Folding Metal Tables and Chairs From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 40788-40795 [2010-17172]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
40788
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 14, 2010 / Notices
for its sales, we will calculate importer–
specific (or customer–specific) per unit
duty assessment rates. We will instruct
CBP to assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries covered by this
review if any assessment rate calculated
in the final results of this review is
above de minimis.
The following cash deposit
requirements will be effective for all
shipments of the subject merchandise
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the
publication date of the final results of
this administrative review, as provided
for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1)
the cash deposit rate for Kolon will be
the rate established in the final results
of review (except, if the rate is zero or
de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent,
no cash deposit will be required for
Kolon); (2) if the exporter is not a firm
covered in this review or the LTFV
investigation, but the manufacturer is,
the cash deposit rate will be the rate
established for the most recent period
for the manufacturer of the
merchandise; and (3) if neither the
exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm
covered in this or any previous review,
the cash deposit rate will be the all–
others rate of 21.50 percent from the
LTFV investigation. See Polyethylene
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip
From the Republic of Korea; Notice of
Final Court Decision and Amended
Final Determination of Antidumping
Duty Investigation, 62 FR 50557
(September 26, 1997).
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a
preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding
the reimbursement of antidumping
duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during this review
period. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in the
Secretary’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
These preliminary results of
administrative review are issued and
this notice is published in accordance
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of
the Act.
[FR Doc. 2010–17170 Filed 7–13–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:07 Jul 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(‘‘the Department’’) is conducting an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on folding
metal tables and chairs (‘‘FMTCs’’) from
the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’)
covering the period June 1, 2008,
through May 31, 2009, and a deferred
administrative review for Feili Group
(Fujian) Co., Ltd. and Feili Furniture
Development Limited Quanzhou City
(collectively, ‘‘Feili’’) 1 covering the
period June 1, 2007, through May 31,
2008. The 2008–2009 administrative
review covers Feili and New-Tec
Integration (Xiamen) Co., Ltd. (‘‘NewTec’’) and the 2007–2008 deferred
administrative review covers Feili. We
have preliminarily determined that Feili
and New-Tec did not make sales in the
United States at prices below normal
value (‘‘NV’’) during the periods of
review (‘‘POR’’) pertinent to each
company. If these preliminary results
are adopted in our final results of these
reviews, we will instruct U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to
liquidate entries of merchandise
exported by Feili and New-Tec during
the PORs without regard to antidumping
duties.
We invite interested parties to
comment on these preliminary results.
We intend to issue the final results no
later than 120 days from the date of
publication of this notice, pursuant to
section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’).
DATES: Effective Date: July 14, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lilit
Astvatsatrian or Charles Riggle, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 8, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–6412 and (202)
482–0650, respectively.
Background
On June 27, 2002, the Department
published the antidumping duty order
on FMTCs from the PRC. See
Antidumping Duty Order: Folding Metal
Tables and Chairs From the People’s
Republic of China, 67 FR 43277 (June
27, 2002). On July 30, 2008, the
Department granted Feili’s request for
deferral of the June 1, 2007, through
May 31, 2008 review, to which no
parties objected.2 On June 1, 2009, the
Department published a notice of
opportunity to request an administrative
review of this order for the June 1, 2008,
through, May 31, 2009 POR. See
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty
Order, Finding, or Suspended
Investigation; Opportunity to Request
Administrative Review, 74 FR 26202
(June 1, 2009). In accordance with 19
CFR 351.213(b), interested parties made
the following requests for review: (1) On
June 23, 2009, New-Tec, a producer and
exporter of subject merchandise to the
United States, requested that the
Department conduct an administrative
review of its sales; (2) on June 25, 2009,
Cosco Home & Office Products
(‘‘Cosco’’), a U.S. importer of subject
merchandise, requested that the
Department conduct administrative
reviews of Feili and New-Tec for the
2008–2009 POR . On July 29, 2009, the
Department initiated the 2007–2008 and
2008–2009 reviews for Feili, and the
2008–2009 review for New-Tec.3 The
Department issued an antidumping duty
questionnaire to Feili and New-Tec on
August 7, 2009. On September 1, 2009
and September 10, 2009, New-Tec and
Feili, respectively, submitted a section
A questionnaire response (‘‘AQR’’), and
on September 15, 2009 and September
25, 2009, New-Tec and Feili,
respectively, submitted section C and D
questionnaire responses (‘‘CQR’’ and
‘‘DQR,’’ respectively). On January 5,
2010, the Department requested the
Office of Policy to provide a list of
surrogate countries for this review. See
Memorandum to Carole Showers,
Director, Office of Policy, ‘‘2007–2008
Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Folding
Metal Tables and Chairs from the
People’s Republic of China: Request for
Surrogate Country Selection’’ (January 5,
2010) and Memorandum to Carole
1 The Department initiated both reviews for Feili
using the following names: Feili Furniture
Development Ltd. Quanzhou City, Feili Furniture
Development Co., Ltd., Feili Group (Fujian) Co.,
Ltd., and Feili (Fujian) Co., Ltd. However, Feili has
informed the Department that its name includes
only Feili Group (Fujian) Co., Ltd. and Feili
Furniture Development Limited Quanzhou City.
Cash Deposit Requirements
Dated: July 7, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
2 See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews,
Request for Revocation in Part, and Deferral of
Administrative Review, 73 FR 44220 (July 30, 2008).
3 See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and
Deferral of Administrative Review, 74 FR 37690
(July 29, 2009).
International Trade Administration
[A–570–868]
Folding Metal Tables and Chairs From
the People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM
14JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 14, 2010 / Notices
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Showers, Executive Director, Office of
Policy, ‘‘2008–2009 Administrative
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order
on Folding Metal Tables and Chairs
from the People’s Republic of China:
Request for Surrogate Country
Selection’’ (January 5, 2010). On January
25, 2010, the Office of Policy issued its
list of surrogate countries. See
Memoranda from Kelly Parkhill, Acting
Director, Office of Policy, ‘‘Request for a
List of Surrogate Countries for an
Administrative Review of Folding Metal
Tables and Chairs (‘‘FMTC’’) from the
People’s Republic of China (PRC)’’
(January 25, 2010) (‘‘Surrogate Country
Memoranda’’).
On February 4, 2010, the Department
requested interested parties to submit
surrogate value information and to
provide surrogate country selection
comments. On February 2, 2010 and
March 5, 2010 respectively, New-Tec
and Meco Corporation (‘‘Meco’’), a
domestic producer of the like product,
Meco provided comments on publicly
available information to value the
factors of production (‘‘FOP’’). On
February 24, 2010 and April 8, 2010,
Feili submitted supplemental
questionnaire responses. On February
16, 2010 and April 20, 2010, New-Tec
submitted supplemental questionnaire
responses.
On March 10, 2010, the Department
published a notice in the Federal
Register partially extending the time
limit for the preliminary results of both
reviews until no later than May 8,
2010.4 On April 22, 2010, the
Department published a notice in the
Federal Register fully extending the
time limit further for the preliminary
results of both reviews until July 7,
2010.5 From April 27, 2010, through
April 30, 2010, the Department
conducted sales and FOP verification of
New-Tec.6 In accordance with 19 CFR
351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results in
an antidumping administrative review,
interested parties may submit publicly
available information to value FOPs
within 20 days after the date of
4 See Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the
People’s Republic of China: Notice of Extension of
Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 75 FR
11120 (May 10, 2010).
5 See Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the
People’s Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit
for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 20983 (April 22,
2010).
6 See Memorandum to the File from Charles
Riggle, Program Manager and Giselle Cubillos, Case
Analyst re: ‘‘Verification of the Sales and Factors
Response of New-Tec Integration (Xiamen) Co., Ltd.
in the Antidumping Review of Folding Metal Tables
and Chairs from the Peoples Republic of China,’’
dated July 7, 2010.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:07 Jul 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
publication of these preliminary results
of review.
Periods of Review
The PORs are June 1, 2007, through
May 31, 2008, covering Feili and June
1, 2008, through May 31, 2009, covering
both Feili and New-Tec.
Scope of Order
The products covered by this order
consist of assembled and unassembled
folding tables and folding chairs made
primarily or exclusively from steel or
other metal, as described below:
(1) Assembled and unassembled
folding tables made primarily or
exclusively from steel or other metal
(folding metal tables). Folding metal
tables include square, round,
rectangular, and any other shapes with
legs affixed with rivets, welds, or any
other type of fastener, and which are
made most commonly, but not
exclusively, with a hardboard top
covered with vinyl or fabric. Folding
metal tables have legs that mechanically
fold independently of one another, and
not as a set. The subject merchandise is
commonly, but not exclusively, packed
singly, in multiple packs of the same
item, or in five piece sets consisting of
four chairs and one table. Specifically
excluded from the scope of the order
regarding folding metal tables are the
following: Lawn furniture; Trays
commonly referred to as ‘‘TV trays;’’
Side tables; Child-sized tables; Portable
counter sets consisting of rectangular
tables 36’’ high and matching stools;
and, Banquet tables. A banquet table is
a rectangular table with a plastic or
laminated wood table top approximately
28″ to 36″ wide by 48″ to 96″ long and
with a set of folding legs at each end of
the table. One set of legs is composed
of two individual legs that are affixed
together by one or more cross-braces
using welds or fastening hardware. In
contrast, folding metal tables have legs
that mechanically fold independently of
one another, and not as a set.
(2) Assembled and unassembled
folding chairs made primarily or
exclusively from steel or other metal
(folding metal chairs). Folding metal
chairs include chairs with one or more
cross-braces, regardless of shape or size,
affixed to the front and/or rear legs with
rivets, welds or any other type of
fastener. Folding metal chairs include:
those that are made solely of steel or
other metal; those that have a back pad,
a seat pad, or both a back pad and a seat
pad; and those that have seats or backs
made of plastic or other materials. The
subject merchandise is commonly, but
not exclusively, packed singly, in
multiple packs of the same item, or in
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
40789
five piece sets consisting of four chairs
and one table. Specifically excluded
from the scope of the order regarding
folding metal chairs are the following:
Folding metal chairs with a wooden
back or seat, or both; Lawn furniture;
Stools; Chairs with arms; and Childsized chairs.
The subject merchandise is currently
classifiable under subheadings
9401.71.0010, 9401.71.0030,
9401.79.0045, 9401.79.0050,
9403.20.015, 9403.20.0030,
9403.70.8010, 9403.70.8020, and
9403.70.8030 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States
(‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
Department’s written description of the
merchandise is dispositive.
