Certain Woven Electric Blankets From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 37001-37007 [E9-17871]
Download as PDF
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Notices
may count toward the actual amount of
extension that the Commissioner of
Patents and Trademarks may award,
APHIS’ determination of the length of a
regulatory review period for a veterinary
biologic will include all of the testing
phase and approval phase as specified
in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(5)(B).
APHIS recently licensed for
production and marketing the veterinary
biologic NAHVAX® Marek’s Disease
Vaccine. Subsequent to this approval,
the Patent and Trademark Office
received a patent term restoration
application for NAHVAX® Marek’s
Disease Vaccine (U.S. Patent No. 5, 965,
138) from Schering Plough Animal
Health Corporation, and the Patent and
Trademark Office requested APHIS’
assistance in determining this patent’s
eligibility for patent term restoration. In
a letter dated February 2, 2009, APHIS
advised the Patent and Trademark
Office that this veterinary biologic had
undergone a regulatory review period
and that the approval of NAHVAX®
Marek’s Disease Vaccine (Marek’s
Disease Vaccine, Serotypes 1 & 3, Live
Herpesvirus Chimera) represented the
first permitted commercial licensing or
use of the product. Subsequently, the
Patent and Trademark Office requested
that APHIS determine the product’s
regulatory review period.
APHIS has determined that the
applicable regulatory review period for
NAHVAX® Marek’s Disease Vaccine is
1,539 days. Of this time, 0 days
occurred during the testing phase of the
regulatory review period, and 1,539
days occurred during the approval
phase. These periods were derived from
the following dates:
1. The date the application for a
license was initially submitted for
approval under the Virus-Serum-Toxin
Act: July 14, 2004. APHIS has verified
the applicant’s claim that the
application was initially submitted on
July 14, 2004.
2. The date the license was issued:
September 29, 2008. APHIS has verified
the applicant’s claim that the license for
the commercial marketing of the vaccine
was issued on September 29, 2008.
This determination of the regulatory
review period establishes the maximum
potential length of a patent extension.
However, the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office applies several
statutory limitations in its calculations
of the actual period for patent extension.
In its application for patent extension,
this applicant seeks 1,539 days of patent
term extension.
Section 124.22 of the regulations
provides that any interested person may
request a revision of the regulatory
review period determination within 30
VerDate Nov<24>2008
19:02 Jul 24, 2009
Jkt 217001
days of the date of this notice (see DATES
above). The request must specify the
following:
• The identity of the product;
• The identity of the applicant for
patent term restoration;
• The docket number of this notice;
and
• The basis for the request for
revision, including any documentary
evidence.
Further, under § 124.30 of the
regulations, any interested person may
file a petition with APHIS, no later than
180 days after the date of this notice (see
DATES above), alleging that a license
applicant did not act with due diligence
in seeking APHIS approval of the
product during the regulatory review
period. The filing, format, and content
of a petition must be as described in the
regulations in ‘‘Subpart D–Due
Diligence Petitions’’ (§§ 124.30 through
124.33).
Authority: 35 U.S.C. 156.
Done in Washington, DC, this 21st day of
July 2009.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. E9–17795 Filed 7–24–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–951]
Certain Woven Electric Blankets From
the People’s Republic of China:
Initiation of Antidumping Duty
Investigation
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: July 27, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Drew Jackson at (202) 482–4406 or
Rebecca Pandolph at (202) 482–3627,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petition
On June 30, 2009, the Department of
Commerce (‘‘Department’’) received an
antidumping duty (‘‘AD’’) petition
concerning imports of certain woven
electric blankets (‘‘woven electric
blankets’’) from the People’s Republic of
China (‘‘PRC’’) filed in proper form by
Jarden Consumer Solutions
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
37001
(‘‘Petitioner’’).1 On July 2, 2009, the
Department issued a request to
Petitioner for additional information
and for clarification of certain areas of
the Petition. Based on the Department’s
request, Petitioner filed a supplement to
the Petition on July 8, 2009
(‘‘Supplement to the Petition’’). On July
10, 2009, the Department requested
further information from Petitioner,
including suggested refinements to the
scope. Based on the Department’s
request, Petitioner filed a second
supplement to the Petition on July 14,
2009 (‘‘Second Supplement to the
Petition’’). Based on conversations with
Petitioner regarding scope and certain
other clarifications, Petitioner filed a
supplement to the Petition on July 15,
2009 (‘‘Third Supplement to the
Petition’’).2 On July 17, 2009, we
received a submission on behalf of a
U.S. importer of woven electric blankets
and its affiliated Chinese producer and
exporter, both interested parties to this
proceeding as defined in section
771(9)(A) of the Act. This submission
challenged the definition of the
domestic like product. Petitioner filed
its reply to this challenge on July 20,
2009.
In accordance with section 732(b) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(‘‘Act’’), Petitioner alleges that imports
of woven electric blankets from the PRC
are being, or are likely to be, sold in the
United States at less than fair value,
within the meaning of section 731 of the
Act, and that such imports materially
injure, and threaten further material
injury to, an industry in the United
States.
The Department finds that Petitioner
filed the Petition on behalf of the
domestic industry because Petitioner is
an interested party, as defined in section
771(9)(C) of the Act, and has
demonstrated sufficient industry
support with respect to the investigation
that it requests the Department to
initiate (see ‘‘Determination of Industry
Support for the Petition’’ below).
1 See Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping
Duties: Certain Woven Electric Blankets from the
People’s Republic of China, dated June 30, 2009
(‘‘Petition’’).
2 See Memorandum from Dana Griffies to the File,
regarding Petition for the Imposition of
Antidumping Duties on Certain Woven Electric
Blankets from the People’s Republic of China:
Suggested Scope Changes, dated July 16, 2009, and
Memorandum from Howard Smith to the File,
regarding Telephone Conversations with Petitioner,
dated July 16, 2009, and Memorandum from Drew
Jackson to the File, regarding Petition for the
Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Certain
Woven Electric Blankets from the People’s Republic
of China: Suggested Scope Changes, dated July 17,
2009.
E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM
27JYN1
37002
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Notices
Scope of Investigation
The products covered by this
investigation are woven electric
blankets from the PRC. For a full
description of the scope of the
investigation, please see the ‘‘Scope of
Investigation’’ in Appendix I of this
notice.
Comments on the Scope of Investigation
During our review of the Petition, we
discussed the scope of the investigation
with Petitioner to ensure that it is an
accurate reflection of the products for
which the domestic industry is seeking
relief. Moreover, as discussed in the
preamble to the Department’s
regulations (Antidumping Duties;
Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR
27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), we are
setting aside a period for interested
parties to raise issues regarding the
product coverage of the scope. The
Department encourages all interested
parties to submit such comments by
August 10, 2009, the first business day
after twenty calendar days from the
signature date of this notice. Comments
should be addressed to Import
Administration’s APO/Dockets Unit,
Room 1870, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
The period for scope consultations is
intended to provide the Department
with ample opportunity to consider all
comments and to consult with parties
prior to the issuance of the preliminary
determination in this investigation.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Comments on Product Characteristics
for the Antidumping Duty
Questionnaire
We are requesting comments from
interested parties regarding the
appropriate physical characteristics of
woven electric blankets to be reported
in response to the Department’s
antidumping questionnaire. This
information will be used to identify the
key physical characteristics of the
subject merchandise in order to more
accurately report the relevant factors of
production, as well as to develop
appropriate product reporting criteria.
Interested parties may provide any
information or comments that they
believe are relevant to the development
of an accurate listing of physical
characteristics. Specifically, they may
provide comments as to which
characteristics are appropriate to use as
(1) general product characteristics and
(2) the product reporting criteria. We
note that it is not always appropriate to
use all product characteristics as
product reporting criteria. We base
product reporting criteria on meaningful
VerDate Nov<24>2008
19:02 Jul 24, 2009
Jkt 217001
commercial differences among products.
In other words, while there may be
some physical product characteristics
utilized by manufacturers to describe
woven electric blankets, it may be that
only a select few product characteristics
take into account commercially
meaningful physical characteristics.
In order to consider the suggestions of
interested parties in developing the
product characteristics for the
antidumping duty questionnaire, we
must receive comments at the abovereferenced address by August 10, 2009.
Additionally, rebuttal comments must
be received by August 17, 2009.
Determination of Industry Support for
the Petition
Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires
that a petition be filed on behalf of the
domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A)
of the Act provides that a petition meets
this requirement if the domestic
producers or workers who support the
petition account for: (i) At least 25
percent of the total production of the
domestic like product; and (ii) more
than 50 percent of the production of the
domestic like product produced by that
portion of the industry expressing
support for, or opposition to, the
petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D)
of the Act provides that, if the petition
does not establish support of domestic
producers or workers accounting for
more than 50 percent of the total
production of the domestic like product,
the Department shall: (i) Poll the
industry or rely on other information in
order to determine if there is support for
the petition, as required by
subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine
industry support using a statistically
valid sampling method to poll the
industry.
