Certain Woven Electric Blankets From the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 38459-38463 [2010-16198]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–951] Certain Woven Electric Blankets From the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. DATES: Effective Date: July 2, 2010. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) has determined 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 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). The final dumping margins for this investigation are listed in the ‘‘Final Determination Margins’’ section below. The period covered by the investigation is October 1, 2008 through March 31, 2009 (the ‘‘POI’’). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Howard Smith or Drew Jackson, 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) 482–5193 and 482– 4406, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES Background The Department published its preliminary determination of sales at LTFV on February 3, 2010.1 Between February 1, 2010 and February 12, 2010, the Department conducted a verification of the sole respondent in this investigation, Hung Kuo Electronics (Shenzhen) Company Limited (‘‘Hung Kuo’’) and its U.S. affiliate, Biddeford Blankets LLC (‘‘Biddeford Blankets’’). See the ‘‘Verification’’ section below for additional information. On March 5, 2010, Hung Kuo submitted a written request that the Department issue revised cash deposit instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) indicating that Hung Kuo Electronics (Shenzhen) Company Limited can also be translated as Ongain Electronics (Shenzhen) Company Limited. On March 30, 2010, the Department granted Hung Kuo’s request 1 See 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, 75 FR 5567 (February 3, 2010) (‘‘Preliminary Determination’’). VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:27 Jul 01, 2010 Jkt 220001 and subsequently issued revised cash deposit instructions to CBP.2 In response to the Department’s invitation to comment on the Preliminary Determination, on April 1, 2010, Jarden Consumer Solutions (hereinafter, ‘‘Petitioner’’) and Hung Kuo filed case briefs. Petitioner and Hung Kuo filed rebuttal briefs on April 6, 2010. On April 20, 2010, the Department rejected rebuttal surrogate value information, case briefs, and rebuttal briefs filed by Hung Kuo because they contained untimely filed new factual information, including the 2008–2009 financial statement of Bawa Woollen and Spinning Mills Limited (‘‘Bawa’’), an Indian producer of nonelectric blankets, which Hung Kuo proposed as a surrogate value source for manufacturing overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses, and profit. Hung Kuo refiled versions of these submissions without the new factual information on April 22, 2010. On May 7, 2010, Hung Kuo submitted a written request that the Department reconsider its decision to reject the 2008–2009 Bawa financial statement. On May 26, 2010, the Department notified Hung Kuo that it would not accept the untimely filed 2008–2009 Bawa statement. On June 9, 2010, the Department notified interested parties that it would be reconsidering its valuation of the labor wage rate in this investigation, as a result of the recent decision in Dorbest Limited et al. v. United States, 2009– 1257, –1266, issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (‘‘CAFC’’) on May 14, 2010. On June 9, 2010,3 and June 11, 2010,4 the Department placed export data, which the Department was considering in connection with the valuation of the labor wage rate, on the record of this investigation and invited interested parties to comment on the narrow issue of the labor wage value in light of the CAFC’s decision. On June 16, 2010, Hung Kuo and Petitioner submitted comments on the export data. On June 21, 2010, the Department released 2 See Memorandum to John M. Andersen, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, from Abdelali Elouaradia, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, concerning ‘‘Request to Modify Customs Instructions, dated March 30, 2010. 3 See Memorandum to the File, through Howard Smith, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, concerning, ‘‘Export Data,’’ dated June 9, 2010. 4 See Memorandum to the File, through Howard Smith, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, concerning, ‘‘Export Data,’’ dated June 11, 2010. PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 38459 additional information to interested parties.5 Analysis of Comments Received All of the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs submitted in this investigation are addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination’’ dated June 25, 2010, which is hereby adopted by this notice (‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’). Appendix I to this notice contains a list of the issues addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. The Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is a public document, is on file in the Central Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’) at the Main Commerce Building, Room 1117, and is accessible on the Web at http:// ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the memorandum are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Determination Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made the following changes to our preliminary determination: 1. We have based Hung Kuo’s final margin on partial adverse facts available (‘‘AFA’’). 2. Pursuant to a recent decision by the CAFC, we have calculated a revised hourly wage rate to use in valuing Hung Kuo’s reported labor input by averaging earnings and/or wages in countries that are economically comparable to the PRC and that are significant producers of comparable merchandise.6 3. In our final margin calculation we have revised the unit of measure conversion for certain inputs reported by Hung Kuo and limited the deduction of ocean freight expenses to the appropriate sales. Scope of 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 5 See Memorandum to the File, through Howard Smith, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, concerning, ‘‘Wage Data,’’ dated June 11, 2010. 6 See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 13. E:\FR\FM\02JYN1.SGM 02JYN1 38460 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Notices 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. emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES Scope Comments On August 3, 2009, Perfect Fit Industries (‘‘Perfect Fit’’), a U.S. importer of knitted electric blankets, submitted comments on the scope of this investigation. Perfect Fit requested that the Department amend the scope of this investigation to include the following two statements: (1) ‘‘knitted electric blankets in any form, whether finished, semi-finished, or assembled, are not within the scope of this investigation;’’ and (2) electric mattress pads in any form, whether finished, semi-finished, or assembled, are not within the scope of this investigation.’’ Perfect Fit argued that this exclusionary language was warranted because Petitioner’s counsel acknowledged that knitted electric blankets and electric mattress pads are not within the scope of the U.S. International Trade Commission’s (‘‘ITC’’) investigation of woven electric blankets from the PRC.7 No other parties commented on this issue. The Department finds that Perfect Fit’s suggested scope amendment is unnecessary and has made no revision to the scope of this investigation for the final determination. We note that the scope of this investigation explicitly covers woven electric blankets, and find that the addition of Perfect Fit’s proposed exclusionary language to be superfluous and unwarranted. 