[Federal Register: June 24, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 121)]
[Notices]
[Page 35312-35329]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24jn04-31]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-890]
Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Wooden Bedroom Furniture
From the People's Republic of China
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 24, 2004.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine Bertrand or Robert Bolling,
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3207, or 482-3434,
respectively.
Preliminary Determination
We preliminarily determine that wooden bedroom furniture 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 ``Suspension of
Liquidation'' section of this notice.
Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary
determination. We will make our final determination not later than 135
days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination.
Case History
On October 31, 2003, the Department of Commerce (``Department'')
received a petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties: Wooden
Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China (``Petition''),
filed in proper form by the American Furniture Manufacturers Committee
for Legal Trade and its individual members and the Cabinet Makers,
Millmen, and Industrial Carpenters Local 721, UBC Southern Council of
Industrial Worker's Local Union 2305, United Steel Workers of American
Local 193U, Carpenters Industrial Union Local 2093, and Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helper Local 991 (collectively
``Petitioners'') on behalf of the domestic industry and workers
producing wooden bedroom furniture. This investigation was initiated on
December 17, 2003. See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty
Investigation: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of
China, 68 FR 70228 (December 17, 2003) (``Notice of
[[Page 35313]]
Initiation''). The Department set aside a period for all interested
parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. See Notice of
Initiation, 68 FR at 70229. We received comments regarding product
coverage from interested parties. For a detailed discussion of the
comments regarding the scope of the merchandise under investigation,
please see the ``Scope of the Investigation'' section below.
On January 9, 2004, the United States International Trade
Commission (``ITC'') issued its affirmative preliminary determination
that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United
States is threatened with material injury by reason of imports from the
PRC of wooden bedroom furniture, which was published in the Federal
Register on January 28, 2004. See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from China,
69 FR 4178 (January 28, 2004).
On December 30, 2003, the Department requested quantity and value
(``Q&V'') information from a total of 211 producers of wooden bedroom
furniture in the PRC which were identified in the Petition and other
sources and for which the Department was able to locate contact
information. On December 30, 2003, the Department also sent a letter to
the Government of the PRC requesting assistance locating all known
producers/exporters of wooden bedroom furniture in the PRC which
exported wooden bedroom furniture to the United States during the
period April 1, 2003, through September 30, 2003.
On January 7, 8, and 9, 2004, the Department received Q&V responses
from 137 Chinese producers/exporters of wooden bedroom furniture. The
Department did not receive any type of communication from the
Government of the PRC in response to the letter of December 30, 2003.
On January 14, 2004, PRC government officials and furniture
industry representatives met with Department officials to discuss
respondent selection and the criteria the Department considers
regarding whether an industry is market-oriented.
On January 15, 2004, Markor International Furniture (Tianjin)
Manufacture Co., Ltd. (``Markor Tianjin''), and Lacquer Craft
Manufacturing Company, Ltd. (``Lacquer Craft''), notified the
Department that they intend to seek market-oriented-industry (``MOI'')
status on behalf of the wooden bedroom furniture industry in the PRC.
For a further discussion of MOI status for this investigation, please
see the ``Market-Oriented Industry'' section below. On January 22,
2004, the Department requested comments on surrogate-country and
factor-valuation information in order to have sufficient time to
consider such information for the preliminary determination. On January
30, 2004, the Department requested comments on its draft proposed
product-control number (``CONNUM'') characteristics.
On January 14, 2004, Fine Furniture Limited (``Fine Furniture'')
requested that the Department select it as a mandatory respondent.
Also, on January 15, 2004, Petitioners stated that the Department
should select Dalian Huafeng Furniture Co., Ltd. (``Dalian''), as a
mandatory respondent. The Department received several letters regarding
the selection of mandatory respondents. On February 17, 2004, Dalian
requested designation as a voluntary respondent in this investigation.
On March 11, 2004, Sanmu Wooden Furniture Group requested designation
as a voluntary respondent in this investigation.
On January 30, 2004, the Department issued its respondent-selection
memorandum, selecting the following seven companies as mandatory
respondents in this investigation: Dongguan Lung Dong Furniture Co.,
Ltd., and Dongguan Dong He Furniture Co., Ltd. (collectively ``Dongguan
Lung Dong''); Rui Feng Woodwork Co., Ltd., Rui Feng Lumber Development
Co., Ltd., and Dorbest Limited (collectively ``Dorbest Group'');
Lacquer Craft; Markor Tianjin; Shing Mark Enterprise Co., Ltd., Carven
Industries Limited (BVI), Carven Industries Limited (HK), Dongguan
Zhenxin Furniture Co., Ltd., and Dongguan Yongpeng Furniture Co., Ltd.
(collectively ``Shing Mark''); Starcorp Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.,
Orin Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., and Shanghai Starcorp Furniture
Co., Ltd. (collectively ``Starcorp''); and Tech Lane Wood Mfg. and Kee
Jia Wood Mfg. (collectively ``Tech Lane''). See Memorandum from Edward
Yang, Director, Office IX, to Joseph Spetrini, Deputy Assistant
Secretary, Group III, Antidumping Duty Investigation of Wooden Bedroom
Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Selection of Respondents
(``Respondent Selection Memo''), dated January 30, 2004.
On January 20, 21, 23, 26, and 30, the Department received comments
from Markor Tianjin, Lacquer Craft, and Petitioners regarding product-
matching CONNUM characteristics. On January 30, 2004, the Department
requested comments on its proposed product CONNUM characteristics from
all interested parties. On February 4 and 9, 2004, we received comments
on our product-matching CONNUM characteristics from Lacquer Craft,
Markor Tianjin, Shing Mark, and Petitioners.
On February 2, 2004, the Department issued its Section A
questionnaire to Dongguan Lung Dong, the Dorbest Group, Lacquer Craft,
Markor Tianjin, Shing Mark, Starcorp, and Tech Lane. On February 2,
2004, we also issued a Section A questionnaire to the Chinese
Government (i.e., Ministry of Commerce).
On February 3, 2004, the Department received a letter from Sunforce
Furniture Co., Ltd. (``Sunforce''), requesting that the Department
reconsider its decision with respect to the selection of mandatory
respondents and designate Sunforce a mandatory respondent.
On February 5, 2004, we received comments regarding our selection
of a surrogate country from Lacquer Craft, Markor Tianjin, Furniture
Brands International, Inc. (``Furniture Brands''), an interested party,
and Petitioners. Both Lacquer Craft and Markor Tianjin stated that
Indonesia would be the appropriate surrogate country. Also, Furniture
Brands stated that the bedroom furniture industry in Indonesia is more
comparable to the PRC industry than the Indian industry and a possible
candidate to be a surrogate country. Petitioners stated the Department
should select India as the surrogate country.
On February 11, 2004, the Department issued its Section C, D, and
E, as appropriate, questionnaire to Dongguan Lung Dong, the Dorbest
Group, Lacquer Craft, Markor Tianjin, Shing Mark, Starcorp, and Tech
Lane. On February 11, 2004, we also issued a Section C, D, and E
questionnaire to the Chinese Government (i.e., Ministry of Commerce).
On February 18, 2004, we issued a letter to all seven mandatory
respondents and the Chinese Government in which we clarified and
corrected (i.e., minor corrections in) only our Section C
questionnaire.
On February 19, 2004, Yihua Timber Industries, Shenyang Shining
Dongxing Furniture Co., Ltd. (``Shining Dongxing''), Fuzhou Huan Mei
Furniture Co., Ltd. (``Fuzhou Huan Mei''), and Power Dekor Group Co.
Ltd. (``Power Dekor'') requested selection as voluntary respondents.
For all interested parties that requested an extension for
submitting a response to our Section A questionnaire, we provided a
one-week extension until March 1, 2004. Additionally, we provided a
two-week extension until March 26, 2004, to all mandatory respondents
to respond to Sections C, D, and E of our questionnaire. On March 1,
2004, we received 126 Section A
[[Page 35314]]
responses, including those from the mandatory respondents.
On March 5, 2004, the Department determined that India was the
appropriate surrogate country to use in this investigation. See
Memorandum to Edward C. Yang, Director, Office IX, from Jon Freed, Case
Analyst, through Robert Bolling, Program Manager: Antidumping Duty
Investigation on Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of
China (``Surrogate-Country Memorandum''), dated March 5, 2004. We
received comments regarding our selection of India as the surrogate
country from interested parties. For a detailed discussion of the
comments regarding the surrogate country, please see the ``Surrogate
Country'' section below. Additionally, on March 5, 2004, we extended
the time period for interested parties to provide surrogate values for
the factors of production until March 26, 2004. On March 1 and 5, 2004,
we received a request from Lacquer Craft, Markor Tianjin, and Furniture
Brands, respectively, to extend the deadline for supplying surrogate-
value information. On March 17, 2004, we informed all interested
parties that we were again extending the time period for then to
provide surrogate-value information until April 2, 2004. On March 31,
2004, Petitioners requested an additional extension. The Department
extended the due date again until April 16, 2004.
On March 29, 2004, Petitioners requested that the Department remove
from the record all untimely filed responses to the Department's Q&V
questionnaire and its Section A questionnaire and apply total facts
available to the PRC producers and exporters which have been less than
fully cooperative. Also, on March 29, 2004, Petitioners filed two
additional submissions; one submission contained a list of potential
Indian surrogate companies and the other provided comments on the
Section A only responses.
On March 31, 2004, Petitioners made a timely request pursuant to 19
CFR 351.205(e) for a fifty-day postponement of the preliminary
determination, or until June 17, 2004. On April 13, 2004, the
Department published a postponement of the preliminary antidumping duty
determination on wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC. See Notice of
Postponement of the Preliminary Determination of Wooded Bedroom
Furniture from the People's Republic of China Antidumping Duty
Investigation, 69 FR 19390 (April 13, 2004).
On April 16, 2004, we received surrogate-value information from the
Dorbest Group, Dongguan Lung Dong, Lacquer Craft, Markor Tianjin, Shing
Mark, Starcorp, Furniture Brands, and Petitioners. The Dorbest Group,
Dongguan Lung Dong, Lacquer Craft, Markor Tianjin, Shing Mark,
Starcorp, and Petitioners submitted surrogate-value information and
financial data on India. Additionally, Lacquer Craft, Markor Tianjin,
and Furniture Brands submitted surrogate-value information and
financial data on Indonesia and requested that the Department revisit
its decision on whether India is the appropriate surrogate country. On
April 29, 2004, Petitioners submitted rebuttal comments to the
surrogate values proposed by the mandatory respondents and Furniture
Brands, claiming India is the appropriate surrogate country.
