Certain Woven Electric Blankets From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 5567-5575 [2010-2309]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 22 (Wednesday, February 3, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5567-5575]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-2309]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-951]


Certain Woven Electric Blankets From the People's Republic of 
China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Postponement of Final Determination

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

DATES: Effective Date: February 3, 2010.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily 
determines that certain woven electric blankets (woven electric 
blankets) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) are being, or are 
likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), 
as provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Act). The estimated dumping margins are shown in the ``Preliminary 
Determination'' section of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Drew Jackson or Howard Smith, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4406 or 482-5193, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On June 30, 2009, the Department received an antidumping duty 
petition concerning imports of woven electric blankets from the PRC 
filed in proper form by Jarden Consumer Solutions (Petitioner). See 
Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties: Certain Woven 
Electric Blankets from the People's Republic of China, dated June 30, 
2009 (Petition). The Department initiated an antidumping duty 
investigation of woven electric blankets from the PRC on July 20, 2009. 
See Certain Woven Electric Blankets From the People's Republic of 
China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 74 FR 37001 (July 
27, 2009) (Initiation Notice).
    On July 20, 2009, the Department requested quantity and value (Q&V) 
information from the 30 companies that are identified in the petition 
as potential producers or exporters of woven electric blankets from the 
PRC. See ``Respondent Selection in the Antidumping Duty Investigation 
of Woven Electric Blankets From the People's Republic of China,'' dated 
September 3, 2009 (Respondent Selection Memorandum). The

[[Page 5568]]

Department received timely responses to its Q&V questionnaire from the 
following companies: Hung Kuo Electronic (Shenzhen) Company Limited 
(Hung Kuo); Ningbo Zhonglei Maofangzhi Ranzheng Co., Ltd. (Ningbo 
Zhonglei); Zhejiang Hewei Knitting Technology Co., Ltd.; Ningbo Jifa 
Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd. (Jifa); Ningbo Jinchun Electric 
Appliances Co., Ltd. (Jinchun); \1\ Ningbo V.K. Industry & Trading Co., 
Ltd. (Ningbo V.K.); and Chengdu Rainbow Appliance (Group) Sharers Co., 
Ltd. The Department confirmed that 19 of the 30 companies received the 
Q&V questionnaire, while the international courier service shipment 
tracking results showed that DHL had arranged for delivery of the 
Department's Q&V questionnaire to an additional 10 companies. See 
``Respondent Selection Memorandum.'' Additionally, one of the 
Department's Q&V questionnaires was returned to the Department due to 
an incorrect address provided by Petitioner. Only the above-named 
companies responded to the Department's Q&V questionnaire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Jifa and Jinchun submitted a combined Q&V response. These 
companies stated that they should be collapsed for purposes of this 
investigation. See Jifa and Jichun's August 11, 2009, Q&V response. 
For further discussion of this issue, see the section entitled, 
``Separate Rates,'' below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 13, 2009, the International Trade Commission (ITC) 
preliminarily determined that there is a reasonable indication that an 
industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with 
material injury by reason of imports of woven electric blankets from 
the PRC. See Woven Electric Blankets From China, Investigation No. 731-
TA-1163 (Preliminary), 74 FR 42323 (August 21, 2009). Also, in August 
2009, Petitioner submitted comments to the Department regarding the 
physical characteristics of subject merchandise that it argued should 
be used in comparing sales prices with normal value (NV).
    On September 3, 2009, the Department selected Hung Kuo as the 
mandatory respondent and issued an antidumping questionnaire to the 
company. See ``Respondent Selection Memorandum.'' Hung Kuo submitted 
timely responses to the Department's questionnaire on September 3, 
2009, October 16, 2009, and October 27, 2009. On September 25, 2009, 
the Department received properly filed separate-rate applications from 
Jifa, Jinchun, and Ningbo V.K.
    The Department issued supplemental questionnaires to, and received 
responses from Hung Kuo, Jifa, Jinchun, and Ningbo V.K. from October 
through January 2010. Petitioner submitted comments to the Department 
regarding Hung Kuo's questionnaire and supplemental questionnaire 
responses from June 2009, through January 2010.
    On October 30, 2009, the Department released a memorandum to 
interested parties which listed potential surrogate countries and 
invited interested parties to comment on surrogate country and 
surrogate value selection. During November and December 2009, and 
January 2010, Petitioner and Hung Kuo submitted comments on the 
appropriate surrogate country and surrogate values. The submitted 
surrogate value data submitted by Petitioner and Hung Kuo are for 
India.
    On November 5, 2009, Petitioner requested postponement of the 
preliminary determination. On November 16, 2009, the Department 
extended this preliminary determination by fifty days. See Certain 
Woven Electric Blankets From the People's Republic of China: 
Postponement of Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty 
Investigation, 74 FR 60236 (November 20, 2009). On January 14, 2010, 
Hung Kuo requested that the Department extend the final determination 
in this case. See the ``Postponement of Final Determination'' section 
of this notice below.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (POI) is October 1, 2008, through March 
31, 2009. This period corresponds to the two most recently completed 
fiscal quarters prior to the month in which the petition was filed 
(i.e., June 2009). See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).

