Certain Tow Behind Lawn Groomers and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 29167-29172 [E9-14470]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Notices
use a computer-assisted data collection
instrument on a laptop to obtain
information about the current residents
of the sample housing unit including
those who may have moved into the
selected housing unit since Census Day
(April 1, 2010). The interviewer will
also attempt to collect data on certain
persons who moved out of the sample
housing unit between Census Day and
the CCM PI interview. We will include
nonmatched Census addresses in the
CCM PI so we can ascertain their Census
enumeration status earlier than if they
were included in the Person Followup
operation that is conducted later in the
CCM processing.
The CCM PI operation will collect the
information listed below only for
persons in housing units (PI is not
conducted in businesses or Group
Quarters). The automated CCM PI
instrument will collect the following
information for the housing units
included in this operation:
1. Roster of people living at the
housing unit at the time of the CCM PI
Interview.
2. Census Day address information for
people who moved into the sample
address since Census Day.
3. Other addresses where a person
may have been counted on Census Day.
4. Information to determine where
each person should be counted on
Census Day (according to Census
residence rules). For example,
interviewers will probe for persons who
might have been left off the household
roster; ask additional questions about
persons who moved from another
address on Census Day to the sample
address; collect additional information
for persons with multiple addresses.
5. Demographic information for each
person in the household on Interview
Day or Census Day, including name,
date of birth, age, Hispanic Origin, race,
and relationship.
6. Name and above information for
any person who has moved out of the
sample address since Census Day (if
known).
The CCM Person Interview Reinterview
(PI RI) is a quality control operation that
will be conducted on 10 percent of the
PI cases. The purpose of the PI RI is to
confirm that the CCM PI interviewer
conducted a CCM PI interview with a
household member or a proxy
respondent and to conduct the complete
CCM PI interview as needed if the
original interview seems questionable.
II. Method of Collection
The CCM Person Interview and
Reinterview operations will be
conducted using a computer-assisted
data collection instrument on a laptop.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:25 Jun 18, 2009
Jkt 217001
The CCM PI will be conducted through
personal interviews while the CCM PI
RI will be conducted by telephone and
person interviews. The CCM PI and PI
RI operations will occur starting August
14, 2010 through October 9, 2010.
Definition of Terms
Components of Coverage Error—The
two components of census coverage
error are census omissions (missed
persons or housing units) and erroneous
enumerations (persons or housing units
enumerated in the census that should
not have been). Examples of erroneous
enumerations are persons or housing
units enumerated in the census that
should not have been enumerated at all,
persons or housing units enumerated in
an incorrect location, and persons or
housing units enumerated more than
once (duplicates).
Net Coverage Error—Net Coverage
Error is a measure of the difference
between census omissions and
erroneous enumerations. A positive net
error indicates an undercount, while a
negative net error indicates an
overcount.
For more information about the
Census 2010 Coverage Measurement
Program, please visit the following page
of the Census Bureau’s Web site:
https://www.census.gov/cac/www/pdf/
coverage-measurement-program.pdf.
III. Data
OMB Control Number: None.
Form Number: None.
Type of Review: Regular submission.
Affected Public: Individuals or
Households.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
362,250 sample addresses for PI and
36,225 sample addresses for PI RI.
Estimated Time per Response: 15
minutes.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 99,619 hours.
Estimated Total Annual Cost: No cost
to the respondents except for their time
to respond.
Respondent’s Obligation: Mandatory.
Legal Authority: Title 13, U.S. Code,
Sections 141, 193, and 221.
IV. Request for Comments
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether
the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information shall have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden
(including hours and cost) of the
proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
29167
burden of the collection of information
on respondents, including through the
use of automated collection techniques
or other forms of information
technology.
Comments submitted in response to
this notice will be summarized and/or
included in the request for OMB
approval of this information collection;
they also will become a matter of public
record.
Dated: June 16, 2009.
Glenna Mickelson,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. E9–14479 Filed 6–18–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–07–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A–570–939
Certain Tow Behind Lawn Groomers
and Certain Parts Thereof from the
People’s Republic of China: Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 19, 2009.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(‘‘Department’’) has determined that
certain tow behind lawn groomers and
certain parts thereof (‘‘lawn groomers’’)
from the People’s Republic of China
(‘‘PRC’’) are being, or is likely to be, sold
in the United States at less than fair
value (‘‘LTFV’’) as provided in section
735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the ‘‘Act’’). The final
dumping margins for this investigation
are listed in the ‘‘Final Determination
Margins’’ section below. The period
covered by the investigation is October
1, 2007, through March 31, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Karine Gziryan, Thomas Martin or
Zhulieta Willbrand, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 4, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–4081, (202) 482–
3936, and (202) 482- 3147 respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Department published its
preliminary determination of sales at
LTFV on January 28, 2009. See Certain
Tow Behind Lawn Groomers and
Certain Parts Thereof from the People’s
Republic of China: Preliminary
E:\FR\FM\19JNN1.SGM
19JNN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
29168
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Notices
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Postponement of Final
Determination, 74 FR 4929 (January 28,
2009) (‘‘Preliminary Determination’’).
On February 19, 2009, Jiashan
Superpower Tools Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Superpower’’), informed the
Department that it would not participate
in the verification of its information and
withdrew from the investigation. See
Letter to Secretary of Commerce,
‘‘Certain Tow Behind Lawn Groomers
and Certain Parts Thereof from the
People’s Republic of China; A–570–939;
Notice by Jiashan Superpower Tools
Co., Ltd.,’’ dated February 19, 2009. On
March 2, 2009, Princeway Furniture
(Dong Guan) Co., Ltd. (‘‘Princeway’’)
also informed the Department that it
would not participate in the verification
of its information and withdrew from
the investigation, and Princeway
requested that the Department remove
all of its submissions from the
administrative record, certify the
destruction of the submissions, and
certify the destruction of Princeway’s
submissions that are in the possession
of interested parties to the proceeding.
See Letter to Secretary of Commerce,
‘‘Lawn Groomers from China’’ dated
March 2, 2009. On March 6, 2009,
Superpower also requested that the
Department remove all of its business
proprietary submissions from the
administrative record. See Letter to
Secretary of Commerce, ‘‘Certain Tow
Behind Lawn Groomers and Certain
Parts Thereof from the People’s
Republic of China; A–570–939;
Withdrawal of Confidential Business
Proprietary Information by Jiashan
Superpower Tools Co., Ltd.,’’ dated
February 19, 2009. On March 6, 2009,
Agri–Fab, Inc. (‘‘Petitioner’’) requested
that the Department amend the
Preliminary Determination with regards
to Princeway. See Letter to Secretary of
Commerce, ‘‘Tow Behind Lawn
Groomers and Parts Thereof from the
People’s Republic of China, Request to
Reconsider and Amend Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value for Princeway’’ dated March 6,
2009.
On March 12, 2009, Petitioner filed its
case brief. After requesting an extension,
Superpower filed a case brief on March
17, 2009. On March 18, 2009, Petitioner
filed its rebuttal brief. Neither
Princeway nor Superpower filed a
rebuttal brief. No party requested a
hearing.
Scope of the Investigation
The scope of this investigation covers
certain non–motorized tow behind lawn
groomers, manufactured from any
material, and certain parts thereof. Lawn
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:25 Jun 18, 2009
Jkt 217001
groomers are defined as lawn sweepers,
aerators, dethatchers, and spreaders.
