Uncovered Innerspring Units From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015, 12688-12690 [2016-05404]

Download as PDF 12688 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 47 / Thursday, March 10, 2016 / Notices China (the PRC)); AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1). Background On November 25, 2015, the Department of Commerce (Department) initiated antidumping duty investigations on certain iron mechanical transfer drive components from Canada and the PRC.1 Section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1) state the Department will make a preliminary determination no later than 140 days after the date of the initiation. The current deadline for the preliminary determinations of these investigations is no later than April 11, 2016.2 [FR Doc. 2016–05448 Filed 3–9–16; 8:45 am] Postponement of Preliminary Determinations On February 19, 2016, TB Woods Incorporated (Petitioner) made a timely request, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(e), for postponement of the preliminary determinations, in order to provide the Department with sufficient time to develop the record in these proceedings through additional questionnaires, which Petitioner will in turn need time to analyze and possibly comment on. Because there are no compelling reasons to deny Petitioner’s request, in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, the Department is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determinations by 50 days. For the reasons stated above, the Department, in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determinations to no later than 190 days after the date on which the Department initiated these investigations. Therefore, the new deadline for the preliminary determinations is May 31, 2016. In accordance with section 735(a)(1) of the Act, the deadline for the final determinations of these investigations will continue to be 75 days after the date of the preliminary determinations, unless postponed at a later date. Dated: March 2, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–928] Uncovered Innerspring Units From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014–2015 Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the ‘‘Department’’) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on uncovered innerspring units from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’), for the period of review (‘‘POR’’), February 1, 2014, to January 31, 2015. The Department preliminarily determines that Macao Commercial and Industrial Spring Mattress Manufacturer (‘‘Macao Commercial’’) had no reviewable shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. We also preliminarily determine that East Grace Corporation (‘‘East Grace’’) has not established its entitlement to separate rate status and, therefore, is being treated as part of the PRC-wide entity. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. DATES: Effective Date: March 10, 2016. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Hawkins, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–6491. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Background mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 1 See Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components from Canada and the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of Less-Than-FairInvestigations, 80 FR 73716 (November 25, 2015). 2 The current deadline of April 11, 2016, accounts for the four-day tolling of deadlines pursuant to inclement weather in January 2016. See January 27, 2016, Memorandum to the Record from Ron Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, entitled ‘‘Tolling of Administrative Deadlines as a Result of the Government Closure during Snowstorm ‘Jonas’.’’ VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:55 Mar 09, 2016 Jkt 238001 On February 19, 2009, the Department published in the Federal Register an antidumping duty order on uncovered innerspring units from the PRC.1 On June 30, 2014, the Department received 1 See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Uncovered Innerspring Units from the People’s Republic of China, 74 FR 7661 (February 19, 2009) (‘‘Order’’). PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 a request from Petitioner 2 to conduct an administrative review of East Grace and Macao Commercial.3 On April 3, 2015, the Department initiated this review based on Petitioner’s review request.4 On May 11, 2015, the Department issued its standard antidumping duty questionnaires to East Grace and Macao Commercial.5 Macao Commercial provided timely responses to the Department’s initial and supplemental questionnaires. East Grace did not respond to the Department’s standard questionnaire and has not participated in this proceeding. Scope of the Order The merchandise subject to the order is uncovered innerspring units composed of a series of individual metal springs joined together in sizes corresponding to the sizes of adult mattresses (e.g., twin, twin long, full, full long, queen, California king and king) and units used in smaller constructions, such as crib and youth mattresses. Uncovered innersprings are classified under subheading 9404.29.9010 and have also been classified under subheadings 9404.10.0000, 9404.29.9005, 9404.29.9011, 7326.20.0070, 7320.20.5010, 7320.90.5010, or 7326.20.0071 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only; the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.6 2 The Petitioner is Leggett & Platt Inc. (hereinafter ‘‘Petitioner’’). 3 See Request for Antidumping Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Uncovered Innerspring Units from the People’s Republic of China, dated February 27, 2015. 4 See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 80 FR 18202 (April 3, 2015) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). We note that the Initiation Notice appeared to identify ‘‘Macao Commercial’’ and ‘‘Industrial Spring Mattress Manufacturer’’ as two separate companies. However, the name of the single company for which a review was requested was actually ‘‘Macao Commercial and Industrial Spring Mattress Manufacturer,’’ and we clarify now that this is the correct name of the company under review. 5 See Letter to East Grace Corporation, dated May 11, 2015, and Letter to Macao Commercial and Industrial Spring Mattress Manufacturer, dated May 11, 2015. 