Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative and New Shipper Reviews and Partial Rescission of Review, 6372-6385 [E9-2675]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
6372
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 25 / Monday, February 9, 2009 / Notices
of the merchandise; and (4) if neither
the exporter nor the manufacturer is a
firm covered in this or any previous
review or the LTFV investigation
conducted by the Department, the cash
deposit rate will be 14.74 percent, the
‘‘All Others’’ rate established in the
LTFV investigation. These cash deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until further notice.
This notice serves as a preliminary
reminder to importers of their
responsibility under section
351.402(f)(2) of the Department’s
regulations to file a certificate regarding
the reimbursement of antidumping and/
or countervailing duties prior to
liquidation of the relevant entries
during this review period. Failure to
comply with this requirement could
result in the Secretary’s presumption
that reimbursement of antidumping
and/or countervailing duties occurred
and the subsequent assessment of
double antidumping duties.
This determination is issued and
published in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: February 2, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E9–2644 Filed 2–6–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–890]
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the
People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative and New Shipper
Reviews and Partial Rescission of
Review
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from
interested parties, the Department of
Commerce (‘‘Department’’) is
conducting an administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on wooden
bedroom furniture (‘‘WBF’’) from the
People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’).
The period of review (‘‘POR’’) is January
1, 2007 through December 31, 2007.
This administrative review covers
multiple exporters of the subject
merchandise, two of which are being
individually reviewed as mandatory
respondents. The Department is also
conducting two new shipper reviews for
exporters/producers. The POR for the
new shipper reviews is also January 1,
2007, through December 31, 2007.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:35 Feb 06, 2009
Jkt 217001
We preliminarily determine that the
mandatory respondents in the
administrative review made sales in the
United States at prices below normal
value (‘‘NV’’). With respect to the
remaining respondents in the
administrative review, we preliminarily
determine that 16 entities have provided
sufficient evidence that they are
separate from the state-controlled entity,
and we have established a weightedaverage margin based on the rates we
have calculated for the mandatory
respondents, excluding any rates that
are zero, de minimis, or based entirely
on adverse facts available, to be applied
to these separate rate entities.1 Further,
we preliminarily determine that the
remaining six respondents in the
administrative review have not
demonstrated that they are entitled to a
separate rate, and thus are considered
part of the PRC entity. Finally, we
preliminarily determine that the new
shippers have not made sales in the
United States at less than NV. If these
preliminary results are adopted in our
final results of review, we will instruct
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(‘‘CBP’’) to assess antidumping duties
on entries of subject merchandise
during the POR for which the importerspecific assessment rates are above de
minimis.
We invite interested parties to
comment on these preliminary results.
Parties who submit comments are
requested to submit with each argument
a statement of the issue and a brief
summary of the argument. We intend to
issue the final results of this review no
later than 120 days from the date of
publication of this notice.
DATES: Effective Date: February 9, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul
´
Stolz, or Sergio Balbontın, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 8, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–4474 and (202)
482–6478, respectively.
Background
On January 4, 2005, the Department
published in the Federal Register the
antidumping duty order on wooden
bedroom furniture from the PRC. See
Notice of Amended Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Antidumping Duty Order: Wooden
1 These 16 entities do not include the two new
shipper respondents, one of whom is also subject
to the administrative review. Both new shipper
respondents have demonstrated that they are
separate from the state-controlled entity; however,
their margins will be based on the results of their
respective new shipper reviews.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Bedroom Furniture from the People’s
Republic of China, 70 FR 329 (January
4, 2005) (‘‘Order’’). Our first notice to
the public that we were initiating an
administrative review with respect to
wooden bedroom furniture was
published on February 27, 2008,
wherein we stated, in a footnote, that we
would subsequently publish a separate
initiation notice identifying all the
exporters under review. See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews, 73 FR 10422
(February 27, 2008). On March 7, 2008,
the Department published in the
Federal Register this subsequent notice
of initiation of administrative review,
wherein we identified the exporters
under review by name. See Notice of
Initiation of Administrative Review of
the Antidumping Duty Order on
Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the
People’s Republic of China, 73 FR 12387
(March 7, 2008) (‘‘AR Initiation
Notice’’). Additionally on March 7,
2008, the Department initiated new
shipper reviews with respect to the
following exporter/producer
combinations: 1) Golden Well
International (HK), Ltd./Zhangzhou
XYM Furniture Product Co., Ltd.
(collectively ‘‘Golden Well’’); and 2)
Dongguan Sunshine Furniture Co., Ltd./
Dongguan Sunshine Furniture Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Sunshine’’). See Wooden Bedroom
Furniture from the People’s Republic of
China; Initiation of New Shipper
Reviews, 73 FR 12392 (March 7, 2008)
(‘‘NS Initiation Notice’’).
In the AR Initiation Notice, parties
were notified that, due to the large
number of firms requested for this
administrative review and the resulting
administrative burden of reviewing each
company, the Department considered
exercising its authority to limit the
number of respondents selected for
review in accordance with section
777A(c)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (‘‘the Act’’). Accordingly, the
Department requested that all
companies listed in the AR Initiation
Notice wishing to qualify for separate
rate status in this administrative review
complete, as appropriate, either a
separate rate application or
certification.2 The Department also
2 In order to demonstrate separate rate eligibility,
the Department requires companies for which a
review was requested that were assigned a separate
rate in the previous segment of this proceeding to
certify that they continue to meet the criteria for
obtaining a separate rate. See Tapered Roller
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished,
from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results
of 2005–2006 Administrative Review and Partial
Rescission of Review, 72 FR 56724 (October 4, 2007)
(‘‘TRBs 2007’’) which was upheld by the Court of
International Trade (‘‘CIT’’) in Peer Bearing Co. v.
United States, Slip Op. 08–134 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2008)
E:\FR\FM\09FEN1.SGM
09FEN1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 25 / Monday, February 9, 2009 / Notices
stated in the AR Initiation Notice its
intention to select respondents based on
CBP data for U.S. imports for the POR.
As such, the Department stated that
companies for which a review was
initiated should notify the Department
within 30 days of publication of this
notice if they had no shipments, entries,
or sales of the subject merchandise
under consideration during the POR.
For this administrative review, the
Department determined to use value of
exports instead of volume of exports in
selecting the largest exporters. The
Department based this determination on
the fact that CBP data for volume of
imports were reported in differing units
of measure (e.g., pieces, cubic meters,
etc.) across the exporters and the
Department did not have the
information to convert the data into an
equivalent unit of measure for all
relevant imports. See Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review of Wooden
Bedroom Furniture from the People’s
Republic of China: Selection of
Respondents, dated July 31, 2008
(‘‘Selection of Respondents
Memorandum’’). On July 31, 2008, the
Department selected: (1) Guangdong
Yihua Timber Industry Co., Ltd., (a.k.a.,
Yihua Timber Industry Co., Ltd.)
(‘‘Yihua Timber’’); and (2) Orient
International Holding Shanghai Foreign
Trading Co., Ltd. (‘‘Orient
International’’) as mandatory
respondents in this administrative
review. See Selection of Respondents
Memorandum.
On August 21, 2008, the Department
issued its questionnaire to Yihua
Timber and Orient International. See
below for mandatory respondentspecific chronologies. On September 18,
2008, Orient International stated that it
would no longer be participating in this
administrative review, except with
respect to briefing and a hearing, if held.
See Letter from Orient International,
dated September 18, 2008.
On August 22, 2008, the Department
aligned the deadlines and the time
limits of the new shipper reviews of
WBF with the administrative review of
WBF. See Memorandum to the File,
‘‘Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the
People’s Republic of China: Alignment
of the 1/1/2007–12/31/2007 Annual
Administrative Review and the 1/1/
2007–12/31/2007 New Shipper
Review,’’ dated August 22, 2008.
Between March 7, 2008, and June 5,
2008, several parties withdrew their
requests for administrative review. On
(‘‘Peer Bearing’’). For companies that have not
previously been assigned a separate rate, the
Department requires that they demonstrate
eligibility for a separate rate by submitting a
separate rate application.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:35 Feb 06, 2009
Jkt 217001
August 25, 2008, the Department
published a notice rescinding the
review with respect to the entities for
which all review requests had been
withdrawn. See Wooden Bedroom
Furniture from the People’s Republic of
China: Notice of Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 73 FR 49990 (August 25, 2008).
On September 16, 2008, the
Department requested comments on
surrogate country selection from all
interested parties. On September 30,
2008, domestic interested parties, the
American Furniture Manufacturers
Committee for Legal Trade and
Vaughan-Bassett Furniture Company,
Inc. (‘‘Petitioners’’) provided
information regarding the selection of a
surrogate country.3 Also, on September
30, 2008, Yihua Timber submitted
comments regarding the selection of a
surrogate country.4 On October 7, 2008,
the Department received rebuttal
surrogate country comments from both
the Petitioners 5 and Yihua Timber.6 On
October 17, 2008, Petitioners’ submitted
a reply to Yihua Timber’s October 7,
2008, rebuttal comments.7 Also, on
October 17, 2008, Yihua Timber
responded to Petitioner’s October 7,
2008, rebuttal comments.8 On October
27, 2008, Petitioners submitted further
rebuttal comments to Yihua Timber’s
October 17, 2008, submission.9 No other
party to the proceeding submitted
information or comments concerning
the selection of a surrogate country.
On October 6, 2008, the Department
extended the deadline for the issuance
of the preliminary results of the
administrative review and new shipper
reviews until January 30, 2008. See
3 See Letter from Petitioners titled, ‘‘Wooden
Bedroom Furniture From China Surrogate Country
Comments,’’ dated September 30, 2008.
4 See Letter from Yihua Timber titled, ‘‘Wooden
Bedroom Furniture from the People’s Republic of
China, A–570–890: Comments on Surrogate
Country Selection,’’ dated September 30, 2008.
5 See Letter from Petitioners titled, ‘‘Wooden
Bedroom Furniture From China: Rebuttal Surrogate
Country Comments,’’ dated October 7, 2008.
6 See Letter from Yihua Timber titled, ‘‘Wooden
Bedroom Furniture from the People’s Republic of
China, A–570–890: Rebuttal Comments on
Surrogate Country Selection,’’ dated October 7,
2008.
7 See Letter from Petitioners titled, ‘‘Wooden
Bedroom Furniture from China: Petitioners’ Reply
To Yihua Timber’s Rebuttal Comments On
Surrogate Country Selection,’’ dated October 17,
2008.
8 See Letter from Yihua Timber titled, ‘‘Wooden
Bedroom Furniture from the People’s Republic of
China, A–570–890: Further Rebuttal Comments on
Surrogate Country Selection,’’ dated October 17,
2008.
9 See Letter from Petitioners titled, ‘‘Wooden
Bedroom Furniture from China: Petitioners’ Reply
to Yihua Timber’s Further Rebuttal Comments On
Surrogate Country Selection,’’ dated October 27,
2008.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
6373
Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the
People’s Republic of China: Extension of
Time Limits for the Preliminary Results
of the Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and New Shipper Reviews, 73
FR 58113 (October 6, 2008).
Between March 13, 2008 and April 4,
2008, Petitioners and Kimball
International, Inc., Kimball Furniture
Group, Inc., and Kimball Hospitality
Inc. (collectively ‘‘Kimball’’) submitted
numerous comments pertaining to
Kimball’s standing as a domestic
interested party. On November 4, 2008,
the Department found that Kimball is a
U.S. producer of wooden bedroom
furniture for purposes of this
antidumping administrative review and
thus has standing as a U.S. producer of
the like product to request
administrative reviews of foreign
exporters. See Memorandum to the File
‘‘Whether Kimball International, Inc.,
Kimball Furniture Group, Inc. and
Kimball Hospitality, Inc. (collectively,
‘‘Kimball’’) is a U.S. Domestic Producer
of Wooden Bedroom Furniture:
Administrative Review of Wooden
Bedroom Furniture from the People’s
Republic of China’’ (November 4, 2008).
On January 9, 2009, Lifestyle
Enterprise, Inc. (‘‘Lifestyle’’) and Trade
Masters of Texas, Inc. (‘‘Trade Masters’’)
submitted comments arguing that the
Department’s current WBF
administrative review is unlawful and
must therefore be rescinded. See Letter
from Lifestyle and Trade Masters, dated
January 9, 2009. Lifestyle and Trade
Masters asserted that the Department’s
administrative review is unlawful
because, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.221(c)(1)(i), the Department is
required to ‘‘publish notice of initiation
of the review no later than the last day
of the month following the anniversary
month.’’ Lifestyle and Trade Masters
further stated that 19 CFR 351.102(b)
defines the ‘‘anniversary month’’ as ‘‘the
calendar month in which the
anniversary of the date of publication of
an order or suspension of investigation
occurs,’’ and thus, in this case the
Department should have published its
initiation notice by February 29, 2008.
Additionally, Lifestyle and Trade
Masters state that, on February 27, 2008,
the Department published a notice in
the Federal Register indicating that it
was initiating a review, but then, in
contradiction, stated that ‘‘the
administrative review for {case A–570–
890} will be published in a separate
initiation notice.’’ Lifestyle and Trade
Masters contend that on March 7, 2008,
eight days after the deadline for
initiating the review according to its
own regulations, the Department
published its initiation notice for this
E:\FR\FM\09FEN1.SGM
09FEN1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
6374
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 25 / Monday, February 9, 2009 / Notices
review. Lifestyle and Trade Masters
therefore assert that the Department
failed to initiate this review by the
deadline in its own regulations, and
accordingly, the review is unlawful and
must be rescinded and terminated.
On January 16, 2009, Petitioners
rebutted Lifestyle and Trade Masters
submission. Petitioners stated the
following: (1) The Department notice
was timely filed; (2) the Act mandates
an administrative review; and (3) the
Department’s practice has been to
initiate a review, even if past the
regulations deadline. See Letter from
Petitioners, ‘‘Pre-Preliminary
Comments,’’ dated January 16, 2009.
We have determined that our notice
was timely and complied with our
regulations for the following reasons.
Our first notice to the public that we
were initiating an administrative review
with respect to wooden bedroom
furniture published on February 27,
2008, prior to the close of the month
following the anniversary month of the
order. See Initiation of Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews, 73 FR 10422 (February 27,
2008). Although this notice did not
contain the list of all of the exporters
under review, a footnote to this notice
stated that we would publish a separate
initiation notice for this review. That
subsequent notice, which listed all of
the exporters under review, was
published on March 7, 2008.
Additionally, section 751 of the Act
requires the Department to conduct an
administrative review when timely and
properly requested, as was done by
multiple parties for this review. Thus,
the Department was under an obligation
to conduct an administrative review.
Further, the Department has established
its practice in regards to this
proceeding; in two prior administrative
reviews, the Department has published
its initiation notice after the last day of
the month following the anniversary
month. See Initiation of Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Administraive
Reviews, 72 FR 8969 (February 28,
2007); Notice of Initiation of
Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Wooden
Bedroom Furniture from the People’s
Republic of China, 72 FR 10159 (March
7, 2007); Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administraive
Reviews, 71 FR 9519 (February 24,
2006); Notice of Initiation of
Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Wooden
Bedroom Furniture from the People’s
Republic of China, 71 FR 11394 (March
7, 2006). Furthermore, the Department
has, on occasion, initiated an
administrative review after the close of
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:35 Feb 06, 2009
Jkt 217001
the month following the anniversary
month of the relevant antidumping duty
order. For example, when the
Department has inadvertently omitted a
case from the appropriate monthly
initiation notice, the Department has
initiated the review in the subsequent
monthly initiation notice, notifying the
public of its inadvertent omission from
the prior month’s initiation notice (i.e.,
first publishing the notice of initiation
for that review after the close of the
month following the anniversary month
of the respective order). See, e.g.,
Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Request for Revocation in
Part, 69 FR 56745 (September 22, 2004);
Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Requests for Revocation in
Part, 69 FR 30282 (May 27, 2004).
Therefore, consistent with Department
practice, we have determined to
continue with this administrative
review.
Moreover, Lifestyle and Trade Masters
do not claim that they were prejudiced
by the alleged untimely notice. See
Letter from Lifestyle and Trade Masters,
dated January 9, 2009. Although their
February 29, 2008, application for
confidential information under
Administrative Protective Order
(‘‘APO’’) was rejected by the Department
on the grounds that the application was
untimely, Lifestyle and Trade Masters’
subsequent application for APO access,
submitted November 25, 2008, was
granted by the Department on December
3, 2008. Thus, there is no evidence that
Lifestyle and Trade Masters were denied
due process because their initial APO
application was rejected, nor is there
evidence that Lifestyle and Trade
Masters suffered any actual harm due to
the Department’s allegedly untimely
initiation of this review.
