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof (TRBs), Finished and Unfinished, From
the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 2001-2002
Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review, 68 FR 7500
(February 14, 2003), unchanged in TRBs, 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). The Department has not revoked the PRC's status as
an NME country. Therefore, in this preliminary determination, we have
treated the PRC as an NME country and applied our current NME
methodology.
Selection of a Surrogate Country
In antidumping proceedings involving NME countries, where the
available information does not allow the Department to determine normal
value (``NV'') pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act, the Department
will base NV on the value of the NME producer's factors of production.
See section 773(c)(1) of the Act. In accordance with section 773(c)(4)
of the Act, in valuing the factors of production, the Department shall
utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of factors of
production in one or more market economy countries that are at a level
of economic development comparable to that of the NME country and are
significant producers of merchandise comparable to the subject
merchandise. The Department has determined that India, Indonesia, the
Philippines, Colombia, and Thailand are countries that are at a level
of economic development comparable to that of the PRC. See Memorandum
regarding Request for a List of Surrogate Countries for the Antidumping
Duty Investigation of Tow-Behind Lawn Groomers (``TBLG'') from the
People's Republic of China (``PRC'')'' dated September 30, 2008
(``Policy Memorandum'').
As noted above, in October 2008, Petitioner and Princeway submitted
comments on the appropriate surrogate country. In their comments, each
party stated that India satisfies the statutory criteria for surrogate
country selection because it is at a comparable level of economic
development with the PRC and it is a significant producer of comparable
merchandise that is sufficiently similar to the subject merchandise.
However, since India does not produce or export lawn groomers,
Petitioner and Princeway disagreed on the definition of what
constitutes comparable merchandise. In its comments, Petitioner claimed
that hand trucks represent the most comparable merchandise to lawn
groomers. Princeway, in its comments, argued that agricultural
implements should be used as comparable merchandise.
After evaluating interested parties' comments, the Department
selected India as the surrogate country for this investigation and
decided that because the lawn groomers and hand trucks industries use
many of the same raw material inputs and similar production processes,
hand trucks constitute comparable merchandise. For further discussion,
see Memorandum from Zhulieta Willbrand, International Trade Compliance
Analyst, to Abdelali Elouaradia, Office Director, ``Antidumping Duty
Investigation of Certain Tow Behind Lawn Groomers and Certain Parts
Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate
Country,'' dated January 21, 2009. In sum, the Department determined
that: 1) India is at a level of economic development comparable to that
of the PRC; and 2) India is a significant producer of merchandise
comparable to the subject merchandise. Upon the publication of the
preliminary results, the Department notes that interested parties may
submit additional information on comparable merchandise within the
confines of the new factual information submission deadlines. See 19
CFR 351.301(b)(1).
Separate Rates
In the Initiation Notice, the Department notified parties of the
application process by which exporters and producers may obtain
separate-rate status in NME investigations. See Initiation Notice, 73
FR at 42318-19. The process requires exporters and producers to submit
a separate-rate status application. See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-
Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping
Investigations involving Non-Market Economy Countries, (April 5, 2005)
(``Policy Bulletin 05.1''), available at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/
bull05-1.pdf. However, the standard for eligibility for a separate
rate, which is whether a firm can demonstrate an absence of both de
jure and de facto governmental control over its export activities, has
not changed.
In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department begins with
a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are
subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single
antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's practice to assign all
exporters of merchandise subject to investigation in an NME country
this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is
sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.
Exporters can demonstrate this independence through the absence of both
de jure and de facto governmental control over export activities. The
Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under
a test arising from the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May
6, 1991) (``Sparklers''), as further developed in Notice of Final
[[Page 4932]]
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from
the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (``Silicon
Carbide''). In accordance with the separate-rate criteria, the
Department assigns separate rates in NME cases only if respondents can
demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto governmental
control over export activities.
Two separate rate applicants, Qingdao Huatian Truck Co., Ltd.
