Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 30656-30667 [2011-13097]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
30656
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 102 / Thursday, May 26, 2011 / Notices
Scope of the Order
The scope of the order includes
certain orange juice for transport and/or
further manufacturing, produced in two
different forms: (1) Frozen orange juice
in a highly concentrated form,
sometimes referred to as frozen
concentrated orange juice for
manufacture (FCOJM); and (2)
pasteurized single-strength orange juice
which has not been concentrated,
referred to as not-from-concentrate
(NFC). At the time of the filing of the
petition, there was an existing
antidumping duty order on frozen
concentrated orange juice (FCOJ) from
Brazil. See Antidumping Duty Order;
Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice From
Brazil, 52 FR 16426 (May 5, 1987).
Therefore, the scope of the order with
regard to FCOJM covers only FCOJM
produced and/or exported by those
companies which were excluded or
revoked from the pre-existing
antidumping order on FCOJ from Brazil
as of December 27, 2004. Those
companies are Cargill Citrus Limitada,
Coinbra-Frutesp (SA), Fischer S.A.
Comercio, Industria, and Agricultura,
Montecitrus Trading S.A., and
Sucocitrico Cutrale, S.A.
Excluded from the scope of the order
are reconstituted orange juice and
frozen concentrated orange juice for
retail (FCOJR). Reconstituted orange
juice is produced through further
manufacture of FCOJM, by adding
water, oils and essences to the orange
juice concentrate. FCOJR is
concentrated orange juice, typically at
42 Brix, in a frozen state, packed in
retail-sized containers ready for sale to
consumers. FCOJR, a finished consumer
product, is produced through further
manufacture of FCOJM, a bulk
manufacturer’s product.
The subject merchandise is currently
classifiable under subheadings
2009.11.00, 2009.12.25, 2009.12.45, and
2009.19.00 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).
These HTSUS subheadings are provided
for convenience and for customs
purposes only and are not dispositive.
Rather, the written description of the
scope of the order is dispositive.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in this review are
addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision
Memorandum for the Expedited Sunset
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order
on Certain Orange Juice from Brazil’’ to
Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration
(May 19, 2011) (Decision Memo), which
is hereby adopted by this notice. The
issues discussed in the Decision Memo
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:04 May 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
include the likelihood of continuation
or recurrence of dumping and the
magnitude of the margin likely to
prevail if the order were revoked.
Parties can find a complete discussion
of all issues raised in this review and
the corresponding recommendations in
this public memorandum which is on
file in the Central Records Unit, Room
7046 of the main Department building.
In addition, a complete version of the
Decision Memo can be accessed directly
on the Web at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn.
The paper copy and electronic version
of the Decision Memo are identical in
content.
Final Results of Review
We determine that revocation of the
antidumping duty order on OJ from
Brazil would be likely to lead to the
continuation or recurrence of dumping
at the following weighted-average
percentage margins:
Manufacturers/Exporters/
Producers
Weightedaverage margin
(percent)
Fischer S.A. Comercio,
Industria, and Agricultura *
Montecitrus Trading S.A. ......
Sucocitrico Cutrale, S.A. ......
All-Others Rate ** ..................
12.46
60.29
19.19
16.51
* Fischer S.A. Comercio, Industria, and
Agricultura is the successor-in-interest to
Fischer S/A—Agroindustria.
** The all-others rate in regards to FCOJM
applies to Cargill Citrus Limitada and CoinbraFrutesp (SA). The all-others rate for NFC applies to all other companies not identified
above.
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 orders
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 the
results and notice in accordance with
sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of
the Act.
Dated: May 19, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011–13088 Filed 5–25–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–970]
Multilayered Wood Flooring From the
People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: May 26, 2011.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(‘‘Department’’) preliminarily determines
that multilayered wood flooring from
the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’)
is being, or is likely to be, sold in the
United States at less than fair value
(‘‘LTFV’’), as provided in section 733 of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the
Act’’). The estimated margins of sales at
LTFV are shown in the ‘‘Preliminary
Determination’’ section of this notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Charles Riggle, John Hollwitz, Brandon
Petelin or Erin Kearney, 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) 482–0650, (202) 482–
2336, (202) 482–8173 or (202) 482–0167,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
On October 21, 2010, the Department
received a petition concerning imports
of multilayered wood flooring from the
PRC filed in proper form by the
Coalition for American Hardwood
Parity 1 (‘‘Petitioner’’).2 On October 27,
2010, the Department issued several
requests for information and
clarification of certain areas of the
petition, to which Petitioner timely filed
additional responses.
On November 4, 2010, the Department
received comments from Lumber
Liquidators Services, LLC (‘‘Lumber
Liquidators’’) and Home Legend LLC
(‘‘Home Legend’’), U.S. importers of
wood flooring. Lumber Liquidators and
Home Legend are interested parties as
defined by section 771(9)(A) of the Act.
Additionally, on November 9, 2010, we
1 The Coalition for American Hardwood Parity is
comprised of Anderson Hardwood Floors, LLC,
Award Hardwood Floors, Baker’s Creek Wood
Floors, Inc., From the Forest, Howell Hardwood
Flooring, Mannington Mills, Inc., Nydree Flooring
and Shaw Industries Group, Inc.
2 See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping
and Countervailing Duties: Multilayered Wood
Flooring from the People’s Republic of China, dated
October 21, 2010 (‘‘Petition’’).
E:\FR\FM\26MYN1.SGM
26MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 102 / Thursday, May 26, 2011 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
received further comments filed by
Lumber Liquidators, Home Legend and
U.S. Floors LLC.
The Department initiated an
antidumping duty investigation of
multilayered wood flooring from the
People’s Republic of China on
November 10, 2010.3
In the Initiation Notice, the
Department stated that it intended to
select PRC respondents based on
quantity and value (‘‘Q&V’’)
questionnaires.4 On November 15, 2010,
the Department requested Q&V
information from 190 companies
identified in the petition as potential
producers and/or exporters of
multilayered wood flooring from the
PRC.5 The Department received timely
responses to its Q&V questionnaire from
80 companies. Additionally, the
Department received documentation
from Petitioner claiming that UA Wood
Floors, Inc. (‘‘UA Floors’’), is located in
Taiwan and, accordingly, does not sell
merchandise subject to this
investigation. Accordingly, Petitioner
agreed to the redaction of UA Floors
from the Department’s listing of
producers and exporters of subject
merchandise for the purposes of this
investigation.6 Additionally, the
Department received documentation
from UA Floors claiming that the
company is located in Taiwan.7
In the Initiation Notice, the
Department notified parties of the
application process by which exporters
and producers may obtain separate-rate
status in non-market economy (‘‘NME’’)
investigations. The process requires
exporters and producers to submit a
separate-rate status application
(‘‘SRA’’) 8 and to demonstrate an absence
of both de jure and de facto government
control over their export activities. The
SRA for this investigation was posted on
the Department’s Web site, https://
ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-andnews.html, on November 12, 2010. The
3 See Multilayered Wood Flooring from the
People’s Republic of China: Initiation of
Antidumping Duty Investigation, 75 FR 70714
(November 18, 2010) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’).
4 See Initiation Notice, 75 FR at 70718.
5 See Letter from Charles Riggle, Program
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, to All
Interested Parties, ‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation
of Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People’s
Republic of China: Quantity and Value
Questionnaire’’ (November 12, 2010).
6 See Letter from Petitioner, dated March 31,
2011.
7 See Letter from UA Floors, dated April 5, 2011.
8 See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice
and Application of Combination Rates in
Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market
Economy Countries (April 5, 2005) (‘‘Policy Bulletin
05.1’’), available at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/
bull05-1.pdf.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:04 May 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
deadline for filing an SRA was January
18, 2011.
On December 6, 2010, the
International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’)
preliminary determined that there is a
reasonable indication that an industry
in the United States is materially
injured by reason of imports of
multilayered wood flooring from the
PRC.9
Postponement of Final Determination
Section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act
provides that a final determination may
be postponed until not later than 135
days after the date of the publication of
the preliminary determination if, in the
event of an affirmative preliminary
determination, a request for such
postponement is made by exporters who
account for a significant proportion of
exports of the subject merchandise. In
the event of a negative preliminary
determination, a request for such a
postponement must be made by
Petitioners. See Section 735(a)(2)(B).
Section 351.210(e)(2) of the
Department’s regulations requires that
exporters requesting postponement of
the final determination must also
request an extension of the provisional
measures referred to in section 733(d) of
the Act from a four-month period until
not more than six months. We received
requests to postpone the final
determination from Petitioner on April
20, 2011, from Zhejiang Yuhua Timber
Co., Ltd. (‘‘Yuhua’’) on April 27, 2011,
and from Zhejiang Layo Wood Industry
Co., Ltd. (‘‘Layo Wood’’) on April 29,
2011. Layo Wood and Yuhua consented
to the extension of provisional measures
from a four-month period to not longer
than six months. Because this
preliminary determination is
affirmative, the requests for
postponement were made by exporters
who account for a significant proportion
of exports of the subject merchandise,
and there is no compelling reason to
deny the respondents’ requests, we have
extended the deadline for issuance of
the final determination until the 135th
day after the date of publication of this
preliminary determination in the
Federal Register and have extended
provisional measures to not longer than
six months.
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is
April 1, 2010, through September 30,
2010. This period corresponds to the
two most recent fiscal quarters prior to
9 See Investigation Nos. 701–TA–476 and 731–
TA–1179 (Preliminary), 75 FR 79019 (Int’l Trade
Comm’n Dec. 17, 2010).
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
30657
the month of the filing of the petition,
which was October 2011.10
Postponement of Preliminary
Determination
On March 3, 2011, Petitioners made a
timely request pursuant to section
733(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.205(b)(2) and (e) for a 50-day
postponement of the preliminary
determination. On March 11, 2011, the
Department published a postponement
of the preliminary AD determination on
wood flooring from the PRC.11
Scope of the Investigation 12
Multilayered wood flooring is
composed of an assembly of two or
more layers or plies of wood veneer(s) 13
in combination with a core. The several
layers, along with the core, are glued or
otherwise bonded together to form a
final assembled product. Multilayered
wood flooring is often referred to by
other terms, e.g., ‘‘engineered wood
flooring’’ or ‘‘plywood flooring.’’
Regardless of the particular terminology,
all products that meet the description
set forth herein are intended for
inclusion within the definition of
subject merchandise.
All multilayered wood flooring is
included within the definition of subject
merchandise, without regard to:
Dimension (overall thickness, thickness
of face ply, thickness of back ply,
thickness of core, and thickness of inner
plies; width; and length); wood species
used for the face, back and inner
veneers; core composition; and face
grade. Multilayered wood flooring
included within the definition of subject
merchandise may be unfinished (i.e.,
without a finally finished surface to
protect the face veneer from wear and
tear) or ‘‘prefinished’’ (i.e., a coating
applied to the face veneer, including,
but not exclusively, oil or oil-modified
or water-based polyurethanes, ultraviolet light cured polyurethanes, wax,
epoxy-ester finishes, moisture-cured
urethanes and acid-curing formaldehyde
finishes.) The veneers may be also
soaked in an acrylic-impregnated finish.
All multilayered wood flooring is
included within the definition of subject
10 See
19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
Multilayered Wood Flooring from the
People’s Republic of China: Postponement of
Preliminary Determinations of Antidumping Duty
Investigations, 76 FR 13357 (March 11, 2011).
12 See Memorandum to Christian Marsh through
Susan Kuhbach and Nancy Decker from Joshua
Morris: Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Investigations: Multilayered Wood Flooring from
the People’s Republic of China; Scope, dated May
19, 2011.
13 A ‘‘veneer’’ is a thin slice of wood, rotary cut,
sliced or sawed from a log, bolt or flitch. Veneer is
referred to as a ply when assembled.
11 See
E:\FR\FM\26MYN1.SGM
26MYN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
30658
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 102 / Thursday, May 26, 2011 / Notices
merchandise regardless of whether the
face (or back) of the product is smooth,
wire brushed, distressed by any method
or multiple methods, or hand-scraped.
In addition, all multilayered wood
flooring is included within the
definition of subject merchandise
regardless of whether or not it is
manufactured with any interlocking or
connecting mechanism (for example,
tongue-and-groove construction or
locking joints). All multilayered wood
flooring is included within the
definition of the subject merchandise
regardless of whether the product meets
a particular industry or similar
standard.
The core of multilayered wood
flooring may be composed of a range of
materials, including but not limited to
hardwood or softwood veneer,
particleboard, medium-density
fiberboard (MDF), high-density
fiberboard (HDF), stone and/or plastic
composite, or strips of lumber placed
edge-to-edge.
Multilayered wood flooring products
generally, but not exclusively, may be in
the form of a strip, plank, or other
geometrical patterns (e.g., circular,
hexagonal). All multilayered wood
flooring products are included within
this definition regardless of the actual or
nominal dimensions or form of the
product.
Specifically excluded from the scope
are cork flooring and bamboo flooring,
regardless of whether any of the subsurface layers of either flooring are
made from wood. Also excluded is
laminate flooring. Laminate flooring
consists of a top wear layer sheet not
made of wood, a decorative paper layer,
a core-layer of high-density fiberboard,
and a stabilizing bottom layer.
Imports of the subject merchandise
are provided for under the following
subheadings of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS):
4412.31.0520; 4412.31.0540;
4412.31.0560; 4412.31.2510;
4412.31.2520; 4412.31.4040;
4412.31.4050; 4412.31.4060;
4412.31.4070; 4412.31.5125;
4412.31.5135; 4412.31.5155;
4412.31.5165; 4412.31.3175;
4412.31.6000; 4412.31.9100;
4412.32.0520; 4412.32.0540;
4412.32.0560; 4412.32.2510;
4412.32.2520; 4412.32.3125;
4412.32.3135; 4412.32.3155;
4412.32.3165; 4412.32.3175;
4412.32.3185; 4412.32.5600;
4412.39.1000; 4412.39.3000;
4412.39.4011; 4412.39.4012;
4412.39.4019; 4412.39.4031;
4412.39.4032; 4412.39.4039;
4412.39.4051; 4412.39.4052;
4412.39.4059; 4412.39.4061;
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:04 May 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
4412.39.4062; 4412.39.4069;
4412.39.5010; 4412.39.5030;
4412.39.5050; 4412.94.1030;
4412.94.1050; 4412.94.3105;
4412.94.3111; 4412.94.3121;
4412.94.3131; 4412.94.3141;
4412.94.3160; 4412.94.3171;
4412.94.4100; 4412.94.5100;
4412.94.6000; 4412.94.7000;
4412.94.8000; 4412.94.9000;
4412.94.9500; 4412.99.0600;
4412.99.1020; 4412.99.1030;
4412.99.1040; 4412.99.3110;
4412.99.3120; 4412.99.3130;
4412.99.3140; 4412.99.3150;
4412.99.3160; 4412.99.3170;
4412.99.4100; 4412.99.5100;
4412.99.5710; 4412.99.6000;
4412.99.7000; 4412.99.8000;
4412.99.9000; 4412.99.9500;
4418.71.2000; 4418.71.9000;
4418.72.2000; and 4418.72.9500.