As noted above, the Department
issued its antidumping questionnaire to
the two mandatory respondents and two
new shippers. Upon receipt of the
various responses, the Department
issued supplemental questionnaires.
Yihua Timber, Golden Well, and
Sunshine timely responded to the
original and supplemental
questionnaires.
On September 11, 2008, Orient
International timely submitted its
response to section A of the original
questionnaire. However, on September
18, 2008, Orient International submitted
a statement that it would no longer
participate in this administrative review
and did not respond to either sections
C or D of the antidumping duty
questionnaire.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
On January 14, 2009, the Department
requested that Golden Well place its
new shipper review response to section
A of the original questionnaire and its
response to the section A supplemental
questionnaires on the administrative
review record. See Memorandum to the
File: Antidumping Duty New Shipper
Review on Wooden Bedroom Furniture
from the People’s Republic of China:
Request for Greenberg Traurig to Place
Responses to Section A and Section A
Supplemental Questionnaires on the
Administrative Review Record, dated
January 14, 2009.
Period of Review
The POR is January 1, 2007, through
December 31, 2007.
Scope of the Order
The product covered by the order is
wooden bedroom furniture. Wooden
bedroom furniture is generally, but not
exclusively, designed, manufactured,
and offered for sale in coordinated
groups, or bedrooms, in which all of the
individual pieces are of approximately
the same style and approximately the
same material and/or finish. The subject
merchandise is made substantially of
wood products, including both solid
wood and also engineered wood
products made from wood particles,
fibers, or other wooden materials such
as plywood, strand board, particle
board, and fiberboard, with or without
wood veneers, wood overlays, or
laminates, with or without non-wood
components or trim such as metal,
marble, leather, glass, plastic, or other
resins, and whether or not assembled,
completed, or finished.
The subject merchandise includes the
following items: (1) Wooden beds such
as loft beds, bunk beds, and other beds;
(2) wooden headboards for beds
(whether stand-alone or attached to side
rails), wooden footboards for beds,
wooden side rails for beds, and wooden
canopies for beds; (3) night tables, night
stands, dressers, commodes, bureaus,
mule chests, gentlemen’s chests,
bachelor’s chests, lingerie chests,
wardrobes, vanities, chessers,
chifforobes, and wardrobe-type cabinets;
(4) dressers with framed glass mirrors
that are attached to, incorporated in, sit
on, or hang over the dresser; (5) chests-
E:\FR\FM\09FEN1.SGM
09FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 25 / Monday, February 9, 2009 / Notices
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
on-chests,10 highboys,11 lowboys,12
chests of drawers,13 chests,14 door
chests,15 chiffoniers,16 hutches,17 and
armoires; 18 (6) desks, computer stands,
filing cabinets, book cases, or writing
tables that are attached to or
incorporated in the subject
merchandise; and (7) other bedroom
furniture consistent with the above list.
The scope of the order excludes the
following items: (1) Seats, chairs,
benches, couches, sofas, sofa beds,
stools, and other seating furniture; (2)
mattresses, mattress supports (including
box springs), infant cribs, water beds,
and futon frames; (3) office furniture,
such as desks, stand-up desks, computer
cabinets, filing cabinets, credenzas, and
bookcases; (4) dining room or kitchen
furniture such as dining tables, chairs,
servers, sideboards, buffets, corner
cabinets, china cabinets, and china
hutches; (5) other non-bedroom
furniture, such as television cabinets,
cocktail tables, end tables, occasional
tables, wall systems, book cases, and
entertainment systems; (6) bedroom
furniture made primarily of wicker,
cane, osier, bamboo or rattan; (7) side
rails for beds made of metal if sold
separately from the headboard and
footboard; (8) bedroom furniture in
which bentwood parts predominate; 19
10 A chest-on-chest is typically a tall chest-ofdrawers in two or more sections (or appearing to be
in two or more sections), with one or two sections
mounted (or appearing to be mounted) on a slightly
larger chest; also known as a tallboy.
11 A highboy is typically a tall chest of drawers
usually composed of a base and a top section with
drawers, and supported on four legs or a small chest
(often 15 inches or more in height).
12 A lowboy is typically a short chest of drawers,
not more than four feet high, normally set on short
legs.
13 A chest of drawers is typically a case
containing drawers for storing clothing.
14 A chest is typically a case piece taller than it
is wide featuring a series of drawers and with or
without one or more doors for storing clothing. The
piece can either include drawers or be designed as
a large box incorporating a lid.
15 A door chest is typically a chest with hinged
doors to store clothing, whether or not containing
drawers. The piece may also include shelves for
televisions and other entertainment electronics.
16 A chiffonier is typically a tall and narrow chest
of drawers normally used for storing undergarments
and lingerie, often with mirror(s) attached.
17 A hutch is typically an open case of furniture
with shelves that typically sits on another piece of
furniture and provides storage for clothes.
18 An armoire is typically a tall cabinet or
wardrobe (typically 50 inches or taller), with doors,
and with one or more drawers (either exterior below
or above the doors or interior behind the doors),
shelves, and/or garment rods or other apparatus for
storing clothes. Bedroom armoires may also be used
to hold television receivers and/or other audiovisual entertainment systems.
19 As used herein, bentwood means solid wood
made pliable. Bentwood is wood that is brought to
a curved shape by bending it while made pliable
with moist heat or other agency and then set by
cooling or drying. See Customs’ Headquarters’
Ruling Letter 043859, dated May 17, 1976.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:35 Feb 06, 2009
Jkt 217001
(9) jewelry armoires; 20 (10) cheval
mirrors; 21 (11) certain metal parts; 22
(12) mirrors that do not attach to,
incorporate in, sit on, or hang over a
dresser if they are not designed and
marketed to be sold in conjunction with
a dresser as part of a dresser-mirror set;
and (13) upholstered beds.23
Imports of subject merchandise are
classified under subheading
9403.50.9040 of the HTSUS as ‘‘wooden
* * * beds’’ and under subheading
9403.50.9080 of the HTSUS as ‘‘other
* * * wooden furniture of a kind used
in the bedroom.’’ In addition, wooden
headboards for beds, wooden footboards
20 Any
armoire, cabinet or other accent item for
the purpose of storing jewelry, not to exceed 24″ in
width, 18″ in depth, and 49″ in height, including
a minimum of 5 lined drawers lined with felt or
felt-like material, at least one side door (whether or
not the door is lined with felt or felt-like material),
with necklace hangers, and a flip-top lid with inset
mirror. See Issues and Decision Memorandum from
Laurel LaCivita to Laurie Parkhill, Office Director,
Concerning Jewelry Armoires and Cheval Mirrors in
the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Wooden
Bedroom Furniture from the People’s Republic of
China, dated August 31, 2004. See also Wooden
Bedroom Furniture from the People’s Republic of
China: Notice of Final Results of Changed
Circumstances Review and Revocation in Part, 71
FR 38621 (July 7, 2006).
21 Cheval mirrors are any framed, tiltable mirror
with a height in excess of 50″ that is mounted on
a floor-standing, hinged base. Additionally, the
scope of the order excludes combination cheval
mirror/jewelry cabinets. The excluded merchandise
is an integrated piece consisting of a cheval mirror,
i.e., a framed tiltable mirror with a height in excess
of 50 inches, mounted on a floor-standing, hinged
base, the cheval mirror serving as a door to a
cabinet back that is integral to the structure of the
mirror and which constitutes a jewelry cabinet
lined with fabric, having necklace and bracelet
hooks, mountings for rings and shelves, with or
without a working lock and key to secure the
contents of the jewelry cabinet back to the cheval
mirror, and no drawers anywhere on the integrated
piece. The fully assembled piece must be at least
50 inches in height, 14.5 inches in width, and 3
inches in depth. See Wooden Bedroom Furniture
From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results
of Changed Circumstances Review and
Determination To Revoke Order in Part, 72 FR 948
(January 9, 2007).
22 Metal furniture parts and unfinished furniture
parts made of wood products (as defined above)
that are not otherwise specifically named in this
scope (i.e., wooden headboards for beds, wooden
footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and
wooden canopies for beds) and that do not possess
the essential character of wooden bedroom
furniture in an unassembled, incomplete, or
unfinished form. Such parts are usually classified
under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) subheading 9403.90.7000.
23 Upholstered beds that are completely
upholstered, i.e., containing filling material and
completely covered in sewn genuine leather,
synthetic leather, or natural or synthetic decorative
fabric. To be excluded, the entire bed (headboards,
footboards, and side rails) must be upholstered
except for bed feet, which may be of wood, metal,
or any other material and which are no more than
nine inches in height from the floor. See Wooden
Bedroom Furniture from the People’s Republic of
China: Final Results of Changed Circumstances
Review and Determination to Revoke Order in Part,
72 FR 7013 (February 14, 2007).
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
6375
for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and
wooden canopies for beds may also be
entered under subheading 9403.50.9040
of the HTSUS as ‘‘parts of wood’’ and
framed glass mirrors may also be
entered under subheading 7009.92.5000
of the HTSUS as ‘‘glass mirrors * * *
framed.’’ This order covers all wooden
bedroom furniture meeting the above
description, regardless of tariff
classification. Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, our
written description of the scope of this
proceeding is dispositive.
Bona Fide Analysis
Consistent with the Department’s
practice, the Department investigated
the bona fide nature of the sales made
by Golden Well and Sunshine for these
reviews. In evaluating whether or not
sales in an NSR are commercially
reasonable, and therefore bona fide, the
Department considers, inter alia, such
factors as: (1) The timing of the sale(s);
(2) the price and quantity of the sale(s);
(3) the expenses arising from the
transaction(s); (4) whether the goods
were resold at a profit; and (5) whether
the transaction(s) was (were) made on
an arm’s-length basis. See, e.g., Tianjin
Tiancheng Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v.
United States, 366 F. Supp. 2d 1246,
1250 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2005). Accordingly,
the Department considers a number of
factors in its bona fide analysis, ‘‘all of
which may speak to the commercial
realities surrounding an alleged sale of
subject merchandise.’’ See Hebei New
Donghua Amino Acid Co., Ltd. v. United
States, 374 F. Supp. 2d 1333, 1342 (Ct.
Int’l Trade 2005) (citing Fresh Garlic
From the People’s Republic of China:
Final Results of Antidumping
Administrative Review and Rescission
of New Shipper Review, 67 FR 11283
(March 13, 2002), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum).
The Department preliminarily finds
that the new shipper sales made by
Golden Well and Sunshine are bona fide
for antidumping purposes. Specifically,
the Department finds that: (1) The price
and quantity of each new shipper sale
was within the range of the prices and
quantities of other entries of subject
merchandise from the PRC into the
United States during the POR; (2) the
new shippers and their respective
customers did not incur any
extraordinary expenses arising from the
transactions; (3) each new shipper sale
was made between unaffiliated parties
at arm’s length; (4) the record evidence
indicates that each new shipper sale
was based on commercial principles; (5)
the merchandise was resold at a profit;
and (6) the timing of each of the new
E:\FR\FM\09FEN1.SGM
09FEN1
6376
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 25 / Monday, February 9, 2009 / Notices
shipper sales does not indicate the sales
were made on a non-bona fide basis. See
Memorandum to the File ‘‘Antidumping
Duty New Shipper Reviews of Wooden
Bedroom Furniture from the People’s
Republic of China: Bona Fide Nature of
the Sales Under Review for Dongguan
Sunshine Furniture Co., Ltd. and
Golden Well International (HK), Ltd.,’’
dated January 30, 2009. Therefore, the
Department has preliminarily found that
Golden Well’s and Sunshine’s sales of
subject merchandise to the United
States were bona fide for purposes of
these NSRs.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Partial Rescission of Administrative
Review
On October 8 and 10, 2008, RiZhao
SanMu Woodworking Co., Ltd.
(‘‘SanMu’’) and Petitioners, respectively,
withdrew their administrative review
requests with respect to SanMu.
Although both parties submitted their
withdrawal requests after the 90-day
regulatory deadline at 19 CFR
351.213(d)(1), the Department had
already completed its selection of
mandatory respondents and SanMu was
not selected as a mandatory respondent
in this administrative review. Therefore,
the Department’s selection process of
the mandatory respondents for this
administrative review was not
compromised by the timing of the
review request withdrawals.
Furthermore, the Department had not
expended any resources in its review of
SanMu as of the date the parties
withdrew their requests for review.
Therefore, the Department is rescinding
the administrative review with respect
to SanMu.
The Department is also rescinding
this review with respect to Shanghai
Aosen Furniture Co., Ltd., and Yeh
Brothers World Trade Inc. as each
submitted ‘‘no shipment’’ letters on
April 7, 2008, and the Department’s
review of the CBP import data did not
reveal any contradictory information.
See ‘‘No Shipment’’ Letters from
Shanghai Aosen Furniture Co., Ltd., and
Yeh Brothers World Trade Inc., dated
April 7, 2008.
Non-Market Economy Country Status
In every case conducted by the
Department involving the PRC, the PRC
has been treated as a non-market
economy (‘‘NME’’) country. In
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of
the Act, any determination that a foreign
country is an NME country shall remain
in effect until revoked by the
administering authority. See, e.g.,
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From
the People’s Republic of China:
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:35 Feb 06, 2009
Jkt 217001
Preliminary Results 2001–2002
Administrative Review and Partial
Rescission of Review, 68 FR 7500
(February 14, 2003). None of the parties
to this proceeding have contested such
treatment. Accordingly, the Department
calculated NV in accordance with
section 773(c) of the Act, which applies
to NME countries.
Surrogate Country
When investigating imports from an
NME country, section 773(c)(1) of the
Act directs the Department to base NV
on the NME producer’s factors of
production (‘‘FOP’’). The Act further
instructs that valuation of the FOPs is to
be based on the best available
information in a surrogate market
economy country or countries
considered to be appropriate by the
Department. See section 773(c)(1) of the
Act. When valuing the FOPs, the
Department utilizes, to the extent
possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in
one or more market economy countries
that is: (1) At a level of economic
development comparable to that of the
NME country; and (2) has significant
production of comparable merchandise.
See Section 773(c)(4) of the Act.
Further, the Department typically values
all FOPs in a single surrogate country.
See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(2). The sources
of the surrogate values (‘‘SV’’) are
discussed under the NV section below
and in the Memorandum to the File,
‘‘2007 Administrative and New Shipper
Reviews of Wooden Bedroom Furniture
from the People’s Republic of China:
Surrogate Value Memorandum for the
Preliminary Results’’ (‘‘Factor Valuation
Memorandum’’), which is on file in the
Central Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’), Room
1117 of the main Department building.
In examining which country to select
as its primary surrogate for this
proceeding, the Department first
determined that India, Indonesia, the
Philippines, Colombia, and Thailand are
at a level of economic development
comparable to the PRC. See
‘‘Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Wooden
Bedroom Furniture from the People’s
Republic of China: Request for a List of
Surrogate Countries,’’ dated September
2, 2008 (‘‘Surrogate Country Memo’’).
As stated, both Petitioners and Yihua
Timber submitted comments on
surrogate country selection. Petitioners
argue that India is the appropriate
surrogate country, while Yihua Timber
argues that the Philippines should be
used.
After evaluating the interested parties’
comments, the Department determined
that the Philippines and India are both:
(1) At a level of economic development
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
comparable to the PRC; (2) significant
producers of comparable merchandise;
and (3) provide contemporaneous
publicly available data to value FOPs.
Because the data from both India and
the Philippines is relatively equal in
terms of quality, availability, and
general contemporaneity, we have
broadened our analysis. Specifically, we
have determined that the Philippine
surrogate financial data provide for
greater contemporaneity with the POR
than the Indian surrogate financial data.
Further, we note that we selected the
Philippines as the primary surrogate
country in the prior segment of this
proceeding. For a complete discussion,
see Memorandum to the File: Third
Administrative Review and Fifth New
Shipper Reviews of the Antidumping
Duty Order on Wooden Bedroom
Furniture from the People’s Republic of
China: Surrogate Country Selection—
Period of Review 1/1/07–12/31/07
(January 30, 2009). Accordingly, the
Department has calculated NV using
Philippine prices to value the
respondents’ FOPs, when available and
appropriate. The Department has
obtained and relied upon publicly
available information wherever
possible. See Factor Valuation
Memorandum. In accordance with 19
CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), interested parties
may submit publicly available
information to value FOPs until 20 days
after the date of publication of these
preliminary results.