7 See Perfect Fit’s August 3, 2010 submission (citing the ITC’s preliminary conference transcript at 16 and 111.) VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:27 Jul 01, 2010 Jkt 220001 Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we conducted verifications of Hung Kuo’s information.8 In conducting the verifications, we used standard verification procedures, including examination of relevant accounting and production records, as well as original source documents provided by Hung Kuo and Biddeford Blankets. Adverse Facts Available Section 776(a) of the Act provides that subject to section 782(d) of the Act, the Department may base its determinations on facts otherwise available if: (1) necessary information is not available on the record of a proceeding; or (2) an interested party (A) Withholds information requested by the Department, (B) fails to provide such information by the deadline, or in the form or manner requested, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D) provides information that cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i) of the Act. Section 782(d) of the Act allows the Department, subject to section 782(e) of the Act, to disregard all or part of a deficient or untimely response from a respondent. Pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department shall not decline to consider submitted information if all of the following requirements are met: (1) The information is submitted by the established deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination; (4) the interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and (5) the information can be used by the Department without undue difficulties. Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to apply an adverse inference to the facts otherwise available with respect to an interested party if the Department finds that the party failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information. We find that Hung Kuo: (1) withheld actual consumption quantities for all electronic controller parts which had been requested by the Department; and (2) reported factors of production (‘‘FOP’’) data for all electronic controller parts, certain market economy expenses relating to ocean freight, and certain market economy purchase quantity data that could not be verified. Therefore, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and 8 See the Department’s verification reports for the Hung Kuo, including the verification of its U.S. sales affiliate, Biddeford Blankets, on file in the CRU. PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 (D) of the Act, we find that the use of facts otherwise available for these items is warranted. Furthermore, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, we have determined, pursuant to section 776(b)(2) of the Act, that it is appropriate to apply an adverse inference because Hung Kuo failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information. Specifically, Hung Kuo made misstatements to the Department regarding its methodology for reporting FOP data for electronic controller parts and Hung Kuo failed to provide verifiable information concerning certain ocean freight expenses, and the quantity of heating wire and integrated circuits purchased from its market economy suppliers. The information sought by the Department regarding Hung Kuo’s ocean freight expenses and market economy purchases was within Hung Kuo’s control and could have been reported to the Department. Accordingly, we have determined that Hung Kuo failed to cooperate by putting forth its maximum effort to obtain the data and, hence, has not acted to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information. Therefore, we have determined that it is appropriate to use adverse inferences in selecting the facts otherwise available on which to base Hung Kuo’s dumping margin. Accordingly, we applied adverse facts available to the aforementioned data. Specifically, as adverse facts available we selected: (1) Electronic controller part consumption data obtained at verification; 9 (2) the highest appropriate per-unit value on the record of this proceeding to value Hung Kuo’s inputs which were sourced, in part, from market economy suppliers,10 and (3) record evidence of ocean-freight expenses incurred by Hung Kuo.11 For further discussion concerning the Department’s analysis, see Comment 1 of the Issues and Decision Memorandum accompanying this notice. Surrogate Country In the Preliminary Determination, pursuant to section 773(c) of the Act, we selected India as the appropriate surrogate country noting that it was on 9 The Department has used these data to adjust Hung Kuo’s reported per-unit consumption for all controller parts. 10 In valuing Hung Kuo’s heating wire and integrated circuit inputs, the Department has selected the highest value on the record (i.e, an Indian surrogate value, or the reported market economy purchase price). 11 The Department has adjusted Hung Kuo’s ocean freight using information contained in ocean freight invoices submitted by Hung Kuo. E:\FR\FM\02JYN1.SGM 02JYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Notices the Department’s list of countries that are at a level of economic development comparable to the PRC and that India is a significant producer of merchandise comparable to subject merchandise; additionally, we determined that reliable Indian data for valuing FOPs are readily available.12 No party has commented on our selection of India as the appropriate surrogate country. Thus, we continue to find India to be the appropriate surrogate country in this investigation. Separate Rates In proceedings involving non-marketeconomy (‘‘NME’’) countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department’s policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to an investigation in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.13 In the Preliminary Determination, we found that Hung Kuo, and separate rate applicants, Ningbo V.K. Industry & Trading Co., Ltd., and Ningbo Jifa Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd./Ningbo Jinchun Electric Appliances Co., Ltd. demonstrated their eligibility for, and were hence assigned, separate rate status. No party has commented on the eligibility of these companies for separate rate status. Therefore, for the final determination, we continue to find that the evidence placed on the record of this investigation by these companies demonstrates both a de jure and de facto absence of government control with respect to their exports of the merchandise under investigation and that these companies are thus eligible for separate rate status.14 The PRC-Wide Rate In the Preliminary Determination, the Department considered certain nonresponsive PRC producers/exporters to be part of the PRC-wide entity because they did not respond to our requests for information and did not demonstrate that they operated free of government control over their export activities.15 No emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES 12 See Preliminary Determination, 75 FR at 5569. e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers From the People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as amplified by Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide From the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994); see also 19 C.F.R. § 351.107(d). 14 See Preliminary Determination, 75 FR at 5569– 71. 15 See id., 75 FR at 5571. 