In addition, imports of subject
merchandise may enter the United
States under the following HTSUS
subheadings: 4409.10.0500;
4409.10.2000; 4409.29.0515;
4409.29.0525; 4409.29.0535;
4409.29.0545; 4409.29.0555;
4409.29.0565; 4409.29.2530;
4409.29.2550; 4409.29.2560;
4418.71.1000; 4418.79.0000; and
4418.90.4605.
While HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the
subject merchandise is dispositive.
Non-Market Economy Country
For purposes of initiation, Petitioner
submitted an LTFV analysis for the PRC
as an NME.14 The Department’s most
recent examination of the PRC’s market
status determined that NME status
should continue for the PRC.15 In
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of
the Act, the NME status remains in
effect until revoked by the Department.
The Department has not revoked the
PRC’s status as an NME country, and we
have therefore treated the PRC as an
NME in this preliminary determination
and applied our NME methodology.
Selection of Respondents
In accordance with section 777A(c)(2)
of the Act, the Department selected the
three largest exporters (by volume) of
wood flooring as the mandatory
respondents in this investigation based
14 See
Initiation Notice, 75 FR at 70716.
Memorandum for David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration,
Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Lined
Paper Products from the People’s Republic of China
(‘‘China’’) China’s Status as a Non-Market Economy
(‘‘NME’’) (August 30, 2006) (memorandum is on file
in the CRU on the record of case number A–570–
901).
15 See
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
on the information contained in the
timely submitted Quantity &Value
(‘‘Q&V’’) questionnaire responses filed
by 81 exporters/producers: Layo Wood;
Yuhua; and Riverside Plywood
Corporation, Samling Elegant Living
Trading (Labuan) Limited, Samling
Global USA, Inc., Samling Riverside
Co., Ltd. and Suzhou Times Flooring
(collectively, the ‘‘Samling Group’’).16
On January 10, 2010, the Department
issued antidumping questionnaires to
these three companies. In January and
February 2011, Layo Wood, Yuhua and
the Samling Group submitted timely
responses to sections A, C, and D of the
Department’s antidumping
questionnaire.
Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited
(‘‘Fine Furniture’’) requested to be
treated as a voluntary respondent in this
investigation on November 12, 2010.
Shanghai Lizhong Wood Products Co.,
Ltd. (‘‘Lizhong’’) and Dun Hua City Jisen
Wood Co., Ltd., asked to be treated as
voluntary respondents on November 15,
2010. Armstrong Wood Products asked
to be treated as a voluntary respondent
on December 3, 2010. On January 31,
2011, Fine Furniture and Lizhong each
submitted unsolicited responses to
section A of the Department’s original
questionnaire. On February 23, 2011,
Fine Furniture and Lizhong each
submitted unsolicited responses to
sections C and D of the Department’s
original questionnaire.
The Department issued supplemental
questionnaires to Layo Wood, Yuhua
and the Samling Group from January to
April 2011. Layo Wood, Yuhua and the
Samling Group submitted timely
responses to the Department’s
supplemental questionnaires from
January to May 2011. From January to
May 2011, Petitioner submitted
comments to the Department regarding
the submissions and/or responses of
Layo Wood, Yuhua and the Samling
Group.
Surrogate Country
When the Department is investigating
imports from an NME, section 773(c)(1)
of the Act directs it to base normal
value, in most circumstances, on the
NME producer’s factors of production
(‘‘FOPs’’) valued in a surrogate marketeconomy country or countries
considered to be appropriate by the
Department. In accordance with section
773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the
FOPs, the Department shall utilize, to
16 See the Department’s memorandum entitled,
‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation of Multilayered
Wood Flooring from the People’s Republic of China:
Revised Respondent Selection Memorandum,’’
dated February 8, 2011 (‘‘Respondent Selection
Memo’’).
E:\FR\FM\26MYN1.SGM
26MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 102 / Thursday, May 26, 2011 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
the extent possible, the prices or costs
of FOPs in one or more market-economy
countries that are at a level of economic
development comparable to that of the
NME country and are significant
producers of comparable merchandise.
The sources of the surrogate values we
have used in this investigation are
discussed under the ‘‘Normal Value’’
section below.
The Department determined that
India, the Philippines, Indonesia,
Thailand, Ukraine and Peru are
countries comparable to the PRC in
terms of economic development.17 Once
the countries that are economically
comparable to the PRC have been
identified, we select an appropriate
surrogate country by determining
whether an economically comparable
country is a significant producer of
comparable merchandise and whether
the data for valuing FOPs is both
available and reliable.18 Fine Furniture,
Layo Wood, Petitioner, the Samling
Group and Yuhua submitted comments
regarding surrogate country selection on
March 15, 2011. Layo Wood, Petitioner,
the Samling Group and Yuhua
submitted further comments regarding
surrogate country selection on March
21, 2011. On April 6, 2011, Petitioner
submitted further comments regarding
surrogate country and surrogate value
selection. On April 8, 2011, Layo Wood
included comments regarding surrogate
country selection in response to section
D of the Department’s second
supplemental questionnaire. On May 2,
2011, Layo Wood submitted further
comments regarding surrogate country
and surrogate value selection.
We have determined that it is
appropriate to use the Philippines as a
surrogate country pursuant to section
773(c)(4) of the Act based on the
following: (1) It is at a similar level of
economic development; (2) it is a
significant producer of comparable
merchandise; and (3) we have reliable
data from the Philippines that we can
use to value the FOPs.19 Thus, we have
calculated normal value (‘‘NV’’) using
Philippine prices when available and
appropriate to value the FOPs of the
17 See Memorandum to Wendy Frankel from
Carole Showers, ‘‘Request for a List of Surrogate
Countries for an Antidumping Duty Investigation of
Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) (‘‘Office of Policy
Surrogate Countries Memorandum’’), dated
February 17, 2011. 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.
18 See id.
19 See Memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia from
Drew Jackson, ‘‘Multilayered Wood Flooring from
the People’s Republic of China: Surrogate Country
Memorandum’’ (May 19, 2011).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:04 May 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
multilayered wood flooring producers
under investigation. We have obtained
and relied upon contemporaneous
publicly available information wherever
possible.20
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.301(c)(3)(i), for the final
determination in an antidumping
investigation, interested parties may
submit publicly available information to
value the FOPs within 40 days after the
date of publication of the preliminary
determination.21
Surrogate Value Comments
Surrogate factor valuation comments
and surrogate value information with
which to value the FOPs for the
preliminary determination in this
proceeding were originally due March
11, 2011. On March 1, 2011, Layo
Wood, Yuhua and the Samling Group
requested an extension of time to submit
potential surrogate value. On March 3,
2011, the Department extended the
deadline for submission of surrogate
value information for all interested
parties until March 15, 2011. Surrogate
value submissions were filed March 15,
2011, by Petitioner, Layo Wood, Yuhua,
the Samling Group and Fine Furniture.
Petitioner, Layo Wood, Yuhua and the
Samling Group filed rebuttal surrogate
value comments on March 21, 2011.22
Targeted Dumping
On April 4, 2011, the Department
received Petitioner’s allegations of
targeted dumping by Layo Wood, Yuhua
and the Samling Group using the
Department’s methodology as
established in Steel Nails.23 Based on
our examination of the targeted
20 See
id.
accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for
the final determination of this investigation,
interested parties may submit factual information to
rebut, clarify, or correct factual information
submitted by any other interested party less than
ten days before, on, or after, the applicable deadline
for submission of such factual information.
However, the Department notes that 19 CFR
351.301(c)(1) permits new information only insofar
as it rebuts, clarifies, or corrects information
recently placed on the record. The Department
generally will not accept the submission of
additional, previously absent-from-the-record
alternative surrogate value information. 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.
22 See the ‘‘Factor Valuation’’ section below; see
also Memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia through
Charles Riggle re: Selection of Surrogate Values,
dated May 19, 2011 (‘‘Surrogate Value
Memorandum’’).
23 See Certain Steel Nails from the United Arab
Emirates: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at
Not Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 33985 (June 16,
2008) (‘‘Steel Nails’’) and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comments 1–9.
21 In
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
30659
dumping allegations filed by Petitioner,
and pursuant to section 777A(d)(1)(B)(i)
of the Act, the Department has
determined that Petitioner’s allegations
sufficiently indicate that there is a
pattern of export prices (or constructed
export prices) for comparable
merchandise that differ significantly
among purchasers and regions.
As a result, the Department has
applied the targeted dumping analysis
established in Steel Nails to Layo Wood,
Yuhua and the Samling Group’s U.S.
sales to targeted purchasers and regions.
The methodology we employed involves
a two-stage test; the first stage addresses
the pattern requirement and the second
stage addresses the significantdifference requirement.24 In this test we
made all price comparisons on the basis
of comparable merchandise (i.e., by
control number or CONNUM). The test
procedures are the same for the
customer and region targeted-dumping
allegations. We based all of our targeteddumping calculations on the net U.S.
price that we determined for U.S. sales
by Layo Wood, Yuhua and the Samling
Group in our standard margin
calculations.25
As a result of our analysis, we
preliminarily determine that there is a
pattern of prices for U.S. sales of
comparable merchandise that differ
significantly among certain purchasers
and regions for Layo Wood and the
Samling Group in accordance with
section 777A(d)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, and
our practice as discussed in Steel Nails.
Our analysis, however, indicates that
there is no pattern of prices for U.S.
sales of comparable merchandise that
differ significantly among certain
purchasers and regions for Yuhua. We
also find that the result using the
standard average-to-average
methodology is not substantially
different from that using the alternative
average-to-transaction methodology for
Layo Wood because both methods result
in a de minimis margin. Accordingly,
for this preliminary determination we
have applied the standard average-toaverage methodology to all U.S. sales
that Yuhua and Layo Wood reported,
and have applied the alternative
average-to-transaction methodology to
all U.S. sales that Samling Group
reported.
24 See section 777A(d)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and
Steel Nails, and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 2.
25 For further discussion of the test and the
results, see Samling Analysis Memorandum, Layo
Analysis Memorandum and Yuhua Analysis
Memorandum.
E:\FR\FM\26MYN1.SGM
26MYN1
30660
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 102 / Thursday, May 26, 2011 / Notices
Affiliation
Based on the evidence presented in
Layo Wood’s questionnaire responses,
we preliminarily find that Layo Wood
and Jiaxing Brilliant Import and Export
Company (‘‘Jiaxing Brilliant’’) are not
affiliated pursuant to section 771(33) of
the Act.26
Based on the evidence included in the
Samling Group’s questionnaire
responses, we preliminarily find
affiliation between Baroque Timber
Industries (Zhongshan) Co., Ltd. (‘‘BTI’’),
Riverside Plywood Corporation (‘‘RPC’’),
Samling Elegant Living Trading
(Labuan) Limited (‘‘SELT’’), Samling
Global USA, Inc. (‘‘SGUSA’’), Samling
Riverside Co., Ltd. (‘‘SRC’’), and Suzhou
Times Flooring (‘‘STF’’), pursuant to
section 771(33)(A) and (F) of the Act. In
addition, based on the evidence
presented in the Samling Group’s
questionnaire responses, we find that
BTI, RPC, and STF should be collapsed
and treated as a single entity for
purposes of this investigation, pursuant
to sections 771(33)(A) and (F) of the Act,
and 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1) and (2).27
Based on the evidence included in
Yuhua’s questionnaire responses, we
preliminarily determine that there is no
basis for finding affiliation between
Yuhua and A-Timber Co., Ltd., ATimber Flooring Co., Ltd., or Oriental
Asia International Ltd., pursuant to
sections 771(33)(A) and (F) of the Act.28
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Separate Rates
In the Initiation Notice, the
Department notified parties of the
application process by which exporters
and producers may obtain separate-rate
status in NME investigations.29 The
process requires exporters and
producers to submit an SRA.30 The
26 See Memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia
through Charles Riggle re: Preliminary
Determination Regarding Affiliation and Collapsing
of Zhejiang Layo Wood Industry Co., Ltd. and
Jiaxing Brilliant Import & Export Co., Ltd., dated
May 19, 2011.
27 See Memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia
through Charles Riggle re: Preliminary
Determination Regarding Affiliation and Collapsing
of Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) Co., Ltd.,
Riverside Plywood Corporation, Samling Elegant
Living Trading (Labuan) Limited, Samling Riverside
Co., Ltd., and Suzhou Times Flooring Co., Ltd.,
dated May 19, 2011.
28 See Memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia
through Charles Riggle re: Preliminary
Determination Regarding Affiliation Zhejiang
Yuhua Timber Co., Ltd.
29 See Initiation Notice, 75 FR 70718.
30 See Policy Bulletin 05.1: ‘‘While continuing the
practice of assigning separate rates only to
exporters, all separate rates that the Department
will now assign in its NME investigations will be
specific to those producers that supplied the
exporter during the period of investigation. Note,
however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter
and all of the producers which supplied subject
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:04 May 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
standard for eligibility for a separate rate
is whether a firm can demonstrate an
absence of both de jure and de facto
government control over its export
activities. In the instant investigation,
the Department received timely-filed
SRAs from 73 companies.31
merchandise to it during the period of investigation.
This practice applied both to mandatory
respondents receiving an individually calculated
separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated
firms receiving the weighted-average of the
individually calculated rates. This practice is
referred to as the application of ‘combination rates’
because such rates apply to specific combinations
of exporters and one or more producers. The cashdeposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only
to merchandise both exported by the firm in
question and produced by a firm that supplied the
exporter during the period of investigation.’’ See
Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6.
31 The 73 separate-rate applicants are: (1)
MuDanJiang Bosen Wood Industry Co., Ltd., (2)
Huzhou Chenghang Wood Co., Ltd., (3) Hangzhou
Hanje Tec Co., Ltd., (4) Nakahiro Jyou Sei Furniture
(Dalian) Co., Ltd., (5) Shenyang Haobainian
Wooden Co., Ltd., (6) Dalian Dajen Wood Co., Ltd.,
(7) HaiLin LinJing Wooden Products, Ltd., (8) Dun
Hua Sen Tai Wood Co., Ltd., (9) Dunhua Jisheng
Wood Industry Co., Ltd., (10) Hunchun Forest Wolf
Industry Co., Ltd., (11) Guangzhou Panyu Southern
Star Co., Ltd., (12) Nanjing Minglin Wooden
Industry Co., Ltd., (13) Zhejiang Fudeli Timber
Industry Co., Ltd., (14) Suzhou Dongda Wood Co.,
Ltd., (15) Guangzhou Pan Yu Kang Da Board Co.,
Ltd., (16) Kornbest Enterprises Ltd., (17)
Metropolitan Hardwood Floors, Inc., (18) Zhejiang
Longsen Lumbering Co., Ltd., (19) Xinyuan Wooden
Industry Co., Ltd., (20) Dasso Industrial Group Co.,
Ltd., (21) Hong Kong Easoon Wood Technology Co.,
Ltd., (22) Armstrong Wood Products Kunshan Co.,
Ltd., (23) Baishan Huafeng Wooden Product Co.,
Ltd., (24) Changbai Mountain Development and
Protection Zone Hongtu Wood Industry Co., Ltd.,
(25) Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co., Ltd., (26)
Dalian Jiuyuan Wood Industry Co., Ltd., (27) Dalian
Penghong Floor Products Co., Ltd., (28) Dongtai
Fuan Universal Dynamics LLC, (29) Dunhua City
Dexin Wood Industry Co., Ltd., (30) Dunhua City
Hongyuan Wood Industry Co., Ltd., (31) Dunhua
City Jisen Wood Industry Co., Ltd., (32) Dunhua
City Wanrong Wood Industry Co., Ltd., (33) Fusong
Jinlong Wooden Group Co., Ltd., (34) Fusong
Qianqiu Wooden Product Co., Ltd., (35) GTP
International, (36) Guangdong Yihua Timber
Industry Co., Ltd., (37) HaiLin LinJing Wooden
Products, Ltd., (38) Huzhou Fulinmen Imp & Exp.