Separate Rates
In the AR Initiation Notice, the
Department notified parties of the recent
application process by which exporters
and producers may obtain separate-rate
status in NME investigations. See AR
Initiation Notice. The process requires
exporters and producers to submit a
separate-rate status application.24
24 See also Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rate
Practice and Application of Combination Rates in
Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market
Economy Countries, (April 5, 2005), at 6, available
at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05–1.pdf. (‘‘Policy
Bulletin 05.1’’). Policy Bulletin 05.1 states, in
relevant part, ‘‘* * * while 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
applied 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
E:\FR\FM\09FEN1.SGM
09FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 25 / Monday, February 9, 2009 / Notices
However, the standard for separate rate
eligibility has not changed.
In proceedings involving NME
countries, the Department has a
rebuttable presumption that all
companies within the country are
subject to government control and thus
should be assessed a single antidumping
duty rate. It is the Department’s policy
to assign all exporters of subject
merchandise 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 Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers
from the People’s Republic of China, 56
FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’),
as further developed in Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the
People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585
(May 2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon Carbide’’).
However, if the Department determines
that a company is wholly foreign-owned
or located in a market economy, then a
separate rate analysis is not necessary to
determine whether it is independent
from government control.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
A. Separate Rate Recipients
1. Wholly Foreign-Owned
Nine separate-rate applicants in the
administrative review and one new
shipper respondent provided evidence
that they are wholly owned by
individuals or companies located in a
market economy in their separate-rate
applications/certifications (collectively
‘‘Foreign-owned SR Applicants’’).
Therefore, because they are wholly
foreign-owned and the Department has
no evidence indicating that they are
under the control of the PRC, a separate
rates analysis is not necessary to
determine whether these companies are
independent from government control.
See Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Creatine
Monohydrate from the People’s
Republic of China, 64 FR 71104
(December 20, 1999) (where the
respondent was wholly foreign-owned,
and thus, qualified for a separate rate).
Accordingly, the Department has
preliminarily granted a separate rate to
these Foreign-owned SR Applicants. See
Preliminary Results of Review section
exported by the firm in question and produced by
a firm that supplied the exporter during the period
of investigation.’’ See Policy Bulletin 05.1, at 6.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:35 Feb 06, 2009
Jkt 217001
below for companies marked See
Preliminary Results of Review with a
‘‘∧’’ designating these companies as
wholly foreign-owned (collectively
‘‘Foreign-owned SR Recipients’’).
2. Located in a Market Economy With
No PRC Ownership
None of the separate-rate applicants
in this administrative review are located
outside the PRC.
3. Joint Ventures Between Chinese and
Foreign Companies or Wholly ChineseOwned Companies
Seven of the separate-rate applicants
in this administrative review and one of
the new shipper respondents stated that
they are either joint ventures between
Chinese and foreign companies or are
wholly Chinese-owned companies
(collectively PRC SR Applicants). The
Department has analyzed whether each
PRC SR Applicant has demonstrated the
absence of de jure and de facto
governmental control over its respective
export activities.
a. 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 license; (2) legislative
enactments decentralizing control of
companies; and (3) other formal
measures by the government
decentralizing control of companies. See
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
The evidence provided by the eight
PRC SR Applicants supports a
preliminary finding of de jure absence
of governmental control based on the
following: (1) An absence of restrictive
stipulations associated with the
individual exporters’ business and
export licenses; (2) there are applicable
legislative enactments decentralizing
control of PRC companies; and (3) there
are formal measures by the government
decentralizing control of PRC
companies.
b. Absence of De Facto Control
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)
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
6377
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.
The evidence provided by the eight
SR Applicants supports a preliminary
finding of de facto absence of
governmental control based on the
following: (1) An absence of restrictive
governmental control on the PRC SR
Applicants’ export prices; (2) a showing
of the PRC SR Applicants’ authority to
negotiate and sign contracts and other
agreements; (3) a showing that the PRC
SR Applicants maintain autonomy from
the government in making decisions
regarding the selection of management;
and (4) a showing that the PRC SR
Applicants retain the proceeds of their
respective export sales and make
independent decisions regarding
disposition of profits or financing of
losses.
In all, the evidence placed on the
record of this investigation by the eight
PRC SR Applicants demonstrates an
absence of de jure and de facto
government control, in accordance with
the criteria identified in Sparklers and
Silicon Carbide. Accordingly, the
Department has preliminarily granted a
separate rate to the PRC SR Applicants.
See ‘‘Preliminary Results of Review’’
section below for companies marked
with an ‘‘*’’ designating these
companies as joint ventures between
Chinese and foreign companies or
wholly Chinese-owned companies
(collectively referred to as ‘‘PRC SR
Recipients’’).
B. Companies Not Receiving a Separate
Rate
In the AR Initiation Notice, we
requested that all companies listed
therein wishing to qualify for separate
rate status in this administrative review
submit, as appropriate, either a separate
rate status application or certification.
See AR Initiation Notice. The following
five exporters did not provide, as
appropriate, either a separate rate
application or certification: (1)
Dongguan Bon Ten Furniture Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Bon Ten’’); (2) Dongguan Qingxi Xinyi
Craft Furniture Factory (Joyce Art
E:\FR\FM\09FEN1.SGM
09FEN1
6378
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 25 / Monday, February 9, 2009 / Notices
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Factory) (‘‘Joyce Art’’); (3) Tianjin Sande
Fairwood Furniture Co. Ltd. (‘‘Sande’’);
(4) Yida Co. Ltd., Yitai Worldwide Ltd.,
Yili Co., Ltd., and Yetbuild Co., Ltd.
(collectively ‘‘Yida’’); and (5) Hamilton
& Spill, Ltd. (‘‘Hamilton’’), and therefore
have not demonstrated their eligibility
for separate rate status in this
administrative review.
Therefore, the Department
preliminarily determines that there were
exports of merchandise under review
from PRC exporters that did not
demonstrate their eligibility for
separate-rate status. As a result, the
Department is treating these PRC
exporters as part of the PRC-wide entity.
Further, on April 4, 2008, Dream
Rooms Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Dream Rooms’’) submitted a separate
rate certification to the Department. See
Letter from Dream Rooms, dated April
4, 2008. On June 24, 2008, White & Case
LLP (‘‘White & Case’’) withdrew its
notice of appearance on behalf of Dream
Rooms. See Letter from White & Case,
dated June 14, 2008. On January 7, 2009,
the Department issued a supplemental
questionnaire to Dream Rooms requiring
clarification of the information that
Dream Rooms submitted in its separate
rate certification. See the Department’s
January 7, 2009, supplemental
questionnaire to Dream Rooms. In the
absence of legal representation in the
United States, the Department
attempted to contact Dream Rooms via
direct mail. However, Dream Rooms
failed to respond to this supplemental
questionnaire.
Because Dream Rooms did not
respond to the Department’s request for
clarification regarding its separate rate
certification on the record of this
review, the Department is unable to
determine if Dream Rooms operates free
from PRC government control for
purposes of this review. It is the
Department’s practice to require a party
to submit the evidence necessary for the
Department to determine that it operates
independently of the state-controlled
entity in each segment of a proceeding
in which it requests separate rate status.
See TRBs 2007 and Peer Bearing. Thus,
because Dream Rooms’ separate-rate
certification is deficient, Dream Rooms
has not demonstrated its eligibility for
separate-rate status in this
administrative review. See section
776(a)(2)(D) of the Act. Consequently,
the Department is treating Dream Rooms
as part of the PRC-wide entity.
Margins for Separate-Rate Recipients
For the Separate Rate Recipients
subject to this administrative review
that were not selected as mandatory
respondents, we have established a
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:35 Feb 06, 2009
Jkt 217001
weighted-average margin based on an
average of the rates we calculated for the
mandatory respondents, excluding any
rates that are zero, de minimis, or based
entirely on adverse facts available. That
rate is 124.31 percent. Entities receiving
this rate are identified by name in the
‘‘Preliminary Results of Review’’ section
of this notice.
Use of Facts Available and Adverse
Facts Available
Section 776(a) of the Act provides that
the Department shall apply ‘‘facts
otherwise available’’ if (1) necessary
information is not on the record, or (2)
an interested party or any other person
(A) Withholds information that has been
requested, (B) fails to provide
information within the deadlines
established, or in the form and manner
requested by the Department, subject to
subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782
of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a
proceeding, or (D) provides information
that cannot be verified as provided by
section 782(i) of the Act.
Where the Department determines
that a response to a request for
information does not comply with the
request, section 782(d) of the Act
provides that the Department will so
inform the party submitting the
response and will, to the extent
practicable, provide that party the
opportunity to remedy or explain the
deficiency. If the party fails to remedy
the deficiency within the applicable
time limits and subject to section 782(e)
of the Act, the Department may
disregard all or part of the original and
subsequent responses, as appropriate.
Section 782(e) of the Act provides that
the Department ‘‘shall not decline to
consider information that is submitted
by an interested party and is necessary
to the determination but does not meet
all applicable requirements established
by the administering authority’’ if the
information is timely, can be verified, is
not so incomplete that it cannot be used,
and if the interested party acted to the
best of its ability in providing the
information. Where all of these
conditions are met, the statute requires
the Department to use the information
supplied if it can do so without undue
difficulties.
Section 776(b) of the Act further
provides that the Department may use
an adverse inference in applying the
facts otherwise available when a party
has failed to cooperate by not acting to
the best of its ability to comply with a
request for information. Such an adverse
inference may include reliance on
information derived from the petition,
the final determination, a previous
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
administrative review, or other
information placed on the record.
Section 776(c) of the Act provides
that, when the Department relies on
secondary information rather than on
information obtained in the course of an
investigation or review, it shall, to the
extent practicable, corroborate that
information from independent sources
that are reasonably at its disposal.
Secondary information is defined as
‘‘{i}nformation derived from the
petition that gave rise to the
investigation or review, the final
determination concerning the subject
merchandise, or any previous review
under section 751 concerning the
subject merchandise.’’ See Statement of
Administrative Action, reprinted in H.R.
Doc. No. 103–216, at 870 (1994)
(‘‘SAA’’). Corroborate means that the
Department will satisfy itself that the
secondary information to be used has
probative value. Id. To corroborate
secondary information, the Department
will, to the extent practicable, examine
the reliability and relevance of the
information to be used.
A. Application of Partial Facts Available
for Yihua Timber
Yihua Timber reported both gross
weights (on a finished, packed perproduct basis) and FOP weights on a
per-product basis.25 FOP weights
represent the weight of the inputs that
went into making the finished, packed
product. In furniture production, the
FOP weights should be higher than the
gross weight of the finished product
because, generally, there is a yield loss
associated with WBF production.
However, in its supplemental
questionnaire response, Yihua Timber’s
reported product-specific FOP weights
appeared to be insufficient to account
for its reported product-specific gross
weights. Yihua Timber provided a
subsequent submission, stating that: (1)
Its reported gross weights are estimates
that came from its packing lists; and (2)
while the gross weights are estimates
and may not be accurate, the reported
FOP input weights are accurate and,
thus, there is no need to adjust them in
the margin calculation. To demonstrate
its claim with respect to the gross
weights, Yihua Timber weighed two
products and provided revised gross
weights for these two products. Yihua
Timber concludes that although the
revised gross weights are still higher
than the FOP weights, these differences
are minor and stem from the application
of an overall variance to individual
25 Yihua Timber reported certain inputs on a
cubic meter basis with information to convert the
data to a kilogram basis.
E:\FR\FM\09FEN1.SGM
09FEN1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 25 / Monday, February 9, 2009 / Notices
product standards in deriving its FOP
weights. Yihua Timber concludes that
while for some products the FOP
weights will be lower than the actual
gross weight, for other products, the
FOP weights will be greater than the
actual gross weights and, therefore, we
should continue to rely on its reported
data. Further, Yihua Timber claims that
while the absolute product-specific
gross weights (as originally reported) are
not accurate, the relative weight
differences among products are valid,
and therefore, the Department should
use the reported gross weights as the
allocation basis for Yihua Timber’s
reported movement expenses. We do
not agree with Yihua Timber’s
conclusions with respect to its reported
data.
With respect to the two products
Yihua Timber weighed, as it noted, the
FOP weights are insufficient to account
for the revised gross weights reported.
However, we do not agree that the
differences are minor. Moreover,
because Yihua Timber weighed only
two products, based on the record data,
we are unable to determine the extent of
underreported FOP weights or confirm
Yihua Timber’s contention that the
reported FOP weights are greater than
the actual gross weights for some
products. Accordingly, we preliminarily
determine to base the FOPs for all
products on facts otherwise available in
accordance with section 776(a) of the
Act. Therefore, as facts available, we
will increase the reported FOP weights
for each product by the average of the
differences between the reported FOP
weights and the actual gross weights of
the two products that Yihua Timber
weighed. We are also not preliminarily
granting the by-product offset because
any such offset appears to result in FOP
weights that are insufficient to produce
the merchandise under review.
In addition, with respect to movement
charges being valued with surrogate
values, we are preliminarily applying
the movement charges to the revised
FOP weights discussed above. With
regard to movement charges being
valued based on market economy
purchases, because we do not have the
aggregate movement expense data, we
are unable to reallocate it over the
revised weights. Therefore, we will
continue to use those expenses as
reported for purposes of the preliminary
determination.
We intend to issue a post-preliminary
results supplemental questionnaire to
Yihua Timber, to address each of these
issues. As appropriate, we will consider
any additional data and the results of
verification for purposes of completing
the final results of review.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:35 Feb 06, 2009
Jkt 217001
B. Application of Partial Adverse Facts
Available for Yihua Timber
In our original questionnaire,
consistent with our standard practice,
we requested that each respondent
report all of its U.S. sales to the first
unaffiliated U.S. customer. In Yihua
Timber’s initial questionnaire response,
some of the sales reported in Yihua
Timber’s U.S. sales database were
transactions between one of Yihua
Timber’s affiliated U.S. companies, New
Classic Home Furnishings Inc. (‘‘New
Classic’’), and another affiliated U.S.
company (i.e., Company A).26 See Yihua
Timber’s Section C response, dated
October 15, 2008.
The Department issued a
supplemental section C questionnaire to
Yihua Timber requesting, among other
things, that Yihua Timber ‘‘revise {its}
U.S. sales database so that it reflects
sales * * * to the first unaffiliated
customer,’’ and ‘‘provide complete
section C responses (including sales
reconciliations).* * *’’ See the
Department’s December 12, 2008,
supplemental questionnaire. In response
to the Department’s supplemental
questionnaire, Yihua Timber provided
incomplete information regarding
Company A’s downstream sales to
unaffiliated parties. Specifically, Yihua
Timber did not provide sufficient
evidence (e.g., a sales reconciliation) to
support its contention that only a
portion of the sales reported in
Company A’s financial statements
reflected sales of subject merchandise.
Thus, Yihua Timber has not
successfully demonstrated that it
appropriately excluded the nonreported sales, which represent a
significant portion of the sales on
Company A’s financial statements, and
thereby failed to demonstrate that it had
accounted for all of Company A’s sales
of wooden bedroom furniture in that
databases.
Further, Yihua Timber failed to
provide certain costs and expenses
associated with Company A sales that it
did report. Consequently, we do not
have complete and appropriate data on
the record to calculate accurate
dumping margins with respect to Yihua
Timber’s U.S. sales through its affiliate,
Company A. Accordingly, we
preliminarily determine to base the
margins for these sales on facts
otherwise available in accordance with
section 776(a) of the Act.
Because the Department requested
information concerning unaffiliated
sales in both its original and
26 Due to the proprietary nature of this
information, we are calling this affiliate ‘‘Company
A.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
6379
supplemental questionnaires, it is clear
from the record that Yihua Timber was
aware of its obligation to submit a
complete section C response and sales
reconciliation for Company A. Further,
because Yihua Timber did not indicate
that it could not provide this
information, we find that Yihua Timber
failed to cooperate by not acting to the
best of its ability to comply with the
Department’s requests for information.
Accordingly, the Department
preliminarily determines that, when
selecting from among the facts
otherwise available with respect to
Yihua Timber’s U.S. sales through
Company A, an adverse inference is
warranted pursuant to section 776(b) of
the Act. For a discussion of the rate we
applied as adverse facts available to
these sales see the section below
entitled Selection of the Adverse Facts
Available Rate. We intend to issue a
post-preliminary results supplemental
questionnaire to Yihua Timber to
address this issue. As appropriate, we
will consider any additional data and
the results of verification for purposes of
completing the final results of review.
