Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent To Rescind Review in Part, 7534-7546 [2011-3024]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
7534
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 28 / Thursday, February 10, 2011 / Notices
Dated: February 3, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: 202–482–1655.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[FR Doc. 2011–3018 Filed 2–9–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–506]
Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware from
the People’s Republic of China: Final
Results of the Expedited Sunset
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On October 1, 2010, the
Department of Commerce
(‘‘Department’’) initiated a sunset review
of the antidumping duty order on
porcelain-on-steel cooking ware (‘‘POS
cookware’’) from the People’s Republic
of China (‘‘PRC’’) pursuant to section
751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (‘‘Act’’). See Initiation of FiveYear (‘‘Sunset’’) Review, 75 FR 60731
(October 1, 2010) (‘‘Sunset Initiation’’);
see also Antidumping Duty Order;
Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware from
the People’s Republic of China, 51 FR
43414 (December 2, 1986) (‘‘Order’’). On
October 18, 2010, Columbian Home
Products, LLC (formerly General
Housewares Corporation)
(‘‘Columbian’’), the petitioner in the POS
cookware investigation, notified the
Department that it intended to
participate in the sunset review. The
Department did not receive a
substantive response from any
respondent party. Based on the notice of
intent to participate and adequate
response filed by the domestic
interested party, and the lack of
response from any respondent
interested party, the Department
conducted an expedited sunset review
of the Order pursuant to section
751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2). As a result of this
sunset review, the Department finds that
revocation of the Order would likely
lead to continuation or recurrence of
dumping, at the levels indicated in the
‘‘Final Results of Sunset Review’’ section
of this notice, infra.
DATES: Effective Date: February 10,
2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toni
Dach; AD/CVD Operations, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:10 Feb 09, 2011
Jkt 223001
Background
On October 1, 2010, the Department
initiated a sunset review of the order on
POS cookware pursuant to section
751(c) of the Act. See Sunset Initiation,
75 FR 60731. On October 18, 2010, the
Department received a timely notice of
intent to participate in the sunset review
from Columbian, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.218(d)(1)(i). In accordance with 19
CFR 351.218(d)(1)(ii)(A), Columbian
claimed interested party status under
section 771(9)(C) of the Act as a
producer of the domestic like product.
On November 1, 2010, Columbian
filed a substantive response in the
sunset review, within the 30-day
deadline as specified in 19 CFR
351.218(d)(3)(i). The Department did
not receive a substantive response from
any respondent interested party in the
sunset review. As a result, pursuant to
section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the
Department conducted an expedited
sunset review of the Order.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise covered by this
order is porcelain-on-steel cooking ware
from the PRC, including tea kettles,
which do not have self-contained
electric heating elements. All of the
foregoing are constructed of steel and
are enameled or glazed with vitreous
glasses. The merchandise is currently
classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States
(‘‘HTSUS’’) subheading 7323.94.00. The
HTSUS subheading is provided for
convenience and customs purposes. The
written description of the scope remains
dispositive.
Analysis of Comments Received
A complete discussion of all issues
raised in this sunset review is addressed
in the accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum, which is hereby
adopted by this notice. See the
Department’s memorandum entitled,
‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for
the Final Results in the Expedited
Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty
Order on Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking
Ware from the People’s Republic of
China,’’ dated January 27, 2011 (‘‘I&D
Memo’’). The issues discussed in the
accompanying I&D Memo include the
likelihood of continuation or recurrence
of dumping and the magnitude of the
dumping margin likely to prevail if the
Order was revoked. Parties can obtain a
public copy of the I&D Memo on file in
the Central Records Unit, Room 7046, of
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the main Commerce building. In
addition, a complete public copy of the
I&D Memo can be accessed directly on
the Web at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The
paper copy and electronic version of the
I&D Memo are identical in content.
Final Results of Sunset Review
The Department determines that
revocation of the Order on POS
cookware would likely lead to
continuation or recurrence of dumping.
The Department also determines that
the dumping margins likely to prevail if
the order was revoked are as follows:
Manufacturers/exporters/
producers
Weightedaverage
margin
(percent)
China National Light Industrial
Products Import and Export
Corporation .............................
PRC-Wide Entity .........................
66.65
66.65
Notification Regarding Administrative
Protective Order
This notice also serves as the only
reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’)
of their responsibility concerning the
return or destruction of proprietary
information disclosed under APO in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.305.
Timely notification of the return or
destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is
hereby requested. Failure to comply
with the regulations and terms of an
APO is a violation which is subject to
sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these
results and notice in accordance with
sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the
Act.
Dated: January 27, 2011.
Christian Marsh,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011–3008 Filed 2–9–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–890]
Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the
People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review and Intent
To Rescind Review in Part
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\10FEN1.SGM
10FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 28 / Thursday, February 10, 2011 / Notices
In response to requests from
interested parties, the Department of
Commerce (‘‘Department’’) is conducting
an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on wooden
bedroom furniture (‘‘WBF’’) from the
People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). The
period of review (‘‘POR’’) is January 1,
2009 through December 31, 2009. This
administrative review covers multiple
exporters of the subject merchandise,
one of which is being individually
examined as a ‘‘mandatory respondent.’’
We have preliminarily determined
that the mandatory respondent, Huafeng
Furniture Group Co., Ltd. (‘‘Huafeng’’),
made sales to the United States at prices
below normal value (‘‘NV’’). Nine
companies failed to provide separate
rate information and thus did not
demonstrate that they are entitled to a
separate rate, and have been treated as
part of the PRC-wide entity.
Additionally, 31 separate rate applicants
(including Huafeng) have demonstrated
that they are entitled to a separate rate
and have been assigned the dumping
margin calculated for the mandatory
respondent. If these preliminary results
are adopted in our final results of
review, we will instruct U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess
antidumping duties on entries of subject
merchandise during the POR for which
the importer-specific assessment rates
are above de minimis.
We invite interested parties to
comment on these preliminary results.
Parties who submit comments are
requested to submit with each argument
a statement of the issue and a brief
summary of the argument. We intend to
issue the final results of this review no
later than 120 days from the date of
publication of this notice.
DATES: Effective Date: February 10,
2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff
Pedersen or Rebecca Pandolph, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 4, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–2769 or (202) 482–
3627, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
Background
On January 4, 2005, the Department
published in the Federal Register the
antidumping duty order on WBF from
the PRC.1 On January 11, 2010, the
1 See Notice of Amended Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping
Duty Order: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the
People’s Republic of China, 70 FR 329 (January 4,
2005).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:10 Feb 09, 2011
Jkt 223001
Department notified interested parties of
their opportunity to request an
administrative review of orders,
findings, or suspended investigations
with anniversaries in January 2010,
including the antidumping duty order
on WBF from the PRC. See
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty
Order, Finding, or Suspended
Investigation; Opportunity to Request
Administrative Review, 75 FR 1333
(January 11, 2010) (‘‘Opportunity to
Request Administrative Review’’). In
January 2010, the petitioners, American
Furniture Manufacturers Committee for
Legal Trade and Vaughan-Bassett
Furniture Company, Inc. (‘‘AFMC/
Vaughan-Bassett’’), and the domestic
interested parties, Kimball International,
Inc., Kimball Furniture Group, Inc. and
Kimball Hospitality Inc., American of
Martinsville, and Ashley Furniture, and
certain foreign exporters requested that
the Department conduct an
administrative review. In total, the
Department received review requests
covering 171 companies. On March 4,
2010, the Department published a notice
initiating an antidumping duty
administrative review of WBF from the
PRC covering 171 companies and the
period January 1, 2009 through
December 31, 2009. See Initiation of
Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Wooden
Bedroom Furniture From the People’s
Republic of China, 75 FR 9869 (March
4, 2010) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’).
In the Initiation Notice and
Opportunity to Request Administrative
Review, parties were notified that if the
Department limited the number of
respondents selected for individual
examination, it would select
respondents based on export/shipment
data provided in response to the
Department’s quantity and value
(‘‘Q&V’’) questionnaire. The Department
further stated its intention to limit the
number of Q&V questionnaires issued in
the review based on CBP data for U.S.
imports classified under the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) headings
identified in the scope of the
antidumping duty order on WBF from
the PRC and to send Q&V
questionnaires to the 20 companies for
which a review was requested with the
largest total values of subject
merchandise imported into the United
States during the POR according to CBP
data. See Initiation Notice, 75 FR at
9870. The Initiation Notice also notified
parties that they must timely submit
separate rate applications or separate
rate certifications in order to qualify for
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
7535
a separate rate. See Initiation Notice, 75
FR at 9870–71.
On March 2, 2010, the Department
issued Q&V questionnaires to the 20
companies for which a review was
requested with the largest shipments by
value according to information gathered
from CBP. These questionnaires
requested that the companies report the
Q&V of their POR exports and/or
shipments of WBF to the United States
for the purpose of respondent selection.
The Department received 59 Q&V
questionnaire responses during March
2010. In addition, from March through
May 2010, the Department received
separate rate certifications and
applications as well as requests from
seven companies to be treated as
voluntary respondents.
On April 5, 2010, AFMC/VaughanBassett submitted comments on the
Department’s process of selecting
mandatory respondents. Given its
limited resources, and the fact that an
administrative review was requested for
171 companies/company groupings, on
April 28, 2010, the Department decided
to individually examine the following
companies, based upon the Q&V data:
(1) Huafeng and (2) the Dorbest Group,
which consists of Rui Feng Woodwork
Co. Ltd., Rui Feng Lumber Development
Co., Ltd., Dorbest Ltd., Rui Feng
Woodwork (Dongguan) Co., Ltd., and
Rui Feng Lumber Development
(Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.2
On April 28, 2010, the Department
issued the antidumping questionnaire to
Huafeng and the Dorbest Group, and
made the questionnaire available to the
voluntary respondents. After all parties
withdrew their review requests for the
Dorbest Group,3 the Department issued
an amendment to the Respondent
Selection Memorandum on June 16,
2010, naming the company group
Dongguan Sunrise Furniture Co.,
Taicang Sunrise Wood Industry Co.,
Ltd., and Huafeng Designs (‘‘Fairmont’’)
as an additional mandatory
respondent.4
From March through August 2010, a
number of interested parties withdrew
2 See memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia,
Director, Office 4, AD/CVD Operations, regarding,
‘‘Respondent Selection in the 2009 Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review of Wooden Bedroom
Furniture from the People’s Republic of China,’’
dated April 28, 2010 (‘‘Respondent Selection
Memorandum’’).
3 All review requests were withdrawn for the
Dorbest Group prior to the due date for the group
to respond to section A of the antidumping
questionnaire.
4 See memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia,
Director, Office 4, AD/CVD Operations, regarding,
‘‘Amendment to Respondent Selection in the
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of
Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People’s
Republic of China (PRC),’’ dated June 16, 2010.
E:\FR\FM\10FEN1.SGM
10FEN1
7536
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 28 / Thursday, February 10, 2011 / Notices
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
their review requests, including all
review requests of the mandatory
respondent Fairmont. On September 9,
2010, the Department published a notice
rescinding the review with respect to
119 entities for which all review
requests had been withdrawn.5
Between June and November 2010,
Huafeng responded to the Department’s
antidumping questionnaire and
supplemental questionnaires and
AFMC/Vaughan-Bassett commented on
Huafeng’s responses.
In response to the Department’s
September 2, 2010, letter providing
parties with an opportunity to submit
comments regarding surrogate country
and surrogate value selection, AFMC/
Vaughan Bassett and Huafeng filed
surrogate value comments in September
and November 2010.
On September 15, 2010, the
Department extended the deadline for
the issuance of the preliminary results
of the administrative review until
January 31, 2011.6
In November and December 2010, the
Department verified the antidumping
questionnaire and supplemental
questionnaire responses of Huafeng by
visiting its PRC headquarters and
factory and its U.S. sales affiliate Great
River Trading Co. (‘‘GRT’’).7
On December 7, 2010, AFMC/
Vaughan-Bassett withdrew the sole
request for a review of Zhangjiagang
Zheng Yan Decoration Co., Ltd. (‘‘ZYD’’).
Although the withdrawal was submitted
more than six months after the 90-day
regulatory deadline for withdrawing
review requests established in 19 CFR
351.213(d), AFMC/Vaughan-Bassett
contend that the Department has not
expended considerable resources and
effort on this company and thus it
should exercise its discretion to accept
the withdrawal of the review request
with respect to ZYD. The Department
has decided it is not reasonable to
extend the time for AFMC/VaughanBassett’s filing a withdrawal of its
request for a review of ZYD because it
was submitted at an advanced stage of
the review.
5 See Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the
People’s Republic of China: Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR
54854 (September 9, 2010).
6 See Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the
People’s Republic of China: Extension of Time
Limits for the Preliminary Results of the
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR
56059 (September 15, 2010).
7 See the separate January 31, 2010, memoranda
regarding verification in the 5th Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Wooden Bedroom
Furniture from the People’s Republic of China
covering Dalian Huafeng Furniture Group Co., Ltd.
and Great River Trading Co., Ltd. (collectively, the
‘‘5th Review Verification Reports’’).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:10 Feb 09, 2011
Jkt 223001
Scope of the Order
The product covered by the order is
WBF. WBF is generally, but not
exclusively, designed, manufactured,
and offered for sale in coordinated
groups, or bedrooms, in which all of the
individual pieces are of approximately
the same style and approximately the
same material and/or finish. The subject
merchandise is made substantially of
wood products, including both solid
wood and also engineered wood
products made from wood particles,
fibers, or other wooden materials such
as plywood, strand board, particle
board, and fiberboard, with or without
wood veneers, wood overlays, or
laminates, with or without non-wood
components or trim such as metal,
marble, leather, glass, plastic, or other
resins, and whether or not assembled,
completed, or finished.
The subject merchandise includes the
following items: (1) Wooden beds such
as loft beds, bunk beds, and other beds;
(2) wooden headboards for beds
(whether stand-alone or attached to side
rails), wooden footboards for beds,
wooden side rails for beds, and wooden
canopies for beds; (3) night tables, night
stands, dressers, commodes, bureaus,
mule chests, gentlemen’s chests,
bachelor’s chests, lingerie chests,
wardrobes, vanities, chessers,
chifforobes, and wardrobe-type cabinets;
(4) dressers with framed glass mirrors
that are attached to, incorporated in, sit
on, or hang over the dresser; (5) chestson-chests,8 highboys,9 lowboys,10 chests
of drawers,11chests,12door chests,13
chiffoniers,14 hutches,15 and
armoires;16(6) desks, computer stands,
8 A chest-on-chest is typically a tall chest-ofdrawers in two or more sections (or appearing to be
in two or more sections), with one or two sections
mounted (or appearing to be mounted) on a slightly
larger chest; also known as a tallboy.
9 A highboy is typically a tall chest of drawers
usually composed of a base and a top section with
drawers, and supported on four legs or a small chest
(often 15 inches or more in height).
10 A lowboy is typically a short chest of drawers,
not more than four feet high, normally set on short
legs.
11 A chest of drawers is typically a case
containing drawers for storing clothing.
12 A chest is typically a case piece taller than it
is wide featuring a series of drawers and with or
without one or more doors for storing clothing. The
piece can either include drawers or be designed as
a large box incorporating a lid.