Co., Ltd., (39) Huzhou Fuma Wood Bus. Co., Ltd.,
(40) Jiafeng Wood (Suzhou) Co., Ltd., (41) Jiashan
Hui Jia Le Decoration Material Co., Ltd., (42) Jilin
Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co., Ltd.,
(43) Karly Wood Product Limited, (44) Kunshan
Yingyi-Nature Wood Industry Co., Ltd., (45) Puli
Trading Limited, (46) Shanghai Eswell Timber Co.
Ltd., (47) Shanghai Lairunde Wood Co., Ltd., (48)
Shanghai New Sihe Wood Co., Ltd., (49) Shanghai
Shenlin Corporation, (50) Shenzhenshi Huanwei
Woods Co., Ltd., (51) Vicwood Industry (Suzhou)
Co., Ltd., (52) Xiamen Yung De Ornament Co., Ltd.,
(53) Xuzhou Shenghe Wood Co., Ltd., (54) Yixing
Lion-King Timber Industry Co., Ltd., (55) Jiangsu
Simba Flooring Industry Co., Ltd, (56) Zhejiang
Biyork Wood Co., Ltd., (57) Zhejiang Dadongwu
GreenHome Wood Co., Ltd., (58) Zhejiang Desheng
Wood Industry Co., Ltd., (59) Zhejiang Shiyou
Timber Co., Ltd., (60) Zhejiang Tianzhen Bamboo
& Wood Development Co., Ltd., (61) Chinafloors
Timber (China) Co. Ltd., (62) Shanghai Lizhong
Wood Products Co., Ltd., (63) Fine Furniture
(Shanghai) Limited, (64) Huzhou Sunergy World
Trade Co. Ltd., (65) Huzhou Jesonwood Co., Ltd.,
(66) A&W (Shanghai) Woods Co., Ltd., (67) Fu Lik
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Of the SR applicants, Jiangsu Senmao
Bamboo and Wood Industry Co., Ltd.
and Guangdong Yihua Timber Industry
Co., Ltd. submitted SRAs on January 31,
2011, and January 21, 2011,
respectively, pursuant to extensions
granted by the Department. In addition
to the aforementioned 73 companies, in
response to the Department’s requests
for information, Jiaxing Brilliant
provided information in Layo Wood’s
responses to the Department’s
supplemental questionnaires on January
31, 2011, February 23, 2011, April 5,
2011 and April 8, 2011. Based on the
information provided in those
responses, the Department preliminarily
finds that Jiaxing Brilliant is eligible for
a separate rate.
In proceedings involving NME
countries, the Department has a
rebuttable presumption that all
companies within the country are
subject to government control and thus
should be assessed a single antidumping
duty rate. It is the Department’s policy
to assign all exporters of merchandise
subject to investigation in an NME
country this single rate unless an
exporter can demonstrate that it is
sufficiently independent so as to be
entitled to a separate rate. 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
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 Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon
Carbide from the People’s Republic of
China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994)
(‘‘Silicon Carbide’’). In accordance with
the separate-rates criteria, the
Department assigns separate rates in
NME cases only if respondents can
demonstrate the absence of both de jure
and de facto governmental control over
export activities.
Timber (HK) Company Limited, (68) Yekalon
Industry, Inc./Sennorwell International Group
(Hong Kong) Limited, (69) Kemian Wood Industry
(Kunshan) Co., Ltd., (70) Dalian Kemian Wood
Industry Co., Ltd., (71) Dalian Huilong Wooden
Products Co., Ltd., (72) Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo
and Wood Industry Co., Ltd., and (73) Real Wood
Floors, LLC.
E:\FR\FM\26MYN1.SGM
26MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 102 / Thursday, May 26, 2011 / Notices
A. Separate-Rate Recipients 32
1. Wholly Foreign-Owned or Located in
a Market Economy
Twelve separate rate applicants
provided evidence in their SRAs that
they are wholly owned by individuals
or companies located in a market
economy (‘‘ME’’) (collectively ‘‘ForeignOwned SR Applicants’’).33 Therefore,
because they are wholly foreign-owned
or located in a market economy, and we
have no evidence indicating that they
are under the control of the PRC, a
separate-rate analysis is not necessary to
determine whether these companies are
independent from government
control.34 Accordingly, we have
preliminarily granted a separate rate to
these companies.
2. Joint Ventures Between Chinese and
Foreign Companies or Wholly ChineseOwned Companies
Sixty-two of the separate-rate
companies in this investigation stated
that they are either joint ventures
between Chinese and foreign companies
or are wholly Chinese-owned
companies (collectively ‘‘PRC SR
Applicants’’). Therefore, the Department
must analyze whether these respondents
can demonstrate the absence of both de
jure and de facto governmental control
over export activities.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
a. Absence of De Jure Control
The Department considers the
following de jure criteria in determining
whether an individual company may be
granted a separate rate: (1) An absence
of restrictive stipulations associated
with an individual exporter’s business
and export licenses; (2) any legislative
enactments decentralizing control of
companies; and (3) other formal
measures by the government
decentralizing control of companies.35
The evidence provided by the PRC SR
Recipients supports a preliminary
32 All separate-rate applicants receiving a separate
rate are hereby referred to collectively as the ‘‘SR
Recipients,’’ including the mandatory respondents.
33 The wholly foreign-owned SR Applicants are:
(1) Jianfeng Wood (Suzhou) Co, Ltd; (2) Fu Lik
Timber (HK) Company Limited; (3) Xiamen Yung
De Ornament Co., Ltd; (4) Metropolitan Hardwood
Floors, Inc.; (5) A&W (Shanghai) Woods Co., Ltd.;
(6) Vicwood Industry (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.; (7)
Armstrong Wood Products Kunshan Co., Ltd.; (8)
Kunshan Yingyi-Nature Wood Industry Co., Ltd.; (9)
Dongtai Fuan Universal Dynamics LLC; (10) Yixing
Lion-King Timber Industry Co., Ltd.; (11)
Chinafloors Timber (China) Co., Ltd.; and (12) Fine
Furniture (Shanghai) Limited.
34 See, e.g., Certain New Pneumatic Off-The-Road
Tires From the People’s Republic of China;
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Postponement of Final
Determination, 73 FR 9278, 9284 (February 20,
2008) (unchanged for the final determination).
35 See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:04 May 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
finding of de jure absence of
governmental control based on the
following: (1) An absence of restrictive
stipulations associated with the
individual exporters’ business and
export licenses; (2) there are applicable
legislative enactments decentralizing
control of the companies; and (3) and
there are formal measures by the
government decentralizing control of
Chinese companies.
b. Absence of De Facto Control
Typically, the Department considers
four factors in evaluating whether each
respondent is subject to de facto
government control of its export
functions: (1) Whether the export prices
are set by or are subject to the approval
of a government agency; (2) whether the
respondent has authority to negotiate
and sign contracts and other
agreements; (3) whether the respondent
has autonomy from the government in
making decisions regarding the
selection of management; and (4)
whether the respondent retains the
proceeds of its export sales and makes
independent decisions regarding
disposition of profits or financing of
losses.36 The Department has
determined that an analysis of de facto
control is critical in determining
whether respondents are, in fact, subject
to a degree of government control which
would preclude the Department from
assigning separate rates.
In this investigation, the separate rate
applicants each asserted the following:
(1) That the export prices are not set by,
and are not subject to, the approval of
a governmental agency; (2) they have
authority to negotiate and sign contracts
and other agreements; (3) they have
autonomy from the government in
making decisions regarding the
selection of management; and (4) they
retain the proceeds of their export sales
and make independent decisions
regarding disposition of profits or
financing of losses. Additionally, each
of these companies’ SRA responses
indicates that its pricing during the POI
does not involve coordination among
exporters.
Evidence placed on the record of this
investigation by 73 of the SR Applicants
demonstrates an absence of de jure and
de facto government control with
respect to their exports of the
merchandise under investigation, in
accordance with the criteria identified
in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide.
Therefore, we are preliminarily granting
36 See
Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586–87; see
also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the
People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545
(May 8, 1995).
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
30661
a separate rate to these entities and have
identified each of them in the
Preliminary Determination section of
this notice, below.
Companies Not Receiving a Separate
Rate
Real Wood Floors, LLC (‘‘RWF’’),
submitted a timely response to the
Department’s separate rate application
on January 19, 2011. In its response,
RWF claims that it is the first seller of
the subject merchandise in the United
States. Sales-related documentation
submitted by RWF in its SRA indicates
that RWF is an importer of subject
merchandise.37 As RWF is neither an
exporter, nor a Chinese producer, of
subject merchandise that entered the
United States during the POI, the
Department finds that RWF is not
eligible to apply for a separate rate.
Application of Facts Available and
Adverse Facts Available
The PRC-Wide Entity and PRC-Wide
Rate
We issued our request for Q&V
information to 190 potential Chinese
exporters of the subject merchandise, in
addition to posting the Q&V
questionnaire on the Department’s Web
site.38 While information on the record
of this investigation indicates that there
are numerous producers/exporters of
multilayered wood flooring in the PRC,
we received 80 timely filed Q&V
responses. Although all exporters were
given an opportunity to provide Q&V
information, not all exporters provided
a response to the Department’s Q&V
letter. Therefore, the Department has
preliminarily determined that there
were exporters/producers of the subject
merchandise during the POI from the
PRC that did not respond to the
Department’s request for information.
We have treated these non-responsive
PRC producers/exporters as part of the
PRC-wide entity because they did not
demonstrate their eligibility for a
separate rate.39
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides
that, if an interested party (A) withholds
information that has been requested by
the Department, (B) fails to provide such
information in a timely manner or in the
form or manner requested, subject to
subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act,
(C) significantly impedes a proceeding
under the antidumping statute, or (D)
provides such information but the
37 See Separate Rate Application of Real Wood
Floors, LLC: Multilayered Wood Flooring from the
People’s Republic of China, dated January 19, 2011.
38 See Respondent Selection Memo.
39 See, e.g., Kitchen Racks Prelim, unchanged in
Kitchen Racks Final.
E:\FR\FM\26MYN1.SGM
26MYN1
30662
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 102 / Thursday, May 26, 2011 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
information cannot be verified, the
Department shall, subject to subsection
782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise
available in reaching the applicable
determination.
Information on the record of this
investigation indicates that the PRCwide entity was non-responsive.
Specifically, certain companies did not
respond to our questionnaire requesting
Q&V information. Accordingly, we find
that the PRC-entity withheld
information requested by the
Department; failed to provide
information in a timely manner and
neither indicated that it was having
difficulty providing the information nor
requested that it be allowed to submit
the information in an alternate form;
and significantly impeded the
proceeding by not submitting the
requested information. As a result,
pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A)–(C) of
the Act, we find that the use of facts
available is appropriate to determine the
PRC-wide rate. See Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, Affirmative Preliminary
Determination of Critical Circumstances
and Postponement of Final
Determination: Certain Frozen Fish
Fillets from the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam, 68 FR 4986 (January 31, 2003),
unchanged in Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Affirmative Critical Circumstances:
Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR
37116 (June 23, 2003).
Section 776(b) of the Act provides
that, in selecting from among the facts
otherwise available, the Department
may employ an adverse inference if an
interested party fails to cooperate by not
acting to the best of its ability to comply
with requests for information.40 We find
that, because the PRC-wide entity did
not respond to our requests for
information, it has failed to cooperate to
the best of its ability. 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.41
40 See Statement of Administrative Action,
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act
(‘‘URAA’’), H.R. Rep. No. 103–316, 870 (1994)
(‘‘SAA’’); see also Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled
Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products from the
Russian Federation, 65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4,
2000).
41 See Nippon Steel Corporation v. United States,
337 F.3d 1373, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (‘‘Nippon
Steel’’) (noting 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:04 May 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
Therefore, the Department preliminarily
finds that, in selecting from among the
facts available, an adverse inference is
appropriate.
When employing an adverse
inference, section 776 of the Act
indicates that the Department may rely
upon information derived from the
petition, the final determination from
the LTFV investigation, a previous
administrative review, or any other
information placed on the record. In
selecting a rate for AFA, the Department
selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse
to ensure that the uncooperative party
does not obtain a more favorable result
by failing to cooperate than if it had
fully cooperated. It is the Department’s
practice to select, as AFA, the higher of
the (a) Highest margin alleged in the
petition, or (b) the highest calculated
rate of any respondent in the
investigation.42 The petition identified
rates of 194.49 and 280.60 percent.43
These rates are higher than any of the
calculated rates assigned to individually
examined companies. Thus, as AFA, the
Department’s practice would be to
assign the rate of 280.60 percent to the
PRC-wide entity.
Corroboration of Information
Section 776(c) of the Act, however,
requires the Department to corroborate,
to the extent practicable, secondary
information used as facts available.
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
concerning the subject merchandise.’’
See 19 CFR 351.308(c) and (d).
The SAA clarifies that ‘‘corroborate’’
means that the Department will satisfy
itself that the secondary information to
be used has probative value. See the
SAA at 870. The SAA also states that
independent sources used to corroborate
such evidence may include, for
example, published price lists, official
import statistics and customs data, and
information obtained from interested
parties during the particular
investigation. Id. To corroborate
secondary information, the Department
will, to the extent practicable, examine
in which it is reasonable to conclude that less than
full cooperation has been shown’’)).
42 See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Quality
Steel Products from the People’s Republic of China,
65 FR 34660 (May 31, 2000), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum, at ‘‘Facts
Available.’’
43 See Multilayered Wood Flooring from the
People’s Republic of China: Initiation of
Antidumping Investigation, 75 FR 70714 (November
18, 2010).
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the reliability and relevance of the
information used.