C. Application of Total Adverse Facts
Available
1. Hamilton
On April 7, 2008, Hamilton submitted
a letter to the Department stating that it
had no shipments of the subject
merchandise to the United States. See
Letter from Hamilton, dated April 7,
2008. Subsequently, the Department
conducted independent research to
confirm Hamilton’s response of no
shipments by reviewing import
information obtained from CBP. On
January 15, 2009, the Department issued
a supplemental questionnaire to
Hamilton to inquire about a discrepancy
found between Hamilton’s statement of
no shipments and the CBP data. See the
Department’s January 15, 2009,
supplemental questionnaire to
Hamilton. On January 22, 2009,
Hamilton responded to the
Department’s supplemental
questionnaire stating that when it
performed its original internal data
search for shipments of subject
merchandise during the POR, it
inadvertently limited the search to
shipments over a certain dollar amount
and thereby missed any transactions
under that dollar value. As a result,
Hamilton reported that it did not have
sales of subject merchandise during the
POR. In its January 22, 2009
supplemental response, Hamilton
argues that the POR shipments
consisted of replacement parts that are
out of scope merchandise and an
E:\FR\FM\09FEN1.SGM
09FEN1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
6380
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 25 / Monday, February 9, 2009 / Notices
insignificant quantity of subject
merchandise with a ‘‘de minimis’’ value
that constituted a sample sale. Hamilton
requests that the Department apply facts
available without an adverse inference
and allow it to maintain its status as
eligible for a separate rate. See
Hamilton’s Supplemental Response,
dated January 22, 2009.
Hamilton, however, did not submit a
separate rate certification on the record
of this review. Thus, the Department is
unable to determine if Hamilton
operates free from PRC government
control for purposes of this review. It is
the Department’s practice to require a
party to submit evidence that it operates
independently of the state-controlled
entity in each segment of a proceeding
in which it requests separate rate status.
See TRBs 2007 and Peer Bearing. Thus,
we find that Hamilton has not
demonstrated its eligibility for separaterate status in this administrative review
and is, consequently, part of the PRCwide entity. See section 776(a)(2)(D) of
the Act.
Further, based on record evidence,
Hamilton, as part of the PRC-wide
entity, did not supply the requested
information on its shipments of subject
merchandise to the United States and,
by not doing so, withheld necessary
information. Because Hamilton, as part
of the PRC-wide entity, limited its
examination of its complete database to
a certain subset, it misreported that it
did not have shipments during the POR.
Additionally, when the Department
presented information from CBP to
Hamilton and allowed it an opportunity
to reconcile the discrepancy between
the CBP information and what it
reported, Hamilton submitted invoices
that did not reflect the quantity or value
information reflected in the CBP data.
Thereby, Hamilton, was unable to
substantiate its claims with respect to
the U.S. import data. Therefore, we
preliminarily find that the PRC-wide
entity, which includes Hamilton,
withheld requested information and
impeded the Department’s proceeding
because it did not accurately report that
it had shipments of subject merchandise
to the United States during the POR.
Accordingly, we have preliminary
determined to base the PRC-wide
entity’s margin on facts otherwise
available. See section 776(a) of the Act.
Further, because the PRC-wide entity
failed to cooperate by not acting to the
best of its ability to comply with the
Department’s request for information,
we preliminary determine that, when
selecting from among the facts
otherwise available, an adverse
inference is warranted for the PRC-wide
entity pursuant to section 776(b) of the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:35 Feb 06, 2009
Jkt 217001
Act. For a discussion of the rate we
applied as adverse facts available to the
PRC-wide entity see the section below
entitled Selection of the Adverse Facts
Available Rate.
2. Orient International
On April 4, 2008, Orient International
submitted its separate-rate certification.
On July 31, 2008, the Department
selected Orient International as a
mandatory respondent in this
administrative review. See Selection of
Respondents Memorandum. On August
21, 2008, the Department issued its
questionnaire to Orient International.
On September 12, 2008, Orient
International submitted its response to
Section A of the Department’s
questionnaire. Although Orient
International responded to Section A of
the questionnaire and submitted a
separate rate certification, Orient
International did not respond to
Sections C and D of the Department’s
questionnaire. On September 18, 2008,
Orient International submitted a
document stating: (1) It would no longer
participate in this review; and (2) it is
not withdrawing its notice of
appearance or its separate rate
certification, and intends to participate
in briefing and any hearings held in this
review. Further, Orient International
requested that the Department: (1)
Allow it to remove certain business
proprietary data submitted under
administrative protective order
(‘‘APO’’); (2) return or destroy its
business proprietary versions of its
Section A response filed on September
11 and 12, 2008; and (3) instruct all
parties on the APO service list to return
or destroy all such data as well. See
Letter from Orient International, dated
September 18, 2008.
Although Orient International’s
separate rate certification remains on
the record of this review, because the
respondent ceased to participate, the
Department is unable to verify the
accuracy of this information, as
provided by section 782(i) of the Act.
Thus, we find that Orient International
has not demonstrated its eligibility for
separate-rate status in this
administrative review and is,
consequently, part of the PRC-wide
entity. See Section 776(a)(2)(D) of the
Act.
Further, from the record evidence, it
is clear that Orient International was
aware of its obligation to submit its
Section C and D questionnaire
responses and it failed to do so. In
addition, Orient International has
requested that the Department allow it
to remove certain business proprietary
data submitted under APO and return or
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
destroy its business proprietary versions
of its Section A responses filed on
September 11 and 12, 2008. See Letter
from Orient International, dated
September 18, 2008. Thus, we
preliminarily find that Orient
International, as part of the PRC-wide
entity, withheld requested information
and significantly impeded the
Department’s proceeding. Accordingly,
we preliminarily determine to base the
PRC-wide entity’s margin, which
includes Orient International, on facts
otherwise available, pursuant to section
776(a) of the Act. Further, because the
PRC-wide entity, which includes Orient
International, determined not to
participate in the administrative review,
as discussed above, we find that the
PRC-wide entity failed to cooperate by
not acting to the best of its ability to
comply with the Department’s request
for information. Accordingly, the
Department preliminarily determines
that, when selecting from among the
facts otherwise available, an adverse
inference is warranted for the PRC-wide
entity, pursuant to section 776(b) of the
Act. For a discussion of the rate we
applied as adverse facts available to the
PRC-wide entity see the section below
entitled Selection of the Adverse Facts
Available Rate.
Application of Total Adverse Facts
Available to the PRC-Wide Entity
As noted above, the Department has
determined that several companies are
part of the PRC-wide entity; as a result,
the PRC-wide entity is now under
review. Pursuant to section 776(a) of the
Act, the Department further finds that,
as discussed above, the PRC-wide entity
failed to respond to the Department’s
questionnaires, withheld required
information, and/or submitted
information that cannot be verified, thus
significantly impeding the proceeding.
Thus, the Department concludes, it is
appropriate to apply a preliminary
dumping margin to the PRC-wide entity
using the facts otherwise available on
the record. Also as discussed above,
because the PRC-entity failed to
cooperate by not acting to the best of its
ability to comply with the Department’s
requests for information, we find an
adverse inference is appropriate,
pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, for
the PRC-wide entity.
Selection of the Adverse Facts
Available Rate
In deciding which facts to use as
AFA, section 776(b) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.308(c)(1) provide that the
Department may rely on information
derived from (1) The petition, (2) a final
determination in the investigation, (3)
E:\FR\FM\09FEN1.SGM
09FEN1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 25 / Monday, February 9, 2009 / Notices
any previous review or determination,
or (4) any information placed on the
record. In selecting a rate for AFA, the
Department selects a rate that is
sufficiently adverse ‘‘as to effectuate the
purpose of the 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). Further, it is the Department’s
practice to select a rate that ensures
‘‘that the party does not obtain a more
favorable result by failing to cooperate
than if it had cooperated fully.’’ See
SAA. See also Brake Rotors From the
People’s Republic of China: Final
Results and Partial Rescission of the
Seventh Administrative Review; Final
Results of the Eleventh New Shipper
Review, 70 FR 69937, 69939 (November
18, 2005).
Generally, the Department finds that
selecting the highest rate from any
segment of the proceeding as AFA is
appropriate. See, e.g., Certain Cased
Pencils from the People’s Republic of
China; Notice of Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and Intent to Rescind in Part, 70
FR 76755, 76761 (December 28, 2005).
The Court of International Trade (‘‘CIT’’)
and the Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit (‘‘Federal Circuit’’) have
affirmed decisions to select the highest
margin from any prior segment of the
proceeding as the AFA rate on
numerous occasions. See, e.g., Rhone
Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 F. 2d
1185, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (affirming
the Department’s presumption that the
highest margin was the best information
of current margins) (‘‘Rhone Poulenc’’);
NSK Ltd. v. United States, 346 F. Supp.
2d 1312, 1335 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2004)
(affirming a 73.55 percent total AFA
rate, the highest available dumping
margin from a different respondent in
the investigation); Kompass Food
Trading International v. United States,
24 CIT 678, 683 (2000) (affirming a
51.16 percent total AFA rate, the highest
available dumping margin from a
different, fully cooperative respondent);
and Shanghai Taoen International
Trading Co., Ltd. v. United States, 360
F. Supp. 2d 1339, 1348 (Ct. Int’l Trade
2005) (affirming a 223.01 percent total
AFA rate, the highest available dumping
margin from a different respondent in a
previous administrative review).
In choosing the appropriate balance
between providing respondents with an
incentive to respond accurately and
imposing a rate that is reasonably
related to the respondents’ prior
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:35 Feb 06, 2009
Jkt 217001
commercial activity, selecting the
highest prior margin ‘‘reflects a common
sense inference that the highest prior
margin is the most probative evidence of
current margins, because, if it were not
so, the importer, knowing of the rule,
would have produced current
information showing the margin to be
less.’’ See Rhone Poulenc, 899 F. 2d at
1190.
As AFA, we have preliminarily
assigned to the PRC-wide entity in total
and to Yihua in part, a rate of 216.01
percent, from the 2004–2005 new
shipper reviews of WBF from the PRC,
which is the highest rate on the record
of all segments of this proceeding. The
Department preliminarily determines
that this information is the most
appropriate from the available sources
to effectuate the purposes of AFA. The
Department’s reliance on the highest
calculated rate from the 2004–2005 new
shipper review to determine an AFA
rate is subject to the requirement to
corroborate secondary information. See
the Corroboration of Secondary
Information section below.
Corroboration of Secondary
Information
Section 776(c) of the Act provides
that, when the Department relies on
secondary information rather than on
information obtained in the course of an
investigation or review, it shall, to the
extent practicable, corroborate that
information from independent sources
that are reasonably at its disposal.
Secondary information is defined as
information derived from the petition
that gave rise to the investigation or
review, the final determination
concerning the subject merchandise, or
any previous review under section 751
concerning the subject merchandise. See
SAA at 870. Corroborate means that the
Department will satisfy itself that the
secondary information to be used has
probative value. Id. To corroborate
secondary information, the Department
will, to the extent practicable, examine
the reliability and relevance of the
information to be used. See Tapered
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,
Finished and Unfinished from Japan,
and Tapered Roller Bearings Four
Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and
Components Thereof, from Japan:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Reviews and
Partial Termination of Administrative
Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November
6, 1996) (unchanged in the final
determination) Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Reviews and Termination in Part:
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished from
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
6381
Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings
Four Inches or Less in Outside
Diameter, and Components Thereof,
from Japan, 62 FR 11825 (March 13,
1997). Independent sources used to
corroborate such evidence may include,
for example, published price lists,
official import statistics and customs
data, and information obtained from
interested parties during the particular
investigation. See Notice of Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: High and Ultra-High Voltage
Ceramic Station Post Insulators from
Japan, 68 FR 35627 (June 16, 2003)
(unchanged in final determination)
Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: High and Ultra
High Voltage Ceramic Station Post
Insulators from Japan, 68 FR 62560
(November 5, 2003); and Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Live Swine From Canada, 70
FR 12181, 12183–84 (March 11, 2005).
The AFA rate that the Department is
now using was determined in the
published final results of the previous
new shipper review. See Wooden
Bedroom Furniture from the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results of the
2004–2005 Semi-Annual New Shipper
Reviews, 71 FR 70739, 70741 (December
6, 2006). In the new shipper review, the
Department calculated a companyspecific rate, which was above the PRCwide rate established in the
investigation. Because this new rate is a
company-specific calculated rate
concerning subject merchandise, we
have determined this rate to be reliable.
With respect to the relevance aspect
of corroboration, the Department will
consider information reasonably at its
disposal to determine whether a margin
continues to have relevance. Where
circumstances indicate that the selected
margin is not appropriate as AFA, the
Department will disregard the margin
and determine an appropriate margin.
See Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico:
Final Results of Antidumping
Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812,
6814 (February 22, 1996) (where the
Department disregarded the highest
margin in that case as adverse best
information available (the predecessor
to facts available) because the margin
was based on another company’s
uncharacteristic business expense
resulting in an unusually high margin).
Similarly, the Department does not
apply a margin that has been
discredited. See D&L Supply Co. v.
United States, 113 F. 3d 1220, 1221
(Fed. Cir. 1997) (ruling that the
Department will not use a margin that
has been judicially invalidated). To
assess the relevancy of the rate used, the
Department compared the margin
E:\FR\FM\09FEN1.SGM
09FEN1
6382
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 25 / Monday, February 9, 2009 / Notices
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
calculations of the mandatory
respondent in the instant administrative
review with the 216.01 percent
calculated rate from the 2004–2005 new
shipper review. The Department found
that the margin of 216.01 percent was
within the range of the margins
calculated on the record of the instant
administrative review. Because the
record of this administrative review
contains margins within the range of
216.01 percent, we determine that the
rate from the 2004–2005 review
continues to be relevant for use in this
administrative review.
As the adverse margin is both reliable
and relevant, we determine that it has
probative value. Accordingly, we
determine that this rate meets the
corroboration criterion established in
section 776(c) of the Act that secondary
information have probative value. As a
result, the Department determines that
the margin is corroborated for the
purposes of this administrative review
and may reasonably be applied to the
PRC-wide entity as AFA.
Because these are preliminary results
of review, the Department will consider
all margins on the record at the time of
the final results of review for the
purpose of determining the most
appropriate final adverse margin. See
Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Solid Fertilizer
Grade Ammonium Nitrate From the
Russian Federation, 65 FR 1139, 1141
(January 7, 2000).
Export Price
For Golden Well and Sunshine, the
Department based the U.S. price on
export price (‘‘EP’’), in accordance with
section 772(a) of the Act, because EP is
the price at which the subject
merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be
sold) before the date of importation by
the producer or exporter of the subject
merchandise outside of the United
States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the
United States or to an unaffiliated
purchaser for exportation to the United
States, as adjusted under section 772(c)
of the Act. Additionally, the Department
calculated EP based on the packed price
from the exporter to the first unaffiliated
customer in the United States.
For Golden Well, we calculated EP
based on delivered prices to unaffiliated
purchaser(s) in the United States. We
made deductions from the U.S. sales
price for a movement expense in
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of
the Act. These included foreign inland
freight—plant/warehouse to port of exit,
foreign brokerage and handling, U.S.
brokerage and handling, and U.S.
Customs duties. See Memorandum
titled ‘‘Antidumping Duty New Shipper
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:35 Feb 06, 2009
Jkt 217001
Review: Wooden Bedroom Furniture
from the People’s Republic of China:
Analysis of the Preliminary Results
Margin Calculation for Golden Well
(HK) International Ltd. (‘‘Analysis
Memo Golden Well’’), dated January 30,
2009.
For Sunshine, we calculated EP based
on delivered prices to unaffiliated
purchaser(s) in the United States. We
made deductions from the U.S. sales
price for a movement expense in
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of
the Act. These included foreign inland
freight—plant/warehouse to port of exit,
and foreign brokerage and handling. We
deducted these expenses from the gross
unit price, in accordance with section
772(c) of the Act. For a detailed
description of all adjustments, see
Memorandum titled, ‘‘Antidumping
Duty New Shipper Review: Wooden
Bedroom Furniture from the People’s
Republic of China: Analysis of the
Preliminary Results Margin Calculation
for Dongguan Sunshine Furniture Co.,
Ltd.’’ (‘‘Analysis Memo Sunshine’’),
dated January 30, 2009.
At the time of initiation of the new
shipper review covering Sunshine’s
sales of subject merchandise, the
Department was unable to locate
Sunshine’s entries of subject
merchandise in CBP import data. In
Sunshine’s supplemental questionnaire
response dated December 22, 2008,
Sunshine explained that the importer’s
customs broker entered Sunshine’s
merchandise under an incorrect
manufacturer number. The importer’s
customs broker submitted a corrected
Entry Summary form showing the
correct manufacturer number for
Sunshine to CBP under a cover letter
dated December 11, 2007. See
Sunshine’s December 22, 2008
Supplemental Questionnaire Response,
at pgs. 5–6 and Exhibit SQ2–4.