Based on a request by RPA
International Pty., Ltd. and RPS, LLC
(collectively, ‘‘RPA’’), the Department
ruled on January 13, 2003, that RPA’s
poly-fold metal folding chairs are within
the scope of the order because they are
identical in all material respects to the
merchandise described in the petition,
the initial investigation, and the
determinations of the Secretary.
On May 5, 2003, in response to a
request by Staples, the Office Superstore
Inc. (‘‘Staples’’), the Department issued a
scope ruling that the chair component of
Staples’ ‘‘Complete Office-To-Go,’’ a
folding chair with a tubular steel frame
and a seat and back of plastic, with
measurements of: height: 32.5 inches;
width: 18.5 inches; and depth: 21.5
inches, is covered by the scope of the
order because it is identical in all
material respects to the scope
description in the order, but that the
table component, with measurements of:
width (table top): 43 inches; depth (table
top): 27.375 inches; and height: 34.875
inches, has legs that fold as a unit and
meets the requirements for an
exemption from the scope of the order.
On September 7, 2004, the
Department found that table styles 4600
and 4606 produced by Lifetime Plastic
Products Ltd. are within the scope of the
order because these products have all of
the components that constitute a folding
metal table as described in the scope.
On July 13, 2005, the Department
issued a scope ruling determining that
‘‘butterfly’’ chairs are not within the
scope of the antidumping duty order
because they do not meet the physical
description of merchandise covered by
the scope of the order as they do not
have cross braces affixed to the front
and/or rear legs, and the seat and back
is one piece of cloth that is not affixed
to the frame with screws, rivets, welds,
or any other type of fastener.
E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM
14JYN1
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
40790
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 14, 2010 / Notices
On July 13, 2005, the Department
issued a scope ruling determining that
folding metal chairs imported by
Korhani of America Inc. are within the
scope of the antidumping duty order
because the imported chair has a
wooden seat, which is padded with
foam and covered with fabric or
polyvinyl chloride, attached to the
tubular steel seat frame with screws,
and has cross braces affixed to its legs.
On May 1, 2006, the Department
issued a scope ruling determining that
‘‘moon chairs’’ are not included within
the scope of the antidumping duty order
because moon chairs have different
physical characteristics, different uses,
and are advertised differently than
chairs covered by the scope of the order.
On October 4, 2007, the Department
issued a scope ruling determining that
International E-Z Up Inc.’s (‘‘E-Z Up’’)
Instant Work Bench is not included
within the scope of the antidumping
duty order because its legs and weight
do not match the description of the
folding metal tables in the scope of the
order.
On April 18, 2008, the Department
issued a scope ruling determining that
the VIKA Twofold 2-in-1 Workbench/
Scaffold (‘‘Twofold Workbench/
Scaffold’’) imported by Ignite USA, LLC
from the PRC is not included within the
scope of the antidumping duty order
because its rotating leg mechanism
differs from the folding metal tables
subject to the order, and its weight is
twice as much as the expected
maximum weight for folding metal
tables within the scope of the order.
On May 6, 2009, the Department
issued a final determination of
circumvention, determining that
imports from the PRC of folding metal
tables with legs connected by cross–
bars, so that the legs fold in sets, and
otherwise meeting the description of in–
scope merchandise, are circumventing
the order and are properly considered to
be within the class or kind of
merchandise subject to the order on
FMTCs from the PRC.
On May 22, 2009, the Department
issued a scope ruling determining that
folding metal chairs that have legs that
are not connected with cross-bars are
within the scope of the antidumping
duty order on folding metal tables and
chairs from the PRC.
On October 27, 2009, the Department
issued a scope ruling determining that
Lifetime Products Inc.’s (‘‘Lifetime’’)
fold-in-half adjustable height tables do
not meet the description of merchandise
within the scope of the antidumping
duty order on folding metal tables and
chairs from the PRC because Lifetime’s
tables essentially share the physical
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:07 Jul 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
characteristics of banquet tables, which
are expressly excluded from the scope
of the order and, therefore, are outside
the scope of the order.
Non-Market Economy Country Status
No party contested the Department’s
treatment of the PRC as a non-market
economy (‘‘NME’’) country, and the
Department has treated the PRC as an
NME country in all past antidumping
duty investigations and administrative
reviews.7 No interested party in this
case has argued that we should do
otherwise. Designation as an NME
country remains in effect until it is
revoked by the Department. See section
771(18)(C)(i) of the Act. As such, we
continue to treat the PRC as a NME in
this proceeding.
Surrogate Country
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the
Department to base NV on the NME
producer’s FOPs, 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
FOPs, the Department shall use, to the
extent possible, the prices or costs of the
FOPs in one or more market economy
countries that are: (1) At a level of
economic development comparable to
that of the NME country; and (2)
significant producers of comparable
merchandise. The sources of the
surrogate factor values are discussed
under the ‘‘Normal Value’’ section
below. See Memorandum to The File,
‘‘Preliminary Results of the 2007–2008
Administrative Review of Folding Metal
Tables and Chairs from the People’s
Republic of China: Surrogate Value
Memorandum,’’ dated concurrently with
this notice (‘‘Surrogate Value
Memorandum 07–08’’), and
Memorandum to The File, ‘‘Preliminary
Results of the 2008–2009
Administrative Review of Folding Metal
Tables and Chairs from the People’s
Republic of China: Surrogate Value
Memorandum’’ (‘‘Surrogate Value
Memorandum 08–09’’), dated
concurrently with this notice.
The Department determined that
Colombia, India, Indonesia, Peru, the
Philippines and Thailand are countries
comparable to the PRC in terms of
economic development. See Surrogate
Country Memoranda. Once we have
7 See, e.g., Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the
People’s Republic of China: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR
52645 (September 10, 2008); see also Folding Metal
Tables and Chairs from the People’s Republic of
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 74 FR 3560 (January 21,
2009).
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
identified the countries that are
economically comparable to the PRC,
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 FOPs are both available and
reliable.
The Department has determined that
India is the appropriate surrogate
country for use in these reviews. The
Department based its decision on the
following facts: (1) India is at a level of
economic development comparable to
that of the PRC; (2) India is a significant
producer of comparable merchandise;
and (3) India provides the best
opportunity to use quality, publicly
available data to value the FOPs. On the
record of these reviews, we have usable
surrogate financial data from India, and
no party has submitted surrogate
financial data from any other potential
surrogate country. Additionally, the
data submitted by Meco and New-Tec
for our consideration as potential
surrogate values are sourced from India.
Therefore, because India best
represents the experience of producers
of comparable merchandise operating in
a market country, we have selected
India as the surrogate country and,
accordingly, have calculated NV using
Indian prices to value the respondents’
FOPs, when available and appropriate.
See Surrogate Value Memoranda 07–08
and 08–09. We have obtained and relied
upon publicly available information
wherever possible.
Separate Rates
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.8 It is the Department’s policy
to assign all exporters of merchandise
subject to review 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. Id. Exporters can
demonstrate this independence through
the absence of both de jure and de facto
government control over export
activities. The Department analyzes
each entity exporting the subject
merchandise under a test arising from
the Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers
8 See, e.g., Certain Coated Paper Suitable for
High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed
Presses 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 at 24899 (May 6, 2010).
E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM
14JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 14, 2010 / Notices
from the People’s Republic of China, 56
FR 20588, at Comment 1 (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, 22587 (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.9
1. Wholly Foreign-Owned
Feili reported that it is wholly owned
by market-economy entities. Therefore,
consistent with the Department’s
practice, a separate-rates analysis is not
necessary to determine whether Feili’s
export activities are independent from
government control, and we have
preliminarily granted a separate rate to
Feili.
2. Joint Ventures Between Chinese and
Foreign Companies or Wholly ChineseOwned Companies
New-Tec stated that it is a joint
venture between Chinese and foreign
companies. Therefore, the Department
must analyze whether New-Tec can
demonstrate the absence of both de jure
and de facto government control over
export activities.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
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, 56 FR at 20589.
New-Tec has placed documents on
the record to demonstrate the absence of
de jure control including its list of
shareholders, business license, and the
Company Law of the PRC (‘‘Company
Law’’). Other than limiting New-Tec to
activities referenced in the business
license, we found no restrictive
stipulations associated with the license.
In addition, in previous cases the
Department has analyzed the Company
Law and found that it establishes an
absence of de jure control, lacking
9 See, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Petroleum Wax Candles
From the People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 52355,
52356 (September 13, 2007).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:07 Jul 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
record evidence to the contrary.10 We
have no information in this segment of
the proceeding that would cause us to
reconsider this determination.
Therefore, based on the foregoing, we
have preliminarily found an absence of
de jure control for New-Tec.
B. Absence of De Facto Control
Typically the Department considers
four factors in evaluating whether each
respondent is subject to de facto
government control of its export
functions: (1) Whether the export prices
are set by or are subject to the approval
of a government 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. 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 government control that
would preclude the Department from
assigning separate rates.11
With regard to de facto control, NewTec reported that: (1) It independently
set prices for sales to the United States
through negotiations with customers
and these prices are not subject to
review by any government organization;
(2) it did not coordinate with other
exporters or producers to set the price
or to determine to which market the
companies will sell subject
merchandise; (3) the PRC Chamber of
Commerce did not coordinate the export
activities of New-Tec; (4) its general
manager has the authority to
contractually bind it to sell subject
merchandise; (5) its board of directors
appoints its general manager; (6) there is
no restriction on its use of export
revenues; (7) its shareholders ultimately
determine the disposition of respective
profits, and New-Tec has not had a loss
in the last two years; and (8) none of
New-Tec’s board members or managers
is a government official. Furthermore,
our analysis of New-Tec’s questionnaire
responses reveals no information
indicating government control of its
10 See, e.g., Certain Non-Frozen Apple Juice
Concentrate from the People’s Republic of China:
Final Results, Partial Rescission and Termination of
a Partial Deferral of the 2002–2003 Administrative
Review, 69 FR 65148, 65150 (November 10, 2004).
11 See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586–87; see
also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the
People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545
(May 8, 1995).
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
40791
export activities. Therefore, based on
the information on the record, we
preliminarily determine that there is an
absence of de facto government control
with respect to New-Tec’s export
functions and that New-Tec has met the
criteria for the application of a separate
rate.
The evidence placed on the record of
this review by New-Tec demonstrates an
absence of de jure and de facto
government control with respect to its
exports of subject merchandise, in
accordance with the criteria identified
in Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589; and
Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22587.
Accordingly, we have preliminarily
granted a separate rate to New-Tec.