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines
the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers as a
whole of a domestic like product. Thus,
to determine whether a petition has the
requisite industry support, the statute
directs the Department to look to
producers and workers who produce the
domestic like product. The International
Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’), which is
responsible for determining whether
‘‘the domestic industry’’ has been
injured, must also determine what
constitutes a domestic like product in
order to define the industry. While both
the Department and the ITC must apply
the same statutory definition regarding
the domestic like product (section
771(10) of the Act), they do so for
different purposes and pursuant to a
separate and distinct authority. In
addition, the Department’s
determination is subject to limitations of
time and information. Although this
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
may result in different definitions of the
like product, such differences do not
render the decision of either agency
contrary to law.3
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the
domestic like product as ‘‘a product
which is like, or in the absence of like,
most similar in characteristics and uses
with, the article subject to an
investigation under this title.’’ Thus, the
reference point from which the
domestic like product analysis begins is
‘‘the article subject to an investigation,’’
(i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to
be investigated, which normally will be
the scope as defined in the petition).
With regard to the domestic like
product, Petitioner did not offer a
definition of domestic like product
distinct from the scope of the
investigation. On July 17, 2009,
Biddeford Blankets, LLC (‘‘Biddeford’’)
a U.S. importer of woven electric
blankets, and Hung Kuo Electronics
(Shenzhen) Company Limited (Hung
Kuo), Biddeford’s affiliated PRC
producer and exporter of woven electric
blankets, submitted a letter challenging
the definition of the domestic like
product, and requesting that the
Department delay its initiation.
Specifically, Biddeford and Hung Kuo
argue that the domestic like product, as
defined in the Petition, is overly narrow
and should include, at a minimum,
electric mattress pads. In addition,
Biddeford and Hung Kuo state that
Westpoint Stevens, a U.S. manufacturer
and seller of electric mattress pads
should be polled to determine whether
it supports or opposes the Petition.
Further, Biddeford and Hung Kuo
request that the Department confirm
Petitioner’s claim that while non-woven
electric blankets could be an acceptable
substitute for woven electric blankets,
non-woven electric blankets are not
produced in the United States. Both
Biddeford and Hung Kuo are interested
parties to this proceeding as defined in
section 771(9)(A) of the Act. On July 20,
2009, Petitioner filed its reply to this
challenge, stating that Biddeford and
Hung Kuo failed to provide any specific
evidence supporting their claim, and
limited their discussion to only a
cursory analysis of the factors used to
make a like product determination. We
have analyzed these comments, and
based on our analysis of the information
submitted on the record, we have
determined that woven electric blankets
constitute a single domestic like product
3 See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp.
2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001), citing Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd.
v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988),
aff’d 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied 492
U.S. 919 (1989).
E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM
27JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Notices
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
and we have analyzed industry support
in terms of that domestic like product.4
In determining whether Petitioner has
standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of
the Act, we considered the industry
support data contained in the Petition
with reference to the domestic like
product as defined in the ‘‘Scope of
Investigation’’ section above and
Appendix I of this notice. To establish
industry support, Petitioner provided its
2008 production of the domestic like
product and compared this to the
estimated total production of the
domestic like product for the entire
domestic industry.5 Petitioner
calculated total domestic production
based on its own production plus data
estimates for two non-petitioning
companies that may have been
producing the domestic like product in
the United States in 2008.6
Our review of the data provided in the
Petition, supplemental submissions, and
other information readily available to
the Department, including a search of
the Internet, indicates that Petitioner
has established industry support. First,
the Petition established support from
domestic producers (or workers)
accounting for more than 50 percent of
the total production of the domestic like
product and, as such, the Department is
not required to take further action in
order to evaluate industry support (e.g.,
polling).7 Second, the domestic
producers (or workers) have met the
statutory criteria for industry support
under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act
because the domestic producers (or
workers) who support the Petition
account for at least 25 percent of the
total production of the domestic like
product.8 Finally, the domestic
producers (or workers) have met the
statutory criteria for industry support
under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act
because the domestic producers (or
workers) who support the Petition
account for more than 50 percent of the
production of the domestic like product
produced by that portion of the industry
expressing support for, or opposition to,
the Petition. Accordingly, the
Department determines that the Petition
4 For a discussion of the domestic like product
analysis in this case, see Antidumping Duty
Investigation Initiation Checklist: Certain Woven
Electric Blankets from the PRC (‘‘Initiation
Checklist’’) at Attachment II (‘‘Industry Support’’),
dated concurrently with this notice and on file in
the Central Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’), Room 1117 of
the main Department of Commerce building.
5 See Petition, at 2–3, Exhibit 2, and Supplement
to the Petition, at 3–4, and Exhibit S1.
6 See id; see also Initiation Checklist at
Attachment II, Industry Support.
7 See Section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act, and
Initiation Checklist at Attachment II.
8 See Initiation Checklist at Attachment II.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
19:02 Jul 24, 2009
Jkt 217001
was filed on behalf of the domestic
industry within the meaning of section
732(b)(1) of the Act.9
The Department finds that Petitioner
filed the Petition on behalf of the
domestic industry because Petitioner is
an interested party (e.g., domestic
producer) as defined in section
771(9)(C) of the Act and has
demonstrated sufficient industry
support with respect to the antidumping
investigation that it is requesting that
the Department initiate.10
Allegations and Evidence of Material
Injury and Causation
Petitioner alleged that the U.S.
industry producing the domestic like
product is being materially injured, or is
threatened with material injury, by
reason of the imports of the subject
merchandise sold at less than normal
value (‘‘NV’’). In addition, Petitioner
alleged that subject imports exceed the
negligibility threshold provided for
under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
Petitioner contended that the
industry’s injured condition is
illustrated by reduced market share,
increased import penetration,
underselling and price depressing and
suppressing effects, lost sales and
revenue, reduced production,
shipments, capacity, and capacity
utilization, reduced employment, and
an overall decline in financial
performance.11 We have assessed the
allegations and supporting evidence
regarding material injury, threat of
material injury, and causation, and have
determined that these allegations are
properly supported by adequate
evidence and meet the statutory
requirements for initiation.12
Period of Investigation
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.204(b)(1), because the Petition was
filed on June 30, 2009, the anticipated
period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is
October 1, 2008, through March 31,
2009.
Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value
The following is a description of the
allegation of sales at less than fair value
upon which the Department has based
its decision to initiate an investigation
of woven electric blankets from the PRC.
The sources of data for the deductions
and adjustments relating to U.S. price
and NV are discussed in the Initiation
id.
id.
11 See Petition, at 11–12, 15–26, Exhibits 2, 18,
20–24, and Supplement to the Petition, at 11, and
Exhibits S12–S15.
12 See Initiation Checklist at Attachment III.
PO 00000
9 See
10 See
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
37003
Checklist. Should the need arise to use
any of this information as facts available
under section 776 of the Act, we may
reexamine the information and revise
the margin calculations, if appropriate.
U.S. Price
Petitioner obtained constructed export
prices (‘‘CEP’’) 13 for woven electric
blankets in four standard sizes: Twin,
full, queen, and king. These prices were
based on U.S. offers for sale of woven
electric blankets manufactured in the
PRC.14 Petitioner presented an affidavit
attesting that the offers were made
during the POI.15
To calculate the net U.S. price,
Petitioner did not deduct from the
starting U.S. prices any CEP selling
expenses or movement expenses other
than the U.S. customs duty of 11.40
percent that is imposed on woven
electric blankets upon importation into
the United States.16 This approach is
conservative in that it does not
understate the net U.S. price.
Normal Value
According to Petitioner, since the PRC
is a non-market economy (‘‘NME’’)
country, it based NV on factors of
production and surrogate values.17 In
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of
the Act, the presumption of NME status
remains in effect until revoked by the
Department. The presumption of NME
status for the PRC has not been revoked
by the Department and, therefore,
remains in effect for purposes of the
initiation of this investigation.18
Accordingly, the NV of the product is
appropriately based on factors of
production valued in a surrogate market
economy country, in accordance with
section 773(c) of the Act. In the course
of this investigation, all parties will
have the opportunity to provide relevant
information related to the issues of the
PRC’s NME status and the granting of
separate rates to individual exporters.
Petitioner used India as the surrogate
country because it claimed India is at a
level of economic development
comparable to that of the PRC and is a
significant producer of woven electric
13 See
Initiation Checklist at 6 for details.