Constructed Export Price
In accordance with section 772(b) of
the Act, constructed export price
(‘‘CEP’’) is the price at which the subject
merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be
sold) in the United States before or after
the date of importation by or for the
account of the producer or exporter of
such merchandise or by a seller
affiliated with the producer or exporter,
to a purchaser not affiliated with the
producer or exporter, as adjusted under
sections 772(c) and (d) of the Act. In
accordance with section 772(b) of the
Act, we used CEP for Yihua Timber’s
sales (with the exception of the sales to
which we applied adverse facts
available, as discussed above) because
the sales were made by U.S. affiliates in
the United States.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
We calculated CEP based on delivered
prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the
United States. In accordance with
section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we made
deductions from the starting price for
billing adjustments, movement
expenses, discounts and rebates. We
made deductions from the U.S. sales
price for movement expenses in
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of
the Act. These included, where
applicable, foreign inland freight from
plant to the port of exportation, foreign
brokerage and handling, ocean freight,
marine insurance, U.S. inland freight
from port to the warehouse, U.S. freight
from warehouse to customer, U.S.
warehousing, U.S. customs duty, and
U.S. brokerage and handling. In
accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the
Act, the Department deducted, where
applicable, commissions, credit
expenses, inventory carrying costs,
factoring expense, warranty expense,
and indirect selling expenses from the
U.S. price, all of which relate to
commercial activity in the United
States. In addition, we deducted CEP
profit in accordance with sections
772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act. In
accordance with section 773(a) of the
Act, we calculated Yihua Timber’s
credit expenses and inventory carrying
costs based on the company’s short-term
interest rate. We deducted these
expenses from the gross unit price, in
accordance with section 772(c) of the
Act. For a detailed description of all
adjustments, see Memorandum titled
‘‘Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Wooden Bedroom Furniture
from the People’s Republic of China:
Analysis of the Preliminary Results
Margin Calculation for Guangdong Yiua
Timber Industry Co., Ltd.,’’ (‘‘Yihua
Timber Analysis Memo’’) dated January
30, 2009.
We have denied one of Yihua
Timber’s billing adjustments because
Yihua Timber has not provided
evidence showing that this adjustment
should be an adjustment to gross unit
price. For a complete discussion of this
issue, see Yihua Timber Analysis
Memo. Both Petitioners and Yihua
Timber commented on the FOP input
weights and gross weights reported by
Yihua Timber which we will examine
further after issuance of these
preliminary results. For these
preliminary results, we have utilized
Yihua Timber’s reported gross weight
selling expenses, and unadjusted FOPs
in calculating Yihua Timber’s
preliminary margin. See Yihua Timber
Analysis Memo.
E:\FR\FM\09FEN1.SGM
09FEN1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 25 / Monday, February 9, 2009 / Notices
Normal Value
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides
that the Department shall determine the
NV using an FOP methodology if: (1) the
merchandise is exported from an NME
country; and (2) the information does
not permit the calculation of NV using
home-market prices, third-country
prices, or constructed value under
section 773(a) of the Act. When
determining NV in an NME context, the
Department will base NV on FOPs,
because the presence of government
controls on various aspects of these
economies renders price comparisons
and the calculation of production costs
invalid under our normal
methodologies. Under section 772(c)(3)
of the Act, FOPs include, but are not
limited to: (1) Hours of labor required;
(2) quantities of raw materials
employed; (3) amounts of energy and
other utilities consumed; and (4)
representative capital costs. The
Department used FOPs reported by
respondents for materials, energy, labor
and packing.
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.408(c)(1), the Department will
normally use publicly available
information to find an appropriate SV to
value FOPs, but when a producer
sources an input from a market
economy and pays for it in market
economy currency, the Department will
normally value the factor using the
actual price paid for the input. See 19
CFR 351.408(c)(1); see also Lasko Metal
Products, Inc. v. United States, 43 F.3d
1442, 1446 (Fed. Cir. 1994). However,
when the Department has reason to
believe or suspect that such prices may
be distorted by subsidies, the
Department will disregard the market
economy purchase prices and use SVs
to determine the NV. See Tapered Roller
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished
and Unfinished, From the People’s
Republic of China; Final Results of the
1998–1999 Administrative Review,
Partial Rescission of Review, and
Determination Not to Revoke Order in
Part, 66 FR 1953 (January 10, 2001)
(‘‘TRBs 1998–1999’’), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 1.
It is the Department’s consistent
practice that, where the facts developed
in either U.S. or third-country
countervailing duty findings include the
existence of subsidies that appear to be
used generally (in particular, broadly
available, non-industry specific export
subsidies), it is reasonable for the
Department to find that it has a reason
to believe or suspect that prices of the
inputs from the country granting the
subsidies may be subsidized. See TRBs
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:35 Feb 06, 2009
Jkt 217001
1998–1999 at Comment 1; see also
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From
the People’s Republic of China; Final
Results of 1999–2000 Administrative
Review, Partial Rescission of Review,
and Determination Not To Revoke Order
in Part, 66 FR 57420 (November 15,
2001), and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 1;
see also China National Machinery Imp.
& Exp. Corp. v. United States, 293 F.
Supp. 2d 1334, 1338–39 (Ct. Int’l Trade
2003).
In avoiding the use of prices that may
be subsidized, the Department does not
conduct a formal investigation to ensure
that such prices are not subsidized, but
rather relies on information that is
generally available at the time of its
determination. See also SAA at 590.
Factor Valuations
In accordance with section 773(c) of
the Act, we calculated NV based on
FOPs reported by respondents for the
POR. To calculate NV, the Department
multiplied the reported per-unit factor
quantities by publicly available
Philippine SVs (except as noted below).
In selecting the SV, the Department
considered the quality, specificity, and
contemporaneity of the data. As
appropriate, the Department adjusted
input prices by including freight costs to
make them delivered prices.
Specifically, the Department added to
Philippine import SVs a surrogate
freight cost using the shorter of the
reported distance from the domestic
supplier to the factory or the distance
from the nearest seaport to the factory
where appropriate (i.e., where the sales
terms for the market-economy inputs
were not delivered to the factory). This
adjustment is in accordance with the
decision of the Federal Circuit in Sigma
Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401
(Fed. Cir. 1997). Due to the extensive
number of SVs it was necessary to
assign in this administrative review, we
present a discussion of the main factors.
For a detailed description of all SVs
used to value the respondents reported
FOPs, see Factor Valuation
Memorandum.
Golden Well reported that certain of
its reported raw material inputs were
sourced from a market-economy country
and paid for in market-economy
currencies. Both Sunshine and Yihua
Timber did not report any raw material
inputs sourced from a market-economy
country.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1),
when a mandatory respondent sources
inputs from a market-economy supplier
in meaningful quantities (i.e., not
insignificant quantities), we use the
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
6383
actual price paid by respondents for
those inputs, except when prices may
have been distorted by findings of
dumping by the PRC and/or subsidies.
See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1); see also
Antidumping Duties; Countervailing
Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27366
(May 19, 1997). Golden Well reported
information demonstrating that the
quantities of certain raw materials
purchased from market-economy
suppliers are significant. Where we
found market-economy purchases to be
in significant quantities, in accordance
with our statement of policy as outlined
in Antidumping Methodologies: Market
Economy Inputs, we have used the
actual purchases of these inputs to value
the inputs. See Antidumping
Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs,
Expected Non-Market Economy Wages,
Duty Drawback; and Request for
Comments, 71 FR 61716 (October 19,
2006) (‘‘Antidumping Methodologies:
Market Economy Inputs’’); See also,
Analysis Memo Golden Well.
We used import values from the
World Trade Atlas® online (‘‘Philippine
Import Statistics’’), which were
published by the Philippines National
Statistics Office (‘‘Philippines NSO’’),
which were reported in U.S. dollars and
are contemporaneous with the POR,
where market-economy purchases were
not made in significant quantities, to
value the following inputs: processed
woods (e.g., particleboard, etc.),
adhesives and finishing materials (e.g.,
glue, paints, sealer, lacquer, etc.),
hardware (e.g., nails, staples, screws,
bolts, knobs, pulls, drawer slides,
hinges, clasps, etc.), other materials
(e.g., mirrors, glass, leather, cloth,
sponge, etc.), and packing materials
(e.g., cardboard, cartons, plastic film,
labels, tape, etc.). See Factor Valuation
Memorandum. We used import values
published by the Philippines NSO,
which are available upon request from
the Philippines NSO, which were
reported in U.S. dollars, contain import
quantities in cubic decimeters, and are
contemporaneous with the POR to value
the following inputs: wood inputs (e.g.,
lumber of various species), wood veneer
of various species, and processed woods
(e.g., plywood, etc.). For a complete
listing of all the inputs and the
valuation for each mandatory
respondent see Factor Valuation
Memorandum.
Where we could not obtain publicly
available information contemporaneous
with the POR with which to value FOPs,
we adjusted the SVs using, where
appropriate, the Philippines Wholesale
Price Index (‘‘WPI’’), available at the
Philippines NSO Web site: https://
E:\FR\FM\09FEN1.SGM
09FEN1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
6384
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 25 / Monday, February 9, 2009 / Notices
www.census.gov.ph/data/sectordata/
datawpi.html.
For the purposes of the preliminary
results, the Department has used https://
www.allmeasures.com and other
publicly available information where
interested parties did not submit
conversion rates or information to
calculate conversion rates for specific
FOPs.
For labor, consistent with 19 CFR
351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC
regression-based wage rate as reported
on Import Administration’s home page,
Import Library, Expected Wages of
Selected NME Countries, revised in May
2008, available at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/
wages/. Because this
regression-based wage rate does not
separate the labor rates into different
skill levels or types of labor, we have
applied the same wage rate to all skill
levels and types of labor reported by the
respondents. If the NME wage rates are
updated by the Department prior to
issuance of the final determination, we
will use the updated wage rate in the
final determination. See Factor
Valuation Memorandum.
To value electricity, we used data
from The Cost of Doing Business in
Camarines Sur available at the
Philippine government’s Web site for
the province: https://
www.camarinessur.gov.ph. Because the
value for electricity was not
contemporaneous with the POR, we
adjusted the values for inflation. See
Factor Valuation Memorandum.
To calculate the value for domestic
brokerage and handling, the Department
used brokerage fees available at the Web
site of the Republic of the Philippines
Tariff Commission, https://
www.tariffcommission.gov.ph/cao01–
2001.html. We calculated the SV for
truck freight using Philippine data from
two sources: (1) The Cost of Doing
Business in Camarines Sur, available at
the Philippine government’s Web site
for the province: https://
www.camarinessur.gov.ph; and (2) a
news article from the Manila Times
titled ‘‘Government Mulls Cut in Export
Target.’’ We also used this truck rate to
value inland boat freight because no
other information was available on the
record, consistent with Certain Cut-toLength Carbon Steel Plate from
Romania: Notice of Final Results and
Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR
12651 (March 15, 2005), and
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 14.
We valued marine insurance using a
publicly available price quote from RJG
Consultants, a marine insurance
provider at https://
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:35 Feb 06, 2009
Jkt 217001
www.rjgconsultants.com/
insurance.html. To calculate the value
for domestic brokerage and handling,
the Department used brokerage fees
available at the Web site of the Republic
of the Philippines Tariff Commission,
https://www.tariffcommission.gov.ph/
cao01-2001.html. See Factor Valuation
Memorandum.
To value factory overhead, selling,
general, and administrative expenses
(‘‘SG&A’’), and profit, we used the
audited financial statements for the
fiscal year ending December 31, 2007,
from the following producers: MaitlandSmith Cebu, Inc.; Casa Cebuana
Incorporated; Global Classic Designs,
Inc.; Diretso Design Furniture Inc.; and
Las Palmas Furniture, Inc., all of which
are Philippine producers of comparable
merchandise. From this information, we
were able to determine factory overhead
as a percentage of the total raw
materials, labor and energy (‘‘ML&E’’)
costs; SG&A as a percentage of ML&E
plus overhead (i.e., cost of
manufacture); and the profit rate as a
percentage of the cost of manufacture
plus SG&A. For further discussion, see
Factor Valuation Memorandum.
Preliminary Results of Review
We preliminarily determine that the
following weighted-average dumping
margins exist for the period January 1,
2007, through December 31, 2007:
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
Antidumping
duty percent
margin
Exporter
Guangdong Yihua Timber Industry Co., Ltd. (a.k.a.
Yihua Timber Timber Industry Co., Ltd.) * ..............
Brother Furniture Manufacture Co., Ltd. * ...................
COE, Ltd. ∧ ..........................
Decca Furniture Limited ∧ ....
Dongguan Landmark Furniture Products Ltd. ∧ .......
Dongguan Mingsheng Furniture Co., Ltd. * ................
Dongguan Yihaiwei Furniture
Limited ∧ ...........................
Fujian Lianfu Forestry Co.,
Ltd. aka Fujian Wonder
Pacific , Inc. (Dare
Group) * .............................
Fuzhou Huan Mei Furniture
Co., Ltd. (Dare Group) * ....
Jiangsu Dare Furniture Co.,
Ltd. (Dare Group) * ............
Hwang Ho International
Holdings Limited ∧ ............
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Exporter
Antidumping
duty percent
margin
Meikangchi (Nantong) Furniture Company Ltd. ∧ ......
Qingdao Shengchang Wooden Co., Ltd. ∧ ....................
Shenzhen Shen Long Hang
Industry Co., Ltd. * ............
Transworld (Zhangzhou) Furniture Co., Ltd. ∧ ...............
Winny Universal, Ltd.,
Zhongshan Winny Furniture Ltd., Winny Overseas, Ltd. ∧ .......................
Xingli Arts & Crafts Factory
of Yangchun * ...................
Zhongshan Gainwell Furniture Co., Ltd. * ................
PRC-Wide Entity 27 ...............
124.31
124.31
124.31
124.31
124.31
124.31
124.31
216.01
NEW SHIPPER REVIEW
Exporter/
producer combination
Golden Well International
(HK), Ltd. ∧/Producer:
Zhangzhou XYM Furniture
Product Co., Ltd. ...............
Dongguan Sunshine Furniture Co., Ltd. */Dongguan
Sunshine Furniture Co.,
Ltd. ....................................
Antidumping
duty percent
margin
0.0
0.0
Disclosure
The Department will disclose
calculations performed for these
preliminary results to the parties within
five days of the date of publication of
this notice in accordance with 19 CFR
351.224(b).
Comments
124.31
124.31
124.31
124.31
124.31
124.31
124.31
124.31
124.31
124.31
124.31
27 Bon Ten, Dream Rooms, Hamilton, Joyce Art,
Orient International, Sande, and Yida are all part
of the PRC-wide entity.
PO 00000
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW—Continued
Interested parties may submit case
briefs and/or written comments no later
than 30 days after the date of
publication of these preliminary results
of review.28 See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii).
Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written
comments, limited to issues raised in
such briefs or comments, may be filed
no later than 35 days after the date of
publication. See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
Further, parties submitting written
comments are requested to provide the
Department with an additional copy of
those comments on diskette. Any
interested party may request a hearing
within 30 days of publication of these
preliminary results. See 19 CFR
28 Because the Department is conducting
verification after issuance of the preliminary results
of review in this case, the Department will provide
interested parties with an updated briefing and
hearing schedule once the verification schedule is
established.
E:\FR\FM\09FEN1.SGM
09FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 25 / Monday, February 9, 2009 / Notices
351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested,
will be held two days after the
scheduled date for submission of
rebuttal briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(d).
The Department will issue the final
results of the administrative and new
shipper reviews, which will include the
results of its analysis of issues raised in
the briefs, within 120 days of
publication of these preliminary results,
in accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(h)(1) unless the time limit is
extended.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Assessment Rates
The Department will determine, and
CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on
all appropriate entries of subject
merchandise in accordance with the
final results of this review. For
assessment purposes, the Department
calculated exporter/importer- (or
customer-) specific assessment rates for
merchandise subject to this review.
Where appropriate, the Department
calculated an ad valorem rate for each
importer (or customer) by dividing the
total dumping margins for reviewed
sales to that party by the total entered
values associated with those
transactions. For duty-assessment rates
calculated on this basis, the Department
will direct CBP to assess the resulting
ad valorem rate against the entered
customs values for the subject
merchandise. Where appropriate, the
Department calculated a per-unit rate
for each importer (or customer) by
dividing the total dumping margins for
reviewed sales to that party by the total
sales quantity associated with those
transactions. For duty-assessment rates
calculated on this basis, the Department
will direct CBP to assess the resulting
per-unit rate against the entered
quantity of the subject merchandise.