(``Huatian''), and Nantong D & B Machinery Co., Ltd. (``Nantong''), and
one mandatory respondent, Superpower, stated that they are partially
Chinese-owned companies. Therefore, the Department must analyze whether
the mandatory respondent and separate rate applicants can demonstrate
the absence of both de jure and de facto governmental control over
export activities. Each company provided company-specific information
to demonstrate that it operates free from de jure and de facto
government control, and therefore, is entitled to a separate rate.
An additional mandatory respondent, Princeway, provided company-
specific separate-rate information and stated that the standards for
the assignment of separate rates have been met because it is a
privately-owned company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands and
based in Hong Kong. See Princeway's ``Separate Rate Application,''
dated September 19, 2008, and ``Separate Rate Application Supplemental
Response Questionnaire,'' dated October 21, 2008. Because Princeway is
foreign owned, it is not necessary to undertake additional separate-
rates analysis for the Department to determine that the export
activities of Princeway are independent from the PRC government's
control. Accordingly, Princeway is eligible for a separate rate. See,
e.g., Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Final Results
of the Tenth New Shipper Review, 69 FR 52228 (August 25, 2004).
Absence of De Jure Control
The Department considers the following de jure criteria in
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate
rate: (1) an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
The evidence provided by Huatian, Nantong and Superpower indicates
that there are no restrictive stipulations associated with their export
and/or business licenses and that there are legislative enactments
decentralizing control of the companies. The Department's analysis of
the record evidence supports a preliminary finding of absence of de
jure control. See ``Response to the Separate Rate Application'', dated
September 4, 2008, ``Response to the Separate Rate Application
Supplemental Questionnaire,'' dated September 27, 2008, and ``Response
to the Separate Rate Application Supplemental Questionnaire dated
October 7, 2008,'' dated October 15, 2008, from Nantong (``Nantong's
SRA''). See also ``Huatian's Separate Rate Application,'' dated
September 29, 2008, ``Response to the Separate Rate Application
Supplemental Questionnaire,'' dated October 9, 2008, and ``Response to
the Separate Rate Application Supplemental Questionnaire,'' dated
November 4, 2008 (``Huatian's SRA''). For Superpower, see ``Response to
the Separate Rate Application,'' dated September 24, 2008, and
``Response to the Separate Rate Application Supplemental
Questionnaire,'' dated October 23, 2008 (``Superpower's SRA'').
Absence of De Facto Control
Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating
whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of
its export functions: (1) whether the export prices are set by or are
subject to the approval of a governmental agency; (2) whether the
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government
in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4)
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or
financing of losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-87; see also
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544,
22545 (May 8, 1995). The Department has determined that an analysis of
de facto control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in
fact, subject to a degree of governmental control which would preclude
the Department from assigning separate rates.
In this case, we determine that the evidence on the record supports
a preliminary finding of de facto absence of governmental control with
respect to Huatian, Nantong and Superpower based on record statements
and supporting documentation showing that the companies: (1) set their
own export prices independent of the government and without the
approval of a government authority; (2) retain their proceeds from
sales and make independent decisions regarding disposition of profits
or financing of losses; (3) have the authority to negotiate and sign
contracts and other agreements; and (4) have autonomy from the
government regarding the selection of management. See Nantong's SRA,
Huatian's SRA and Superpower's SRA.
The evidence placed on the record of this investigation by Huatian,
Nantong and Superpower demonstrates an absence of de jure and de facto
government control with respect to these exporters' sales of the
merchandise under investigation, in accordance with the criteria
identified in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. Therefore, we have
preliminarily granted a separate rate to all three exporters. The
Department has calculated company-specific dumping margins for the two
mandatory respondents, Superpower and Princeway, and assigned to
Huation and Nantong, a dumping margin equal to a simple average of the
dumping margins calculated for the two mandatory respondents.
Additionally, we note that while we received the Q&V information
from T.N. International, Inc., one of the five companies which
responded to the Q&V questionnaire, the company was not selected by the
Department as a mandatory respondent. As indicated in the Initiation
Notice, where T.N. International, Inc., had an opportunity to request a
separate rate, it failed to do so. Consequently and according to our
practice, we assigned to T.N. International, Inc., preliminarily the
PRC-wide rate.