Petition, at 8, and Exhibit 2, and
Supplement to the Petition, at Exhibit S1, and Third
Supplement to the Petition, at 2, and Exhibits S3–
1 and S3–2.
15 See Initiation Checklist for further discussion.
16 See Petition, at 8, and Exhibit 2.
17 See Petition, at 7.
18 See Petition, at 7; see also Memorandum from
the Office of Policy to David M. Spooner, Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration, regarding The
People’s Republic of China Status as a Non-Market
Economy, dated May 15, 2006. This document is
available online at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/download/
prc-nme-status/prc-nme-status-memo.pdf.
14 See
E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM
27JYN1
37004
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Notices
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
blankets.19 In support of this claim,
Petitioner referenced the Department’s
previous findings that India is at a level
of development comparable to the
PRC,20 and provided the names of a
number of Indian manufacturers/
suppliers of electric blankets, and U.N.
data showing that India exported 53.197
metric tons of electric blankets during
2007.21
After examining the information
provided by Petitioner, the Department
has determined that the use of India as
a surrogate country is appropriate for
purposes of initiation. However, after
initiation of the investigation, interested
parties will have the opportunity to
submit comments regarding surrogate
country selection and, pursuant to 19
CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided
an opportunity to submit publicly
available information to value factors of
production within 40 days after the date
of publication of the preliminary
determination.
Petitioner calculated NVs and
dumping margins using the
Department’s NME methodology as
required by 19 CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C)
and 19 CFR 351.408. Petitioner
calculated NVs for woven electric
blankets of four standard sizes: Twin,
full, queen, and king.22 Petitioner
asserted that the production process and
consumption quantities it used in
manufacturing woven electric blankets
are similar to those used by the PRC
manufacturer of the woven electric
blankets for which it obtained the U.S.
price quotes noted above.23 Petitioner
stated that it employed a conservative
methodology in calculating NV by only
valuing the major components of woven
electric blankets, namely the shell of
woven fabric, binding, wire, and
controller.24
Petitioner valued the factors of
production using reasonably available,
public surrogate country data, including
Indian import data from the Indian
Ministry of Commerce, published in the
Monthly Statistics of Foreign Trade of
India as compiled by the Global Trade
Atlas (‘‘GTA’’), the internet version of
the Word Trade Atlas, available at
https://www.gtis.com/gta. Petitioner used
GTA data for the period August 2008,
through January 2009, the most recent
19 See Petition, at 8, and Supplement to the
Petition, at 5 and Exhibit S5.
20 See Petition, at 8.
21 See Supplement to the Petition, at 5 and
Exhibit S5.
22 See Supplement to the Petition, at Exhibit S4;
see also Second Supplement to the Petition, at
Exhibit S2–3.
23 See Petition, at 9, and Exhibit 8, and
Supplement to the Petition, at 9, and Exhibit S1.
24 See Petition, at 8.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
19:02 Jul 24, 2009
Jkt 217001
six months of data available at the time
of the filing of the Petition.25 In
addition, Petitioner used exchange rates,
as reported by the Federal Reserve, to
convert Indian Rupees to U.S. Dollars.26
Petitioner valued shells of woven
fabric, binding, wire, controllers, and
packing cartons using GTA data.27
Petitioner valued direct labor and
packing labor using the wage rate data
published on the Department’s Web site,
at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/05wages/
05wages-051608.html#table1.28
Petitioner valued electricity using
Indian electricity rates from the Central
Electricity Authority in India for 2006.29
Petitioner valued brokerage and
handling costs using an average of costs
incurred by Essar Steel Limited, Agro
Dutch Industries Limited, and Kerjiwal
Paper Ltd., three Indian companies that
participated in antidumping duty
proceedings before the Department.
Petitioner adjusted these values for
inflation using wholesale price index
data published by the International
Monetary Fund, which is available
online at https://www.imfstatistics.org/
imf/.30
Petitioner based factory overhead,
selling, general and administrative
expenses, and profit, on financial data
for large public limited companies as
reported by the Reserve Bank of India
(‘‘RBI’’).31 Although Petitioner searched
the internet, fee-based databases (e.g.,
Dun and Bradstreet, Hoovers) and
records of the Indian Ministry of
Company Affairs, Petitioner was unable
to locate company-specific financial
data for, or aggregate industry financial
data that specifically include, Indian
producers of woven electric blankets.32
Given that the only financial data
reasonably available to Petitioner at this
time are the RBI data, the Department
has accepted the use of RBI data for the
purposes of initiation. See Section 732
(b)(1) of the Act.
25 See Petition, at 9–10, and Exhibit 10, and
Supplement to the Petition, at 5–7, and Exhibit S7,
and Second Supplement to the Petition, at 2, and
Exhibits S2–1 and S2–3.
26 See Petition, at 9, and Supplement to the
Petition, at 7, and Exhibit S8.
27 See Petition, at 9, and Exhibits 9 and 10; see
also Supplement to the Petition, at 5–7, and Exhibit
S6.
28 See Petition, at 10, and Exhibit 12.
29 See Petition, at 10, and Exhibits 14 and 15; see
also Supplement to the Petition, at 7–8, and
Exhibits S4 and S7.
30 See Petition, at 10, and Exhibit 13, and Second
Supplement to the Petition, at 2–3, and Exhibit S2–
4.
31 See Supplement to the Petition, at 9–10, and
Exhibit S11.
32 See Petition, at 10–11 and Exhibit 16, and
Supplement to Petition, at 9–10, and Second
Supplement to the Petition, at 3.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Fair-Value Comparisons
The data provided by Petitioner
provide a reason to believe that imports
of woven electric blankets from the PRC
are being, or are likely to be, sold in the
United States at less than fair value.
Based on comparisons of net U.S. prices
to NVs, Petitioner calculated estimated
dumping margins ranging from 128.32
percent to 394.55 percent.33
Initiation of Antidumping Investigation
Based upon our examination of the
Petition concerning woven electric
blankets from the PRC and other
information reasonably available to the
Department, the Department finds that
the Petition meets the requirements of
section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are
initiating an antidumping duty
investigation to determine whether
imports of woven electric blankets from
the PRC are being, or are likely to be,
sold in the United States at less than fair
value. In accordance with section
733(b)(1)(A) of the Act, unless
postponed, we will make our
preliminary determination no later than
140 days after the date of this initiation.
Targeted-Dumping Allegations
On December 10, 2008, the
Department issued an interim final rule
for the purpose of withdrawing 19 CFR
351.414(f) and (g), the regulatory
provisions governing the targeteddumping analysis in antidumping duty
investigations, and the corresponding
regulation governing the deadline for
targeted-dumping allegations, 19 CFR
351.301(d)(5).34 The Department stated
that ‘‘{w}ithdrawal will allow the
Department to exercise the discretion
intended by the statute and, thereby,
develop a practice that will allow
interested parties to pursue all statutory
avenues of relief in this area.’’ 35
In order to accomplish this objective,
interested parties that wish to make a
targeted-dumping allegation in this
investigation pursuant to section
777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act, should submit
such an allegation to the Department no
later than 45 days before the scheduled
date of the preliminary determination.
Respondent Selection
The Department will request quantity
and value information from the
exporters and producers listed with
complete contact information in the
Petition. The quantity and value data
received from NME exporters/producers
33 See
Second Supplement to Petition, at S2–3.
Withdrawal of the Regulatory Provisions
Governing Targeted Dumping in Antidumping Duty
Investigations, 73 FR 74930 (December 10, 2008).
35 See id. at 74931.
34 See
E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM
27JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Notices
will be used to select mandatory
respondents.
The Department requires respondents
to submit a response to both the
quantity and value questionnaire and
the separate-rate application by the
respective deadlines in order to receive
consideration for separate-rate status.36
Appendix II of this notice contains the
quantity and value questionnaire that
must be submitted by all NME
exporters/producers no later than
August 11, 2009. In addition, the
Department will post the quantity and
value questionnaire along with filing
instructions on its website, at https://
ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-andnews.html.
Separate Rates
In order to obtain separate-rate status
in an NME investigation, exporters and
producers must submit a separate-rate
status application.37 The specific
requirements for submitting the
separate-rate application in this
investigation are outlined in detail in
the application itself, which will be
available on the Department’s Web site
at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlightsand-news.html on the date of
publication of this initiation notice in
the Federal Register. The separate-rate
application will be due sixty (60) days
from the date of publication of this
initiation notice in the Federal Register.
As noted in the ‘‘Respondent Selection’’
section above, the Department requires
that respondents submit a response to
both the quantity and value
questionnaire and the separate rate
application by the respective deadlines
in order to receive consideration for
separate rate status.