In order to determine the probative
value of the margins in the petition for
use as AFA for purposes of this
preliminary determination, we analyzed
the U.S. prices and normal values for
each of the individually investigated
parties. Based on this analysis, we
determined that while there were U.S.
prices within the range of the prices
contained in the petition, the normal
value information contained in the
petition does not have probative value
for purposes of this preliminary
determination. Thus, with respect to
AFA, for the preliminary determination,
we have assigned the PRC-wide entity
the rate of 82.65 percent, the highest
calculated transaction-specific rate
among mandatory respondents. No
corroboration of this rate is necessary
because we are relying on information
obtained in the course of this
investigation, rather than secondary
information.44
Margin for the Separate Rate Companies
As discussed above, the Department
has preliminarily determined that in
addition to the individually investigated
entities, 73 other companies have
demonstrated their eligibility for a
separate rate. Normally, the
Department’s practice is to establish a
margin, as the separate rate, for these
entities based on the average of the rates
we calculated for the mandatory
respondents, excluding any rates that
were zero, de minimis, or based entirely
on AFA.45 In the instant investigation,
only one of the margins assigned is
neither zero or de minimis nor based on
AFA. Thus, we are assigning that rate,
10.88%, to the separate rate
applicants.46 The separate-rate
applicants are listed in the ‘‘Suspension
of Liquidation’’ section of this notice.
44 See 19 CFR 351.308(c) and (d) and section
776(c) of the Act; see also Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative
Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part:
Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the
People’s Republic of China, 73 FR 35652, 35653
(June 24, 2008), and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at 1.
45 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 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, 72 FR 19690 (April 19, 2007).
46 See Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act; see also
Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks
From the People’s Republic of China: Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 74
FR 36656 (July 24, 2009).
E:\FR\FM\26MYN1.SGM
26MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 102 / Thursday, May 26, 2011 / Notices
Date of Sale
U.S. Price
19 CFR 351.401(i) states that, ‘‘in
identifying the date of sale of the
merchandise under consideration or
foreign like product, the Secretary
normally will use the date of invoice, as
recorded in the exporter or producer’s
records kept in the normal course of
business.’’ In Allied Tube & Conduit
Corp. v. United States, the CIT noted
that a ‘‘party seeking to establish a date
of sale other than invoice date bears the
burden of producing sufficient evidence
to ‘satisf{y}’ the Department that ‘a
different date better reflects the date on
which the exporter or producer
establishes the material terms of
sale.’’’ 47 The date of sale is generally the
date on which the parties agree upon all
substantive terms of the sale. This
normally includes the price, quantity,
delivery terms and payment terms.48
For sales by the Samling Group, we
used the commercial invoice date as the
sale date because record evidence
indicates that the terms of sale were not
set until the issuance of the commercial
invoice.
Consistent with 19 CFR 351.401(i), for
sales made by Layo Wood and Yuhua,
the Department finds that the date of
invoice does not always reflect the date
on which the terms of sale were
finalized. For those sales made by Layo
Wood and Yuhua that shipped prior to
the invoice date, the Department has
used the shipment date as the date of
sale. For all other relevant sales made by
Layo Wood and Yuhua over the course
of POI, the Department has used invoice
date as the date of sale.49
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 subsections (c) and (d).’’
In its questionnaire responses, the
Samling Group stated that it made
certain CEP sales through U.S. affiliates.
In accordance with section 772(b) of the
Act, we used CEP for the Samling
Group’s U.S. sales where the
merchandise subject to this
investigation was sold directly to an
affiliated purchaser located in the
United States.
For sales reported by the Samling
Group as CEP sales, we calculated CEP
based on delivered prices to unaffiliated
purchasers in the United States. We
made deductions from the U.S. sales
price, where applicable, for movement
expenses in accordance with section
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These included
such expenses as foreign inland freight
from the plant to the port of exportation
and marine insurance. In accordance
with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, the
Department deducted commissions,
billing adjustments, early payment
discounts, domestic inland freight,
domestic brokerage and handling, U.S.
inland freight, other U.S. transportation
costs, U.S. duties, direct and indirect
selling expenses, international freight
and marine insurance, credit expenses,
inventory carrying costs and indirect
selling expenses from the U.S. price, all
of which relate to commercial activity in
the United States. Finally, we deducted
CEP profit, in accordance with sections
772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act.50
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of
multilayered wood flooring to the
United States by the respondents were
made at LTFV, we compared export
price (‘‘EP’’) and constructed export
price (‘‘CEP’’) to normal value (‘‘NV’’), as
described in the ‘‘Constructed Export
Price,’’ ‘‘Export Price,’’ and ‘‘Normal
Value’’ sections of this notice.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
47 Allied
Tube & Conduit Corp. v. United States
132 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 1090 (CIT 2001).
48 See Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from
Trinidad and Tobago: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 62824
(November 7, 2007), and accompanying Issue and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 1; Notice of
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon
Quality Steel Products from Turkey, 65 FR 15123
(March 21, 2000), and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
49 See Layo, Samling and Yuhua Analysis
Memorandums.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:04 May 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
Export Price
In accordance with section 772(a) of
the Act, we used EP for certain U.S.
sales reported by the Samling Group
and all sales reported by Layo Wood
and Yuhua. We calculated EP based on
the packed prices to unaffiliated
purchasers in, or for exportation to, the
United States. We made deductions, as
appropriate, for any movement expenses
(e.g., foreign inland freight from the
plant to the port of exportation,
domestic brokerage, international freight
to the port of importation) in accordance
with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
Where foreign inland freight or foreign
50 See
PO 00000
Surrogate Value Memorandum.
Frm 00026
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
30663
brokerage and handling fees were
provided by PRC service providers or
paid for in renminbi, we based those
charges on surrogate value rates.51
Normal Value
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides
that the Department shall determine the
NV using an FOP methodology if the
merchandise is exported from an NME
and the information does not permit the
calculation of NV using home-market
prices, third-country prices, or
constructed value under section 773(a)
of the Act. The Department bases NV on
the FOPs because the presence of
government controls on various aspects
of NMEs renders price comparisons and
the calculation of production costs
invalid under the Department’s normal
methodologies. Therefore, for this
preliminary determination we have
calculated NV based on FOPs in
accordance with sections 773(c)(3) and
(4) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c).
The FOPs include: (1) Hours of labor
required; (2) quantities of raw materials
employed; (3) amounts of energy and
other utilities consumed; and (4)
representative capital costs.52 In
accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1),
the Department will normally use
publicly available information to find an
appropriate surrogate value to value
FOPs, but when a producer sources an
input from a ME and pays for it in a ME
currency, the Department may value the
factor using the actual price paid for the
input.53
Factor Valuation Methodology
In accordance with section 773(c) of
the Act, we calculated NV based on FOP
data reported by respondents during the
POI. To calculate NV, we multiplied the
reported per-unit factor-consumption
rates by publicly available surrogate
values (except as discussed below). In
selecting the surrogate values, we
considered the quality, specificity, and
contemporaneity of the data.54 As
appropriate, we adjusted input prices by
including freight costs to make them
delivered prices. Specifically, we added
to Philippine import surrogate values an
51 See ‘‘Factor Valuation’’ section below for further
discussion of surrogate value rates.
52 See Section 773(c)(3)(A)–(D) of the Act.
53 See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1); see also Shakeproof
Assembly Components Div of Ill v. United States,
268 F.3d 1376, 1382–83 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (affirming
the Department’s use of market-based prices to
value certain FOPs).
54 See, e.g., New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires
from the People’s Republic of China: Final
Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less than Fair
Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of
Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 40485 (July 15, 2008),
and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 9.
E:\FR\FM\26MYN1.SGM
26MYN1
30664
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 102 / Thursday, May 26, 2011 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Indian surrogate freight cost using the
shorter of the reported distance from the
domestic supplier to the factory or the
distance from the nearest seaport to the
factory where appropriate. This
adjustment is in accordance with the
Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit’s decision in Sigma Corp. v.
United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407–08
(Fed. Cir. 1997) (remanding to
Commerce its freight expense
calculation to avoid double-counting). A
detailed description of all surrogate
values used for Layo Wood, Yuhua and
the Samling Group can be found in the
Surrogate Value Memorandum.
For the preliminary determination, in
accordance with the Department’s
practice, we used data from the
Philippine Import Statistics and other
publicly available sources from the
Philippines in order to calculate
surrogate values for Layo Wood, Yuhua
and the Samling Group’s FOPs (direct
materials, energy, and packing
materials) and certain movement
expenses. In selecting the best available
information for valuing FOPs in
accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the
Act, the Department’s practice is to
select, to the extent practicable,
surrogate values which are non-export
average values, most contemporaneous
with the POI, product-specific, and taxexclusive.55 The record shows that data
in the Philippines’ Import Statistics, as
well as those from the other sources
from the Philippines, are
contemporaneous with the POI,
product-specific, and tax-exclusive.56 In
those instances where we could not
obtain publicly available information
contemporaneous to the POI with which
to value factors, we adjusted the
surrogate values using, where
appropriate, the Philippines’ WPI as
published in the IMF’s International
Financial Statistics.57
Furthermore, with regard to the
Philippines’ import-based surrogate
values, we have disregarded import
prices that we have reason to believe or
suspect may be subsidized. We have
reason to believe or suspect that prices
of inputs from India, Indonesia, South
Korea, and Thailand may have been
subsidized. We have found in other
55 See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative
Preliminary Determination of Critical
Circumstances and Postponement of Final
Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned
Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004),
unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned
Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam, 69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004).
56 See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
57 See, e.g., Kitchen Racks, 74 FR at 9600.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:04 May 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
proceedings that these countries
maintain broadly available, nonindustry-specific export subsidies and,
therefore, it is reasonable to infer that all
exports to all markets from these
countries may be subsidized.58
Further, guided by the legislative
history, it is the Department’s practice
not to conduct a formal investigation to
ensure that such prices are not
subsidized.59 Rather, the Department
bases its decision on information that is
available to it at the time it makes its
determination.60 Therefore, we have not
used prices from these countries in
calculating the Philippines’ importbased surrogate values. Additionally, we
disregarded prices from NME countries.
Finally, imports that were labeled as
originating from an ‘‘unspecified’’
country were excluded from the average
value, because the Department could
not be certain that they were not from
either an NME country or a country
with general export subsidies.61
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1),
when a respondent sources inputs from
an ME supplier in meaningful quantities
(i.e., not insignificant quantities), we
use the actual price paid by respondent
for those inputs, except when prices
may have been distorted by findings of
58 See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain
Color Television Receivers From the People’s
Republic of China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004),
and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 7; see, also, 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 pages 4–5; 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; CorrosionResistant 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 HotRolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Thailand,
66 FR 50410 (October 3, 2001), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at page 23.
59 See Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of
1988, Conference Report to accompany H.R. Rep.
100–576 at 590 (1988) reprinted in 1988
U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 1623–24; see also Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People’s Republic
of China, 72 FR 30758 (June 4, 2007) unchanged in
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People’s
Republic of China, 72 FR 60632 (October 25, 2007).
60 See Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet,
and Strip from the People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, 73 FR 24552, 24559 (May 5, 2008),
unchanged in Polyethylene Terephthalate Film,
Sheet, and Strip from the People’s Republic of
China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, 73 FR 55039 (September 24, 2008).
61 See id.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
dumping by the PRC and/or subsidies.62
Where we find ME purchases to be of
significant quantities (i.e., 33 percent or
more), in accordance with our statement
of policy as outlined in Antidumping
Methodologies: Market Economy
Inputs,63 we use the actual purchases of
these inputs to value the inputs. Where
the quantity of the reported input
purchased from ME suppliers is below
33 percent of the total volume of the
input purchased from all sources during
the POI, and were otherwise valid, we
weight-average the ME input’s purchase
price with the appropriate surrogate
value for the input according to their
respective shares of the reported total
volume of purchases.64 Where
appropriate, we add freight to the ME
prices of inputs.
Layo Wood, Yuhua and the Samling
Group all claimed that certain of their
reported raw material inputs were
sourced from an ME country and paid
for in ME currencies. Because
information reported by Yuhua and
Samling Group demonstrates that they
each purchased significant quantities
(i.e., 33 percent or more) of certain
inputs from market economy suppliers,
the Department used each respondent’s
actual market economy purchase prices
to value each of their FOPs for those
inputs.65 Where appropriate, freight
expenses were added to the market
economy prices of these inputs.
Because Layo Wood was unable to
demonstrate that it purchased its inputs
from ME sources, the Department has
valued all of Layo Wood’s inputs using
surrogate values.
On May 14, 2010, the Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit (‘‘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)). The
Department is continuing to evaluate
options for determining labor values in
light of the recent CAFC decision. See
Antidumping Methodologies in
Proceedings Involving Non-Market
Economies: Valuing the Factor of
Production: Labor; Request for
62 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing
Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27366 (May 19,
1997).
63 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’’).
64 See Antidumping Methodologies: Market
Economy Inputs, 71 FR at 61718.
65 See id. at 71 FR 61717.
E:\FR\FM\26MYN1.SGM
26MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 102 / Thursday, May 26, 2011 / Notices
Comment, 76 FR 9544 (February 18,
2011). However, for this preliminary
determination we have calculated an
hourly wage rate to use in valuing
respondents’ reported labor input by
averaging industry-specific earnings
and/or wages in countries that are
economically comparable to the PRC
and that are significant producers of
comparable merchandise.
For the preliminary determination of
this investigation, 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 industry-specific 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
industry-specific wage rate calculation
methodology is provided in the
Surrogate Value Memorandum. The
Department calculated a simple average
industry-specific wage rate of $1.15 for
this preliminary determination.
Specifically, for this review, the
Department has calculated the wage rate
using a simple average of the data
provided to the ILO under SubClassification 20 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 ISIC-Revision 3
(‘‘Manufacture of wood and of products
of wood and cork, except furniture;
manufacture of articles of straw and
plaiting materials’’) 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 are significant producers of
comparable merchandise: Philippines,
Egypt, Indonesia, Ukraine, Jordan,
Thailand, Ecuador and Peru. For further
information on the calculation of the
wage rate, see Surrogate Values
Memorandum.
We valued truck freight expenses
using a per-unit average rate for Indian
truck freight calculated from data on the
Infobanc Web site: https://www.infobanc.
com/logistics/logtruck.htm.66 The
logistics section of this Web site
contains inland freight truck rates
between many large Indian cities. We
used this source because there were no
reliable Philippine data on the record
with which to value truck freight.
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. These data
pertained only to industrial
consumption.
To value factory overhead, selling,
general, and administrative expenses,
and profit, we used audited financial
statements from the following producers
of comparable merchandise in the
Philippines: Davao Panels Enterprises,
Inc., Megaplywood Corporation,
Premium Plywood Manufacturing
Corporation and Winlex Marketing
Corporation, and, each covering the
fiscal year ending December 2009. The
Department may consider other publicly
available financial statements for the
final determination, as appropriate.
Currency Conversion
Where necessary, 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.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the
Act, we intend to verify the information
from Layo Wood, Yuhua and the
Samling Group.
Combination Rates
In the Initiation Notice, the
Department stated that it would
calculate combination rates for
respondents that are eligible for a
separate rate in this investigation.68 This
practice is described in Policy Bulletin
05.1.
Preliminary Determination
The weighted-average dumping
margins are as follows:
Weighted
average
margin
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Exporter
Producer
Zhejiang Layo Wood Industry Co., Ltd ..........................................
The Samling Group ** .....................................................................
Zhejiang Yuhua Timber Co., Ltd ....................................................