The PRC-Wide Entity
Although PRC exporters of subject merchandise to the United States
were given an opportunity to provide Q&V information to the Department,
not all exporters responded to the Department's request for Q&V
information.\2\ Based upon our knowledge of the volume of imports of
subject merchandise from the PRC, we have concluded that the companies
that responded to the Q&V questionnaire do not account for all U.S.
imports of subject merchandise from the PRC made during the POI.\3\ We
have
[[Page 4933]]
treated the non-responsive PRC producers/exporters as part of the PRC-
wide entity because they have not demonstrated their eligibility for a
separate rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Department received only five timely responses to the
requests for Q&V information that it sent to twelve potential
exporters identified in the Petition.
\3\ See Respondent Selection Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that the Department shall,
subject to subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available
in reaching the applicable determination if an interested party: (A)
withholds information that has been requested by the Department; (B)
fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or
manner requested, subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act;
(C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute;
or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be
verified.
As noted above, the PRC-wide entity withheld information requested
by the Department. As a result, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the
Act, we find it appropriate to base the PRC-wide dumping margin on
facts available. See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Preliminary Determination of
Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain
Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 4986,
4991-92 (January 31, 2003), unchanged in Notice of Final Antidumping
Duty Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative
Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 37116 (June 23, 2003).
Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among
the facts otherwise available, the Department may employ an adverse
inference if an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to
the best of its ability to comply with requests for information. See,
e.g., 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 Uruguay Round
Agreements Act , H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, Vol. I at 843 (1994) (``SAA''),
reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040 at 870. Because the PRC-wide entity
did not respond to the Department's request for information, the
Department has concluded that the PRC-wide entity has failed to
cooperate to the best of its ability. Therefore, the Department
preliminarily finds that, in selecting from among the facts available,
an adverse inference is appropriate.
Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use, as
adverse facts available (``AFA''): (1) information derived from the
petition; (2) the final determination from the LTFV investigation; (3)
a previous administrative review; or (4) any other information placed
on the record. In selecting a rate for AFA, the Department selects one
that is sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the statutory purposes
of the adverse facts available rule to induce respondents to provide
the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely
manner.'' See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan, 63 FR
8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). It is the Department's practice to
select, as AFA, the higher of: (a) the highest margin alleged in the
petition, or (b) the highest calculated rate for any respondent in the
investigation. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products
From the People's Republic of China, 65 FR 34660 (May 31, 2000), and
accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum at ``Facts Available.''
Here, we assigned the PRC-wide entity the dumping margin calculated for
Superpower, which exceeds the highest margin alleged in the petition
and is the highest rate calculated in this investigation. Pursuant to
section 776(c) of the Act, we do not need to corroborate this rate
because it is based on information obtained during the course of this
investigation rather than secondary information. See also SAA at 870.
The PRC-wide dumping margin applies to all entries of the merchandise
under investigation except for entries of subject merchandise from
Superpower,\4\ Princeway, Nandong and Huatian.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Because the Department based the PRC-wide dumping margin on
Superpower's dumping rate, both rates are equal. However, Superpower
has its own separate rate and is not part of the PRC-wide entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether Princeway and Superpower sold lawn groomers to
the United States at LTFV, we compared the weighted-average export
price (``EP'') of the lawn groomers to the NV of the lawn groomers, as
described in the ``U.S. Price,'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this
notice.
U.S. Price
In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, for both Superpower
and Princeway, we based the U.S. price of sales on EP because the first
sale to unaffiliated purchasers was made prior to importation and the
use of constructed export price was not otherwise warranted. In
accordance with section 772(c) of the Act, we calculated EP for
Superpower and Princeway by deducting the following expenses from the
starting price (gross unit price) charged to the first unaffiliated
customer in the United States: foreign movement expenses and foreign
brokerage and handling expenses.
We based these movement expenses on surrogate values where the
service was purchased from a PRC company. For details regarding our EP
calculation, see Analysis Memoranda for Superpower and Princeway, dated
January 21, 2009.