Use of Combination Rates in an NME
Investigation
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
The Department will calculate
combination rates for certain
respondents that are eligible for a
separate rate in this investigation. The
36 See Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless
Pressure Pipe from the People’s Republic of China:
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 73 FR
10221, 10225 (February 26, 2008); and Initiation of
Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Artist
Canvas From the People’s Republic of China, 70 FR
21996, 21999 (April 28, 2005).
37 See Import Administration Policy Bulletin,
Number: 05.1, ‘‘Separate-Rates Practice and
Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping
Investigations involving Non-Market Economy
Countries,’’ dated April 5, 2005, available on the
Department’s website at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/
bull05-1.pdf (‘‘Policy Bulletin, Number: 05.1’’); see
also Certain Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel
Line Pipe From the Republic of Korea and the
People’s Republic of China: Initiation of
Antidumping Duty Investigations, 73 FR 23188,
23193 (April 29, 2008) (‘‘Certain Circular Welded
Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from the PRC’’).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
19:02 Jul 24, 2009
Jkt 217001
Separate Rates/Combination Rates
Bulletin states:
{w}hile continuing the practice of assigning
separate rates only to exporters, all separate
rates that the Department will now assign in
its NME investigations will be specific to
those producers that supplied the exporter
during the period of investigation. Note,
however, that one rate is calculated for the
exporter and all of the producers which
supplied subject merchandise to it during the
period of investigation. This practice applies
both to mandatory respondents receiving an
individually calculated separate rate as well
as the pool of non-investigated firms
receiving the weighted-average of the
individually calculated rates. This practice is
referred to as the application of combination
rates because such rates apply to specific
combinations of exporters and one or more
producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to
an exporter will apply only to merchandise
both exported by the firm in question and
produced by a firm that supplied the exporter
during the period of investigation.38
Distribution of Copies of the Petition
In accordance with section
732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.202(f), a copy of the public version
of the Petition has been provided to the
representatives of the Government of the
PRC. Because of the large number of
producers/exporters identified in the
Petition, the Department considers the
service of the public version of the
Petition to the foreign producers/
exporters satisfied by the delivery of the
public version to the Government of the
PRC, consistent with 19 CFR
351.203(c)(2).
37005
Dated: July 20, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
Appendix I—Scope of the Investigation
The scope of this investigation covers
finished, semi-finished, and unassembled
woven electric blankets, including woven
electric blankets commonly referred to as
throws, of all sizes and fabric types, whether
made of man-made fiber, natural fiber or a
blend of both. Semi-finished woven electric
blankets and throws consist of shells of
woven fabric containing wire. Unassembled
woven electric blankets and throws consist of
a shell of woven fabric and one or more of
the following components when packaged
together or in a kit: (1) Wire; (2) controller(s).
The shell of woven fabric consists of two
sheets of fabric joined together forming a
‘‘shell.’’ The shell of woven fabric is
manufactured to accommodate either the
electric blanket’s wiring or a subassembly
containing the electric blanket’s wiring (e.g.,
wiring mounted on a substrate).
A shell of woven fabric that is not
packaged together, or in a kit, with either
wire, controller(s), or both, is not covered by
this investigation even though the shell of
woven fabric may be dedicated solely for use
as a material in the production of woven
electric blankets.
The finished, semi-finished and
unassembled woven electric blankets and
throws subject to this investigation are
currently classifiable under subheading
6301.10.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’).
Although the HTSUS subheading is provided
for convenience and customs purposes, only
the written description of the scope is
dispositive.
Appendix II—Office of AD/CVD
Enforcement
ITC Notification
Quantity and Value Questionnaire
We have notified the ITC of our
initiation, as required by section 732(d)
of the Act.
Requester(s): {insert name of company}:
lllllllllllllllllllll
{company address}
lllllllllllllllllllll
{contact name and title}
lllllllllllllllllllll
{contact telephone number}
lllllllllllllllllllll
{contact fax number}
lllllllllllllllllllll
{contact e-mail address}
Representation: {insert name of counsel
and law firm and contact info}
Case: Certain Woven Electric Blankets from
the People’s Republic of China.
Period of Investigation: October 1, 2008
through March 31, 2009.
Publication Date of Initiation: {insert
publication date}.
Officials in Charge:
Howard Smith, Program Manager, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 4, Telephone: (202)
482–5193, Fax: (202) 482–5105, E-mail
Address: Howard_Smith@ita.doc.gov.
Drew Jackson, International Trade
Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 4, Telephone: (202)
Preliminary Determination by the ITC
The ITC will preliminarily determine,
no later than August 14, 2009, whether
there is a reasonable indication that
imports of woven electric blankets from
the PRC materially injure, or threaten
material injury to, a U.S. industry. A
negative ITC determination covering all
classes or kinds of merchandise covered
by the Petition would result in the
investigation being terminated.
Otherwise, this investigation will
proceed according to statutory and
regulatory time limits.
This notice is issued and published
pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act.
38 See Policy Bulletin, Number: 05.1; see also
Certain Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line
Pipe from the PRC, 73 FR at 23193.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM
27JYN1
37006
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Notices
482–4406, Fax: (202) 482–5105, E-mail
Address: Drew_Jackson@ita.doc.gov.
Rebecca Pandolph, International Trade
Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 4, Telephone: 202–
482–3627, Fax: (202) 482–5105, E-mail
Address:
Rebecca.Pandolph@mail.doc.gov.
Filing Address: U.S. Department of
Commerce, International Trade
Administration, Import Administration,
APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, 1401
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20230, Attn: Drew Jackson, Rebecca
Pandolph.
On July 21, 2009, the Department of
Commerce (‘‘Department’’) announced its
decision to initiate an antidumping duty
investigation to determine whether certain
woven electric blankets from the PRC are
being sold in the United States at less than
fair value during the period of investigation
of October 1, 2008 through March 31, 2009.
Section 777A(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (‘‘Act’’), directs the
Department to calculate individual dumping
margins for each known exporter and
producer of the subject merchandise. Where
it is not practicable to examine all known
producers/exporters of subject merchandise,
as is the case in investigation, section
777A(c)(2) of the Act permits the Department
to examine either (1) a sample of exporters,
producers or types of products that is
statistically valid based on the information
available at the time of selection; or (2)
exporters and producers accounting for the
largest volume of the subject merchandise
from the exporting country that can be
reasonably examined.
In advance of the issuance of the full
antidumping questionnaire, we ask that you
respond to Attachments I of this Quantity
and Value Questionnaire requesting
information on production and the quantity
and U.S. dollar sales value of all your sales
to the United States during the period 1, 2008
through March 31, 2009, covered by the
scope of this investigation (see Attachment
II), produced in the PRC.39 A full and
accurate response to the Quantity and Value
Questionnaire from all participating
respondents is necessary to ensure that the
Department has the requisite information to
appropriately select mandatory respondents.
The Department is also requiring all firms
that wish to qualify for separate-rate status in
this investigation to complete a separate-rate
status application as described in the Notice
of Initiation. In other words, the Department
will not give consideration to any separaterate status application made by parties that
fail to timely respond to the Quality and
Value Questionnaire or fail to timely submit
the requisite separate-rate status application.
To allow for the possibility of sampling
and to complete this segment within the
statutory time frame, the Department will be
Total quantity in terms
of number of blankets
and/or throws 41
Market: United States
Total quantity 42
(in kilograms)
limited in its ability to extend the deadline
for the response to the Quantity and Value
Questionnaire.
A definition of the scope of the
merchandise subject to this review is
included in Attachment II, and general
instructions for responding to this Quantity
and Value Questionnaire are contained in
Attachment III. Your response to this
questionnaire may be subject to on-site
verification by Department officials.
Format for Reporting Quantity and Value of
Sales
In providing the information in the chart
below, please provide the total quantity in
pieces/units, and kilograms, and total value
(in U.S. dollars) of all your sales to the
United States during the period 1, 2008
through March 31, 2009, covered by the
scope of this investigation (see Attachment
II), produced in the PRC.40
• Please include only sales exported by
your company directly to the United States.
• Please do not include any sales of subject
merchandise manufactured in Hong Kong in
your figures.
Additionally, if you believe that you
should be treated as a single entity along
with other named exporters, please complete
the chart, below, both in the aggregate for all
named parties in your group and, in separate
charts, individually for each named entity.
Please label each chart accordingly.
Terms of sale 43
Total value 44
($U.S.)
1. Export Price 45 ............................................
2. Constructed Export Price 46 .......................
3. Further Manufactured 47 .............................
Total ........................................................
41 If
any conversions were used, please provide the conversion formula and source.
any conversions were used, please provide the conversion formula and source.
the extent possible, sales values should be reported based on the same terms (e.g., FOB).
44 Values should be expressed in U.S. dollars. Indicate any exchange rates used and their respective dates and sources.
45 Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as an export price sale when the first sale to an unaffiliated person occurs before the goods are imported
into the United States.