Unless specifically excluded, lawn
groomers that are designed to perform at
least one of the functions listed above
are included in the scope of this
investigation, even if the lawn groomer
is designed to perform additional non–
subject functions (e.g., mowing).
All lawn groomers are designed to
incorporate a hitch, of any
configuration, which allows the product
to be towed behind a vehicle. Lawn
groomers that are designed to
incorporate both a hitch and a push
handle, of any type, are also covered by
the scope of this investigation. The
hitch and handle may be permanently
attached or removable, and they may be
attached on opposite sides or on the
same side of the lawn groomer. Lawn
groomers designed to incorporate a
hitch, but where the hitch is not
attached to the lawn groomer, are also
included in the scope of the
investigation.
Lawn sweepers consist of a frame, as
well as a series of brushes attached to
an axle or shaft which allows the
brushing component to rotate. Lawn
sweepers also include a container
(which is a receptacle into which debris
swept from the lawn or turf is
deposited) supported by the frame.
Aerators consist of a frame, as well as
an aerating component that is attached
to an axle or shaft which allows the
aerating component to rotate. The
aerating component is made up of a set
of knives fixed to a plate (known as a
‘‘plug aerator’’), a series of discs with
protruding spikes (a ‘‘spike aerator’’), or
any other configuration, that are
designed to create holes or cavities in a
lawn or turf surface. Dethatchers consist
of a frame, as well as a series of tines
designed to remove material (e.g., dead
grass or leaves) or other debris from the
lawn or turf. The dethatcher tines are
attached to and suspended from the
frame. Lawn spreaders consist of a
frame, as well as a hopper (i.e., a
container of any size, shape, or material)
that holds a media to be spread on the
lawn or turf. The media can be
distributed by means of a rotating
spreader plate that broadcasts the media
(‘‘broadcast spreader’’), a rotating
agitator that allows the media to be
released at a consistent rate (‘‘drop
spreader’’), or any other configuration.
Lawn dethatchers with a net fully
assembled weight (i.e., without packing,
additional weights, or accessories) of
100 pounds or less are covered by the
scope of the investigation. Other lawn
groomers–sweepers, aerators, and
spreaders–with a net fully assembled
weight (i.e., without packing, additional
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
weights, or accessories) of 200 pounds
or less are covered by the scope of the
investigation.
Also included in the scope of the
investigation are modular units,
consisting of a chassis that is designed
to incorporate a hitch, where the hitch
may or may not be included, which
allows modules that perform sweeping,
aerating, dethatching, or spreading
operations to be interchanged. Modular
units–when imported with one or more
lawn grooming modules–with a fully
assembled net weight (i.e., without
packing, additional weights, or
accessories) of 200 pounds or less when
including a single module, are included
in the scope of the investigation.
Modular unit chasses, imported without
a lawn grooming module and with a
fully assembled net weight (i.e., without
packing, additional weights, or
accessories) of 125 pounds or less, are
also covered by the scope of the
investigation. When imported
separately, modules that are designed to
perform subject lawn grooming
functions (i.e., sweeping, aerating,
dethatching, or spreading), with a fully
assembled net weight (i.e., without
packing, additional weights, or
accessories) of 75 pounds or less, and
that are imported with or without a
hitch, are also covered by the scope.
Lawn groomers, assembled or
unassembled, are covered by this
investigation. For purposes of this
investigation, ‘‘unassembled lawn
groomers’’ consist of either 1) all parts
necessary to make a fully assembled
lawn groomer, or 2) any combination of
parts, constituting a less than complete,
unassembled lawn groomer, with a
minimum of two of the following
‘‘major components’’:
1) an assembled or unassembled
brush housing designed to be used
in a lawn sweeper, where a brush
housing is defined as a component
housing the brush assembly, and
consisting of a wrapper which
covers the brush assembly and two
end plates attached to the wrapper;
2) a sweeper brush;
3) an aerator or dethatcher weight
tray, or similar component designed
to allow weights of any sort to be
added to the unit;
4) a spreader hopper;
5) a rotating spreader plate or agitator,
or other component designed for
distributing media in a lawn
spreader;
6) dethatcher tines;
7) aerator spikes, plugs, or other
aerating component; or
8) a hitch, defined as a complete hitch
assembly comprising of at least the
E:\FR\FM\19JNN1.SGM
19JNN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Notices
following two major hitch
components, tubing and a hitch
plate regardless of the absence of
minor components such as pin or
fasteners. Individual hitch
component parts, such as tubing,
hitch plates, pins or fasteners are
not covered by the scope.
The major components or parts of
lawn groomers that are individually
covered by this investigation under the
term ‘‘certain parts thereof’’ are: (1)
brush housings, where the wrapper and
end plates incorporating the brush
assembly may be individual pieces or a
single piece; and (2) weight trays, or
similar components designed to allow
weights of any sort to be added to a
dethatcher or an aerator unit.
The products for which relief is
sought specifically exclude the
following: 1) agricultural implements
designed to work (e.g., churn, burrow,
till, etc.) soil, such as cultivators,
harrows, and plows; 2) lawn or farm
carts and wagons that do not groom
lawns; 3) grooming products
incorporating a motor or an engine for
the purpose of operating and/or
propelling the lawn groomer; 4) lawn
groomers that are designed to be hand
held or are designed to be attached
directly to the frame of a vehicle, rather
than towed; 5) ‘‘push’’ lawn grooming
products that incorporate a push handle
rather than a hitch, and which are
designed solely to be manually
operated; 6) dethatchers with a net
assembled weight (i.e., without packing,
additional weights, or accessories) of
more than 100 pounds, or lawn
groomers–sweepers, aerators, and
spreaders–with a net fully assembled
weight (i.e., without packing, additional
weights, or accessories) of more than
200 pounds; and 7) lawn rollers
designed to flatten grass and turf,
including lawn rollers which
incorporate an aerator component (e.g.,
‘‘drum-style’’ spike aerators).
The lawn groomers that are the
subject of this investigation are
currently classifiable in the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States
(‘‘HTSUS’’) statistical reporting numbers
8432.40.0000, 8432.80.0000,
8432.80.0010, 8432.90.0030,
8432.90.0080, 8479.89.9896,
8479.89.9897, 8479.90.9496, and
9603.50.0000. These HTSUS provisions
are given for reference and customs
purposes only, and the description of
merchandise is dispositive for
determining the scope of the product
included in this investigation.
Scope Comments
On December 30, 2008, and on
January 7, 2009, Brinly–Hardy Company
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:25 Jun 18, 2009
Jkt 217001
(‘‘Brinly–Hardy’’), a domestic producer
of the merchandise under consideration,
submitted comments on the scope of the
investigation. Specifically, Brinly–
Hardy requested that the scope be
revised to define one of the eight listed
‘‘major components,’’ specifically a
hitch, as a complete hitch assembly,
with all necessary components. Brinly–
Hardy requested that individual
components such as tubing, hitch plates
or pins, not be covered by the scope.
On January 12, 2009, Petitioner
submitted comments in response to
Brinly–Hardy’s request. Petitioner
agreed that a hitch should be defined,
but stated that a hitch should be defined
as consisting of its own major
components, i.e., tubing and a hitch
plate, rather than all necessary
components. Petitioner stated that the
absence of minor components such as a
hitch pin or fasteners is not intended to
remove a hitch assembly from the
definition of a hitch.