Additionally, in this submission Petitioners provided additional Indian
financial statements. Also, on April 29, 2004, the Dorbest Group,
Lacquer Craft, Markor Tianjin, Dongguan Lung Dong, and Shing Mark
submitted additional arguments and surrogate-value information.
On May 10, 2004, Lacquer Craft and Markor Tianjin rebutted
Petitioners' submission of April 29, 2004, by stating that the
submission does not challenge the accuracy of the values that they
submitted on the record by Indian or Indonesian producers and
Petitioners have put forth no evidence stating that these values are
distortive of actual costs. Also, on May 10, 2004, Petitioners rebutted
the April 29, 2004, submissions of Lacquer Craft, Markor Tianjin,
Dongguan Lung Dong, and Shing Mark.
On May 13, 2004, Shing Mark submitted additional comments on the
surrogate values of its April 16, 2004, submission and also responded
to Petitioners' April 29, 2004, submission. Shing Mark stated that the
Department should have a hierarchical approach when selecting from
among the various surrogate values (i.e., independent sources, entry-
specific import information, and the Monthly Statistics of the Foreign
Trade of India (``MSFTI'') data). On May 20, 2004, Petitioners rebutted
Lacquer Craft and Markor Tianjin's May 10, 2004, submission. On May 24,
2004, Petitioners responded to Shing Mark's May 13, 2004, surrogate-
value submission by stating this submission was untimely and the
Department should use the MSFTI data to value the mandatory
respondents' factors of production and reject Shing Mark's proposal to
use data from http://www.InfodriveIndia.com (``Infodrive'') and
International Business Information Services (``IBIS'').
On May 26, 2004, the Dorbest Group submitted comments to
Petitioners'' April 29, 2004, surrogate-value rebuttal comments. In
this submission the Dorbest Group stated that six of the seven
financial statements submitted by Petitioners are not appropriate for
the Department to use in its preliminary determination for a variety of
reasons (e.g., not contemporaneous with POI, sick company, etc.).
Further, on May 27, 2004, Tech Lane submitted comments to Petitioners'
April 29, 2004, submission in which it stated that the Department
should reject six of the seven financial statements submitted by
Petitioners due to numerous problems with these financial statements
and urged the Department not use them in its preliminary determination
for a variety of reasons (e.g., sales were made on a retail basis,
company is not a significant producer of wooden bedroom furniture,
etc.). On June 2, 2004, Furniture Brands responded to Petitioners'
rebuttal surrogate-value comments of May 10, 2004. On June 3, 2004,
Shing Mark responded to Petitioners' rebuttal surrogate-value comments
of May 24, 2004. On June 7, 2004, Petitioners' responded to the Dorbest
Group's comments rebuttal on the Indian financial statements of May 26,
2004.
From May 10, 2004, to May 21, 2004, the Department issued
supplemental Section A questionnaires to the 118 Section A respondents
which submitted a section A questionnaire response. From May 21, 2004,
to June 4, 2004, the Department received supplemental Section A
responses from the Section A respondents.
On May 6, 2004, the Department requested that all interested
parties provide comments on the unit-of-measure conversion tables and
formulas located on the World Wide Web at http://www.allmeasures.com
because, it indicated, it planned on using this Web site to convert
certain surrogate values for the preliminary determination. On May 12,
2004, we received comments from Lacquer Craft, Markor Tianjin, Shing
Mark, Starcorp, and Petitioners on this proposal. In general, the
parties stated that they were not in favor of using the all-measures
Web site for a variety of reasons (e.g., conversions are not specific
enough for practical application). Shing Mark and Starcorp provided an
alternative unit-of-measure Web site: http://www.worldagroforestrycentre.org/sea/Products/AFDbases/WD/Index.htm
.
On May 10, 2004, the Department requested that all mandatory
respondents provide a chart indicating the Harmonized Tariff Schedule
(``HTS'') heading and article description for each of the mandatory
respondent's factors of production. On May 26, 2004,
[[Page 35315]]
the Department received responses to its May 10, 2004, request from all
the mandatory respondents. On June 7, 2004, Petitioners responded to
Dongguan Lung Dong and Starcorp's May 26, 2004, submission and urged
the Department to use adverse facts available to value Dongguan Lung
Dong and Starcorp's factors of production because, they allege, its
factor categories are overly broad and vague. Additionally, on June 8,
2004, Petitioners responded to Tech Lane's May 26, 2004, submission and
stated that the Department should use adverse facts available to value
Tech Lane's factors of production because its factor categories are
overly broad and vague. Further, on June 9, 2004, Petitioners responded
to the Dorbest Group's May 26, 2004, submission and stated that the
Department should use adverse facts available to value its factors of
production because its factor categories are overly broad and vague.
On May 19, 2004, Petitioners requested that the Department remove
from the record untimely questionnaire responses from Section A
respondents and apply facts available to these producers and exporters.
On May 21, 2004, Starwood Furniture Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
(``Starwood''), submitted a rebuttal to Petitioners' May 19, 2004,
submission, stating that Starwood acted to the best of its ability in
responding to the Department's requests for information.
On May 20, 2004, Lacquer Craft, Markor Tianjin, and Furniture
Brands submitted for the record public financial statements for 2002
for Indonesian producers of wooden bedroom furniture for Goldfindo
Intikayu Pratama (``Goldfindo''), PT. Sinarindo Megantara (``SIMA''),
and PT Maitland-Smith and the 2001 financial statement for PT Maitland-
Smith.
On June 4, 2004, Petitioners provided a submission that stated the
Department should disregard certain categories of prices in its
valuation of certain mandatory companies' factors of production: (1)
Prices paid for wood products purchased from Russia; (2) import prices
from Korea, Indonesia, and Thailand; (3) prices paid for goods
purchased from market-economy trading companies but produced in a non-
market-economy (``NME'') country. On June 7, 2004, Petitioners provided
their comments for the preliminary determination (e.g., date of sale,
factors of production, etc.). On June 9, 2004, Changshu HTC Import &
Export Co., Ltd., Dongyin Huanghekou Furniture Industry Co., Ltd.,
Dream Rooms Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., Sheng Jing Wood Products
Co., Ltd., and its affiliate, Telstar Enterprises Limited, responded to
Petitioners' June 7, 2004, submission and stated that the Department
should not apply facts available to companies that have cooperated and
acted to the best of their abilities because they did not file a mini-
Section A questionnaire.
Company-Specific Chronology
As described above, the Department staggered its issuance of
sections of the antidumping questionnaire to the seven mandatory
respondents. Upon receipt of the various responses, the Petitioners
provided comments and the Department issued supplemental
questionnaires. The chronology of this stage of the investigation
varies by respondent. Therefore, the Department has separated the
discussion of its information-gathering process after issuance of the
questionnaire by company.
Dongguan Lung Dong
On March 1, 2004, Dongguan Lung Dong submitted its Section A
questionnaire response. On March 10, 2004, Petitioners submitted
comments on Dongguan Lung Dong's Section A questionnaire response. On
March 19, 2004, the Department issued a Supplemental Section A
questionnaire covering Dongguan Lung Dong's March 1, 2004, response. On
March 29, 2004, Dongguan Lung Dong submitted its response to Sections C
and D of the Department's February 11, 2004, questionnaire. On March
30, 2004, Dongguan Lung Dong submitted a replacement page to its March
29, 2004, response. On April 9, 2004, Dongguan Lung Dong submitted its
response to the Supplemental Section A questionnaire. On April 16,
2004, Petitioners submitted their deficiency comments on Dongguan Lung
Dong's response to Section C and D of the questionnaire. On April 27,
2004, Petitioners submitted deficiency comments on Dongguan Lung Dong's
Supplemental Section A response. On April 30, 2004, the Department
issued its Supplemental Sections C and D questionnaire covering
Dongguan Lung Dong's March 29, 2004, questionnaire response. On May 24,
2004, the Department issued a second Supplemental Section A
questionnaire covering Dongguan Lung Dong's April 9, 2004,
questionnaire response. Also, on the same date, Dongguan Lung Dong
submitted its Supplemental Sections C and D questionnaire responses to
the Department. On May 25, 2004, Dongguan Lung Dong submitted
replacement pages to its May 24, 2004, response. On May 28, 2004,
Petitioners submitted deficiency comments on Dongguan Lung Dong's May
24, 2004, Supplemental Sections C and D questionnaire responses.
Dorbest Group
On March 1, 2004, the Dorbest Group submitted its Section A
questionnaire response. On March 10, 2004, Petitioners submitted
comments on the Dorbest Group's Section A questionnaire response. On
March 23, 2004, the Department issued a Supplemental Section A
questionnaire covering the Dorbest Group's March 1, 2004, response. On
March 29, 2004, the Dorbest Group submitted its response to Sections C
and D of the Department's February 11, 2004, questionnaire. On April 7,
2004, Petitioners submitted their deficiency comments on the Dorbest
Group's response to Section D of the questionnaire. On April 14, 2004,
the Dorbest Group submitted its response to Department's March 23,
2004, Supplemental Section A questionnaire. On April 20, 2004,
Petitioners submitted deficiency comments on the Dorbest Group's
Sections C and D questionnaire response. On April 27, 2004, Petitioners
submitted deficiency comments on the Dorbest Group's Supplemental
Section A response. On April 30, 2004, the Department issued a
Supplemental Sections C and D questionnaire covering the Dorbest
Group's March 29, 2004, questionnaire response. On May 11, 2004, the
Department requested additional information for certain CONNUMs from
Dorbest. On May 24, 2004, the Department issued a second Supplemental
Section A questionnaire covering the Dorbest Group's April 14, 2004,
questionnaire response. Also, on the same date, Dorbest submitted its
Supplemental Sections C and D questionnaire responses to the
Department. On May 28, 2004, Petitioners submitted deficiency comments
on the Dorbest Group's May 24, 2004, Supplemental Sections C and D
questionnaire responses. On June 3, 2004, the Dorbest Group submitted
its response to the Second Supplemental Section A questionnaire. Also,
on June 3, 2004, the Dorbest Group submitted response to Petitioners'
May 28, 2004, comments on its Sections C and D questionnaire responses.
On June 8, 2004, the Department issued a Second Supplemental Sections C
and D questionnaire to the Dorbest Group.