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.

Scope Comments

    In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations, we 
set aside a period of time in our Initiation Notice for parties to 
raise issues regarding product coverage, and encouraged all parties to 
submit comments within 20 calendar days of the signature date of that 
notice. See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 
FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997), see also Initiation Notice. Before the 
Department initiated the instant investigation, interested parties 
submitted comments regarding the proposed scope of the investigation; 
however, the Department made no changes to the proposed scope of the 
investigation. See Initiation Notice. After initiation, the Department 
received no additional comments concerning the scope of the woven 
electric blankets antidumping duty investigation, and, therefore, the 
Department has not modified the scope.

Non-Market Economy Treatment

    The Department considers the PRC to be a non-market economy (NME) 
country. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any 
determination that a country is an NME country shall remain in effect 
until revoked by the administering authority. See, e.g., Tapered Roller 
Bearings and Parts Thereof (TRBs), Finished and Unfinished, From the 
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 2001-2002 
Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review, 68 FR 7500 
(February 14, 2003), unchanged in TRBs, Finished and Unfinished, From 
the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 2001-2002 
Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review, 68 FR 70488 
(December 18, 2003). The Department has not revoked the PRC's status as 
an NME country. Therefore, in this preliminary

[[Page 5569]]

determination, we have treated the PRC as an NME country and applied 
our current NME methodology.

Surrogate Country and Value Comments

    On October 30, 2009, the Department released a Policy Memorandum to 
interested parties identifying potential surrogate countries and 
provided parties with an opportunity to submit comments regarding the 
selection of a surrogate country in the instant investigation. See 
Memorandum to Howard Smith, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations Office 
4, from Kelly Parkhill, Acting Director for Policy, Office of Policy, 
``Request for A List of Surrogate Countries for an Antidumping Duty 
Investigation of Certain Woven Electric Blankets (WEB) from the 
People's Republic of China (PRC),'' dated October 28, 2009 (Office of 
Policy Surrogate Country List Memorandum). The countries identified in 
that memorandum as being at a level of economic development comparable 
to the PRC for the specified POI are India, Indonesia, the Philippines, 
Colombia, Thailand, and Peru. On November 20, 2009, the Department 
received comments on surrogate country selection and surrogate value 
information from Petitioner and Hung Kuo. On December 4, 2009, 
Petitioner and Hung Kuo submitted rebuttal comments. Both Petitioner 
and Hung Kuo assert that the Department should select India as the 
appropriate surrogate country. No other interested parties commented on 
the selection of a surrogate country. For a detailed discussion of the 
selection of the surrogate country, see the ``Surrogate Country'' 
section below.

Surrogate Country

    When the Department is investigating imports from an NME, section 
773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV, in most circumstances, on 
the NME producer's factors of production (FOP) valued in a surrogate 
market-economy country or countries considered to be appropriate by the 
Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing 
the FOP, the Department shall utilize, to the extent possible, the 
prices or costs of FOP in one or more market-economy countries that are 
at a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME 
country and are significant producers of comparable merchandise. The 
sources of the surrogate values we have used in this investigation are 
discussed under the ``Normal Value'' section below.
    The Department determined that India, the Philippines, Indonesia, 
Colombia, Thailand and Peru are countries comparable to the PRC in 
terms of economic development. See ``Office of Policy Surrogate Country 
List Memorandum.'' Once the countries that are economically comparable 
to the PRC have been identified, we select an appropriate surrogate 
country by determining whether an economically comparable country is a 
significant producer of comparable merchandise and whether the data for 
valuing FOP is both available and reliable. See id. In their November 
20, 2009, submissions, Hung Kuo and Petitioner stated that the 
Department should select India as a surrogate country because it 
satisfies the statutory requirements for the selection of a surrogate 
country since it is at a level of economic development that is 
comparable to the PRC, and is a significant producer of merchandise 
comparable to the merchandise under investigation. Hung Kuo and 
Petitioner also put information on the record demonstrating that the 
Department can value the major FOP for subject merchandise using 
reliable, publicly available data from Indian sources. See Hung Kuo's 
and Petitioner's November 20, 2009, surrogate country and surrogate 
value comments. No other party provided comments on the record 
concerning the surrogate country.
    Based on evidence placed on the record, we have determined that it 
is appropriate to use India as a surrogate country pursuant to section 
773(c)(4) of the Act based on the following: (1) It is at a level of 
economic development comparable to the PRC pursuant to section 
773(c)(4) of the Act; (2) it is a significant producer of comparable 
merchandise; and (3) we have reliable data from India that we can use 
to value the FOP. See Hung Kuo's and Petitioner's November 20, 2009, 
surrogate country and surrogate value comments; see also Hung Kuo's and 
Petitioner's December 4, 2009, surrogate country and surrogate value 
rebuttal comments. Thus, to calculate NV, we are using Indian prices, 
when available and appropriate, to value the FOPs of Hung Kuo, the 
mandatory respondent. We have obtained and relied upon publicly 
available information wherever possible. See Surrogate Value 
Memorandum, dated January 26, 2010 (Surrogate Value Memorandum).
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), for the final 
determination in an antidumping duty investigation, interested parties 
may submit publicly available information to value the FOP within 40 
days after the date of publication of the preliminary determination.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final 
determination of this investigation, interested parties may submit 
factual information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual 
information submitted by an interested party less than ten days 
before, on, or after, the applicable deadline for submission of such 
factual information. However, the Department notes that 19 CFR 
351.301(c)(1) permits new information only insofar as it rebuts, 
clarifies, or corrects information recently placed on the record. 
The Department generally will not accept the submission of 
additional, previously absent-from-the-record alternative surrogate 
value information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). See Glycine from 
the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Final Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809 
(October 17, 2007), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 
at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate Rates