Date of Sale
19 CFR 351.401(i) states that:
In identifying the date of sale of the subject
merchandise or foreign-like product, the
Secretary normally will use the date of
invoice, as recorded in the exporter or
producer’s records kept in the ordinary
course of business. However, the Secretary
may use a date other than the date of invoice
if the Secretary is satisfied that a different
date better reflects the date on which the
exporter or producer establishes the material
terms of sale.
See also Allied Tube and Conduit Corp.
v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1087,
1090–1092 (CIT 2001) (upholding the
Department’s rebuttable presumption
that invoice date is the appropriate date
of sale). After examining the
questionnaire responses and the sales
documentation placed on the record by
Feili and New-Tec, we preliminarily
determine that invoice date is the most
appropriate date of sale for Feili and
New-Tec. Nothing on the record rebuts
the presumption that invoice date
should be the date of sale.
Normal Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of FMTCs
to the United States by Feili and NewTec were made at less than NV, we
compared export price (‘‘EP’’) to NV, as
described in the ‘‘Export Price,’’ and
‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice,
pursuant to section 771(35) of the Act.
Export Price
Because Feili and New-Tec sold
subject merchandise to unaffiliated
purchasers in the United States prior to
importation into the United States or to
unaffiliated resellers outside the United
States with knowledge that the
merchandise was destined for the
United States, and use of a constructed
export price methodology is not
otherwise indicated, we have used EP
for both Feili and New-Tec in
E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM
14JYN1
40792
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 14, 2010 / Notices
accordance with section 772(a) of the
Act.
We calculated EP based on the freeon-board or delivered price to
unaffiliated purchasers for Feili and
New-Tec. From this price, we deducted
amounts for foreign inland freight,
international movement expenses, air
freight, and brokerage and handling, as
applicable, pursuant to section
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.12
The Department valued brokerage and
handling using a price list of export
procedures necessary to export a
standardized cargo of goods in India.
The price list is compiled based on a
survey case study of the procedural
requirements for trading a standard
shipment of goods by ocean transport in
India that is published in Doing
Business 2010: India, published by the
World Bank. The Department adjusted
the average brokerage and handling rate
for deflation. See Surrogate Value
Memoranda 07–08 and 08–09, New-Tec
Preliminary Analysis Memorandum,
Feili Deferred Preliminary Analysis
Memorandum and Feili 2008–2009
Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Zero-Priced Transactions
In the final results of previous
administrative reviews of FMTCs, we
included New-Tec’s and Feili’s zeropriced transactions in the margin
calculation because the record
demonstrated that respondents provided
the same merchandise in significant
quantities, indicating that these
‘‘samples’’ did not primarily serve for
evaluation or testing of the
merchandise.13 Additionally,
12 See Memorandum to The File, ‘‘Analysis for the
Preliminary Results of the 2008–2009
Administrative Review of Folding Metal Tables and
Chairs from the People’s Republic of China: NewTec Integration (Xiamen) Co. Ltd. (‘‘New-Tec’’)’’
(July 7, 2010) (‘‘New-Tec Preliminary Analysis
Memorandum’’), Memorandum to The File),
‘‘Analysis for the Preliminary Results of the 2007–
2008 Administrative Review of Folding Metal
Tables and Chairs from the People’s Republic of
China: Feili’’ (July 7, 2010) (‘‘Feili 2007–2008
Preliminary Analysis Memorandum’’), and
Memorandum to The File, ‘‘Analysis for the
Preliminary Results of the 2008–2009
Administrative Review of Folding Metal Tables and
Chairs from the People’s Republic of China: Feili’’
(July 7, 2010) (‘‘Feili 2008–2009 Preliminary
Analysis Memorandum’’).
13 See Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the
People’s Republic of China; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR
2905 (January 18, 2006), and accompanying Issues
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4; Folding
Metal Tables and Chairs from the People’s Republic
of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 71 FR 71509 (December 11,
2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 4; and Folding Metal
Tables and Chairs from the People’s Republic of
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 72 FR 71355 (December 17,
2007), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comments 10 and 11.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:07 Jul 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
respondents provided ‘‘samples’’ to the
same customers to whom it was selling
the same products in commercial
quantities.14 As a result, we concluded
that these transactions were not what
we consider to be samples because
respondents were providing these
products to strengthen their customer
relationships and to promote future
sales.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit (‘‘Federal Circuit’’) has
not required the Department to exclude
zero-priced or de minimis sales from its
analysis but, rather, has defined a sale,
as used in section 772 of the Act, as
requiring ‘‘both a transfer of ownership
to an unrelated party and
consideration.’’ 15 The Court of
International Trade (‘‘CIT’’) in NSK Ltd.
v. United States stated that it saw ‘‘little
reason in supplying and re-supplying
and yet re-supplying the same product
to the same customer in order to solicit
sales if the supplies are made in
reasonably short periods of time,’’ and
that ‘‘it would be even less logical to
supply a sample to a client that has
made a recent bulk purchase of the very
item being sampled by the client.’’ 16
Furthermore, the Courts have
consistently ruled that the burden rests
with a respondent to demonstrate that it
received no consideration in return for
its provision of purported samples.17
Moreover, even where the Department
does not ask a respondent for specific
information to demonstrate that a
transaction is a sample, the respondent
has the burden of presenting the
information in the first place to
demonstrate that its transactions qualify
for exclusion as a sample.18
An analysis of Feili’s and New-Tec’s
section C computer sales listings reveals
that they provided zero-priced
merchandise to customers to whom they
already are selling the same products in
commercial quantities, indicating that
Feili and New-Tec were not providing
this zero-priced merchandise for a
customer’s evaluation and testing, with
the hope of future sales. Consequently,
based on the facts cited above, the
14 Id.
15 See NSK Ltd. v. United States, 115 F.3d 965,
975 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
16 See NSK Ltd. v. United States, 217 F. Supp. 2d
1291, 1311–1312 (CIT 2002).
17 See, e.g., Zenith Electronics Corp. v. United
States, 988 F.2d 1573, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
(explaining that the burden of evidentiary
production belongs ‘‘to the party in possession of
the necessary information’’). See also Tianjin
Machinery Import & Export Corp. v. United States,
806 F. Supp. 1008, 1015 (CIT 1992) (‘‘The burden
of creating an adequate record lies with respondents
and not with {the Department}.’’) (citation omitted).
18 See NTN Bearing Corp. of America. v. United
States, 997 F.2d 1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
guidance of past court decisions, and
our previous decisions, for the
preliminary results of this review, we
have not excluded these zero-priced
transactions from the margin
calculations for Feili and New-Tec.
Billing Adjustments
We have not adjusted Feili’s U.S.
sales price with its reported billing
adjustments for brokerage and handling
charges incurred in China and
reimbursed by its U.S. customers in U.S.
dollars. After careful examination of this
issue, we have preliminarily determined
that these charges are not included
within the Department’s surrogate value
for brokerage and handling and,
therefore, do not warrant an offset to the
brokerage and handling expense. See
Feili Deferred Preliminary Analysis
Memorandum and Feili 2008–2009
Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.
Normal Value
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides
that, in the case of an NME, the
Department shall determine NV using
an FOP methodology if the merchandise
is exported from an NME 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.
The Department bases NV on FOPs
because the presence of government
controls on various aspects of NME
economies renders price comparisons
and the calculation of production costs
invalid under our normal
methodologies. Therefore, in these
preliminary results, we have calculated
NV based on FOPs in accordance with
sections 773(c)(3) and (4) of the Act and
19 CFR 351.408(c). The FOPs include:
(1) Hours of labor required; (2)
quantities of raw materials employed;
(3) amounts of energy and other utilities
consumed; and (4) representative capital
costs. In accordance with 19 CFR
351.408(c)(1), the Department normally
uses publicly available information to
value the FOPs. However, when a
producer sources a meaningful amount
of an input from a market-economy
country and pays for it in marketeconomy currency, the Department may
value the factor using the actual price
paid for the input.19 Further, the
Department disregards prices it has
reason to suspect may be subsidized.20
19 See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1); see also Lasko Metal
Products v. United States, 43 F.3d 1442, 1445–1446
(Fed. Cir. 1994) (affirming the Department’s use of
market-based prices to value certain FOPs).
20 See, e.g., China National Machinery Import &
Export Corp. v. United States, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334,
1339 (CIT 2003) (aff’d, 104 Fed. Appx. 183 (Fed.
E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM
14JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 14, 2010 / Notices
In accordance with the OTCA 1988
legislative history, the Department
continues to apply its long-standing
practice of disregarding surrogate values
if it has a reason to believe or suspect
the source data may be subsidized.21 In
this regard, the Department has
previously found that it is appropriate
to disregard such prices from India,
Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand
because we have determined that these
countries maintain broadly available,
non-industry specific export
subsidies.22 Based on the existence of
these subsidy programs that were
generally available to all exporters and
producers in these countries at the time
of the POR, the Department finds that it
is reasonable to infer that all exporters
from India, Indonesia, South Korea and
Thailand may have benefitted from
these subsidies.
Factor Valuations
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
In accordance with section 773(c) of
the Act, we calculated NV based on the
FOPs reported by Feili and New-Tec for
the PORs. To calculate NV, we
multiplied the reported per-unit factor
quantities by publicly available Indian
surrogate values (except as noted
below). In selecting the surrogate values,
we considered the quality, specificity,
public availability, and
contemporaneity of the data. As
appropriate, we adjusted input prices by
including freight costs to render them
delivered prices. Specifically, we added
to Indian import surrogate values a
Cir. 2004)) (‘‘China National Machinery’’), and see
Frontseating Service Valves from the People’s
Republic of China; Preliminary Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Preliminary Negative
Determination of Critical Circumstances, and
Postponement of Final Determination, 73 FR 62952
(October 22, 2008) (unchanged in Frontseating
Service Valves from the People’s Republic of China:
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value and Final Negative Determination of Critical
Circumstances, 74 FR 10886 (March 13, 2009)
(‘‘Frontseating Service Valves’’).
21 Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of
1988, Conf. Report to Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. Rep.
No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1988) (‘‘OTCA
1988’’) at 590.