Lacquer Craft
On March 1, 2004, Lacquer Craft submitted its Section A
questionnaire response. On March 11, 2004, Petitioners submitted
comments on Lacquer Craft's Section A questionnaire response. On March
23, 2004, the
[[Page 35316]]
Department issued Lacquer Craft a supplemental questionnaire concerning
its Section A response. On March 29, 2004, Lacquer Craft submitted its
Sections C and D questionnaire responses. On April 13, 2004,
Petitioners submitted comments on Lacquer Craft's Sections C and D
questionnaire responses. On April 13, 2004, Lacquer Craft submitted its
response to the Department's Supplemental Section A Questionnaire. On
April 30, 2004, the Department issued Lacquer Craft a supplemental
questionnaire concerning its Sections C and D responses. On May 21,
2004, Lacquer Craft submitted its response to the Department's Sections
C and D Supplemental Questionnaire. On May 21, 2004, the Department
issued Lacquer Craft a second supplemental questionnaire concerning its
Sections A and D responses. On May 27, 2004, Petitioners submitted
comments on Lacquer Craft's Sections C and D Supplemental Questionnaire
responses. On June 3, 2004, Lacquer Craft submitted its response to the
Department's Sections A and D Second Supplemental Questionnaire.
Markor Tianjin
On March 1, 2004, Markor Tianjin submitted its Section A
questionnaire response. On March 11, 2004, Petitioners submitted
comments on Markor Tianjin's Section A questionnaire response. On March
19, 2004, the Department issued a Supplemental Section A questionnaire
covering Markor Tianjin's March 1, 2004, response. On March 29, 2004,
Markor Tianjin submitted its response to Sections C and D of the
Department's February 11, 2004, questionnaire. On April 7, 2004,
Petitioners submitted deficiency comments on Markor Tianjin's responses
to Section D of the questionnaire. On April 9, 2004, Markor Tianjin
submitted its response to the Supplemental Section A questionnaire. On
April 9, 2004, Petitioners submitted their deficiency comments on
Markor Tianjin's response to Section C and D of the questionnaire. On
April 12, 2004, Markor Tianjin and Lacquer Craft submitted rebuttal
comments regarding Petitioners' April 7, 2004, submission. On April 21,
2004, the Department met with Markor Tianjin to discuss double-
bracketed information contained in its April 9, 2004, Supplemental
Section A response. On April 23, 2004, Markor Tianjin submitted a
letter containing additional arguments for not releasing under the
administrative protective order certain information in Markor Tianjin's
April 9, 2004, submission. On April 29, 2004, Petitioners submitted
deficiency comments on Markor Tianjin's Supplemental Section A
response. On May 3, 2004, the Department issued a Supplemental Sections
C and D questionnaire covering Markor Tianjin's March 29, 2004,
questionnaire response. On May 5, 2004, Petitioners submitted a letter
regarding the double-bracketing of information in Markor Tianjin's
April 9, 2004, submission. On May 7, 2004, the Department issued a
memorandum rejecting Markor Tianjin's request that certain information
in its April 9, 2004, submission not be released under the
administrative protective order. See Memorandum for Edward Yang from
Ann M. Sebastian: Claim of Clear and Compelling Need to Withhold the
Release of Business Proprietary Information Regarding Corporate
Structure Issues Under Administrative Protective Order in the
Antidumping Duty Investigation of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the
People's Republic of China, May 7, 2004. Pursuant to the Department's
rejection of its request for double-bracketing of certain information,
on May 12, 2004, Markor Tianjin submitted a revised response to the
Department's March 19, 2004, Supplemental Section A questionnaire. On
May 24, 2004, the Department issued a second Supplemental Section A
questionnaire concerning Markor Tianjin's May 12, 2004, questionnaire
response. Also, on the same date, Markor Tianjin submitted its
Supplemental Sections C and D questionnaire responses to the
Department. On May 28, 2004, Petitioners submitted deficiency comments
to Markor Tianjin's May 24, 2004, supplemental Sections C and D
questionnaire responses.
Shing Mark
On March 1, 2004, Shing Mark submitted its Section A questionnaire
response. On March 11, 2004, Petitioners submitted comments on Shing
Mark's Section A questionnaire response. On March 19, 2004, the
Department issued Shing Mark a supplemental questionnaire concerning
its Section A responses. On March 29, 2004, Shing Mark submitted its
Sections C and D questionnaire responses. On April 9, 2004, Shing Mark
submitted its response to the Department's Section A Supplemental
Questionnaire. On April 12, 2004, Petitioners submitted comments to
Shing Mark's Sections C and D questionnaire responses. On April 28,
2004, the Department issued Shing Mark a supplemental questionnaire
concerning its Sections C and D responses. On April 30, 2004,
Petitioners submitted comments regarding Shing Mark's Section A
Supplemental Questionnaire responses. On May 24 and May 26, 2004, Shing
Mark submitted its response to the Department's Sections C and D
Supplemental Questionnaire. On May 19, 2004, the Department issued
Shing Mark a second supplemental questionnaire concerning its Sections
A and D responses. On May 26, 2004, Shing Mark submitted its response
to the Department's Sections A and D Second Supplemental Questionnaire.
On May 26, 2004, Petitioners submitted comments on Shing Mark's
Sections C and D Supplemental Questionnaire responses.
Starcorp
On March 1, 2004, Starcorp submitted its response to Section A of
the questionnaire. On March 10, 2004, Petitioners submitted comments on
Starcorp's Section A response. On March 19, 2004, the Department sent
Starcorp a supplemental Section A questionnaire. On March 29, 2004,
Starcorp submitted its response to Section C and D of the
questionnaire. On April 9, 2004, Starcorp submitted its response to the
Department's supplemental Section A questionnaire. On April 13, 2004,
Petitioners submitted comments on Starcorp's Section C and D response.
On April 28, 2004, the Department sent Starcorp a supplemental Sections
C and D questionnaire. On April 30, 2004, Petitioners submitted
comments on Starcorp's Supplemental Section A response. On May 21,
2004, Starcorp submitted its response to the Supplemental Sections C
and D of the questionnaire. On May 24, 2004, the Department sent
Starcorp a second supplemental Section A questionnaire. On May 28,
2004, Petitioners submitted comments on Starcorp's Supplemental
Sections C and D response. On June 3, 2004, Starcorp submitted its
response to the second supplemental Section A questionnaire. On June 9,
2004, Starcorp submitted its response to the second supplemental
Sections C and D questionnaire. On June 10, 2004, Starcorp submitted
additional clarifications regarding conversions of certain factors.
Tech Lane
The Department received Tech Lane's Section A questionnaire
response on March 1, 2004. The Department issued a Section A
supplemental questionnaire to Tech Lane on March 22, 2004. On March 29,
2004, the Department received Tech Lane's Sections C and D response.
[[Page 35317]]
The Department received Petitioners' comments to Tech Lane's
Section A questionnaire response on March 29, 2004, and their comments
to Tech Lane's Sections C and D questionnaire response on April 8,
2004. On April 15, 2004, we received Tech Lane's Section A supplemental
questionnaire response. We received additional comments from
Petitioners on Tech Lane's Section D questionnaire response on April
20, 2004, and Petitioners' comments on Tech Lane's Section A
supplemental questionnaire response on April 27, 2004. The Department
issued a Sections C and D supplemental questionnaire to Tech Lane on
April 28, 2004.
On May 21, 2004, we received Tech Lane's Sections C and D
supplemental questionnaire response and issued a second Sections A, C,
and D supplemental questionnaire. On May 28, 2004, Tech Lane submitted
additional exhibits it omitted in its May 21, 2004, Sections C and D
supplemental questionnaire response. Also on May 28, 2004, we received
Petitioners' comments on Tech Lane's Sections C and D supplemental
questionnaire response. On June 4, 2004, we received Tech Lane's
Sections A, C, and D second supplemental questionnaire response.
Postponement of Final Determination
Section 735(a) of the Act provides that a final determination may
be postponed until no 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 or, in the event of a negative
preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by
the petitioners. The Department's regulations at 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2)
require that requests by respondents for postponement of a final
determination be accompanied by a request for an extension of the
provisional measures from a four-month period to not more than six
months.
On May 20, 2004, June 3, 2004, and June 7, 2004, Lacquer Craft,
Markor Tianjin, and the Dorbest Group requested that, in the event of
an affirmative preliminary determination in this investigation, the
Department postpone its final determination until 135 days after the
publication of the preliminary determination. Lacquer Craft, Markor
Tianjin, and the Dorbest Group also included a request to extend the
provisional measures to not more than six months after the publication
of the preliminary determination. Accordingly, because we have made an
affirmative preliminary determination and the requesting parties
account for a significant proportion of the exports of the subject
merchandise, we have postponed the final determination until no later
than 135 days after the date of publication of the preliminary
determination and are extending the provisional measures accordingly.
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation (``POI'') is April 1, 2003, through
September 30, 2003. This period corresponds to the two most recent
fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the Petition
(October 31, 2003). See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
Scope of Investigation
For purposes of this investigation, the product covered is wooden
bedroom furniture. Wooden bedroom furniture is generally, but not
exclusively, designed, manufactured, and offered for sale in
coordinated groups, or bedrooms, in which all of the individual pieces
are of approximately the same style and approximately the same material
and/or finish. The subject merchandise is made substantially of wood
products, including both solid wood and also engineered wood products
made from wood particles, fibers, or other wooden materials such as
plywood, oriented strand board, particle board, and fiberboard, with or
without wood veneers, wood overlays, or laminates, with or without non-
wood components or trim such as metal, marble, leather, glass, plastic,
or other resins, and whether or not assembled, completed, or finished.
The subject merchandise includes: (1) Wooden beds such as loft
beds, bunk beds, and other beds; (2) wooden headboards for beds
(whether stand-alone or attached to side rails), wooden footboards for
beds, wooden side rails for beds, and wooden canopies for beds; (3)
night tables, night stands, dressers, commodes, bureaus, mule chests,
gentlemen's chests, bachelor's chests, lingerie chests, wardrobes,
vanities, chessers, chifforobes, and wardrobe-type cabinets; (4)
dressers with framed glass mirrors that are attached to, incorporated
in, sit on, or hang over the dresser; (5) chests-on-chests,\1\
highboys,\2\ lowboys,\3\ chests of drawers,\4\ chests,\5\ door
chests,\6\ chiffoniers,\7\ hutches,\8\ and armoires; \9\ (6) desks,
computer stands, filing cabinets, book cases, or writing tables that
are attached to or incorporated in the subject merchandise; and (7)
other bedroom furniture consistent with the above list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A chest-on-chest is typically a tall chest-of-drawers in two
or more sections (or appearing to be in two or more sections), with
one or two sections mounted (or appearing to be mounted) on a
slightly larger chest; also known as a tallboy.
\2\ A highboy is typically a tall chest of drawers usually
composed of a base and a top section with drawers, and supported on
four legs or a small chest (often 15 inches or more in height).