Where an importer- (or customer-)
specific assessment rate is de minimis
(i.e., less than 0.50 percent), the
Department will instruct CBP to assess
that importer (or customer’s) entries of
subject merchandise without regard to
antidumping duties. The Department
intends to instruct CBP to liquidate
entries containing subject merchandise
exported by the PRC-wide entity at the
PRC-wide rate we determine in the final
results of this review. The Department
intends to issue appropriate assessment
instructions directly to CBP 15 days
after publication of the final results of
this review.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit
requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of these
reviews for shipments of subject
merchandise from the PRC entered, or
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:35 Feb 06, 2009
Jkt 217001
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication
date, as provided by sections
751(a)(1)(C) and (a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1)
For all respondents receiving a separate
rate, the cash deposit rate will be that
established in the final results of these
reviews; (2) for previously investigated
or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters
not listed above that have separate rates,
the cash deposit rate will continue to be
the exporter-specific rate published for
the most recent period; (3) for all PRC
exporters of subject merchandise that
have not been found to be entitled to a
separate rate, the cash deposit rate will
be the PRC-wide rate of 216.01 percent;
and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of
subject merchandise which have not
received their own rate, the cash deposit
rate will be the rate applicable to the
PRC exporters that supplied that nonPRC exporter. These deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a
preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding
the reimbursement of antidumping
duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during this review
period. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in the
Secretary’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
The Department is issuing and
publishing these preliminary results of
administrative review and new shipper
reviews in accordance with sections
751(a) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19
CFR 351.221(b) and 351.214(h).
Dated: January 30, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E9–2675 Filed 2–6–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XN06
Endangered and Threatened Species;
Take of Anadromous Fish
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
6385
ACTION: Application to renew scientific
research permit.
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
NMFS has received one scientific
research permit application request
relating to Pacific salmon. The proposed
research is intended to increase
knowledge of species listed under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) and to
help guide management and
conservation efforts.
DATES: Comments or requests for a
public hearing on the application must
be received at the appropriate address or
fax number (see ADDRESSES) no later
than 5 p.m. Pacific standard time on
March 11, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on the
application should be sent to the
Protected Resources Division, NMFS,
1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Suite 1100,
Portland, OR 97232–1274. Comments
may also be sent via fax to 503–230–
5441 or by e-mail to
resapps.nwr@NOAA.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Garth Griffin, Portland, OR (ph.: 503–
231–2005, Fax: 503–230–5441, e-mail:
Garth.Griffin@noaa.gov). Permit
application instructions are available
from the address above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Species Covered in This Notice
The following listed species are
covered in this notice:
Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha): threatened lower
Columbia River (LCR), threatened upper
Willamette River (UWR), endangered
upper Columbia River (UCR), threatened
Snake River (SR) spring/summer (spr/
sum), threatened SR fall.
Chum salmon (O. keta): threatened
Columbia River (CR).
Steelhead (O. mykiss): threatened
LCR, threatened UWR, threatened
middle Columbia River (MCR),
threatened SR, endangered UCR,
threatened PS.
Coho salmon (O. kisutch): threatened
LCR, threatened Oregon Coast (OC),
threatened Southern Oregon/Northern
California coasts (SONCC).
Sockeye salmon (O. nerka):
endangered SR.
Authority
Scientific research permits are issued
in accordance with section 10(a)(1)(A)
of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and
regulations governing listed fish and
wildlife permits (50 CFR 222–226).
NMFS issues permits based on findings
that such permits: (1) are applied for in
good faith; (2) if granted and exercised,
would not operate to the disadvantage
E:\FR\FM\09FEN1.SGM
09FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 25 (Monday, February 9, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6372-6385]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-2675]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-890]
Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative and New Shipper
Reviews and Partial Rescission of Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the
Department of Commerce (``Department'') is conducting an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture
(``WBF'') from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''). The period of
review (``POR'') is January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007. This
administrative review covers multiple exporters of the subject
merchandise, two of which are being individually reviewed as mandatory
respondents. The Department is also conducting two new shipper reviews
for exporters/producers. The POR for the new shipper reviews is also
January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2007.
We preliminarily determine that the mandatory respondents in the
administrative review made sales in the United States at prices below
normal value (``NV''). With respect to the remaining respondents in the
administrative review, we preliminarily determine that 16 entities have
provided sufficient evidence that they are separate from the state-
controlled entity, and we have established a weighted-average margin
based on the rates we have calculated for the mandatory respondents,
excluding any rates that are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on
adverse facts available, to be applied to these separate rate
entities.\1\ Further, we preliminarily determine that the remaining six
respondents in the administrative review have not demonstrated that
they are entitled to a separate rate, and thus are considered part of
the PRC entity. Finally, we preliminarily determine that the new
shippers have not made sales in the United States at less than NV. If
these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of review,
we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess
antidumping duties on entries of subject merchandise during the POR for
which the importer-specific assessment rates are above de minimis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These 16 entities do not include the two new shipper
respondents, one of whom is also subject to the administrative
review. Both new shipper respondents have demonstrated that they are
separate from the state-controlled entity; however, their margins
will be based on the results of their respective new shipper
reviews.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary
results. Parties who submit comments are requested to submit with each
argument a statement of the issue and a brief summary of the argument.
We intend to issue the final results of this review no later than 120
days from the date of publication of this notice.
DATES: Effective Date: February 9, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Stolz, or Sergio
Balbont[iacute]n, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202) 482-4474 and (202) 482-6478, respectively.
Background
On January 4, 2005, the Department published in the Federal
Register the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from
the PRC. See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Wooden Bedroom Furniture
from the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 329 (January 4, 2005)
(``Order''). Our first notice to the public that we were initiating an
administrative review with respect to wooden bedroom furniture was
published on February 27, 2008, wherein we stated, in a footnote, that
we would subsequently publish a separate initiation notice identifying
all the exporters under review. See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 73 FR 10422 (February 27,
2008). On March 7, 2008, the Department published in the Federal
Register this subsequent notice of initiation of administrative review,
wherein we identified the exporters under review by name. See Notice of
Initiation of Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on
Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China, 73 FR
12387 (March 7, 2008) (``AR Initiation Notice''). Additionally on March
7, 2008, the Department initiated new shipper reviews with respect to
the following exporter/producer combinations: 1) Golden Well
International (HK), Ltd./Zhangzhou XYM Furniture Product Co., Ltd.
(collectively ``Golden Well''); and 2) Dongguan Sunshine Furniture Co.,
Ltd./Dongguan Sunshine Furniture Co., Ltd. (``Sunshine''). See Wooden
Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China; Initiation of
New Shipper Reviews, 73 FR 12392 (March 7, 2008) (``NS Initiation
Notice'').
In the AR Initiation Notice, parties were notified that, due to the
large number of firms requested for this administrative review and the
resulting administrative burden of reviewing each company, the
Department considered exercising its authority to limit the number of
respondents selected for review in accordance with section 777A(c)(2)
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). Accordingly, the
Department requested that all companies listed in the AR Initiation
Notice wishing to qualify for separate rate status in this
administrative review complete, as appropriate, either a separate rate
application or certification.\2\ The Department also
[[Page 6373]]
stated in the AR Initiation Notice its intention to select respondents
based on CBP data for U.S. imports for the POR. As such, the Department
stated that companies for which a review was initiated should notify
the Department within 30 days of publication of this notice if they had
no shipments, entries, or sales of the subject merchandise under
consideration during the POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In order to demonstrate separate rate eligibility, the
Department requires companies for which a review was requested that
were assigned a separate rate in the previous segment of this
proceeding to certify that they continue to meet the criteria for
obtaining a separate rate. See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, from the People's Republic of
China: Final Results of 2005-2006 Administrative Review and Partial
Rescission of Review, 72 FR 56724 (October 4, 2007) (``TRBs 2007'')
which was upheld by the Court of International Trade (``CIT'') in
Peer Bearing Co. v. United States, Slip Op. 08-134 (Ct. Int'l Trade
2008) (``Peer Bearing''). For companies that have not previously
been assigned a separate rate, the Department requires that they
demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate by submitting a separate
rate application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For this administrative review, the Department determined to use
value of exports instead of volume of exports in selecting the largest
exporters. The Department based this determination on the fact that CBP
data for volume of imports were reported in differing units of measure
(e.g., pieces, cubic meters, etc.) across the exporters and the
Department did not have the information to convert the data into an
equivalent unit of measure for all relevant imports. See Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the
People's Republic of China: Selection of Respondents, dated July 31,
2008 (``Selection of Respondents Memorandum''). On July 31, 2008, the
Department selected: (1) Guangdong Yihua Timber Industry Co., Ltd.,
(a.k.a., Yihua Timber Industry Co., Ltd.) (``Yihua Timber''); and (2)
Orient International Holding Shanghai Foreign Trading Co., Ltd.
(``Orient International'') as mandatory respondents in this
administrative review. See Selection of Respondents Memorandum.
On August 21, 2008, the Department issued its questionnaire to
Yihua Timber and Orient International. See below for mandatory
respondent-specific chronologies. On September 18, 2008, Orient
International stated that it would no longer be participating in this
administrative review, except with respect to briefing and a hearing,
if held. See Letter from Orient International, dated September 18,
2008.
On August 22, 2008, the Department aligned the deadlines and the
time limits of the new shipper reviews of WBF with the administrative
review of WBF. See Memorandum to the File, ``Wooden Bedroom Furniture
from the People's Republic of China: Alignment of the 1/1/2007-12/31/
2007 Annual Administrative Review and the 1/1/2007-12/31/2007 New
Shipper Review,'' dated August 22, 2008.
Between March 7, 2008, and June 5, 2008, several parties withdrew
their requests for administrative review. On August 25, 2008, the
Department published a notice rescinding the review with respect to the
entities for which all review requests had been withdrawn. See Wooden
Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Notice of
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR
49990 (August 25, 2008).
On September 16, 2008, the Department requested comments on
surrogate country selection from all interested parties. On September
30, 2008, domestic interested parties, the American Furniture
Manufacturers Committee for Legal Trade and Vaughan-Bassett Furniture
Company, Inc. (``Petitioners'') provided information regarding the
selection of a surrogate country.\3\ Also, on September 30, 2008, Yihua
Timber submitted comments regarding the selection of a surrogate
country.\4\ On October 7, 2008, the Department received rebuttal
surrogate country comments from both the Petitioners \5\ and Yihua
Timber.\6\ On October 17, 2008, Petitioners' submitted a reply to Yihua
Timber's October 7, 2008, rebuttal comments.\7\ Also, on October 17,
2008, Yihua Timber responded to Petitioner's October 7, 2008, rebuttal
comments.\8\ On October 27, 2008, Petitioners submitted further
rebuttal comments to Yihua Timber's October 17, 2008, submission.\9\ No
other party to the proceeding submitted information or comments
concerning the selection of a surrogate country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Letter from Petitioners titled, ``Wooden Bedroom
Furniture From China Surrogate Country Comments,'' dated September
30, 2008.
\4\ See Letter from Yihua Timber titled, ``Wooden Bedroom
Furniture from the People's Republic of China, A-570-890: Comments
on Surrogate Country Selection,'' dated September 30, 2008.
\5\ See Letter from Petitioners titled, ``Wooden Bedroom
Furniture From China: Rebuttal Surrogate Country Comments,'' dated
October 7, 2008.
\6\ See Letter from Yihua Timber titled, ``Wooden Bedroom
Furniture from the People's Republic of China, A-570-890: Rebuttal
Comments on Surrogate Country Selection,'' dated October 7, 2008.
\7\ See Letter from Petitioners titled, ``Wooden Bedroom
Furniture from China: Petitioners' Reply To Yihua Timber's Rebuttal
Comments On Surrogate Country Selection,'' dated October 17, 2008.
\8\ See Letter from Yihua Timber titled, ``Wooden Bedroom
Furniture from the People's Republic of China, A-570-890: Further
Rebuttal Comments on Surrogate Country Selection,'' dated October
17, 2008.
\9\ See Letter from Petitioners titled, ``Wooden Bedroom
Furniture from China: Petitioners' Reply to Yihua Timber's Further
Rebuttal Comments On Surrogate Country Selection,'' dated October
27, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 6, 2008, the Department extended the deadline for the
issuance of the preliminary results of the administrative review and
new shipper reviews until January 30, 2008. See Wooden Bedroom
Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limits
for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and New Shipper Reviews, 73 FR 58113 (October 6, 2008).
Between March 13, 2008 and April 4, 2008, Petitioners and Kimball
International, Inc., Kimball Furniture Group, Inc., and Kimball
Hospitality Inc. (collectively ``Kimball'') submitted numerous comments
pertaining to Kimball's standing as a domestic interested party. On
November 4, 2008, the Department found that Kimball is a U.S. producer
of wooden bedroom furniture for purposes of this antidumping
administrative review and thus has standing as a U.S. producer of the
like product to request administrative reviews of foreign exporters.
See Memorandum to the File ``Whether Kimball International, Inc.,
Kimball Furniture Group, Inc. and Kimball Hospitality, Inc.
(collectively, ``Kimball'') is a U.S. Domestic Producer of Wooden
Bedroom Furniture: Administrative Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture
from the People's Republic of China'' (November 4, 2008).
On January 9, 2009, Lifestyle Enterprise, Inc. (``Lifestyle'') and
Trade Masters of Texas, Inc. (``Trade Masters'') submitted comments
arguing that the Department's current WBF administrative review is
unlawful and must therefore be rescinded. See Letter from Lifestyle and
Trade Masters, dated January 9, 2009. Lifestyle and Trade Masters
asserted that the Department's administrative review is unlawful
because, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), the Department is
required to ``publish notice of initiation of the review no later than
the last day of the month following the anniversary month.'' Lifestyle
and Trade Masters further stated that 19 CFR 351.102(b) defines the
``anniversary month'' as ``the calendar month in which the anniversary
of the date of publication of an order or suspension of investigation
occurs,'' and thus, in this case the Department should have published
its initiation notice by February 29, 2008. Additionally, Lifestyle and
Trade Masters state that, on February 27, 2008, the Department
published a notice in the Federal Register indicating that it was
initiating a review, but then, in contradiction, stated that ``the
administrative review for {case A-570-890{time} will be published in a
separate initiation notice.'' Lifestyle and Trade Masters contend that
on March 7, 2008, eight days after the deadline for initiating the
review according to its own regulations, the Department published its
initiation notice for this
[[Page 6374]]
review. Lifestyle and Trade Masters therefore assert that the
Department failed to initiate this review by the deadline in its own
regulations, and accordingly, the review is unlawful and must be
rescinded and terminated.
On January 16, 2009, Petitioners rebutted Lifestyle and Trade
Masters submission. Petitioners stated the following: (1) The
Department notice was timely filed; (2) the Act mandates an
administrative review; and (3) the Department's practice has been to
initiate a review, even if past the regulations deadline. See Letter
from Petitioners, ``Pre-Preliminary Comments,'' dated January 16, 2009.
We have determined that our notice was timely and complied with our
regulations for the following reasons. Our first notice to the public
that we were initiating an administrative review with respect to wooden
bedroom furniture published on February 27, 2008, prior to the close of
the month following the anniversary month of the order. See Initiation
of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 73 FR
10422 (February 27, 2008). Although this notice did not contain the
list of all of the exporters under review, a footnote to this notice
stated that we would publish a separate initiation notice for this
review. That subsequent notice, which listed all of the exporters under
review, was published on March 7, 2008. Additionally, section 751 of
the Act requires the Department to conduct an administrative review
when timely and properly requested, as was done by multiple parties for
this review. Thus, the Department was under an obligation to conduct an
administrative review. Further, the Department has established its
practice in regards to this proceeding; in two prior administrative
reviews, the Department has published its initiation notice after the
last day of the month following the anniversary month. See Initiation
of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administraive Reviews, 72 FR
8969 (February 28, 2007); Notice of Initiation of Administrative Review
of the Antidumping Duty Order on Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the
People's Republic of China, 72 FR 10159 (March 7, 2007); Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administraive Reviews, 71 FR 9519
(February 24, 2006); Notice of Initiation of Administrative Review of
the Antidumping Duty Order on Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the
People's Republic of China, 71 FR 11394 (March 7, 2006). Furthermore,
the Department has, on occasion, initiated an administrative review
after the close of the month following the anniversary month of the
relevant antidumping duty order. For example, when the Department has
inadvertently omitted a case from the appropriate monthly initiation
notice, the Department has initiated the review in the subsequent
monthly initiation notice, notifying the public of its inadvertent
omission from the prior month's initiation notice (i.e., first
publishing the notice of initiation for that review after the close of
the month following the anniversary month of the respective order).