Jiaxing Brilliant Import & Export Co., Ltd .......................................
MuDanJiang Bosen Wood Industry Co., Ltd ..................................
MuDanJiang Bosen Wood Industry Co., Ltd ..................................
Huzhou Chenghang Wood Co., Ltd ...............................................
Hangzhou Hanje Tec Co., Ltd ........................................................
Nakahiro Jyou Sei Furniture (Dalian) Co., Ltd ...............................
Shenyang Haobainian Wooden Co., Ltd ........................................
Shenyang Haobainian Wooden Co., Ltd ........................................
Shenyang Haobainian Wooden Co., Ltd ........................................
Dalian Dajen Wood Co., Ltd ..........................................................
HaiLin LinJing Wooden Products, Ltd ............................................
Dun Hua Sen Tai Wood Co., Ltd ...................................................
Dunhua Jisheng Wood Industry Co., Ltd .......................................
Hunchun Forest Wolf Industry Co., Ltd ..........................................
Guangzhou Panyu Southern Star Co., Ltd ....................................
Nanjing Minglin Wooden Industry Co., Ltd ....................................
Zhejiang Fudeli Timber Industry Co., Ltd. ......................................
Suzhou Dongda Wood Co., Ltd .....................................................
Guangzhou Pan Yu Kang Da Board Co., Ltd ................................
Zhejiang Layo Wood Industry Co., Ltd ..........................................
The Samling Group ** .....................................................................
Zhejiang Yuhua Timber Co., Ltd ....................................................
Zhejiang Layo Wood Industry Co., Ltd ..........................................
MuDanJiang Bosen Wood Industry Co., Ltd ..................................
Dun Hua Sen Tai Wood Co., Ltd ...................................................
Huzhou Chenghang Wood Co., Ltd ...............................................
Zhejiang Jiechen Wood Industry Co., Ltd ......................................
Nakahiro Jyou Sei Furniture (Dalian) Co., Ltd ...............................
Shenyang Sende Wood Co., Ltd ...................................................
Shenyang Haobainian Wooden Co., Ltd ........................................
Shanghai Demeijia Wooden Co., Ltd .............................................
Dalian Dajen Wood Co., Ltd ..........................................................
HaiLin LinJing Wooden Products, Ltd ............................................
Dun Hua Sen Tai Wood Co., Ltd ...................................................
Dunhua Jisheng Wood Industry Co., Ltd .......................................
Hunchun Forest Wolf Industry Co., Ltd ..........................................
Guangzhou Jiasheng Timber Industry Co., Ltd .............................
Nanjing Minglin Wooden Industry Co., Ltd ....................................
Zhejiang Fudeli Timber Industry Co., Ltd .......................................
Suzhou Dongda Wood Co., Ltd .....................................................
Guangzhou Pan Yu Kang Da Board Co., Ltd ................................
66 See Samling Group Surrogate Value
Suggestions, submitted March 15, 2011, at Exhibit
10.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:04 May 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
68 See
PO 00000
Initiation Notice, 75 FR at 22113–14.
Frm 00028
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
30665
E:\FR\FM\26MYN1.SGM
26MYN1
* 0.00
10.88
* 0.00
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
30666
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 102 / Thursday, May 26, 2011 / Notices
Weighted
average
margin
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Exporter
Producer
Kornbest Enterprises Ltd ................................................................
Metropolitan Hardwood Floors, Inc ................................................
Metropolitan Hardwood Floors, Inc ................................................
Metropolitan Hardwood Floors, Inc ................................................
Metropolitan Hardwood Floors, Inc ................................................
Metropolitan Hardwood Floors, Inc ................................................
Metropolitan Hardwood Floors, Inc ................................................
Zhejiang Longsen Lumbering Co., Ltd ...........................................
Xinyuan Wooden Industry Co., Ltd ................................................
Dasso Industrial Group Co., Ltd .....................................................
Hong Kong Easoon Wood Technology Co., Ltd ............................
Armstrong Wood Products Kunshan Co., Ltd ................................
Baishan Huafeng Wooden Product Co., Ltd ..................................
Changbai Mountain Development and Protection Zone Hongtu
Wood Industry Co., Ltd.
Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co., Ltd ...............................................
Dalian Jiuyuan Wood Industry Co., Ltd .........................................
Dalian Penghong Floor Products Co., Ltd .....................................
Dongtai Fuan Universal Dynamics LLC .........................................
Dunhua City Dexin Wood Industry Co., Ltd ...................................
Dunhua City Hongyuan Wood Industry Co., Ltd ............................
Dunhua City Jisen Wood Industry Co., Ltd ....................................
Dunhua City Wanrong Wood Industry Co., Ltd .............................
Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group Co., Ltd .......................................
Fusong Qianqiu Wooden Product Co., Ltd ....................................
GTP International ...........................................................................
GTP International ...........................................................................
GTP International ...........................................................................
GTP International ...........................................................................
Guangdong Yihua Timber Industry Co., Ltd ..................................
HaiLin LinJing Wooden Products, Ltd ............................................
Huzhou Fulinmen Imp & Exp. Co., Ltd ..........................................
Huzhou Fuma Wood Bus. Co., Ltd ................................................
Jiafeng Wood (Suzhou) Co., Ltd ....................................................
Jiashan Hui Jia Le Decoration Material Co., Ltd ...........................
Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co., Ltd ....................
Karly Wood Product Limited ...........................................................
Kunshan Yingyi-Nature Wood Industry Co., Ltd ............................
Puli Trading Ltd ..............................................................................
Shanghai Eswell Timber Co. Ltd ....................................................
Shanghai Lairunde Wood Co., Ltd .................................................
Shanghai New Sihe Wood Co., Ltd ...............................................
Shanghai Shenlin Corporation .......................................................
Shenzhenshi Huanwei Woods Co., Ltd .........................................
Vicwood Industry (Suzhou) Co., Ltd ..............................................
Xiamen Yung De Ornament Co., Ltd .............................................
Xuzhou Shenghe Wood Co., Ltd ...................................................
Yixing Lion-King Timber Industry Co., Ltd .....................................
Jiangsu Simba Flooring Industry Co., Ltd ......................................
Zhejiang Biyork Wood Co., Ltd ......................................................
Zhejiang Dadongwu GreenHome Wood Co., Ltd ..........................
Zhejiang Desheng Wood Industry Co., Ltd ....................................
Zhejiang Shiyou Timber Co., Ltd ...................................................
Zhejiang Tianzhen Bamboo & Wood Development Co., Ltd .........
Chinafloors Timber (China) Co. Ltd ...............................................
Shanghai Lizhong Wood Products Co., Ltd ...................................
Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited ..................................................
Huzhou Sunergy World Trade Co. Ltd ...........................................
Huzhou Sunergy World Trade Co. Ltd ...........................................
Huzhou Sunergy World Trade Co. Ltd ...........................................
Huzhou Jesonwood Co., Ltd ..........................................................
Huzhou Jesonwood Co., Ltd ..........................................................
A&W (Shanghai) Woods Co., Ltd ..................................................
A&W (Shanghai) Woods Co., Ltd ..................................................
Fu Lik Timber (HK) Company Limited ...........................................
Yekalon Industry, Inc./Sennorwell International Group (Hong
Kong) Limited.
Kemian Wood Industry (Kunshan) Co., Ltd ...................................
Dalian Kemian Wood Industry Co., Ltd ..........................................
Dalian Huilong Wooden Products Co., Ltd ....................................
Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co., Ltd ................
Guangzhou Pan Yu Kang Da Board Co., Ltd ................................
Dalian Huilong Wooden Products Co., Ltd ....................................
Mudanjiang Bosen Wood Co., Ltd .................................................
Nakahiro Jyou Sei Furniture (Dalian) Co., Ltd ...............................
Hunchun Forest Wolf Wooden Industry Co., Ltd ...........................
Kemian Wood Industry (Kunshan) Co., Ltd ...................................
Shenyang Haobainian Wooden Co., Ltd ........................................
Zhejiang Longsen Lumbering Co., Ltd ...........................................
Xinyuan Wooden Industry Co., Ltd ................................................
Dasso Industrial Group Co., Ltd .....................................................
Dasso Industrial Group Co., Ltd .....................................................
Armstrong Wood Products Kunshan Co., Ltd ................................
Baishan Huafeng Wooden Product Co., Ltd ..................................
Changbai Mountain Development and Protection Zone Hongtu
Wood Industry Co., Ltd.
Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co., Ltd ...............................................
Dalian Jiuyuan Wood Industry Co., Ltd .........................................
Dalian Penghong Floor Products Co., Ltd .....................................
Dongtai Fuan Universal Dynamics LLC .........................................
Dunhua City Dexin Wood Industry Co., Ltd ...................................
Dunhua City Hongyuan Wood Industry Co., Ltd ............................
Dunhua City Jisen Wood Industry Co., Ltd ....................................
Dunhua City Wanrong Wood Industry Co., Ltd .............................
Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group Co., Ltd .......................................
Fusong Qianqiu Wooden Product Co., Ltd ....................................
Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co., Ltd ................
Jiafeng Wood (Suzhou) Co., Ltd ....................................................
Suzhou Dongda Wood Co., Ltd .....................................................
Kemian Wood Industry (Kunshan) Co., Ltd ...................................
Guangdong Yihua Timber Industry Co., Ltd ..................................
HaiLin LinJing Wooden Products, Ltd ............................................
Huzhou Fulinmen Wood Floor Co., Ltd .........................................
Huzhou Fuma Wood Bus. Co., Ltd ................................................
Jiafeng Wood (Suzhou) Co., Ltd ....................................................
Jiashan Hui Jia Le Decoration Material Co., Ltd ...........................
Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co., Ltd ....................
Karly Wood Product Limited ...........................................................
Kunshan Yingyi-Nature Wood Industry Co., Ltd ............................
Baiying Furniture Manufacturer Co., Ltd ........................................
Shanghai Eswell Timber Co. Ltd ....................................................
Shanghai Lairunde Wood Co., Ltd .................................................
Shanghai New Sihe Wood Co., Ltd ...............................................
Shanghai Shenlin Corporation .......................................................
Shenzhenshi Huanwei Woods Co., Ltd .........................................
Vicwood Industry (Suzhou) Co., Ltd ..............................................
Xiamen Yung De Ornament Co., Ltd .............................................
Xuzhou Shenghe Wood Co., Ltd ...................................................
Yixing Lion-King Timber Industry Co., Ltd .....................................
Yixing Lion-King Timber Industry Co., Ltd .....................................
Zhejiang Biyork Wood Co., Ltd ......................................................
Zhejiang Dadongwu GreenHome Wood Co., Ltd ..........................
Zhejiang Desheng Wood Industry Co., Ltd ....................................
Zhejiang Shiyou Timber Co., Ltd ...................................................
Zhejiang Tianzhen Bamboo & Wood Development Co., Ltd .........
Chinafloors Timber (China) Co. Ltd ...............................................
Shanghai Lizhong Wood Products Co., Ltd ...................................
Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited ..................................................
Zhejiang Haoyun Wood Co., Ltd ....................................................
Nanjing Minglin Wooden Industry Co., Ltd ....................................
Zhejiang AnJi XinFeng Bamboo & Wood Co., Ltd ........................
Zhejiang Jeson Wood Co., Ltd .......................................................
Huzhou Jesonwood Co., Ltd ..........................................................
A&W (Shanghai) Woods Co., Ltd ..................................................
Suzhou Anxin Weiguang Timber Co., Ltd ......................................
Guangdong Fu Lin Timber Technology Limited .............................
Jilin Xinyuan Wooden Industry Co., Ltd .........................................
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
Kemian Wood Industry (Kunshan) Co., Ltd ...................................
Dalian Kemian Wood Industry Co., Ltd ..........................................
Dalian Huilong Wooden Products Co., Ltd ....................................
Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co., Ltd ................
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:04 May 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\26MYN1.SGM
26MYN1
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
30667
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 102 / Thursday, May 26, 2011 / Notices
Weighted
average
margin
Exporter
Producer
PRC-wide Entity .............................................................................
.........................................................................................................
82.65
* de minimis.
** The Samling Group consists of the following companies: Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) Co., Ltd, Riverside Plywood Corporation,
Samling Elegant Living Trading (Labuan) Limited, Samling Riverside Co., Ltd, and Suzhou Times Flooring Co., Ltd
Disclosure
Public Comment
We will disclose the calculations
performed to parties in this proceeding
within five days of the date of
publication of this notice in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
CBP has indicated to the Department
that imports of subject merchandise
entering under HTSUS subheadings
4409.10.0500; 4409.10.2000;
4409.29.0515; 4409.29.0525;
4409.29.0535; 4409.29.0545;
4409.29.0555; 4409.29.0565;
4409.29.2530; 4409.29.2550;
4409.29.2560; 4418.71.1000;
4418.79.0000; and 4418.90.4605 would
be incorrectly classified. Therefore we
invite comment on whether those
HTSUS subheadings should be
eliminated from the scope description.
These comments may be submitted to
the Department no later than 20 days
after the date of publication of this
notice, and rebuttal comments no later
than five days later.
Case briefs or other written comments
for all other, non-scope related issues,
may be submitted to the Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration no
later than seven days after the date on
which the final verification report is
issued in this proceeding, and rebuttal
briefs, limited to issues raised in case
briefs, may be submitted no later than
five days after the deadline date for case
briefs.69 A table of contents, list of
authorities used and an executive
summary of issues should accompany
any briefs submitted to the Department.
This summary should be limited to five
pages total, including footnotes. The
Department also requests that parties
provide an electronic copy of its case
and rebuttal brief submissions in either
a ‘‘Microsoft Word’’ or a ‘‘pdf’’ format.
In accordance with section 774 of the
Act, we will hold a public hearing, if
requested, to afford interested parties an
opportunity to comment on arguments
raised in case or rebuttal briefs.
Interested parties, who wish to request
a hearing, or to participate if one is
requested, must submit a written
request to the Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30
days after the date of publication of this
notice.70 Requests should contain the
party’s name, address, and telephone
number, the number of participants, and
a list of the issues to be discussed. If a
Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 733(d) of
the Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to
suspend liquidation of all appropriate
entries of multilayered wood flooring
from the PRC as described in the ‘‘Scope
of Investigation’’ section, entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the date of
publication of this notice in the Federal
Register. We will instruct CBP to
require a cash deposit or the posting of
a bond equal to the weighted-average
amount by which the normal value
exceeds U.S. price, as follows: (1) The
rate for the exporter/producer
combinations listed in the chart above
will be the rate we have determined in
this preliminary determination; (2) for
all PRC exporters of subject
merchandise which have not received
their own rate, the cash-deposit rate will
be the PRC-wide rate; and (3) for all
non-PRC exporters of subject
merchandise which have not received
their own rate, the cash-deposit rate will
be the rate applicable to the PRC
exporter/producer combination that
supplied that non-PRC exporter. These
suspension-of-liquidation instructions
will remain in effect until further notice.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
International Trade Commission
Notification
In accordance with section 733(f) of
the Act, we have notified the ITC of our
preliminary affirmative determination of
sales at LTFV. Section 735(b)(2) of the
Act requires the ITC to make its final
determination as to whether the
domestic industry in the United States
is materially injured, or threatened with
material injury, by reason of imports of
multilayered wood flooring, or sales (or
the likelihood of sales) for importation,
of the merchandise under consideration
within 45 days of our final
determination.