22 See, e.g., Expedited Sunset Review of the
Countervailing Duty Order on Carbazole Violet
Pigment 23 from India, 75 FR 13257 (March 19,
2010) and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at pages 4–5; Expedited Sunset
Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Certain
Cut-to-Length Carbon Quality Steel Plate from
Indonesia, 70 FR 45692 (August 8, 2005) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
page 4; See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat
Products from the Republic of Korea: Final Results
of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 74
FR 2512 (January 15, 2009) and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at pages 17, 19–
20; See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat
Products from Thailand: Final Results of
Countervailing Duty Determination, 66 FR 50410
(October 3, 2001), and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at page 23.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:07 Jul 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
surrogate freight cost using the shorter
of the reported distance from the
domestic supplier to the factory or the
distance from the nearest seaport to the
factory where appropriate (i.e., where
the sales terms for the market-economy
inputs were not delivered to the
factory). This adjustment is in
accordance with the decision of the
Federal Circuit in Sigma Corp. v. United
States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1408 (Fed. Cir.
1997). For a detailed description of all
surrogate values used for Feili and NewTec, see the Surrogate Value
Memoranda 07–08 and 08–09.
In past cases, it has been the
Department’s practice to value various
FOPs using import statistics of the
primary selected surrogate country from
World Trade Atlas (‘‘WTA’’), as
published by Global Trade Information
Services (‘‘GTIS’’).23 However, in
October 2009, the Department learned
that Indian import data obtained from
the WTA, as published by GTIS, began
identifying the original reporting
currency for India as the U.S. Dollar.
The Department then contacted GTIS
about the change in the original
reporting currency for India from the
Indian Rupee to the U.S. Dollar.
Officials at GTIS explained that while
GTIS obtains data on imports into India
directly from the Ministry of Commerce,
Government of India, as denominated
and published in Indian Rupees, the
WTA software is limited with regard to
the number of significant digits it can
manage. Therefore, GTIS made a
decision to change the original reporting
currency for Indian data from the Indian
Rupee to the U.S. Dollar in order to
reduce the loss of significant digits
when obtaining data through the WTA
software. GTIS explained that it
converts the Indian Rupee to the U.S.
Dollar using the monthly Federal
Reserve exchange rate applicable to the
relevant month of the data being
downloaded and converted.24
However, the data reported in the
Global Trade Atlas (‘‘GTA’’) software,
published by GTIS, reports import
statistics, such as from India, in the
original reporting currency and thus this
data corresponds to the original
currency value reported by each
country. Additionally, the data reported
in the GTA software is reported to the
23 See Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the
People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 74 FR
50946, 50950 (October 2, 2009).
24 See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from
the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Final
Determination of Critical Circumstances, and Final
Determination of Targeted Dumping, 75 FR 20335
(April 19, 2010), and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 4.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
40793
nearest digit and thus there is not a loss
of data by rounding, as there is with the
data reported by the WTA software.
Consequently, the Department will now
obtain import statistics from GTA for
valuing various FOPs because the GTA
import statistics are in the original
reporting currency of the country from
which the data are obtained and have
the same level of accuracy as the
original data released.
We further adjusted material input
values to account for freight costs
incurred between the supplier and
respondent. We used the freight rates
published by https://www.infobanc.com,
‘‘The Great Indian Bazaar, Gateway to
Overseas Markets.’’ The logistics section
of the Web site contains inland freight
truck rates between many large Indian
cities. The truck freight rates are for the
period August 2008 through July 2009.
Since these dates are not
contemporaneous with the 2007–2008
POR, we deflated the rates using Indian
WPI. See Surrogate Value Memoranda
07–08 and 08–09.
Feili and New-Tec made raw
materials purchases from marketeconomy suppliers. Therefore, in
accordance with our practice outlined
in Antidumping Methodologies: Market
Economy Inputs,25 where at least 33
percent of an input is sourced from
market-economy suppliers and
purchased in a market-economy
currency, the Department will use
actual weighted-average purchase prices
to value these inputs.26 Where the
quantity of the input purchased from
market-economy suppliers during the
period is below 33 percent of its total
volume of purchases of the input during
the period, the Department will weightaverage the weighted average marketeconomy purchase price with an
appropriate surrogate value. See
Antidumping Methodologies: Market
Economy Inputs. For a complete
description of the factor values we used,
see Surrogate Value Memoranda 07–08
and 08–09 and Feili and New-Tec
Preliminary Analysis Memoranda.
To value liquid petroleum gas, we
used per-kilogram values obtained from
Bharat Petroleum, published June 4,
2009. We made adjustments to account
for inflation and freight costs incurred
between the supplier and New-Tec. See
25 See Antidumping Methodologies: Market
Economy Inputs, Expected Non-Market Economy
Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for Comments,
71 FR 61716, 61717–19 (October 19, 2006)
(‘‘Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy
Inputs’’).
26 For a detailed description of all actual values
used for market-economy inputs, see New-Tec
Preliminary Analysis Memorandum dated
concurrently with this notice.
E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM
14JYN1
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
40794
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 14, 2010 / Notices
Surrogate Value Memoranda 07–08 and
08–09. To value diesel, we used perkilogram values obtained from Bharat
Petroleum, published December 2, 2008.
We made adjustments to account for
deflation for Feili’s 2007–2008
administrative review, whereas the
source is contemporaneous with the
2008–2009 POR. See Surrogate Value
Memoranda 07–08 and 08–09.
To value electricity, we used 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 country-wide,
publicly-available information on taxexclusive electricity rates charged to
industries in India. We did not inflate
this value because utility rates represent
current rates, as indicated by the
effective dates listed for each of the rates
provided. See Surrogate Value
Memoranda 07–08 and 08–09.
To value water, we used the revised
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation (‘‘MIDC’’) water rates
available at https://www.midcindia.com/
water-supply, which we deflated using
Indian WPI. See Surrogate Value
Memoranda 07–08 and 08–09.
For direct, indirect, and packing
labor, pursuant to a recent decision by
the Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit, we have calculated an hourly
wage rate to use in valuing each
respondent’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.27 Because this wage rate
does not separate the labor rates into
different skill levels or types of labor,
the Department has applied the same
wage rate to all skill levels and types of
labor reported by the respondents. See
Surrogate Value Memoranda 07–08 and
08–09.
For factory overhead, selling, general,
and administrative expenses (‘‘SG&A’’),
and profit values, both New-Tec and
Meco submitted identical financial
statements to those that were submitted
and considered by the Department for
use as surrogate financial statements in
the preceding administrative review,
none of which is contemporaneous with
the current POR.28 The Department
examined these financial statements in
27 See
Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 2009–1257 at
20 (CAFC 2010) (‘‘Dorbest’’).
28 See New-Tec’s January 21, 2009, Surrogate
Value Comments at Exhibit 1, and Meco’s January
21, 2009, Surrogate Value Comments at Exhibit 7.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:07 Jul 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
the 2007–2008 review of New-Tec, and
found that Maximaa Systems Limited
(‘‘Maximaa’’) produced a greater
proportion of comparable merchandise
than the other companies (Infiniti
Modules PVT Ltd., Godrej & Boyce
Manufacturing Company Limited, and
Tube Investments of India, Ltd.) and,
therefore, best met the Department’s
criteria for surrogate financial ratios.29
Because parties have submitted for the
instant review the same surrogate
financial statements as those from the
2007–2008 review of New-Tec, and the
record indicates that Maximaa produced
a greater proportion of comparable
merchandise than other surrogate
companies whose financial statements
were placed on the record, we find that
Maximaa continues to be the best
available information with which to
determine factory overhead as a
percentage of the total raw materials,
labor and energy (‘‘ML&E’’) costs; SG&A
as a percentage of ML&E plus overhead
(i.e., cost of manufacture); and the profit
rate as a percentage of the cost of
manufacture plus SG&A. See Surrogate
Value Memoranda 07–08 and 08–09 for
a full discussion of the calculation of
these ratios.
For packing materials, we used the
per-kilogram values obtained from the
GTA and made adjustments to account
for freight costs incurred between the
PRC supplier and New-Tec’s and Feili’s
plants. See Surrogate Value Memoranda
07–08 and 08–09.
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions into
U.S. dollars, where appropriate, in
accordance with section 773A(a) of the
Act, based on the exchange rates in
effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as
certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.
Preliminary Results of Review
We preliminarily determine that the
following weighted-average dumping
margins exist:
Manufacturer/exporter
New-Tec (6/1/2008–5/31/2009)
Feili (6/1/2008–5/31/2009) ........
Feili (6/1/2007–5/31/2008 ) ......
Margin
(percent)
* 0.00
* 0.00
* 0.04
* De minimis.
Disclosure
We will disclose the calculations used
in our analysis to parties to this
proceeding within five days of the
Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the
People’s Republic of China: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR
68568 (December 28, 2009), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
PO 00000
29 See
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
publication date of this notice. See 19
CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties are
invited to comment on the preliminary
results and may submit case briefs and/
or written comments within 30 days of
the date of publication of this notice.
See 19 CFR 351.309(c). Interested
parties may file rebuttal briefs and
rebuttals to written comments, limited
to issues raised in such briefs or
comments, no later than five days after
the date on which the case briefs are
due. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). The
Department requests that parties
submitting written comments provide
an executive summary and a table of
authorities as well as an additional copy
of those comments electronically.
Any interested party may request a
hearing within 30 days of publication of
this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). If a
request for a hearing is made, parties
will be notified of the time and date for
the hearing to be held at the U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street
and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230. See 19 CFR
351.310(d). The Department will issue
the final results of this administrative
review, which will include the results of
its analysis of issues raised in any such
comments, within 120 days of
publication of these preliminary results,
pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the
Act.
Deadline for Submission of Publicly
Available Surrogate Value Information
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.301(c)(3)(ii), the deadline for
submission of publicly available
information to value FOPs under 19
CFR 351.408(c) is 20 days after the date
of publication of the preliminary results.
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.301(c)(1), if an interested party
submits factual information less than
ten days before, on, or after (if the
Department has extended the deadline),
the applicable deadline for submission
of such factual information, an
interested party has ten days to submit
factual information to rebut, clarify, or
correct the factual information no later
than ten days after such factual
information is served on the interested
party. However, the Department
generally will not accept in the rebuttal
submission additional or alternative
surrogate value information not
previously on the record, if the deadline
for submission of surrogate value
information has passed.30 Furthermore,
30 See, e.g., 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.
E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM
14JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 14, 2010 / Notices
the Department generally will not
accept business proprietary information
in either the surrogate value
submissions or the rebuttals thereto, as
the regulation regarding the submission
of surrogate values allows only for the
submission of publicly available
information. See 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3).
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Assessment Rates
Upon issuance of the final results, the
Department will determine, and CBP
shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries covered by these
reviews. The Department intends to
issue assessment instructions to CBP 15
days after the publication date of the
final results of these reviews. In
accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1),
we calculated exporter/importer (or
customer)-specific assessment rates for
the merchandise subject to these
reviews.