    In the Initiation Notice, the Department notified parties of the 
application process by which exporters and producers may obtain 
separate-rate status in NME investigations. The process requires 
exporters and producers to submit a separate-rate status 
application.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and 
Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations 
involving Non-Market Economy Countries (April 5, 2005), available at 
https://ia.ita.doc.gov, which states: ``While continuing the practice 
of assigning separate rates only to exporters, all separate rates 
that the Department will now assign in its NME investigations will 
be specific to those producers that supplied the exporter during the 
period of investigation. Note, however, that one rate is calculated 
for the exporter and all of the producers which supplied subject 
merchandise to it during the period of investigation. This practice 
applied both to mandatory respondents receiving an individually 
calculated separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated 
firms receiving the weighted-average of the individually calculated 
rates. This practice is referred to as the application of 
``combination rates'' because such rates apply to specific 
combinations of exporters and one or more producers. The cash-
deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to merchandise 
both exported by the firm in question and produced by a firm that 
supplied the exporter during the period of investigation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department has a 
rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are 
subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single 
antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all 
exporters of merchandise subject in an NME country this single rate 
unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent 
so as to be entitled to a separate rate. Exporters can demonstrate this 
independence through the absence of both de jure and de facto 
governmental control over export activities. The Department analyzes 
each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test arising from 
the Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less

[[Page 5570]]

Than Fair Value: Sparklers From the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 
20588 (May 6, 1991) (Sparklers), as further developed in Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide 
From the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (Silicon 
Carbide). However, if the Department determines that a company is 
wholly foreign-owned or located in a market economy, then a separate-
rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether it is independent 
from government control.

A. Separate Rate Applicants \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ All separate rate applicants receiving a separate rate are 
hereby referred to collectively as the ``SR Recipients.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Wholly Foreign-Owned
    Hung Kuo, the mandatory respondent, reported that it is wholly 
owned by individuals or companies located in a market economy in its 
separate rate application. See Hung Kuo's September 29, 2009, Section A 
questionnaire response at 6. Therefore, because the record indicates 
that it is wholly foreign-owned, and we have no evidence otherwise 
indicating that it is under the control of the PRC government, in 
accordance with Department practice, we determined that further 
separate rates analysis is not necessary to determine whether this 
company is independent from government control. See, e.g., Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Creatine 
Monohydrate From the People's Republic of China, 64 FR 71104-05 
(December 20, 1999) (where the respondent was wholly foreign-owned and, 
thus, qualified for a separate rate). Accordingly, we have 
preliminarily granted a separate rate to Hung Kuo Electronics 
(Shenzhen) Company Limited.
2. Wholly Chinese-Owned
    One separate rate applicant, Ningbo V.K., stated that it is a 
wholly Chinese-owned company. See Ningbo V.K.'s September 25, 2009 
Separate Rate Application (Ningbo V.K.'s SRA) at 7-10. Therefore, the 
Department must analyze whether this respondent can demonstrate the 
absence of both de jure and de facto governmental control over export 
activities.
3. Joint Ventures Between Chinese and Foreign Companies
    Two companies, Jifa and Jinchun, submitted a combined separate rate 
application. In the separate rate application, Jifa reported that it is 
a joint venture company invested by one Chinese legal person and one 
Hong Kong individual; Jinchun reported that it is wholly-owned by a 
Hong Kong individual. See Jifa and Jinchun's September 25, 2009, 
separate rate application (Jifa/Jinchun's SRA) at 8. Jifa and Jinchun 
also reported that they are affiliated through common ownership and 
that they share the same board members and general managers. See Jifa 
and Jinchun's November 19, 2009, supplemental questionnaire response, 
at 1-2. Thus, the record supports a preliminary finding that Jifa and 
Jichun meet the definition of affiliated parties pursuant to sections 
771(33)(G) of the Act. Further, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1), we 
preliminarily find that it is appropriate to treat Jifa and Jinchun as 
a single entity because: (1) They have production facilities for 
similar or identical products that would not require substantial 
retooling of either facility in order to restructure manufacturing 
priorities; and (2) there is a significant potential for the 
manipulation of price or production. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.401(f)(2) we preliminarily find that a significant potential for 
the manipulation of price or production exists because Jifa and Jinchun 
share a high level of common ownership, share a general manager and a 
board member, and share production facilities and employees.
    Because the Jifa/Jinchun collapsed entity is a joint venture 
between a PRC and a foreign (i.e., Hong Kong) company, the Department 
has also analyzed whether the Jifa/Jinchun collapsed entity has 
demonstrated the absence of de jure and de facto governmental control 
over its respective export activities.
a. Absence of De Jure Control
    The Department considers the following de jure criteria in 
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate 
rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an 
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative 
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal 
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See 
Sparklers, at 20589.
    Ningbo V.K. and the collapsed Jifa/Jinchun entity provided evidence 
demonstrating the following: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations 
associated with each exporter's business and export licenses; (2) there 
are applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of each 
company; and (3) and there are formal measures by the government 
decentralizing control of each company. See Ningbo V.K.'s SRA at 7-10. 
See also Jifa/Jinchun's SRA at 7-10. Accordingly, based on this record 
evidence, we preliminarily find that Ningbo V.K. and the collapsed 
Jifa/Jinchun entity have demonstrated an absence of de jure 
governmental control.
b. Absence of De Facto Control
    Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating 
whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of 
its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or are 
subject to the approval of a governmental agency; (2) whether the 
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other 
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government 
in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) 
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and 
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or 
financing of losses. See Silicon Carbide at 22586-87; see also Notice 
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl 
Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May 8, 
1995). The Department has determined that an analysis of de facto 
control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in fact, 
subject to a degree of governmental control which would preclude the 
Department from assigning separate rates.
    We have determined that the evidence on the record supports a 
preliminary finding of de facto absence of governmental control with 
respect to Ningbo V.K., and the collapsed Jifa/Jinchun entity, based on 
record statements and supporting documentation showing that the 
companies: (1) Set their own export prices independent of the 
government and without the approval of a government authority; (2) 
retain the proceeds from their sales and make independent decisions 
regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses; (3) have the 
authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; and (4) 
have autonomy from the government regarding the selection of 
management. See Ningbo V.K.'s SRA at 10-17; Jifa/Jinchun's SRA at 11-
18; see also Ningbo V.K's November 10, 2009, supplemental questionnaire 
response.
    The evidence placed on the record of this investigation by Hung 
Kuo, Ningbo V.K., and the collapsed Jifa/Jinchun entity, demonstrate an 
absence of ownership by NME residents or entities, and an absence of de 
jure and de facto government control with respect to the