\3\ A lowboy is typically a short chest of drawers, not more
than four feet high, normally set on short legs.
\4\ A chest of drawers is typically a case containing drawers
for storing clothing.
\5\ A chest is typically a case piece taller than it is wide
featuring a series of drawers and with or without one or more doors
for storing clothing. The piece can either include drawers or be
designed as a large box incorporating a lid.
\6\ A door chest is typically a chest with hinged doors to store
clothing, whether or not containing drawers. The piece may also
include shelves for televisions and other entertainment electronics.
\7\ A chiffonier is typically a tall and narrow chest of drawers
normally used for storing undergarments and lingerie, often with
mirror(s) attached.
\8\ A hutch is typically an open case of furniture with shelves
that typically sits on another piece of furniture and provides
storage for clothes.
\9\ An armoire is typically a tall cabinet or wardrobe
(typically 50 inches or taller), with doors, and with one or more
drawers (either exterior below or above the doors or interior behind
the doors), shelves, and/or garment rods or other apparatus for
storing clothes. Bedroom armoires may also be used to hold
television receivers and/or other audio-visual entertainment
systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The scope of the Petition excludes: (1) Seats, chairs, benches,
couches, sofas, sofa beds, stools, and other seating furniture; (2)
mattresses, mattress supports (including box springs), infant cribs,
water beds, and futon frames; (3) office furniture, such as desks,
stand-up desks, computer cabinets, filing cabinets, credenzas, and
bookcases; (4) dining room or kitchen furniture such as dining tables,
chairs, servers, sideboards, buffets, corner cabinets, china cabinets,
and china hutches; (5) other non-bedroom furniture, such as television
cabinets, cocktail tables, end tables, occasional tables, wall systems,
book cases, and entertainment systems; (6) bedroom furniture made
primarily of wicker, cane, osier, bamboo or rattan; (7) side rails for
beds made of metal if sold separately from the headboard and footboard;
and (8) bedroom furniture in which bentwood parts predominate.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ As used herein, bentwood means solid wood made pliable.
Bentwood is wood that is brought to a curved shape by bending it
while made pliable with moist heat or other agency, and then set by
cooling or drying. See Customs' Headquarters' Ruling Letter 043859,
dated May 17, 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Imports of subject merchandise are classified under statistical
category 9403.50.9040 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (``HTSUS'') as ``wooden * * * beds''
[[Page 35318]]
and under statistical category 9403.50.9080 of the HTSUS as ``other * *
* wooden furniture of a kind used in the bedroom.'' In addition, wooden
headboards for beds, wooden footboards for beds, wooden side rails for
beds, and wooden canopies for beds may also be entered under
statistical category 9403.50.9040 of the HTSUS as ``parts of wood'' and
framed glass mirrors may also be entered under statistical category
7009.92.5000 of the HTSUS as ``glass mirrors * * * framed.'' This
investigation covers all wooden bedroom furniture meeting the above
description, regardless of tariff classification. Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our
written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
Scope Comments
In accordance with the preamble to our regulations (see Antidumping
Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), we
set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding
product coverage and encouraged all parties to submit comments within
20 calendar days of publication of the Notice of Initiation (see 68 FR
at 70229).
The Department received numerous scope comments from a variety of
interested parties. On January 12, 2004, LTD Commodities, LLC
(``LTD''), and ABC Distributing, LLC (``ABC''), U.S. importers of
wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC, provided scope comments
concerning the exclusion of ready-to-assemble (``RTA'') wooden bedroom
furniture from the PRC. On January 13, 2004, the Furniture Retailers of
America (``FRA'') provided comments recommending that the scope of the
investigation be limited to furniture sold in suites. On January 13,
2004, Shing Mark provided comments concerning whether daybeds are
within the scope of the investigation and whether the description of
wooden bedroom furniture as ``made substantially of wood'' is too
broad. On January 13, 2004, Sunrise Medical Inc. (``Sunrise Medical'')
provided comments concerning whether patient room furniture used in the
long-term care, nursing home, or similar markets (collectively, the
``LTC market'') are within the scope of the investigation. On January
13, 2004, Markor Tianjin, Lacquer Craft, and the Committee for Free
Trade in Furniture (``CFTF'') provided comments concerning whether
parts and home office pieces are within the scope of the investigation.
On January 21, 2004, Petitioners provided two separate documents
responding to the above-mentioned comments on patient room furniture,
the exclusion of pieces not sold in suites, the inclusion of parts, the
exclusion of day beds, the standard of ``made substantially of wood,''
and RTA furniture.
On January 26, 2004, LTD and ABC submitted rebuttal comments
concerning RTA furniture. On January 29, 2004, the FRA submitted
rebuttal comments concerning products not sold in suites. On February
4, 2004, Sunrise Medical provided rebuttal comments concerning patient
room furniture in the LTC market. On March 23, 2004, LTD and ABC
provided further comments proposing specific language to exclude RTA
wooden bedroom furniture from the scope of the investigation.
Due to the extraordinary detail and length of these comments, the
Department will continue to analyze them for purposes of the final
determination. As part of this process, the Department has fully
summarized all of the comments received to date in a memorandum to the
file. See Memorandum to the File from Laurel LaCivita, Analyst, to
Laurie Parkhill, Office Director, Antidumping Duty Investigation of
Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Summary
on Comments to the Scope, dated June 17, 2004. Therefore, we will
afford interested parties an opportunity to address only the comments
summarized in our memorandum as this memorandum contains all of the
comments received. Interested parties have until July 30, 2004, to
submit additional comments on the scope of the investigation. We will
address all of the scope comments in our final determination.
Selection of Respondents
Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to calculate
individual dumping margins for each known exporter and producer of the
subject merchandise. Section 777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the Department
discretion, when faced with a large number of exporters/producers,
however, to limit its examination to a reasonable number of such
companies if it is not practicable to examine all companies. Where it
is not practicable to examine all known producers/exporters of subject
merchandise, this provision permits the Department to investigate
either (1) a sample of exporters, producers, or types of products that
is statistically valid based on the information available to the
Department at the time of selection or (2) exporters/producers
accounting for the largest volume of the merchandise under
investigation that can reasonably be examined. After consideration of
the complexities expected to arise in this proceeding and the resources
available to it, the Department determined that it was not practicable
in this investigation to examine all known producers/exporters of
subject merchandise. Instead, we limited our examination to the seven
exporters and producers accounting for the largest volume of the
subject merchandise pursuant to section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act. The
seven Chinese producers/exporters (Dongguan Lung Dong; Dorbest, Lacquer
Craft, Markor Tianjin, Shing Mark, Starcorp, and Tech Lane) accounted
for a significant percentage of all exports of the subject merchandise
from the PRC during the POI and were selected as mandatory respondents.
See Respondent Selection Memo at 5.
Non-Market-Economy Country
For purposes of initiation, the Petitioners submitted LTFV analyses
for the PRC as a non-market economy. See Notice of Initiation, 69 FR at
70230. In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the
PRC has been treated as an NME country. In accordance with section
771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is
an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the
administering authority. See also Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Results 2001-2002 Administrative Review and Partial
Rescission of Review, 68 FR 7500 (February 14, 2003). Therefore, we
have treated the PRC as an NME country for purposes of this preliminary
determination.
Surrogate Country
When the Department is investigating imports from an NME, section
773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base normal value (``NV''), in most
circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of production, 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 factors of production, the Department shall
utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of factors of
production 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 NV section below.
[[Page 35319]]
The Department determined that India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Sri
Lanka, and the Philippines are countries comparable to the PRC in terms
of economic development. See Memorandum from Ron Lorentzen to Robert
Bolling: Antidumping Duty Investigation on Wooden Bedroom Furniture
from the People's Republic of China, dated January 16, 2004.
Customarily, we select an appropriate surrogate country based on the
availability and reliability of data from the countries. In this case,
we have found that India is a significant producer of comparable
merchandise, wooden bedroom furniture, and is at a similar level of
economic development pursuant to 733(c)(4) of the Act. See Surrogate-
Country Memorandum.
On April 16, 2004, Lacquer Craft, Markor Tianjin, and Furniture
Brands submitted surrogate-value information and financial data on
Indonesia and requested that the Department revisit its decision on
whether India is the appropriate surrogate country. On April 29, 2004,
Petitioners submitted rebuttal comments to the interested parties'
April 16, 2004, submission, stating that the Department should continue
to determine that India is the appropriate surrogate country for this
investigation. On May 13, 2004, representatives for the interested
parties met with James Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, and discussed the Department's selection of a surrogate
country as well as the selection of surrogate values to be applied in
this investigation. See Memorandum to the File from John Herrmann,
Senior Advisor to the Assistant Secretary, dated May 13, 2004. On May
21, 2004, representatives for Petitioners met with Assistant Secretary
Jochum and discussed the Department's selection of a surrogate country
as well as the selection of surrogate values to be applied in this
investigation. See Memorandum to the File from John Herrmann, Senior
Advisor to the Assistant Secretary, dated May 21, 2004. The Department
has evaluated all parties' concerns and comments and has determined
India is the appropriate surrogate country to use in this
investigation. The Department based its decision on the following
facts: (1) India is at a level of economic development comparable to
the PRC; (2) Indian manufacturers produce comparable merchandise and
are significant producers of wooden furniture; (3) India provides the
best opportunity to use appropriate, publicly available data to value
the factors of production. See Surrogate-Country Memorandum.
Therefore, we have used India as the surrogate country and,
accordingly, we have calculated NV using Indian prices to value the
respondents' factors of production, when available and appropriate. We
have obtained and relied upon publicly available information wherever
possible. See Memorandum to the File from Michael Holton, Case Analyst,
through Robert Bolling, Program Manager, and Laurie Parkhill, Office
Director, Factors Valuation Memorandum for Dongguan Lung Dong, the
Dorbest Group, Lacquer Craft, Markor Tianjin, Shing Mark, Starcorp, and
Tech Lane (``Factor-Valuation Memo''), dated June 17, 2004.
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 factors of
production within 40 days after the date of publication of the
preliminary determination.