Where the respondent reports reliable
entered values, we calculate importer
(or customer)-specific ad valorem rates
by aggregating the dumping margins
calculated for all U.S. sales to each
importer (or customer) and dividing this
amount by the total entered value of the
sales to each importer (or customer). See
19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Where an
importer (or customer)-specific ad
valorem rate is greater than de minimis,
we will apply the assessment rate to the
entered value of the importers’/
customers’ entries during the POR. See
19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Where we do not
have entered values for all U.S. sales,
we calculate a per-unit assessment rate
by aggregating the antidumping duties
due for all U.S. sales to each importer
(or customer) and dividing this amount
by the total quantity sold to that
importer (or customer).
To determine whether the duty
assessment rates are de minimis, in
accordance with the requirement set
forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we
calculated importer (or customer)specific ad valorem ratios based on the
estimated entered value. Where an
importer (or customer)-specific ad
valorem rate is zero or de minimis, we
will instruct CBP to liquidate
appropriate entries without regard to
antidumping duties. See 19 CFR
351.106(c)(2).
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit
requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of these
administrative reviews for all shipments
of the subject merchandise entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication
date, as provided for by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For New-Tec
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:07 Jul 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
and Feili, the cash deposit rate will be
the company-specific rate established in
the final results of the 2008–2009
review (except, if the rate is zero or de
minimis, no cash deposit will be
required); (2) for previously investigated
or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters
not listed above that have separate rates,
the cash deposit rate will continue to be
the exporter-specific rate published for
the most recent period; (3) for all PRC
exporters of subject merchandise that
have not been found to be entitled to a
separate rate, the cash deposit rate will
be the PRC-wide rate of 70.71 percent;
and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of
subject merchandise that have not
received their own rate, the cash deposit
rate will be the rate applicable to the
PRC exporters that supplied that nonPRC exporter. These deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a
preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding
the reimbursement of antidumping
duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during this review
period. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in the
Secretary’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
This determination is issued and
published in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: July 7, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010–17172 Filed 7–13–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
[Docket 44–2010]
Review of Sourcing Change, Foreign–
Trade Subzone 61H, Baxter Healthcare
of Puerto Rico (Inhalation Anesthetics
Manufacturing), Guayama, Puerto Rico
Pursuant to the regulations of the
Foreign–Trade Zones (FTZ) Board (the
Board), a review has been initiated
(under 15 CFR Sec. 400.28(a)(3)(iii)(A))
of changes in sourcing related to
inhalation anesthetics at Foreign–Trade
Subzone 61H, at the facility of Baxter
Healthcare of Puerto Rico (Baxter).
Subzone 61H was approved by the
FTZ Board on February 25, 1997 (Board
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
40795
Order 875, 62 FR 10521, 3/7/1997) at
the Baxter Healthcare of Puerto Rico
(Baxter) (formerly Ohmeda Caribe Inc./
Ohmeda Pharmaceutical Manufacturing
Inc.) facility in Guayama, Puerto Rico,
for the manufacturing and distribution
of pharmaceutical products, primarily
inhalation anesthetics for hospital and
critical care therapy. The subzone was
initially approved for a period of five
years. On August 25, 2003 (Board Order
1293, 68 FR 53346, 9/10/2003), the
subzone was extended indefinitely and
the scope of approved authority was
expanded.
On products shipped to the U.S.
market, the company is able to choose
the duty rate during customs entry
procedures that applies to the finished
products (duty–free) for the otherwise
dutiable foreign components (duty rates
range from duty–free to 20%).
Baxter has now notified the Board of
additional sourcing of two chemical
inputs. The new foreign–sourced
chemical ingredients are
sevomethylether (HTSUS 2909.19.1800
5.5%) and N,N–diisopropylethylamine
(HTSUS 2921.19.6090 - 6.5%). The use
of zone procedures for the additional
inputs could exempt Baxter from
customs duty payments on the foreign
components used in export production.
The company estimates that some 40
percent of the plant’s shipments are
exported. On the domestic sales, Baxter
would be able to choose the duty rate
during customs entry procedures that
applies to the finished inhalation
anesthetics (duty–free) for the foreign
inputs noted above. The finished
products remain unchanged and were
included in the scope of manufacturing
authority approved by the Board.
In accordance with the Board’s
regulations, Diane Finver of the FTZ
Staff is designated examiner to
investigate the sourcing change,
including its potential to cause
‘‘significant adverse effects’’ (15 CFR
400.28(a)(3)(iii)(A)), and report to the
Board. Public comment is invited from
interested parties. Submissions (original
and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the
Board’s Executive Secretary at the
address below. The closing period for
their receipt is August 13, 2010.
Rebuttal comments in response to
material submitted during the foregoing
period may be submitted during the
subsequent 15-day period to August 30,
2010.
A copy of the application will be
available for public inspection at the
Office of the Executive Secretary,
Foreign–Trade Zones Board, Room
2111, U.S. Department of Commerce,
1401 Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20230–0002, and in the
E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM
14JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 134 (Wednesday, July 14, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40788-40795]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-17172]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-868]
Folding Metal Tables and Chairs From the People's Republic of
China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting
an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on folding metal
tables and chairs (``FMTCs'') from the People's Republic of China
(``PRC'') covering the period June 1, 2008, through May 31, 2009, and a
deferred administrative review for Feili Group (Fujian) Co., Ltd. and
Feili Furniture Development Limited Quanzhou City (collectively,
``Feili'') \1\ covering the period June 1, 2007, through May 31, 2008.
The 2008-2009 administrative review covers Feili and New-Tec
Integration (Xiamen) Co., Ltd. (``New-Tec'') and the 2007-2008 deferred
administrative review covers Feili. We have preliminarily determined
that Feili and New-Tec did not make sales in the United States at
prices below normal value (``NV'') during the periods of review
(``POR'') pertinent to each company. If these preliminary results are
adopted in our final results of these reviews, we will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to liquidate entries of
merchandise exported by Feili and New-Tec during the PORs without
regard to antidumping duties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Department initiated both reviews for Feili using the
following names: Feili Furniture Development Ltd. Quanzhou City,
Feili Furniture Development Co., Ltd., Feili Group (Fujian) Co.,
Ltd., and Feili (Fujian) Co., Ltd. However, Feili has informed the
Department that its name includes only Feili Group (Fujian) Co.,
Ltd. and Feili Furniture Development Limited Quanzhou City.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary
results. We intend to issue the final results no later than 120 days
from the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act'').
DATES: Effective Date: July 14, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lilit Astvatsatrian or Charles Riggle,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
6412 and (202) 482-0650, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On June 27, 2002, the Department published the antidumping duty
order on FMTCs from the PRC. See Antidumping Duty Order: Folding Metal
Tables and Chairs From the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 43277
(June 27, 2002). On July 30, 2008, the Department granted Feili's
request for deferral of the June 1, 2007, through May 31, 2008 review,
to which no parties objected.\2\ On June 1, 2009, the Department
published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review
of this order for the June 1, 2008, through, May 31, 2009 POR. See
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended
Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 74 FR
26202 (June 1, 2009). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), interested
parties made the following requests for review: (1) On June 23, 2009,
New-Tec, a producer and exporter of subject merchandise to the United
States, requested that the Department conduct an administrative review
of its sales; (2) on June 25, 2009, Cosco Home & Office Products
(``Cosco''), a U.S. importer of subject merchandise, requested that the
Department conduct administrative reviews of Feili and New-Tec for the
2008-2009 POR . On July 29, 2009, the Department initiated the 2007-
2008 and 2008-2009 reviews for Feili, and the 2008-2009 review for New-
Tec.\3\ The Department issued an antidumping duty questionnaire to
Feili and New-Tec on August 7, 2009. On September 1, 2009 and September
10, 2009, New-Tec and Feili, respectively, submitted a section A
questionnaire response (``AQR''), and on September 15, 2009 and
September 25, 2009, New-Tec and Feili, respectively, submitted section
C and D questionnaire responses (``CQR'' and ``DQR,'' respectively). On
January 5, 2010, the Department requested the Office of Policy to
provide a list of surrogate countries for this review. See Memorandum
to Carole Showers, Director, Office of Policy, ``2007-2008
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Folding Metal
Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China: Request for
Surrogate Country Selection'' (January 5, 2010) and Memorandum to
Carole
[[Page 40789]]
Showers, Executive Director, Office of Policy, ``2008-2009
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Folding Metal
Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China: Request for
Surrogate Country Selection'' (January 5, 2010). On January 25, 2010,
the Office of Policy issued its list of surrogate countries. See
Memoranda from Kelly Parkhill, Acting Director, Office of Policy,
``Request for a List of Surrogate Countries for an Administrative
Review of Folding Metal Tables and Chairs (``FMTC'') from the People's
Republic of China (PRC)'' (January 25, 2010) (``Surrogate Country
Memoranda'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews, Request for Revocation in Part, and Deferral
of Administrative Review, 73 FR 44220 (July 30, 2008).
\3\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Deferral of Administrative Review, 74 FR
37690 (July 29, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 4, 2010, the Department requested interested parties to
submit surrogate value information and to provide surrogate country
selection comments. On February 2, 2010 and March 5, 2010 respectively,
New-Tec and Meco Corporation (``Meco''), a domestic producer of the
like product, Meco provided comments on publicly available information
to value the factors of production (``FOP''). On February 24, 2010 and
April 8, 2010, Feili submitted supplemental questionnaire responses. On
February 16, 2010 and April 20, 2010, New-Tec submitted supplemental
questionnaire responses.
On March 10, 2010, the Department published a notice in the Federal
Register partially extending the time limit for the preliminary results
of both reviews until no later than May 8, 2010.\4\ On April 22, 2010,
the Department published a notice in the Federal Register fully
extending the time limit further for the preliminary results of both
reviews until July 7, 2010.\5\ From April 27, 2010, through April 30,
2010, the Department conducted sales and FOP verification of New-
Tec.\6\ In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final
results in an antidumping administrative review, interested parties may
submit publicly available information to value FOPs within 20 days
after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's
Republic of China: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the
Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews,
75 FR 11120 (May 10, 2010).
\5\ See Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's
Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary
Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 20983
(April 22, 2010).
\6\ See Memorandum to the File from Charles Riggle, Program
Manager and Giselle Cubillos, Case Analyst re: ``Verification of the
Sales and Factors Response of New-Tec Integration (Xiamen) Co., Ltd.
in the Antidumping Review of Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from
the Peoples Republic of China,'' dated July 7, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Periods of Review
The PORs are June 1, 2007, through May 31, 2008, covering Feili and
June 1, 2008, through May 31, 2009, covering both Feili and New-Tec.