13 A door chest is typically a chest with hinged
doors to store clothing, whether or not containing
drawers. The piece may also include shelves for
televisions and other entertainment electronics.
14 A chiffonier is typically a tall and narrow chest
of drawers normally used for storing undergarments
and lingerie, often with mirror(s) attached.
15 A hutch is typically an open case of furniture
with shelves that typically sits on another piece of
furniture and provides storage for clothes.
16 An armoire is typically a tall cabinet or
wardrobe (typically 50 inches or taller), with doors,
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
filing cabinets, book cases, or writing
tables that are attached to or
incorporated in the subject
merchandise; and (7) other bedroom
furniture consistent with the above list.
The scope of the order excludes the
following items: (1) Seats, chairs,
benches, couches, sofas, sofa beds,
stools, and other seating furniture; (2)
mattresses, mattress supports (including
box springs), infant cribs, water beds,
and futon frames; (3) office furniture,
such as desks, stand-up desks, computer
cabinets, filing cabinets, credenzas, and
bookcases; (4) dining room or kitchen
furniture such as dining tables, chairs,
servers, sideboards, buffets, corner
cabinets, china cabinets, and china
hutches; (5) other non-bedroom
furniture, such as television cabinets,
cocktail tables, end tables, occasional
tables, wall systems, book cases, and
entertainment systems; (6) bedroom
furniture made primarily of wicker,
cane, osier, bamboo or rattan; (7) side
rails for beds made of metal if sold
separately from the headboard and
footboard; (8) bedroom furniture in
which bentwood parts predominate; 17
(9) jewelry armories; 18 (10) cheval
and with one or more drawers (either exterior below
or above the doors or interior behind the doors),
shelves, and/or garment rods or other apparatus for
storing clothes. Bedroom armoires may also be used
to hold television receivers and/or other audiovisual entertainment systems.
17 As used herein, bentwood means solid wood
made pliable. Bentwood is wood that is brought to
a curved shape by bending it while made pliable
with moist heat or other agency and then set by
cooling or drying. See CBP’s Headquarters Ruling
Letter 043859, dated May 17, 1976.
18 Any armoire, cabinet or other accent item for
the purpose of storing jewelry, not to exceed 24
inches in width, 18 inches in depth, and 49 inches
in height, including a minimum of 5 lined drawers
lined with felt or felt-like material, at least one side
door (whether or not the door is lined with felt or
felt-like material), with necklace hangers, and a fliptop lid with inset mirror. See Issues and Decision
Memorandum from Laurel LaCivita to Laurie
Parkhill, Office Director, concerning ‘‘Jewelry
Armoires and Cheval Mirrors in the Antidumping
Duty Investigation of Wooden Bedroom Furniture
from the People’s Republic of China,’’ dated August
31, 2004. See also Wooden Bedroom Furniture From
the People’s Republic of China: Final Changed
Circumstances Review, and Determination To
Revoke Order in Part, 71 FR 38621 (July 7, 2006).
E:\FR\FM\10FEN1.SGM
10FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 28 / Thursday, February 10, 2011 / Notices
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
mirrors; 19 (11) certain metal parts; 20
(12) mirrors that do not attach to,
incorporate in, sit on, or hang over a
dresser if they are not designed and
marketed to be sold in conjunction with
a dresser as part of a dresser-mirror set;
(13) upholstered beds 21 and (14) toy
boxes.22
Imports of subject merchandise are
classified under subheadings
19 Cheval mirrors are any framed, tiltable mirror
with a height in excess of 50 inches that is mounted
on a floor-standing, hinged base. Additionally, the
scope of the order excludes combination cheval
mirror/jewelry cabinets. The excluded merchandise
is an integrated piece consisting of a cheval mirror,
i.e., a framed tiltable mirror with a height in excess
of 50 inches, mounted on a floor-standing, hinged
base, the cheval mirror serving as a door to a
cabinet back that is integral to the structure of the
mirror and which constitutes a jewelry cabinet line
with fabric, having necklace and bracelet hooks,
mountings for rings and shelves, with or without a
working lock and key to secure the contents of the
jewelry cabinet back to the cheval mirror, and no
drawers anywhere on the integrated piece. The fully
assembled piece must be at least 50 inches in
height, 14.5 inches in width, and 3 inches in depth.
See Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People’s
Republic of China: Final Changed Circumstances
Review and Determination To Revoke Order in Part,
72 FR 948 (January 9, 2007).
20 Metal furniture parts and unfinished furniture
parts made of wood products (as defined above)
that are not otherwise specifically named in this
scope (i.e., wooden headboards for beds, wooden
footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and
wooden canopies for beds) and that do not possess
the essential character of wooden bedroom
furniture in an unassembled, incomplete, or
unfinished form. Such parts are usually classified
under HTSUS subheadings 9403.90.7005,
9403.90.7010, or 9403.90.7080.
21 Upholstered beds that are completely
upholstered, i.e., containing filling material and
completely covered in sewn genuine leather,
synthetic leather, or natural or synthetic decorative
fabric. To be excluded, the entire bed (headboards,
footboards, and side rails) must be upholstered
except for bed feet, which may be of wood, metal,
or any other material and which are no more than
nine inches in height from the floor. See Wooden
Bedroom Furniture from the People’s Republic of
China: Final Results of Changed Circumstances
Review and Determination to Revoke Order in Part,
72 FR 7013 (February 14, 2007).
22 To be excluded the toy box must: (1) Be wider
than it is tall; (2) have dimensions within 16 inches
to 27 inches in height, 15 inches to 18 inches in
depth, and 21 inches to 30 inches in width; (3) have
a hinged lid that encompasses the entire top of the
box; (4) not incorporate any doors or drawers; (5)
have slow-closing safety hinges; (6) have air vents;
(7) have no locking mechanism; and (8) comply
with American Society for Testing and Materials
(‘‘ASTM’’) standard F963–03. Toy boxes are boxes
generally designed for the purpose of storing
children’s items such as toys, books, and
playthings. See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from
the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of
Changed Circumstances Review and Determination
to Revoke Order in Part, 74 FR 8506 (February 25,
2009). Further, as determined in the scope ruling
memorandum ‘‘Wooden Bedroom Furniture from
the People’s Republic of China: Scope Ruling on a
White Toy Box,’’ dated July 6, 2009, the
dimensional ranges used to identify the toy boxes
that are excluded from the wooden bedroom
furniture order apply to the box itself rather than
the lid.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:10 Feb 09, 2011
Jkt 223001
9403.50.9042 and 9403.50.9045 23 of the
HTSUS as ‘‘wooden * * * beds’’ and
under subheading 9403.50.9080 of the
HTSUS as ‘‘other * * * wooden
furniture of a kind used in the
bedroom.’’ In addition, wooden
headboards for beds, wooden footboards
for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and
wooden canopies for beds may also be
entered under subheading 9403.50.9042
or 9403.50.9045 of the HTSUS as ‘‘parts
of wood.’’ Subject merchandise may also
be entered under subheading
9403.60.8081.24 Further, framed glass
mirrors may be entered under
subheading 7009.92.1000 25 or
7009.92.5000 of the HTSUS as ‘‘glass
mirrors * * * framed.’’ This order
covers all WBF meeting the above
description, regardless of tariff
classification. Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, our
written description of the scope of this
proceeding is dispositive.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the
Act’’), we have verified the information
provided by Huafeng using standard
verification procedures including onsite inspection of the manufacturer’s
facilities and the examination of
relevant sales and financial records. Our
verification results are outlined in the
5th Review PRC Verification Report 26
and 5th Review CEP Verification
Report,27 the public versions of which
are available in the Central Records
Unit, Room 7046 of the main
Department building.
Intent To Rescind the 2009
Administrative Review, in Part
Among the companies still under
review, 12 companies reported that they
made no shipments of subject
merchandise to the United States during
23 These HTSUS numbers, as well as the numbers
in footnote 19, reflect the HTSUS numbers
currently in effect. These numbers differ from those
used in the last completed antidumping duty
administrative review of WBF from the PRC
because the HTSUS has been revised.
24 This HTSUS number has been added to the
scope in this segment of the proceeding.
25 Id.
26 See memorandum to the file through Howard
Smith, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 4, entitled ‘‘Verification at Dalian Huafeng
Furniture Group Co., Ltd. in the 5th Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review of Wooden Bedroom
Furniture from the People’s Republic of China,’’
dated January 31, 2011.
27 See memorandum to the file through Howard
Smith, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 4, entitled ‘‘Verification at Great River
Trading Co., Ltd. in the 5th Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Wooden Bedroom
Furniture from the People’s Republic of China,’’
(‘‘CEP Verification Report’’) dated January 31, 2011.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
7537
the POR. To test these claims, the
Department ran a CBP data query,
issued no-shipment inquiries to CBP
requesting that it provide any
information that contradicted the noshipment claims, and obtained entry
documents from CBP.28 After examining
record information, we have
preliminarily determined that three of
the 12 companies, Nantong Yangzi
Furniture Company (‘‘Nantong Yangzi’’),
Zhongshan Gainwell Furniture Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Zhongshan Gainwell’’), and Dongguan
Landmark Furniture Products Ltd.
(‘‘Dongguan Landmark’’), had shipments
of subject merchandise that entered the
United States during the POR.29
Since record evidence does not
contradict the no-shipment claims of the
following companies, the Department
has preliminarily rescinded this
administrative review with respect to
these companies, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.213(d)(3):
• Clearwise Company Limited
• Dongguan Huangsheng Furniture
Co., Ltd.30
• Dongguan Mu Si Furniture Co. Ltd.
• Fleetwood Fine Furniture LP
• Hainan Jong Bao Lumber Co. Ltd/
Jibbon Enterprise Co., Ltd.
• Shanghai Fangjia Industry Co., Ltd.
• Yeh Brothers World Trade Inc.
• Golden Well International (HK) Ltd.
• Zhejiang Tianyi Scientific and
Educational Equipment Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Zhejiang Tianyi’’) 31
Non-Market Economy Country Status
In every case conducted by the
Department involving the PRC, the PRC
has been treated as a non-market
economy (‘‘NME’’) country. In
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of
the Act, any determination that a foreign
country is an NME country shall remain
in effect until revoked by the
28 See memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia,
Director, Office 4, AD/CVD Operations, regarding
‘‘Intent to Rescind the Review of Respondents
Claiming No Sales/Shipments’’ dated January 31,
2011.
29 Id.
30 Dongguan Huangsheng Furniture Co., Ltd.’s
only sales made during the POR were covered by
a new shipper review for the period January 1,
2009, through December 31, 2009. If the new
shipper review of this company is completed, these
shipments are not subject to this administrative
review. See Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the
People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews, 75 FR
72794 (November 26, 2010); see also 19 CFR
351.214(j).
31 Zhejiang Tianyi’s only sales made during the
POR were covered by a new shipper review
covering the period January 1, 2009, through June
30, 2009 and thus are not subject to this review. See
Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty New Shipper Review, 75 FR 44764 (July 29,
2010).
E:\FR\FM\10FEN1.SGM
10FEN1
7538
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 28 / Thursday, February 10, 2011 / Notices
administering authority. None of the
parties to this proceeding have
contested NME treatment. Accordingly,
the Department calculated NV in
accordance with section 773(c) of the
Act, which applies to NME countries.
Selection of a Surrogate Country
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
When the Department conducts an
antidumping duty administrative review
of imports from an NME country,
section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the
Department to base NV, in most cases,
on the NME producer’s factors of
production (‘‘FOP’’) valued in a
surrogate market economy country or
countries considered appropriate by the
Department. In accordance with section
773(c)(4) of the Act, the Department will
value FOP using ‘‘to the extent possible,
the prices or costs of factors of
production in one or more market
economy countries that are—(A) at a
level of economic development
comparable to that of the NME country,
and (B) significant producers of
comparable merchandise.’’ Further,
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(2), the
Department will normally value all FOP
in a single country, except for labor.
In the instant review, the Department
identified India, Indonesia, Peru, the
Philippines, Thailand, and Ukraine as
being at a level of economic
development comparable to the PRC.32
On September 14, 2010, AFMC/
Vaughan-Bassett provided information
regarding the selection of a surrogate
country.33 AFMC/Vaughan-Bassett
asserted that the Philippines satisfies
the statutory requirements for the
selection of the surrogate country
because it is at a level of economic
development comparable to the PRC
and is a significant producer of
comparable merchandise.34 AFMC/
Vaughan-Bassett provided an October
2007 report entitled the The Furniture
Industry in the Philippines published by
the international research firm CSIL
Milano that demonstrates the
significance of Philippine production of
32 See memorandum entitled, ‘‘Request for a List
of Surrogate Countries for an Administrative
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Wooden
Bedroom Furniture (‘‘WBF’’) from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’),’’ dated April 26, 2010
(‘‘Policy Memorandum’’). The Department notes that
these six countries are part of a non-exhaustive list
of countries that are at a level of economic
development comparable to the PRC.
33 See Letter from AFMC/Vaughan-Bassett
regarding, ‘‘Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the
People’s Republic of China: Comments Concerning
Surrogate Country And The April 26, 2010, Office
Of Policy Memorandum,’’ dated September 14, 2010
(‘‘AFMC/Vaughan-Bassett’s Surrogate Country
Comments’’).
34 See AFMC/Vaughan-Bassett’s Surrogate
Country Comments at 2.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:10 Feb 09, 2011
Jkt 223001
wooden furniture.35 Moreover, AFMC/
Vaughan-Bassett noted that the
Philippines has been selected as the
surrogate country in the recent segments
of this proceeding and provides readily
available and reliable factor value
data.36 No other interested parties
commented on the selection of a
surrogate country.
Based on the information on the
record, we find that the Philippines is
a significant producer of comparable
merchandise. Specifically, The
Furniture Industry in the Philippines
report indicates that in 2006, Philippine
manufacturers produced furniture
valued at $813 million and the
Philippines exported furniture valued at
$279 million.37 In addition, The
Furniture Industry in the Philippines
describes the furniture sector as
comprised of approximately 15,000
manufacturers and 800,000 workers.38
Thus, record evidence shows that the
Philippines is a significant producer of
merchandise that is comparable to the
merchandise under review.
With respect to data considerations in
selecting a surrogate country, from
September to December 2010, AFMC/
Vaughan-Bassett and Huafeng submitted
publicly-available Philippine data for
valuing Huafeng’s FOP. In addition, the
Department used the Philippines as the
primary surrogate country in the
second, third, and fourth administrative
reviews of this proceeding.39 Therefore,
based on parties’ submissions on the
instant record and its experience in this
proceeding, the Department finds that
reliable, publicly available data for
valuing FOP are available from the
Philippines.
However, for the input ‘‘railway
freight,’’ the Department has been
unable to locate a suitable surrogate
value from the Philippines. Therefore,
35 See AFMC/Vaughan-Bassett’s Surrogate
Country Comments at Attachment 1.
36 See AFMC/Vaughan-Bassett’s Surrogate
Country Comments at 3.
37 See AFMC/Vaughan-Bassett’s’ Surrogate
Country Comments at Attachment 1.