Market-Oriented Industry
On January 15, 2004, Markor Tianjin and Lacquer Craft informed the
Department that they intended to seek MOI status on behalf of the
wooden bedroom furniture industry in the PRC. On February 2, 2004,
Petitioners submitted a letter to the Department stating that the
wooden bedroom furniture industry in the PRC does not warrant MOI
status because there are NME forces at work in the PRC that distort the
wooden bedroom furniture's cost of production. On April 20, 2004, the
Furniture Sub-chamber of China Chamber of Commerce for Import & Export
of Light Industrial Products and Arts-Crafts (``CCCLA'') and the China
National Furniture Association (``CNFA'') requested as representatives
of the wooden bedroom furniture industry that the Department initiate
an inquiry to determine whether the wooden bedroom furniture industry
in the PRC is an MOI. On May 5, 2004, Petitioners rebutted the
submission by CCCLA and CNFA, stating that the request to initiate an
MOI inquiry is untimely given the Department's statutory deadline for
issuing its preliminary determination. On May 12, 2004, the Department
placed on the record of this investigation a facsimile message from the
U.S. Embassy in Beijing, China, which was a letter in Chinese and a
translated version of the letter from the Chinese Ministry of Commerce
requesting that the Department treat the furniture industry as an MOI
industry. On May 14, 2004, the Department issued letters to the CCCLA,
CNFA, and the Chinese government which informed the parties that it did
not have sufficient substantive evidence to support the initiation of
an MOI inquiry. On May 28, 2004, the CCCLA and CNFA submitted
information they believe meets the Department's criteria for initiating
an MOI inquiry. On June 8, 2004, Petitioners responded to CCCLA and
CNFA's May 28, 2004, submission, stating that the Department should not
initiate an MOI inquiry.
In order to consider an MOI claim, the Department requires
information on each of the three prongs of the MOI test regarding the
situation and experience of the PRC wooden bedroom furniture industry
as a whole. Specifically, the MOI test requires that information
supports the following conclusions: (1) There is virtually no
government involvement in production or prices for the industry; (2)
the industry is marked by private or collective ownership that behaves
in a manner consistent with market considerations; and (3) producers
pay market-determined prices for all major inputs and for all but an
insignificant proportion of minor inputs. Even in those cases where the
Department limits the number of firms it investigates, a MOI allegation
must cover all (or virtually all) of the producers in the industry in
question. 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 205494 (April 16, 2004), and Accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 1. See also Notice of Preliminary Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final
Determination: Synthetic Indigo from the People's Republic of China, 64
FR 69723, 59725 (December 14, 1999). See also Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Freshwater Crawfish
Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China, 62 FR 41347, 41353
(August 1, 1997).
On May 28, 2004, CCCLA and CNFA provided further information for
the Department to evaluate. Because we received the MOI allegation and
supporting information so recently and so close to the fully extended
due date of the preliminary determination, we have not had adequate
time to consider this information. We will continue to evaluate the
request and address it as soon as possible.
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department has a
rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are
[[Page 35320]]
subject to government control and thus should be assigned a single
antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign
all exporters of merchandise subject to 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. The
seven mandatory respondents and the Section A respondents have provided
company-specific information and each has stated that it meet the
standards for the assignment of a separate rate.
It is the Department's policy to treat Hong Kong companies as
market-economy companies. See Application of U.S. Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Law to Hong Kong, 62 FR 42965 (August 11, 1997).
Further consistent with our practice, we do not conduct a separate-
rates test for respondents wholly owned by companies outside the PRC.
Based on a review of the responses we have concluded that the Dorbest
Group, Shing Mark, Tech Lane, and Lacquer Craft are companies not based
in an NME. Therefore, we determine that no separate-rate analysis is
required for these companies.
We have considered whether each company based in the PRC is
eligible for a separate rate. The Department's separate-rate test to
determine whether the exporters are independent from government control
does not consider, in general, macroeconomic/border-type controls,
e.g., export licenses, quotas, and minimum export prices, particularly
if these controls are imposed to prevent dumping. The test focuses,
rather, on controls over the investment, pricing, and output decision-
making process at the individual firm level. See Certain Cut-to-Length
Carbon Steel Plate from Ukraine: Final Determination of Sales at Less
than Fair Value, 62 FR 61754, 61757 (November 19, 1997), and Tapered
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the
People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997).
To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from
government control of its export activities to be entitled to a
separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the
subject merchandise under a test arising from the Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the
People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (``Sparklers''),
as amplified by Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR
22585 (May 2,1994) (``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.
1. Absence of De Jure Control
The Department considers the following de jure criteria in
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate
rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
Our analysis shows that the evidence on the record 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 exporter's business and export licenses; (2) the
applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of the
companies; and (3) any other formal measures by the government
decentralizing control of companies. See Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill,
Office Director, Import Administration, from Eugene Degnan, Case
Analyst, through Robert Bolling, Program Manager, Wooden Bedroom
Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Separate Rates for
Producers/Exporters that Submitted Questionnaire Responses (``Separate-
Rates Memo''), dated June 17, 2004.
2. Absence of De Facto Control
Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating
whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of
its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or are
subject to the approval of a governmental agency; (2) whether the
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government
in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4)
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or
financing of losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-87; see also
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544,
22545 (May 8, 1995). The Department has determined that an analysis of
de facto control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in
fact, subject to a degree of governmental control which would preclude
the Department from assigning separate rates.
We determine that, for the mandatory respondents located in the PRC
and certain Section A respondents, the evidence on the record supports
a preliminary finding of de facto absence of governmental control based
on record statements and supporting documentation showing the
following: (1) Each exporter sets its own export prices independent of
the government and without the approval of a government authority; (2)
each exporter retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent
decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses; (3)
each exporter has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and
other agreements; and (4) each exporter has autonomy from the
government regarding the selection of management.
Therefore, the evidence placed on the record of this investigation
by the mandatory respondents and certain Section A respondents
demonstrates an absence of government control, both in law and in fact,
with respect to each of the exporter's exports of the merchandise under
investigation, in accordance with the criteria identified in Sparklers
and Silicon Carbide. As a result, for the purposes of this preliminary
determination, we have granted separate, company-specific rates to the
mandatory respondents and certain Section A respondents which shipped
bedroom furniture to the United States during the POI. For a full
discussion of this issue and list of Section A respondents, please see
the Separate-Rates Memo.
PRC-Wide Rate
The Department has data that indicates there were more exporters of
wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC during the POI than those which
responded to the Q&V questionnaire. See Respondent Selection Memo.
Although we issued the Q&V questionnaire to 211 known Chinese exporters
of subject merchandise, we received only 137 Q&V questionnaire
responses, including those from the seven mandatory respondents. Also,
on February 2, 2004, we issued a Section A questionnaire to the Chinese
Government (i.e., Ministry of Commerce). Although all exporters were
given an opportunity to provide information showing they qualify for
[[Page 35321]]
separate rates, not all of these other exporters provided a response to
either the Department's Q&V questionnaire or its Section A
questionnaire. Therefore, the Department determines preliminarily that
there were exports of the merchandise under investigation from PRC
producers/exporters that did not respond to the Department's
questionnaire. We treated these PRC producers/exporters as part of the
countrywide entity. Further, the Government of the PRC did not respond
to the Department's questionnaire.
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 information cannot be
verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the
Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable
determination.
Pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department shall not
decline to consider submitted information if all of the following
requirements are met: (1) The information is submitted by the
established deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the
information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable
basis for reaching the applicable determination; (4) the interested
party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and
(5) the information can be used without undue difficulties.
Information on the record of this investigation indicates that
there are numerous producers/exporters of the wooden bedroom furniture
in the PRC. As described above, all exporters were given the
opportunity to respond to the Department's questionnaire. Based upon
our knowledge of the volume of imports of subject merchandise from the
PRC and the fact that information indicates that the responding
companies did not account for all imports into the United States from
the PRC, we have preliminarily determined that certain PRC exporters of
wooden bedroom furniture failed to respond to our questionnaires. As a
result, use of adverse facts available (``AFA'') pursuant to section
776(a)(2)(A) of the Act is appropriate. Additionally, in this case, the
Government of the PRC did not respond to the Department's
questionnaire, thereby necessitating the use of AFA to determine the
PRC-wide rate. See Notice of 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).
Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among
the facts available, the Department may employ adverse inferences if an
interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best of its
ability to comply with requests for information. See 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). See also ``Statement of
Administrative Action'' accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316,
870 (1994) (``SAA''). We find that, because the PRC-wide entity did not
respond at all to our request for information, they have failed to
cooperate to the best of their ability. Therefore, the Department
preliminarily finds that, in selecting from among the facts available,
an adverse inference is appropriate.
Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use AFA
information derived from the petition, the final determination from the
LTFV investigation, a previous administrative review, or any other
information placed on the record. As AFA, we have assigned to the PRC-
wide entity a margin based on information in the petition, because the
margins derived from the petition are higher than the calculated
margins for the selected respondents. In this case, we have applied a
rate of 198.08 percent.
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies
on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the
course of an investigation as facts available, it must, to the extent
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources
reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is described in the
SAA as ``information derived from the petition that gave rise to the
investigation or review, the final determination concerning subject
merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the
subject merchandise.'' See SAA at 870. The SAA provides that to
``corroborate'' means simply that the Department will satisfy itself
that the secondary information to be used has probative value. See id.
The SAA also states that independent sources used to corroborate may
include, for example, published price lists, official import statistics
and customs data, and information obtained from interested parties
during the particular investigation. See id. As explained in Tapered
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan,
and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter,
and Components Thereof, from Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative
Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996), to corroborate
secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable,
examine the reliability and relevance of the information used.
The Petitioners' methodology for calculating the export price and
NV in the petition is discussed in the initiation notice. See
Initiation Notice, 68 FR at 70229. To corroborate the AFA margin we
have selected, we compared that margin to the margins we found for the
respondents.
As discussed in the Memorandum to the File regarding the
corroboration of the AFA rate, dated June 17, 2004, we found that the
margin of 198.08 percent has probative value. See Memorandum to the
File from Brian Ledgerwood, Analyst, through Robert Bolling, Program
Manager, and Laurie Parkhill, Office Director, Preliminary
Determination in the Investigation of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the
People's Republic of China, Corroboration Memorandum (``Corroboration
Memo''), dated June 17, 2004. Accordingly, we find that the rate of
198.08 percent is corroborated within the meaning of section 776(c) of
the Act.
Consequently, we are applying a single antidumping rate--the PRC-
wide rate--to producers/exporters that failed to respond to the Q&V
questionnaire or Section A questionnaire. This rate will also apply to
exporters which did not demonstrate entitlement to a separate rate.
See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Synthetic Indigo from the People's Republic of China, 65 FR 25706,
25707 (May 3, 2000). The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of the
merchandise under investigation except for entries from the seven
mandatory respondents and certain Section A respondents.
Because this is a preliminary margin, the Department will consider
all margins on the record at the time of the final determination for
the purpose of determining the most appropriate final PRC-wide margin.
See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Saccharin from the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 79049,
79054 (December 27, 2002).