[[Page 5571]]

exporters' exports of the merchandise under investigation, in 
accordance with the criteria identified in Sparklers and Silicon 
Carbide. Therefore, we have preliminarily granted Hung Kuo, Ningbo 
V.K., and the collapsed Jifa/Jinchun entity, separate rate status. 
Consistent with Department practice, we calculated a company-specific 
dumping margin for Hung Kuo and assigned this margin to Ningbo V.K., 
and the collapsed Jifa/Jinchun entity. See, e.g., Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final 
Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical 
Circumstances, in Part: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From the 
People's Republic of China, 73 FR 5500 (January 30, 2008), unchanged in 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative 
Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part: Light-Walled 
Rectangular Pipe and Tube From the People's Republic of China, 73 FR 
35652 (June 24, 2008) (LWR from the PRC).

The PRC-Wide Entity

    The Department has data indicating that there were more exporters 
of woven electric blankets from the PRC than those responding to our 
request for Q&V information during the POI. See ``Respondent Selection 
Memorandum.'' We issued our request for Q&V information to 30 potential 
Chinese exporters of the merchandise under investigation, in addition 
to posting the Q&V questionnaire on the Department's website. While 
information on the record of this investigation indicates that there 
are other producers/exporters of woven electric blankets in the PRC, we 
received only seven timely filed Q&V responses. See id. Although all 
exporters were given an opportunity to provide Q&V information, not all 
exporters provided a response to the Department's Q&V letter. 
Therefore, the Department has preliminarily determined that there were 
exporters/producers of the merchandise under investigation during the 
POI from the PRC that did not respond to the Department's request for 
information. We have treated these PRC producers/exporters as part of 
the PRC-wide entity because they did not qualify for a separate rate. 
See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 
Postponement of Final Determination, and Preliminary Partial 
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts 
Thereof From the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 77121, 77128 
(December 29, 2005), unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Final Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical 
Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From the People's 
Republic of China, 71 FR 29303 (May 22, 2006).
    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that the Department shall, 
subject to subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available 
in reaching the applicable determination if an interested party: (A) 
Withholds information that has been requested by the Department; (B) 
fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or 
manner requested, subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act; 
(C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute; 
or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be 
verified.
    As noted above, the PRC-wide entity withheld information requested 
by the Department. As a result, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the 
Act, we find it appropriate to base the PRC-wide dumping margin on 
facts otherwise available. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Preliminary Determination of 
Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain 
Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 4986 
(January 31, 2003), unchanged in Notice of Final Antidumping Duty 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Critical 
Circumstances: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic 
of Vietnam, 68 FR 37116 (June 23, 2003).
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among 
the facts otherwise available, the Department may employ an adverse 
inference if an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to 
the best of its ability to comply with requests for information. See 
Statement of Administrative Action, accompanying the Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, Vol. I at 843 (1994) (SAA), 
reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040 at 870. See also, Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled 
Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products From the Russian Federation, 
65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000). Because the PRC-wide entity did 
not respond to the Department's requests for information, the 
Department has concluded that the PRC-wide entity has failed to 
cooperate to the best of its ability. Therefore, the Department 
preliminarily finds that, in selecting from among the facts available, 
an adverse inference is appropriate.
    Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to rely upon, 
as adverse facts available (AFA): (1) Information derived from the 
petition; (2) the final determination from the LTFV investigation; (3) 
a previous administrative review; or (4) any other information placed 
on the record. In selecting a rate for AFA, the Department selects one 
that is sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the purpose of the 
facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the Department 
with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.'' See Notice 
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Static Random 
Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan, 63 FR 8909 (February 23, 
1998). It is the Department's practice to select, as AFA, the higher 
of: (a) The highest margin alleged in the petition or (b) the highest 
calculated rate for any respondent in the investigation, to the extent 
that it can be corroborated (assuming the rate is based on secondary 
information). See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products From the 
People's Republic of China, 65 FR 34660 (May 31, 2000), and 
accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum at Facts Available. In the 
instant investigation, as AFA, we have preliminarily assigned to the 
PRC-wide entity, the highest corroborated margin alleged in the 
Petition, which is 174.85 percent. The dumping margin for the PRC-wide 
entity applies to all entries of the merchandise under investigation 
except for entries of subject merchandise produced and exported by Hung 
Kuo, Ningbo V.K., and Jifa/Jinchun.