69 See
19 CFR 351.309.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:04 May 25, 2011
70 See
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
19 CFR 351.310(c).
Frm 00030
Fmt 4703
request for a hearing is made, we intend
to hold the hearing at the U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street
and Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20230, at a time and
location to be determined.71 Parties
should confirm by telephone the date,
time, and location of the hearing two
days before the scheduled date.
We will make our final determination
no later than 135 days after the date of
publication of this preliminary
determination, pursuant to section
735(a)(2) of the Act.
This determination is issued and
published in accordance with sections
733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: May 19, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011–13097 Filed 5–25–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
[Transmittal Nos. 11–04]
36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification
Department of Defense, Defense
Security Cooperation Agency.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The Department of Defense is
publishing the unclassified text of a
section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification.
This is published to fulfill the
requirements of section 155 of Public
Law 104–164 dated 21 July 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601–
3740.
The following is a copy of a letter to
the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, Transmittals 11–04
with attached transmittal, and policy
justification.
SUMMARY:
Dated: May 23, 2011.
Aaron Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison
Officer, Department of Defense.
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
71 See
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\26MYN1.SGM
19 CFR 351.310.
26MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 102 (Thursday, May 26, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30656-30667]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13097]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-970]
Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: May 26, 2011.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``Department'') preliminarily
determines that multilayered wood flooring from the People's Republic
of China (``PRC'') is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United
States at less than fair value (``LTFV''), as provided in section 733
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). The estimated
margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the ``Preliminary Determination''
section of this notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Riggle, John Hollwitz, Brandon
Petelin or Erin Kearney, 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) 482-0650, (202) 482-2336, (202) 482-8173 or
(202) 482-0167, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 21, 2010, the Department received a petition concerning
imports of multilayered wood flooring from the PRC filed in proper form
by the Coalition for American Hardwood Parity \1\ (``Petitioner'').\2\
On October 27, 2010, the Department issued several requests for
information and clarification of certain areas of the petition, to
which Petitioner timely filed additional responses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Coalition for American Hardwood Parity is comprised of
Anderson Hardwood Floors, LLC, Award Hardwood Floors, Baker's Creek
Wood Floors, Inc., From the Forest, Howell Hardwood Flooring,
Mannington Mills, Inc., Nydree Flooring and Shaw Industries Group,
Inc.
\2\ See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duties: Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's
Republic of China, dated October 21, 2010 (``Petition'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 4, 2010, the Department received comments from Lumber
Liquidators Services, LLC (``Lumber Liquidators'') and Home Legend LLC
(``Home Legend''), U.S. importers of wood flooring. Lumber Liquidators
and Home Legend are interested parties as defined by section 771(9)(A)
of the Act. Additionally, on November 9, 2010, we
[[Page 30657]]
received further comments filed by Lumber Liquidators, Home Legend and
U.S. Floors LLC.
The Department initiated an antidumping duty investigation of
multilayered wood flooring from the People's Republic of China on
November 10, 2010.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of
China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 75 FR 70714
(November 18, 2010) (``Initiation Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that it intended to
select PRC respondents based on quantity and value (``Q&V'')
questionnaires.\4\ On November 15, 2010, the Department requested Q&V
information from 190 companies identified in the petition as potential
producers and/or exporters of multilayered wood flooring from the
PRC.\5\ The Department received timely responses to its Q&V
questionnaire from 80 companies. Additionally, the Department received
documentation from Petitioner claiming that UA Wood Floors, Inc. (``UA
Floors''), is located in Taiwan and, accordingly, does not sell
merchandise subject to this investigation. Accordingly, Petitioner
agreed to the redaction of UA Floors from the Department's listing of
producers and exporters of subject merchandise for the purposes of this
investigation.\6\ Additionally, the Department received documentation
from UA Floors claiming that the company is located in Taiwan.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Initiation Notice, 75 FR at 70718.
\5\ See Letter from Charles Riggle, Program Manager, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 4, to All Interested Parties, ``Antidumping Duty
Investigation of Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's
Republic of China: Quantity and Value Questionnaire'' (November 12,
2010).
\6\ See Letter from Petitioner, dated March 31, 2011.
\7\ See Letter from UA Floors, dated April 5, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Initiation Notice, the Department notified parties of the
application process by which exporters and producers may obtain
separate-rate status in non-market economy (``NME'') investigations.
The process requires exporters and producers to submit a separate-rate
status application (``SRA'') \8\ and to demonstrate an absence of both
de jure and de facto government control over their export activities.
The SRA for this investigation was posted on the Department's Web site,
https://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-news.html, on November 12,
2010. The deadline for filing an SRA was January 18, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and
Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations
involving Non-Market Economy Countries (April 5, 2005) (``Policy
Bulletin 05.1''), available at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 6, 2010, the International Trade Commission (``ITC'')
preliminary determined that there is a reasonable indication that an
industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of
imports of multilayered wood flooring from the PRC.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Investigation Nos. 701-TA-476 and 731-TA-1179
(Preliminary), 75 FR 79019 (Int'l Trade Comm'n Dec. 17, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Postponement of Final Determination
Section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act provides that a final determination
may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the
publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an
affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement
is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of
exports of the subject merchandise. In the event of a negative
preliminary determination, a request for such a postponement must be
made by Petitioners. See Section 735(a)(2)(B). Section 351.210(e)(2) of
the Department's regulations requires that exporters requesting
postponement of the final determination must also request an extension
of the provisional measures referred to in section 733(d) of the Act
from a four-month period until not more than six months. We received
requests to postpone the final determination from Petitioner on April
20, 2011, from Zhejiang Yuhua Timber Co., Ltd. (``Yuhua'') on April 27,
2011, and from Zhejiang Layo Wood Industry Co., Ltd. (``Layo Wood'') on
April 29, 2011. Layo Wood and Yuhua consented to the extension of
provisional measures from a four-month period to not longer than six
months. Because this preliminary determination is affirmative, the
requests for postponement were made by exporters who account for a
significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, and there
is no compelling reason to deny the respondents' requests, we have
extended the deadline for issuance of the final determination until the
135th day after the date of publication of this preliminary
determination in the Federal Register and have extended provisional
measures to not longer than six months.
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation (``POI'') is April 1, 2010, through
September 30, 2010. This period corresponds to the two most recent
fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition, which
was October 2011.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Postponement of Preliminary Determination
On March 3, 2011, Petitioners made a timely request pursuant to
section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(2) and (e) for a
50-day postponement of the preliminary determination. On March 11,
2011, the Department published a postponement of the preliminary AD
determination on wood flooring from the PRC.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic
of China: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations of Antidumping
Duty Investigations, 76 FR 13357 (March 11, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Investigation \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Memorandum to Christian Marsh through Susan Kuhbach and
Nancy Decker from Joshua Morris: Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Investigations: Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's
Republic of China; Scope, dated May 19, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multilayered wood flooring is composed of an assembly of two or
more layers or plies of wood veneer(s) \13\ in combination with a core.
The several layers, along with the core, are glued or otherwise bonded
together to form a final assembled product. Multilayered wood flooring
is often referred to by other terms, e.g., ``engineered wood flooring''
or ``plywood flooring.'' Regardless of the particular terminology, all
products that meet the description set forth herein are intended for
inclusion within the definition of subject merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ A ``veneer'' is a thin slice of wood, rotary cut, sliced or
sawed from a log, bolt or flitch. Veneer is referred to as a ply
when assembled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All multilayered wood flooring is included within the definition of
subject merchandise, without regard to: Dimension (overall thickness,
thickness of face ply, thickness of back ply, thickness of core, and
thickness of inner plies; width; and length); wood species used for the
face, back and inner veneers; core composition; and face grade.
Multilayered wood flooring included within the definition of subject
merchandise may be unfinished (i.e., without a finally finished surface
to protect the face veneer from wear and tear) or ``prefinished''
(i.e., a coating applied to the face veneer, including, but not
exclusively, oil or oil-modified or water-based polyurethanes, ultra-
violet light cured polyurethanes, wax, epoxy-ester finishes, moisture-
cured urethanes and acid-curing formaldehyde finishes.) The veneers may
be also soaked in an acrylic-impregnated finish. All multilayered wood
flooring is included within the definition of subject
[[Page 30658]]
merchandise regardless of whether the face (or back) of the product is
smooth, wire brushed, distressed by any method or multiple methods, or
hand-scraped. In addition, all multilayered wood flooring is included
within the definition of subject merchandise regardless of whether or
not it is manufactured with any interlocking or connecting mechanism
(for example, tongue-and-groove construction or locking joints). All
multilayered wood flooring is included within the definition of the
subject merchandise regardless of whether the product meets a
particular industry or similar standard.
The core of multilayered wood flooring may be composed of a range
of materials, including but not limited to hardwood or softwood veneer,
particleboard, medium-density fiberboard (MDF), high-density fiberboard
(HDF), stone and/or plastic composite, or strips of lumber placed edge-
to-edge.
Multilayered wood flooring products generally, but not exclusively,
may be in the form of a strip, plank, or other geometrical patterns
(e.g., circular, hexagonal). All multilayered wood flooring products
are included within this definition regardless of the actual or nominal
dimensions or form of the product.
Specifically excluded from the scope are cork flooring and bamboo
flooring, regardless of whether any of the sub-surface layers of either
flooring are made from wood. Also excluded is laminate flooring.
Laminate flooring consists of a top wear layer sheet not made of wood,
a decorative paper layer, a core-layer of high-density fiberboard, and
a stabilizing bottom layer.
Imports of the subject merchandise are provided for under the
following subheadings of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (HTSUS): 4412.31.0520; 4412.31.0540; 4412.31.0560; 4412.31.2510;
4412.31.2520; 4412.31.4040; 4412.31.4050; 4412.31.4060; 4412.31.4070;
4412.31.5125; 4412.31.5135; 4412.31.5155; 4412.31.5165; 4412.31.3175;
4412.31.6000; 4412.31.9100; 4412.32.0520; 4412.32.0540; 4412.32.0560;
4412.32.2510; 4412.32.2520; 4412.32.3125; 4412.32.3135; 4412.32.3155;
4412.32.3165; 4412.32.3175; 4412.32.3185; 4412.32.5600; 4412.39.1000;
4412.39.3000; 4412.39.4011; 4412.39.4012; 4412.39.4019; 4412.39.4031;
4412.39.4032; 4412.39.4039; 4412.39.4051; 4412.39.4052; 4412.39.4059;
4412.39.4061; 4412.39.4062; 4412.39.4069; 4412.39.5010; 4412.39.5030;
4412.39.5050; 4412.94.1030; 4412.94.1050; 4412.94.3105; 4412.94.3111;
4412.94.3121; 4412.94.3131; 4412.94.3141; 4412.94.3160; 4412.94.3171;
4412.94.4100; 4412.94.5100; 4412.94.6000; 4412.94.7000; 4412.94.8000;
4412.94.9000; 4412.94.9500; 4412.99.0600; 4412.99.1020; 4412.99.1030;
4412.99.1040; 4412.99.3110; 4412.99.3120; 4412.99.3130; 4412.99.3140;
4412.99.3150; 4412.99.3160; 4412.99.3170; 4412.99.4100; 4412.99.5100;
4412.99.5710; 4412.99.6000; 4412.99.7000; 4412.99.8000; 4412.99.9000;
4412.99.9500; 4418.71.2000; 4418.71.9000; 4418.72.2000; and
4418.72.9500.
In addition, imports of subject merchandise may enter the United
States under the following HTSUS subheadings: 4409.10.0500;
4409.10.2000; 4409.29.0515; 4409.29.0525; 4409.29.0535; 4409.29.0545;
4409.29.0555; 4409.29.0565; 4409.29.2530; 4409.29.2550; 4409.29.2560;
4418.71.1000; 4418.79.0000; and 4418.90.4605.
While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the subject merchandise is
dispositive.
Non-Market Economy Country
For purposes of initiation, Petitioner submitted an LTFV analysis
for the PRC as an NME.\14\ The Department's most recent examination of
the PRC's market status determined that NME status should continue for
the PRC.\15\ In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the
NME status remains in effect until revoked by the Department. The
Department has not revoked the PRC's status as an NME country, and we
have therefore treated the PRC as an NME in this preliminary
determination and applied our NME methodology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Initiation Notice, 75 FR at 70716.
\15\ See Memorandum for David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary
for Import Administration, Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain
Lined Paper Products from the People's Republic of China (``China'')
China's Status as a Non-Market Economy (``NME'') (August 30, 2006)
(memorandum is on file in the CRU on the record of case number A-
570-901).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Selection of Respondents
In accordance with section 777A(c)(2) of the Act, the Department
selected the three largest exporters (by volume) of wood flooring as
the mandatory respondents in this investigation based on the
information contained in the timely submitted Quantity &Value (``Q&V'')
questionnaire responses filed by 81 exporters/producers: Layo Wood;
Yuhua; and Riverside Plywood Corporation, Samling Elegant Living
Trading (Labuan) Limited, Samling Global USA, Inc., Samling Riverside
Co., Ltd. and Suzhou Times Flooring (collectively, the ``Samling
Group'').\16\ On January 10, 2010, the Department issued antidumping
questionnaires to these three companies. In January and February 2011,
Layo Wood, Yuhua and the Samling Group submitted timely responses to
sections A, C, and D of the Department's antidumping questionnaire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See the Department's memorandum entitled, ``Antidumping
Duty Investigation of Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's
Republic of China: Revised Respondent Selection Memorandum,'' dated
February 8, 2011 (``Respondent Selection Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited (``Fine Furniture'') requested to
be treated as a voluntary respondent in this investigation on November
12, 2010. Shanghai Lizhong Wood Products Co., Ltd. (``Lizhong'') and
Dun Hua City Jisen Wood Co., Ltd., asked to be treated as voluntary
respondents on November 15, 2010. Armstrong Wood Products asked to be
treated as a voluntary respondent on December 3, 2010. On January 31,
2011, Fine Furniture and Lizhong each submitted unsolicited responses
to section A of the Department's original questionnaire. On February
23, 2011, Fine Furniture and Lizhong each submitted unsolicited
responses to sections C and D of the Department's original
questionnaire.
The Department issued supplemental questionnaires to Layo Wood,
Yuhua and the Samling Group from January to April 2011. Layo Wood,
Yuhua and the Samling Group submitted timely responses to the
Department's supplemental questionnaires from January to May 2011. From
January to May 2011, Petitioner submitted comments to the Department
regarding the submissions and/or responses of Layo Wood, Yuhua and the
Samling Group.