We have received no further
comments on the scope of the
investigation. Thus, we are making a
final determination that hitches are
defined as a complete hitch assembly
comprising of at least the following two
major hitch components, tubing and a
hitch plate regardless of the absence of
minor components such as pin or
fasteners. The revised scope language is
included in the ‘‘Scope of the
Investigation’’ section, above. See also
‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for
the Final Determination in the
Antidumping Duty Investigation of
Certain Tow Behind Lawn Groomers
and Certain Parts Thereof from the
People’s Republic of China,’’ dated
concurrently with this notice, which is
hereby adopted by this notice (‘‘Issues
and Decision Memorandum’’) at
Comment 4.
Analysis of Comments Received
All of the issues that were raised in
the case and rebuttal briefs that were
submitted in this investigation, and to
which we have responded, are
addressed in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum. Appendix I to this notice
contains a list of the issues that are
addressed in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum. The Issues and Decision
Memorandum, which is a public
document, is on file in the Central
Records Unit, at the main Commerce
Building, Room 1117, and is accessible
on the Web at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn.
The paper copy and electronic version
of the memorandum are identical in
content.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
29169
Changes Since the Preliminary
Determination
We have made the following changes
to our calculations in the Preliminary
Determination:
1. We considered Princeway and
Superpower to be part of the PRC–
wide entity because, as a result of
their withdrawal from the
investigation and refusal to allow
the Department to verify their
respective submitted information,
both entities failed to demonstrate
their qualification for a separate
rate. See Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 2.
2. For the final determination we
continue to assign an AFA rate to
the PRC–wide entity, which now
includes Princeway and
Superpower. As AFA, we have
assigned the PRC–wide entity a
CONNUM–specific dumping
margin, i.e., 386.28 percent,
calculated for Superpower in the
Preliminary Determination. See
Issues and Decision Memorandum
at Comment 2.
3. We have assigned the separate rate
companies a dumping margin equal
to the initiation margin. See Issues
and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 3.
4. We made a clarification to the
scope language concerning the
definition of hitch. See Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment
4.
Adverse Facts Available
As noted in the ‘‘Background’’ section
above, Superpower and Princeway
withdrew from the investigation and
refused to allow the Department to
verify the information they had
submitted in this proceeding. As a result
both entities failed to demonstrate
eligibility for a separate rate and thus
are considered part of the PRC–wide
entity.
Section 776(a)(2)(C) and (D) of the Act
provides that, if an interested party
significantly impedes a proceeding, or
provides information that cannot be
verified, the Department shall use facts
otherwise available in reaching the
applicable determination.
Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes
the Department to use an adverse
inference with respect to an interested
party if the Department finds that the
party failed to cooperate by not acting
to the best of its ability to comply with
a request for information. As the PRC–
wide entity, which includes both
Superpower and Princeway, failed to
cooperate by not acting to the best of its
ability to comply with a request for
E:\FR\FM\19JNN1.SGM
19JNN1
29170
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
information an adverse inference is
warranted under section 776(b) of the
Act.
In our Preliminary Determination, we
calculated antidumping duty margins
for both Princeway and Superpower
based on their submitted information.
See Preliminary Determination. On
February 19, 2009, Superpower
withdrew from the investigation. Also,
on March 2, 2009, Princeway withdrew
from the investigation. Thus, both
Princeway and Superpower withdrew
from the investigation before the
Department had an opportunity to verify
their respective submitted information.
Therefore, because both Princeway and
Superpower withdrew from the
investigation and failed to allow the
Department to verify their information,
we find that neither has demonstrated
their eligibility for separate–rate status
in this investigation and, thus, both are
considered part of the PRC–wide entity.
See Section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act.
Additionally, we find that due to their
failure to act to the best of their ability
in responding to the Department’s
requests for information, Princeway and
Superpower, as part of the PRC–wide
entity, significantly impeded the
Department’s proceeding. See Section
776(a)(2)(C) and (D) of the Act. Further,
we have determined that when selecting
from among facts available, an adverse
inference is warranted for the PRC–wide
entity pursuant to section 776(b) of the
Act.
The PRC–Wide Rate
Because we begin with the
presumption that all companies within
a non–market economy (‘‘NME’’)
country are subject to government
control and because only the companies
listed under the ‘‘Final Determination
Margins’’ section, below, have overcome
that presumption, we are applying a
single antidumping rate (i.e., the PRC–
wide rate) to all other exporters of
subject merchandise from the PRC.
These other companies did not
demonstrate entitlement to a separate
rate. See, e.g., Synthetic Indigo From the
People’s Republic of China; Notice of
Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value, 65 FR 25706, 25707
(May 3, 2000). The PRC–wide rate
applies to all entries of subject
merchandise except for entries from the
companies eligible for separate rate
status.
In the Preliminary Determination, the
Department found that certain
companies did not respond to our
requests for information. See
Preliminary Determination, 74 FR at
4932. We treated these PRC producers/
exporters as part of the PRC–wide entity
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:25 Jun 18, 2009
Jkt 217001
because they did not demonstrate that
they operate free of government control
over their export activities. Id. No
additional information was placed on
the record with respect to any of these
companies after the Preliminary
Determination. Moreover, for the
reasons noted above, we also consider
Superpower and Princeway to be part of
the PRC–wide entity.
As noted above, section 776(a)(2) of
the Act provides that, if an interested
party or any other person withholds
information that has been requested by
the administering authority,
significantly impedes a proceeding
under this title, or provides such
information but the information cannot
be verified as provided in section 782(i)
of the Act, the administering authority
shall, subject to section 782(d) of the
Act, use facts otherwise available in
reaching the applicable determination.
Because the PRC–wide entity did not
respond to our requests for information
and because companies within the PRC–
wide entity withheld information
requested by the Department, and
Superpower and Princeway, which are
part of the PRC–wide entity, did not
allow their information to be verified,
pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (C),
and (D) of the Act, we determine, as in
the Preliminary Determination, that the
use of facts otherwise available is
appropriate to determine the PRC–wide
rate.
Section 776(b) of the Act provides
that, in selecting from among the facts
otherwise available, the Department
may employ an adverse inference if an
interested party fails to cooperate by not
acting to the best of its ability to comply
with requests for information. See
Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold–
Rolled Flat–Rolled Carbon–Quality Steel
Products From the Russian Federation,
65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000).
See also Statement of Administrative
Action accompanying the Uruguay
Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. No.
103–316, Vol. 1 (1994), at 870. We
determine that, because the PRC–wide
entity did not respond to our requests
for information, and Superpower and
Princeway, which are part of that entity,
prevented the Department from
verifying its information, the PRC–wide
entity has failed to cooperate to the best
of its ability. Therefore, we have
determined that, in selecting a dumping
margin from among the facts otherwise
available, an adverse inference is
appropriate for the PRC–wide entity.