Companies Not Receiving a Separate Rate

    In the Initiation Notice, the Department requested that all 
companies wishing to qualify for separate rate status in this 
investigation submit a separate rate status application. See Initiation 
Notice. Two exporters, Zhejiang Hewei Knitting Technology Co., Ltd. and 
Ningbo Zhonglei Maofangzhi Ranzheng Co., submitted timely responses to 
the Department's Q&V questionnaire but did not provide separate rate 
applications, and, therefore, have not demonstrated their eligibility 
for separate rate status in this investigation. As a result, the 
Department is treating these Chinese exporters as part of the PRC-wide 
entity.

Corroboration of Information

    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies 
on

[[Page 5572]]

secondary information rather than on information obtained in the course 
of an investigation as facts available, it must, to the extent 
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources 
reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is described as 
``information derived from the petition that gave rise to the 
investigation or review, the final determination concerning merchandise 
subject to this investigation, or any previous review under section 751 
concerning the merchandise subject to this investigation.'' \5\ To 
``corroborate'' means simply that the Department will satisfy itself 
that the secondary information to be used has probative value. 
Independent sources used to corroborate may include, for example, 
published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and 
information obtained from interested parties during the particular 
investigation. To corroborate secondary information, the Department 
will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance 
of the information used.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Sodium Hexametaphosphate From the People's Republic of China, 73 FR 
6479, 6481 (February 4, 2008), quoting SAA at 870.
    \6\ See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or 
Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan; 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and 
Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 
(November 6, 1996), unchanged in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller 
Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components 
Thereof, From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825 (March 
13, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The AFA rate that the Department used for the PRC-wide entity is 
from the Petition. Based on our examination of information on the 
record, including United States price and NV, we find that there is a 
sufficient basis to find that the Petition margin selected as the AFA 
rate, 174.85 percent, has probative value. In this case, we have 
selected a margin that is not so much greater than the highest CONNUM-
specific margin calculated for Hung Kuo in this proceeding that it can 
be considered not to have probative value. See ``Hung Kuo Analysis 
Memorandum.'' Petitioners' methodology for calculating the United 
States price and NV in the Petition is discussed in the Initiation 
Notice. Accordingly, we conclude that, using Hung Kuo's highest CONNUM-
specific margin as a limited reference point, the highest Petition 
margin that can be corroborated within the meaning of the statute is 
174.85 percent, which is sufficiently adverse so as to induce 
cooperation such that an uncooperative party does not benefit from its 
failure to cooperate.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Wire Decking from the People's Republic of China: Notice 
of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Postponement of Final Determination 75 FR 1597, 1603 (January 12, 
2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair Value Comparisons

    In accordance with section 777(A) of the Act, to determine whether 
Hung Kuo, the mandatory respondent, sold woven electric blankets to the 
United States at LTFV, we compared the weighted-average constructed 
export price (CEP) of the woven electric blankets to the NV of the 
woven electric blankets, as described in the ``U.S. Price,'' and 
``Normal Value'' sections of this notice.