38 Id.
39 See Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the
People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review and
Partial Rescission of Administrative Review, 73 FR
8273, 8277–78 (February 13, 2008), unchanged in
the final results, 73 FR 49162; Wooden Bedroom
Furniture From the People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative and New Shipper Reviews and
Partial Rescission of Review, 74 FR 6372, 6376
(February 9, 2009), unchanged in the final results,
74 FR 41374; and Wooden Bedroom Furniture From
the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and
Intent To Rescind Review in Part, 75 FR 5952, 5956
(February 5, 2010), unchanged in the final results,
75 FR 50992.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
we preliminary determine to use India
as a secondary surrogate country
because the record shows that India is
at a level of economic development
comparable to that of the PRC 40 and is
a significant producer of merchandise
comparable to the subject
merchandise.41 Moreover, India has
publicly available, country-wide data
that clearly identifies the relevant time
period and prices for valuing railway
freight.42
Thus, the Department has
preliminarily selected the Philippines as
the surrogate country because the record
shows that the Philippines is at a level
of economic development comparable to
that of the PRC and is a significant
producer of merchandise comparable to
subject merchandise. Moreover, the
record indicates that sufficient,
contemporaneous, public Philippine
data are readily-available.43
Accordingly, we have selected the
Philippines as the surrogate country and
we have calculated NV using Philippine
prices to value Huafeng’s FOP.44 In
accordance with 19 CFR
351.301(c)(3)(ii), interested parties may
submit publicly-available information to
value FOP until 20 days after the date
of publication of the preliminary
results.45
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. It is the Department’s policy
40 See
Policy Memorandum.
memorandum to the File through Howard
Smith, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 4, entitled ‘‘Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Wooden Bedroom
Furniture from the People’s Republic of China:
Factor Valuation Memorandum,’’ dated January 31,
2011 (‘‘Factor Valuation Memorandum’’) at
Attachments III and IV.
42 See the Factor Valuations section below for
further details.
43 See Factor Valuation Memorandum.
44 Id.
45 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for
the final results of this administrative review,
interested parties may submit factual information to
rebut, clarify, or correct factual information
submitted by an interested party less than ten days
before, on, or after, the applicable deadline for
submission of such factual information. However,
the Department notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1)
permits new information only insofar as it rebuts,
clarifies, or corrects information placed on the
record. The Department generally will not accept
the submission of additional, previously absentfrom-the-record alternative surrogate value
information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). See
Glycine from the People’s Republic of China: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and Final Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809
(October 17, 2007) and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
41 See
E:\FR\FM\10FEN1.SGM
10FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 28 / Thursday, February 10, 2011 / Notices
to assign all exporters of subject
merchandise in a NME country this
single rate unless an exporter can
demonstrate that it is sufficiently
independent so as to be entitled to a
separate rate. Exporters can demonstrate
this independence through the absence
of both de jure and de facto
governmental control over export
activities. The Department analyzes
each entity exporting the subject
merchandise under a test arising from
the Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Sparklers From the
People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 20588
(May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’), as further
developed in Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the
People’s Republic of China, 59 FR
22585, 22586–87 (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. See Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate from
the People’s Republic of China, 64 FR
71104, 71105 (December 20, 1999)
(where the respondent was wholly
foreign-owned and thus qualified for a
separate rate). As part of our analysis we
sent several supplemental
questionnaires to certain separate rate
respondents and received responses in
September and October 2010.
A. Separate Rate Recipients
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
1. Wholly Foreign-Owned 46
Certain companies reported that they
are wholly owned by individuals or
companies located in a market economy
(collectively, ‘‘Foreign-owned SR
Applicants’’). The record indicates that
these companies are wholly foreignowned and the Department has no
evidence indicating that they are under
the control of the PRC government.
Accordingly, the Department has
preliminarily granted a separate rate to
these Foreign-owned SR Applicants.
2. Joint Ventures Between Chinese and
Foreign Companies or Wholly ChineseOwned Companies 47
For all separate rate applicants that
reported that they are either joint
ventures between Chinese and foreign
companies, or are wholly Chinese46 Wholly foreign-owned companies are
identified in the Preliminary Results of Review
section below by the symbol ‘‘*’’, while partially and
wholly owned Chinese companies are identified by
the symbol ‘‘#’’.
47 Id.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:10 Feb 09, 2011
Jkt 223001
owned companies (collectively ‘‘PRC SR
Applicants’’), the Department has
analyzed whether each PRC SR
Applicant has demonstrated the absence
of de jure and de facto governmental
control over its respective export
activities.
a. Absence of De Jure Control
The Department considers the
following de jure criteria in determining
whether an individual company may be
granted a separate rate: (1) An absence
of restrictive stipulations associated
with an individual exporter’s business
and export license; (2) legislative
enactments decentralizing control of
companies; and (3) other formal
measures by the government
decentralizing control of companies. See
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
The evidence provided by the PRC SR
Applicants supports a preliminary
finding of an absence of de jure
governmental control based on the
following: (1) An absence of restrictive
stipulations associated with the
individual exporters’ business and
export licenses; (2) applicable legislative
enactments decentralizing control of
PRC companies; and (3) formal
measures by the government
decentralizing control of PRC
companies.
b. Absence of De Facto Control
The Department considers four factors
in evaluating whether each respondent
is subject to de facto governmental
control of its export functions: (1)
Whether the export prices are set by or
are subject to the approval of a
governmental agency; (2) whether the
respondent has authority to negotiate
and sign contracts and other
agreements; (3) whether the respondent
has autonomy from the government in
making decisions regarding the
selection of management; and (4)
whether the respondent retains the
proceeds of its export sales and makes
independent decisions regarding
disposition of profits or financing of
losses. See Silicon Carbide, 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). The
Department has determined that an
analysis of de facto control is critical in
determining whether respondents are,
in fact, subject to a degree of
governmental control which would
preclude the Department from assigning
separate rates.
The evidence provided by the PRC SR
Applicants supports a preliminary
finding of an absence of de facto
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
7539
governmental control based on the
following: (1) An absence of restrictive
governmental control on the PRC SR
Applicants’ export prices; (2) a showing
of the PRC SR Applicants’ authority to
negotiate and sign contracts and other
agreements; (3) a showing that the PRC
SR Applicants maintain autonomy from
the government in making decisions
regarding the selection of management;
and (4) a showing that the PRC SR
Applicants retain the proceeds of their
respective export sales and make
independent decisions regarding
disposition of profits or financing of
losses.
The evidence placed on the record by
the PRC SR Applicants demonstrates an
absence of de jure and de facto
governmental control, in accordance
with the criteria identified in Sparklers
and Silicon Carbide. Accordingly, the
Department has preliminarily granted a
separate rate to the PRC SR Applicants.
B. Margins for Separate Rate Recipients
Not Individually Examined
Consistent with our normal
practice,48 we based the weightedaverage dumping margin for the
separate rate recipients not individually
examined on the weighted-average
dumping margin calculated for Huafeng,
the one mandatory respondent that
participated in this review. The entities
receiving this rate are identified by
name in the Preliminary Results of
Review section of this notice.
C. Companies Not Receiving a Separate
Rate
The following nine companies and
company groupings for which the
Department initiated the instant review
did not provide a separate rate
certification or application:
• Dongguan Creation Furniture Co.,
Ltd., Creation Industries Co., Ltd.
• Foshan Guanqiu Furniture Co., Ltd.
• Jiangsu Weifu Group Fullhouse
Furniture Mfg. Corp.
• Link Silver Ltd. (V.I.B.), Forward
Win Enterprises Company Limited,
Dongguan Haoshun Furniture Ltd.
• Nantong Yushi Furniture Co., Ltd.
• Shanghai Aosen Furniture Co., Ltd.
• Shenzhen Xiande Furniture Factory
• Tarzan Furniture Industries, Ltd.,
Samso Industries Ltd.
• Tianjin Master Home Furniture
The companies listed above, which
were named in the Initiation Notice,
were notified in that notice that they
48 See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain
Polyester Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic of
China, 71 FR 77373, 77377 (December 26, 2006),
unchanged in final determination, 72 FR 19690.
E:\FR\FM\10FEN1.SGM
10FEN1
7540
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 28 / Thursday, February 10, 2011 / Notices
must timely submit separate rate
applications or separate rate
certifications in order to qualify for a
separate rate. Additionally, the
Initiation Notice identified the Web site
address where the separate rate
certification and the separate rate
application could be found. Since each
of the companies listed above did not
provide separate rate information, they
have failed to demonstrate their
eligibility for separate rate status. As a
result, the Department is treating these
PRC exporters as part of the PRC-wide
entity.
Also, we have preliminarily found
that (1) Nantong Yangzi, (2) Zhongshan
Gainwell, and (3) Dongguan Landmark
shipped subject merchandise during the
POR, despite their claims to the
contrary.49 Because these companies
did not file a timely separate rate
certification or application and thereby
failed to provide separate rate
information, they have failed to
demonstrate their eligibility for separate
rate status. As a result, the Department
is treating these companies as part of the
PRC-wide entity.
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Use of Facts Available and Adverse
Facts Available (‘‘AFA’’)
Section 776(a) of the Act provides that
the Department shall apply ‘‘facts
otherwise available’’ if: (1) Necessary
information is not on the record, or (2)
an interested party or any other person
(A) withholds information that has been
requested, (B) fails to provide
information within the deadlines
established, or in the form and manner
requested by the Department, subject to
subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782
of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a
proceeding, or (D) provides information
that cannot be verified as provided by
section 782(i) of the Act.
Where the Department determines
that a response to a request for
information does not comply with the
request, section 782(d) of the Act
provides that the Department will so
inform the party submitting the
response and will, to the extent
practicable, provide that party the
opportunity to remedy or explain the
deficiency. If the party fails to remedy
the deficiency within the applicable
time limits and subject to section 782(e)
of the Act, the Department may
disregard all or part of the original and
subsequent responses, as appropriate.
Section 782(e) of the Act provides that
the Department ‘‘shall not decline to
49 See the January 31, 2011, memorandum from
Drew Jackson to Abdelali Elouaradia entitled
‘‘Intent to Rescind the Review of Respondents
Claiming No Sales/Shipments.’’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:10 Feb 09, 2011
Jkt 223001
consider information that is submitted
by an interested party and is necessary
to the determination but does not meet
all applicable requirements established
by the administering authority’’ if the
information is timely, can be verified, is
not so incomplete that it cannot be used,
and if the interested party acted to the
best of its ability in providing the
information. Where all of these
conditions are met, the statute requires
the Department to use the information
supplied if it can do so without undue
difficulties.
Section 776(b) of the Act further
provides that the Department may use
an adverse inference in applying the
facts otherwise available when a party
has failed to cooperate by not acting to
the best of its ability to comply with a
request for information. Such an adverse
inference may include reliance on
information derived from the petition,
the final determination, a previous
administrative review, or other
information placed on the record.
A. Application of Total AFA to the PRCWide Entity
In the Initiation Notice, the
Department stated that if one of the
companies for which this review has
been initiated ‘‘does not qualify for a
separate rate, all other exporters of WBF
from the PRC that have not qualified for
a separate rate are deemed to be covered
by this review as part of a single PRC
entity * * * .’’ As noted above, not all
of the companies for which this review
was initiated have qualified for a
separate rate; as a result, the PRC-wide
entity is now under review.
Certain companies which we are
treating as part of the PRC-wide entity
did not respond to the Department’s
request for Q&V data. We preliminarily
determine that these companies
withheld information requested by the
Department.
Thus, pursuant to sections
776(a)(2)(A) (withholds requested
information) and (C) (significantly
impedes a proceeding) of the Act, the
Department has preliminarily based the
dumping margin of the PRC-wide entity
on the facts otherwise available on the
record. Furthermore, the PRC-wide
entity’s refusal to provide the requested
information constitutes circumstances
under which it is reasonable to
conclude that less than full cooperation
has been shown. See Nippon Steel
Corporation v. United States, 337 F.3d
1373, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Nippon
Steel) where the Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit (‘‘CAFC’’) explained
that the Department need not show
intentional conduct existed on the part
of the respondent, but merely that a
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
‘‘failure to cooperate to the best of a
respondent’s ability’’ existed (i.e.,
information was not provided ‘‘under
circumstances in which it is reasonable
to conclude that less than full
cooperation has been shown’’). Hence,
pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act,
the Department has determined that,
when selecting from among the facts
otherwise available, an adverse
inference is warranted with respect to
the PRC-wide entity.
B. Application of Partial AFA for
Huafeng
At verification, we discovered that
Huafeng failed to report all constructed
export price (‘‘CEP’’) sales of subject
merchandise that were shipped directly
to unaffiliated U.S. customers.
Specifically, Huafeng failed to report a
number of sales where the date of sale
occurred prior to the POR, but the
merchandise entered the United States
during the POR.50 We further
discovered at verification that Huafeng
failed to report CEP sales that it
considered to be sample sales, but for
which it received payment. Finally, at
verification we discovered that Huafeng
failed to report CEP sales of four
dressers made during the POR. Since
Huafeng did not report these sales and
the related sales adjustments and did
not provide the control numbers for
these products as requested by the
Department, the information necessary
to calculate dumping margins for these
sales is not on the record. Thus, the
Department has based the dumping
margins for the unreported sales on facts
available pursuant to section
776(a)(2)(A) (withholds requested
information) of the Act.
Moreover, the Department finds that
in not reporting these sales, Huafeng has
failed to cooperate by not acting to the
best of its ability to comply with
requests for information and thus it is
appropriate to use an inference that is
adverse to Huafeng’s interests in
selecting from among the facts
otherwise available in accordance with
section 776(b) of the Act. The
Department requested that Huafeng
report U.S. sales of subject merchandise
following the reporting methodology
laid out in the questionnaire.51 In
preparing a response to a request from
the Department, it is presumed that a
respondent is familiar with its own
records.52 At verification, the verifiers
readily identified the unreported sales
50 See 5th Review CEP Verification Report at 12–
13 and Exhibits 1 and 7.
51 See, e.g., the Department’s antidumping
questionnaire, dated April 28, 2010, at C–1 and D–
1.
52 See Nippon Steel, 337 F.3d at 1383.
E:\FR\FM\10FEN1.SGM
10FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 28 / Thursday, February 10, 2011 / Notices
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
described above in documents that
Huafeng prepared for verification and in
Huafeng’s records.53
The Department’s questionnaire
instructs companies to ‘‘Report each
U.S. sale of merchandise entered for
consumption during the POR.’’ In its
questionnaire response, Huafeng stated
that it had ‘‘reported its sales of the
subject merchandise to the United
States during the POR * * *.’’ 54 To
confirm that Huafeng had reported all
sales consistent with the Department’s
questionnaire instructions, the
Department again requested of Huafeng
in a supplemental questionnaire: ‘‘All
CEP sales where the date of sale occurs
after the date of entry into the United
States should be reported based on
whether the date of sale occurred in the
POR. All CEP sales where the date of
sale occurred prior to the date of entry
into the United States should be
reported based on whether the date of
entry was during the POR. Have you
done so? If not, please do so at this
time.’’ 55 Huafeng responded that it
‘‘confirms that all CEP sales where the
date of sale occurred prior to the date
of entry into the U.S. were reported
based on whether the date of entry was
during the POR.’’ 56 Contrary to these
claims, however, Huafeng failed to
report CEP sales where the date of sale
occurred prior to the POR, but the
merchandise entered the United States
during the POR.