6 For a full description of the scope of the Order, see Decision Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, entitled ‘‘Preliminary Results of 2014– 2015 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Uncovered Innerspring Units from the People’s Republic of China’’ (‘‘Preliminary Decision Memorandum’’), issued concurrently with and adopted by this notice. E:\FR\FM\10MRN1.SGM 10MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 47 / Thursday, March 10, 2016 / Notices Methodology The Department conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.7 The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (‘‘ACCESS’’). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at https://www.trade.gov/enforcement/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Preliminary Determination of No Shipments In its certified response to the Department’s standard antidumping duty questionnaire, Macao Commercial stated that it had no shipments of PRC origin innersprings to the United States during the POR. Between June 6, 2015 and December 24, 2015, the Department issued supplemental questionnaires to Macao Commercial to verify this no shipments claim. Additionally, to corroborate Macao Commercial’s no shipments claim, the Department submitted a formal query to U.S. Customs & Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’), the results of which did not provide any evidence that contradicts Macao Commercial’s claim of no shipments. Thus, the Department preliminarily determines that Macao Commercial had no shipments of innerspring units of PRC origin to the United States during the POR and, therefore, had no reviewable entries.8 In addition, consistent with the Department’s practice in nonmarket economy cases, the Department finds that it is appropriate not to rescind the review, in part, in these circumstances, but rather to complete the review with respect to Macao Commercial and issue 7 A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is provided at Appendix I to this notice. 8 For more detail see Preliminary Decision Memorandum. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:55 Mar 09, 2016 Jkt 238001 appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of the review.9 Companies That Did Not Establish Their Eligibility for a Separate Rate In our Initiation Notice, we stated, ‘‘{f}or exporters and producers who submit a separate-rate status application or certification and subsequently are selected as mandatory respondents, these exporters and producers will no longer be eligible for separate rate status unless they respond to all parts of the questionnaire as mandatory respondents.’’ 10 East Grace was selected as a mandatory respondent in the instant review, but East Grace failed to respond to the Department’s antidumping duty questionnaire, and East Grace did not submit a noshipments certification. Therefore, we preliminarily find that East Grace is no longer eligible for separate rate status and that the PRC-wide entity includes East Grace.11 We also note that the Department’s change in policy 12 regarding conditional review of the PRC-wide entity applies to this administrative review.13 Under this policy, the PRCwide entity will not be under review unless a party specifically requests, or the Department self-initiates, a review of the entity. Because no party requested a review of the PRC-wide entity in this review, the PRC-wide entity is not under review and therefore its rate is not subject to change. The rate previously established for the PRC-wide entity in this proceeding is 234.51 percent. Public Comment and Opportunity To Request a Hearing 14 Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days after the date of 9 See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694, 65694–95 (October 24, 2011). 10 See Initiation Notice, 80 FR at 18203. 11 See section 776(b) of the Act. 12 See Antidumping Proceedings: Announcement of Change in Department Practice for Respondent Selection in Antidumping Duty Proceedings and Conditional Review of the Nonmarket Economy Entity in NME Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 65963 (November 4, 2013). 13 Under this policy, the PRC-wide entity will not be under review unless a party specifically requests, or the Department self-initiates, a review of the entity. Because no party requested a review of the PRC-wide entity in this review, the entity is not under review. 14 Normally, the Department discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with a preliminary results result of review within five days of the date of publication of the notice of preliminary results in the Federal Register, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, because the Department has preliminarily determined that East Grace is ineligible for a separate rate and that Macao Commercial had no PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 12689 publication of these preliminary results of review.15 Rebuttals to case briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within five days after the time limit for filing case briefs.16 Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument (a) a statement of the issue, (b) a brief summary of the argument, and (c) a table of authorities.17 Parties submitting briefs should do so pursuant to the Department’s electronic filing system, ACCESS. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice.18 Hearing requests should contain the following information: (1) The party’s name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs.19 If a request for a hearing is made, parties will be notified of the time and date for the hearing to be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.20 The Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of our analysis of any issues raised in case briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results in the Federal Register, unless extended, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Assessment Rates Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.21 The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final results of this review. We intend to instruct CBP to liquidate relevant entries from the PRC-wide entity (including East Grace) at the current rate for the PRC-wide entity (i.e., 234.51 percent). For Macao Commercial, which we preliminarily find had no shipments during the POR, we intend to instruct CBP to liquidate any suspended entries of subject merchandise that entered under that exporter’s case number (i.e., shipments during the POR, there are no calculations to disclose. 