13 See, VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:27 Jul 01, 2010 Jkt 220001 additional information regarding these entities has been placed on the record since the publication of the Preliminary Determination. Since the PRC-wide entity did not provide the Department with requested information, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we continue to find it appropriate to base the PRC-wide rate on facts otherwise available. Moreover, given that the PRCwide entity did not respond to our request for information, we continue to find that it failed to cooperate to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information. Thus, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, and consistent with the Department’s practice, we have continued to use an adverse inference in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.16 Pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, the Department may select, as AFA, information derived from: (1) The petition; (2) the final determination from the LTFV investigation; (3) a previous administrative review; or (4) any other information placed on the record. To induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner, the Department’s practice is 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.17 Since we begin with the presumption that all companies within an NME country are subject to government control and only the exporters listed under the ‘‘Final Determination Margins’’ section below have overcome that presumption, consistent with the Department’s practice, we are applying a single antidumping rate (i.e., the PRCwide rate) to all exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC, other than the exporters listed in the ‘‘Final Determination Margins’’ section of this notice.18 16 See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled FlatRolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products From the Russian Federation, 65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000) (where the Department applied an adverse inference in determining the Russia-wide rate); Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Artists Canvas from the People’s Republic of China, 71 FR 16116, 16118–19 (March 30, 2006) (where the Department applied an adverse inference in determining the PRC-wide rate). 17 See, e.g., 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.’’ 18 See, e.g., Synthetic Indigo From the People’s Republic of China; Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 65 FR 25706 (May 3, 2000) (applying the PRC-wide rate to all exporters of subject merchandise in the PRC based on the presumption that the export activities of the PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 38461 Corroboration Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies on secondary information, rather than on information obtained in the course of an investigation as facts available, it must, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is described in the Statement of Administrative Action (‘‘SAA’’) as ‘‘information derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 of the Act concerning the subject merchandise.’’ 19 The SAA provides that to ‘‘corroborate’’ means simply that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value.20 The SAA also states that 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.21 To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information used.22 As total AFA the Department preliminarily selected the rate of 174.85 percent from the Petition. In the Preliminary Determination, we preliminarily found the rate of 174.85 percent to be the highest Petition margin that could be corroborated within the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act. For the final determination, we find that the rate is within the range of the margins calculated on individual sales by Hung Kuo, the cooperative respondent. Therefore, we continue to find that the margin of 174.85 percent has probative value. Accordingly, we find that the rate of 174.85 percent is corroborated within the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act. companies that failed to respond to the Department’s questionnaire were controlled by the PRC government). 19 See SAA, accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. 103–316, Vol. 1 at 870. 20 See id. 21 See id. 22 See, e.g., 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). E:\FR\FM\02JYN1.SGM 02JYN1 38462 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Notices Combination Rates In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that it would calculate combination rates for respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this investigation.23 This practice is described in Department Policy Bulletin 05.1, ‘‘Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market Economy Countries,’’ which states: [w]hile continuing the practice of assigning separate rates only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now assign in its [non-market economy] 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.24 Final Determination Margins We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period October 1, 2008, through March 31, 2009: Weighted-average margin Exporter and producer Hung Kuo Electronics (Shenzhen) Company Limited ..................................................................................................................... Produced by: Hung Kuo Electronics (Shenzhen) Company Limited. Ningbo V.K. Industry & Trading Co., Ltd. ........................................................................................................................................ Produced by: Ningbo V.K. Industry & Trading Co., Ltd.. Ningbo Jifa Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd. or ................................................................................................................................. Ningbo Jinchun Electric Appliances Co., Ltd.. Produced by: Ningbo Jifa Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd. or Ningbo Jinchun Electric Appliances Co., Ltd.. PRC–Wide Rate .............................................................................................................................................................................. Disclosure We will disclose to parties the calculations performed within five days of the date of public announcement of this determination in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department will instruct CBP to continue 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, February 3, 2010, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register. The Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average dumping margin amount by which the normal value exceeds U.S. price, as follows: (1) The rate for the exporter/producer combinations listed in the chart above will be the rate the Department has determined in this final determination; (2) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the PRC-wide entity rate; and (3) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC 23 See Certain Woven Electric Blankets From the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:27 Jul 01, 2010 Jkt 220001 exporter/producer combination that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. ITC Notification In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of our final determination of sales at LTFV. As our final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will determine whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of the subject merchandise within 45 days of this final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation. Notification Regarding APO This notice also serves as a reminder to the parties subject to administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their responsibility concerning the Antidumping Duty Investigation, 74 FR 37001 (July 27, 2009) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 77.75% 77.75% 77.75% 174.85% disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. This determination and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: June 25, 2010. Paul Piquado, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I Comment 1: Application of Partial Adverse Facts Available—Hung Kuo Comment 2: Financial Statements Used to Derive Manufacturing Overhead, Selling, General and Administrative