With regard to sample sales, the
Department, in its questionnaire,
requested certain information relating to
sample sales, including quantity and
gross unit price, and then instructed
Huafeng to ‘‘Please report in your sales
database all instances where you sold
samples to customers in the United
States.’’ While Huafeng reported export
price (‘‘EP’’) sample sales in its
submitted U.S. sales database, it did not
report the CEP sample sales in the sales
database, but only reported the total
sales value of CEP sample sales in the
narrative portion of its questionnaire
response.57 Thus, the Department did
not know the product information,
individual sales value, sales
adjustments or almost any other
information necessary to calculate the
antidumping margin of the CEP sample
sales. The Department also asked
53 See 5th Review CEP Verification Report at
Exhibit 7.
54 See Huafeng’s July 6, 2010 submission at 2.
55 See Huafeng’s September 20, 2010 submission
at 3.
56 See Huafeng’s September 20, 2010 submission
at 3.
57 See Huafeng’s July 6, 2010 submission at 48,
which contains both the Department’s question and
Huafeng’s response.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:10 Feb 09, 2011
Jkt 223001
Huafeng in a supplemental
questionnaire ‘‘Did you report all sales
of subject merchandise for which you
received consideration, including
sample sales? If not, please do so at this
time.’’ Huafeng replied that it had
‘‘reported all sales of subject
merchandise for which it received
consideration, including sample sales,’’
and that in the revised database it had
created a field that identified sales of
sample merchandise.58 While Huafeng
reported EP sample sales, it continually
failed, despite specific requests, to
report CEP sample sales in its U.S. sales
database.59
Lastly, despite claiming in its
questionnaire response that it had
‘‘reported its sales of the subject
merchandise to the United States during
the POR in this submission,’’ 60 at
verification, the verifiers found that
Huafeng failed to report four sales of
dressers.61
When Huafeng officials were asked at
verification why they failed to report all
three types of unreported sales, they did
not identify any impediments to
reporting them.62 This, in conjunction
with its failure to accurately respond to
the numerous requests cited above to
report the three different types of
unreported sales, indicates that Huafeng
did not act to the best of its abilities in
investigating its records for reportable
sales of subject merchandise. Huafeng
failed to act to the best of its ability to
comply with the Department’s repeated
requests for information regarding all of
its sales of subject merchandise.
Therefore, the Department has
preliminarily determined to apply AFA
to these unreported sales, pursuant to
section 776(b) of the Act.
C. Selection of AFA Rates
1. Total AFA Rate for the PRC-Wide
Entity
In deciding which facts to use as
AFA, section 776(b) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.308(c)(1) provide that the
Department may rely on information
derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final
determination in the investigation, (3)
any previous review or determination,
or (4) any information placed on the
record. The Department’s practice is to
select an AFA rate that is sufficiently
adverse ‘‘as to effectuate the purpose of
the facts available rule to induce
58 See Huafeng’s October 27, 2010 response at 12,
which contains both the Department’s question and
Huafeng’s response.
59 Id. at Exhibit S–66.
60 See Huafeng’s July 6, 2010 submission at 2.
61 See CEP Verification Report at 11.
62 See 5th Review CEP Verification Report at 12–
14.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
7541
respondents to provide the Department
with complete and accurate information
in a timely manner’’ and that ensures
‘‘that the party does not obtain a more
favorable result by failing to cooperate
than if it had cooperated fully.’’ 63
Specifically, the Department’s practice
in selecting a total AFA rate in
administrative reviews is to use the
highest rate on the record of the
proceeding which, to the extent
practicable, can be corroborated
(assuming the rate is based on
secondary information).64 The Court of
International Trade (‘‘CIT’’) and the
CAFC have affirmed decisions to select
the highest margin from any prior
segment of the proceeding as the AFA
rate on numerous occasions.65
Therefore, as AFA, the Department has
preliminarily assigned the PRC-wide
entity a dumping margin of 216.01
percent. This margin, which is from the
2004–2005 new shipper reviews of WBF
from the PRC, is the highest dumping
margin on the record of any segment of
this proceeding.66
2. Partial AFA for Huafeng’s Unreported
Sales
Consistent with the approach taken
under the same circumstances in the
2008 antidumping duty administrative
review of WBF from the PRC, we have
63 See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Static Random Access
Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan, 63 FR 8909,
8911 (February 23, 1998); see also Brake Rotors
From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results
and Partial Rescission of the Seventh
Administrative Review; Final Results of the
Eleventh New Shipper Review, 70 FR 69937, 69939
(November 18, 2005) and the Statement of
Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay
Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. 103, 316, 838,
870 (1994).
64 See Glycine from the People’s Republic of
China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 74 FR 15930, 15934 (April
8, 2009), unchanged in the final results, 74 FR
41121; see also Fujian Lianfu Forestry Co., Ltd. v.
United States, 638 F. Supp. 2d 1325, 1336 (Ct. Int’l
Trade 2009) (‘‘Commerce may, of course, begin its
total AFA selection process by defaulting to the
highest rate in any segment of the proceeding, but
that selection must then be corroborated, to the
extent practicable.’’).
65 See, e.g., NSK Ltd. v. United States, 346 F.
Supp. 2d 1312, 1335 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2004)
(affirming a 73.55 percent total AFA rate, the
highest available dumping margin from a different
respondent in the investigation); Kompass Food
Trading Int’l v. United States, 24 CIT 678, 683–84
(2000) (affirming a 51.16 percent total AFA rate, the
highest available dumping margin from a different,
fully cooperative respondent); and Shanghai Taoen
Int’l Trading Co., Ltd. v. United States, 360 F. Supp.
2d 1339, 1348 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2005) (affirming a
223.01 percent total AFA rate, the highest available
dumping margin from a different respondent in a
previous administrative review).
66 See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the
People’s Republic of China: Final Results of the
2004–2005 Semi-Annual New Shipper Reviews, 71
FR 70739, 70741 (December 6, 2006) (‘‘2004–2005
New Shipper Review’’).
E:\FR\FM\10FEN1.SGM
10FEN1
7542
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 28 / Thursday, February 10, 2011 / Notices
assigned as partial AFA for the
unreported sales the PRC-wide rate of
216.01 percent cited above, which is
from the 2004–2005 new shipper
reviews of WBF from the PRC, and is
the highest dumping margin on the
record of any segment of this
proceeding.67
Corroboration of Secondary
Information
Section 776(c) of the Act provides
that, when the Department relies on
secondary information rather than on
information obtained in the course of an
investigation or review, it shall, to the
extent practicable, corroborate that
information from independent sources
that are reasonably at its disposal.
Secondary information is defined as
information derived from the petition
that gave rise to the investigation or
review, the final determination
concerning the subject merchandise, or
any previous review under section 751
of the Act concerning the subject
merchandise.68 Corroborate means that
the Department will satisfy itself that
the secondary information to be used
has probative value.69 To corroborate
secondary information, the Department
will, to the extent practicable, examine
the reliability and relevance of the
information to be used.70 Independent
sources used to corroborate such
information may include, for example,
published price lists, official import
statistics and customs data, and
information obtained from interested
parties during the particular
investigation.71
The 216.01 AFA rate that the
Department is using in this review is a
company-specific rate calculated in the
2004–2005 New Shipper Review of the
67 Id.
68 See
SAA at 870.
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
69 Id.
70 See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,
Finished and Unfinished From Japan, and Tapered
Roller Bearings Four Inches or Less in Outside
Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of
Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392
(November 6, 1996), unchanged in the final results,
62 FR 11825; Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished From Japan, and
Tapered Roller Bearings Four Inches or Less in
Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From
Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part, 62
FR 11825 (March 13, 1997).
71 See Notice of Preliminary Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: High and Ultra-High
Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators from Japan,
68 FR 35627, 35629 (June 16, 2003), unchanged in
final determination, 68 FR 62560; Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Live Swine From Canada, 70 FR 12181, 12183–84
(March 11, 2005).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:10 Feb 09, 2011
Jkt 223001
WBF order.72 No additional information
has been presented in the current
review which calls into question the
reliability of the information. Thus, we
have determined this information
continues to be reliable.
With respect to the relevance aspect
of corroboration, the Department will
consider information reasonably at its
disposal to determine whether a margin
continues to have relevance. Where
circumstances indicate that the selected
margin is not appropriate as AFA, the
Department will disregard the margin
and determine an appropriate margin.
See Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico;
Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812,
6814 (February 22, 1996) (where the
Department disregarded the highest
margin in that case as adverse best
information available (the predecessor
to facts available) because the margin
was based on another company’s
uncharacteristic business expense
resulting in an unusually high margin).
Similarly, the Department does not
apply a margin that has been
discredited. See D&L Supply Co. v.
United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1221 (Fed.
Cir. 1997) (ruling that the Department
will not use a margin that has been
judicially invalidated).
To assess the relevancy of the rate
used, the Department compared the
transaction-specific margins calculated
for Huafeng in the instant
administrative review with the 216.01
percent rate calculated in the 2004–2005
New Shipper Review and found that the
216.01 percent margin was within the
range of the margins calculated on the
record of the instant administrative
review. Because the dumping margins
used to corroborate the AFA rate do not
reflect unusually high dumping margins
relative to the calculated rates
determined for the cooperating
respondent, the Department is satisfied
that the dumping margins used for
corroborative purposes reflect
commercial reality because they are
based upon real transactions that
occurred during the POR, were subject
to verification by the Department, and
were sufficient in number both in terms
of the number of sales and as a
percentage of total sales quantity.73
Since the 216.01 percent margin is
within the range of Huafeng’s
transaction-specific margins on the
record of this administrative review, the
Department has determined that the
216.01 percent margin continues to be
72 See 2004–2005 New Shipper Review, 71 FR at
70741.
73 See the January 31, 2010 Corroboration
Memorandum.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
relevant for use as an AFA rate for the
PRC-wide entity and for use as an AFA
rate applied to Huafeng’s unreported
sales.
As the adverse margin is both reliable
and relevant, the Department has
determined that it has probative value.
Accordingly, the Department has
determined that this rate meets the
corroboration criterion established in
section 776(c) of the Act.
Fair Value Comparisons
In accordance with section 777A(d)(2)
of the Act, to determine whether
Huafeng sold WBF to the United States
at less than NV, we compared the
weighted-average export and
constructed export price of the WBF to
the NV of the WBF, as described in the
‘‘U.S. Price,’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’
sections of this notice.
Export Price
The Department considered the U.S.
prices of certain sales by Huafeng to be
EP sales in accordance with section
772(a) of the Act, because these were the
prices at which the subject merchandise
was first sold before the date of
importation by the producer/exporter of
the subject merchandise outside of the
United States to an unaffiliated
purchaser in the United States or to an
unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to
the United States.
We calculated EPs based on prices to
unaffiliated purchaser(s) in the United
States. We deducted movement
expenses from the gross unit U.S. sales
price in accordance with section
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These movement
expenses include foreign inland freight
from the plant to the port of exportation,
and foreign brokerage and handling.
Where applicable, we reduced
movement expenses by freight revenue.
For a detailed description of all
adjustments, see Huafeng Analysis
Memorandum, dated concurrently with
this notice.
Constructed Export Price
In accordance with section 772(b) of
the Act, CEP is the price at which the
subject merchandise is first sold (or
agreed to be sold) in the United States
before or after the date of importation by
or for the account of the producer or
exporter of such merchandise or by a
seller affiliated with the producer or
exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated
with the producer or exporter, as
adjusted under sections 772(c) and (d)
of the Act. We considered sales made by
Huafeng’s U.S. affiliate in the United
States to be CEP sales.
We calculated CEP based on prices to
unaffiliated purchasers in the United
E:\FR\FM\10FEN1.SGM
10FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 28 / Thursday, February 10, 2011 / Notices
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
States. In accordance with section
772(c)(2)(A) and 772(d)(1) and of the
Act, where applicable, we made
deductions from the starting price for
billing adjustments, discounts and
rebates, movement expenses, and
commissions, credit expenses, inventory
carrying costs, factoring expense,
warranty expense, and indirect selling
expenses which relate to commercial
activity in the United States. Movement
expenses included, where applicable,
foreign inland freight from the plant to
the port of exportation, foreign
brokerage and handling, ocean freight,
marine insurance, U.S. inland freight
from the port to the warehouse, U.S.
freight from the warehouse to the
customer, U.S. customs duty, and other
U.S. transportation costs. Where
applicable, we reduced movement
expenses by freight revenue. In
addition, we deducted CEP profit from
U.S. price in accordance with sections
772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act. As a CEP
adjustment and in accordance with
section 773(a) of the Act, we calculated
Huafeng’s credit expenses and inventory
carrying costs based on short-term
interest rates. Because Huafeng did not
incur short-term U.S. dollar borrowings
during the POR, we based its interest
rate on the short-term interest rate from
the Federal Reserve. For a detailed
description of all adjustments, see
Huafeng Analysis Memorandum, dated
January 31, 2010.
Normal Value
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides
that the Department shall determine NV
using an FOP methodology if: (1) The
merchandise is exported from an NME
country; and (2) the information does
not permit the calculation of NV using
home-market prices, third-country
prices, or constructed value under
section 773(e) of the Act. When
determining NV in an NME context, the
Department will base NV on FOP,
because the presence of government
controls on various aspects of NMEs
renders price comparisons and the
calculation of production costs invalid
under our normal methodologies. Under
section 773(c)(3) of the Act, FOP
include, but are not limited to: (1) Hours
of labor required; (2) quantities of raw
materials employed; (3) amounts of
energy and other utilities consumed;
and (4) representative capital costs. The
Department based NV on consumption
quantities reported by Huafeng for
materials, energy, labor and packing.
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.408(c)(1), the Department will
normally use publicly-available
surrogates to value FOP, but when a
producer sources an input from a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:10 Feb 09, 2011
Jkt 223001
market economy and pays for it in
market economy currency, the
Department will normally value the
factor using the actual price paid for the
input. However, when the Department
has reason to believe or suspect that
such prices may be distorted by
subsidies, the Department will disregard
the market economy purchase prices
and use surrogate values (‘‘SVs’’) to
determine the NV.74 Where the facts
developed in either U.S. or thirdcountry countervailing duty findings
include the existence of subsidies that
appear to be used generally (in
particular, broadly available, nonindustry specific export subsidies), the
Department will have reason to believe
or suspect that prices of the inputs from
the country granting the subsidies may
be subsidized.75
In accordance with the OTCA 1988
legislative history, the Department
continues to apply its long-standing
practice of disregarding SVs if it has a
reason to believe or suspect the source
data may be subsidized.76 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, nonindustry specific export subsidies.77
74 See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,
Finished and Unfinished, From the People’s
Republic of China; Final Results of the 1998–1999
Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of
Review, and Determination Not To Revoke Order in
Part, 66 FR 1953 (January 10, 2001) (‘‘TRBs 1998–
1999),’’ and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 1.
75 See TRBs 1998–1999 at Comment 1; see also
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,
Finished and Unfinished, From the People’s
Republic of China; Final Results of 1999–2000
Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of
Review, and Determination Not To Revoke Order in
Part, 66 FR 57420 (November 15, 2001), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 1; China National Machinery Imp. & Exp.
Corp. v. United States, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1338–
39 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2003).