15 See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). 16 See 19 CFR 351.309(d). 17 See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2), (d)(2). 18 See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 19 Id. 20 See 19 CFR 351.310(d). 21 See 19 CFR 351.212(b). E:\FR\FM\10MRN1.SGM 10MRN1 12690 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 47 / Thursday, March 10, 2016 / Notices at that exporter’s rate) at the PRC-wide rate.22 Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this review for shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by sections 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For any companies listed that have a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, then zero cash deposit will be required); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed that received a separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific rate; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that for the PRCwide entity; and (4) 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 that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during the POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. These preliminary results are being issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4). mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Dated: March 2, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum: 1. Summary 2. Case History 3. Scope of the Order 22 Id. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:07 Mar 09, 2016 Jkt 238001 4. Discussion of the Methodology a. Non-Market Economy Status b. Companies that Did Not Establish Their Eligibility for a Separate Rate c. Preliminary Determination of No Shipments 5. Recommendation [FR Doc. 2016–05404 Filed 3–9–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–475–818] Certain Pasta From Italy: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013–2014 Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is amending the Final Results 1 of the antidumping duty administrative review of certain pasta (pasta) from Italy to correct a ministerial error. The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2013, through June 30, 2014. DATES: Effective March 10, 2016. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joy Zhang, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1168. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Background On February 10, 2016, the Department disclosed to interested parties its calculations for the Final Results.2 On February 17, 2016, the Department received a timely filed ministerial error allegation from La Molisana, S.p.A. (La Molisana) regarding the Department’s final margin calculation.3 Period of Review The POR covered by this review is July 1, 2013, through June 30, 2014. 1 See Certain Pasta From Italy: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013– 2014, 81 FR 8043 (February 17, 2016) (Final Results). 2 See Memorandum to Eric Greynolds, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office III from Joy Zhang, Case Analyst, ‘‘2013–2014 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Pasta from Italy—Final Results, Sales Analysis Memorandum for La Molisana,’’ dated February 10, 2016 (Final Results Calculations). 3 See Letter from La Molisana, ‘‘Certain Pasta From Italy: A–475–818; Request for Correction of Clerical Error Pursuant to 17 CFR Section 351.224(f),’’ dated February 16, 2016. PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Scope of the Order Imports covered by the order are shipments of certain non-egg dry pasta. The merchandise subject to review is currently classifiable under items 1901.90.90.95 and 1902.19.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to the order is dispositive.4 Ministerial Errors Section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), and 19 CFR 351.224(f) defines a ministerial error as an error ‘‘in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical errors resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other type of unintentional error which {the Department} considers ministerial.’’ We analyzed La Molisana’s ministerial error comments and determined, in accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), that there was a ministerial error in our margin calculation for La Molisana for the Final Results. For a complete discussion of the alleged error, see the Department’s Ministerial Error Memorandum.5 In accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), we are amending the Final Results. Specifically, we are amending the weighted-average dumping margin for La Molisana as well as for the companies that were not selected for individual examination, who were assigned the rate determined for La Molisana.6 The revised weightedaverage dumping margins for the affected companies are detailed below. Amended Final Results As a result of correcting for the ministerial error, we determined the following amended weighted-average dumping margins 7 for the period July 1, 2013, through June 30, 2014: 4 For a full description of the scope of the order, see the ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission: Certain Pasta from Italy; 2013–2014’’ from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, dated February 9, 2016 (Issues and Decision Memorandum) and incorporated herein by reference. 5 See ‘‘Amended Final Results of the 2013–2014 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta from Italy: Allegation of Ministerial Error,’’ dated concurrently with this notice (‘‘Ministerial Error Memorandum’’). 6 See Final Results, 80 FR at 61362. 7 The margin for the non-examined companies was based on the calculated weighted-average E:\FR\FM\10MRN1.SGM 10MRN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 47 (Thursday, March 10, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12688-12690]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05404]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-928]