U.S. Price

Constructed Export Price

    Although Hung Kuo reported that it made both export price (EP) and 
CEP sales to the United States during the POI, the Department has 
preliminarily determined that all of Hung Kuo's reported sales were, in 
fact, CEP sales. See Hung Kuo's October 16 2009, Section C 
Questionnaire Response at 8-9. According to section 772(a) of the Act, 
if the foreign producer or exporter makes a sale to the first 
unaffiliated U.S. customer prior to importation of subject merchandise 
into the United States, then the sale shall be classified as an EP 
sale. However, pursuant to section 772(b) of the Act, if the subject 
merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States 
before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the 
producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with 
the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the 
producer or exporter, then the sale shall be classified as a CEP sale. 
Additionally, CEP sales can be made by either the foreign producer/
exporter or the foreign producer/exporter's U.S. affiliate, while EP 
sales ``can only be made by the producer or exporter of the 
merchandise,'' (sales ``made by a U.S. affiliate can only be CEP''). 
See AK Steel v. United States, 226 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2000). 
Accordingly, the primary focus of the analysis the Department 
undertakes to determine whether a sale is properly classified as EP or 
CEP is: (1) Whether the sale or transaction takes place inside or 
outside the United States; and (2) whether the sale or transaction is 
made by an exporter's United States affiliate. See id at 1370.
    The record indicates that the first sales or transactions to an 
unaffiliated customer occurred in the United States. See Hung Kuo's 
December 4, 2009, supplemental questionnaire response at Exhibit 4. 
Additionally, the record also indicates that such sales or transactions 
to unaffiliated customers were made by Hung Kuo's U.S. affiliate, 
Biddeford Blankets. See id. For a discussion of the proprietary details 
of Hung Kuo's reported EP transactions, see ``Hung Kuo Analysis 
Memorandum,'' dated January 26, 2010. Accordingly, although Hung Kuo 
reported certain sales as EP transactions, rather than CEP 
transactions, because we determined, based on the record evidence, that 
all first sales to unaffiliated customers occurred in the United States 
and were between Biddeford Blankets and the unaffiliated U.S. 
customers, pursuant to section 772(b) of the Act, we classified all 
reported EP sales as CEP sales for the purposes of this preliminary 
determination.
    In accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we calculated 
CEP by deducting, where applicable, the following expenses from the 
starting price (gross unit price) charged to the first unaffiliated 
customer in the United States: sales discounts, foreign inland freight 
from plant to the port of exportation, foreign brokerage and handling, 
ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland freight from port to the 
warehouse, U.S. customs duty, other U.S. transportation costs, and U.S. 
brokerage and handling. Further, in accordance with section 772(d)(1) 
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402(b), where appropriate, we deducted from 
the starting price the following selling expenses associated with 
economic activities occurring in the United States: credit expenses, 
inventory carrying costs, warranty expenses, other direct selling 
expenses, and indirect selling expenses. We calculated Hung Kuo's 
credit expenses and inventory carrying costs based on a short-term 
interest rate for commercial and industrial loans by commercial banks 
published by the Federal Reserve. We reduced movement expenses, where 
appropriate, by the amount of freight revenue paid by the customer to 
Hung Kuo's U.S. affiliate, Biddeford Blankets. In accordance with our 
practice in the recently completed administrative review of 
polyethylene retail carrier bags from the PRC, we capped the amount of 
freight revenue deducted at no greater than the amount of movement 
expenses in the U.S. market. See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 
the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 74 FR 6857 (February 11, 2009). In addition,

[[Page 5573]]

pursuant to sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act, we made an 
adjustment to the starting price for CEP profit.
    We note that Petitioner argued that the Department should deduct, 
as a direct selling expense, the value of Hung Kuo's reported 
accommodation returns and defective returns, which Hung Kuo reported as 
quantity adjustments. See Petitioner's December 10, 2009, submission to 
the Department. Based on record evidence and in accordance with the 
Department's treatment of warranty expenses, we have preliminarily 
determined that it is appropriate to deduct, as a direct selling 
expense, the full value of refunds issued to customers for Hung Kuo's 
reported defective returns. See Hung Kuo's January 20, 2010, 
supplemental questionnaire response. With respect to Hung Kuo's 
reported accommodation returns, however, there is no record evidence 
that Hung Kuo or its U.S. affiliate incurs any direct selling expense 
attributable to these returns, other than repacking expenses associated 
with re-entering the merchandise into inventory for resale. Therefore, 
the Department has only deducted repacking expenses from the starting 
price to account for these returns. See id. at 2-6. For a detailed 
description of all adjustments, see ``Hung Kuo Analysis Memo,'' dated 
January 26, 2010.