76 See 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.
77 See, e.g., Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from
India: Final Results of the Expedited Five-year
(Sunset) Review of the Countervailing Duty Order,
75 FR 13257 (March 19, 2010) and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2;
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Quality Steel Plate
from Indonesia: Final Results of Expedited Sunset
Review, 70 FR 45692 (August 8, 2005) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
page 4; 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; Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat
Products From Thailand, 66 FR 50410 (October 3,
2001) and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at page 23.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
7543
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
In accordance with section 773(c) of
the Act, we calculated NV based on FOP
reported by Huafeng for the POR. To
calculate NV, the Department
multiplied the reported per-unit factor
quantities by publicly-available
Philippine SVs (except as noted below).
In selecting the SV, the Department
considered the quality, specificity, and
contemporaneity of the data. As
appropriate, the Department adjusted
input prices by including freight costs to
make them delivered prices.
Specifically, the Department added to
Philippine import SVs a surrogate
freight cost using the shorter of the
reported distance from the domestic
supplier to the respondent’s factory or
the distance from the nearest seaport to
the respondent’s 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 CAFC in Sigma Corp. v.
United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407–08
(Fed. Cir. 1997). Due to the extensive
number of SVs in this administrative
review, we present only a brief
discussion of the main FOP in this
notice. For a detailed description of all
SVs used to value Huafeng’s reported
FOP, see Factor Valuation
Memorandum.
Huafeng reported that certain of its
reported raw material inputs were
sourced from market economy countries
and paid for in market economy
currencies. Pursuant to 19 CFR
351.408(c)(1), when a respondent
sources inputs from a market economy
supplier in meaningful quantities (i.e.,
not insignificant quantities), we use the
actual price paid by the respondents for
those inputs, except when prices may
have been distorted by findings of
dumping by the PRC and/or subsidies.78
Huafeng reported information
demonstrating that the quantities of
certain raw materials purchased from
market economy suppliers are
significant. Where we found market
economy purchases of inputs to be in
significant quantities, in accordance
78 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing
Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27366 (May 19,
1997).
E:\FR\FM\10FEN1.SGM
10FEN1
7544
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 28 / Thursday, February 10, 2011 / Notices
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
with our statement of policy as outlined
in Antidumping Methodologies: Market
Economy Inputs, we have used the
actual purchases of these inputs to value
the inputs.79
Where market economy purchases of
inputs were not made in significant
quantities, we used, in part, import
values for the POR from the Philippines
National Statistics Office (‘‘Philippines
NSO’’) reported in U.S. dollars on a cost,
insurance, and freight (‘‘CIF’’) basis to
value the following inputs: processed
woods (e.g., particleboard, etc.),
adhesives and finishing materials (e.g.,
glue, paints, sealer, lacquer, etc.),
hardware (e.g., nails, staples, screws,
bolts, knobs, pulls, drawer slides,
hinges, clasps, etc.), other materials
(e.g., mirrors, glass, leather, cloth,
sponge, etc.), and packing materials
(e.g., cardboard, cartons, plastic film,
labels, tape, etc.). The Philippines NSO
is the only data source on the record
that provides data on a net weight basis,
which is the same basis as reported by
the respondent in reporting its FOP. For
a complete listing of all the inputs and
the valuation for each see Factor
Valuation Memorandum.
Where we could only obtain SVs that
were not contemporaneous with the
POR, we inflated (or deflated) the
surrogate values using the Philippine
Wholesale Price Index as published in
the International Financial Statistics of
the International Monetary Fund.
On May 14, 2010, the CAFC in
Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d
1363, 1372 (CAFC 2010) (‘‘Dorbest IV’’),
found that the ‘‘{regression-based}
method for calculating wage rates {as
stipulated by 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3)} uses
data not permitted by {the statutory
requirements laid out in section 773 of
the Act (i.e., 19 U.S.C. 1677b(c))}.’’
For the preliminary results of this
review, the Department is valuing labor
using a simple average industry-specific
wage rate using earnings or wage data
reported under Chapter 5B by the
International Labor Organization
(‘‘ILO’’). To achieve an industry-specific
labor value, we relied on industryspecific labor data from the countries
we determined to be both economically
comparable to the PRC and significant
producers of comparable merchandise.
A full description of the industryspecific wage rate calculation
methodology is provided in the Factor
Valuation Memorandum. The
Department calculated a simple average
industry-specific wage rate of $1.20 for
these preliminary results. Specifically,
for this review, the Department has
calculated the wage rate using a simple
average of the data provided to the ILO
under Sub-Classification 36 of the ISIC–
Revision 3 standard by countries
determined to be both economically
comparable to the PRC and significant
producers of comparable merchandise.
The Department finds the two-digit
description under International
Standard Industrial Classification—
Revision 3 (‘‘Manufacture of furniture;
manufacturing n.e.c.’’) to be the best
available wage rate surrogate value on
the record because it is specific and
derived from industries that produce
merchandise comparable to the subject
merchandise. Consequently, we
averaged the ILO industry-specific wage
rate data or earnings data available from
the following countries found to be
economically comparable to the PRC
and significant producers of comparable
merchandise: Ecuador, Egypt,
Indonesia, Jordan, Peru, the Philippines,
Thailand, and Ukraine. For further
information on the calculation of the
wage rate, see Factor Valuation
Memorandum.
We valued electricity using
contemporaneous Philippine data from
The Cost of Doing Business in
Camarines Sur available at the
Philippine government’s Web site for
the province: https://
www.camarinessur.gov.ph.80 This data
pertained only to industrial
consumption.
We calculated the value of domestic
brokerage and handling and truck
freight using Philippine data cited in a
report compiled and released by the
World Bank Group, entitled ‘‘Trading
Across Borders’’ and available at https://
www.doingbusiness.org/data/explore
economies/philippines/trading-acrossborders.81
As noted above, the Department has
been unable to locate a suitable
surrogate value from the Philippines for
the input ‘‘railway freight.’’ Therefore,
the Department has calculated the
surrogate value for railway freight using
data from Indian Railways available at:
https://www.Indianrailways.gov.in/.
While the Department normally does
not use data from an alternative
surrogate country, no such data is
available for truck freight in the
Philippines. Thus, the Department has
determined that the Indian Railways
data are the only data on the record that
are contemporaneous, country-wide and
clearly identify the relevant time period,
exact prices, distances, and weights. We
further note that the Department has
relied on surrogate values from India
when usable surrogate values from the
Philippines are not on the record,82 has
relied on India as a surrogate country in
a previous segment of the proceeding,83
and listed India as a suitable surrogate
country for this review.84 For these
reasons, in the final results we will
value Huafeng’s inland freight expenses
using Indian Railways data.
We valued factory overhead, selling,
general, and administrative (‘‘SG&A’’)
expenses, and profit, using the audited
financial statements for the fiscal year
ending December 31, 2009, from the
following producers: APY Cane
International; Berbenwood Industries;
Clear Export Industries, Inc.; Heritage
Meubles Mirabile Export, Inc.; Interior
Crafts of the Islands, Incorporated;
Wicker & Vine, Inc.; and Insular Rattan
& Native Products Corp. These
companies are the only Philippine
producers of merchandise identical to
subject merchandise which received no
countervailable subsidies, and earned a
before tax profit in 2009 for which we
have financial information. From this
information, we were able 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., total cost of
manufacture); and the profit rate as a
percentage of the cost of manufacture
plus SG&A. For further discussion, see
Factor Valuation Memorandum.
79 See Antidumping Methodologies: Market
Economy Inputs, Expected Non-Market Economy
Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for Comments,
71 FR 61716, 61717 (October 19, 2006)
(‘‘Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy
Inputs’’); see also Huafeng Analysis Memorandum.
80 For a copy of pages from this website, see the
Factor Valuation Memorandum at 8.
81 For a copy of pages from this website, see the
Factor Valuation Memorandum at 9.
82 Id.; see also Wooden Bedroom Furniture from
the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New
Shipper Review, 73 FR 49162 (August 20, 2008) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 1.
83 See Amended Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper
Reviews: Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the
People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 46957, 46960
(August 22, 2007).
84 See Policy Memorandum.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:53 Feb 09, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions into
U.S. dollars, 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 for the period January 1,
2009 through December 31, 2009:
E:\FR\FM\10FEN1.SGM
10FEN1
7545
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 28 / Thursday, February 10, 2011 / Notices
Antidumping duty
percent margin
Exporter
Dalian Huafeng Furniture Co., Ltd./Dalian Huafeng Furniture Group Co., Ltd.# ........................................................................
Baigou Crafts Factory of Fengkai# ..............................................................................................................................................
Cheng Meng Furniture (PTE) Ltd., Cheng Meng Decoration & Furniture (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.* ..................................................
COE, Ltd.* ....................................................................................................................................................................................
Dongguan Bon Ten Furniture Co., Ltd.# .....................................................................................................................................
Dongguan Hero Way Woodwork Co., Ltd., Dongguan Da Zhong Woodwork Co., Ltd., Hero Way Enterprises Ltd., Well
Earth International Ltd.* ...........................................................................................................................................................
Dongguan Kin Feng Furniture Co., Ltd. # ...................................................................................................................................
Dongguan Liaobushangdun Huada Furniture Factory, Great Rich (HK) Enterprise Co., Ltd.* ..................................................
Dongguan Singways Furniture Co., Ltd# ....................................................................................................................................
Dongguan Sunshine Furniture Co., Ltd.# ....................................................................................................................................
Eurosa (Kunshan) Co., Ltd., Eurosa Furniture Co., (PTE) Ltd. (Eurosa)* ..................................................................................
Garri Furniture (Dong Guan) Co., Ltd., Molabile International, Inc. Weei Geo Enterprise Co., Ltd.* ........................................
Hong Kong Da Zhi Furniture Co., Ltd., Dongguan Grand Style Furniture Co., Ltd.# ................................................................
Hualing Furniture (China) Co., Ltd., Tony House Manufacture (China) Co., Ltd., Buysell Investments Ltd., Tony House Industries Co., Ltd.* ....................................................................................................................................................................
Jardine Enterprise, Ltd.* ..............................................................................................................................................................
Longkou Huangshan Furniture Factory# .....................................................................................................................................
Meikangchi (Nantong) Furniture Company Ltd.* .........................................................................................................................
Nanhai Baiyi Woodwork Co. Ltd.# ..............................................................................................................................................
Nanjing Nanmu Furniture Co., Ltd.# ...........................................................................................................................................
Season Furniture Manufacturing Co., Season Industrial Development Co.# .............................................................................
Shenyang Shining Dongxing Furniture Co., Ltd.# .......................................................................................................................
Shenzhen Shen Long Hang Industry Co., Ltd.# .........................................................................................................................
Wanhengtong Nueevder (Furniture) Manufacture Co., Ltd., Dongguan Wanengtong Industry Co., Ltd.# ................................
Winny Overseas, Ltd.* .................................................................................................................................................................
Xilinmen Furniture Co., Ltd.# .......................................................................................................................................................
Zhangjiagang Zheng Yan Decoration Co. Ltd.# ..........................................................................................................................
Zhangjiang Sunwin Arts & Crafts Co., Ltd.# ...............................................................................................................................
Zhong Shan Fullwin Furniture Co., Ltd.* .....................................................................................................................................
PRC-Wide Entity ..........................................................................................................................................................................
Disclosure
The Department will disclose
calculations performed for these
preliminary results to the parties within
five days of the date of publication of
this notice in accordance with 19 CFR
351.224(b).
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Comments
Interested parties may submit written
comments no later than 30 days after the
date of publication of these preliminary
results of review. See 19 CFR
351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal comments
must be limited to the issues raised in
the written comments and may be filed
no later than 35 days after the date of
publication. See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
Parties submitting written comments or
rebuttal are requested to provide the
Department with an additional copy of
those comments on CD–ROM. Any
interested party may request a hearing
within 30 days of publication of these
preliminary results. See 19 CFR
351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested,
ordinarily will be held two days after
the scheduled date for submission of
rebuttal briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(d).
Parties should confirm by telephone the
date, time, and location of the hearing
two days before the scheduled date.
The Department will issue the final
results of the administrative review,
which will include the results of its
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:10 Feb 09, 2011
Jkt 223001
analysis of issues raised in the briefs,
within 120 days of publication of these
preliminary results, in accordance with
19 CFR 351.213(h)(1) unless the time
limit is extended.
Assessment Rates
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212, the
Department will determine, and CBP
shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries of subject
merchandise in accordance with the
final results of this review. For
assessment purposes, the Department
calculated exporter/importer (or
customer)-specific assessment rates for
merchandise subject to this review.
Where appropriate, the Department
calculated an ad valorem rate for each
importer (or customer) by dividing the
total dumping margins for reviewed
sales to that party by the total entered
values associated with those
transactions. For duty-assessment rates
calculated on this basis, the Department
will direct CBP to assess the resulting
ad valorem rate against the entered
customs values for the subject
merchandise. Where an importer (or
customer)-specific assessment rate is de
minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent), the
Department will instruct CBP to assess
that importer (or customer’s) entries of
subject merchandise without regard to
antidumping duties. The Department
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
16.24
16.24
16.24
16.24
16.24
16.24
16.24
16.24
16.24
16.24
16.24
16.24
16.24
16.24
16.24
16.24
16.24
16.24
16.24
16.24
16.24
16.24
16.24
16.24
16.24
16.24
16.24
16.24
216.01
intends to instruct CBP to liquidate
entries containing subject merchandise
exported by the PRC-wide entity at the
PRC-wide rate we determine in the final
results of this review. The Department
intends to issue appropriate assessment
instructions directly to CBP 15 days
after publication of the final results of
this review.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit
requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this
review for shipments of subject
merchandise from the PRC entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication
date, as provided by sections 751(a)(1)
and (a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For all
respondents receiving a separate rate,
the cash deposit rate will be that
established in the final results of this
review; (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 established in the
final results of this review; and (4) for
all non-PRC exporters of subject
E:\FR\FM\10FEN1.SGM
10FEN1
7546
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 28 / Thursday, February 10, 2011 / Notices
merchandise which 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.
The Department is issuing and
publishing these preliminary results of
administrative review in accordance
with section 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19
CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Dated: January 31, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011–3024 Filed 2–9–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–351–829]
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat
Products From Brazil: Rescission of
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(the Department) is rescinding the
administrative review of the
countervailing duty order on certain
hot-rolled carbon steel flat products
(hot-rolled steel) from Brazil for the
period January 1, 2009, through
December 31, 2009. Since Nucor
Corporation (Nucor) was the only party
that requested a review of Usinas
Siderurgicas de Minas Gerais, S.A.
(USIMINAS) and Companhia
Siderurgica Paulista, S.A. (COSIPA), the
only producers/exporters subject to
review, this notice also serves to rescind
the entire administrative review. This
rescission is based on Nucor’s timely
withdrawal of its request for review.
DATES: Effective Date: February 10,
2011.