Uncovered Innerspring Units From the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 
2014-2015

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the ``Department'') is conducting 
an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on uncovered 
innerspring units from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''), for 
the period of review (``POR''), February 1, 2014, to January 31, 2015. 
The Department preliminarily determines that Macao Commercial and 
Industrial Spring Mattress Manufacturer (``Macao Commercial'') had no 
reviewable shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. We also 
preliminarily determine that East Grace Corporation (``East Grace'') 
has not established its entitlement to separate rate status and, 
therefore, is being treated as part of the PRC-wide entity. Interested 
parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

DATES: Effective Date: March 10, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Hawkins, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade 
Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6491.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On February 19, 2009, the Department published in the Federal 
Register an antidumping duty order on uncovered innerspring units from 
the PRC.\1\ On June 30, 2014, the Department received a request from 
Petitioner \2\ to conduct an administrative review of East Grace and 
Macao Commercial.\3\ On April 3, 2015, the Department initiated this 
review based on Petitioner's review request.\4\ On May 11, 2015, the 
Department issued its standard antidumping duty questionnaires to East 
Grace and Macao Commercial.\5\ Macao Commercial provided timely 
responses to the Department's initial and supplemental questionnaires. 
East Grace did not respond to the Department's standard questionnaire 
and has not participated in this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Uncovered Innerspring 
Units from the People's Republic of China, 74 FR 7661 (February 19, 
2009) (``Order'').
    \2\ The Petitioner is Leggett & Platt Inc. (hereinafter 
``Petitioner'').
    \3\ See Request for Antidumping Administrative Review of the 
Antidumping Duty Order on Uncovered Innerspring Units from the 
People's Republic of China, dated February 27, 2015.
    \4\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 80 FR 18202 (April 3, 2015) (``Initiation 
Notice''). We note that the Initiation Notice appeared to identify 
``Macao Commercial'' and ``Industrial Spring Mattress Manufacturer'' 
as two separate companies. However, the name of the single company 
for which a review was requested was actually ``Macao Commercial and 
Industrial Spring Mattress Manufacturer,'' and we clarify now that 
this is the correct name of the company under review.
    \5\ See Letter to East Grace Corporation, dated May 11, 2015, 
and Letter to Macao Commercial and Industrial Spring Mattress 
Manufacturer, dated May 11, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the order is uncovered innerspring units 
composed of a series of individual metal springs joined together in 
sizes corresponding to the sizes of adult mattresses (e.g., twin, twin 
long, full, full long, queen, California king and king) and units used 
in smaller constructions, such as crib and youth mattresses. Uncovered 
innersprings are classified under subheading 9404.29.9010 and have also 
been classified under subheadings 9404.10.0000, 9404.29.9005, 
9404.29.9011, 7326.20.0070, 7320.20.5010, 7320.90.5010, or 7326.20.0071 
of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''). The 
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes 
only; the written description of the scope of the order is 
dispositive.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For a full description of the scope of the Order, see 
Decision Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary 
for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, 
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, entitled 
``Preliminary Results of 2014-2015 Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review: Uncovered Innerspring Units from the People's Republic of 
China'' (``Preliminary Decision Memorandum''), issued concurrently 
with and adopted by this notice.

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

[[Page 12689]]

Methodology

    The Department conducted this review in accordance with section 
751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For a 
full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the 
Preliminary Decision Memorandum.\7\ The Preliminary Decision Memorandum 
is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and 
Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic 
Service System (``ACCESS''). ACCESS is available to registered users at 
https://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central 
Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. 
In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum 
can be accessed directly on the internet at https://www.trade.gov/enforcement/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the 
electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are 
identical in content.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision 
Memorandum is provided at Appendix I to this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preliminary Determination of No Shipments

    In its certified response to the Department's standard antidumping 
duty questionnaire, Macao Commercial stated that it had no shipments of 
PRC origin innersprings to the United States during the POR. Between 
June 6, 2015 and December 24, 2015, the Department issued supplemental 
questionnaires to Macao Commercial to verify this no shipments claim. 
Additionally, to corroborate Macao Commercial's no shipments claim, the 
Department submitted a formal query to U.S. Customs & Border Protection 
(``CBP''), the results of which did not provide any evidence that 
contradicts Macao Commercial's claim of no shipments. Thus, the 
Department preliminarily determines that Macao Commercial had no 
shipments of innerspring units of PRC origin to the United States 
during the POR and, therefore, had no reviewable entries.\8\ In 
addition, consistent with the Department's practice in nonmarket 
economy cases, the Department finds that it is appropriate not to 
rescind the review, in part, in these circumstances, but rather to 
complete the review with respect to Macao Commercial and issue 
appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of the 
review.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For more detail see Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
    \9\ See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment 
of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694, 65694-95 (October 24, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Companies That Did Not Establish Their Eligibility for a Separate Rate