Scope of Order
The products covered by this order consist of assembled and
unassembled folding tables and folding chairs made primarily or
exclusively from steel or other metal, as described below:
(1) Assembled and unassembled folding tables made primarily or
exclusively from steel or other metal (folding metal tables). Folding
metal tables include square, round, rectangular, and any other shapes
with legs affixed with rivets, welds, or any other type of fastener,
and which are made most commonly, but not exclusively, with a hardboard
top covered with vinyl or fabric. Folding metal tables have legs that
mechanically fold independently of one another, and not as a set. The
subject merchandise is commonly, but not exclusively, packed singly, in
multiple packs of the same item, or in five piece sets consisting of
four chairs and one table. Specifically excluded from the scope of the
order regarding folding metal tables are the following: Lawn furniture;
Trays commonly referred to as ``TV trays;'' Side tables; Child-sized
tables; Portable counter sets consisting of rectangular tables 36''
high and matching stools; and, Banquet tables. A banquet table is a
rectangular table with a plastic or laminated wood table top
approximately 28'' to 36'' wide by 48'' to 96'' long and with a set of
folding legs at each end of the table. One set of legs is composed of
two individual legs that are affixed together by one or more cross-
braces using welds or fastening hardware. In contrast, folding metal
tables have legs that mechanically fold independently of one another,
and not as a set.
(2) Assembled and unassembled folding chairs made primarily or
exclusively from steel or other metal (folding metal chairs). Folding
metal chairs include chairs with one or more cross-braces, regardless
of shape or size, affixed to the front and/or rear legs with rivets,
welds or any other type of fastener. Folding metal chairs include:
those that are made solely of steel or other metal; those that have a
back pad, a seat pad, or both a back pad and a seat pad; and those that
have seats or backs made of plastic or other materials. The subject
merchandise is commonly, but not exclusively, packed singly, in
multiple packs of the same item, or in five piece sets consisting of
four chairs and one table. Specifically excluded from the scope of the
order regarding folding metal chairs are the following: Folding metal
chairs with a wooden back or seat, or both; Lawn furniture; Stools;
Chairs with arms; and Child-sized chairs.
The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under subheadings
9401.71.0010, 9401.71.0030, 9401.79.0045, 9401.79.0050, 9403.20.015,
9403.20.0030, 9403.70.8010, 9403.70.8020, and 9403.70.8030 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''). Although
the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise is
dispositive.
Based on a request by RPA International Pty., Ltd. and RPS, LLC
(collectively, ``RPA''), the Department ruled on January 13, 2003, that
RPA's poly-fold metal folding chairs are within the scope of the order
because they are identical in all material respects to the merchandise
described in the petition, the initial investigation, and the
determinations of the Secretary.
On May 5, 2003, in response to a request by Staples, the Office
Superstore Inc. (``Staples''), the Department issued a scope ruling
that the chair component of Staples' ``Complete Office-To-Go,'' a
folding chair with a tubular steel frame and a seat and back of
plastic, with measurements of: height: 32.5 inches; width: 18.5 inches;
and depth: 21.5 inches, is covered by the scope of the order because it
is identical in all material respects to the scope description in the
order, but that the table component, with measurements of: width (table
top): 43 inches; depth (table top): 27.375 inches; and height: 34.875
inches, has legs that fold as a unit and meets the requirements for an
exemption from the scope of the order.
On September 7, 2004, the Department found that table styles 4600
and 4606 produced by Lifetime Plastic Products Ltd. are within the
scope of the order because these products have all of the components
that constitute a folding metal table as described in the scope.
On July 13, 2005, the Department issued a scope ruling determining
that ``butterfly'' chairs are not within the scope of the antidumping
duty order because they do not meet the physical description of
merchandise covered by the scope of the order as they do not have cross
braces affixed to the front and/or rear legs, and the seat and back is
one piece of cloth that is not affixed to the frame with screws,
rivets, welds, or any other type of fastener.
[[Page 40790]]
On July 13, 2005, the Department issued a scope ruling determining
that folding metal chairs imported by Korhani of America Inc. are
within the scope of the antidumping duty order because the imported
chair has a wooden seat, which is padded with foam and covered with
fabric or polyvinyl chloride, attached to the tubular steel seat frame
with screws, and has cross braces affixed to its legs.
On May 1, 2006, the Department issued a scope ruling determining
that ``moon chairs'' are not included within the scope of the
antidumping duty order because moon chairs have different physical
characteristics, different uses, and are advertised differently than
chairs covered by the scope of the order.
On October 4, 2007, the Department issued a scope ruling
determining that International E-Z Up Inc.'s (``E-Z Up'') Instant Work
Bench is not included within the scope of the antidumping duty order
because its legs and weight do not match the description of the folding
metal tables in the scope of the order.
On April 18, 2008, the Department issued a scope ruling determining
that the VIKA Twofold 2-in-1 Workbench/Scaffold (``Twofold Workbench/
Scaffold'') imported by Ignite USA, LLC from the PRC is not included
within the scope of the antidumping duty order because its rotating leg
mechanism differs from the folding metal tables subject to the order,
and its weight is twice as much as the expected maximum weight for
folding metal tables within the scope of the order.
On May 6, 2009, the Department issued a final determination of
circumvention, determining that imports from the PRC of folding metal
tables with legs connected by cross-bars, so that the legs fold in
sets, and otherwise meeting the description of in-scope merchandise,
are circumventing the order and are properly considered to be within
the class or kind of merchandise subject to the order on FMTCs from the
PRC.
On May 22, 2009, the Department issued a scope ruling determining
that folding metal chairs that have legs that are not connected with
cross-bars are within the scope of the antidumping duty order on
folding metal tables and chairs from the PRC.
On October 27, 2009, the Department issued a scope ruling
determining that Lifetime Products Inc.'s (``Lifetime'') fold-in-half
adjustable height tables do not meet the description of merchandise
within the scope of the antidumping duty order on folding metal tables
and chairs from the PRC because Lifetime's tables essentially share the
physical characteristics of banquet tables, which are expressly
excluded from the scope of the order and, therefore, are outside the
scope of the order.
Non-Market Economy Country Status
No party contested the Department's treatment of the PRC as a non-
market economy (``NME'') country, and the Department has treated the
PRC as an NME country in all past antidumping duty investigations and
administrative reviews.\7\ No interested party in this case has argued
that we should do otherwise. Designation as an NME country remains in
effect until it is revoked by the Department. See section 771(18)(C)(i)
of the Act. As such, we continue to treat the PRC as a NME in this
proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See, e.g., Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 73 FR 52645 (September 10, 2008); see also Folding Metal
Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China: Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 3560 (January 21,
2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surrogate Country
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to base NV on
the NME producer's FOPs, 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 FOPs, the
Department shall use, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of
the FOPs in one or more market economy countries that are: (1) At a
level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country;
and (2) significant producers of comparable merchandise. The sources of
the surrogate factor values are discussed under the ``Normal Value''
section below. See Memorandum to The File, ``Preliminary Results of the
2007-2008 Administrative Review of Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from
the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Value Memorandum,'' dated
concurrently with this notice (``Surrogate Value Memorandum 07-08''),
and Memorandum to The File, ``Preliminary Results of the 2008-2009
Administrative Review of Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the
People's Republic of China: Surrogate Value Memorandum'' (``Surrogate
Value Memorandum 08-09''), dated concurrently with this notice.
The Department determined that Colombia, India, Indonesia, Peru,
the Philippines and Thailand are countries comparable to the PRC in
terms of economic development. See Surrogate Country Memoranda. Once we
have identified the countries that are economically comparable to the
PRC, 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 FOPs are both
available and reliable.
The Department has determined that India is the appropriate
surrogate country for use in these reviews. The Department based its
decision on the following facts: (1) India is at a level of economic
development comparable to that of the PRC; (2) India is a significant
producer of comparable merchandise; and (3) India provides the best
opportunity to use quality, publicly available data to value the FOPs.
On the record of these reviews, we have usable surrogate financial data
from India, and no party has submitted surrogate financial data from
any other potential surrogate country. Additionally, the data submitted
by Meco and New-Tec for our consideration as potential surrogate values
are sourced from India.
Therefore, because India best represents the experience of
producers of comparable merchandise operating in a market country, we
have selected India as the surrogate country and, accordingly, have
calculated NV using Indian prices to value the respondents' FOPs, when
available and appropriate. See Surrogate Value Memoranda 07-08 and 08-
09. We have obtained and relied upon publicly available information
wherever possible.
Separate Rates
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.\8\ It is the Department's policy to assign all
exporters of merchandise subject to review 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. Id. Exporters can
demonstrate this independence through the absence of both de jure and
de facto government control over export activities. The Department
analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test
arising from the Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Sparklers
[[Page 40791]]
from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588, at Comment 1 (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, 22587 (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.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See, e.g., Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality
Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses 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 at 24899
(May 6, 2010).
\9\ See, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Petroleum Wax Candles From the People's Republic of China,
72 FR 52355, 52356 (September 13, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Wholly Foreign-Owned
Feili reported that it is wholly owned by market-economy entities.
Therefore, consistent with the Department's practice, a separate-rates
analysis is not necessary to determine whether Feili's export
activities are independent from government control, and we have
preliminarily granted a separate rate to Feili.
2. Joint Ventures Between Chinese and Foreign Companies or Wholly
Chinese-Owned Companies
New-Tec stated that it is a joint venture between Chinese and
foreign companies. Therefore, the Department must analyze whether New-
Tec can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto government
control over 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, 56 FR at 20589.