Surrogate Country
When the Department is investigating imports from an NME, section
773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base normal value, in most
circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of production (``FOPs'')
valued in a surrogate market-economy country or countries considered to
be appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4)
of the Act, in valuing the FOPs, the Department shall utilize, to
[[Page 30659]]
the extent possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in one or more market-
economy countries that are at a level of economic development
comparable to that of the NME country and are significant producers of
comparable merchandise. The sources of the surrogate values we have
used in this investigation are discussed under the ``Normal Value''
section below.
The Department determined that India, the Philippines, Indonesia,
Thailand, Ukraine and Peru are countries comparable to the PRC in terms
of economic development.\17\ Once the countries that are economically
comparable to the PRC have been identified, we select an appropriate
surrogate country by determining whether an economically comparable
country is a significant producer of comparable merchandise and whether
the data for valuing FOPs is both available and reliable.\18\ Fine
Furniture, Layo Wood, Petitioner, the Samling Group and Yuhua submitted
comments regarding surrogate country selection on March 15, 2011. Layo
Wood, Petitioner, the Samling Group and Yuhua submitted further
comments regarding surrogate country selection on March 21, 2011. On
April 6, 2011, Petitioner submitted further comments regarding
surrogate country and surrogate value selection. On April 8, 2011, Layo
Wood included comments regarding surrogate country selection in
response to section D of the Department's second supplemental
questionnaire. On May 2, 2011, Layo Wood submitted further comments
regarding surrogate country and surrogate value selection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Memorandum to Wendy Frankel from Carole Showers,
``Request for a List of Surrogate Countries for an Antidumping Duty
Investigation of Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's
Republic of China (``PRC'') (``Office of Policy Surrogate Countries
Memorandum''), dated February 17, 2011. 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.
\18\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have determined that it is appropriate to use the Philippines as
a surrogate country pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act based on
the following: (1) It is at a similar level of economic development;
(2) it is a significant producer of comparable merchandise; and (3) we
have reliable data from the Philippines that we can use to value the
FOPs.\19\ Thus, we have calculated normal value (``NV'') using
Philippine prices when available and appropriate to value the FOPs of
the multilayered wood flooring producers under investigation. We have
obtained and relied upon contemporaneous publicly available information
wherever possible.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia from Drew Jackson,
``Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China:
Surrogate Country Memorandum'' (May 19, 2011).
\20\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), for the final
determination in an antidumping investigation, interested parties may
submit publicly available information to value the FOPs within 40 days
after the date of publication of the preliminary determination.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final
determination of this investigation, interested parties may submit
factual information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual
information submitted by any other interested party less than ten
days before, on, or after, the applicable deadline for submission of
such factual information. However, the Department notes that 19 CFR
351.301(c)(1) permits new information only insofar as it rebuts,
clarifies, or corrects information recently placed on the record.
The Department generally will not accept the submission of
additional, previously absent-from-the-record alternative surrogate
value information. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surrogate Value Comments
Surrogate factor valuation comments and surrogate value information
with which to value the FOPs for the preliminary determination in this
proceeding were originally due March 11, 2011. On March 1, 2011, Layo
Wood, Yuhua and the Samling Group requested an extension of time to
submit potential surrogate value. On March 3, 2011, the Department
extended the deadline for submission of surrogate value information for
all interested parties until March 15, 2011. Surrogate value
submissions were filed March 15, 2011, by Petitioner, Layo Wood, Yuhua,
the Samling Group and Fine Furniture. Petitioner, Layo Wood, Yuhua and
the Samling Group filed rebuttal surrogate value comments on March 21,
2011.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See the ``Factor Valuation'' section below; see also
Memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia through Charles Riggle re:
Selection of Surrogate Values, dated May 19, 2011 (``Surrogate Value
Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Targeted Dumping
On April 4, 2011, the Department received Petitioner's allegations
of targeted dumping by Layo Wood, Yuhua and the Samling Group using the
Department's methodology as established in Steel Nails.\23\ Based on
our examination of the targeted dumping allegations filed by
Petitioner, and pursuant to section 777A(d)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, the
Department has determined that Petitioner's allegations sufficiently
indicate that there is a pattern of export prices (or constructed
export prices) for comparable merchandise that differ significantly
among purchasers and regions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Certain Steel Nails from the United Arab Emirates:
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value,
73 FR 33985 (June 16, 2008) (``Steel Nails'') and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 1-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result, the Department has applied the targeted dumping
analysis established in Steel Nails to Layo Wood, Yuhua and the Samling
Group's U.S. sales to targeted purchasers and regions. The methodology
we employed involves a two-stage test; the first stage addresses the
pattern requirement and the second stage addresses the significant-
difference requirement.\24\ In this test we made all price comparisons
on the basis of comparable merchandise (i.e., by control number or
CONNUM). The test procedures are the same for the customer and region
targeted-dumping allegations. We based all of our targeted-dumping
calculations on the net U.S. price that we determined for U.S. sales by
Layo Wood, Yuhua and the Samling Group in our standard margin
calculations.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See section 777A(d)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and Steel Nails,
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
\25\ For further discussion of the test and the results, see
Samling Analysis Memorandum, Layo Analysis Memorandum and Yuhua
Analysis Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of our analysis, we preliminarily determine that there
is a pattern of prices for U.S. sales of comparable merchandise that
differ significantly among certain purchasers and regions for Layo Wood
and the Samling Group in accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(B)(i) of
the Act, and our practice as discussed in Steel Nails. Our analysis,
however, indicates that there is no pattern of prices for U.S. sales of
comparable merchandise that differ significantly among certain
purchasers and regions for Yuhua. We also find that the result using
the standard average-to-average methodology is not substantially
different from that using the alternative average-to-transaction
methodology for Layo Wood because both methods result in a de minimis
margin. Accordingly, for this preliminary determination we have applied
the standard average-to-average methodology to all U.S. sales that
Yuhua and Layo Wood reported, and have applied the alternative average-
to-transaction methodology to all U.S. sales that Samling Group
reported.
[[Page 30660]]
Affiliation
Based on the evidence presented in Layo Wood's questionnaire
responses, we preliminarily find that Layo Wood and Jiaxing Brilliant
Import and Export Company (``Jiaxing Brilliant'') are not affiliated
pursuant to section 771(33) of the Act.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See Memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia through Charles
Riggle re: Preliminary Determination Regarding Affiliation and
Collapsing of Zhejiang Layo Wood Industry Co., Ltd. and Jiaxing
Brilliant Import & Export Co., Ltd., dated May 19, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the evidence included in the Samling Group's questionnaire
responses, we preliminarily find affiliation between Baroque Timber
Industries (Zhongshan) Co., Ltd. (``BTI''), Riverside Plywood
Corporation (``RPC''), Samling Elegant Living Trading (Labuan) Limited
(``SELT''), Samling Global USA, Inc. (``SGUSA''), Samling Riverside
Co., Ltd. (``SRC''), and Suzhou Times Flooring (``STF''), pursuant to
section 771(33)(A) and (F) of the Act. In addition, based on the
evidence presented in the Samling Group's questionnaire responses, we
find that BTI, RPC, and STF should be collapsed and treated as a single
entity for purposes of this investigation, pursuant to sections
771(33)(A) and (F) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1) and (2).\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See Memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia through Charles
Riggle re: Preliminary Determination Regarding Affiliation and
Collapsing of Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) Co., Ltd.,
Riverside Plywood Corporation, Samling Elegant Living Trading
(Labuan) Limited, Samling Riverside Co., Ltd., and Suzhou Times
Flooring Co., Ltd., dated May 19, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the evidence included in Yuhua's questionnaire responses,
we preliminarily determine that there is no basis for finding
affiliation between Yuhua and A-Timber Co., Ltd., A-Timber Flooring
Co., Ltd., or Oriental Asia International Ltd., pursuant to sections
771(33)(A) and (F) of the Act.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See Memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia through Charles
Riggle re: Preliminary Determination Regarding Affiliation Zhejiang
Yuhua Timber Co., Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate Rates
In the Initiation Notice, the Department notified parties of the
application process by which exporters and producers may obtain
separate-rate status in NME investigations.\29\ The process requires
exporters and producers to submit an SRA.\30\ The standard for
eligibility for a separate rate is whether a firm can demonstrate an
absence of both de jure and de facto government control over its export
activities. In the instant investigation, the Department received
timely-filed SRAs from 73 companies.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See Initiation Notice, 75 FR 70718.
\30\ See Policy Bulletin 05.1: ``While continuing the practice
of assigning separate rates only to exporters, all separate rates
that the Department will now assign in its NME investigations will
be specific to those producers that supplied the exporter during the
period of investigation. Note, however, that one rate is calculated
for the exporter and all of the producers which supplied subject
merchandise to it during the period of investigation. This practice
applied both to mandatory respondents receiving an individually
calculated separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated
firms receiving the weighted-average of the individually calculated
rates. This practice is referred to as the application of
`combination rates' because such rates apply to specific
combinations of exporters and one or more producers. The cash-
deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to merchandise
both exported by the firm in question and produced by a firm that
supplied the exporter during the period of investigation.'' See
Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6.
\31\ The 73 separate-rate applicants are: (1) MuDanJiang Bosen
Wood Industry Co., Ltd., (2) Huzhou Chenghang Wood Co., Ltd., (3)
Hangzhou Hanje Tec Co., Ltd., (4) Nakahiro Jyou Sei Furniture
(Dalian) Co., Ltd., (5) Shenyang Haobainian Wooden Co., Ltd., (6)
Dalian Dajen Wood Co., Ltd., (7) HaiLin LinJing Wooden Products,
Ltd., (8) Dun Hua Sen Tai Wood Co., Ltd., (9) Dunhua Jisheng Wood
Industry Co., Ltd., (10) Hunchun Forest Wolf Industry Co., Ltd.,
(11) Guangzhou Panyu Southern Star Co., Ltd., (12) Nanjing Minglin
Wooden Industry Co., Ltd., (13) Zhejiang Fudeli Timber Industry Co.,
Ltd., (14) Suzhou Dongda Wood Co., Ltd., (15) Guangzhou Pan Yu Kang
Da Board Co., Ltd., (16) Kornbest Enterprises Ltd., (17)
Metropolitan Hardwood Floors, Inc., (18) Zhejiang Longsen Lumbering
Co., Ltd., (19) Xinyuan Wooden Industry Co., Ltd., (20) Dasso
Industrial Group Co., Ltd., (21) Hong Kong Easoon Wood Technology
Co., Ltd., (22) Armstrong Wood Products Kunshan Co., Ltd., (23)
Baishan Huafeng Wooden Product Co., Ltd., (24) Changbai Mountain
Development and Protection Zone Hongtu Wood Industry Co., Ltd., (25)
Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co., Ltd., (26) Dalian Jiuyuan Wood Industry
Co., Ltd., (27) Dalian Penghong Floor Products Co., Ltd., (28)
Dongtai Fuan Universal Dynamics LLC, (29) Dunhua City Dexin Wood
Industry Co., Ltd., (30) Dunhua City Hongyuan Wood Industry Co.,
Ltd., (31) Dunhua City Jisen Wood Industry Co., Ltd., (32) Dunhua
City Wanrong Wood Industry Co., Ltd., (33) Fusong Jinlong Wooden
Group Co., Ltd., (34) Fusong Qianqiu Wooden Product Co., Ltd., (35)
GTP International, (36) Guangdong Yihua Timber Industry Co., Ltd.,
(37) HaiLin LinJing Wooden Products, Ltd., (38) Huzhou Fulinmen Imp
& Exp. Co., Ltd., (39) Huzhou Fuma Wood Bus. Co., Ltd., (40) Jiafeng
Wood (Suzhou) Co., Ltd., (41) Jiashan Hui Jia Le Decoration Material
Co., Ltd., (42) Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co.,
Ltd., (43) Karly Wood Product Limited, (44) Kunshan Yingyi-Nature
Wood Industry Co., Ltd., (45) Puli Trading Limited, (46) Shanghai
Eswell Timber Co. Ltd., (47) Shanghai Lairunde Wood Co., Ltd., (48)
Shanghai New Sihe Wood Co., Ltd., (49) Shanghai Shenlin Corporation,
(50) Shenzhenshi Huanwei Woods Co., Ltd., (51) Vicwood Industry
(Suzhou) Co., Ltd., (52) Xiamen Yung De Ornament Co., Ltd., (53)
Xuzhou Shenghe Wood Co., Ltd., (54) Yixing Lion-King Timber Industry
Co., Ltd., (55) Jiangsu Simba Flooring Industry Co., Ltd, (56)
Zhejiang Biyork Wood Co., Ltd., (57) Zhejiang Dadongwu GreenHome
Wood Co., Ltd., (58) Zhejiang Desheng Wood Industry Co., Ltd., (59)
Zhejiang Shiyou Timber Co., Ltd., (60) Zhejiang Tianzhen Bamboo &
Wood Development Co., Ltd., (61) Chinafloors Timber (China) Co.
Ltd., (62) Shanghai Lizhong Wood Products Co., Ltd., (63) Fine
Furniture (Shanghai) Limited, (64) Huzhou Sunergy World Trade Co.
Ltd., (65) Huzhou Jesonwood Co., Ltd., (66) A&W (Shanghai) Woods
Co., Ltd., (67) Fu Lik Timber (HK) Company Limited, (68) Yekalon
Industry, Inc./Sennorwell International Group (Hong Kong) Limited,
(69) Kemian Wood Industry (Kunshan) Co., Ltd., (70) Dalian Kemian
Wood Industry Co., Ltd., (71) Dalian Huilong Wooden Products Co.,
Ltd., (72) Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co., Ltd., and
(73) Real Wood Floors, LLC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the SR applicants, Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co.,
Ltd. and Guangdong Yihua Timber Industry Co., Ltd. submitted SRAs on
January 31, 2011, and January 21, 2011, respectively, pursuant to
extensions granted by the Department. In addition to the aforementioned
73 companies, in response to the Department's requests for information,
Jiaxing Brilliant provided information in Layo Wood's responses to the
Department's supplemental questionnaires on January 31, 2011, February
23, 2011, April 5, 2011 and April 8, 2011. Based on the information
provided in those responses, the Department preliminarily finds that
Jiaxing Brilliant is eligible for a separate rate.
In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department has a
rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are
subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single
antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all
exporters of merchandise subject to investigation in an NME country
this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is
sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.
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 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 Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's
Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (``Silicon Carbide''). In
accordance with the separate-rates criteria, the Department assigns
separate rates in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the
absence of both de jure and de facto governmental control over export
activities.