46 Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as a constructed export price sale when the first sale to an unaffiliated person occurs after importation.
However, if the first sale to the unaffiliated person is made by a person in the United States affiliated with the foreign exporter, constructed export price applies even if the sale occurs prior to importation. Do not report the sale to the affiliated party in the United States, rather report the
sale made by the affiliated party to the unaffiliated customer in the United States. If you have further manufactured sales, please report them
under Item 3, rather than under Item 2.
47 ‘‘Further manufactured’’ refers to merchandise that undergoes further manufacture or assembly in the United States before sale to the first
unaffiliated customer.
42 If
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
43 To
39 If your company did not produce the
merchandise under investigation, we request that
these questions be immediately forwarded to the
company that produces the merchandise and
supplies it to you or your customers.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
19:02 Jul 24, 2009
Jkt 217001
40 Please use the invoice date when determining
which sales to include within the period noted
above. Generally, the Department uses invoice date
as the date of sale, as that is when the essential
terms of sale are set. If you believe that another date
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
besides the invoice date would provide a more
accurate representation of your company’s sales
during the designated period, please report sales
based on that date and provide a full explanation.
E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM
27JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Notices
[FR Doc. E9–17871 Filed 7–24–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A–570–898
Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the
People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of June 2008
through November 2008 Semi–Annual
New Shipper Review
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On January 30, 2009, the
Department of Commerce
(‘‘Department’’) initiated a new shipper
review (‘‘NSR’’) of the antidumping
duty order on chlorinated isocyanurates
(‘‘chlorinated isos’’) from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). The period
of review (‘‘POR’’) for this NSR is June
1, 2008, through November 30, 2008.
This NSR covers one producer/exporter
of the subject merchandise, Juancheng
Kangtai Chemical Company, Ltd.
(‘‘Kangtai’’). We preliminarily determine
that Kangtai did not make sales in the
United States at prices below normal
value (‘‘NV’’). If these preliminary
results are adopted in our final results
of review, we will instruct U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to
liquidate entries of merchandise
exported by Kangtai, during the POR
without regard to antidumping duties.
We invite interested parties to comment
on these preliminary results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 27, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lilit
Astvatsatrian or Charles Riggle, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 8, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–6412 or (202) 482–
0650, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Background
On June 24, 2005, the Department
published in the Federal Register the
antidumping duty order on chlorinated
isos from the PRC.1 On December 22,
2008, Kangtai, a foreign producer/
exporter of subject merchandise,
requested that the Department conduct
an NSR of sales of its subject
merchandise during the POR. On
1 See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order:
Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People’s
Republic of China, 70 FR 36561 (June 24, 2005).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
19:02 Jul 24, 2009
Jkt 217001
January 30, 2009, the Department
initiated an NSR of Kangtai.2
On February 2, 2009, the Department
issued its antidumping duty
questionnaire to Kangtai. On February
11, 2009, the Department requested that
the Office of Policy provide a list of
surrogate countries for this NSR.3 On
February 12, 2009, the Office of Policy
issued its list of surrogate countries.4
On April 24, 2009, the Department
issued a letter to interested parties
seeking comments on surrogate country
selection and surrogate values. On May
15, 2009, Kangtai submitted comments
regarding the selection of a surrogate
country.
On February 20, 2009, Kangtai
submitted its section A questionnaire
response (‘‘AQR’’). On March 11, 2009,
Kangtai submitted its sections C and D
questionnaire responses (‘‘CQR and
DQR’’). On March 27, 2009, the
Department issued a supplemental
questionnaire to Kangtai. On April 14,
2009, Kangtai submitted its
supplemental questionnaire response.
On May 29, 2009, the Department
issued a supplemental questionnaire to
Kangtai. On June 12, 2009, Kangtai
submitted its supplemental
questionnaire response. On June 9,
2009, the Department issued a
supplemental questionnaire to Kangtai.
On June 22, 2009, Kangtai submitted its
supplemental questionnaire response.
On June 26, 2009, the Department
issued a supplemental questionnaire to
Kangtai. On July 6, 2009, Kangtai
submitted its supplemental
questionnaire response.
Scope of the Order
The products covered by the order are
chlorinated isos, as described below:
Chlorinated isos are derivatives of
cyanuric acid, described as chlorinated
s–triazine triones. There are three
primary chemical compositions of
chlorinated isos: (1)
trichloroisocyanuric acid (Cl3(NCO)3),
(2) sodium dichloroisocyanurate
(dihydrate) (NaCl2(NCO)3(2H2O), and (3)
sodium dichloroisocyanurate
(anhydrous) (NaCl2(NCO)3). Chlorinated
isos are available in powder, granular,
2 See Chlorinated Isocyanurates From the
People’s Republic of China: Initiation of New
Shipper Review, 74 FR 5639 (January 30, 2009).
3 See Memorandum regarding ‘‘Request for
Surrogate Country Selection: 06/2008 - 11/2008
New Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty
Order on Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the
People’s Republic of China’’ (February 11, 2009).
4 See the Memorandum regarding ‘‘Request for a
List of Surrogate Countries for a New Shipper
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on
Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People’s
Republic of China’’ (February 12, 2009) (‘‘Surrogate
Country List’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
37007
and tableted forms. The order covers all
chlorinated isos. Chlorinated isos are
currently classifiable under subheadings
2933.69.6015, 2933.69.6021,
2933.69.6050, 3808.40.50, 3808.50.40
and 3808.94.50.00 of the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States
(‘‘HTSUS’’). The tariff classification
2933.69.6015 covers sodium
dichloroisocyanurates (anhydrous and
dihydrate forms) and
trichloroisocyanuric acid. The tariff
classifications 2933.69.6021 and
2933.69.6050 represent basket categories
that include chlorinated isos and other
compounds including an unfused
triazine ring. Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the scope of the
order is dispositive.
Non–Market Economy Country
The Department has treated the PRC
as a non–market economy (‘‘NME’’)
country in all past antidumping duty
investigations and administrative
reviews and continues to do so in this
case.5 No interested party in this case
has argued that we should do otherwise.
Designation as an NME country remains
in effect until it is revoked by the
Department. See Section 771(18)(C)(i) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(‘‘Act’’).
Surrogate Country
When the Department is reviewing
imports from an NME country, section
773(c)(1) of the Act directs it, in most
instances, to base NV on the NME
producer’s factors of production
(‘‘FOPs’’). The Act further instructs that
valuation of the FOPs shall be based on
the best available information in the
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 shall utilize, to the extent
possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in
one or more market economy countries
that are: (1) at a level of economic
development comparable to that of the
NME country; and (2) significant
producers of comparable merchandise.
See section 773(c)(4) of the Act. Further,
the Department normally values all
FOPs in a single surrogate country. See
19 CFR 351.408(c)(2). The sources of the
surrogate factor values are discussed
5 See, e.g., Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the
People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR
27104, 27105 (June 8, 2009) (unchanged in the final
results); and Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from
the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR
32118, 32120 (July 7, 2009) (unchanged in the final
results).
E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM
27JYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 142 (Monday, July 27, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37001-37007]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17871]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-951]
Certain Woven Electric Blankets From the People's Republic of
China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: July 27, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Drew Jackson at (202) 482-4406 or
Rebecca Pandolph at (202) 482-3627, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petition
On June 30, 2009, the Department of Commerce (``Department'')
received an antidumping duty (``AD'') petition concerning imports of
certain woven electric blankets (``woven electric blankets'') from the
People's Republic of China (``PRC'') filed in proper form by Jarden
Consumer Solutions (``Petitioner'').\1\ On July 2, 2009, the Department
issued a request to Petitioner for additional information and for
clarification of certain areas of the Petition. Based on the
Department's request, Petitioner filed a supplement to the Petition on
July 8, 2009 (``Supplement to the Petition''). On July 10, 2009, the
Department requested further information from Petitioner, including
suggested refinements to the scope. Based on the Department's request,
Petitioner filed a second supplement to the Petition on July 14, 2009
(``Second Supplement to the Petition''). Based on conversations with
Petitioner regarding scope and certain other clarifications, Petitioner
filed a supplement to the Petition on July 15, 2009 (``Third Supplement
to the Petition'').\2\ On July 17, 2009, we received a submission on
behalf of a U.S. importer of woven electric blankets and its affiliated
Chinese producer and exporter, both interested parties to this
proceeding as defined in section 771(9)(A) of the Act. This submission
challenged the definition of the domestic like product. Petitioner
filed its reply to this challenge on July 20, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties:
Certain Woven Electric Blankets from the People's Republic of China,
dated June 30, 2009 (``Petition'').