With respect to adverse facts available
(‘‘AFA’’), for the final determination, we
have assigned the PRC–wide entity a
CONNUM–specific dumping margin,
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
i.e., 386.28 percent, calculated for
Superpower in the Preliminary
Determination. See Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 2. No
corroboration of this rate is necessary
because we are relying on information
obtained in the course of this
investigation, rather than secondary
information. See 19 CFR 351.308(c) and
section 776(b) of the Act; see also Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Affirmative
Determination of Critical
Circumstances, in Part: Light–Walled
Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the
People’s Republic of China, 73 FR
35652, 35653 (June 24, 2008), and
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at 1. In selecting a facts–
available margin, we sought a margin
that is sufficiently adverse so as to
effectuate the statutory purposes of the
adverse facts–available rule, which is to
induce respondents to provide the
Department with complete and accurate
information in a timely manner. We also
sought a margin that is indicative of the
respondents’ customary selling practices
and is rationally related to the
transactions to which the adverse facts
available are being applied. To that end,
we selected the highest margin on an
individual model which fell within the
mainstream of Superpower’s
transactions (i.e., a model that reflects
sales of products that are representative
of the broader range of sales used to
determine U.S. price).
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving NME
countries, the Department begins with a
rebuttable presumption that all
companies within the country are
subject to government control and, thus,
should be assigned a single
antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the
Department’s policy to assign all
exporters of merchandise subject to an
investigation in an NME country this
single rate unless an exporter can
demonstrate that it is sufficiently
independent so as to be entitled to a
separate rate. See Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers
From the People’s Republic of China, 56
FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as amplified by
Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide
From the People’s Republic of China, 59
FR 22585 (May 2, 1994); see also 19 CFR
351.107(d).
In the Preliminary Determination, the
Department granted separate–rate status
to Superpower, Princeway, Qingdao
Huatian Truck Co., Ltd. (‘‘Huatian’’),
and Nantong D & B Machinery Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Nantong’’). As discussed above, the
Department has determined to treat
E:\FR\FM\19JNN1.SGM
19JNN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Notices
Superpower and Princeway as part of
the PRC–wide entity. We note that the
information that Superpower and
Princeway provided to the Department
to demonstrate the absence of de facto
and de jure control could not be verified
due to their failure to cooperate.
Consequently we have not granted
Superpower and Princeway separate
rates.
In the Preliminary Determination, we
found that Huatian and Nantong
demonstrated their eligibility for
separate–rate status. See Preliminary
Determination, 74 FR at 4931. Since the
publication of the Preliminary
Determination, no parties commented
on the separate rate determinations. We
continue to find that the evidence
placed on the record of this
investigation by Huatian and Nantong
demonstrates both a de jure and de facto
absence of government control with
respect to their exports of the
merchandise under investigation. Thus,
we continue to find that Huatian and
Nantong are eligible for separate–rate
status.
Normally the dumping margin for
separate rate companies is determined
based on the estimated weighted–
average dumping margins established
for exporters and producers
individually investigated, excluding de
minimis margins or margins based
entirely on AFA. See Section
735(c)(5)(A) of the Act. In the
Preliminary Determination, we assigned
Huatian and Nantong the dumping
margin established equal to a simple
average of the dumping margins
calculated for the two mandatory
respondents, i.e., Superpower and
Princeway. See Preliminary
Determination, 74 FR at 4931 and 4935.
Since both Superpower and Princeway
are no longer receiving a separate rate,
this methodology is not appropriate. In
cases where the estimated weighted–
average dumping margins for all
individually investigated respondents
are zero, de minimis, or based entirely
on AFA, the Department may use any
reasonable method to assign a rate to the
separate rate companies. See Section
735(c)(5)(B) of the Act. In this case,
where there are no mandatory
respondents receiving a calculated rate
and the PRC–wide entity’s rate is based
upon total AFA, we find that applying
the rate alleged in the petition,
incorporating revisions made in
Petitioner’s supplemental responses, to
Huatian and Nantong is both reasonable
and reliable for purposes of establishing
a separate rate. See Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Sodium Hexametaphosphate From the
People’s Republic of China, 73 FR 6479
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:25 Jun 18, 2009
Jkt 217001
29171
(February 4, 2008) and the
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 2. Therefore,
the Department will assign a separate
rate to Huatian and Nantong using the
initiation rate of 154.72 percent,
pursuant to its practice.
The initiation margin assigned to
Huatian and Nantong is based on
secondary information. According to
section 776 (c) of the Act, when the
Department relies on secondary
information, it shall, to the extent
practicable, corroborate that
information. During our pre–initiation
analysis of the petition, we examined
the information used in the petition as
the basis of export price and normal
value (‘‘NV’’) and, where appropriate,
revised the calculations used to derive
the petition dumping margins in
determining the initiation dumping
margins. Also, during our pre–initiation
analysis, we examined information from
various independent sources provided
either in the petition or, based on our
requests, in supplements to the petition,
which corroborated various elements of
the export price and NV information.
For the final determination, we
compared the average of the initiation
margins to Superpower’s CONNUM–
specific margins and found that the
initiation margin falls within these
margins. No other information was
available for corroboration purposes.
Based on the foregoing, we have
concluded that the initiation dumping
margin is reliable and has probative
value and, therefore, we consider this
average dumping margin to be
corroborated, to the extent practicable.
While Agri–Fab,Inc. argued in its case
brief that Huatian and Nantong should
receive the PRC–wide rate based on the
actual rate calculated for Superpower,
we have assigned the separate–rate
companies the dumping margin of
154.72 percent alleged and revised in
the petition. See Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 3.
Department will now assign in its
NME investigations will be specific
to those producers that supplied the
exporter during the period of
investigation. Note, however, that
one rate is calculated for the
exporter and all of the producers
which supplied subject
merchandise to it during the period
of investigation. This practice
applies both to mandatory
respondents receiving an
individually calculated separate
rate as well as the pool of non–
investigated firms receiving the
weighted–average of the
individually calculated rates. This
practice is referred to as the
application of ‘‘combination rates’’
because such rates apply to specific
combinations of exporters and one
or more producers. The cash–
deposit rate assigned to an exporter
will apply only to merchandise
both exported by the firm in
question and produced by a firm
that supplied the exporter during
the period of investigation.
See Policy Bulletin 05.1, ‘‘Separate Rates
Practice and Application of
Combination Rates in Antidumping
Investigations Involving Non–Market
Economy Countries’’ available on the
Import Administration’s website at
https://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/.
For the final determination, we continue
to apply this practice.
Combination Rates
In the Initiation Notice, the
Department stated that it would
calculate combination rates for certain
respondents that are eligible for a
separate rate in this investigation. See
Certain Tow Behind Lawn Groomers
and Certain Parts Thereof From the
People’s Republic of China: Initiation of
Antidumping Duty Investigation, 73 FR
42315 (July 21, 2008) (‘‘Initiation
Notice’’).
This practice is described in Policy
Bulletin 05.1:
{w}hile continuing the practice of
assigning separate rates only to
exporters, all separate rates that the
154.72
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Final Determination Margins
We determine that the following
weighted–average dumping margins
exist for the period October 1, 2007,
through March 31, 2008:
LAWN GROOMERS FROM THE PRC
Exporter and Producer
Nantong D & B Machinery Co.,
Ltd.1 .........................................
Qingdao Huatian Truck Co., Ltd.,
a.k.a. Qingdao Huatian Hand
Truck Co., Ltd.2 .......................
PRC–wide Entity (including Superpower and Princeway) .......
Weighted–
Average
Margin
(Percent)
154.72
386.28
1 Nantong
D & B Machinery Co., Ltd. exports and manufactures subject merchandise.
2 Qingdao Huatian Truck Co., Ltd. exports
and manufactures subject merchandise.