See, e.g., Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 69 FR 56745
(September 22, 2004); Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 69 FR 30282
(May 27, 2004). Therefore, consistent with Department practice, we have
determined to continue with this administrative review.
Moreover, Lifestyle and Trade Masters do not claim that they were
prejudiced by the alleged untimely notice. See Letter from Lifestyle
and Trade Masters, dated January 9, 2009. Although their February 29,
2008, application for confidential information under Administrative
Protective Order (``APO'') was rejected by the Department on the
grounds that the application was untimely, Lifestyle and Trade Masters'
subsequent application for APO access, submitted November 25, 2008, was
granted by the Department on December 3, 2008. Thus, there is no
evidence that Lifestyle and Trade Masters were denied due process
because their initial APO application was rejected, nor is there
evidence that Lifestyle and Trade Masters suffered any actual harm due
to the Department's allegedly untimely initiation of this review.
As noted above, the Department issued its antidumping questionnaire
to the two mandatory respondents and two new shippers. Upon receipt of
the various responses, the Department issued supplemental
questionnaires. Yihua Timber, Golden Well, and Sunshine timely
responded to the original and supplemental questionnaires.
On September 11, 2008, Orient International timely submitted its
response to section A of the original questionnaire. However, on
September 18, 2008, Orient International submitted a statement that it
would no longer participate in this administrative review and did not
respond to either sections C or D of the antidumping duty
questionnaire.
On January 14, 2009, the Department requested that Golden Well
place its new shipper review response to section A of the original
questionnaire and its response to the section A supplemental
questionnaires on the administrative review record. See Memorandum to
the File: Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review on Wooden Bedroom
Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Request for Greenberg
Traurig to Place Responses to Section A and Section A Supplemental
Questionnaires on the Administrative Review Record, dated January 14,
2009.
Period of Review
The POR is January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2007.
Scope of the Order
The product covered by the order is wooden bedroom furniture.
Wooden bedroom furniture is generally, but not exclusively, designed,
manufactured, and offered for sale in coordinated groups, or bedrooms,
in which all of the individual pieces are of approximately the same
style and approximately the same material and/or finish. The subject
merchandise is made substantially of wood products, including both
solid wood and also engineered wood products made from wood particles,
fibers, or other wooden materials such as plywood, strand board,
particle board, and fiberboard, with or without wood veneers, wood
overlays, or laminates, with or without non-wood components or trim
such as metal, marble, leather, glass, plastic, or other resins, and
whether or not assembled, completed, or finished.
The subject merchandise includes the following items: (1) Wooden
beds such as loft beds, bunk beds, and other beds; (2) wooden
headboards for beds (whether stand-alone or attached to side rails),
wooden footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and wooden
canopies for beds; (3) night tables, night stands, dressers, commodes,
bureaus, mule chests, gentlemen's chests, bachelor's chests, lingerie
chests, wardrobes, vanities, chessers, chifforobes, and wardrobe-type
cabinets; (4) dressers with framed glass mirrors that are attached to,
incorporated in, sit on, or hang over the dresser; (5) chests-
[[Page 6375]]
on-chests,\10\ highboys,\11\ lowboys,\12\ chests of drawers,\13\
chests,\14\ door chests,\15\ chiffoniers,\16\ hutches,\17\ and
armoires; \18\ (6) desks, computer stands, filing cabinets, book cases,
or writing tables that are attached to or incorporated in the subject
merchandise; and (7) other bedroom furniture consistent with the above
list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ A chest-on-chest is typically a tall chest-of-drawers in
two or more sections (or appearing to be in two or more sections),
with one or two sections mounted (or appearing to be mounted) on a
slightly larger chest; also known as a tallboy.
\11\ A highboy is typically a tall chest of drawers usually
composed of a base and a top section with drawers, and supported on
four legs or a small chest (often 15 inches or more in height).
\12\ A lowboy is typically a short chest of drawers, not more
than four feet high, normally set on short legs.
\13\ A chest of drawers is typically a case containing drawers
for storing clothing.
\14\ A chest is typically a case piece taller than it is wide
featuring a series of drawers and with or without one or more doors
for storing clothing. The piece can either include drawers or be
designed as a large box incorporating a lid.
\15\ A door chest is typically a chest with hinged doors to
store clothing, whether or not containing drawers. The piece may
also include shelves for televisions and other entertainment
electronics.
\16\ A chiffonier is typically a tall and narrow chest of
drawers normally used for storing undergarments and lingerie, often
with mirror(s) attached.
\17\ A hutch is typically an open case of furniture with shelves
that typically sits on another piece of furniture and provides
storage for clothes.
\18\ An armoire is typically a tall cabinet or wardrobe
(typically 50 inches or taller), with doors, and with one or more
drawers (either exterior below or above the doors or interior behind
the doors), shelves, and/or garment rods or other apparatus for
storing clothes. Bedroom armoires may also be used to hold
television receivers and/or other audio-visual entertainment
systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The scope of the order excludes the following items: (1) Seats,
chairs, benches, couches, sofas, sofa beds, stools, and other seating
furniture; (2) mattresses, mattress supports (including box springs),
infant cribs, water beds, and futon frames; (3) office furniture, such
as desks, stand-up desks, computer cabinets, filing cabinets,
credenzas, and bookcases; (4) dining room or kitchen furniture such as
dining tables, chairs, servers, sideboards, buffets, corner cabinets,
china cabinets, and china hutches; (5) other non-bedroom furniture,
such as television cabinets, cocktail tables, end tables, occasional
tables, wall systems, book cases, and entertainment systems; (6)
bedroom furniture made primarily of wicker, cane, osier, bamboo or
rattan; (7) side rails for beds made of metal if sold separately from
the headboard and footboard; (8) bedroom furniture in which bentwood
parts predominate; \19\ (9) jewelry armoires; \20\ (10) cheval mirrors;
\21\ (11) certain metal parts; \22\ (12) mirrors that do not attach to,
incorporate in, sit on, or hang over a dresser if they are not designed
and marketed to be sold in conjunction with a dresser as part of a
dresser-mirror set; and (13) upholstered beds.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ As used herein, bentwood means solid wood made pliable.
Bentwood is wood that is brought to a curved shape by bending it
while made pliable with moist heat or other agency and then set by
cooling or drying. See Customs' Headquarters' Ruling Letter 043859,
dated May 17, 1976.
\20\ Any armoire, cabinet or other accent item for the purpose
of storing jewelry, not to exceed 24'' in width, 18'' in depth, and
49'' in height, including a minimum of 5 lined drawers lined with
felt or felt-like material, at least one side door (whether or not
the door is lined with felt or felt-like material), with necklace
hangers, and a flip-top lid with inset mirror. See Issues and
Decision Memorandum from Laurel LaCivita to Laurie Parkhill, Office
Director, Concerning Jewelry Armoires and Cheval Mirrors in the
Antidumping Duty Investigation of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the
People's Republic of China, dated August 31, 2004. See also Wooden
Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Notice of
Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review and Revocation in
Part, 71 FR 38621 (July 7, 2006).
\21\ Cheval mirrors are any framed, tiltable mirror with a
height in excess of 50'' that is mounted on a floor-standing, hinged
base. Additionally, the scope of the order excludes combination
cheval mirror/jewelry cabinets. The excluded merchandise is an
integrated piece consisting of a cheval mirror, i.e., a framed
tiltable mirror with a height in excess of 50 inches, mounted on a
floor-standing, hinged base, the cheval mirror serving as a door to
a cabinet back that is integral to the structure of the mirror and
which constitutes a jewelry cabinet lined with fabric, having
necklace and bracelet hooks, mountings for rings and shelves, with
or without a working lock and key to secure the contents of the
jewelry cabinet back to the cheval mirror, and no drawers anywhere
on the integrated piece. The fully assembled piece must be at least
50 inches in height, 14.5 inches in width, and 3 inches in depth.
See Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China:
Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review and Determination To
Revoke Order in Part, 72 FR 948 (January 9, 2007).
\22\ Metal furniture parts and unfinished furniture parts made
of wood products (as defined above) that are not otherwise
specifically named in this scope (i.e., wooden headboards for beds,
wooden footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and wooden
canopies for beds) and that do not possess the essential character
of wooden bedroom furniture in an unassembled, incomplete, or
unfinished form. Such parts are usually classified under the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'')
subheading 9403.90.7000.
\23\ Upholstered beds that are completely upholstered, i.e.,
containing filling material and completely covered in sewn genuine
leather, synthetic leather, or natural or synthetic decorative
fabric. To be excluded, the entire bed (headboards, footboards, and
side rails) must be upholstered except for bed feet, which may be of
wood, metal, or any other material and which are no more than nine
inches in height from the floor. See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from
the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Changed
Circumstances Review and Determination to Revoke Order in Part, 72
FR 7013 (February 14, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Imports of subject merchandise are classified under subheading
9403.50.9040 of the HTSUS as ``wooden * * * beds'' and under subheading
9403.50.9080 of the HTSUS as ``other * * * wooden furniture of a kind
used in the bedroom.'' In addition, wooden headboards for beds, wooden
footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and wooden canopies
for beds may also be entered under subheading 9403.50.9040 of the HTSUS
as ``parts of wood'' and framed glass mirrors may also be entered under
subheading 7009.92.5000 of the HTSUS as ``glass mirrors * * * framed.''
This order covers all wooden bedroom furniture meeting the above
description, regardless of tariff classification. Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our
written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
Bona Fide Analysis
Consistent with the Department's practice, the Department
investigated the bona fide nature of the sales made by Golden Well and
Sunshine for these reviews. In evaluating whether or not sales in an
NSR are commercially reasonable, and therefore bona fide, the
Department considers, inter alia, such factors as: (1) The timing of
the sale(s); (2) the price and quantity of the sale(s); (3) the
expenses arising from the transaction(s); (4) whether the goods were
resold at a profit; and (5) whether the transaction(s) was (were) made
on an arm's-length basis. See, e.g., Tianjin Tiancheng Pharmaceutical
Co., Ltd. v. United States, 366 F. Supp. 2d 1246, 1250 (Ct. Int'l Trade
2005). Accordingly, the Department considers a number of factors in its
bona fide analysis, ``all of which may speak to the commercial
realities surrounding an alleged sale of subject merchandise.'' See
Hebei New Donghua Amino Acid Co., Ltd. v. United States, 374 F. Supp.
2d 1333, 1342 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2005) (citing Fresh Garlic From the
People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative
Review and Rescission of New Shipper Review, 67 FR 11283 (March 13,
2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum).
The Department preliminarily finds that the new shipper sales made
by Golden Well and Sunshine are bona fide for antidumping purposes.
Specifically, the Department finds that: (1) The price and quantity of
each new shipper sale was within the range of the prices and quantities
of other entries of subject merchandise from the PRC into the United
States during the POR; (2) the new shippers and their respective
customers did not incur any extraordinary expenses arising from the
transactions; (3) each new shipper sale was made between unaffiliated
parties at arm's length; (4) the record evidence indicates that each
new shipper sale was based on commercial principles; (5) the
merchandise was resold at a profit; and (6) the timing of each of the
new
[[Page 6376]]
shipper sales does not indicate the sales were made on a non-bona fide
basis. See Memorandum to the File ``Antidumping Duty New Shipper
Reviews of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of
China: Bona Fide Nature of the Sales Under Review for Dongguan Sunshine
Furniture Co., Ltd. and Golden Well International (HK), Ltd.,'' dated
January 30, 2009. Therefore, the Department has preliminarily found
that Golden Well's and Sunshine's sales of subject merchandise to the
United States were bona fide for purposes of these NSRs.
Partial Rescission of Administrative Review
On October 8 and 10, 2008, RiZhao SanMu Woodworking Co., Ltd.
(``SanMu'') and Petitioners, respectively, withdrew their
administrative review requests with respect to SanMu. Although both
parties submitted their withdrawal requests after the 90-day regulatory
deadline at 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department had already completed
its selection of mandatory respondents and SanMu was not selected as a
mandatory respondent in this administrative review. Therefore, the
Department's selection process of the mandatory respondents for this
administrative review was not compromised by the timing of the review
request withdrawals. Furthermore, the Department had not expended any
resources in its review of SanMu as of the date the parties withdrew
their requests for review. Therefore, the Department is rescinding the
administrative review with respect to SanMu.
The Department is also rescinding this review with respect to
Shanghai Aosen Furniture Co., Ltd., and Yeh Brothers World Trade Inc.
as each submitted ``no shipment'' letters on April 7, 2008, and the
Department's review of the CBP import data did not reveal any
contradictory information. See ``No Shipment'' Letters from Shanghai
Aosen Furniture Co., Ltd., and Yeh Brothers World Trade Inc., dated
April 7, 2008.
Non-Market Economy Country Status
In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the
PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (``NME'') country. In
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination
that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until
revoked by the administering authority. See, e.g., Tapered Roller
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's
Republic of China: Preliminary Results 2001-2002 Administrative Review
and Partial Rescission of Review, 68 FR 7500 (February 14, 2003). None
of the parties to this proceeding have contested such treatment.
Accordingly, the Department calculated NV in accordance with section
773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME countries.
Surrogate Country
When investigating imports from an NME country, section 773(c)(1)
of the Act directs the Department to base NV on the NME producer's
factors of production (``FOP''). The Act further instructs that
valuation of the FOPs is to be based on the best available information
in a surrogate market economy country or countries considered to be
appropriate by the Department. See section 773(c)(1) of the Act. When
valuing the FOPs, the Department utilizes, to the extent possible, the
prices or costs of FOPs in one or more market economy countries that
is: (1) At a level of economic development comparable to that of the
NME country; and (2) has significant production of comparable
merchandise. See Section 773(c)(4) of the Act. Further, the Department
typically values all FOPs in a single surrogate country. See 19 CFR
351.408(c)(2). The sources of the surrogate values (``SV'') are
discussed under the NV section below and in the Memorandum to the File,
``2007 Administrative and New Shipper Reviews of Wooden Bedroom
Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Value
Memorandum for the Preliminary Results'' (``Factor Valuation
Memorandum''), which is on file in the Central Records Unit (``CRU''),
Room 1117 of the main Department building.
In examining which country to select as its primary surrogate for
this proceeding, the Department first determined that India, Indonesia,
the Philippines, Colombia, and Thailand are at a level of economic
development comparable to the PRC. See ``Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's
Republic of China: Request for a List of Surrogate Countries,'' dated
September 2, 2008 (``Surrogate Country Memo''). As stated, both
Petitioners and Yihua Timber submitted comments on surrogate country
selection. Petitioners argue that India is the appropriate surrogate
country, while Yihua Timber argues that the Philippines should be used.
After evaluating the interested parties' comments, the Department
determined that the Philippines and India are both: (1) At a level of
economic development comparable to the PRC; (2) significant producers
of comparable merchandise; and (3) provide contemporaneous publicly
available data to value FOPs. Because the data from both India and the
Philippines is relatively equal in terms of quality, availability, and
general contemporaneity, we have broadened our analysis. Specifically,
we have determined that the Philippine surrogate financial data provide
for greater contemporaneity with the POR than the Indian surrogate
financial data. Further, we note that we selected the Philippines as
the primary surrogate country in the prior segment of this proceeding.
For a complete discussion, see Memorandum to the File: Third
Administrative Review and Fifth New Shipper Reviews of the Antidumping
Duty Order on Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of
China: Surrogate Country Selection--Period of Review 1/1/07-12/31/07
(January 30, 2009). Accordingly, the Department has calculated NV using
Philippine prices to value the respondents' FOPs, when available and
appropriate. The Department has obtained and relied upon publicly
available information wherever possible. See Factor Valuation
Memorandum. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), interested
parties may submit publicly available information to value FOPs until
20 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results.
Separate Rates
In the AR Initiation Notice, the Department notified parties of the
recent application process by which exporters and producers may obtain
separate-rate status in NME investigations. See AR Initiation Notice.
The process requires exporters and producers to submit a separate-rate
status application.\24\
[[Page 6377]]
However, the standard for separate rate eligibility has not changed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See also Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rate Practice and
Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations
involving Non-Market Economy Countries, (April 5, 2005), at 6,
available at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf. (``Policy
Bulletin 05.1''). Policy Bulletin 05.1 states, in relevant part, ``*
* * while 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 applied both to mandatory
respondents receiving an individually calculated separate rate as
well as the pool of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-
average of the individually calculated rates. This practice is
referred to as the application of ``combination rates'' because such
rates apply to specific combinations of exporters and one or more
producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply
only to merchandise both exported by the firm in question and
produced by a firm that supplied the exporter during the period of
investigation.'' See Policy Bulletin 05.1, at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department has a
rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are
subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single
antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all
exporters of subject merchandise 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 Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6,
1991) (``Sparklers''), as further developed in Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from
the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (``Silicon
Carbide''). However, if the Department determines that a company is
wholly foreign-owned or located in a market economy, then a separate
rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether it is independent
from government control.