[[Page 35322]]
Partial Adverse Facts Available
We have preliminarily determined that the use of a partial adverse
inference is warranted for certain sales by Markor Tianjin.
According to section 771(33)(E) of the Act, as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''), ``any person directly or
indirectly owning, controlling, or holding with power to vote, five
percent or more of the outstanding voting stock or shares of any
organization and such organization'' shall be considered affiliated.
For purposes of section 771(33), ``a person shall be considered to
control another person if the person is legally or operationally in a
position to exercise restraint or direction over the other person.''
According to section 771(33)(F) of the Act, as amended by the URAA,
``two or more persons directly or indirectly controlling, controlled
by, or under common control with, any person'' shall be considered
affiliated.
The Department has concluded that Markor Tianjin and Lacquer Craft
are likely affiliated because strong evidence on the record indicates
Markor Tianjin and Lacquer Craft were affiliated during the POI by
virtue of common ownership and shared stock interest through a third
party (i.e., Company A). See Memorandum for Laurie Parkhill, Office
Director, from Jon Freed, Case Analyst, Affiliation between Markor
Tianjin and Lacquer Craft, dated June 17, 2004. Thus, an analysis of
record evidence demonstrates that there is a strong likelihood that
under section 771(33)(E) of the Act Markor Tianjin and Lacquer Craft
are affiliated.
Lacquer Craft has acknowledged that it is affiliated, by virtue of
common ownership, with a party in the United States (Company B). Markor
Tianjin sold subject merchandise to Company B during the POI. Because
we have determined that Markor Tianjin is likely affiliated with
Lacquer Craft, this also raises issues of potential affiliation between
Markor Tianjin and its customer, Company B. If Markor Tianjin were, in
fact, affiliated with Company B, the appropriate sales to use in our
dumping analysis would be sales of Markor Tianjin's affiliated customer
in the United States to its unaffiliated U.S. customers. Those sales
would be classified as constructed export price (``CEP'') transactions
because they would have been made in the United States after the date
of importation. See section 772(b) of the Act. Further, for CEP sales,
the Department deducts from the U.S. resale price to an unaffiliated
purchaser all selling, distribution, and manufacturing expenses
incurred in the United States and an amount for profit allocable to
these expenses. See section 772(c) of the Act. Therefore, the
Department cannot calculate an accurate dumping margin based on export
price (``EP'') sales when there is strong evidence for the Department
to determine that the respondent should have reported the affiliates'
CEP sales.
Although Markor Tianjin responded to the Department's questionnaire
and supplemental questionnaires regarding affiliation, it failed to
disclose the nature of its relationship during the POI to Company A.
Sections 776(a)(2)(A) and 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act provide for the use
of facts available when an interested party withholds information that
has been requested by the Department or when an interested party fails
to provide the information requested in a timely manner and in the form
required. Additionally, section 776(b) of the Act provides for the use
of AFA when an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting
to the best of its ability. We have concluded that Markor Tianjin did
not cooperate to the best of its ability because it neither disclosed
the nature of its affiliation with Company A and with its U.S.
customer, Company B, nor provided the correct sales information for its
U.S. customer, as we requested in the questionnaire. Markor Tianjin's
failure to cooperate to the best of its ability has inhibited the
Department's ability to conduct a meaningful analysis of its sales to
Company B. As long recognized by the CIT, the burden is on the
respondent, not the Department, to create a complete and accurate
record. See Pistachio Group of Association Food Industries v. United
States, 671 F. Supp. 31, 39-40 (CIT 1987). Therefore, because it did
not disclose the true nature of its affiliation with Company A and
Company B, nor did it report the sales of the affiliated reseller
(i.e., Company B), we find that the application of AFA is warranted.
Because Markor Tianjin did not provide this information, section 782(d)
of the Act is not applicable. Further, absent this information, i.e.,
the sales price to the unaffiliated customer and the expenses incurred
in making those sales, the Department cannot calculate CEP and
therefore cannot calculate an accurate dumping margin. Thus, the
information on the record cannot serve as a reliable basis for this
determination under section 782(e) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance
with sections 776(a)(2) and 776(b) of the Act, we have applied AFA for
each of Markor Tianjin's sales that should have been reported as CEP
sales. As AFA we have applied the highest individual weighted-average
margin for Markor Tianjin after dismissing the aberrational margins.
Because we have used primary information as AFA (i.e., information
Markor Tianjin submitted), the corroboration requirements of section
776(c) do not apply.
Further, we have preliminarily determined that the use of a partial
adverse inference is warranted for certain surrogate values for Tech
Lane. As described earlier, on May 10, 2004, the Department requested
all mandatory respondents to provide a chart indicating the HTS heading
and article description for each of their factors of production. On May
26, 2004, Tech Lane submitted its response and stated that it is not
familiar with the Indian tariff schedule but it submitted only certain
surrogate values. Additionally, Tech Lane stated it incorporated
submissions by Lacquer Craft on HTS information by reference.
Through its incomplete response, Tech Lane has not met its burden
of providing adequate information for the Department to value the
factors of production. In other words, because Tech Lane provided no
HTS headings for certain of its factors of production, the Department
has no way of determining where in the spectrum of factors of
production Tech Lane's factors fall. We have concluded that, because
Tech Lane has not submitted an entire listing of its HTS heading and
article descriptions for its submitted factors of production, it is
appropriate to use the highest surrogate values on the record to
calculate certain of Tech Lane's factors of production. See Tech Lane
Preliminary Determination Analysis Memorandum dated June 17, 2004.
Further, we have determined that an adverse inference is warranted
pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. Tech Lane did not cooperate to
the best of its ability by providing its HTS heading and article
descriptions for its factors of production and certain of its factors
of production have multiple HTS headings for the same or similar
products (i.e., as submitted by mandatory respondents). Therefore, for
the preliminary determination, we have used the highest surrogate
values on the record to value certain factors of production for Tech
Lane.
For those companies that did not report a sandpaper usage rate, for
the preliminary determination, the Department has used facts available
to estimate the amount of sandpaper used in the production of subject
merchandise. We made this determination based on the fact that
sandpaper is essential to the production
[[Page 35323]]
process of the subject merchandise and because there is no indication
that the cost of sandpaper is included in the overhead figures of the
Indian surrogate companies. For the companies that did not report
sandpaper usage rates, we calculated a simple average of the combined
consumption of sandpaper and sand cloth from the respondents that did
report sandpaper and/or sandcloth usage rates.
Margins for Section A Respondents
The exporters which submitted responses to Section A of the
Department's antidumping questionnaire and had sales of the subject
merchandise to the United States during the POI but were not selected
as mandatory respondents in this investigation (``Section A
respondents'') have applied for separate rates and provided information
for the Department to consider for this purpose. Therefore, for the
Section A respondents which provided sufficient evidence that they are
separate from the state-controlled entity and answered other questions
in Section A of the questionnaire, we have established a weighted-
average margin based on the rates we have calculated for the seven
mandatory respondents, excluding any rates that are zero, de minimis,
or based entirely on adverse facts available. That rate is 10.92
percent. Companies receiving this rate are identified by name in the
``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice.
Because Power Dekor Group Co. Ltd. and Fuzhou Huan Mei Furniture
Co., Ltd., reported that they did not have sales of the merchandise
under investigation to the United States during the POI, these
companies are not eligible to receive a separate rate.
Date of Sale
Section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations state that, ``in
identifying the date of sale of the subject merchandise or foreign like
product, the Secretary normally will use the date of invoice, as
recorded in the exporter or producer's records kept in the normal
course of business.'' After examining the sales documentation placed on
the record by the mandatory respondents, we preliminarily determine
that invoice date is the most appropriate date of sale for the Dorbest
Group, Lacquer Craft, Markor Tianjin, and Starcorp. We made this
determination because, at this time, there is insufficient evidence on
the record to determine whether the contracts used by the respondents
establish the material terms of sale to the extent required by our
regulations in order to rebut the presumption that invoice date is the
proper date of sale. See Saccharin from China, 67 FR at 79054.
Furthermore, after examining the sales documentation placed on the
record by Dongguan Lung Dong, we also preliminarily determine that
invoice date is the most appropriate date of sale for Dongguan Lung
Dong. Dongguan Lung Dong claimed that its purchase-order date is the
appropriate date of sale because its sales terms do not change. We have
determined that, based on record evidence, its sales terms did change
after the purchase-order date, and thus we have used invoice date as
the date of sale for the preliminary determination for Dongguan Lung
Dong.
Shing Mark reported shipment date as the date of sale. Shipment
date typically falls on or about the invoice date. There is no record
evidence to indicate otherwise, and thus we have used shipment date as
the date of sale for the preliminary determination for Shing Mark.
Additionally, Tech Lane provided record evidence that indicated its
purchase-order date was the appropriate date of sale and there is no
record evidence to indicate otherwise; thus, we have used purchase-
order date as the date of sale for the preliminary determination for
Tech Lane.
The Department intends to examine the date-of-sale issue at
verification thoroughly and may reconsider its position for the final
determination based on the results of verification.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of wooden bedroom furniture to the
United States by the seven mandatory respondents were made at less than
fair value, we compared EP or CEP to NV, as described in the ``Export
Price,'' ``Constructed Export Price,'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of
this notice.
U.S. Price
In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we used EP for the
seven mandatory respondents, as appropriate, because the subject
merchandise was first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of
importation by the producer or exporter of the subject merchandise
outside the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United
States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United
States and because the use of CEP was not otherwise indicated. In
accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we used CEP for certain
sales by Lacquer Craft and Shing Mark because the subject merchandise
was sold in the United States after the date of importation by a U.S.
seller affiliated with the producer.
We calculated EP and CEP based on the packed F.O.B., C.I.F., or
delivered price 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, ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S.
brokerage, and inland freight from warehouse to unaffiliated U.S.
customer) in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. For a
detailed description of all adjustments, see the company-specific
Analysis Memoranda dated June 17, 2004.
In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act and the SAA at 823-
824, we calculated the CEP by deducting selling expenses associated
with economic activities occurring in the United States, which includes
credit, commissions, direct selling expenses, inventory carrying costs,
and other indirect selling expenses. We compared NV to weighted-average
EPs and CEPs, in accordance with section 777A(d)(1) of the Act. Where
appropriate, in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the
Act, we deducted CEP profit. For a detailed description of all
adjustments, see the company-specific Analysis Memoranda dated June 17,
2004.
For the Dorbest Group, the Department has denied its claim for
billing adjustments for this preliminary determination because the
Dorbest Group did not provide sufficient information for these
adjustments in its responses. The Dorbest Group provided a billing-
adjustments field in the database, but it did not provide a narrative
explanation for these adjustments.