    In our Initiation Notice, we stated, ``{f{time} or exporters and 
producers who submit a separate-rate status application or 
certification and subsequently are selected as mandatory respondents, 
these exporters and producers will no longer be eligible for separate 
rate status unless they respond to all parts of the questionnaire as 
mandatory respondents.''[hairsp]\10\ East Grace was selected as a 
mandatory respondent in the instant review, but East Grace failed to 
respond to the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire, and East 
Grace did not submit a no-shipments certification. Therefore, we 
preliminarily find that East Grace is no longer eligible for separate 
rate status and that the PRC-wide entity includes East Grace.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Initiation Notice, 80 FR at 18203.
    \11\ See section 776(b) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also note that the Department's change in policy \12\ regarding 
conditional review of the PRC-wide entity applies to this 
administrative review.\13\ Under this policy, the PRC-wide entity will 
not be under review unless a party specifically requests, or the 
Department self-initiates, a review of the entity. Because no party 
requested a review of the PRC-wide entity in this review, the PRC-wide 
entity is not under review and therefore its rate is not subject to 
change. The rate previously established for the PRC-wide entity in this 
proceeding is 234.51 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Antidumping Proceedings: Announcement of Change in 
Department Practice for Respondent Selection in Antidumping Duty 
Proceedings and Conditional Review of the Nonmarket Economy Entity 
in NME Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 65963 (November 4, 2013).
    \13\ Under this policy, the PRC-wide entity will not be under 
review unless a party specifically requests, or the Department self-
initiates, a review of the entity. Because no party requested a 
review of the PRC-wide entity in this review, the entity is not 
under review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Comment and Opportunity To Request a Hearing \14\

    Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days after the 
date of publication of these preliminary results of review.\15\ 
Rebuttals to case briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the 
case briefs, must be filed within five days after the time limit for 
filing case briefs.\16\ Parties who submit arguments are requested to 
submit with the argument (a) a statement of the issue, (b) a brief 
summary of the argument, and (c) a table of authorities.\17\ Parties 
submitting briefs should do so pursuant to the Department's electronic 
filing system, ACCESS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Normally, the Department discloses to interested parties 
the calculations performed in connection with a preliminary results 
result of review within five days of the date of publication of the 
notice of preliminary results in the Federal Register, in accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, because the Department has 
preliminarily determined that East Grace is ineligible for a 
separate rate and that Macao Commercial had no shipments during the 
POR, there are no calculations to disclose.
    \15\ See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii).
    \16\ See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
    \17\ See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2), (d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
publication of this notice.\18\ Hearing requests should contain the 
following information: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone 
number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to 
be discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in 
the briefs.\19\ If a request for a hearing is made, parties will be 
notified of the time and date for the hearing to be held at the U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20230.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
    \19\ Id.
    \20\ See 19 CFR 351.310(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department intends to issue the final results of this 
administrative review, which will include the results of our analysis 
of any issues raised in case briefs, within 120 days of publication of 
these preliminary results in the Federal Register, unless extended, 
pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Assessment Rates

    Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, 
and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries 
covered by this review.\21\ The Department intends to issue assessment 
instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final 
results of this review. We intend to instruct CBP to liquidate relevant 
entries from the PRC-wide entity (including East Grace) at the current 
rate for the PRC-wide entity (i.e., 234.51 percent). For Macao 
Commercial, which we preliminarily find had no shipments during the 
POR, we intend to instruct CBP to liquidate any suspended entries of 
subject merchandise that entered under that exporter's case number 
(i.e.,

[[Page 12690]]

at that exporter's rate) at the PRC-wide rate.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See 19 CFR 351.212(b).
    \22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this review for shipments of the 
subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by 
sections 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For any companies listed that 
have a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that established in 
the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de 
minimis, then zero cash deposit will be required); (2) for previously 
investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed that 
received a separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding, the 
cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific 
rate; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not 
been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate 
will be that for the PRC-wide entity; and (4) 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 that 
supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when 
imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during the POR. Failure to comply with this 
requirement could result in the Department's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    These preliminary results are being issued and published in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.221(b)(4).

    Dated: March 2, 2016.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Appendix I

    List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum:

1. Summary
2. Case History
3. Scope of the Order
4. Discussion of the Methodology
    a. Non-Market Economy Status
    b. Companies that Did Not Establish Their Eligibility for a 
Separate Rate
    c. Preliminary Determination of No Shipments
5. Recommendation

[FR Doc. 2016-05404 Filed 3-9-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.