Disclosure
We will disclose to parties the
calculations performed within five days
of the date of public announcement of
this determination in accordance with
19 CFR 351.224(b). For merchandise
under consideration from the exporter
E:\FR\FM\19JNN1.SGM
19JNN1
29172
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Notices
determination. If the ITC determines
that material injury or threat of material
injury does not exist, the proceeding
will be terminated and all securities
posted will be refunded or canceled. If
the ITC determines that such injury
does exist, the Department will issue an
antidumping duty order directing CBP
to assess upon further instruction by the
Department antidumping duties on all
imports of the subject merchandise
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the effective
date of the suspension of liquidation.
Continuation of Suspension of
Liquidation
In accordance with section
735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing
U.S Customs and Border Protection
(‘‘CBP’’) to continue to suspend
liquidation of all imports of subject
merchandise as described in the ‘‘Scope
of the Investigation’’ section, that are
entered or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after January 28,
2009, which is the date of publication
of the Preliminary Determination in the
Federal Register. We will instruct CBP
to require a cash deposit or the posting
of a bond equal to the weighted–average
dumping margin amount by which the
NV exceeds U.S. price, as follows: (1)
the rate for the exporter/producer
combination listed in the chart above
will be the rate we have determined in
this final determination; (2) for all PRC
exporters of subject merchandise which
have not received their own rate, the
cash–deposit rate will be the PRC–wide
entity rate; and (3) for all non–PRC
exporters of subject merchandise which
have not received their own rate, the
cash–deposit rate will be the rate
applicable to the PRC exporter/producer
combination that supplied that non–
PRC exporter. These suspension–ofliquidation instructions will remain in
effect until further notice.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
producer combinations listed in the
table above that have been granted
separate rates, we have assigned the
initiation rate. Therefore, for
merchandise under consideration from
these exporter producer combinations,
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the
publication date of this final
determination, we will instruct CBP to
require an antidumping cash deposit or
the posting of a bond for each entry
equal to 154.72 percent, as indicated
above. The cash deposit rate for
Superpower, Princeway, and other
exporter–producer combinations is
386.28 percent, as indicated above.
This notice also serves as a reminder
to the parties subject to administrative
protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their
responsibility concerning the
disposition of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely
notification of return or destruction of
APO materials or conversion to judicial
protective order is hereby requested.
Failure to comply with the regulations
and the terms of an APO is a
sanctionable violation. This
determination and notice are issued and
published in accordance with sections
735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
International Trade Commission
Notification
In accordance with section 735(d) of
the Act, we have notified the
International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’)
of our final determination of sales at
LTFV. As our final determination is
affirmative, in accordance with section
735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will
determine whether the domestic
industry in the United States is
materially injured, or threatened with
material injury, by reason of imports or
sales (or the likelihood of sales) for
importation of the subject merchandise
within 45 days of this final
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:25 Jun 18, 2009
Jkt 217001
Notification Regarding APO
Dated: June 12, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
Appendix I
Parties’ Comments
Comment 1: Whether to retain
Superpower’s Business Proprietary
Information (‘‘BPI’’) data
Comment 2: Whether to assign the PRC–
wide rate as total adverse facts available
to both mandatory respondents
Comment 3: Whether to assign the PRC–
wide rate to the separate rate
respondents
Comment 4: Whether to clarify the
scope language for hitches
Comment 5: Whether to amend the
preliminary determination for
Princeway
[FR Doc. E9–14470 Filed 6–18–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
PO 00000
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A–570–894
Certain Tissue Paper Products from
the People’s Republic of China:
Affirmative Final Determination of
Circumvention of the Antidumping
Duty Order
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
FINAL DETERMINATION We determine that
certain tissue paper products exported
to the United States from Thailand by
´
Sunlake Decor Co., Ltd. (Sunlake)1 are
made from jumbo rolls and/or cut sheets
of tissue paper produced in the People’s
Republic of China (PRC), and are
circumventing the antidumping duty
order on certain tissue paper products
from the PRC, as provided in section
781(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act). See Notice of
Amended Final Determination of Sales
at Less than Fair Value and
Antidumping Duty Order: Certain
Tissue Paper Products from the People’s
Republic of China, 70 FR 16223 (March
30, 2005) (Order).
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 19, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gemal Brangman or Brian Smith, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 2, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–3773 or (202) 482–
1776, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On April 30, 2009, the Department of
Commerce (the Department) issued its
affirmative preliminary determination
that certain tissue paper products
produced in, and exported from,
Thailand by Sunlake using PRC–origin
jumbo rolls and/or cut sheets of tissue
paper are circumventing the
antidumping duty order on tissue paper
from the PRC, as provided in section
781(b) of the Act. See Certain Tissue
Paper from the People’s Republic of
China: Affirmative Preliminary
Determination of Circumvention of the
Antidumping Duty Order, 74 FR 20915
(May 6, 2009) (Preliminary
Determination).
On May 1, 2009, the Department
notified the U.S. International Trade
Commission (ITC) of its affirmative
preliminary determination of
1 Sunlake
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\19JNN1.SGM
is a company located in Thailand.
19JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 117 (Friday, June 19, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29167-29172]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14470]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A-570-939
Certain Tow Behind Lawn Groomers and Certain Parts Thereof from
the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 19, 2009.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``Department'') has determined
that certain tow behind lawn groomers and certain parts thereof (``lawn
groomers'') from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'') are being, or
is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value
(``LTFV'') as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the ``Act''). The final dumping margins for this investigation
are listed in the ``Final Determination Margins'' section below. The
period covered by the investigation is October 1, 2007, through March
31, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karine Gziryan, Thomas Martin or
Zhulieta Willbrand, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202) 482-4081, (202) 482-3936, and (202) 482- 3147 respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Department published its preliminary determination of sales at
LTFV on January 28, 2009. See Certain Tow Behind Lawn Groomers and
Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary
[[Page 29168]]
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of
Final Determination, 74 FR 4929 (January 28, 2009) (``Preliminary
Determination''). On February 19, 2009, Jiashan Superpower Tools Co.,
Ltd. (``Superpower''), informed the Department that it would not
participate in the verification of its information and withdrew from
the investigation. See Letter to Secretary of Commerce, ``Certain Tow
Behind Lawn Groomers and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's
Republic of China; A-570-939; Notice by Jiashan Superpower Tools Co.,
Ltd.,'' dated February 19, 2009. On March 2, 2009, Princeway Furniture
(Dong Guan) Co., Ltd. (``Princeway'') also informed the Department that
it would not participate in the verification of its information and
withdrew from the investigation, and Princeway requested that the
Department remove all of its submissions from the administrative
record, certify the destruction of the submissions, and certify the
destruction of Princeway's submissions that are in the possession of
interested parties to the proceeding. See Letter to Secretary of
Commerce, ``Lawn Groomers from China'' dated March 2, 2009. On March 6,
2009, Superpower also requested that the Department remove all of its
business proprietary submissions from the administrative record. See
Letter to Secretary of Commerce, ``Certain Tow Behind Lawn Groomers and
Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China; A-570-939;
Withdrawal of Confidential Business Proprietary Information by Jiashan
Superpower Tools Co., Ltd.,'' dated February 19, 2009. On March 6,
2009, Agri-Fab, Inc. (``Petitioner'') requested that the Department
amend the Preliminary Determination with regards to Princeway. See
Letter to Secretary of Commerce, ``Tow Behind Lawn Groomers and Parts
Thereof from the People's Republic of China, Request to Reconsider and
Amend Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value for
Princeway'' dated March 6, 2009.