A. Separate Rate Recipients
1. Wholly Foreign-Owned
Nine separate-rate applicants in the administrative review and one
new shipper respondent provided evidence that they are wholly owned by
individuals or companies located in a market economy in their separate-
rate applications/certifications (collectively ``Foreign-owned SR
Applicants''). Therefore, because they are wholly foreign-owned and the
Department has no evidence indicating that they are under the control
of the PRC, a separate rates analysis is not necessary to determine
whether these companies are independent from government control. See
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Creatine Monohydrate from the People's Republic of China, 64 FR 71104
(December 20, 1999) (where the respondent was wholly foreign-owned, and
thus, qualified for a separate rate). Accordingly, the Department has
preliminarily granted a separate rate to these Foreign-owned SR
Applicants. See Preliminary Results of Review section below for
companies marked See Preliminary Results of Review with a ``[caret]''
designating these companies as wholly foreign-owned (collectively
``Foreign-owned SR Recipients'').
2. Located in a Market Economy With No PRC Ownership
None of the separate-rate applicants in this administrative review
are located outside the PRC.
3. Joint Ventures Between Chinese and Foreign Companies or Wholly
Chinese-Owned Companies
Seven of the separate-rate applicants in this administrative review
and one of the new shipper respondents stated that they are either
joint ventures between Chinese and foreign companies or are wholly
Chinese-owned companies (collectively PRC SR Applicants). The
Department has analyzed whether each PRC SR Applicant has demonstrated
the absence of de jure and de facto governmental control over its
respective export activities.
a. 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 license; (2) legislative
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
The evidence provided by the eight PRC SR Applicants supports a
preliminary finding of de jure absence of governmental control based on
the following: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated
with the individual exporters' business and export licenses; (2) there
are applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of PRC
companies; and (3) there are formal measures by the government
decentralizing control of PRC companies.
b. Absence of De Facto Control
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.
The evidence provided by the eight SR Applicants supports a
preliminary finding of de facto absence of governmental control based
on the following: (1) An absence of restrictive governmental control on
the PRC SR Applicants' export prices; (2) a showing of the PRC SR
Applicants' authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other
agreements; (3) a showing that the PRC SR Applicants maintain autonomy
from the government in making decisions regarding the selection of
management; and (4) a showing that the PRC SR Applicants retain the
proceeds of their respective export sales and make independent
decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses.
In all, the evidence placed on the record of this investigation by
the eight PRC SR Applicants demonstrates an absence of de jure and de
facto government control, in accordance with the criteria identified in
Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. Accordingly, the Department has
preliminarily granted a separate rate to the PRC SR Applicants. See
``Preliminary Results of Review'' section below for companies marked
with an ``*'' designating these companies as joint ventures between
Chinese and foreign companies or wholly Chinese-owned companies
(collectively referred to as ``PRC SR Recipients'').
B. Companies Not Receiving a Separate Rate
In the AR Initiation Notice, we requested that all companies listed
therein wishing to qualify for separate rate status in this
administrative review submit, as appropriate, either a separate rate
status application or certification. See AR Initiation Notice. The
following five exporters did not provide, as appropriate, either a
separate rate application or certification: (1) Dongguan Bon Ten
Furniture Co., Ltd. (``Bon Ten''); (2) Dongguan Qingxi Xinyi Craft
Furniture Factory (Joyce Art
[[Page 6378]]
Factory) (``Joyce Art''); (3) Tianjin Sande Fairwood Furniture Co. Ltd.
(``Sande''); (4) Yida Co. Ltd., Yitai Worldwide Ltd., Yili Co., Ltd.,
and Yetbuild Co., Ltd. (collectively ``Yida''); and (5) Hamilton &
Spill, Ltd. (``Hamilton''), and therefore have not demonstrated their
eligibility for separate rate status in this administrative review.
Therefore, the Department preliminarily determines that there were
exports of merchandise under review from PRC exporters that did not
demonstrate their eligibility for separate-rate status. As a result,
the Department is treating these PRC exporters as part of the PRC-wide
entity.
Further, on April 4, 2008, Dream Rooms Furniture (Shanghai) Co.,
Ltd. (``Dream Rooms'') submitted a separate rate certification to the
Department. See Letter from Dream Rooms, dated April 4, 2008. On June
24, 2008, White & Case LLP (``White & Case'') withdrew its notice of
appearance on behalf of Dream Rooms. See Letter from White & Case,
dated June 14, 2008. On January 7, 2009, the Department issued a
supplemental questionnaire to Dream Rooms requiring clarification of
the information that Dream Rooms submitted in its separate rate
certification. See the Department's January 7, 2009, supplemental
questionnaire to Dream Rooms. In the absence of legal representation in
the United States, the Department attempted to contact Dream Rooms via
direct mail. However, Dream Rooms failed to respond to this
supplemental questionnaire.
Because Dream Rooms did not respond to the Department's request for
clarification regarding its separate rate certification on the record
of this review, the Department is unable to determine if Dream Rooms
operates free from PRC government control for purposes of this review.
It is the Department's practice to require a party to submit the
evidence necessary for the Department to determine that it operates
independently of the state-controlled entity in each segment of a
proceeding in which it requests separate rate status. See TRBs 2007 and
Peer Bearing. Thus, because Dream Rooms' separate-rate certification is
deficient, Dream Rooms has not demonstrated its eligibility for
separate-rate status in this administrative review. See section
776(a)(2)(D) of the Act. Consequently, the Department is treating Dream
Rooms as part of the PRC-wide entity.
Margins for Separate-Rate Recipients
For the Separate Rate Recipients subject to this administrative
review that were not selected as mandatory respondents, we have
established a weighted-average margin based on an average of the rates
we calculated for the mandatory respondents, excluding any rates that
are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on adverse facts available.
That rate is 124.31 percent. Entities receiving this rate are
identified by name in the ``Preliminary Results of Review'' section of
this notice.
Use of Facts Available and Adverse Facts Available
Section 776(a) of the Act provides that the Department shall apply
``facts otherwise available'' if (1) necessary information is not on
the record, or (2) an interested party or any other person (A)
Withholds information that has been requested, (B) fails to provide
information within the deadlines established, or in the form and manner
requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of
section 782 of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D)
provides information that cannot be verified as provided by section
782(i) of the Act.
Where the Department determines that a response to a request for
information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act
provides that the Department will so inform the party submitting the
response and will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the
opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to
remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits and subject to
section 782(e) of the Act, the Department may disregard all or part of
the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate.
Section 782(e) of the Act provides that the Department ``shall not
decline to consider information that is submitted by an interested
party and is necessary to the determination but does not meet all
applicable requirements established by the administering authority'' if
the information is timely, can be verified, is not so incomplete that
it cannot be used, and if the interested party acted to the best of its
ability in providing the information. Where all of these conditions are
met, the statute requires the Department to use the information
supplied if it can do so without undue difficulties.
Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may
use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when
a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its
ability to comply with a request for information. Such an adverse
inference may include reliance on information derived from the
petition, the final determination, a previous administrative review, or
other information placed on the record.
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies
on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the
course of an investigation or review, it shall, to the extent
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that
are reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is defined as
``{i{time} nformation derived from the petition that gave rise to the
investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject
merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the
subject merchandise.'' See Statement of Administrative Action,
reprinted in H.R. Doc. No. 103-216, at 870 (1994) (``SAA'').
Corroborate means that the Department will satisfy itself that the
secondary information to be used has probative value. Id. To
corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent
practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information
to be used.
A. Application of Partial Facts Available for Yihua Timber
Yihua Timber reported both gross weights (on a finished, packed
per-product basis) and FOP weights on a per-product basis.\25\ FOP
weights represent the weight of the inputs that went into making the
finished, packed product. In furniture production, the FOP weights
should be higher than the gross weight of the finished product because,
generally, there is a yield loss associated with WBF production.
However, in its supplemental questionnaire response, Yihua Timber's
reported product-specific FOP weights appeared to be insufficient to
account for its reported product-specific gross weights. Yihua Timber
provided a subsequent submission, stating that: (1) Its reported gross
weights are estimates that came from its packing lists; and (2) while
the gross weights are estimates and may not be accurate, the reported
FOP input weights are accurate and, thus, there is no need to adjust
them in the margin calculation. To demonstrate its claim with respect
to the gross weights, Yihua Timber weighed two products and provided
revised gross weights for these two products. Yihua Timber concludes
that although the revised gross weights are still higher than the FOP
weights, these differences are minor and stem from the application of
an overall variance to individual
[[Page 6379]]
product standards in deriving its FOP weights. Yihua Timber concludes
that while for some products the FOP weights will be lower than the
actual gross weight, for other products, the FOP weights will be
greater than the actual gross weights and, therefore, we should
continue to rely on its reported data. Further, Yihua Timber claims
that while the absolute product-specific gross weights (as originally
reported) are not accurate, the relative weight differences among
products are valid, and therefore, the Department should use the
reported gross weights as the allocation basis for Yihua Timber's
reported movement expenses. We do not agree with Yihua Timber's
conclusions with respect to its reported data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Yihua Timber reported certain inputs on a cubic meter basis
with information to convert the data to a kilogram basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the two products Yihua Timber weighed, as it noted,
the FOP weights are insufficient to account for the revised gross
weights reported. However, we do not agree that the differences are
minor. Moreover, because Yihua Timber weighed only two products, based
on the record data, we are unable to determine the extent of
underreported FOP weights or confirm Yihua Timber's contention that the
reported FOP weights are greater than the actual gross weights for some
products. Accordingly, we preliminarily determine to base the FOPs for
all products on facts otherwise available in accordance with section
776(a) of the Act. Therefore, as facts available, we will increase the
reported FOP weights for each product by the average of the differences
between the reported FOP weights and the actual gross weights of the
two products that Yihua Timber weighed. We are also not preliminarily
granting the by-product offset because any such offset appears to
result in FOP weights that are insufficient to produce the merchandise
under review.
In addition, with respect to movement charges being valued with
surrogate values, we are preliminarily applying the movement charges to
the revised FOP weights discussed above. With regard to movement
charges being valued based on market economy purchases, because we do
not have the aggregate movement expense data, we are unable to
reallocate it over the revised weights. Therefore, we will continue to
use those expenses as reported for purposes of the preliminary
determination.
We intend to issue a post-preliminary results supplemental
questionnaire to Yihua Timber, to address each of these issues. As
appropriate, we will consider any additional data and the results of
verification for purposes of completing the final results of review.
B. Application of Partial Adverse Facts Available for Yihua Timber
In our original questionnaire, consistent with our standard
practice, we requested that each respondent report all of its U.S.
sales to the first unaffiliated U.S. customer. In Yihua Timber's
initial questionnaire response, some of the sales reported in Yihua
Timber's U.S. sales database were transactions between one of Yihua
Timber's affiliated U.S. companies, New Classic Home Furnishings Inc.
(``New Classic''), and another affiliated U.S. company (i.e., Company
A).\26\ See Yihua Timber's Section C response, dated October 15, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Due to the proprietary nature of this information, we are
calling this affiliate ``Company A.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department issued a supplemental section C questionnaire to
Yihua Timber requesting, among other things, that Yihua Timber ``revise
{its{time} U.S. sales database so that it reflects sales * * * to the
first unaffiliated customer,'' and ``provide complete section C
responses (including sales reconciliations).* * *'' See the
Department's December 12, 2008, supplemental questionnaire. In response
to the Department's supplemental questionnaire, Yihua Timber provided
incomplete information regarding Company A's downstream sales to
unaffiliated parties. Specifically, Yihua Timber did not provide
sufficient evidence (e.g., a sales reconciliation) to support its
contention that only a portion of the sales reported in Company A's
financial statements reflected sales of subject merchandise. Thus,
Yihua Timber has not successfully demonstrated that it appropriately
excluded the non-reported sales, which represent a significant portion
of the sales on Company A's financial statements, and thereby failed to
demonstrate that it had accounted for all of Company A's sales of
wooden bedroom furniture in that databases.
Further, Yihua Timber failed to provide certain costs and expenses
associated with Company A sales that it did report. Consequently, we do
not have complete and appropriate data on the record to calculate
accurate dumping margins with respect to Yihua Timber's U.S. sales
through its affiliate, Company A. Accordingly, we preliminarily
determine to base the margins for these sales on facts otherwise
available in accordance with section 776(a) of the Act.
Because the Department requested information concerning
unaffiliated sales in both its original and supplemental
questionnaires, it is clear from the record that Yihua Timber was aware
of its obligation to submit a complete section C response and sales
reconciliation for Company A. Further, because Yihua Timber did not
indicate that it could not provide this information, we find that Yihua
Timber failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to
comply with the Department's requests for information.
Accordingly, the Department preliminarily determines that, when
selecting from among the facts otherwise available with respect to
Yihua Timber's U.S. sales through Company A, an adverse inference is
warranted pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. For a discussion of
the rate we applied as adverse facts available to these sales see the
section below entitled Selection of the Adverse Facts Available Rate.
We intend to issue a post-preliminary results supplemental
questionnaire to Yihua Timber to address this issue. As appropriate, we
will consider any additional data and the results of verification for
purposes of completing the final results of review.
C. Application of Total Adverse Facts Available
1. Hamilton
On April 7, 2008, Hamilton submitted a letter to the Department
stating that it had no shipments of the subject merchandise to the
United States. See Letter from Hamilton, dated April 7, 2008.
Subsequently, the Department conducted independent research to confirm
Hamilton's response of no shipments by reviewing import information
obtained from CBP. On January 15, 2009, the Department issued a
supplemental questionnaire to Hamilton to inquire about a discrepancy
found between Hamilton's statement of no shipments and the CBP data.
See the Department's January 15, 2009, supplemental questionnaire to
Hamilton. On January 22, 2009, Hamilton responded to the Department's
supplemental questionnaire stating that when it performed its original
internal data search for shipments of subject merchandise during the
POR, it inadvertently limited the search to shipments over a certain
dollar amount and thereby missed any transactions under that dollar
value. As a result, Hamilton reported that it did not have sales of
subject merchandise during the POR. In its January 22, 2009
supplemental response, Hamilton argues that the POR shipments consisted
of replacement parts that are out of scope merchandise and an
[[Page 6380]]
insignificant quantity of subject merchandise with a ``de minimis''
value that constituted a sample sale. Hamilton requests that the
Department apply facts available without an adverse inference and allow
it to maintain its status as eligible for a separate rate. See
Hamilton's Supplemental Response, dated January 22, 2009.
Hamilton, however, did not submit a separate rate certification on
the record of this review. Thus, the Department is unable to determine
if Hamilton operates free from PRC government control for purposes of
this review. It is the Department's practice to require a party to
submit evidence that it operates independently of the state-controlled
entity in each segment of a proceeding in which it requests separate
rate status. See TRBs 2007 and Peer Bearing. Thus, we find that
Hamilton has not demonstrated its eligibility for separate-rate status
in this administrative review and is, consequently, part of the PRC-
wide entity. See section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act.
Further, based on record evidence, Hamilton, as part of the PRC-
wide entity, did not supply the requested information on its shipments
of subject merchandise to the United States and, by not doing so,
withheld necessary information. Because Hamilton, as part of the PRC-
wide entity, limited its examination of its complete database to a
certain subset, it misreported that it did not have shipments during
the POR. Additionally, when the Department presented information from
CBP to Hamilton and allowed it an opportunity to reconcile the
discrepancy between the CBP information and what it reported, Hamilton
submitted invoices that did not reflect the quantity or value
information reflected in the CBP data. Thereby, Hamilton, was unable to
substantiate its claims with respect to the U.S. import data.
Therefore, we preliminarily find that the PRC-wide entity, which
includes Hamilton, withheld requested information and impeded the
Department's proceeding because it did not accurately report that it
had shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the
POR. Accordingly, we have preliminary determined to base the PRC-wide
entity's margin on facts otherwise available. See section 776(a) of the
Act. Further, because the PRC-wide entity failed to cooperate by not
acting to the best of its ability to comply with the Department's
request for information, we preliminary determine that, when selecting
from among the facts otherwise available, an adverse inference is
warranted for the PRC-wide e