Expenses, and Profit Comment 3: The Classification of Certain Expenses Contained in the Bawa Financial Statement Used to Derive Manufacturing Overhead, Selling, General and Administrative Expenses, and Profit Comment 4: The Treatment of Certain Movement Expenses Contained in the Prakash Surrogate Financial Statement Comment 5: Surrogate Value for Alphanumeric LEDs Comment 6: International Movement Expenses Comment 7: Calculation of Normal Value Using FOP Data That Reflect both SemiFinished and Finished Goods 24 Policy Bulletin 05.1 can be found on the Import Administration website at the following address: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05–1.pdf. E:\FR\FM\02JYN1.SGM 02JYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Notices Comment 8: Unit of Measure Conversion for Certain Inputs Comment 9: Surrogate Value for Acrylic/ Polyester Blend Woven Textile Comment 10: Calculation of Indirect Selling Expenses Applied to Hung Kuo’s CEP Sales Comment 11: Surrogate Value for Power Cords Comment 12: Hung Kuo’s Reported FOP for Woven Textile Used to Produce King Size Electric Blankets Comment 13: Valuation of Labor [FR Doc. 2010–16198 Filed 7–1–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–101] emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES Greige Polyester Cotton Printcloth From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Sunset Review and Revocation of Order AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On May 3, 2010, the Department of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) initiated the sunset review of the antidumping duty order on greige polyester cotton printcloth from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). Because the domestic interested parties did not participate in this sunset review, the Department is revoking this antidumping duty order. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Moats, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–5047. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 16, 1983, the Department issued an antidumping duty order on greige polyester cotton printcloth from the PRC. See Greige Polyester Printcloth From the People’s Republic of China— Antidumping Duty Order, 48 FR 41614 (September 16, 1983). On June 27, 2005, the Department published its most recent continuation of the order. See Continuation of the Antidumping Duty Order; Greige Polyester Cotton Printcloth from the People’s Republic of China, 70 FR 36927 (June 27, 2005). On May 3, 2010, the Department initiated a sunset review of this order. See Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review, 75 FR 23240 (May 3, 2010). We did not receive a notice of intent to participate from domestic interested parties in this sunset review by the deadline date. As a result, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii)(A), the Department determined that no VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:27 Jul 01, 2010 Jkt 220001 domestic interested party intends to participate in the sunset review, and on May 24, 2010, we notified the International Trade Commission, in writing, that we intended to issue a final determination revoking this antidumping duty order. See 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii)(B)(2). Scope of the Order: The merchandise subject to this antidumping order is greige polyester cotton printcloth, other than 80 x 80 type. Greige polyester cotton printcloth is of chief weight cotton,1 unbleached and uncolored printcloth. The term ‘‘printcloth’’ refers to plain woven fabric, not napped, not fancy or figured, of singles yarn, not combed, of average yarn number 43 to 68,2 weighing not more than 6 ounces per square yard, of a total count of more than 85 yarns per square inch, of which the total count of the warp yarns per inch and the total count of the filling yarns per inch are each less than 62 percent of the total count of the warp and filling yarns per square inch. This merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (‘‘HTSUS’’) item 5210.11.6060. The HTSUS item number is provided for convenience and customs purposes; however, the written description remains dispositive. Determination to Revoke: Pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’) and 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii)(B)(3), if no domestic interested party files a notice of intent to participate, the Department shall, within 90 days after the initiation of the review, issue a final determination revoking the order. Because the domestic interested parties did not file a notice of intent to participate in this sunset review, the Department finds that no domestic interested party is participating in this 1 In the scope from the original investigation, the Department defined the subject merchandise by chief value (i.e., the subject merchandise was of chief value cotton). In later reviews of this Order, the Department has incorporated the U.S Customs Service’s conversion to chief weight (i.e., the subject merchandise is of chief weight cotton). See Continuation of the Antidumping Duty Order; Greige Polyester Cotton Printcloth from the People’s Republic of China, 70 FR 36927 (June 27, 2005). 2 Under the English system, this average yarn number count translates to 26 to 40. The average yarn number counts reported in previous scope descriptions by the Department are based on the English system of yarn number counts. Per phone conversations with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) officials, CBP now relies on the metric system to establish average yarn number counts. Thus, the 26 to 40 average yarn number count under the English system translates to a 43 to 68 average yarn number count under the metric system. See Continuation of the Antidumping Duty Order; Greige Polyester Cotton Printcloth from the People’s Republic of China, 70 FR 36927 (June 27, 2005). PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 38463 sunset review. Therefore, consistent with 19 CFR 351.222(i)(1)(i) and section 751(c)(3)(A) of the Act, we are revoking this antidumping duty order. The effective date of revocation is June 27, 2010, the fifth anniversary of the date of publication in the Federal Register of the most recent notice of continuation of this antidumping duty order. Effective Date of Revocation: Pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i), the Department intends to issue instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 15 days after publication of this notice, to terminate the suspension of liquidation of the merchandise subject to this order entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after June 27, 2010. Entries of subject merchandise prior to the effective date of revocation will continue to be subject to suspension of liquidation and antidumping duty deposit requirements. The Department will complete any pending administrative reviews of this order and will conduct administrative reviews of subject merchandise entered prior to the effective date of revocation in response to appropriately filed requests of review. This five-year (sunset) review and notice are published in accordance with sections 751(c) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: June 25, 2010. John M. Andersen, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations. [FR Doc. 2010–16205 Filed 7–1–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648–XX21 New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; public meeting. SUMMARY: The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Herring Oversight Committee, on July 27–28, 2010, to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate. E:\FR\FM\02JYN1.SGM 02JYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 127 (Friday, July 2, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38459-38463]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-16198]