On March 12, 2009, Petitioner filed its case brief. After
requesting an extension, Superpower filed a case brief on March 17,
2009. On March 18, 2009, Petitioner filed its rebuttal brief. Neither
Princeway nor Superpower filed a rebuttal brief. No party requested a
hearing.
Scope of the Investigation
The scope of this investigation covers certain non-motorized tow
behind lawn groomers, manufactured from any material, and certain parts
thereof. Lawn groomers are defined as lawn sweepers, aerators,
dethatchers, and spreaders. Unless specifically excluded, lawn groomers
that are designed to perform at least one of the functions listed above
are included in the scope of this investigation, even if the lawn
groomer is designed to perform additional non-subject functions (e.g.,
mowing).
All lawn groomers are designed to incorporate a hitch, of any
configuration, which allows the product to be towed behind a vehicle.
Lawn groomers that are designed to incorporate both a hitch and a push
handle, of any type, are also covered by the scope of this
investigation. The hitch and handle may be permanently attached or
removable, and they may be attached on opposite sides or on the same
side of the lawn groomer. Lawn groomers designed to incorporate a
hitch, but where the hitch is not attached to the lawn groomer, are
also included in the scope of the investigation.
Lawn sweepers consist of a frame, as well as a series of brushes
attached to an axle or shaft which allows the brushing component to
rotate. Lawn sweepers also include a container (which is a receptacle
into which debris swept from the lawn or turf is deposited) supported
by the frame. Aerators consist of a frame, as well as an aerating
component that is attached to an axle or shaft which allows the
aerating component to rotate. The aerating component is made up of a
set of knives fixed to a plate (known as a ``plug aerator''), a series
of discs with protruding spikes (a ``spike aerator''), or any other
configuration, that are designed to create holes or cavities in a lawn
or turf surface. Dethatchers consist of a frame, as well as a series of
tines designed to remove material (e.g., dead grass or leaves) or other
debris from the lawn or turf. The dethatcher tines are attached to and
suspended from the frame. Lawn spreaders consist of a frame, as well as
a hopper (i.e., a container of any size, shape, or material) that holds
a media to be spread on the lawn or turf. The media can be distributed
by means of a rotating spreader plate that broadcasts the media
(``broadcast spreader''), a rotating agitator that allows the media to
be released at a consistent rate (``drop spreader''), or any other
configuration.
Lawn dethatchers with a net fully assembled weight (i.e., without
packing, additional weights, or accessories) of 100 pounds or less are
covered by the scope of the investigation. Other lawn groomers-
sweepers, aerators, and spreaders-with a net fully assembled weight
(i.e., without packing, additional weights, or accessories) of 200
pounds or less are covered by the scope of the investigation.
Also included in the scope of the investigation are modular units,
consisting of a chassis that is designed to incorporate a hitch, where
the hitch may or may not be included, which allows modules that perform
sweeping, aerating, dethatching, or spreading operations to be
interchanged. Modular units-when imported with one or more lawn
grooming modules-with a fully assembled net weight (i.e., without
packing, additional weights, or accessories) of 200 pounds or less when
including a single module, are included in the scope of the
investigation. Modular unit chasses, imported without a lawn grooming
module and with a fully assembled net weight (i.e., without packing,
additional weights, or accessories) of 125 pounds or less, are also
covered by the scope of the investigation. When imported separately,
modules that are designed to perform subject lawn grooming functions
(i.e., sweeping, aerating, dethatching, or spreading), with a fully
assembled net weight (i.e., without packing, additional weights, or
accessories) of 75 pounds or less, and that are imported with or
without a hitch, are also covered by the scope.
Lawn groomers, assembled or unassembled, are covered by this
investigation. For purposes of this investigation, ``unassembled lawn
groomers'' consist of either 1) all parts necessary to make a fully
assembled lawn groomer, or 2) any combination of parts, constituting a
less than complete, unassembled lawn groomer, with a minimum of two of
the following ``major components'':
1) an assembled or unassembled brush housing designed to be used in
a lawn sweeper, where a brush housing is defined as a component housing
the brush assembly, and consisting of a wrapper which covers the brush
assembly and two end plates attached to the wrapper;
2) a sweeper brush;
3) an aerator or dethatcher weight tray, or similar component
designed to allow weights of any sort to be added to the unit;
4) a spreader hopper;
5) a rotating spreader plate or agitator, or other component
designed for distributing media in a lawn spreader;
6) dethatcher tines;
7) aerator spikes, plugs, or other aerating component; or
8) a hitch, defined as a complete hitch assembly comprising of at
least the
[[Page 29169]]
following two major hitch components, tubing and a hitch plate
regardless of the absence of minor components such as pin or fasteners.
Individual hitch component parts, such as tubing, hitch plates, pins or
fasteners are not covered by the scope.
The major components or parts of lawn groomers that are
individually covered by this investigation under the term ``certain
parts thereof'' are: (1) brush housings, where the wrapper and end
plates incorporating the brush assembly may be individual pieces or a
single piece; and (2) weight trays, or similar components designed to
allow weights of any sort to be added to a dethatcher or an aerator
unit.
The products for which relief is sought specifically exclude the
following: 1) agricultural implements designed to work (e.g., churn,
burrow, till, etc.) soil, such as cultivators, harrows, and plows; 2)
lawn or farm carts and wagons that do not groom lawns; 3) grooming
products incorporating a motor or an engine for the purpose of
operating and/or propelling the lawn groomer; 4) lawn groomers that are
designed to be hand held or are designed to be attached directly to the
frame of a vehicle, rather than towed; 5) ``push'' lawn grooming
products that incorporate a push handle rather than a hitch, and which
are designed solely to be manually operated; 6) dethatchers with a net
assembled weight (i.e., without packing, additional weights, or
accessories) of more than 100 pounds, or lawn groomers-sweepers,
aerators, and spreaders-with a net fully assembled weight (i.e.,
without packing, additional weights, or accessories) of more than 200
pounds; and 7) lawn rollers designed to flatten grass and turf,
including lawn rollers which incorporate an aerator component (e.g.,
``drum-style'' spike aerators).
The lawn groomers that are the subject of this investigation are
currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (``HTSUS'') statistical reporting numbers 8432.40.0000,
8432.80.0000, 8432.80.0010, 8432.90.0030, 8432.90.0080, 8479.89.9896,
8479.89.9897, 8479.90.9496, and 9603.50.0000. These HTSUS provisions
are given for reference and customs purposes only, and the description
of merchandise is dispositive for determining the scope of the product
included in this investigation.
Scope Comments
On December 30, 2008, and on January 7, 2009, Brinly-Hardy Company
(``Brinly-Hardy''), a domestic producer of the merchandise under
consideration, submitted comments on the scope of the investigation.
Specifically, Brinly-Hardy requested that the scope be revised to
define one of the eight listed ``major components,'' specifically a
hitch, as a complete hitch assembly, with all necessary components.
Brinly-Hardy requested that individual components such as tubing, hitch
plates or pins, not be covered by the scope.
On January 12, 2009, Petitioner submitted comments in response to
Brinly-Hardy's request. Petitioner agreed that a hitch should be
defined, but stated that a hitch should be defined as consisting of its
own major components, i.e., tubing and a hitch plate, rather than all
necessary components. Petitioner stated that the absence of minor
components such as a hitch pin or fasteners is not intended to remove a
hitch assembly from the definition of a hitch.