[[Page 30661]]
A. Separate-Rate Recipients \32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ All separate-rate applicants receiving a separate rate are
hereby referred to collectively as the ``SR Recipients,'' including
the mandatory respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Wholly Foreign-Owned or Located in a Market Economy
Twelve separate rate applicants provided evidence in their SRAs
that they are wholly owned by individuals or companies located in a
market economy (``ME'') (collectively ``Foreign-Owned SR
Applicants'').\33\ Therefore, because they are wholly foreign-owned or
located in a market economy, and we have no evidence indicating that
they are under the control of the PRC, a separate-rate analysis is not
necessary to determine whether these companies are independent from
government control.\34\ Accordingly, we have preliminarily granted a
separate rate to these companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ The wholly foreign-owned SR Applicants are: (1) Jianfeng
Wood (Suzhou) Co, Ltd; (2) Fu Lik Timber (HK) Company Limited; (3)
Xiamen Yung De Ornament Co., Ltd; (4) Metropolitan Hardwood Floors,
Inc.; (5) A&W (Shanghai) Woods Co., Ltd.; (6) Vicwood Industry
(Suzhou) Co., Ltd.; (7) Armstrong Wood Products Kunshan Co., Ltd.;
(8) Kunshan Yingyi-Nature Wood Industry Co., Ltd.; (9) Dongtai Fuan
Universal Dynamics LLC; (10) Yixing Lion-King Timber Industry Co.,
Ltd.; (11) Chinafloors Timber (China) Co., Ltd.; and (12) Fine
Furniture (Shanghai) Limited.
\34\ See, e.g., Certain New Pneumatic Off-The-Road Tires From
the People's Republic of China; Preliminary Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 73
FR 9278, 9284 (February 20, 2008) (unchanged for the final
determination).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Joint Ventures Between Chinese and Foreign Companies or Wholly
Chinese-Owned Companies
Sixty-two of the separate-rate companies in this investigation
stated that they are either joint ventures between Chinese and foreign
companies or are wholly Chinese-owned companies (collectively ``PRC SR
Applicants''). Therefore, the Department must analyze whether these
respondents can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto
governmental control over export activities.
a. Absence of De Jure Control
The Department considers the following de jure criteria in
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate
rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence provided by the PRC SR Recipients supports a
preliminary finding of de jure absence of governmental control based on
the following: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated
with the individual exporters' business and export licenses; (2) there
are applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of the
companies; and (3) and there are formal measures by the government
decentralizing control of Chinese companies.
b. Absence of De Facto Control
Typically, the Department considers four factors in evaluating
whether each respondent is subject to de facto government control of
its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or are
subject to the approval of a government agency; (2) whether the
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government
in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4)
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or
financing of losses.\36\ The Department has determined that an analysis
of de facto control is critical in determining whether respondents are,
in fact, subject to a degree of government control which would preclude
the Department from assigning separate rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this investigation, the separate rate applicants each asserted
the following: (1) That the export prices are not set by, and are not
subject to, the approval of a governmental agency; (2) they have
authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; (3)
they have autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding
the selection of management; and (4) they retain the proceeds of their
export sales and make independent decisions regarding disposition of
profits or financing of losses. Additionally, each of these companies'
SRA responses indicates that its pricing during the POI does not
involve coordination among exporters.
Evidence placed on the record of this investigation by 73 of the SR
Applicants demonstrates an absence of de jure and de facto government
control with respect to their exports of the merchandise under
investigation, in accordance with the criteria identified in Sparklers
and Silicon Carbide. Therefore, we are preliminarily granting a
separate rate to these entities and have identified each of them in the
Preliminary Determination section of this notice, below.
Companies Not Receiving a Separate Rate
Real Wood Floors, LLC (``RWF''), submitted a timely response to the
Department's separate rate application on January 19, 2011. In its
response, RWF claims that it is the first seller of the subject
merchandise in the United States. Sales-related documentation submitted
by RWF in its SRA indicates that RWF is an importer of subject
merchandise.\37\ As RWF is neither an exporter, nor a Chinese producer,
of subject merchandise that entered the United States during the POI,
the Department finds that RWF is not eligible to apply for a separate
rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See Separate Rate Application of Real Wood Floors, LLC:
Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China,
dated January 19, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application of Facts Available and Adverse Facts Available
The PRC-Wide Entity and PRC-Wide Rate
We issued our request for Q&V information to 190 potential Chinese
exporters of the subject merchandise, in addition to posting the Q&V
questionnaire on the Department's Web site.\38\ While information on
the record of this investigation indicates that there are numerous
producers/exporters of multilayered wood flooring in the PRC, we
received 80 timely filed Q&V responses. Although all exporters were
given an opportunity to provide Q&V information, not all exporters
provided a response to the Department's Q&V letter. Therefore, the
Department has preliminarily determined that there were exporters/
producers of the subject merchandise during the POI from the PRC that
did not respond to the Department's request for information. We have
treated these non-responsive PRC producers/exporters as part of the
PRC-wide entity because they did not demonstrate their eligibility for
a separate rate.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ See Respondent Selection Memo.
\39\ See, e.g., Kitchen Racks Prelim, unchanged in Kitchen Racks
Final.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party
(A) withholds information that has been requested by the Department,
(B) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form
or manner requested, subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the
Act, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping
statute, or (D) provides such information but the
[[Page 30662]]
information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to
subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching
the applicable determination.
Information on the record of this investigation indicates that the
PRC-wide entity was non-responsive. Specifically, certain companies did
not respond to our questionnaire requesting Q&V information.
Accordingly, we find that the PRC-entity withheld information requested
by the Department; failed to provide information in a timely manner and
neither indicated that it was having difficulty providing the
information nor requested that it be allowed to submit the information
in an alternate form; and significantly impeded the proceeding by not
submitting the requested information. As a result, pursuant to sections
776(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Act, we find that the use of facts available is
appropriate to determine the PRC-wide rate. See Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Preliminary
Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final
Determination: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic
of Vietnam, 68 FR 4986 (January 31, 2003), unchanged in Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Critical
Circumstances: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic
of Vietnam, 68 FR 37116 (June 23, 2003).
Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among
the facts otherwise available, the Department may employ an adverse
inference if an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to
the best of its ability to comply with requests for information.\40\ We
find that, because the PRC-wide entity did not respond to our requests
for information, it has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability.
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.\41\ Therefore,
the Department preliminarily finds that, in selecting from among the
facts available, an adverse inference is appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See Statement of Administrative Action, accompanying the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''), H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, 870
(1994) (``SAA''); see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality
Steel Products from the Russian Federation, 65 FR 5510, 5518
(February 4, 2000).
\41\ See Nippon Steel Corporation v. United States, 337 F.3d
1373, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (``Nippon Steel'') (noting 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'')).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When employing an adverse inference, section 776 of the Act
indicates that the Department may rely upon information derived from
the petition, the final determination from the LTFV investigation, a
previous administrative review, or any other information placed on the
record. In selecting a rate for AFA, the Department selects a rate that
is sufficiently adverse to ensure that the uncooperative party does not
obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had
fully cooperated. It is the Department's practice to select, as AFA,
the higher of the (a) Highest margin alleged in the petition, or (b)
the highest calculated rate of any respondent in the investigation.\42\
The petition identified rates of 194.49 and 280.60 percent.\43\ These
rates are higher than any of the calculated rates assigned to
individually examined companies. Thus, as AFA, the Department's
practice would be to assign the rate of 280.60 percent to the PRC-wide
entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from the People's
Republic of China, 65 FR 34660 (May 31, 2000), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum, at ``Facts Available.''
\43\ See Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic
of China: Initiation of Antidumping Investigation, 75 FR 70714
(November 18, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corroboration of Information
Section 776(c) of the Act, however, requires the Department to
corroborate, to the extent practicable, secondary information used as
facts available. 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 concerning the subject
merchandise.'' See 19 CFR 351.308(c) and (d).
The SAA clarifies that ``corroborate'' means that the Department
will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has
probative value. See the SAA at 870. The SAA also states that
independent sources used to corroborate such evidence may include, for
example, published price lists, official import statistics and customs
data, and information obtained from interested parties during the
particular investigation. Id. To corroborate secondary information, the
Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and
relevance of the information used.
In order to determine the probative value of the margins in the
petition for use as AFA for purposes of this preliminary determination,
we analyzed the U.S. prices and normal values for each of the
individually investigated parties. Based on this analysis, we
determined that while there were U.S. prices within the range of the
prices contained in the petition, the normal value information
contained in the petition does not have probative value for purposes of
this preliminary determination. Thus, with respect to AFA, for the
preliminary determination, we have assigned the PRC-wide entity the
rate of 82.65 percent, the highest calculated transaction-specific rate
among mandatory respondents. No corroboration of this rate is necessary
because we are relying on information obtained in the course of this
investigation, rather than secondary information.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See 19 CFR 351.308(c) and (d) and section 776(c) of the
Act; see also Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
and Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part:
Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the People's Republic of
China, 73 FR 35652, 35653 (June 24, 2008), and accompanying Issues
and Decision Memorandum at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin for the Separate Rate Companies
As discussed above, the Department has preliminarily determined
that in addition to the individually investigated entities, 73 other
companies have demonstrated their eligibility for a separate rate.
Normally, the Department's practice is to establish a margin, as the
separate rate, for these entities based on the average of the rates we
calculated for the mandatory respondents, excluding any rates that were
zero, de minimis, or based entirely on AFA.\45\ In the instant
investigation, only one of the margins assigned is neither zero or de
minimis nor based on AFA. Thus, we are assigning that rate, 10.88%, to
the separate rate applicants.\46\ The separate-rate applicants are
listed in the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ 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 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, 72 FR
19690 (April 19, 2007).
\46\ See Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act; see also Certain
Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks From the People's Republic of
China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 74 FR
36656 (July 24, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 30663]]
Date of Sale
19 CFR 351.401(i) states that, ``in identifying the date of sale of
the merchandise under consideration or foreign like product, the
Secretary normally will use the date of invoice, as recorded in the
exporter or producer's records kept in the normal course of business.''
In Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. United States, the CIT noted that a
``party seeking to establish a date of sale other than invoice date
bears the burden of producing sufficient evidence to `satisf{y{time} '
the Department that `a different date better reflects the date on which
the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of sale.'''
\47\ The date of sale is generally the date on which the parties agree
upon all substantive terms of the sale. This normally includes the
price, quantity, delivery terms and payment terms.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. United States 132 F. Supp.
2d 1087, 1090 (CIT 2001).
\48\ See Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and
Tobago: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72
FR 62824 (November 7, 2007), and accompanying Issue and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 1; Notice of Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality
Steel Products from Turkey, 65 FR 15123 (March 21, 2000), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sales by the Samling Group, we used the commercial invoice date
as the sale date because record evidence indicates that the terms of
sale were not set until the issuance of the commercial invoice.
Consistent with 19 CFR 351.401(i), for sales made by Layo Wood and
Yuhua, the Department finds that the date of invoice does not always
reflect the date on which the terms of sale were finalized. For those
sales made by Layo Wood and Yuhua that shipped prior to the invoice
date, the Department has used the shipment date as the date of sale.
For all other relevant sales made by Layo Wood and Yuhua over the
course of POI, the Department has used invoice date as the date of
sale.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ See Layo, Samling and Yuhua Analysis Memorandums.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of multilayered wood flooring to the
United States by the respondents were made at LTFV, we compared export
price (``EP'') and constructed export price (``CEP'') to normal value
(``NV''), as described in the ``Constructed Export Price,'' ``Export
Price,'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice.
U.S. Price
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 subsections (c) and
(d).'' In its questionnaire responses, the Samling Group stated that it
made certain CEP sales through U.S. affiliates. In accordance with
section 772(b) of the Act, we used CEP for the Samling Group's U.S.
sales where the merchandise subject to this investigation was sold
directly to an affiliated purchaser located in the United States.
For sales reported by the Samling Group as CEP sales, we calculated
CEP based on delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United
States. We made deductions from the U.S. sales price, where applicable,
for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the
Act. These included such expenses as foreign inland freight from the
plant to the port of exportation and marine insurance. In accordance
with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, the Department deducted commissions,
billing adjustments, early payment discounts, domestic inland freight,
domestic brokerage and handling, U.S. inland freight, other U.S.
transportation costs, U.S. duties, direct and indirect selling
expenses, international freight and marine insurance, credit expenses,
inventory carrying costs and indirect selling expenses from the U.S.
price, all of which relate to commercial activity in the United States.
Finally, we deducted CEP profit, in accordance with sections 772(d)(3)
and 772(f) of the Act.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Export Price
In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we used EP for
certain U.S. sales reported by the Samling Group and all sales reported
by Layo Wood and Yuhua. We calculated EP based on the packed prices to
unaffiliated purchasers in, or for exportation to, the United States.
We made deductions, as appropriate, for any movement expenses (e.g.,
foreign inland freight from the plant to the port of exportation,
domestic brokerage, international freight to the port of importation)
in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Where foreign
inland freight or foreign brokerage and handling fees were provided by
PRC service providers or paid for in renminbi, we based those charges
on surrogate value rates.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ See ``Factor Valuation'' section below for further
discussion of surrogate value rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Normal Value
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall
determine the NV using an FOP methodology if the merchandise is
exported from an NME and the information does not permit the
calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or
constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. The Department bases
NV on the FOPs because the presence of government controls on various
aspects of NMEs renders price comparisons and the calculation of
production costs invalid under the Department's normal methodologies.
Therefore, for this preliminary determination we have calculated NV
based on FOPs in accordance with sections 773(c)(3) and (4) of the Act
and 19 CFR 351.408(c). The FOPs include: (1) Hours of labor required;
(2) quantities of raw materials employed; (3) amounts of energy and
other utilities consumed; and (4) representative capital costs.\52\ In
accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), the Department will normally use
publicly available information to find an appropriate surrogate value
to value FOPs, but when a producer sources an input from a ME and pays
for it in a ME currency, the Department may value the factor using the
actual price paid for the input.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ See Section 773(c)(3)(A)-(D) of the Act.
\53\ See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1); see also Shakeproof Assembly
Components Div of Ill v. United States, 268 F.3d 1376, 1382-83 (Fed.
Cir. 2001) (affirming the Department's use of market-based prices to
value certain FOPs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factor Valuation Methodology
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV
based on FOP data reported by respondents during the POI. To calculate
NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor-consumption rates by
publicly available surrogate values (except as discussed below). In
selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, specificity,
and contemporaneity of the data.\54\ As appropriate, we adjusted input
prices by including freight costs to make them delivered prices.
Specifically, we added to Philippine import surrogate values an
[[Page 30664]]
Indian surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported
distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from
the nearest seaport to the factory where appropriate. This adjustment
is in accordance with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's
decision in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407-08 (Fed.
Cir. 1997) (remanding to Commerce its freight expense calculation to
avoid double-counting). A detailed description of all surrogate values
used for Layo Wood, Yuhua and the Samling Group can be found in the
Surrogate Value Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ See, e.g., New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the
People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales
at Less than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of
Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 40485 (July 15, 2008), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the preliminary determination, in accordance with the
Department's practice, we used data from the Philippine Import
Statistics and other publicly available sources from the Philippines in
order to calculate surrogate values for Layo Wood, Yuhua and the
Samling Group's FOPs (direct materials, energy, and packing materials)
and certain movement expenses. In selecting the best available
information for valuing FOPs in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of
the Act, the Department's practice is to select, to the extent
practicable, surrogate values which are non-export average values, most
contemporaneous with the POI, product-specific, and tax-exclusive.\55\
The record shows that data in the Philippines' Import Statistics, as
well as those from the other sources from the Philippines, are
contemporaneous with the POI, product-specific, and tax-exclusive.\56\
In those instances where we could not obtain publicly available
informatio