[[Page 38459]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-951]


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

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

DATES: Effective Date: July 2, 2010.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') has determined 
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 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the 
Act''). The final dumping margins for this investigation are listed in 
the ``Final Determination Margins'' section below. The period covered 
by the investigation is October 1, 2008 through March 31, 2009 (the 
``POI'').

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Howard Smith or Drew Jackson, 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-
5193 and 482-4406, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Department published its preliminary determination of sales at 
LTFV on February 3, 2010.\1\ Between February 1, 2010 and February 12, 
2010, the Department conducted a verification of the sole respondent in 
this investigation, Hung Kuo Electronics (Shenzhen) Company Limited 
(``Hung Kuo'') and its U.S. affiliate, Biddeford Blankets LLC 
(``Biddeford Blankets''). See the ``Verification'' section below for 
additional information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 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, 75 FR 5567 
(February 3, 2010) (``Preliminary Determination'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 5, 2010, Hung Kuo submitted a written request that the 
Department issue revised cash deposit instructions to U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection (``CBP'') indicating that Hung Kuo Electronics 
(Shenzhen) Company Limited can also be translated as Ongain Electronics 
(Shenzhen) Company Limited. On March 30, 2010, the Department granted 
Hung Kuo's request and subsequently issued revised cash deposit 
instructions to CBP.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Memorandum to John M. Andersen, Acting Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, from 
Abdelali Elouaradia, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, 
concerning ``Request to Modify Customs Instructions, dated March 30, 
2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the Department's invitation to comment on the 
Preliminary Determination, on April 1, 2010, Jarden Consumer Solutions 
(hereinafter, ``Petitioner'') and Hung Kuo filed case briefs. 
Petitioner and Hung Kuo filed rebuttal briefs on April 6, 2010. On 
April 20, 2010, the Department rejected rebuttal surrogate value 
information, case briefs, and rebuttal briefs filed by Hung Kuo because 
they contained untimely filed new factual information, including the 
2008-2009 financial statement of Bawa Woollen and Spinning Mills 
Limited (``Bawa''), an Indian producer of non-electric blankets, which 
Hung Kuo proposed as a surrogate value source for manufacturing 
overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses, and profit. 
Hung Kuo refiled versions of these submissions without the new factual 
information on April 22, 2010. On May 7, 2010, Hung Kuo submitted a 
written request that the Department reconsider its decision to reject 
the 2008-2009 Bawa financial statement. On May 26, 2010, the Department 
notified Hung Kuo that it would not accept the untimely filed 2008-2009 
Bawa statement.
    On June 9, 2010, the Department notified interested parties that it 
would be reconsidering its valuation of the labor wage rate in this 
investigation, as a result of the recent decision in Dorbest Limited et 
al. v. United States, 2009-1257, -1266, issued by the United States 
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (``CAFC'') on May 14, 2010. On 
June 9, 2010,\3\ and June 11, 2010,\4\ the Department placed export 
data, which the Department was considering in connection with the 
valuation of the labor wage rate, on the record of this investigation 
and invited interested parties to comment on the narrow issue of the 
labor wage value in light of the CAFC's decision. On June 16, 2010, 
Hung Kuo and Petitioner submitted comments on the export data. On June 
21, 2010, the Department released additional information to interested 
parties.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Memorandum to the File, through Howard Smith, Program 
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, concerning, ``Export Data,'' 
dated June 9, 2010.
    \4\ See Memorandum to the File, through Howard Smith, Program 
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, concerning, ``Export Data,'' 
dated June 11, 2010.
    \5\ See Memorandum to the File, through Howard Smith, Program 
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, concerning, ``Wage Data,'' 
dated June 11, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis of Comments Received