In the U.S. sales database it submitted with the original response,
the Dorbest Group reported commissions that it paid to some of its
customers. In the database that the Dorbest Group submitted with its
supplemental response, however, it removed a portion of commissions
from its database, claiming that those commissions were actually other
types of expenses. We disagree with the Dorbest Group's classification
of its commissions as other types of expenses. Therefore, for the
preliminary determination, we have applied the commissions reported in
the Dorbest Group's original U.S. sales database to the sales reported
in the database submitted with its supplemental response.
For some sales observations, Lacquer Craft and Markor Tianjin
combined multiple invoices for a single observation in their respective
U.S. sales listings. Both explained that this was
[[Page 35324]]
the most reasonable method for reporting these items because the
component pieces making up the furniture item sold were not always
captured on the same invoice. In these instances, Lacquer Craft and
Markor Tianjin explained, they combined the total gross unit price and
total quantity of subject merchandise sold to a particular customer
where the price for the subject merchandise was the same on each
invoice. Generally, it is the Department's preference to evaluate each
sale on a single invoice basis but the Department does not have any
information on the record to indicate that Markor Tianjin and Lacquer
Craft's method would cause a distortion in the comparison of U.S. price
to NV. Therefore, for the preliminary determination, the Department has
accepted this reporting methodology. The Department intends to examine
this issue at verification thoroughly and may reconsider its position
for the final determination based on the results of verification.
Normal Value
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall
determine the NV using a factors-of-production 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 factors of production because the presence of
government controls on various aspects of these economies renders price
comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under its
normal methodologies.
Factor Valuations
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV
based on factors of production reported by respondents for the POI. To
calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor quantities by
publicly available Indian surrogate values (except as discussed below).
In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality,
specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we
adjusted input prices by including freight costs to make them delivered
prices. Specifically, we added to Indian import surrogate values a
surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported distance from
the domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the nearest
seaport to the factory where appropriate. 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 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Due
to the extensive number of surrogate values it was necessary to assign
in this investigation, we present a discussion of the main factors. For
a detailed description of all surrogate values used for respondents,
see Factor-Valuation Memo. For a detailed description of all actual
values used for market-economy inputs, see the company-specific
analysis memoranda dated June 17, 2004.
Except as discussed below, we valued raw material inputs using the
weighted-average unit import values derived from the World Trade
Atlas[reg] online (``Indian Import Statistics''). See Factor-Valuation
Memo. The Indian Import Statistics we obtained from the World Trade
Atlas were published by the DGCI&S, Ministry of Commerce of India,
which were reported in rupees and are contemporaneous with POI. Where
we could not obtain publicly available information contemporaneous to
the POI with which to value factors, we adjusted the surrogate values
using the Indian Wholesale Price Index (``WPI'') as published in the
International Financial Statistics of the International Monetary Fund.
On May 13, 2004, Shing Mark provided comments stating that, if the
Department chooses India as the surrogate country, it should use
InfodriveIndia to calculate surrogate values. On May 24, 2004,
Petitioners responded to Shing Mark's May 13, 2004, submission and
stated that the Department should not use InfodriveIndia to value the
surrogate data.
For this preliminary determination, in accordance with past
practice, we used data from the Indian Import Statistics in order to
calculate surrogate values for the mandatory respondents' material
inputs. In selecting the best available information for valuing factors
of production 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. The
record shows that data in the Indian Import Statistics represents
import data, is contemporaneous with the POI, is product-specific, and
is tax-exclusive. See Manganese Metal From the People's Republic of
China; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 63 FR 12441, 12442 (March 13, 1998).
Additionally, there is no record evidence which indicates that any of
the factors being valued are of low value compared to other items in
the basket categories; thus, our use of these statistics does not
result in a distortion in favor of higher values. Further, the Indian
Import Statistics contain values at both ends of the spectrum (i.e.,
high value and low value), further indicating that the Indian Import
values are not distorted when taken as an average, as we are doing in
this case. Therefore the Department has determined that the Indian
Import Statistics provide the best available information for valuing
the factors of production.
Additionally, we have determined not to use InfodriveIndia data
because we found InfodriveIndia data does not account for all imports
into India (i.e., it only accounts for 60% of the imports), and the
information is not reported uniformly (e.g., units of measure and
descriptions of items). Due to the statistics not being reported
uniformly, the Department would be required to select items in
InfodriveIndia subjectively and then correlate these items with
respondent's reported inputs. Additionally, due to the lack of
uniformity, there would be numerous occasions where the Department
would be unable to use the data because InfodriveIndia may report
individual imports in different units of measurements (e.g., pieces,
kilograms, meters squared, etc.) for a given HTS number, whereas Indian
Import Statistics are reported using a single uniform measurement
(e.g., meters squared, kilograms).
The Dorbest Group and Lacquer Craft purchased certain raw-material
inputs from NME suppliers and paid for them in market-economy
currencies. Consistent with Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value in Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People's
Republic of China (``PRCBs'') at Comment 4, issued on June 9, 2004, the
Department has used its surrogate-value methodology to value inputs
produced in an NME.
Furthermore, with regard to both the Indian import-based surrogate
values and the market-economy input values, we have disregarded prices
that we have reason to believe or suspect may be subsidized. We have
reason to believe or suspect that prices of inputs from Indonesia,
South Korea, and Thailand may have been subsidized. We have found in
other proceedings that these countries maintain broadly available, non-
industry-specific export subsidies and, therefore, it is reasonable to
infer that all exports to all markets from these countries are
subsidized. See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less
than Fair Value: Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields from
[[Page 35325]]
the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 11670 (March 15, 2002). We are
also directed by the legislative history not to conduct a formal
investigation to ensure that such prices are not subsidized. See H.R.
Rep. 100-576 at 590 (1988). Rather, Congress directed the Department to
base its decision on information that is available to it at the time it
makes its determination. Therefore, we have not used prices from these
countries either in calculating the Indian import-based surrogate
values or in calculating market-economy input values. In instances
where a market-economy input was obtained solely from suppliers located
in these countries, we used Indian import-based surrogate values to
value the input. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields From The
People's Republic of China, 67 FR 6482 (February 12, 2002), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
Where appropriate, we adjusted surrogate values to reflect
inflation up to the POI using the WPI or the PPI published by the IMF,
as appropriate.
For wood inputs (e.g., logs and lumber of various species), wood
veneer of various species, processed woods (e.g., fiberboard,
particleboard, plywood, etc.), adhesives and finishing materials (e.g.,
glue, paints, stains, lacquer, etc.), hardware (e.g., nails, staples,
screws, bolts, knobs, pulls, drawer slides, hinges, clasps, etc.),
other materials (e.g., mirrors, glass, leather, marble, cloth, foam,
etc.), and packing materials (e.g., cardboard, cartons, styrofoam,
bubblewrap, plastic bags, labels, tape, etc.), we used import values
from the World Trade Atlas when respondents purchased these inputs from
suppliers in the PRC. For a complete listing of all the inputs and the
valuation for each mandatory respondent see the Factor-Valuation Memo.
On June 4, 2004, Petitioners asserted that the Department should
disregard prices paid for wood products purchased from Russia because
the Russian timber prices are distorted by illegal activities and NME
conditions in the timber industry in Russia. Petitioners stated that
illegal logging, false documentation of commercial grade timber as
``salvage'' or other forged documents, smuggling of timber, and control
of many Russian timber firms by PRC nationals result in NME prices for
timber imported into the PRC. Additionally, Petitioners commented that
stumpage fees are far lower than in neighboring European countries.
For the preliminary determination, the Department has rejected
Petitioners' argument and has used the market prices of Russian wood
for the following reasons. First, we designated Russia as a market
economy on August 6, 2002, with an effective date of April 1, 2002.
Like many market economies, Russia's market economy has imperfections,
which should not preclude use of its export prices. If establishing
documenting imperfections in a market economy were sufficient cause to
abandon using a country's export price, prices from many market
economies would be unusable.
Second, the Department excludes prices that are subsidized by the
foreign government, but it has no policy of excluding prices that are
low because of evasion of that government's policy. Petitioners have
made no allegations of a subsidy program in Russia.
Third, the sources cited by Petitioners are dated and the
conditions that may have prevailed when the reports were issued may no
longer hold today. None of the sources cited by Petitioners reflects
the POI (i.e., they refer to 1998 through January 2003 whereas the POI
is April 2003 through September 2003) and, in fact, most of the reports
cited pre-date the Department's graduation of Russia to market-economy
status. Given the pace of change in Russia over the last several years,
reliance on dated information may not be representative of the timber
market in Russia during the POI. Additionally, allegations of illegal
logging and smuggling in Russia without evidence that demonstrate
respondents' wood products are, in fact, obtained from these sources
provide an insufficient basis on which to reject these prices as NME
prices.
For the purposes of the preliminary determination, the Department
has decided to use http://www.allmeasures.com and other publicly
available information where interested parties did not submit
alternative conversion values for specific factors of production. Shing
Mark and Starcorp submitted an alternative website for wood measurement
conversions. Due to the complexity and number of the conversions,
however, the Department has preliminarily determined to use the
allmeasures website to convert certain values. For the final
determination, the Department will continue to consider other
appropriate conversion ratios.
As stated above, the Dorbest Group claimed that it had market-
economy purchases for certain inputs produced in the PRC and shipped
from the supplier's plant(s) in the PRC to the Dorbest Group's plants.
Consistent with PRCBs, the Department has used its surrogate-value
methodology to value inputs produce in an NME.
Additionally, as stated above, Lacquer Craft claimed that it had
market-economy purchases of various paints and finishing materials
produced in the PRC and shipped from the supplier's plant(s) in the PRC
to Lacquer Craft's plant. Consistent with PRCBs, the Department has
used its surrogate-value methodology to value inputs produce in an NME.
For the preliminary determination with respect to Shing Mark, the
Department has relied generally upon its submitted factor inputs. Shing
Mark reported that certain of its inputs were subcontracted. The
Department's normal practice is to use a surrogate value for the
production of subcontracted items, because the overhead, selling,
general and administrative expenses (``SG&A''), and profit are
reflected in the surrogate value and not the subcontracted factor
inputs. For the preliminary determination, the Department has used
Shing Mark's factor inputs to value these subcontracting costs. For the
final determination, we will evaluate Shing Mark's subcontracted factor
inputs further to determine whether these costs are distortive and
examine this issue more closely at verification.