We have received no further comments on the scope of the
investigation. Thus, we are making a final determination that hitches
are defined as a complete hitch assembly comprising of at least the
following two major hitch components, tubing and a hitch plate
regardless of the absence of minor components such as pin or fasteners.
The revised scope language is included in the ``Scope of the
Investigation'' section, above. See also ``Issues and Decision
Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Antidumping Duty
Investigation of Certain Tow Behind Lawn Groomers and Certain Parts
Thereof from the People's Republic of China,'' dated concurrently with
this notice, which is hereby adopted by this notice (``Issues and
Decision Memorandum'') at Comment 4.
Analysis of Comments Received
All of the issues that were raised in the case and rebuttal briefs
that were submitted in this investigation, and to which we have
responded, are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
Appendix I to this notice contains a list of the issues that are
addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. The Issues and
Decision Memorandum, which is a public document, is on file in the
Central Records Unit, at the main Commerce Building, Room 1117, and is
accessible on the Web at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and
electronic version of the memorandum are identical in content.
Changes Since the Preliminary Determination
We have made the following changes to our calculations in the
Preliminary Determination:
1. We considered Princeway and Superpower to be part of the PRC-
wide entity because, as a result of their withdrawal from the
investigation and refusal to allow the Department to verify their
respective submitted information, both entities failed to demonstrate
their qualification for a separate rate. See Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 2.
2. For the final determination we continue to assign an AFA rate to
the PRC-wide entity, which now includes Princeway and Superpower. As
AFA, we have assigned the PRC-wide entity a CONNUM-specific dumping
margin, i.e., 386.28 percent, calculated for Superpower in the
Preliminary Determination. See Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 2.
3. We have assigned the separate rate companies a dumping margin
equal to the initiation margin. See Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 3.
4. We made a clarification to the scope language concerning the
definition of hitch. See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4.
Adverse Facts Available
As noted in the ``Background'' section above, Superpower and
Princeway withdrew from the investigation and refused to allow the
Department to verify the information they had submitted in this
proceeding. As a result both entities failed to demonstrate eligibility
for a separate rate and thus are considered part of the PRC-wide
entity.
Section 776(a)(2)(C) and (D) of the Act provides that, if an
interested party significantly impedes a proceeding, or provides
information that cannot be verified, the Department shall use facts
otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination.
Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use an
adverse inference with respect to an interested party if the Department
finds that the party failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of
its ability to comply with a request for information. As the PRC-wide
entity, which includes both Superpower and Princeway, failed to
cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a
request for
[[Page 29170]]
information an adverse inference is warranted under section 776(b) of
the Act.
In our Preliminary Determination, we calculated antidumping duty
margins for both Princeway and Superpower based on their submitted
information. See Preliminary Determination. On February 19, 2009,
Superpower withdrew from the investigation. Also, on March 2, 2009,
Princeway withdrew from the investigation. Thus, both Princeway and
Superpower withdrew from the investigation before the Department had an
opportunity to verify their respective submitted information.
Therefore, because both Princeway and Superpower withdrew from the
investigation and failed to allow the Department to verify their
information, we find that neither has demonstrated their eligibility
for separate-rate status in this investigation and, thus, both are
considered part of the PRC-wide entity. See Section 776(a)(2)(D) of the
Act. Additionally, we find that due to their failure to act to the best
of their ability in responding to the Department's requests for
information, Princeway and Superpower, as part of the PRC-wide entity,
significantly impeded the Department's proceeding. See Section
776(a)(2)(C) and (D) of the Act. Further, we have determined that when
selecting from among facts available, an adverse inference is warranted
for the PRC-wide entity pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act.
The PRC-Wide Rate
Because we begin with the presumption that all companies within a
non-market economy (``NME'') country are subject to government control
and because only the companies listed under the ``Final Determination
Margins'' section, below, have overcome that presumption, we are
applying a single antidumping rate (i.e., the PRC-wide rate) to all
other exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC. These other
companies did not demonstrate entitlement to a separate rate. See,
e.g., Synthetic Indigo From the People's Republic of China; Notice of
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 65 FR 25706,
25707 (May 3, 2000). The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of
subject merchandise except for entries from the companies eligible for
separate rate status.
In the Preliminary Determination, the Department found that certain
companies did not respond to our requests for information. See
Preliminary Determination, 74 FR at 4932. We treated these PRC
producers/exporters as part of the PRC-wide entity because they did not
demonstrate that they operate free of government control over their
export activities. Id. No additional information was placed on the
record with respect to any of these companies after the Preliminary
Determination. Moreover, for the reasons noted above, we also consider
Superpower and Princeway to be part of the PRC-wide entity.
As noted above, section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an
interested party or any other person withholds information that has
been requested by the administering authority, significantly impedes a
proceeding under this title, or provides such information but the
information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i) of the
Act, the administering authority shall, subject to section 782(d) of
the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable
determination. Because the PRC-wide entity did not respond to our
requests for information and because companies within the PRC-wide
entity withheld information requested by the Department, and Superpower
and Princeway, which are part of the PRC-wide entity, did not allow
their information to be verified, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A),
(C), and (D) of the Act, we determine, as in the Preliminary
Determination, that the use of facts otherwise available is appropriate
to determine the PRC-wide rate.
Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among
the facts otherwise available, the Department may employ an adverse
inference if an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to
the best of its ability to comply with requests for information. See
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain
Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products From the Russian
Federation, 65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000). See also Statement of
Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act,
H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, Vol. 1 (1994), at 870. We determine that,
because the PRC-wide entity did not respond to our requests for
information, and Superpower and Princeway, which are part of that
entity, prevented the Department from verifying its information, the
PRC-wide entity has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability.
Therefore, we have determined that, in selecting a dumping margin from
among the facts otherwise available, an adverse inference is
appropriate for the PRC-wide entity.
With respect to adverse facts available (``AFA''), for the final
determination, we have assigned the PRC-wide entity a CONNUM-specific
dumping margin, i.e., 386.28 percent, calculated for Superpower in the
Preliminary Determination. See Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 2. No corroboration of this rate is necessary because we are
relying on information obtained in the course of this investigation,
rather than secondary information. See 19 CFR 351.308(c) and section
776(b) of the Act; see also Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in
Part: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the People's Republic
of China, 73 FR 35652, 35653 (June 24, 2008), and accompanying Issues
and Decision Memorandum at 1. In selecting a facts-available margin, we
sought a margin that is sufficiently adverse so as to effectuate the
statutory purposes of the adverse facts-available rule, which is to
induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate
information in a timely manner. We also sought a margin that is
indicative of the respondents' customary selling practices and is
rationally related to the transactions to which the adverse facts
available are being applied. To that end, we selected the highest
margin on an individual model which fell within the mainstream of
Superpower's transactions (i.e., a model that reflects sales of
products that are representative of the broader range of sales used to
determine U.S. price).
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department begins with
a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are
subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single
antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign
all exporters of merchandise subject to an investigation in an NME
country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is
sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. See
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers From
the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as amplified
by Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Silicon Carbide From the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May
2, 1994); see also 19 CFR 351.107(d).
In the Preliminary Determination, the Department granted separate-
rate status to Superpower, Princeway, Qingdao Huatian Truck Co., Ltd.