Normal Value
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we constructed NV
from the factors of production employed by Princeway and Superpower to
manufacture subject merchandise during the POI. Specifically, we
calculated NV by adding together the value of the factors of
production, general expenses, profit, and packing costs, as well as an
adjustment for the byproduct. We valued the factors of production using
prices and financial statements from India, the surrogate country
selected for this investigation or where appropriate, the prices paid
for the input, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1).\5\ In selecting
surrogate values, we followed, to the extent practicable, the
Department's practice of choosing values which are non-export average
values, product-specific, tax-exclusive, and contemporaneous with, or
closest in time to, the POI. See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary
Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final
Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004),
unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic
of Vietnam, 69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004). We also considered the
quality of the source of surrogate information in selecting surrogate
values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Superpower reported that it purchased no factors of
production from market economy suppliers during the POI. See
Superpower's October 14, 2008, Section D Response at D-5. Princeway
purchased certain factors of production from market economy
suppliers. See Princeway's October 10, 2008, Section D Response at 8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We valued material inputs and packing materials by multiplying the
amount of the factor consumed in producing subject merchandise by the
[[Page 4934]]
average unit value of the factor. In addition, we added freight costs
to the surrogate costs that we calculated for material inputs. We
calculated freight costs by multiplying surrogate freight rates by the
shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the
factory that produced the subject merchandise or the distance from the
nearest seaport to the factory that produced the subject merchandise,
as appropriate. This adjustment is in accordance with the Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in Sigma Corp. v. United
States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1407 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Where we could only
obtain surrogate values that were not contemporaneous with the POI, we
inflated (or deflated) the surrogate values using the Wholesale Price
Index (``WPI'').
Further, in calculating surrogate values from Indian imports, we
disregarded imports from Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand because in
other proceedings the Department found that these countries maintain
broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies. Therefore,
it is reasonable to infer that all exports to all markets from these
countries may be subsidized. See Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields from
the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 6482 (February 12, 2002), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1; see also
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Negative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color
Television Receivers From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 20594
(April 16, 2004), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 7.\6\ Thus, we have not used prices from these countries in
calculating the Indian import-based surrogate values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ In addition, as explained in the legislative history, it is
the Department's practice not to conduct a formal investigation to
ensure that such prices are not subsidized. See Omnibus Trade and
Competitiveness Act of 1988, Conference Report to Accompanying H.R.
Rep. 100-576 at 590 (1988). As such, it is the Department's practice
to base its decision on information that is available to it at the
time it makes its determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We valued raw materials and packing materials obtained from non-
market economy suppliers using Indian import statistics. See Surrogate
Value Memorandum. We valued water using data from the Maharashtra
Industrial Development Corporation \7\ because that data include a wide
range of industrial water tariffs. This source provides 344 industrial
water rates within the Maharashtra province from June 2003: 172 for the
``inside industrial areas'' usage category, and 172 for the ``outside
industrial areas'' usage category. See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Website available at https://www.midcindia.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We valued electricity using 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.
These electricity rates represent actual country-wide, publicly-
available information on tax-exclusive electricity rates charged to
industries in India. Since the rates are not contemporaneous with the
POI, we inflated the values using the WPI. See Surrogate Value
Memorandum.
For direct labor, indirect labor, and packing labor, consistent
with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), we used the most recently calculated
regression-based wage rate, which relies on 2005 data. This wage rate
can be found on the Import Administration's home page. See ``Expected
Wages of Selected NME Countries,'' available at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/
wages/ (revised May 2008). The source of these wage rate data
on the Import Administration's web site is the International Labour
Organization, Geneva, Labour Statistics Database Chapter 5B: Wages in
Manufacturing. Since this regression-based wage rate does not separate
the labor rates into different skill levels or types of labor, we have
applied the same wage rate to all skill levels and types of labor
reported by Princeway and Superpower. See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
As noted above, we valued inland truck freight expenses using a
deflated per-unit average rate calculated from data on the following
web site: https://www.infobanc.com/logistics/logtruck.htm. See Surrogate
Value Memorandum. The logistics section of this website contains inland
freight truck rates between many large Indian cities. Since this value
is not contemporaneous with the POI, we deflated the rate using WPI
data.