\2\ See Memorandum from Dana Griffies to the File, regarding
Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Certain Woven
Electric Blankets from the People's Republic of China: Suggested
Scope Changes, dated July 16, 2009, and Memorandum from Howard Smith
to the File, regarding Telephone Conversations with Petitioner,
dated July 16, 2009, and Memorandum from Drew Jackson to the File,
regarding Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on
Certain Woven Electric Blankets from the People's Republic of China:
Suggested Scope Changes, dated July 17, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (``Act''), Petitioner alleges that imports of woven electric
blankets from the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the
United States at less than fair value, within the meaning of section
731 of the Act, and that such imports materially injure, and threaten
further material injury to, an industry in the United States.
The Department finds that Petitioner filed the Petition on behalf
of the domestic industry because Petitioner is an interested party, as
defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and has demonstrated
sufficient industry support with respect to the investigation that it
requests the Department to initiate (see ``Determination of Industry
Support for the Petition'' below).
[[Page 37002]]
Scope of Investigation
The products covered by this investigation are woven electric
blankets from the PRC. For a full description of the scope of the
investigation, please see the ``Scope of Investigation'' in Appendix I
of this notice.
Comments on the Scope of Investigation
During our review of the Petition, we discussed the scope of the
investigation with Petitioner to ensure that it is an accurate
reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking
relief. Moreover, as discussed in the preamble to the Department's
regulations (Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62
FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), we are setting aside a period for
interested parties to raise issues regarding the product coverage of
the scope. The Department encourages all interested parties to submit
such comments by August 10, 2009, the first business day after twenty
calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Comments should
be addressed to Import Administration's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230. The period for scope consultations is intended to
provide the Department with ample opportunity to consider all comments
and to consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary
determination in this investigation.
Comments on Product Characteristics for the Antidumping Duty
Questionnaire
We are requesting comments from interested parties regarding the
appropriate physical characteristics of woven electric blankets to be
reported in response to the Department's antidumping questionnaire.
This information will be used to identify the key physical
characteristics of the subject merchandise in order to more accurately
report the relevant factors of production, as well as to develop
appropriate product reporting criteria.
Interested parties may provide any information or comments that
they believe are relevant to the development of an accurate listing of
physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to
which characteristics are appropriate to use as (1) general product
characteristics and (2) the product reporting criteria. We note that it
is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product
reporting criteria. We base product reporting criteria on meaningful
commercial differences among products. In other words, while there may
be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to
describe woven electric blankets, it may be that only a select few
product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful
physical characteristics.
In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in
developing the product characteristics for the antidumping duty
questionnaire, we must receive comments at the above-referenced address
by August 10, 2009. Additionally, rebuttal comments must be received by
August 17, 2009.
Determination of Industry Support for the Petition
Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic
producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and
(ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like
product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support
for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of
the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of
domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of
the total production of the domestic like product, the Department
shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to
determine if there is support for the petition, as required by
subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a
statistically valid sampling method to poll the industry.
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the
producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine
whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute
directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the
domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (``ITC''),
which is responsible for determining whether ``the domestic industry''
has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like
product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and
the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic
like product (section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different
purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In
addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of
time and information. Although this may result in different definitions
of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of
either agency contrary to law.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT
2001), citing Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. Supp.
639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert.
denied 492 U.S. 919 (1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a
product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation
under this title.'' Thus, the reference point from which the domestic
like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an
investigation,'' (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the
petition).
With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioner did not offer
a definition of domestic like product distinct from the scope of the
investigation. On July 17, 2009, Biddeford Blankets, LLC
(``Biddeford'') a U.S. importer of woven electric blankets, and Hung
Kuo Electronics (Shenzhen) Company Limited (Hung Kuo), Biddeford's
affiliated PRC producer and exporter of woven electric blankets,
submitted a letter challenging the definition of the domestic like
product, and requesting that the Department delay its initiation.
Specifically, Biddeford and Hung Kuo argue that the domestic like
product, as defined in the Petition, is overly narrow and should
include, at a minimum, electric mattress pads. In addition, Biddeford
and Hung Kuo state that Westpoint Stevens, a U.S. manufacturer and
seller of electric mattress pads should be polled to determine whether
it supports or opposes the Petition. Further, Biddeford and Hung Kuo
request that the Department confirm Petitioner's claim that while non-
woven electric blankets could be an acceptable substitute for woven
electric blankets, non-woven electric blankets are not produced in the
United States. Both Biddeford and Hung Kuo are interested parties to
this proceeding as defined in section 771(9)(A) of the Act. On July 20,
2009, Petitioner filed its reply to this challenge, stating that
Biddeford and Hung Kuo failed to provide any specific evidence
supporting their claim, and limited their discussion to only a cursory
analysis of the factors used to make a like product determination. We
have analyzed these comments, and based on our analysis of the
information submitted on the record, we have determined that woven
electric blankets constitute a single domestic like product
[[Page 37003]]
and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like
product.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in
this case, see Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist:
Certain Woven Electric Blankets from the PRC (``Initiation
Checklist'') at Attachment II (``Industry Support''), dated
concurrently with this notice and on file in the Central Records
Unit (``CRU''), Room 1117 of the main Department of Commerce
building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In determining whether Petitioner has standing under section
732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data
contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product
as defined in the ``Scope of Investigation'' section above and Appendix
I of this notice. To establish industry support, Petitioner provided
its 2008 production of the domestic like product and compared this to
the estimated total production of the domestic like product for the
entire domestic industry.\5\ Petitioner calculated total domestic
production based on its own production plus data estimates for two non-
petitioning companies that may have been producing the domestic like
product in the United States in 2008.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Petition, at 2-3, Exhibit 2, and Supplement to the
Petition, at 3-4, and Exhibit S1.
\6\ See id; see also Initiation Checklist at Attachment II,
Industry Support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our review of the data provided in the Petition, supplemental
submissions, and other information readily available to the Department,
including a search of the Internet, indicates that Petitioner has
established industry support. First, the Petition established support
from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50
percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, as
such, the Department is not required to take further action in order to
evaluate industry support (e.g., polling).\7\ Second, the domestic
producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry
support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic
producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for at least 25
percent of the total production of the domestic like product.\8\
Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory
criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act
because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition
account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like
product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support
for, or opposition to, the Petition. Accordingly, the Department
determines that the Petition was filed on behalf of the domestic
industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act, and Initiation
Checklist at Attachment II.
\8\ See Initiation Checklist at Attachment II.
\9\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department finds that Petitioner filed the Petition on behalf
of the domestic industry because Petitioner is an interested party
(e.g., domestic producer) as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act
and has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the
antidumping investigation that it is requesting that the Department
initiate.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation
Petitioner alleged that the U.S. industry producing the domestic
like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with
material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise
sold at less than normal value (``NV''). In addition, Petitioner
alleged that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold
provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
Petitioner contended that the industry's injured condition is
illustrated by reduced market share, increased import penetration,
underselling and price depressing and suppressing effects, lost sales
and revenue, reduced production, shipments, capacity, and capacity
utilization, reduced employment, and an overall decline in financial
performance.\11\ We have assessed the allegations and supporting
evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and
causation, and have determined that these allegations are properly
supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for
initiation.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Petition, at 11-12, 15-26, Exhibits 2, 18, 20-24, and
Supplement to the Petition, at 11, and Exhibits S12-S15.
\12\ See Initiation Checklist at Attachment III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Investigation
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), because the Petition was
filed on June 30, 2009, the anticipated period of investigation
(``POI'') is October 1, 2008, through March 31, 2009.
Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
The following is a description of the allegation of sales at less
than fair value upon which the Department has based its decision to
initiate an investigation of woven electric blankets from the PRC. The
sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S.
price and NV are discussed in the Initiation Checklist. Should the need
arise to use any of this information as facts available under section
776 of the Act, we may reexamine the information and revise the margin
calculations, if appropriate.
U.S. Price
Petitioner obtained constructed export prices (``CEP'') \13\ for
woven electric blankets in four standard sizes: Twin, full, queen, and
king. These prices were based on U.S. offers for sale of woven electric
blankets manufactured in the PRC.\14\ Petitioner presented an affidavit
attesting that the offers were made during the POI.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Initiation Checklist at 6 for details.
\14\ See Petition, at 8, and Exhibit 2, and Supplement to the
Petition, at Exhibit S1, and Third Supplement to the Petition, at 2,
and Exhibits S3-1 and S3-2.