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:10 Feb 09, 2011
Jkt 223001
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Justin M. Neuman, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 6, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)
482–0486.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On September 17, 2004, the
Department published in the Federal
Register the countervailing duty order
on hot-rolled steel from Brazil. See
Agreement Suspending the
Countervailing Duty Investigation on
Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality
Steel From Brazil; Termination of
Suspension Agreement and Notice of
Countervailing Duty Order, 69 FR 56040
(September 17, 2004). On September 1,
2010, the Department published a notice
announcing the opportunity to request
an administrative review of the
countervailing duty order on hot-rolled
steel from Brazil for the period January
1, 2009, through December 31, 2009. See
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty
Order, Finding, or Suspended
Investigation; Opportunity To Request
Administrative Review, 75 FR 53635
(September 1, 2010). On September 30,
2010, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(b), the Department received a
timely request from Nucor, a domestic
producer of hot-rolled steel, to conduct
an administrative review of USIMINAS
and COSIPA.
In accordance with section 751(a)(1)
of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) and
19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), on October 28,
2010, the Department published a notice
initiating an administrative review of
USIMINAS and COSIPA under the
countervailing duty order. See Initiation
of Antidumping and Countervailing
Duty Administrative Reviews, 75 FR
66349 (October 28, 2010). On January 6,
2011, Nucor withdrew its request for
review.
Rescission of Administrative Review
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the
Secretary will rescind an administrative
review, in whole or in part, if the party
that requested the review withdraws the
request within 90 days of the date of
publication of the notice of initiation of
the requested review. Nucor’s January 6,
2011, withdrawal was within the 90-day
period, and no other party requested a
review. Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.213(d)(1), the Department is
rescinding this administrative review.
Assessment
The Department will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
assess countervailing duties at the cash
deposit rate in effect on the date of
entry, for entries by USIMINAS and
COSIPA during the period January 1,
2009, through December 31, 2009. The
Department intends to issue appropriate
assessment instructions to CBP 15 days
after publication of this notice of
rescission of administrative review.
Notification Regarding Administrative
Protective Order
This notice serves as a final reminder
to parties subject to the administrative
protective order (APO) of their
responsibility concerning the
disposition of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely
written notification of the return/
destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is
hereby requested. Failure to comply
with the regulations and terms of an
APO is a sanctionable violation.
This notice is issued and published in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and
777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.213(d)(4).
Dated: February 4, 2011.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Operations.
[FR Doc. 2011–3007 Filed 2–9–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Proposed Information Collection;
Comment Request; Prohibited Species
Donation (PSD) Program
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The Department of
Commerce, as part of its continuing
effort to reduce paperwork and
respondent burden, invites the general
public and other Federal agencies to
take this opportunity to comment on
proposed and/or continuing information
collections, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
DATES: Written comments must be
submitted on or before April 11, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments
to Diana Hynek, Departmental
Paperwork Clearance Officer,
Department of Commerce, Room 6616,
14th and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230 (or via the
Internet at dHynek@doc.gov).
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\10FEN1.SGM
10FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 28 (Thursday, February 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7534-7546]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3024]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-890]
Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and
Intent To Rescind Review in Part
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
[[Page 7535]]
SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the
Department of Commerce (``Department'') is conducting an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture
(``WBF'') from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''). The period of
review (``POR'') is January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009. This
administrative review covers multiple exporters of the subject
merchandise, one of which is being individually examined as a
``mandatory respondent.''
We have preliminarily determined that the mandatory respondent,
Huafeng Furniture Group Co., Ltd. (``Huafeng''), made sales to the
United States at prices below normal value (``NV''). Nine companies
failed to provide separate rate information and thus did not
demonstrate that they are entitled to a separate rate, and have been
treated as part of the PRC-wide entity. Additionally, 31 separate rate
applicants (including Huafeng) have demonstrated that they are entitled
to a separate rate and have been assigned the dumping margin calculated
for the mandatory respondent. If these preliminary results are adopted
in our final results of review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on entries of
subject merchandise during the POR for which the importer-specific
assessment rates are above de minimis.
We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary
results. Parties who submit comments are requested to submit with each
argument a statement of the issue and a brief summary of the argument.
We intend to issue the final results of this review no later than 120
days from the date of publication of this notice.
DATES: Effective Date: February 10, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Pedersen or Rebecca Pandolph, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
2769 or (202) 482-3627, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On January 4, 2005, the Department published in the Federal
Register the antidumping duty order on WBF from the PRC.\1\ On January
11, 2010, the Department notified interested parties of their
opportunity to request an administrative review of orders, findings, or
suspended investigations with anniversaries in January 2010, including
the antidumping duty order on WBF from the PRC. See Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation;
Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 75 FR 1333 (January 11,
2010) (``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review''). In January
2010, the petitioners, American Furniture Manufacturers Committee for
Legal Trade and Vaughan-Bassett Furniture Company, Inc. (``AFMC/
Vaughan-Bassett''), and the domestic interested parties, Kimball
International, Inc., Kimball Furniture Group, Inc. and Kimball
Hospitality Inc., American of Martinsville, and Ashley Furniture, and
certain foreign exporters requested that the Department conduct an
administrative review. In total, the Department received review
requests covering 171 companies. On March 4, 2010, the Department
published a notice initiating an antidumping duty administrative review
of WBF from the PRC covering 171 companies and the period January 1,
2009 through December 31, 2009. See Initiation of Administrative Review
of the Antidumping Duty Order on Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the
People's Republic of China, 75 FR 9869 (March 4, 2010) (``Initiation
Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Wooden Bedroom Furniture
from the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 329 (January 4, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Initiation Notice and Opportunity to Request Administrative
Review, parties were notified that if the Department limited the number
of respondents selected for individual examination, it would select
respondents based on export/shipment data provided in response to the
Department's quantity and value (``Q&V'') questionnaire. The Department
further stated its intention to limit the number of Q&V questionnaires
issued in the review based on CBP data for U.S. imports classified
under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'')
headings identified in the scope of the antidumping duty order on WBF
from the PRC and to send Q&V questionnaires to the 20 companies for
which a review was requested with the largest total values of subject
merchandise imported into the United States during the POR according to
CBP data. See Initiation Notice, 75 FR at 9870. The Initiation Notice
also notified parties that they must timely submit separate rate
applications or separate rate certifications in order to qualify for a
separate rate. See Initiation Notice, 75 FR at 9870-71.
On March 2, 2010, the Department issued Q&V questionnaires to the
20 companies for which a review was requested with the largest
shipments by value according to information gathered from CBP. These
questionnaires requested that the companies report the Q&V of their POR
exports and/or shipments of WBF to the United States for the purpose of
respondent selection. The Department received 59 Q&V questionnaire
responses during March 2010. In addition, from March through May 2010,
the Department received separate rate certifications and applications
as well as requests from seven companies to be treated as voluntary
respondents.
On April 5, 2010, AFMC/Vaughan-Bassett submitted comments on the
Department's process of selecting mandatory respondents. Given its
limited resources, and the fact that an administrative review was
requested for 171 companies/company groupings, on April 28, 2010, the
Department decided to individually examine the following companies,
based upon the Q&V data: (1) Huafeng and (2) the Dorbest Group, which
consists of Rui Feng Woodwork Co. Ltd., Rui Feng Lumber Development
Co., Ltd., Dorbest Ltd., Rui Feng Woodwork (Dongguan) Co., Ltd., and
Rui Feng Lumber Development (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia, Director, Office 4,
AD/CVD Operations, regarding, ``Respondent Selection in the 2009
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture
from the People's Republic of China,'' dated April 28, 2010
(``Respondent Selection Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 28, 2010, the Department issued the antidumping
questionnaire to Huafeng and the Dorbest Group, and made the
questionnaire available to the voluntary respondents. After all parties
withdrew their review requests for the Dorbest Group,\3\ the Department
issued an amendment to the Respondent Selection Memorandum on June 16,
2010, naming the company group Dongguan Sunrise Furniture Co., Taicang
Sunrise Wood Industry Co., Ltd., and Huafeng Designs (``Fairmont'') as
an additional mandatory respondent.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ All review requests were withdrawn for the Dorbest Group
prior to the due date for the group to respond to section A of the
antidumping questionnaire.
\4\ See memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia, Director, Office 4,
AD/CVD Operations, regarding, ``Amendment to Respondent Selection in
the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Wooden Bedroom
Furniture from the People's Republic of China (PRC),'' dated June
16, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From March through August 2010, a number of interested parties
withdrew
[[Page 7536]]
their review requests, including all review requests of the mandatory
respondent Fairmont. On September 9, 2010, the Department published a
notice rescinding the review with respect to 119 entities for which all
review requests had been withdrawn.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of
China: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
75 FR 54854 (September 9, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Between June and November 2010, Huafeng responded to the
Department's antidumping questionnaire and supplemental questionnaires
and AFMC/Vaughan-Bassett commented on Huafeng's responses.
In response to the Department's September 2, 2010, letter providing
parties with an opportunity to submit comments regarding surrogate
country and surrogate value selection, AFMC/Vaughan Bassett and Huafeng
filed surrogate value comments in September and November 2010.
On September 15, 2010, the Department extended the deadline for the
issuance of the preliminary results of the administrative review until
January 31, 2011.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of
China: Extension of Time Limits for the Preliminary Results of the
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 56059 (September 15,
2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In November and December 2010, the Department verified the
antidumping questionnaire and supplemental questionnaire responses of
Huafeng by visiting its PRC headquarters and factory and its U.S. sales
affiliate Great River Trading Co. (``GRT'').\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See the separate January 31, 2010, memoranda regarding
verification in the 5th Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of
Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China
covering Dalian Huafeng Furniture Group Co., Ltd. and Great River
Trading Co., Ltd. (collectively, the ``5th Review Verification
Reports'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 7, 2010, AFMC/Vaughan-Bassett withdrew the sole request
for a review of Zhangjiagang Zheng Yan Decoration Co., Ltd. (``ZYD'').
Although the withdrawal was submitted more than six months after the
90-day regulatory deadline for withdrawing review requests established
in 19 CFR 351.213(d), AFMC/Vaughan-Bassett contend that the Department
has not expended considerable resources and effort on this company and
thus it should exercise its discretion to accept the withdrawal of the
review request with respect to ZYD. The Department has decided it is
not reasonable to extend the time for AFMC/Vaughan-Bassett's filing a
withdrawal of its request for a review of ZYD because it was submitted
at an advanced stage of the review.
Scope of the Order
The product covered by the order is WBF. WBF is generally, but not
exclusively, designed, manufactured, and offered for sale in
coordinated groups, or bedrooms, in which all of the individual pieces
are of approximately the same style and approximately the same material
and/or finish. The subject merchandise is made substantially of wood
products, including both solid wood and also engineered wood products
made from wood particles, fibers, or other wooden materials such as
plywood, strand board, particle board, and fiberboard, with or without
wood veneers, wood overlays, or laminates, with or without non-wood
components or trim such as metal, marble, leather, glass, plastic, or
other resins, and whether or not assembled, completed, or finished.
The subject merchandise includes the following items: (1) Wooden
beds such as loft beds, bunk beds, and other beds; (2) wooden
headboards for beds (whether stand-alone or attached to side rails),
wooden footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and wooden
canopies for beds; (3) night tables, night stands, dressers, commodes,
bureaus, mule chests, gentlemen's chests, bachelor's chests, lingerie
chests, wardrobes, vanities, chessers, chifforobes, and wardrobe-type
cabinets; (4) dressers with framed glass mirrors that are attached to,
incorporated in, sit on, or hang over the dresser; (5) chests-on-
chests,\8\ highboys,\9\ lowboys,\10\ chests of
drawers,\11\chests,\12\door chests,\13\ chiffoniers,\14\ hutches,\15\
and armoires;\16\(6) desks, computer stands, filing cabinets, book
cases, or writing tables that are attached to or incorporated in the
subject merchandise; and (7) other bedroom furniture consistent with
the above list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ A chest-on-chest is typically a tall chest-of-drawers in two
or more sections (or appearing to be in two or more sections), with
one or two sections mounted (or appearing to be mounted) on a
slightly larger chest; also known as a tallboy.
\9\ A highboy is typically a tall chest of drawers usually
composed of a base and a top section with drawers, and supported on
four legs or a small chest (often 15 inches or more in height).
\10\ A lowboy is typically a short chest of drawers, not more
than four feet high, normally set on short legs.
\11\ A chest of drawers is typically a case containing drawers
for storing clothing.
\12\ A chest is typically a case piece taller than it is wide
featuring a series of drawers and with or without one or more doors
for storing clothing. The piece can either include drawers or be
designed as a large box incorporating a lid.
\13\ A door chest is typically a chest with hinged doors to
store clothing, whether or not containing drawers. The piece may
also include shelves for televisions and other entertainment
electronics.
\14\ A chiffonier is typically a tall and narrow chest of
drawers normally used for storing undergarments and lingerie, often
with mirror(s) attached.
\15\ A hutch is typically an open case of furniture with shelves
that typically sits on another piece of furniture and provides
storage for clothes.
\16\ An armoire is typically a tall cabinet or wardrobe
(typically 50 inches or taller), with doors, and with one or more
drawers (either exterior below or above the doors or interior behind
the doors), shelves, and/or garment rods or other apparatus for
storing clothes. Bedroom armoires may also be used to hold
television receivers and/or other audio-visual entertainment
systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The scope of the order excludes the following items: (1) Seats,
chairs, benches, couches, sofas, sofa beds, stools, and other seating
furniture; (2) mattresses, mattress supports (including box springs),
infant cribs, water beds, and futon frames; (3) office furniture, such
as desks, stand-up desks, computer cabinets, filing cabinets,
credenzas, and bookcases; (4) dining room or kitchen furniture such as
dining tables, chairs, servers, sideboards, buffets, corner cabinets,
china cabinets, and china hutches; (5) other non-bedroom furniture,
such as television cabinets, cocktail tables, end tables, occasional
tables, wall systems, book cases, and entertainment systems; (6)
bedroom furniture made primarily of wicker, cane, osier, bamboo or
rattan; (7) side rails for beds made of metal if sold separately from
the headboard and footboard; (8) bedroom furniture in which bentwood
parts predominate; \17\ (9) jewelry armories; \18\ (10) cheval
[[Page 7537]]
mirrors; \19\ (11) certain metal parts; \20\ (12) mirrors that do not
attach to, incorporate in, sit on, or hang over a dresser if they are
not designed and marketed to be sold in conjunction with a dresser as
part of a dresser-mirror set; (13) upholstered beds \21\ and (14) toy
boxes.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ As used herein, bentwood means solid wood made pliable.
Bentwood is wood that is brought to a curved shape by bending it
while made pliable with moist heat or other agency and then set by
cooling or drying. See CBP's Headquarters Ruling Letter 043859,
dated May 17, 1976.
\18\ Any armoire, cabinet or other accent item for the purpose
of storing jewelry, not to exceed 24 inches in width, 18 inches in
depth, and 49 inches in height, including a minimum of 5 lined
drawers lined with felt or felt-like material, at least one side
door (whether or not the door is lined with felt or felt-like
material), with necklace hangers, and a flip-top lid with inset
mirror. See Issues and Decision Memorandum from Laurel LaCivita to
Laurie Parkhill, Office Director, concerning ``Jewelry Armoires and
Cheval Mirrors in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Wooden
Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China,'' dated
August 31, 2004. See also Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's
Republic of China: Final Changed Circumstances Review, and
Determination To Revoke Order in Part, 71 FR 38621 (July 7, 2006).