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine NV using an FOP methodology if the merchandise is exported 
from a NME country and the information does not permit the calculation 
of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed 
value under section 773(a) of the Act. Thus, in accordance with section 
773(c) of the Act, because available information did not permit the NV 
to be determined under section 773(a) of the Act, we constructed NV 
from the FOPs employed by Hung Kuo to manufacture subject merchandise 
during the POI. Specifically, we calculated NV by adding together the 
value of the FOPs, general expenses, profit, and packing costs. We 
relied upon the FOPs reported by Hung Kuo with the exception of the 
per-unit consumption of woven textile reported for king size blankets. 
Our review of the record indicates that the per-unit consumption of 
woven textile for king size blankets has been misreported (i.e., the 
per-unit consumption rate of king size was less than that of blankets 
of a smaller size). Thus, pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act, as 
facts otherwise available, we replaced the per-unit consumption of 
woven textile reported by Hung Kuo for king size blankets with an 
average per-unit consumption that is based on the per-unit consumption 
of woven textile reported by Hung Kuo for queen, twin, and full size 
blankets adjusted to account for differences between the dimensions of 
these products and the dimensions of the king size blanket. See ``Hung 
Kuo Analysis Memorandum''; see also Hung Kuo's January 13, 2010 
submission to the Department at Exhibit 2. We valued the FOPs using 
prices and financial statements from the surrogate country, India. If 
market economy suppliers, who were paid in a market economy currency, 
supplied over 33 percent of the total volume of a material input 
purchased from all sources during the POI, pursuant to Department 
practice, we based the input value on the actual price charged by the 
supplier. See Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, 
Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for 
Comments, 71 FR 61716 (October 19, 2006); see also ``Hung Kuo Analysis 
Memorandum.'' In selecting surrogate values, we followed, to the extent 
practicable, the Department's practice of choosing values which are 
non-export average values, contemporaneous with, or closest in time to, 
the POI, product-specific, and tax-exclusive. See, e.g., Notice of 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative 
Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of 
Final Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From 
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), 
unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic 
of Vietnam, 69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004). We also considered the 
quality of the source of surrogate information in selecting surrogate 
values. See, e.g., Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished 
or Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results 
of the 2007-2008 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 
74 FR 32539 (July 8, 2009), unchanged in Tapered Roller Bearings and 
Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results of the 2007-2008 Administrative Review of the 
Antidumping Duty Order, 75 FR 844 (January 6, 2010).
    We valued material inputs and packing by multiplying the amount of 
the factor consumed in producing subject merchandise by the average 
unit value of the factor. In addition, we added freight costs to the 
surrogate costs that we calculated for material inputs. We calculated 
freight costs by multiplying surrogate freight rates by the shorter of 
the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory that 
produced the subject merchandise or the distance from the nearest 
seaport to the factory that produced the subject merchandise, as 
appropriate. This adjustment is in accordance with the Court of Appeals 
for the Federal Circuit's decision in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 
F. 3d 1401, 1407-1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See ``Hung Kuo Analysis 
Memorandum.'' Where we could only obtain surrogate values that were not 
contemporaneous with the POI, we inflated (or deflated) the surrogate 
values using the Indian Wholesale Price Index (WPI) as published in the 
International Financial Statistics of the International Monetary Fund.
    Further, in calculating surrogate values from Indian imports, we 
disregarded imports from Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand because 
in other proceedings the Department found that these countries maintain 
broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies. See Notice 
of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields From the People's 
Republic of China, 67 FR 11670 (March 15, 2002); see also Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final 
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color Television 
Receivers From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 
2004).\8\ Therefore, it is reasonable to infer based on information 
available that all exports to all markets from these countries may be 
subsidized, and we have not used prices from these countries in 
calculating the Indian import-based surrogate values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In addition, we note that legislative history explains that 
the Department is not required to conduct a formal investigation to 
ensure that such prices are not subsidized. See Omnibus Trade and 
Competitiveness Act of 1988, Conference Report to accompany H.R. 
Rep. 100-576 at 590 (1988) reprinted in U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 1623-24. 
As such, it is the Department's practice to base its decision on 
information that is available to it at the time it makes its 
determination. See e.g. Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and 
Strip from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination 
of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 73 FR 24552 (May 5, 2008), 
unchanged in Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from 
the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less 
than Fair Value, 73 FR 55039 (September 24, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with Department practice, we valued raw materials and 
packing

[[Page 5574]]