\15\ See Initiation Checklist for further discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To calculate the net U.S. price, Petitioner did not deduct from the
starting U.S. prices any CEP selling expenses or movement expenses
other than the U.S. customs duty of 11.40 percent that is imposed on
woven electric blankets upon importation into the United States.\16\
This approach is conservative in that it does not understate the net
U.S. price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Petition, at 8, and Exhibit 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Normal Value
According to Petitioner, since the PRC is a non-market economy
(``NME'') country, it based NV on factors of production and surrogate
values.\17\ In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the
presumption of NME status remains in effect until revoked by the
Department. The presumption of NME status for the PRC has not been
revoked by the Department and, therefore, remains in effect for
purposes of the initiation of this investigation.\18\ Accordingly, the
NV of the product is appropriately based on factors of production
valued in a surrogate market economy country, in accordance with
section 773(c) of the Act. In the course of this investigation, all
parties will have the opportunity to provide relevant information
related to the issues of the PRC's NME status and the granting of
separate rates to individual exporters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Petition, at 7.
\18\ See Petition, at 7; see also Memorandum from the Office of
Policy to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, regarding The People's Republic of China Status as a
Non-Market Economy, dated May 15, 2006. This document is available
online at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/download/prc-nme-status/prc-nme-status-memo.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioner used India as the surrogate country because it claimed
India is at a level of economic development comparable to that of the
PRC and is a significant producer of woven electric
[[Page 37004]]
blankets.\19\ In support of this claim, Petitioner referenced the
Department's previous findings that India is at a level of development
comparable to the PRC,\20\ and provided the names of a number of Indian
manufacturers/suppliers of electric blankets, and U.N. data showing
that India exported 53.197 metric tons of electric blankets during
2007.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Petition, at 8, and Supplement to the Petition, at 5
and Exhibit S5.
\20\ See Petition, at 8.
\21\ See Supplement to the Petition, at 5 and Exhibit S5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After examining the information provided by Petitioner, the
Department has determined that the use of India as a surrogate country
is appropriate for purposes of initiation. However, after initiation of
the investigation, interested parties will have the opportunity to
submit comments regarding surrogate country selection and, pursuant to
19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an opportunity to submit
publicly available information to value factors of production within 40
days after the date of publication of the preliminary determination.
Petitioner calculated NVs and dumping margins using the
Department's NME methodology as required by 19 CFR 351.202(b)(7)(i)(C)
and 19 CFR 351.408. Petitioner calculated NVs for woven electric
blankets of four standard sizes: Twin, full, queen, and king.\22\
Petitioner asserted that the production process and consumption
quantities it used in manufacturing woven electric blankets are similar
to those used by the PRC manufacturer of the woven electric blankets
for which it obtained the U.S. price quotes noted above.\23\ Petitioner
stated that it employed a conservative methodology in calculating NV by
only valuing the major components of woven electric blankets, namely
the shell of woven fabric, binding, wire, and controller.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See Supplement to the Petition, at Exhibit S4; see also
Second Supplement to the Petition, at Exhibit S2-3.
\23\ See Petition, at 9, and Exhibit 8, and Supplement to the
Petition, at 9, and Exhibit S1.
\24\ See Petition, at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioner valued the factors of production using reasonably
available, public surrogate country data, including Indian import data
from the Indian Ministry of Commerce, published in the Monthly
Statistics of Foreign Trade of India as compiled by the Global Trade
Atlas (``GTA''), the internet version of the Word Trade Atlas,
available at https://www.gtis.com/gta. Petitioner used GTA data for the
period August 2008, through January 2009, the most recent six months of
data available at the time of the filing of the Petition.\25\ In
addition, Petitioner used exchange rates, as reported by the Federal
Reserve, to convert Indian Rupees to U.S. Dollars.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See Petition, at 9-10, and Exhibit 10, and Supplement to
the Petition, at 5-7, and Exhibit S7, and Second Supplement to the
Petition, at 2, and Exhibits S2-1 and S2-3.
\26\ See Petition, at 9, and Supplement to the Petition, at 7,
and Exhibit S8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioner valued shells of woven fabric, binding, wire,
controllers, and packing cartons using GTA data.\27\ Petitioner valued
direct labor and packing labor using the wage rate data published on
the Department's Web site, at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/05wages/05wages-051608.html#table1.\28\ Petitioner valued electricity using
Indian electricity rates from the Central Electricity Authority in
India for 2006.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See Petition, at 9, and Exhibits 9 and 10; see also
Supplement to the Petition, at 5-7, and Exhibit S6.
\28\ See Petition, at 10, and Exhibit 12.
\29\ See Petition, at 10, and Exhibits 14 and 15; see also
Supplement to the Petition, at 7-8, and Exhibits S4 and S7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioner valued brokerage and handling costs using an average of
costs incurred by Essar Steel Limited, Agro Dutch Industries Limited,
and Kerjiwal Paper Ltd., three Indian companies that participated in
antidumping duty proceedings before the Department. Petitioner adjusted
these values for inflation using wholesale price index data published
by the International Monetary Fund, which is available online at https://www.imfstatistics.org/imf/.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See Petition, at 10, and Exhibit 13, and Second Supplement
to the Petition, at 2-3, and Exhibit S2-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioner based factory overhead, selling, general and
administrative expenses, and profit, on financial data for large public
limited companies as reported by the Reserve Bank of India
(``RBI'').\31\ Although Petitioner searched the internet, fee-based
databases (e.g., Dun and Bradstreet, Hoovers) and records of the Indian
Ministry of Company Affairs, Petitioner was unable to locate company-
specific financial data for, or aggregate industry financial data that
specifically include, Indian producers of woven electric blankets.\32\
Given that the only financial data reasonably available to Petitioner
at this time are the RBI data, the Department has accepted the use of
RBI data for the purposes of initiation. See Section 732 (b)(1) of the
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See Supplement to the Petition, at 9-10, and Exhibit S11.
\32\ See Petition, at 10-11 and Exhibit 16, and Supplement to
Petition, at 9-10, and Second Supplement to the Petition, at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair-Value Comparisons
The data provided by Petitioner provide a reason to believe that
imports of woven electric blankets from the PRC are being, or are
likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Based
on comparisons of net U.S. prices to NVs, Petitioner calculated
estimated dumping margins ranging from 128.32 percent to 394.55
percent.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See Second Supplement to Petition, at S2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initiation of Antidumping Investigation
Based upon our examination of the Petition concerning woven
electric blankets from the PRC and other information reasonably
available to the Department, the Department finds that the Petition
meets the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are
initiating an antidumping duty investigation to determine whether
imports of woven electric blankets from the PRC are being, or are
likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. In
accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act, unless postponed, we
will make our preliminary determination no later than 140 days after
the date of this initiation.
Targeted-Dumping Allegations
On December 10, 2008, the Department issued an interim final rule
for the purpose of withdrawing 19 CFR 351.414(f) and (g), the
regulatory provisions governing the targeted- dumping analysis in
antidumping duty investigations, and the corresponding regulation
governing the deadline for targeted-dumping allegations, 19 CFR
351.301(d)(5).\34\ The Department stated that ``{w{time} ithdrawal will
allow the Department to exercise the discretion intended by the statute
and, thereby, develop a practice that will allow interested parties to
pursue all statutory avenues of relief in this area.'' \35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See Withdrawal of the Regulatory Provisions Governing
Targeted Dumping in Antidumping Duty Investigations, 73 FR 74930
(December 10, 2008).
\35\ See id. at 74931.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to accomplish this objective, interested parties that wish
to make a targeted-dumping allegation in this investigation pursuant to
section 777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act, should submit such an allegation to
the Department no later than 45 days before the scheduled date of the
preliminary determination.
Respondent Selection
The Department will request quantity and value information from the
exporters and producers listed with complete contact information in the
Petition. The quantity and value data received from NME exporters/
producers
[[Page 37005]]
will be used to select mandatory respondents.