\19\ Cheval mirrors are any framed, tiltable mirror with a
height in excess of 50 inches that is mounted on a floor-standing,
hinged base. Additionally, the scope of the order excludes
combination cheval mirror/jewelry cabinets. The excluded merchandise
is an integrated piece consisting of a cheval mirror, i.e., a framed
tiltable mirror with a height in excess of 50 inches, mounted on a
floor-standing, hinged base, the cheval mirror serving as a door to
a cabinet back that is integral to the structure of the mirror and
which constitutes a jewelry cabinet line with fabric, having
necklace and bracelet hooks, mountings for rings and shelves, with
or without a working lock and key to secure the contents of the
jewelry cabinet back to the cheval mirror, and no drawers anywhere
on the integrated piece. The fully assembled piece must be at least
50 inches in height, 14.5 inches in width, and 3 inches in depth.
See Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China:
Final Changed Circumstances Review and Determination To Revoke Order
in Part, 72 FR 948 (January 9, 2007).
\20\ Metal furniture parts and unfinished furniture parts made
of wood products (as defined above) that are not otherwise
specifically named in this scope (i.e., wooden headboards for beds,
wooden footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and wooden
canopies for beds) and that do not possess the essential character
of wooden bedroom furniture in an unassembled, incomplete, or
unfinished form. Such parts are usually classified under HTSUS
subheadings 9403.90.7005, 9403.90.7010, or 9403.90.7080.
\21\ Upholstered beds that are completely upholstered, i.e.,
containing filling material and completely covered in sewn genuine
leather, synthetic leather, or natural or synthetic decorative
fabric. To be excluded, the entire bed (headboards, footboards, and
side rails) must be upholstered except for bed feet, which may be of
wood, metal, or any other material and which are no more than nine
inches in height from the floor. See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from
the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Changed
Circumstances Review and Determination to Revoke Order in Part, 72
FR 7013 (February 14, 2007).
\22\ To be excluded the toy box must: (1) Be wider than it is
tall; (2) have dimensions within 16 inches to 27 inches in height,
15 inches to 18 inches in depth, and 21 inches to 30 inches in
width; (3) have a hinged lid that encompasses the entire top of the
box; (4) not incorporate any doors or drawers; (5) have slow-closing
safety hinges; (6) have air vents; (7) have no locking mechanism;
and (8) comply with American Society for Testing and Materials
(``ASTM'') standard F963-03. Toy boxes are boxes generally designed
for the purpose of storing children's items such as toys, books, and
playthings. See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic
of China: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review and
Determination to Revoke Order in Part, 74 FR 8506 (February 25,
2009). Further, as determined in the scope ruling memorandum
``Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China:
Scope Ruling on a White Toy Box,'' dated July 6, 2009, the
dimensional ranges used to identify the toy boxes that are excluded
from the wooden bedroom furniture order apply to the box itself
rather than the lid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Imports of subject merchandise are classified under subheadings
9403.50.9042 and 9403.50.9045 \23\ of the HTSUS as ``wooden * * *
beds'' and under subheading 9403.50.9080 of the HTSUS as ``other * * *
wooden furniture of a kind used in the bedroom.'' In addition, wooden
headboards for beds, wooden footboards for beds, wooden side rails for
beds, and wooden canopies for beds may also be entered under subheading
9403.50.9042 or 9403.50.9045 of the HTSUS as ``parts of wood.'' Subject
merchandise may also be entered under subheading 9403.60.8081.\24\
Further, framed glass mirrors may be entered under subheading
7009.92.1000 \25\ or 7009.92.5000 of the HTSUS as ``glass mirrors * * *
framed.'' This order covers all WBF meeting the above description,
regardless of tariff classification. Although the HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description
of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ These HTSUS numbers, as well as the numbers in footnote 19,
reflect the HTSUS numbers currently in effect. These numbers differ
from those used in the last completed antidumping duty
administrative review of WBF from the PRC because the HTSUS has been
revised.
\24\ This HTSUS number has been added to the scope in this
segment of the proceeding.
\25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(``the Act''), we have verified the information provided by Huafeng
using standard verification procedures including on-site inspection of
the manufacturer's facilities and the examination of relevant sales and
financial records. Our verification results are outlined in the 5th
Review PRC Verification Report \26\ and 5th Review CEP Verification
Report,\27\ the public versions of which are available in the Central
Records Unit, Room 7046 of the main Department building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See memorandum to the file through Howard Smith, Program
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, entitled ``Verification at
Dalian Huafeng Furniture Group Co., Ltd. in the 5th Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's
Republic of China,'' dated January 31, 2011.
\27\ See memorandum to the file through Howard Smith, Program
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, entitled ``Verification at
Great River Trading Co., Ltd. in the 5th Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's
Republic of China,'' (``CEP Verification Report'') dated January 31,
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intent To Rescind the 2009 Administrative Review, in Part
Among the companies still under review, 12 companies reported that
they made no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States
during the POR. To test these claims, the Department ran a CBP data
query, issued no-shipment inquiries to CBP requesting that it provide
any information that contradicted the no-shipment claims, and obtained
entry documents from CBP.\28\ After examining record information, we
have preliminarily determined that three of the 12 companies, Nantong
Yangzi Furniture Company (``Nantong Yangzi''), Zhongshan Gainwell
Furniture Co., Ltd. (``Zhongshan Gainwell''), and Dongguan Landmark
Furniture Products Ltd. (``Dongguan Landmark''), had shipments of
subject merchandise that entered the United States during the POR.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia, Director, Office 4,
AD/CVD Operations, regarding ``Intent to Rescind the Review of
Respondents Claiming No Sales/Shipments'' dated January 31, 2011.
\29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since record evidence does not contradict the no-shipment claims of
the following companies, the Department has preliminarily rescinded
this administrative review with respect to these companies, pursuant to
19 CFR 351.213(d)(3):
Clearwise Company Limited
Dongguan Huangsheng Furniture Co., Ltd.\30\
Dongguan Mu Si Furniture Co. Ltd.
Fleetwood Fine Furniture LP
Hainan Jong Bao Lumber Co. Ltd/Jibbon Enterprise Co., Ltd.
Shanghai Fangjia Industry Co., Ltd.
Yeh Brothers World Trade Inc.
Golden Well International (HK) Ltd.
Zhejiang Tianyi Scientific and Educational Equipment Co.,
Ltd. (``Zhejiang Tianyi'') \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Dongguan Huangsheng Furniture Co., Ltd.'s only sales made
during the POR were covered by a new shipper review for the period
January 1, 2009, through December 31, 2009. If the new shipper
review of this company is completed, these shipments are not subject
to this administrative review. See Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
New Shipper Reviews, 75 FR 72794 (November 26, 2010); see also 19
CFR 351.214(j).
\31\ Zhejiang Tianyi's only sales made during the POR were
covered by a new shipper review covering the period January 1, 2009,
through June 30, 2009 and thus are not subject to this review. See
Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 75 FR 44764 (July
29, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Market Economy Country Status
In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the
PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (``NME'') country. In
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination
that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until
revoked by the
[[Page 7538]]
administering authority. None of the parties to this proceeding have
contested NME treatment. Accordingly, the Department calculated NV in
accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME
countries.
Selection of a Surrogate Country
When the Department conducts an antidumping duty administrative
review of imports from an NME country, section 773(c)(1) of the Act
directs the Department to base NV, in most cases, on the NME producer's
factors of production (``FOP'') valued in a surrogate market economy
country or countries considered appropriate by the Department. In
accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, the Department will value
FOP using ``to the extent possible, the prices or costs of factors of
production in one or more market economy countries that are--(A) at a
level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country,
and (B) significant producers of comparable merchandise.'' Further,
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(2), the Department will normally value
all FOP in a single country, except for labor.
In the instant review, the Department identified India, Indonesia,
Peru, the Philippines, Thailand, and Ukraine as being at a level of
economic development comparable to the PRC.\32\ On September 14, 2010,
AFMC/Vaughan-Bassett provided information regarding the selection of a
surrogate country.\33\ AFMC/Vaughan-Bassett asserted that the
Philippines satisfies the statutory requirements for the selection of
the surrogate country because it is at a level of economic development
comparable to the PRC and is a significant producer of comparable
merchandise.\34\ AFMC/Vaughan-Bassett provided an October 2007 report
entitled the The Furniture Industry in the Philippines published by the
international research firm CSIL Milano that demonstrates the
significance of Philippine production of wooden furniture.\35\
Moreover, AFMC/Vaughan-Bassett noted that the Philippines has been
selected as the surrogate country in the recent segments of this
proceeding and provides readily available and reliable factor value
data.\36\ No other interested parties commented on the selection of a
surrogate country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See memorandum entitled, ``Request for a List of Surrogate
Countries for an Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order
on Wooden Bedroom Furniture (``WBF'') from the People's Republic of
China (``PRC''),'' dated April 26, 2010 (``Policy Memorandum''). The
Department notes that these six countries are part of a non-
exhaustive list of countries that are at a level of economic
development comparable to the PRC.
\33\ See Letter from AFMC/Vaughan-Bassett regarding, ``Wooden
Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China: Comments
Concerning Surrogate Country And The April 26, 2010, Office Of
Policy Memorandum,'' dated September 14, 2010 (``AFMC/Vaughan-
Bassett's Surrogate Country Comments'').
\34\ See AFMC/Vaughan-Bassett's Surrogate Country Comments at 2.
\35\ See AFMC/Vaughan-Bassett's Surrogate Country Comments at
Attachment 1.
\36\ See AFMC/Vaughan-Bassett's Surrogate Country Comments at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the information on the record, we find that the
Philippines is a significant producer of comparable merchandise.
Specifically, The Furniture Industry in the Philippines report
indicates that in 2006, Philippine manufacturers produced furniture
valued at $813 million and the Philippines exported furniture valued at
$279 million.\37\ In addition, The Furniture Industry in the
Philippines describes the furniture sector as comprised of
approximately 15,000 manufacturers and 800,000 workers.\38\ Thus,
record evidence shows that the Philippines is a significant producer of
merchandise that is comparable to the merchandise under review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See AFMC/Vaughan-Bassett's' Surrogate Country Comments at
Attachment 1.
\38\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to data considerations in selecting a surrogate
country, from September to December 2010, AFMC/Vaughan-Bassett and
Huafeng submitted publicly-available Philippine data for valuing
Huafeng's FOP. In addition, the Department used the Philippines as the
primary surrogate country in the second, third, and fourth
administrative reviews of this proceeding.\39\ Therefore, based on
parties' submissions on the instant record and its experience in this
proceeding, the Department finds that reliable, publicly available data
for valuing FOP are available from the Philippines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of
China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review and Partial
Rescission of Administrative Review, 73 FR 8273, 8277-78 (February
13, 2008), unchanged in the final results, 73 FR 49162; Wooden
Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative and New Shipper Reviews
and Partial Rescission of Review, 74 FR 6372, 6376 (February 9,
2009), unchanged in the final results, 74 FR 41374; and Wooden
Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent To
Rescind Review in Part, 75 FR 5952, 5956 (February 5, 2010),
unchanged in the final results, 75 FR 50992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, for the input ``railway freight,'' the Department has been
unable to locate a suitable surrogate value from the Philippines.
Therefore, we preliminary determine to use India as a secondary
surrogate country because the record shows that India is at a level of
economic development comparable to that of the PRC \40\ and is a
significant producer of merchandise comparable to the subject
merchandise.\41\ Moreover, India has publicly available, country-wide
data that clearly identifies the relevant time period and prices for
valuing railway freight.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See Policy Memorandum.
\41\ See memorandum to the File through Howard Smith, Program
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, entitled ``Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's
Republic of China: Factor Valuation Memorandum,'' dated January 31,
2011 (``Factor Valuation Memorandum'') at Attachments III and IV.
\42\ See the Factor Valuations section below for further
details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, the Department has preliminarily selected the Philippines as
the surrogate country because the record shows that the Philippines is
at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC and is
a significant producer of merchandise comparable to subject
merchandise. Moreover, the record indicates that sufficient,
contemporaneous, public Philippine data are readily-available.\43\
Accordingly, we have selected the Philippines as the surrogate country
and we have calculated NV using Philippine prices to value Huafeng's
FOP.\44\ In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), interested
parties may submit publicly-available information to value FOP until 20
days after the date of publication of the preliminary results.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ See Factor Valuation Memorandum.
\44\ Id.
\45\ In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final
results of this administrative review, interested parties may submit
factual information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual
information submitted by an interested party less than ten days
before, on, or after, the applicable deadline for submission of such
factual information. However, the Department notes that 19 CFR
351.301(c)(1) permits new information only insofar as it rebuts,
clarifies, or corrects information placed on the record. The
Department generally will not accept the submission of additional,
previously absent-from-the-record alternative surrogate value
information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). See Glycine from the
People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Final Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809
(October 17, 2007) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum
at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department has a
rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are
subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single
antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's policy
[[Page 7539]]
to assign all exporters of subject merchandise in a NME country this
single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently
independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. Exporters can
demonstrate this independence through the absence of both de jure and
de facto governmental control over export activities. The Department
analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test
arising from the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Sparklers From the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6,
1991) (``Sparklers''), as further developed in Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from
the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585, 22586-87 (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. See Notice of Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate from the
People's Republic of China, 64 FR 71104, 71105 (December 20, 1999)
(where the respondent was wholly foreign-owned and thus qualified for a
separate rate). As part of our analysis we sent several supplemental
questionnaires to certain separate rate respondents and received
responses in September and October 2010.
A. Separate Rate Recipients
1. Wholly Foreign-Owned \46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Wholly foreign-owned companies are identified in the
Preliminary Results of Review section below by the symbol ``*'',
while partially and wholly owned Chinese companies are identified by
the symbol ``''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certain companies reported that they are wholly owned by
individuals or companies located in a market economy (collectively,
``Foreign-owned SR Applicants''). The record indicates that these
companies are wholly foreign-owned and the Department has no evidence
indicating that they are under the control of the PRC government.
Accordingly, the Department has preliminarily granted a separate rate
to these Foreign-owned SR Applicants.
2. Joint Ventures Between Chinese and Foreign Companies or Wholly
Chinese- Owned Companies \47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For all separate rate applicants that reported that they are either
joint ventures between Chinese and foreign companies, or are wholly
Chinese-owned companies (collectively ``PRC SR Applicants''), the
Department has analyzed whether each PRC SR Applicant has demonstrated
the absence of de jure and de facto governmental control over its
respective export activities.
a. Absence of De Jure Control
The Department considers the following de jure criteria in
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate
rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an
individual exporter's business and export license; (2) legislative
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
The evidence provided by the PRC SR Applicants supports a
preliminary finding of an absence of de jure governmental control based
on the following: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated
with the individual exporters' business and export licenses; (2)
applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of PRC
companies; and (3) formal measures by the government decentralizing
control of PRC companies.
b. Absence of De Facto Control
The Department considers four factors in evaluating whether each
respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of its export
functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or are subject to
the approval of a governmental agency; (2) whether the respondent has
authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; (3)
whether the respondent has autonomy from the government in making
decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) whether the
respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes
independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of
losses. See Silicon Carbide, 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).
The Department has determined that an analysis of de facto control is
critical in determining whether respondents are, in fact, subject to a
degree of governmental control which would preclude the Department from
assigning separate rates.