materials using Indian import statistics that are contemporaneous with 
the POI, except as noted below.
    We valued electricity using price data for small, medium, and large 
industries, as published by the Central Electricity Authority of the 
Government of India in its publication entitled ``Electricity Tariff & 
Duty and Average Rates of Electricity Supply in India'', dated March 
2008. These electricity rates represent actual countrywide, publicly 
available information on tax-exclusive electricity rates charged to 
industries in India. As the rates listed in this source became 
effective on a variety of different dates, we are not adjusting the 
average value for inflation. See ``Surrogate Value Memorandum.''
    We valued fuel oil/diesel using the prices for petrol from Indian 
Oil Corp. Ltd. from June 2007, after inflating the value using the WPI 
for the POI. See ``Surrogate Value Memorandum.''
    For direct labor, indirect labor, and packing labor, consistent 
with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), we valued labor using the PRC regression-
based wage rate as reported on Import Administration's home page, 
Import Library, Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries, revised in 
December 2009, available at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/. 
Since this regression-based wage rate does not separate the labor rates 
into different skill levels or types of labor, we have applied the same 
wage rate to all skill levels and types of labor reported by Hung Kuo. 
See ``Surrogate Value Memorandum.''
    We valued truck freight expenses using a per-unit average rate 
calculated from data on the infobanc Web site: https://www.infobanc.com/logistics/logtruck.htm. The logistics section of this Web site contains 
inland freight truck rates between many large Indian cities. The value 
is contemporaneous with the POI. See ``Surrogate Value Memorandum.''
    We valued brokerage and handling using a simple average of the 
brokerage and handling costs reported in public submissions filed in 
three antidumping duty cases. Specifically, we averaged the public 
brokerage and handling expenses reported by Navneet Publications 
(India) Ltd. in the 2007-2008 administrative review of certain lined 
paper products from India, Essar Steel Limited in the 2006-2007 
antidumping duty administrative review of hot-rolled carbon steel flat 
products from India, and Himalaya International Ltd. in the 2005-2006 
administrative review of certain preserved mushrooms from India. Since 
the resulting value is not contemporaneous with the POI, we inflated 
the rate using the WPI. See ``Surrogate Value Memorandum.''
    We valued international freight and marine insurance using purchase 
prices. See ``Surrogate Value Memorandum.''
    We valued factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative 
(SG&A) expenses, and profit, using the 2007-2008 audited financial 
statements provided by Hung Kuo for Bawa Woollen and Spinning Mills, 
Ltd. and Prakash Woollen Mills, Ltd., producers of non-electric 
blankets. See ``Surrogate Value Memorandum.'' Petitioner submitted the 
financial statement of Videocon Industries Ltd. (Videocon), a producer 
of consumer electronics and home appliances that is also involved in 
the production of crude oil and natural gas. See Petitioner's November 
20, 2009, surrogate value submission at Exhibit 9. Videocon's statement 
indicates that, in addition to the production of crude oil and natural 
gas, it produces, inter alia, color televisions, video products, 
washing machines, refrigerators, and air conditioners. We have not 
included Videocon's financial data in our financial expense calculation 
because we have preliminarily determined that the products produced by 
Bawa Woollen and Spinning Mills, Ltd., and Prakash Woollen Mills, Ltd., 
are more comparable products to the subject merchandise produced by 
Hung Kuo than the production and fossil fuel extraction activities of 
Videocon. Thus, in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the 
financial statements of Bawa Woollen and Spinning Mills, Ltd. and 
Prakash Woollen Mills, Ltd. represent the best information available to 
the Department for this preliminary determination.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), interested parties may 
submit publicly available information with which to value FOP in the 
final determination within 40 days after the date of publication of the 
preliminary determination.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we intend to verify 
the information upon which we will rely in making our final 
determination.

Combination Rates

    In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that it would 
calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible 
for a separate rate in this investigation. See Initiation Notice. This 
change in practice is described in Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate Rates 
Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping 
Investigations Involving Non-Market Economy Countries, available at 
https://ia.ita.doc.gov/.

Preliminary Determination

    The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
                    Exporter & producer                         margin
                                                               percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hung Kuo Electronic (Shenzhen) Company Limited Produced by:        90.32
 Hung Kuo Electronic (Shenzhen) Company Limited............
Ningbo V.K. Industry & Trading Co., Ltd. Produced by:              90.32
 Ningbo V.K. Industry & Trading Co., Ltd...................
Ningbo Jifa Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd. or Ningbo              90.32
 Jinchun Electric Appliances Co., Ltd. Produced by: Ningbo
 Jifa Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd. or Ningbo Jinchun
 Electric Appliances Co., Ltd..............................
PRC-Wide Rate..............................................       174.85
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we will instruct CBP 
to suspend liquidation of all entries of woven electric blankets from 
the PRC as described in the ``Scope of Investigation'' section, 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the 
date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. We will 
instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal 
to the weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds U.S. price, as 
indicated above.

International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our preliminary affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. 
Section 735(b)(2) of the Act requires the ITC to make its final 
determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States 
is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of 
imports of woven electric blankets, or sales (or the likelihood of 
sales) for importation, of the subject merchandise under investigation 
within 45 days of our final determination.

[[Page 5575]]

Public Comment

    Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no later than seven days 
after the date the final verification report is issued in this 
proceeding and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case 
briefs, no later than five days after the deadline for submitting case 
briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i) and (d)(1). A list of authorities 
used and an executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs 
submitted to the Department. This summary should be limited to five 
pages total, including footnotes.
    In accordance with section 774 of the Act, we will hold a public 
hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to 
comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. If a request 
for a hearing is made, we intend to hold the hearing three days after 
the deadline of submission of rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave, NW., Washington, DC 20230, 
at a time and in a room to be determined. Parties should confirm by 
telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before 
the scheduled date.
    Interested parties that wish to request a hearing, or to 
participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 days after the date of publication of 
this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests should contain the party's 
name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, and a 
list of the issues to be discussed. At the hearing, each party may make 
an affirmative presentation only on issues raised in that party's case 
brief and may make rebuttal presentations only on arguments included in 
that party's rebuttal brief.

Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional 
Measures

    Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act, on January 14, 2010, Hung 
Kuo requested that in the event of an affirmative preliminary 
determination in this investigation, the Department postpone its final 
determination by 60 days. Additionally, on January 15, 2010, Hung Kuo 
requested that the Department extend the application of the provisional 
measures prescribed under 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) from a 4-month period to 
a 6-month period. In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act and 19 
CFR 351.210(b), we are granting the request and are postponing the 
final determination until no later than 135 days after the publication 
of this notice in the Federal Register because: (1) Our preliminary 
determination is affirmative, (2) the requesting exporter accounts for 
a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, and (3) 
no compelling reasons for denial exist. Suspension of liquidation will 
be extended accordingly.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: January 26, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-2309 Filed 2-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P