New-Tec has placed documents on the record to demonstrate the
absence of de jure control including its list of shareholders, business
license, and the Company Law of the PRC (``Company Law''). Other than
limiting New-Tec to activities referenced in the business license, we
found no restrictive stipulations associated with the license. In
addition, in previous cases the Department has analyzed the Company Law
and found that it establishes an absence of de jure control, lacking
record evidence to the contrary.\10\ We have no information in this
segment of the proceeding that would cause us to reconsider this
determination. Therefore, based on the foregoing, we have preliminarily
found an absence of de jure control for New-Tec.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See, e.g., Certain Non-Frozen Apple Juice Concentrate from
the People's Republic of China: Final Results, Partial Rescission
and Termination of a Partial Deferral of the 2002-2003
Administrative Review, 69 FR 65148, 65150 (November 10, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Absence of De Facto Control
Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating
whether each respondent is subject to de facto government control of
its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or are
subject to the approval of a government 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. 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 government control that would preclude the
Department from assigning separate rates.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-87; see also Notice of
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl
Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May
8, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to de facto control, New-Tec reported that: (1) It
independently set prices for sales to the United States through
negotiations with customers and these prices are not subject to review
by any government organization; (2) it did not coordinate with other
exporters or producers to set the price or to determine to which market
the companies will sell subject merchandise; (3) the PRC Chamber of
Commerce did not coordinate the export activities of New-Tec; (4) its
general manager has the authority to contractually bind it to sell
subject merchandise; (5) its board of directors appoints its general
manager; (6) there is no restriction on its use of export revenues; (7)
its shareholders ultimately determine the disposition of respective
profits, and New-Tec has not had a loss in the last two years; and (8)
none of New-Tec's board members or managers is a government official.
Furthermore, our analysis of New-Tec's questionnaire responses reveals
no information indicating government control of its export activities.
Therefore, based on the information on the record, we preliminarily
determine that there is an absence of de facto government control with
respect to New-Tec's export functions and that New-Tec has met the
criteria for the application of a separate rate.
The evidence placed on the record of this review by New-Tec
demonstrates an absence of de jure and de facto government control with
respect to its exports of subject merchandise, in accordance with the
criteria identified in Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589; and Silicon Carbide,
59 FR at 22587. Accordingly, we have preliminarily granted a separate
rate to New-Tec.
Date of Sale
19 CFR 351.401(i) states that:
In identifying the date of sale of the subject merchandise or
foreign-like product, the Secretary normally will use the date of
invoice, as recorded in the exporter or producer's records kept in
the ordinary course of business. However, the Secretary may use a
date other than the date of invoice if the Secretary is satisfied
that a different date better reflects the date on which the exporter
or producer establishes the material terms of sale.
See also Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v. United States, 132 F. Supp.
2d 1087, 1090-1092 (CIT 2001) (upholding the Department's rebuttable
presumption that invoice date is the appropriate date of sale). After
examining the questionnaire responses and the sales documentation
placed on the record by Feili and New-Tec, we preliminarily determine
that invoice date is the most appropriate date of sale for Feili and
New-Tec. Nothing on the record rebuts the presumption that invoice date
should be the date of sale.
Normal Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of FMTCs to the United States by Feili
and New-Tec were made at less than NV, we compared export price
(``EP'') to NV, as described in the ``Export Price,'' and ``Normal
Value'' sections of this notice, pursuant to section 771(35) of the
Act.
Export Price
Because Feili and New-Tec sold subject merchandise to unaffiliated
purchasers in the United States prior to importation into the United
States or to unaffiliated resellers outside the United States with
knowledge that the merchandise was destined for the United States, and
use of a constructed export price methodology is not otherwise
indicated, we have used EP for both Feili and New-Tec in
[[Page 40792]]
accordance with section 772(a) of the Act.
We calculated EP based on the free-on-board or delivered price to
unaffiliated purchasers for Feili and New-Tec. From this price, we
deducted amounts for foreign inland freight, international movement
expenses, air freight, and brokerage and handling, as applicable,
pursuant to section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Memorandum to The File, ``Analysis for the Preliminary
Results of the 2008-2009 Administrative Review of Folding Metal
Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China: New-Tec
Integration (Xiamen) Co. Ltd. (``New-Tec'')'' (July 7, 2010) (``New-
Tec Preliminary Analysis Memorandum''), Memorandum to The File),
``Analysis for the Preliminary Results of the 2007-2008
Administrative Review of Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the
People's Republic of China: Feili'' (July 7, 2010) (``Feili 2007-
2008 Preliminary Analysis Memorandum''), and Memorandum to The File,
``Analysis for the Preliminary Results of the 2008-2009
Administrative Review of Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the
People's Republic of China: Feili'' (July 7, 2010) (``Feili 2008-
2009 Preliminary Analysis Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department valued brokerage and handling using a price list of
export procedures necessary to export a standardized cargo of goods in
India. The price list is compiled based on a survey case study of the
procedural requirements for trading a standard shipment of goods by
ocean transport in India that is published in Doing Business 2010:
India, published by the World Bank. The Department adjusted the average
brokerage and handling rate for deflation. See Surrogate Value
Memoranda 07-08 and 08-09, New-Tec Preliminary Analysis Memorandum,
Feili Deferred Preliminary Analysis Memorandum and Feili 2008-2009
Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.
Zero-Priced Transactions
In the final results of previous administrative reviews of FMTCs,
we included New-Tec's and Feili's zero-priced transactions in the
margin calculation because the record demonstrated that respondents
provided the same merchandise in significant quantities, indicating
that these ``samples'' did not primarily serve for evaluation or
testing of the merchandise.\13\ Additionally, respondents provided
``samples'' to the same customers to whom it was selling the same
products in commercial quantities.\14\ As a result, we concluded that
these transactions were not what we consider to be samples because
respondents were providing these products to strengthen their customer
relationships and to promote future sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's
Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 71 FR 2905 (January 18, 2006), and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 4; Folding Metal Tables and Chairs
from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 71509 (December 11, 2006), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4; and
Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 71355
(December 17, 2007), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum
at Comments 10 and 11.
\14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (``Federal
Circuit'') has not required the Department to exclude zero-priced or de
minimis sales from its analysis but, rather, has defined a sale, as
used in section 772 of the Act, as requiring ``both a transfer of
ownership to an unrelated party and consideration.'' \15\ The Court of
International Trade (``CIT'') in NSK Ltd. v. United States stated that
it saw ``little reason in supplying and re-supplying and yet re-
supplying the same product to the same customer in order to solicit
sales if the supplies are made in reasonably short periods of time,''
and that ``it would be even less logical to supply a sample to a client
that has made a recent bulk purchase of the very item being sampled by
the client.'' \16\ Furthermore, the Courts have consistently ruled that
the burden rests with a respondent to demonstrate that it received no
consideration in return for its provision of purported samples.\17\
Moreover, even where the Department does not ask a respondent for
specific information to demonstrate that a transaction is a sample, the
respondent has the burden of presenting the information in the first
place to demonstrate that its transactions qualify for exclusion as a
sample.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See NSK Ltd. v. United States, 115 F.3d 965, 975 (Fed. Cir.
1997).
\16\ See NSK Ltd. v. United States, 217 F. Supp. 2d 1291, 1311-
1312 (CIT 2002).
\17\ See, e.g., Zenith Electronics Corp. v. United States, 988
F.2d 1573, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (explaining that the burden of
evidentiary production belongs ``to the party in possession of the
necessary information''). See also Tianjin Machinery Import & Export
Corp. v. United States, 806 F. Supp. 1008, 1015 (CIT 1992) (``The
burden of creating an adequate record lies with respondents and not
with {the Department{time} .'') (citation omitted).
\18\ See NTN Bearing Corp. of America. v. United States, 997
F.2d 1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An analysis of Feili's and New-Tec's section C computer sales
listings reveals that they provided zero-priced merchandise to
customers to whom they already are selling the same products in
commercial quantities, indicating that Feili and New-Tec were not
providing this zero-priced merchandise for a customer's evaluation and
testing, with the hope of future sales. Consequently, based on the
facts cited above, the guidance of past court decisions, and our
previous decisions, for the preliminary results of this review, we have
not excluded these zero-priced transactions from the margin
calculations for Feili and New-Tec.
Billing Adjustments
We have not adjusted Feili's U.S. sales price with its reported
billing adjustments for brokerage and handling charges incurred in
China and reimbursed by its U.S. customers in U.S. dollars. After
careful examination of this issue, we have preliminarily determined
that these charges are not included within the Department's surrogate
value for brokerage and handling and, therefore, do not warrant an
offset to the brokerage and handling expense. See Feili Deferred
Preliminary Analysis Memorandum and Feili 2008-2009 Preliminary
Analysis Memorandum.
Normal Value
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that, in the case of an NME,
the Department shall determine NV using an FOP methodology if the
merchandise is exported from an NME 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.
The Department bases NV on FOPs because the presence of government
controls on various aspects of NME economies renders price comparisons
and the calculation of production costs invalid under our normal
methodologies. Therefore, in these preliminary results, we have
calculated NV based on FOPs in accordance with sections 773(c)(3) and
(4) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c). The FOPs include: (1) Hours of
labor required; (2) quantities of raw materials employed; (3) amounts
of energy and other utilities consumed; and (4) representative capital
costs. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), the Department normally
uses publicly available information to value the FOPs. However, when a
producer sources a meaningful amount of an input from a market-economy
country and pays for it in market-economy currency, the Department may
value the factor using the actual price paid for the input.\19\
Further, the Department disregards prices it has reason to suspect may
be subsidized.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1); see also Lasko Metal Products v.
United States, 43 F.3d 1442, 1445-1446 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (affirming
the Department's use of market-based prices to value certain FOPs).
\20\ See, e.g., China National Machinery Import & Export Corp.
v. United States, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1339 (CIT 2003) (aff'd, 104
Fed. Appx. 183 (Fed. Cir. 2004)) (``China National Machinery''), and
see Frontseating Service Valves from the People's Republic of China;
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value,
Preliminary Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances, and
Postponement of Final Determination, 73 FR 62952 (October 22, 2008)
(unchanged in Frontseating Service Valves from the People's Republic
of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Final Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 74 FR 10886
(March 13, 2009) (``Frontseating Service Valves'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 40793]]
In accordance with the OTCA 1988 legislative history, the
Department continues to apply its long-standing practice of
disregarding surrogate values if it has a reason to believe or suspect
the source data may be subsidized.\21\ In this regard, the Department
has previously found that it is appropriate to disregard such prices
from India, Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand because we have
determined that these countries maintain broadly available, non-
industry specific export subsidies.\22\ Based on the existence of these
subsidy programs that were generally available to all exporters and
producers in these countries at the time of the POR, the Department
finds that it is reasonable to infer that all exporters from India,
Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand may have benefitted from these
subsidies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, Conf. Report
to Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. Rep. No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess.
(1988) (``OTCA 1988'') at 590.