We valued brokerage and handling using a simple average of the
brokerage and handling costs that were reported in public submissions
that were filed in three antidumping duty cases. Specifically, we
averaged the public brokerage and handling expenses reported by: (1)
Agro Dutch Industries Ltd. in the antidumping duty administrative
review of certain preserved mushrooms from India, (2) Kejirwal Paper
Ltd. in the less than fair value investigation of certain lined paper
products from India, and (3) Essar Steel in the antidumping duty
administrative review of hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from
India.\8\ See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 10646 (March 2, 2006);
Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value,
Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary
Determination of Critical Circumstances in Part: Certain Lined Paper
Products From India, 71 FR 19706 (April 17, 2006), unchanged in Notice
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Negative
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Lined Paper Products
from India, 71 FR 45012 (August 8, 2006); and Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon
Steel Flat Products From India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 71 FR 2018, 2021 (January 12, 2006), unchanged
in Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: Final
Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 71 FR 40694 (July 18,
2006). We inflated the brokerage and handling rate using the
appropriate WPI inflator. See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Use of these averages is consistent with the Department's
normal practice to calculate brokerage and handling expenses. Absent
product-specific data, 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 Memorandum at Comment 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We valued factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative
(``SG&A'') expenses, and profit, using the financial ratios calculated
from the 2006-2007 audited financial statement of one Indian producer
of hand trucks: Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited. See
Surrogate Value Memorandum.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), interested parties may
submit publicly available information with which to value factors of
production in the final determination within 40 days after the date of
publication of the preliminary determination.
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with
section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the
[[Page 4935]]
exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by
the Federal Reserve Bank.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we intend to verify
the information upon which we will rely in making our final
determination.
Combination Rates
In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that it would
calculate combination rates for respondents that are eligible for a
separate rate in this investigation. See Initiation Notice, 73 FR at
42319. This change in practice is described in Policy Bulletin 05.1,
which states:
{W{time} hile continuing the practice of assigning separate rates
only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now
assign in its NME investigations will be specific to those producers
that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note,
however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the
producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the period of
investigation. This practice applies both to mandatory respondents
receiving an individually calculated separate rate as well as the pool
of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-average of the
individually calculated rates. This practice is referred to as the
application of ``combination rates'' because such rates apply to
specific combinations of exporters and one or more producers. The cash-
deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to merchandise
both exported by the firm in question and produced by a firm that
supplied the exporter during the period of investigation.
See Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6.
Preliminary Determination Margins
The Department has determined that the following weighted-average
dumping margins exist for the POI:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
Manufacturer/Exporter Average Margin
(Percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jiashan Superpower Tools Co., Ltd.\9\.................. 324.43
Princeway Furniture (Dong Guan) Co., Ltd.\10\.......... 12.07
Nantong D & B Machinery Co., Ltd.\11\.................. 168.25
Qingdao Huatian Truck Co., Ltd.\12\.................... 168.25
PRC-wide Entity........................................ 324.43
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Jiashan Superpower Tools Co., Ltd., manufactures and exports subject
merchandise.
\10\ Princeway Furniture (Dong Guan) Co., Ltd., manufactures and exports
subject merchandise.
\11\ Nantong D & B Machinery Co., Ltd., manufactures and exports subject
merchandise.
\12\ Qingdao Huatian Truck Co., Ltd., manufactures and exports subject
merchandise.
Disclosure
We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the
date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we will instruct
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to suspend liquidation of
all entries of lawn groomers from the PRC as described in the ``Scope
of Investigation'' section, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register.