    All of the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs submitted 
in this investigation are addressed in the ``Issues and Decision 
Memorandum for the Final Determination'' dated June 25, 2010, which is 
hereby adopted by this notice (``Issues and Decision Memorandum''). 
Appendix I to this notice contains a list of the issues addressed in 
the Issues and Decision Memorandum. The Issues and Decision Memorandum, 
which is a public document, is on file in the Central Records Unit 
(``CRU'') at the Main Commerce Building, Room 1117, and is accessible 
on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic 
version of the memorandum are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made the 
following changes to our preliminary determination:
    1. We have based Hung Kuo's final margin on partial adverse facts 
available (``AFA'').
    2. Pursuant to a recent decision by the CAFC, we have calculated a 
revised hourly wage rate to use in valuing Hung Kuo's reported labor 
input by averaging earnings and/or wages in countries that are 
economically comparable to the PRC and that are significant producers 
of comparable merchandise.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. In our final margin calculation we have revised the unit of 
measure conversion for certain inputs reported by Hung Kuo and limited 
the deduction of ocean freight expenses to the appropriate sales.

Scope of 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

[[Page 38460]]

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

    On August 3, 2009, Perfect Fit Industries (``Perfect Fit''), a U.S. 
importer of knitted electric blankets, submitted comments on the scope 
of this investigation. Perfect Fit requested that the Department amend 
the scope of this investigation to include the following two 
statements: (1) ``knitted electric blankets in any form, whether 
finished, semi-finished, or assembled, are not within the scope of this 
investigation;'' and (2) electric mattress pads in any form, whether 
finished, semi-finished, or assembled, are not within the scope of this 
investigation.'' Perfect Fit argued that this exclusionary language was 
warranted because Petitioner's counsel acknowledged that knitted 
electric blankets and electric mattress pads are not within the scope 
of the U.S. International Trade Commission's (``ITC'') investigation of 
woven electric blankets from the PRC.\7\ No other parties commented on 
this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Perfect Fit's August 3, 2010 submission (citing the 
ITC's preliminary conference transcript at 16 and 111.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department finds that Perfect Fit's suggested scope amendment 
is unnecessary and has made no revision to the scope of this 
investigation for the final determination. We note that the scope of 
this investigation explicitly covers woven electric blankets, and find 
that the addition of Perfect Fit's proposed exclusionary language to be 
superfluous and unwarranted.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we conducted 
verifications of Hung Kuo's information.\8\ In conducting the 
verifications, we used standard verification procedures, including 
examination of relevant accounting and production records, as well as 
original source documents provided by Hung Kuo and Biddeford Blankets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See the Department's verification reports for the Hung Kuo, 
including the verification of its U.S. sales affiliate, Biddeford 
Blankets, on file in the CRU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adverse Facts Available

    Section 776(a) of the Act provides that subject to section 782(d) 
of the Act, the Department may base its determinations on facts 
otherwise available if: (1) necessary information is not available on 
the record of a proceeding; or (2) an interested party (A) Withholds 
information requested by the Department, (B) fails to provide such 
information by the deadline, or in the form or manner requested, (C) 
significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D) provides information that 
cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i) of the Act. Section 
782(d) of the Act allows the Department, subject to section 782(e) of 
the Act, to disregard all or part of a deficient or untimely response 
from a respondent.
    Pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department shall not 
decline to consider submitted information if all of the following 
requirements are met: (1) The information is submitted by the 
established deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the 
information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable 
basis for reaching the applicable determination; (4) the interested 
party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and 
(5) the information can be used by the Department without undue 
difficulties.
    Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to apply an 
adverse inference to the facts otherwise available with respect to an 
interested party if the Department finds that the party failed to 
cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a 
request for information.
    We find that Hung Kuo: (1) withheld actual consumption quantities 
for all electronic controller parts which had been requested by the 
Department; and (2) reported factors of production (``FOP'') data for 
all electronic controller parts, certain market economy expenses 
relating to ocean freight, and certain market economy purchase quantity 
data that could not be verified. Therefore, pursuant to sections 
776(a)(2)(A) and (D) of the Act, we find that the use of facts 
otherwise available for these items is warranted.
    Furthermore, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, 
we have determined, pursuant to section 776(b)(2) of the Act, that it 
is appropriate to apply an adverse inference because Hung Kuo failed to 
cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a 
request for information. Specifically, Hung Kuo made misstatements to 
the Department regarding its methodology for reporting FOP data for 
electronic controller parts and Hung Kuo failed to provide verifiable 
information concerning certain ocean freight expenses, and the quantity 
of heating wire and integrated circuits purchased from its market 
economy suppliers. The information sought by the Department regarding 
Hung Kuo's ocean freight expenses and market economy purchases was 
within Hung Kuo's control and could have been reported to the 
Department. Accordingly, we have determined that Hung Kuo failed to 
cooperate by putting forth its maximum effort to obtain the data and, 
hence, has not acted to the best of its ability to comply with a 
request for information. Therefore, we have determined that it is 
appropriate to use adverse inferences in selecting the facts otherwise 
available on which to base Hung Kuo's dumping margin. Accordingly, we 
applied adverse facts available to the aforementioned data. 
Specifically, as adverse facts available we selected: (1) Electronic 
controller part consumption data obtained at verification; \9\ (2) the 
highest appropriate per-unit value on the record of this proceeding to 
value Hung Kuo's inputs which were sourced, in part, from market 
economy suppliers,\10\ and (3) record evidence of ocean-freight 
expenses incurred by Hung Kuo.\11\ For further discussion concerning 
the Department's analysis, see Comment 1 of the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum accompanying this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Department has used these data to adjust Hung Kuo's 
reported per-unit consumption for all controller parts.
    \10\ In valuing Hung Kuo's heating wire and integrated circuit 
inputs, the Department has selected the highest value on the record 
(i.e, an Indian surrogate value, or the reported market economy 
purchase price).
    \11\ The Department has adjusted Hung Kuo's ocean freight using 
information contained in ocean freight invoices submitted by Hung 
Kuo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surrogate Country