\22\ See, e.g., Expedited Sunset Review of the Countervailing
Duty Order on Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India, 75 FR 13257
(March 19, 2010) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
pages 4-5; Expedited Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order
on Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Quality Steel Plate from Indonesia,
70 FR 45692 (August 8, 2005) and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at page 4; See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat
Products from the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Countervailing
Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 2512 (January 15, 2009) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at pages 17, 19-20; See
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Thailand: Final
Results of Countervailing Duty Determination, 66 FR 50410 (October
3, 2001), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at page
23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factor Valuations
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV
based on the FOPs reported by Feili and New-Tec for the PORs. To
calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor quantities by
publicly available Indian surrogate values (except as noted below). In
selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, specificity,
public availability, and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate,
we adjusted input prices by including freight costs to render them
delivered prices. Specifically, we added to Indian import surrogate
values a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported
distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from
the nearest seaport to the factory where appropriate (i.e., where the
sales terms for the market-economy inputs were not delivered to the
factory). This adjustment is in accordance with the decision of the
Federal Circuit in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1408
(Fed. Cir. 1997). For a detailed description of all surrogate values
used for Feili and New-Tec, see the Surrogate Value Memoranda 07-08 and
08-09.
In past cases, it has been the Department's practice to value
various FOPs using import statistics of the primary selected surrogate
country from World Trade Atlas (``WTA''), as published by Global Trade
Information Services (``GTIS'').\23\ However, in October 2009, the
Department learned that Indian import data obtained from the WTA, as
published by GTIS, began identifying the original reporting currency
for India as the U.S. Dollar. The Department then contacted GTIS about
the change in the original reporting currency for India from the Indian
Rupee to the U.S. Dollar. Officials at GTIS explained that while GTIS
obtains data on imports into India directly from the Ministry of
Commerce, Government of India, as denominated and published in Indian
Rupees, the WTA software is limited with regard to the number of
significant digits it can manage. Therefore, GTIS made a decision to
change the original reporting currency for Indian data from the Indian
Rupee to the U.S. Dollar in order to reduce the loss of significant
digits when obtaining data through the WTA software. GTIS explained
that it converts the Indian Rupee to the U.S. Dollar using the monthly
Federal Reserve exchange rate applicable to the relevant month of the
data being downloaded and converted.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic
of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper
Review, 74 FR 50946, 50950 (October 2, 2009).
\24\ See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the People's
Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value, Affirmative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances,
and Final Determination of Targeted Dumping, 75 FR 20335 (April 19,
2010), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the data reported in the Global Trade Atlas (``GTA'')
software, published by GTIS, reports import statistics, such as from
India, in the original reporting currency and thus this data
corresponds to the original currency value reported by each country.
Additionally, the data reported in the GTA software is reported to the
nearest digit and thus there is not a loss of data by rounding, as
there is with the data reported by the WTA software. Consequently, the
Department will now obtain import statistics from GTA for valuing
various FOPs because the GTA import statistics are in the original
reporting currency of the country from which the data are obtained and
have the same level of accuracy as the original data released.
We further adjusted material input values to account for freight
costs incurred between the supplier and respondent. We used the freight
rates published by https://www.infobanc.com, ``The Great Indian Bazaar,
Gateway to Overseas Markets.'' The logistics section of the Web site
contains inland freight truck rates between many large Indian cities.
The truck freight rates are for the period August 2008 through July
2009. Since these dates are not contemporaneous with the 2007-2008 POR,
we deflated the rates using Indian WPI. See Surrogate Value Memoranda
07-08 and 08-09.
Feili and New-Tec made raw materials purchases from market-economy
suppliers. Therefore, in accordance with our practice outlined in
Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs,\25\ where at least 33
percent of an input is sourced from market-economy suppliers and
purchased in a market-economy currency, the Department will use actual
weighted-average purchase prices to value these inputs.\26\ Where the
quantity of the input purchased from market-economy suppliers during
the period is below 33 percent of its total volume of purchases of the
input during the period, the Department will weight-average the
weighted average market-economy purchase price with an appropriate
surrogate value. See Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs.
For a complete description of the factor values we used, see Surrogate
Value Memoranda 07-08 and 08-09 and Feili and New-Tec Preliminary
Analysis Memoranda.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs,
Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for
Comments, 71 FR 61716, 61717-19 (October 19, 2006) (``Antidumping
Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs'').
\26\ For a detailed description of all actual values used for
market-economy inputs, see New-Tec Preliminary Analysis Memorandum
dated concurrently with this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To value liquid petroleum gas, we used per-kilogram values obtained
from Bharat Petroleum, published June 4, 2009. We made adjustments to
account for inflation and freight costs incurred between the supplier
and New-Tec. See
[[Page 40794]]
Surrogate Value Memoranda 07-08 and 08-09. To value diesel, we used
per-kilogram values obtained from Bharat Petroleum, published December
2, 2008. We made adjustments to account for deflation for Feili's 2007-
2008 administrative review, whereas the source is contemporaneous with
the 2008-2009 POR. See Surrogate Value Memoranda 07-08 and 08-09.
To value electricity, we used 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 country-wide,
publicly-available information on tax-exclusive electricity rates
charged to industries in India. We did not inflate this value because
utility rates represent current rates, as indicated by the effective
dates listed for each of the rates provided. See Surrogate Value
Memoranda 07-08 and 08-09.
To value water, we used the revised Maharashtra Industrial
Development Corporation (``MIDC'') water rates available at https://www.midcindia.com/water-supply, which we deflated using Indian WPI. See
Surrogate Value Memoranda 07-08 and 08-09.
For direct, indirect, and packing labor, pursuant to a recent
decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, we have
calculated an hourly wage rate to use in valuing each respondent'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.\27\ Because this wage rate does
not separate the labor rates into different skill levels or types of
labor, the Department has applied the same wage rate to all skill
levels and types of labor reported by the respondents. See Surrogate
Value Memoranda 07-08 and 08-09.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 2009-1257 at 20 (CAFC
2010) (``Dorbest'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses
(``SG&A''), and profit values, both New-Tec and Meco submitted
identical financial statements to those that were submitted and
considered by the Department for use as surrogate financial statements
in the preceding administrative review, none of which is
contemporaneous with the current POR.\28\ The Department examined these
financial statements in the 2007-2008 review of New-Tec, and found that
Maximaa Systems Limited (``Maximaa'') produced a greater proportion of
comparable merchandise than the other companies (Infiniti Modules PVT
Ltd., Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited, and Tube
Investments of India, Ltd.) and, therefore, best met the Department's
criteria for surrogate financial ratios.\29\ Because parties have
submitted for the instant review the same surrogate financial
statements as those from the 2007-2008 review of New-Tec, and the
record indicates that Maximaa produced a greater proportion of
comparable merchandise than other surrogate companies whose financial
statements were placed on the record, we find that Maximaa continues to
be the best available information with which to determine factory
overhead as a percentage of the total raw materials, labor and energy
(``ML&E'') costs; SG&A as a percentage of ML&E plus overhead (i.e.,
cost of manufacture); and the profit rate as a percentage of the cost
of manufacture plus SG&A. See Surrogate Value Memoranda 07-08 and 08-09
for a full discussion of the calculation of these ratios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See New-Tec's January 21, 2009, Surrogate Value Comments at
Exhibit 1, and Meco's January 21, 2009, Surrogate Value Comments at
Exhibit 7.
\29\ See Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 74 FR 68568 (December 28, 2009), and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For packing materials, we used the per-kilogram values obtained
from the GTA and made adjustments to account for freight costs incurred
between the PRC supplier and New-Tec's and Feili's plants. See
Surrogate Value Memoranda 07-08 and 08-09.
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, where appropriate,
in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange
rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the
Federal Reserve Bank.
Preliminary Results of Review
We preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average
dumping margins exist:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New-Tec (6/1/2008-5/31/2009)............................... * 0.00
Feili (6/1/2008-5/31/2009)................................. * 0.00
Feili (6/1/2007-5/31/2008 )................................ * 0.04
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* De minimis.
Disclosure
We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties
to this proceeding within five days of the publication date of this
notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties are invited to
comment on the preliminary results and may submit case briefs and/or
written comments within 30 days of the date of publication of this
notice. See 19 CFR 351.309(c). Interested parties may file rebuttal
briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in
such briefs or comments, no later than five days after the date on
which the case briefs are due. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). The Department
requests that parties submitting written comments provide an executive
summary and a table of authorities as well as an additional copy of
those comments electronically.
Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of
publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). If a request for a
hearing is made, parties will be notified of the time and date for the
hearing to be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. See 19 CFR 351.310(d).
The Department will issue the final results of this administrative
review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised
in any such comments, within 120 days of publication of these
preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Deadline for Submission of Publicly Available Surrogate Value
Information
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), the deadline for
submission of publicly available information to value FOPs under 19 CFR
351.408(c) is 20 days after the date of publication of the preliminary
results. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), if an interested
party submits factual information less than ten days before, on, or
after (if the Department has extended the deadline), the applicable
deadline for submission of such factual information, an interested
party has ten days to submit factual information to rebut, clarify, or
correct the factual information no later than ten days after such
factual information is served on the interested party. However, the
Department generally will not accept in the rebuttal submission
additional or alternative surrogate value information not previously on
the record, if the deadline for submission of surrogate value
information has passed.\30\ Furthermore,
[[Page 40795]]
the Department generally will not accept business proprietary
information in either the surrogate value submissions or the rebuttals
thereto, as the regulation regarding the submission of surrogate values
allows only for the submission of publicly available information. See
19 CFR 351.301(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See, e.g., 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment Rates
Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine,
and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries
covered by these reviews. The Department intends to issue assessment
instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final
results of these reviews. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we
calculated exporter/importer (or customer)-specific assessment rates
for the merchandise subject to these reviews.
Where the respondent reports reliable entered values, we calculate
importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rates by aggregating the
dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer (or
customer) and dividing this amount by the total entered value of the
sales to each importer (or customer). See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Where
an importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rate is greater than de
minimis, we will apply the assessment rate to the entered value of the
importers'/customers' entries during the POR. See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
Where we do not have entered values for all U.S. sales, we calculate a
per-unit assessment rate by aggregating the antidumping duties due for
all U.S. sales to each importer (or customer) and dividing this amount
by the total quantity sold to that importer (or customer).
To determine whether the duty assessment rates are de minimis, in
accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we
calculated importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem ratios based on
the estimated entered value. Where an importer (or customer)-specific
ad valorem rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to
liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. See
19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of these administrative reviews for
all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For New-Tec and
Feili, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate
established in the final results of the 2008-2009 review (except, if
the rate is zero or de minimis, no cash deposit will be required); (2)
for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not
listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will
continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent
period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not
been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate
will be the PRC-wide rate of 70.71 percent; and (4) for all non-PRC
exporters of subject merchandise that have not received their own rate,
the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporters
that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when
imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: July 7, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-17172 Filed 7-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