The Department has determined in its Certain Tow-Behind Lawn
Groomers and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment
of Final Countervailing Duty Determination with Final Antidumping Duty
Determination, 73 FR 70971 (November 24, 2008) (``CVD Lawn Groomers
Prelim''), that the product under investigation, exported and produced
by Superpower, benefitted from an export subsidy. Normally, where the
product under investigation is also subject to a concurrent
countervailing duty investigation, we instruct CBP to require an
antidumping cash deposit or posting of a bond equal to the weighted-
average amount by which the NV exceeds the EP, as indicated above,
minus the amount determined to constitute an export subsidy. See, e.g.,
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From India, 69 FR 67306, 67307 (November
17, 2007). Therefore, for merchandise under consideration exported and
produced by Superpower entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after publication date of this preliminary
determination, we will instruct CBP to require an antidumping cash
deposit or the posting of a bond for each entry equal to the weighted-
average margin indicated above, adjusted for the export subsidy rate
determined in CVD Lawn Groomers Prelim (i.e., Income Tax Reduction for
Export-Oriented Enterprises countervailable subsidy of 0.15 percent ad
valorem). The adjusted cash deposit rate is 324.28 percent.
Furthermore, CVD Lawn Groomers Prelim indicates preliminarily that
Superpower received a countervailable subsidy of 0.64 percent ad
valorem under the ``Refund of Enterprise Income Taxes on FIE Profits
Reinvested in an EOE'' program. See CVD Lawn Groomers Prelim at 70978.
This subsidy contains both domestic and export subsidy components.
However, for the preliminary results of this investigation, the
Department will not be able to apply the export subsidy component to
Superpower's antidumping margin. For the final results, if applicable,
the Department will calculate the subsidy rates for each component and
apply the export subsidy portion to Superpower's antidumping margin.
Regarding all separate-rate recipients that were not selected as
mandatory respondents, we will instruct CBP to require an antidumping
cash deposit or the posting of a bond for each entry equal to the
average of the margins calculated for the mandatory respondents,
adjusted for their respective export subsidy rates, if applicable, from
CVD Lawn Groomers Prelim.
For the remaining exporters, pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B), we
will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond
equal to the weighted-average amount by which the normal value exceeds
U.S. price, as follows: (1) the rate for the exporter/producer
combinations listed in the chart above will be the rate we have
determined in this preliminary determination; (2) for all PRC exporters
of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the
cash-deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate; and (3) for all non-PRC
exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own
rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC
exporter/producer combination that supplied that non-PRC exporter.
These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain in effect
until further notice.
International Trade Commission Notification
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the
ITC of our preliminary affirmative determination of sales at LTFV.
Section 735(b)(2) of the Act requires the ITC to make its final
determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States
[[Page 4936]]
is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of
imports of lawn groomers, or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for
importation, of the subject merchandise within 45 days of our final
determination.
Public Comment
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no later than seven days
after the date the final verification report is issued in this
proceeding and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case
briefs, no later than five days after the deadline for submitting case
briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i) and 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1) and (2). A
list of authorities used and an executive summary of issues should
accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. This summary should
be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. See 19 CFR
351.309(c)(2) and 19 CFR 351.309(d)(2).
In accordance with section 774(a)(1) of the Act, we will hold a
public hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties an
opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs.
If a request for a hearing is made, we intend to hold the hearing three
days after the deadline of submission of rebuttal briefs at the U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave, NW,
Washington, DC 20230, at a time and location to be determined. Parties
should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing
two days before the scheduled date.
Interested parties that wish to request a hearing, or to
participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 days after the date of publication of
this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests should contain the party's
name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, and a
list of the issues to be discussed. At the hearing, each party may make
an affirmative presentation only on issues raised in that party's case
brief and may make rebuttal presentations only on arguments included in
that party's rebuttal brief. See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
Postponement of Final Determination
Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act, on December 18, 2008, and
December 23, 2008, Princeway and Superpower, respectively, requested
that in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination in this
investigation, the Department postpone its final determination by 60
days. At the same time, Princeway and Superpower agreed that the
Department may extend the application of the provisional measures
prescribed under 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) from a 4-month period to a 6-
month period. In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.210(b)(2)(ii), we are granting the request and are postponing the
final determination until no later than 135 days after the publication
of this notice in the Federal Register because: (1) our preliminary
determination is affirmative, (2) the requesting exporters account for
a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise (see
Respondent Selection Memorandum), and (3) no compelling reasons for
denial exist. Suspension of liquidation will be extended accordingly.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with
sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: January 16, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-1721 Filed 1-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