    In the Preliminary Determination, pursuant to section 773(c) of the 
Act, we selected India as the appropriate surrogate country noting that 
it was on

[[Page 38461]]

the Department's list of countries that are at a level of economic 
development comparable to the PRC and that India is a significant 
producer of merchandise comparable to subject merchandise; 
additionally, we determined that reliable Indian data for valuing FOPs 
are readily available.\12\ No party has commented on our selection of 
India as the appropriate surrogate country. Thus, we continue to find 
India to be the appropriate surrogate country in this investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Preliminary Determination, 75 FR at 5569.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving non-market-economy (``NME'') countries, 
the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies 
within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should 
be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the 
Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to 
an investigation in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter 
can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be 
entitled to a separate rate.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Sparklers From the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 
(May 6, 1991), as amplified by Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide From the People's 
Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994); see also 19 C.F.R. 
Sec.  351.107(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Preliminary Determination, we found that Hung Kuo, and 
separate rate applicants, Ningbo V.K. Industry & Trading Co., Ltd., and 
Ningbo Jifa Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd./Ningbo Jinchun Electric 
Appliances Co., Ltd. demonstrated their eligibility for, and were hence 
assigned, separate rate status. No party has commented on the 
eligibility of these companies for separate rate status. Therefore, for 
the final determination, we continue to find that the evidence placed 
on the record of this investigation by these companies demonstrates 
both a de jure and de facto absence of government control with respect 
to their exports of the merchandise under investigation and that these 
companies are thus eligible for separate rate status.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Preliminary Determination, 75 FR at 5569-71.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The PRC-Wide Rate

    In the Preliminary Determination, the Department considered certain 
non-responsive PRC producers/exporters to be part of the PRC-wide 
entity because they did not respond to our requests for information and 
did not demonstrate that they operated free of government control over 
their export activities.\15\ No additional information regarding these 
entities has been placed on the record since the publication of the 
Preliminary Determination. Since the PRC-wide entity did not provide 
the Department with requested information, pursuant to section 
776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we continue to find it appropriate to base the 
PRC-wide rate on facts otherwise available. Moreover, given that the 
PRC-wide entity did not respond to our request for information, we 
continue to find that it failed to cooperate to the best of its ability 
to comply with a request for information. Thus, pursuant to section 
776(b) of the Act, and consistent with the Department's practice, we 
have continued to use an adverse inference in selecting from among the 
facts otherwise available.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See id., 75 FR at 5571.
    \16\ See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality 
Steel Products From the Russian Federation, 65 FR 5510, 5518 
(February 4, 2000) (where the Department applied an adverse 
inference in determining the Russia-wide rate); Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Artists Canvas from the 
People's Republic of China, 71 FR 16116, 16118-19 (March 30, 2006) 
(where the Department applied an adverse inference in determining 
the PRC-wide rate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, the Department may select, 
as AFA, information derived from: (1) The petition; (2) the final 
determination from the LTFV investigation; (3) a previous 
administrative review; or (4) any other information placed on the 
record. To induce respondents to provide the Department with complete 
and accurate information in a timely manner, the Department's practice 
is 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.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See, e.g., 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since we begin with the presumption that all companies within an 
NME country are subject to government control and only the exporters 
listed under the ``Final Determination Margins'' section below have 
overcome that presumption, consistent with the Department's practice, 
we are applying a single antidumping rate (i.e., the PRC-wide rate) to 
all exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC, other than the 
exporters listed in the ``Final Determination Margins'' section of this 
notice.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See, e.g., Synthetic Indigo From the People's Republic of 
China; Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, 65 FR 25706 (May 3, 2000) (applying the PRC-wide rate to all 
exporters of subject merchandise in the PRC based on the presumption 
that the export activities of the companies that failed to respond 
to the Department's questionnaire were controlled by the PRC 
government).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Corroboration