The Department requires respondents to submit a response to both
the quantity and value questionnaire and the separate-rate application
by the respective deadlines in order to receive consideration for
separate-rate status.\36\ Appendix II of this notice contains the
quantity and value questionnaire that must be submitted by all NME
exporters/producers no later than August 11, 2009. In addition, the
Department will post the quantity and value questionnaire along with
filing instructions on its website, at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe from
the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty
Investigation, 73 FR 10221, 10225 (February 26, 2008); and
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Artist Canvas
From the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 21996, 21999 (April 28,
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate Rates
In order to obtain separate-rate status in an NME investigation,
exporters and producers must submit a separate-rate status
application.\37\ The specific requirements for submitting the separate-
rate application in this investigation are outlined in detail in the
application itself, which will be available on the Department's Web
site at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html on the date
of publication of this initiation notice in the Federal Register. The
separate-rate application will be due sixty (60) days from the date of
publication of this initiation notice in the Federal Register. As noted
in the ``Respondent Selection'' section above, the Department requires
that respondents submit a response to both the quantity and value
questionnaire and the separate rate application by the respective
deadlines in order to receive consideration for separate rate status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See Import Administration Policy Bulletin, Number: 05.1,
``Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in
Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market Economy Countries,''
dated April 5, 2005, available on the Department's website at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf (``Policy Bulletin, Number:
05.1''); see also Certain Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line
Pipe From the Republic of Korea and the People's Republic of China:
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations, 73 FR 23188, 23193
(April 29, 2008) (``Certain Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel
Line Pipe from the PRC'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use of Combination Rates in an NME Investigation
The Department will calculate combination rates for certain
respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this
investigation. The Separate Rates/Combination Rates Bulletin states:
{w{time} hile continuing the practice of assigning separate rates
only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now
assign in its NME investigations will be specific to those producers
that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note,
however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the
producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the period
of investigation. This practice applies both to mandatory
respondents receiving an individually calculated separate rate as
well as the pool of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-
average of the individually calculated rates. This practice is
referred to as the application of combination rates because such
rates apply to specific combinations of exporters and one or more
producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply
only to merchandise both exported by the firm in question and
produced by a firm that supplied the exporter during the period of
investigation.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ See Policy Bulletin, Number: 05.1; see also Certain
Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from the PRC, 73 FR
at 23193.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution of Copies of the Petition
In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petition has been
provided to the representatives of the Government of the PRC. Because
of the large number of producers/exporters identified in the Petition,
the Department considers the service of the public version of the
Petition to the foreign producers/exporters satisfied by the delivery
of the public version to the Government of the PRC, consistent with 19
CFR 351.203(c)(2).
ITC Notification
We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section
732(d) of the Act.
Preliminary Determination by the ITC
The ITC will preliminarily determine, no later than August 14,
2009, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of woven
electric blankets from the PRC materially injure, or threaten material
injury to, a U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination covering all
classes or kinds of merchandise covered by the Petition would result in
the investigation being terminated. Otherwise, this investigation will
proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of
the Act.
Dated: July 20, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix I--Scope of the Investigation
The scope of this investigation covers finished, semi-finished,
and unassembled woven electric blankets, including woven electric
blankets commonly referred to as throws, of all sizes and fabric
types, whether made of man-made fiber, natural fiber or a blend of
both. Semi-finished woven electric blankets and throws consist of
shells of woven fabric containing wire. Unassembled woven electric
blankets and throws consist of a shell of woven fabric and one or
more of the following components when packaged together or in a kit:
(1) Wire; (2) controller(s). The shell of woven fabric consists of
two sheets of fabric joined together forming a ``shell.'' The shell
of woven fabric is manufactured to accommodate either the electric
blanket's wiring or a subassembly containing the electric blanket's
wiring (e.g., wiring mounted on a substrate).
A shell of woven fabric that is not packaged together, or in a
kit, with either wire, controller(s), or both, is not covered by
this investigation even though the shell of woven fabric may be
dedicated solely for use as a material in the production of woven
electric blankets.
The finished, semi-finished and unassembled woven electric
blankets and throws subject to this investigation are currently
classifiable under subheading 6301.10.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''). Although the HTSUS
subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, only
the written description of the scope is dispositive.
Appendix II--Office of AD/CVD Enforcement
Quantity and Value Questionnaire
Requester(s): {insert name of company{time} :
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
{company address{time}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
{contact name and title{time}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
{contact telephone number{time}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
{contact fax number{time}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
{contact e-mail address{time}
Representation: {insert name of counsel and law firm and contact
info{time}
Case: Certain Woven Electric Blankets from the People's Republic
of China.
Period of Investigation: October 1, 2008 through March 31, 2009.
Publication Date of Initiation: {insert publication date{time} .
Officials in Charge:
Howard Smith, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4,
Telephone: (202) 482-5193, Fax: (202) 482-5105, E-mail Address:
Howard_Smith@ita.doc.gov.
Drew Jackson, International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 4, Telephone: (202)
[[Page 37006]]
482-4406, Fax: (202) 482-5105, E-mail Address: Drew_Jackson@ita.doc.gov.
Rebecca Pandolph, International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 4, Telephone: 202-482-3627, Fax: (202) 482-5105,
E-mail Address: Rebecca.Pandolph@mail.doc.gov.
Filing Address: U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade
Administration, Import Administration, APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870,
1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, Attn: Drew
Jackson, Rebecca Pandolph.
On July 21, 2009, the Department of Commerce (``Department'')
announced its decision to initiate an antidumping duty investigation
to determine whether certain woven electric blankets from the PRC
are being sold in the United States at less than fair value during
the period of investigation of October 1, 2008 through March 31,
2009.
Section 777A(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(``Act''), directs the Department to calculate individual dumping
margins for each known exporter and producer of the subject
merchandise. Where it is not practicable to examine all known
producers/exporters of subject merchandise, as is the case in
investigation, section 777A(c)(2) of the Act permits the Department
to examine either (1) a sample of exporters, producers or types of
products that is statistically valid based on the information
available at the time of selection; or (2) exporters and producers
accounting for the largest volume of the subject merchandise from
the exporting country that can be reasonably examined.
In advance of the issuance of the full antidumping
questionnaire, we ask that you respond to Attachments I of this
Quantity and Value Questionnaire requesting information on
production and the quantity and U.S. dollar sales value of all your
sales to the United States during the period 1, 2008 through March
31, 2009, covered by the scope of this investigation (see Attachment
II), produced in the PRC.\39\ A full and accurate response to the
Quantity and Value Questionnaire from all participating respondents
is necessary to ensure that the Department has the requisite
information to appropriately select mandatory respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ If your company did not produce the merchandise under
investigation, we request that these questions be immediately
forwarded to the company that produces the merchandise and supplies
it to you or your customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department is also requiring all firms that wish to qualify
for separate-rate status in this investigation to complete a
separate-rate status application as described in the Notice of
Initiation. In other words, the Department will not give
consideration to any separate-rate status application made by
parties that fail to timely respond to the Quality and Value
Questionnaire or fail to timely submit the requisite separate-rate
status application.
To allow for the possibility of sampling and to complete this
segment within the statutory time frame, the Department will be
limited in its ability to extend the deadline for the response to
the Quantity and Value Questionnaire.
A definition of the scope of the merchandise subject to this
review is included in Attachment II, and general instructions for
responding to this Quantity and Value Questionnaire are contained in
Attachment III. Your response to this questionnaire may be subject
to on-site verification by Department officials.
Format for Reporting Quantity and Value of Sales
In providing the information in the chart below, please provide
the total quantity in pieces/units, and kilograms, and total value
(in U.S. dollars) of all your sales to the United States during the
period 1, 2008 through March 31, 2009, covered by the scope of this
investigation (see Attachment II), produced in the PRC.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Please use the invoice date when determining which sales to
include within the period noted above. Generally, the Department
uses invoice date as the date of sale, as that is when the essential
terms of sale are set. If you believe that another date besides the
invoice date would provide a more accurate representation of your
company's sales during the designated period, please report sales
based on that date and provide a full explanation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please include only sales exported by your company
directly to the United States.
Please do not include any sales of subject merchandise
manufactured in Hong Kong in your figures.
Additionally, if you believe that you should be treated as a
single entity along with other named exporters, please complete the
chart, below, both in the aggregate for all named parties in your
group and, in separate charts, individually for each named entity.
Please label each chart accordingly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total quantity in
terms of number of Total quantity Total value \44\
Market: United States blankets and/or \42\ (in Terms of sale \43\ ($U.S.)
throws \41\ kilograms)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Export Price \45\............
2. Constructed Export Price \46\
3. Further Manufactured \47\....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ If any conversions were used, please provide the conversion formula and source.
\42\ If any conversions were used, please provide the conversion formula and source.
\43\ To the extent possible, sales values should be reported based on the same terms (e.g., FOB).
\44\ Values should be expressed in U.S. dollars. Indicate any exchange rates used and their respective dates and
sources.
\45\ Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as an export price sale when the first sale to an unaffiliated person
occurs before the goods are imported into the United States.
\46\ Generally, a U.S. sale is classified as a constructed export price sale when the first sale to an
unaffiliated person occurs after importation. However, if the first sale to the unaffiliated person is made by
a person in the United States affiliated with the foreign exporter, constructed export price applies even if
the sale occurs prior to importation. Do not report the sale to the affiliated party in the United States,
rather report the sale made by the affiliated party to the unaffiliated customer in the United States. If you
have further manufactured sales, please report them under Item 3, rather than under Item 2.
\47\ ``Further manufactured'' refers to merchandise that undergoes further manufacture or assembly in the United
States before sale to the first unaffiliated customer.
[[Page 37007]]
[FR Doc. E9-17871 Filed 7-24-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P