The evidence provided by the PRC SR Applicants supports a
preliminary finding of an absence of de facto governmental control
based on the following: (1) An absence of restrictive governmental
control on the PRC SR Applicants' export prices; (2) a showing of the
PRC SR Applicants' authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other
agreements; (3) a showing that the PRC SR Applicants maintain autonomy
from the government in making decisions regarding the selection of
management; and (4) a showing that the PRC SR Applicants retain the
proceeds of their respective export sales and make independent
decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses.
The evidence placed on the record by the PRC SR Applicants
demonstrates an absence of de jure and de facto governmental control,
in accordance with the criteria identified in Sparklers and Silicon
Carbide. Accordingly, the Department has preliminarily granted a
separate rate to the PRC SR Applicants.
B. Margins for Separate Rate Recipients Not Individually Examined
Consistent with our normal practice,\48\ we based the weighted-
average dumping margin for the separate rate recipients not
individually examined on the weighted-average dumping margin calculated
for Huafeng, the one mandatory respondent that participated in this
review. The entities receiving this rate are identified by name in the
Preliminary Results of Review section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's
Republic of China, 71 FR 77373, 77377 (December 26, 2006), unchanged
in final determination, 72 FR 19690.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Companies Not Receiving a Separate Rate
The following nine companies and company groupings for which the
Department initiated the instant review did not provide a separate rate
certification or application:
Dongguan Creation Furniture Co., Ltd., Creation Industries
Co., Ltd.
Foshan Guanqiu Furniture Co., Ltd.
Jiangsu Weifu Group Fullhouse Furniture Mfg. Corp.
Link Silver Ltd. (V.I.B.), Forward Win Enterprises Company
Limited, Dongguan Haoshun Furniture Ltd.
Nantong Yushi Furniture Co., Ltd.
Shanghai Aosen Furniture Co., Ltd.
Shenzhen Xiande Furniture Factory
Tarzan Furniture Industries, Ltd., Samso Industries Ltd.
Tianjin Master Home Furniture
The companies listed above, which were named in the Initiation
Notice, were notified in that notice that they
[[Page 7540]]
must timely submit separate rate applications or separate rate
certifications in order to qualify for a separate rate. Additionally,
the Initiation Notice identified the Web site address where the
separate rate certification and the separate rate application could be
found. Since each of the companies listed above did not provide
separate rate information, they have failed to demonstrate their
eligibility for separate rate status. As a result, the Department is
treating these PRC exporters as part of the PRC-wide entity.
Also, we have preliminarily found that (1) Nantong Yangzi, (2)
Zhongshan Gainwell, and (3) Dongguan Landmark shipped subject
merchandise during the POR, despite their claims to the contrary.\49\
Because these companies did not file a timely separate rate
certification or application and thereby failed to provide separate
rate information, they have failed to demonstrate their eligibility for
separate rate status. As a result, the Department is treating these
companies as part of the PRC-wide entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ See the January 31, 2011, memorandum from Drew Jackson to
Abdelali Elouaradia entitled ``Intent to Rescind the Review of
Respondents Claiming No Sales/Shipments.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use of Facts Available and Adverse Facts Available (``AFA'')
Section 776(a) of the Act provides that the Department shall apply
``facts otherwise available'' if: (1) Necessary information is not on
the record, or (2) an interested party or any other person (A)
withholds information that has been requested, (B) fails to provide
information within the deadlines established, or in the form and manner
requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of
section 782 of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D)
provides information that cannot be verified as provided by section
782(i) of the Act.
Where the Department determines that a response to a request for
information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act
provides that the Department will so inform the party submitting the
response and will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the
opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to
remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits and subject to
section 782(e) of the Act, the Department may disregard all or part of
the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate.
Section 782(e) of the Act provides that the Department ``shall not
decline to consider information that is submitted by an interested
party and is necessary to the determination but does not meet all
applicable requirements established by the administering authority'' if
the information is timely, can be verified, is not so incomplete that
it cannot be used, and if the interested party acted to the best of its
ability in providing the information. Where all of these conditions are
met, the statute requires the Department to use the information
supplied if it can do so without undue difficulties.
Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may
use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when
a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its
ability to comply with a request for information. Such an adverse
inference may include reliance on information derived from the
petition, the final determination, a previous administrative review, or
other information placed on the record.
A. Application of Total AFA to the PRC-Wide Entity
In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that if one of the
companies for which this review has been initiated ``does not qualify
for a separate rate, all other exporters of WBF from the PRC that have
not qualified for a separate rate are deemed to be covered by this
review as part of a single PRC entity * * * .'' As noted above, not all
of the companies for which this review was initiated have qualified for
a separate rate; as a result, the PRC-wide entity is now under review.
Certain companies which we are treating as part of the PRC-wide
entity did not respond to the Department's request for Q&V data. We
preliminarily determine that these companies withheld information
requested by the Department.
Thus, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) (withholds requested
information) and (C) (significantly impedes a proceeding) of the Act,
the Department has preliminarily based the dumping margin of the PRC-
wide entity on the facts otherwise available on the record.
Furthermore, the PRC-wide entity's refusal to provide the requested
information constitutes circumstances under which it is reasonable to
conclude that less than full cooperation has been shown. See Nippon
Steel Corporation v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1383 (Fed. Cir.
2003) (Nippon Steel) where the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
(``CAFC'') explained that the Department need not show intentional
conduct existed on the part of the respondent, but merely that a
``failure to cooperate to the best of a respondent's ability'' existed
(i.e., information was not provided ``under circumstances in which it
is reasonable to conclude that less than full cooperation has been
shown''). Hence, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, the Department
has determined that, when selecting from among the facts otherwise
available, an adverse inference is warranted with respect to the PRC-
wide entity.
B. Application of Partial AFA for Huafeng
At verification, we discovered that Huafeng failed to report all
constructed export price (``CEP'') sales of subject merchandise that
were shipped directly to unaffiliated U.S. customers. Specifically,
Huafeng failed to report a number of sales where the date of sale
occurred prior to the POR, but the merchandise entered the United
States during the POR.\50\ We further discovered at verification that
Huafeng failed to report CEP sales that it considered to be sample
sales, but for which it received payment. Finally, at verification we
discovered that Huafeng failed to report CEP sales of four dressers
made during the POR. Since Huafeng did not report these sales and the
related sales adjustments and did not provide the control numbers for
these products as requested by the Department, the information
necessary to calculate dumping margins for these sales is not on the
record. Thus, the Department has based the dumping margins for the
unreported sales on facts available pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A)
(withholds requested information) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ See 5th Review CEP Verification Report at 12-13 and
Exhibits 1 and 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, the Department finds that in not reporting these sales,
Huafeng has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its
ability to comply with requests for information and thus it is
appropriate to use an inference that is adverse to Huafeng's interests
in selecting from among the facts otherwise available in accordance
with section 776(b) of the Act. The Department requested that Huafeng
report U.S. sales of subject merchandise following the reporting
methodology laid out in the questionnaire.\51\ In preparing a response
to a request from the Department, it is presumed that a respondent is
familiar with its own records.\52\ At verification, the verifiers
readily identified the unreported sales
[[Page 7541]]
described above in documents that Huafeng prepared for verification and
in Huafeng's records.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ See, e.g., the Department's antidumping questionnaire,
dated April 28, 2010, at C-1 and D-1.
\52\ See Nippon Steel, 337 F.3d at 1383.
\53\ See 5th Review CEP Verification Report at Exhibit 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department's questionnaire instructs companies to ``Report each
U.S. sale of merchandise entered for consumption during the POR.'' In
its questionnaire response, Huafeng stated that it had ``reported its
sales of the subject merchandise to the United States during the POR *
* *.'' \54\ To confirm that Huafeng had reported all sales consistent
with the Department's questionnaire instructions, the Department again
requested of Huafeng in a supplemental questionnaire: ``All CEP sales
where the date of sale occurs after the date of entry into the United
States should be reported based on whether the date of sale occurred in
the POR. All CEP sales where the date of sale occurred prior to the
date of entry into the United States should be reported based on
whether the date of entry was during the POR. Have you done so? If not,
please do so at this time.'' \55\ Huafeng responded that it ``confirms
that all CEP sales where the date of sale occurred prior to the date of
entry into the U.S. were reported based on whether the date of entry
was during the POR.'' \56\ Contrary to these claims, however, Huafeng
failed to report CEP sales where the date of sale occurred prior to the
POR, but the merchandise entered the United States during the POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ See Huafeng's July 6, 2010 submission at 2.
\55\ See Huafeng's September 20, 2010 submission at 3.
\56\ See Huafeng's September 20, 2010 submission at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to sample sales, the Department, in its questionnaire,
requested certain information relating to sample sales, including
quantity and gross unit price, and then instructed Huafeng to ``Please
report in your sales database all instances where you sold samples to
customers in the United States.'' While Huafeng reported export price
(``EP'') sample sales in its submitted U.S. sales database, it did not
report the CEP sample sales in the sales database, but only reported
the total sales value of CEP sample sales in the narrative portion of
its questionnaire response.\57\ Thus, the Department did not know the
product information, individual sales value, sales adjustments or
almost any other information necessary to calculate the antidumping
margin of the CEP sample sales. The Department also asked Huafeng in a
supplemental questionnaire ``Did you report all sales of subject
merchandise for which you received consideration, including sample
sales? If not, please do so at this time.'' Huafeng replied that it had
``reported all sales of subject merchandise for which it received
consideration, including sample sales,'' and that in the revised
database it had created a field that identified sales of sample
merchandise.\58\ While Huafeng reported EP sample sales, it continually
failed, despite specific requests, to report CEP sample sales in its
U.S. sales database.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ See Huafeng's July 6, 2010 submission at 48, which contains
both the Department's question and Huafeng's response.
\58\ See Huafeng's October 27, 2010 response at 12, which
contains both the Department's question and Huafeng's response.
\59\ Id. at Exhibit S-66.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, despite claiming in its questionnaire response that it had
``reported its sales of the subject merchandise to the United States
during the POR in this submission,'' \60\ at verification, the
verifiers found that Huafeng failed to report four sales of
dressers.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ See Huafeng's July 6, 2010 submission at 2.
\61\ See CEP Verification Report at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Huafeng officials were asked at verification why they failed
to report all three types of unreported sales, they did not identify
any impediments to reporting them.\62\ This, in conjunction with its
failure to accurately respond to the numerous requests cited above to
report the three different types of unreported sales, indicates that
Huafeng did not act to the best of its abilities in investigating its
records for reportable sales of subject merchandise. Huafeng failed to
act to the best of its ability to comply with the Department's repeated
requests for information regarding all of its sales of subject
merchandise. Therefore, the Department has preliminarily determined to
apply AFA to these unreported sales, pursuant to section 776(b) of the
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ See 5th Review CEP Verification Report at 12-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Selection of AFA Rates
1. Total AFA Rate for the PRC-Wide Entity
In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act
and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) provide that the Department may rely on
information derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final determination in
the investigation, (3) any previous review or determination, or (4) any
information placed on the record. The Department's practice is to
select an AFA rate that is sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the
purpose of the facts available rule to induce respondents to provide
the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely
manner'' and that ensures ``that the party does not obtain a more
favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated
fully.'' \63\ Specifically, the Department's practice in selecting a
total AFA rate in administrative reviews is to use the highest rate on
the record of the proceeding which, to the extent practicable, can be
corroborated (assuming the rate is based on secondary information).\64\
The Court of International Trade (``CIT'') and the CAFC have affirmed
decisions to select the highest margin from any prior segment of the
proceeding as the AFA rate on numerous occasions.\65\ Therefore, as
AFA, the Department has preliminarily assigned the PRC-wide entity a
dumping margin of 216.01 percent. This margin, which is from the 2004-
2005 new shipper reviews of WBF from the PRC, is the highest dumping
margin on the record of any segment of this proceeding.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan,
63 FR 8909, 8911 (February 23, 1998); see also Brake Rotors From the
People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of
the Seventh Administrative Review; Final Results of the Eleventh New
Shipper Review, 70 FR 69937, 69939 (November 18, 2005) and the
Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. 103, 316, 838, 870 (1994).
\64\ See Glycine from the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR
15930, 15934 (April 8, 2009), unchanged in the final results, 74 FR
41121; see also Fujian Lianfu Forestry Co., Ltd. v. United States,
638 F. Supp. 2d 1325, 1336 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2009) (``Commerce may,
of course, begin its total AFA selection process by defaulting to
the highest rate in any segment of the proceeding, but that
selection must then be corroborated, to the extent practicable.'').
\65\ See, e.g., NSK Ltd. v. United States, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312,
1335 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2004) (affirming a 73.55 percent total AFA
rate, the highest available dumping margin from a different
respondent in the investigation); Kompass Food Trading Int'l v.
United States, 24 CIT 678, 683-84 (2000) (affirming a 51.16 percent
total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a
different, fully cooperative respondent); and Shanghai Taoen Int'l
Trading Co., Ltd. v. United States, 360 F. Supp. 2d 1339, 1348 (Ct.
Int'l Trade 2005) (affirming a 223.01 percent total AFA rate, the
highest available dumping margin from a different respondent in a
previous administrative review).
\66\ See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of
China: Final Results of the 2004-2005 Semi-Annual New Shipper
Reviews, 71 FR 70739, 70741 (December 6, 2006) (``2004-2005 New
Shipper Review'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Partial AFA for Huafeng's Unreported Sales
Consistent with the approach taken under the same circumstances in
the 2008 antidumping duty administrative review of WBF from the PRC, we
have
[[Page 7542]]
assigned as partial AFA for the unreported sales the PRC-wide rate of
216.01 percent cited above, which is from the 2004-2005 new shipper
reviews of WBF from the PRC, and is the highest dumping margin on the
record of any segment of this proceeding.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corroboration of Secondary Information
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies
on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the
course of an investigation or review, it shall, to the extent
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that
are reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is defined as
information derived from the petition that gave rise to the
investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject
merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 of the Act
concerning the subject merchandise.\68\ Corroborate means that the
Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be
used has probative value.\69\ To corroborate secondary information, the
Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and
relevance of the information to be used.\70\ Independent sources used
to corroborate such information may include, for example, published
price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and
information obtained from interested parties during the particular
investigation.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ See SAA at 870.
\69\ Id.
\70\ See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings Four Inches or
Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and
Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392
(November 6, 1996), unchanged in the final results, 62 FR 11825;
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished
From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings Four Inches or Less in
Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan; Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part,
62 FR 11825 (March 13, 1997).
\71\ See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: High and Ultra-High Voltage Ceramic Station Post
Insulators from Japan, 68 FR 35627, 35629 (June 16, 2003), unchanged
in final determination, 68 FR 62560; Notice of Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Live Swine From Canada, 70 FR
12181, 12183-84 (March 11, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 216.01 AFA rate that the Department is using in this review is
a company-specific rate calculated in the 2004-2005 New Shipper Review
of the WBF order.\72\ No additional information has been presented in
the current review which calls into question the reliability of the
information. Thus, we have determined this information continues to be
reliable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ See 2004-2005 New Shipper Review, 71 FR at 70741.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to
determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where
circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as
AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an
appropriate margin. See Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