    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies 
on secondary information, rather than on information obtained in the 
course of an investigation as facts available, it must, to the extent 
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources 
reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is described in the 
Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA'') as ``information derived 
from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the 
final determination concerning subject merchandise, or any previous 
review under section 751 of the Act concerning the subject 
merchandise.'' \19\ The SAA provides that to ``corroborate'' means 
simply that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary 
information to be used has probative value.\20\ The SAA also states 
that 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.\21\ To corroborate secondary information, the Department 
will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance 
of the information used.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See SAA, accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, 
H.R. Doc. 103-316, Vol. 1 at 870.
    \20\ See id.
    \21\ See id.
    \22\ See, e.g., 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As total AFA the Department preliminarily selected the rate of 
174.85 percent from the Petition. In the Preliminary Determination, we 
preliminarily found the rate of 174.85 percent to be the highest 
Petition margin that could be corroborated within the meaning of 
section 776(c) of the Act. For the final determination, we find that 
the rate is within the range of the margins calculated on individual 
sales by Hung Kuo, the cooperative respondent. Therefore, we continue 
to find that the margin of 174.85 percent has probative value. 
Accordingly, we find that the rate of 174.85 percent is corroborated 
within the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act.

[[Page 38462]]

Combination Rates

    In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that it would 
calculate combination rates for respondents that are eligible for a 
separate rate in this investigation.\23\ This practice is described in 
Department Policy Bulletin 05.1, ``Separate-Rates Practice and 
Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations 
involving Non-Market Economy Countries,'' which states:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 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'').

    [w]hile continuing the practice of assigning separate rates only 
to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now assign 
in its [non-market economy] 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.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Policy Bulletin 05.1 can be found on the Import 
Administration website at the following address: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final Determination Margins

    We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins 
exist for the period October 1, 2008, through March 31, 2009:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Weighted-average
                 Exporter and producer                       margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hung Kuo Electronics (Shenzhen) Company Limited.......            77.75%
    Produced by: Hung Kuo Electronics (Shenzhen)
     Company Limited..................................
Ningbo V.K. Industry & Trading Co., Ltd...............            77.75%
    Produced by: Ningbo V.K. Industry & Trading Co.,
     Ltd..............................................
Ningbo Jifa Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd. or........            77.75%
Ningbo 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 to parties the calculations performed within five 
days of the date of public announcement of this determination in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department 
will instruct CBP to continue 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, February 3, 2010, the date of publication of 
the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register. The Department 
will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond 
equal to the weighted-average dumping margin amount by which the normal 
value exceeds U.S. price, as follows: (1) The rate for the exporter/
producer combinations listed in the chart above will be the rate the 
Department has determined in this final determination; (2) for all PRC 
exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own 
rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the PRC-wide entity rate; and (3) 
for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not 
received their own rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate 
applicable to the PRC exporter/producer combination that supplied that 
non-PRC exporter. These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will 
remain in effect until further notice.

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our final determination of sales at LTFV. As our final 
determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of 
the Act, the ITC will determine whether the domestic industry in the 
United States is materially injured, or threatened with material 
injury, by reason of imports or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for 
importation of the subject merchandise within 45 days of this final 
determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of 
material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and 
all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC 
determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an 
antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further 
instruction by the Department, antidumping duties on all imports of the 
subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of 
liquidation.

Notification Regarding APO

    This notice also serves as a reminder to the parties subject to 
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return or 
destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order 
is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the 
terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. This determination and 
notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 
777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: June 25, 2010.
Paul Piquado,
 Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix I

Comment 1: Application of Partial Adverse Facts Available--Hung Kuo
Comment 2: Financial Statements Used to Derive Manufacturing 
Overhead, Selling, General and Administrative Expenses, and Profit
Comment 3: The Classification of Certain Expenses Contained in the 
Bawa Financial Statement Used to Derive Manufacturing Overhead, 
Selling, General and Administrative Expenses, and Profit
Comment 4: The Treatment of Certain Movement Expenses Contained in 
the Prakash Surrogate Financial Statement
Comment 5: Surrogate Value for Alphanumeric LEDs
Comment 6: International Movement Expenses
Comment 7: Calculation of Normal Value Using FOP Data That Reflect 
both Semi-Finished and Finished Goods

[[Page 38463]]

Comment 8: Unit of Measure Conversion for Certain Inputs
Comment 9: Surrogate Value for Acrylic/Polyester Blend Woven Textile
Comment 10: Calculation of Indirect Selling Expenses Applied to Hung 
Kuo's CEP Sales
Comment 11: Surrogate Value for Power Cords
Comment 12: Hung Kuo's Reported FOP for Woven Textile Used to 
Produce King Size Electric Blankets
Comment 13: Valuation of Labor

[FR Doc. 2010-16198 Filed 7-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P