(``Huatian''), and Nantong D & B Machinery Co., Ltd. (``Nantong''). As
discussed above, the Department has determined to treat
[[Page 29171]]
Superpower and Princeway as part of the PRC-wide entity. We note that
the information that Superpower and Princeway provided to the
Department to demonstrate the absence of de facto and de jure control
could not be verified due to their failure to cooperate. Consequently
we have not granted Superpower and Princeway separate rates.
In the Preliminary Determination, we found that Huatian and Nantong
demonstrated their eligibility for separate-rate status. See
Preliminary Determination, 74 FR at 4931. Since the publication of the
Preliminary Determination, no parties commented on the separate rate
determinations. We continue to find that the evidence placed on the
record of this investigation by Huatian and Nantong demonstrates both a
de jure and de facto absence of government control with respect to
their exports of the merchandise under investigation. Thus, we continue
to find that Huatian and Nantong are eligible for separate-rate status.
Normally the dumping margin for separate rate companies is
determined based on the estimated weighted-average dumping margins
established for exporters and producers individually investigated,
excluding de minimis margins or margins based entirely on AFA. See
Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act. In the Preliminary Determination, we
assigned Huatian and Nantong the dumping margin established equal to a
simple average of the dumping margins calculated for the two mandatory
respondents, i.e., Superpower and Princeway. See Preliminary
Determination, 74 FR at 4931 and 4935. Since both Superpower and
Princeway are no longer receiving a separate rate, this methodology is
not appropriate. In cases where the estimated weighted-average dumping
margins for all individually investigated respondents are zero, de
minimis, or based entirely on AFA, the Department may use any
reasonable method to assign a rate to the separate rate companies. See
Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act. In this case, where there are no
mandatory respondents receiving a calculated rate and the PRC-wide
entity's rate is based upon total AFA, we find that applying the rate
alleged in the petition, incorporating revisions made in Petitioner's
supplemental responses, to Huatian and Nantong is both reasonable and
reliable for purposes of establishing a separate rate. See Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sodium
Hexametaphosphate From the People's Republic of China, 73 FR 6479
(February 4, 2008) and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum
at Comment 2. Therefore, the Department will assign a separate rate to
Huatian and Nantong using the initiation rate of 154.72 percent,
pursuant to its practice.
The initiation margin assigned to Huatian and Nantong is based on
secondary information. According to section 776 (c) of the Act, when
the Department relies on secondary information, it shall, to the extent
practicable, corroborate that information. During our pre-initiation
analysis of the petition, we examined the information used in the
petition as the basis of export price and normal value (``NV'') and,
where appropriate, revised the calculations used to derive the petition
dumping margins in determining the initiation dumping margins. Also,
during our pre-initiation analysis, we examined information from
various independent sources provided either in the petition or, based
on our requests, in supplements to the petition, which corroborated
various elements of the export price and NV information. For the final
determination, we compared the average of the initiation margins to
Superpower's CONNUM-specific margins and found that the initiation
margin falls within these margins. No other information was available
for corroboration purposes. Based on the foregoing, we have concluded
that the initiation dumping margin is reliable and has probative value
and, therefore, we consider this average dumping margin to be
corroborated, to the extent practicable.
While Agri-Fab,Inc. argued in its case brief that Huatian and
Nantong should receive the PRC-wide rate based on the actual rate
calculated for Superpower, we have assigned the separate-rate companies
the dumping margin of 154.72 percent alleged and revised in the
petition. See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3.
Combination Rates
In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that it would
calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible
for a separate rate in this investigation. See Certain Tow Behind Lawn
Groomers and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China:
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 73 FR 42315 (July 21,
2008) (``Initiation Notice'').
This practice is described in Policy Bulletin 05.1:
{w{time} hile continuing the practice of assigning separate rates
only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now
assign in its NME investigations will be specific to those producers
that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note,
however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the
producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the period of
investigation. This practice applies both to mandatory respondents
receiving an individually calculated separate rate as well as the pool
of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-average of the
individually calculated rates. This practice is referred to as the
application of ``combination rates'' because such rates apply to
specific combinations of exporters and one or more producers. The cash-
deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to merchandise
both exported by the firm in question and produced by a firm that
supplied the exporter during the period of investigation.
See Policy Bulletin 05.1, ``Separate Rates Practice and Application of
Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations Involving Non-Market
Economy Countries'' available on the Import Administration's website at
https://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/. For the final determination,
we continue to apply this practice.
Final Determination Margins
We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins
exist for the period October 1, 2007, through March 31, 2008:
Lawn Groomers from the PRC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
Exporter and Producer Average Margin
(Percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nantong D & B Machinery Co., Ltd.\1\................... 154.72
Qingdao Huatian Truck Co., Ltd., a.k.a. Qingdao Huatian 154.72
Hand Truck Co., Ltd.\2\...............................
PRC-wide Entity (including Superpower and Princeway)... 386.28
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Nantong D & B Machinery Co., Ltd. exports and manufactures subject
merchandise.
\2\ Qingdao Huatian Truck Co., Ltd. exports and manufactures subject
merchandise.
Disclosure
We will disclose to parties the calculations performed within five
days of the date of public announcement of this determination in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). For merchandise under consideration
from the exporter
[[Page 29172]]
producer combinations listed in the table above that have been granted
separate rates, we have assigned the initiation rate. Therefore, for
merchandise under consideration from these exporter producer
combinations, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on
or after the publication date of this final determination, we will
instruct CBP to require an antidumping cash deposit or the posting of a
bond for each entry equal to 154.72 percent, as indicated above. The
cash deposit rate for Superpower, Princeway, and other exporter-
producer combinations is 386.28 percent, as indicated above.
Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are
directing U.S Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to continue to
suspend liquidation of all imports of subject merchandise as described
in the ``Scope of the Investigation'' section, that are entered or
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 28, 2009,
which is the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination in
the Federal Register. We will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or
the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average dumping margin
amount by which the NV exceeds U.S. price, as follows: (1) the rate for
the exporter/producer combination listed in the chart above will be the
rate we have determined in this final determination; (2) for all PRC
exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own
rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the PRC-wide entity rate; and (3)
for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not
received their own rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate
applicable to the PRC exporter/producer combination that supplied that
non-PRC exporter. These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will
remain in effect until further notice.
International Trade Commission Notification
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the
International Trade Commission (``ITC'') of our final determination of
sales at LTFV. As our final determination is affirmative, in accordance
with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will determine whether the
domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or
threatened with material injury, by reason of imports or sales (or the
likelihood of sales) for importation of the subject merchandise within
45 days of this final determination. If the ITC determines that
material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the
proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be
refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does
exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing
CBP to assess upon further instruction by the Department antidumping
duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the
suspension of liquidation.
Notification Regarding APO
This notice also serves as a reminder to the parties subject to
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return or
destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order
is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the
terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. This determination and
notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and
777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: June 12, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix I
Parties' Comments
Comment 1: Whether to retain Superpower's Business Proprietary
Information (``BPI'') data
Comment 2: Whether to assign the PRC-wide rate as total adverse facts
available to both mandatory respondents
Comment 3: Whether to assign the PRC-wide rate to the separate rate
respondents
Comment 4: Whether to clarify the scope language for hitches
Comment 5: Whether to amend the preliminary determination for Princeway
[FR Doc. E9-14470 Filed 6-18-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