As the basis for NV, Starcorp provided factors-of-production data
based on log processing and lumber purchases as Starcorp has its own
log-processing facility. For each type of reported species of wood,
Starcorp stated that it purchases both lumber and logs which are then
processed internally into lumber. In response to a supplemental
questionnaire, Starcorp provided factors-of-production information
based only on lumber consumption. Although Starcorp reported the inputs
(i.e., logs) used to produce lumber, for the purposes of this
preliminary determination, we have not valued those inputs when
calculating NV. Rather, our NV calculation begins with a valuation of
lumber consumption used to produce the merchandise under investigation
for the following reasons.
Consistent with section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Act, our general policy
is to value the factors of production that a respondent uses to produce
the subject merchandise. To the extent that the NME respondent is an
integrated producer, we take into account the factors utilized in each
stage of the production process. For example, in the case of preserved
canned mushrooms produced by a grower of mushrooms, the Department
valued the factors used to grow the mushrooms, the factors used
[[Page 35326]]
to further process and preserve the mushrooms, and any additional
factors used to can and package the mushrooms, including any used to
manufacture the cans (if produced in-house). If, on the other hand, the
firm was simply a processor that bought fresh mushrooms to preserve and
can, the Department valued the purchased mushrooms and not the factors
used to grow them. See final results valuation memorandum for Final
Results of First New Shipper Review and First Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's
Republic of China, 66 FR 31204 (June 11, 2001) (Final Results Valuation
Memorandum). This policy has been applied to both agricultural and
industrial products. See, e.g., Persulfates From the People's Republic
of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
and Notice of Partial Recision, 67 FR 50866 (August 6, 2002) (unchanged
in final), and Notice of Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Brake Drums and Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of
China, 62 FR 9160 (February 28, 1997). Accordingly, our standard NME
questionnaire asks respondents to report the factors used in the
various stages of production.
There are two limited exceptions to this general rule. First, in
some cases a respondent may report factors used to produce an
intermediate input that accounts for a small or insignificant share of
total output. The Department recognizes that, in those cases, the
increased accuracy in its overall calculations that would result from
valuing each of those factors separately may be so small so as to not
justify the burden of doing so. Therefore, in those situations, the
Department would value the intermediate input directly.
Second, in certain circumstances, it is clear that attempting to
value the factors used in a production process yielding an intermediate
product may lead to an inaccurate result because the constructed value
would not reflect a significant element of cost adequately. For
example, in a recent case, we addressed whether we should value the
respondent's factors used in extracting iron ore, an input to its wire
rod factory. The Department determined that, if it were to use those
factors, it would not account sufficiently for the capital costs
associated with the iron ore mining operation, given that the surrogate
company the Department used for valuing production overhead did not
have mining operations. Therefore, because ignoring this important cost
element would distort the calculation, the Department declined to value
the inputs used in mining iron ore and valued the iron ore instead. See
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Carbon
and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Ukraine, 67 FR 55785 (August 30,
2002), Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain
Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From the People's Republic of
China, 66 FR 49632 (September 28, 2001), Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value; Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From
the People's Republic of China, 62 FR 61964 (November 20, 1997), and
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value;
Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544 (May
8, 1995).
In this investigation, we have determined that the second exception
discussed above applies here. We have reviewed and analyzed the
information submitted by Starcorp and find that the data pertaining to
the log processing cannot be used for purposes of the preliminary
determination. Starcorp reported that, for some of the solid wood used
in the manufacture of subject merchandise, it purchased logs and
processed the logs internally into lumber. Additionally, Starcorp
reported the electricity, water, and labor associated with the log-
processing facility. The Department has determined that, if it were to
value the logs, it would not account for the capital costs associated
with processing the logs into lumber due to the fact that the overhead
costs (i.e., overhead ratio) of the surrogate companies do not indicate
that these surrogate companies process logs into lumber. Therefore, for
the preliminary determination, we have declined to value the inputs
used in production of logs and have instead valued the lumber because
this methodology yields a more accurate result.
For Tech Lane, the Department has denied its claim for a by-product
offset to its board inputs for this preliminary determination, because
Tech Lane did not provide sufficient information in order for the
Department to adjust for this by-product offset. Tech Lane only
submitted per-unit inputs used to produce recycled boards sold to
unaffiliated third parties, but Tech Lane provided no record evidence
of how it calculated its per-unit inputs for recycled boards.
Additionally, Tech Lane did not explain the methodology it used to
calculate the by-product offset it claimed. Furthermore, Tech Lane did
not provide sufficient evidence that it sold board to unaffiliated
third parties during the POI. Thus, for the preliminary determination,
we have not applied a by-product offset adjustment to its board inputs.
We intend to examine this issue more closely at verification.
Tech Lane purchased oak and cherry logs from the United States and
had them processed into veneer in Vietnam by an unaffiliated Taiwanese
company. The unaffiliated Taiwanese company received the logs,
processed them, paid all costs incurred in Vietnam and all
transportation expenses and insurance from Vietnam to Tech Lane's
factory in the PRC. Tech Lane paid the Taiwanese company a flat fee for
these services based on the square feet of veneer processed. Tech Lane
reported this veneer as a market-economy input.
Because we valued ``veneer'' in the production of subject
merchandise, not ``logs,'' and because the majority of Tech Lane's oak
veneer and a significant portion of Tech Lane's cherry veneer was
purchased from market-economy suppliers, we have not used the price
paid to the Taiwanese company for the processing in Vietnam and have
valued Tech Lane's oak and cherry veneer using market-economy prices.
For Lacquer Craft, Shing Mark, and Tech Lane, the Department valued
their stain paint, thinner paint, glaze paint, lacquer paint, and
sealer paint (collectively ``paints'') by using a single HTS for the
these paints. These companies either did not provide the Department
with an HTS classification for their paint inputs or they provided the
Department with multiple HTS classifications that represent the
necessary ingredients for making the paints. Additionally, each company
reported a usage rate for the final product and did not provide usage
rates for the specific ingredients that make up the paints. Because
there is no record evidence with respect to the usage rates for the HTS
classifications component that make up the paints and because other
information indicates that these components are mixed to create a
single product, the Department has determined that best surrogate value
to use for the paints in the preliminary determination is a single
value for paint. For the final determination, the Department will
evaluate whether usage rates for the component parts should be reported
and whether to value each component.
Regarding certain minor factors of production (e.g., cabinet
lights, covers, paper covers, etc.) reported by the mandatory
respondents, we did not value these factors because surrogate-value
information was not available and conversion factors were not
available. For a detailed list of the factors we did
[[Page 35327]]
not value for the preliminary determination, see the company-specific
analysis memoranda dated June 17, 2004.
To value electricity, we used data from the International Energy
Agency (``IEA'') Key World Energy Statistics (2003 edition), submitted
by the Petitioners in Exhibit 4 of their April 16, 2004, submission.
Because the value was not contemporaneous with the POI, we adjusted the
rate for inflation. See Factor-Valuation Memo.
To value water, we used the average water tariff rate as reported
in the Asian Development Bank's Second Water Utilities Data Book: Asian
and Pacific Region (published in 1997), based on the average rupee per
cubic meter rate for three cities in India during 1997. Because the
value was not contemporaneous with the POI, we adjusted the rate for
inflation. See Factor-Valuation Memo.
To value diesel fuel, we used data from IEA's Key World Energy
Statistics (2003 edition) which was submitted by petitioners in their
April 16, 2004, submission. Because the value was not contemporaneous
with the POI, we adjusted the rate for inflation. See Factor-Valuation
Memo.
For direct, indirect, crate-building and packing labor, consistent
with 19 CFR Sec. 351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC regression-based wage
rate as reported on Import Administration's home page, Import Library,
Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries, revised in September 2003,
http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/01wages/01wages.html. The source of these
wage-rate data on the Import Administration's Web site is the Yearbook
of Labour Statistics 2002, ILO (Geneva: 2002), Chapter 5B: Wages in
Manufacturing. Because this regression-based wage rate does not
separate the labor rates into different skill levels or types of labor,
we have applied the same wage rate to all skill levels and types of
labor reported by the respondent.
The respondents also reported packing inputs. We used Indian Import
Statistics data from the period April 2003 through September 2003 to
value these inputs except where respondents obtained the inputs from
market-economy suppliers and paid for them in a market-economy
currency. See Factor-Valuation Memo.
We used Indian transport information in order to value the
transportation of raw materials. To calculate domestic inland freight
for trucking services, we selected freight values from Chemical Weekly.
Some inputs were transported by market-economy transportation firms and
paid for in a market-economy currency. Where this was the case, we
added the actual market-economy transportation expense to the valuation
of the factor of production.
We used Indian rail freight information in order to value the
transportation of raw materials. To value the rail freight, we used two
price quotes from November 1999 for steel shipments within India.
Because the value was not contemporaneous with the POI, we adjusted the
rate for inflation. See Factor-Valuation Memo.
To value factory overhead, SG&A and profit, we used the audited
financial statements for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2003, from
the following producers of wooden furniture: Indian Furniture Products
Ltd., Raghbir Interiors Pvt. Ltd., Nizamuddin Furnitures Pvt. Ltd.,
Fusion Design Private Ltd., Jayaraja Furniture Group, and Akriti
Perfections India Pvt. Ltd. See Factor-Valuation Memo for a full
discussion of the calculation of these ratios from these financial
statements.
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with
section 773A(a) of the Act based on the exchange rates in effect on the
dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we intend to verify
the information upon which we will rely in making our final
determination.
Preliminary Determination
The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
Manufacturer/exporter average margin
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dongguan Lung Dong.................................... 7.04
The Dorbest Group..................................... 19.24
Lacquer Craft......................................... 4.90
Markor Tianjin........................................ 8.38
Shing Mark............................................ 6.59
Starcorp.............................................. 24.34
Tech Lane............................................. 9.36
Cheng Meng Furniture (PTE) Ltd., et al................ 10.92
Classic Furniture Global Co., Ltd..................... 10.92
Dalian Guangming Furniture Co., Ltd................... 10.92
Dalian Huafeng Furniture Co., Ltd..................... 10.92
Dongguan Cambridge Furniture Co., et al............... 10.92
Dongguan Creation Furniture Co., Ltd et al............ 10.92
Dongguan Great Reputation Furniture Co., Ltd.......... 10.92
Dongguan Hung Sheng Artware Products Co., Ltd et al... 10.92
Dongguan Kin Feng Furniture Co., Ltd.................. 10.92
Dongguan Kingstone Furniture Co., Ltd et al........... 10.92
Dongguan Qingxi Xinyi Craft Furniture Factory (Joyce 10.92
Art Factory).........................................
Dongguan Singways Furniture Co., Ltd.................. 10.92
Eurosa (Kunshan) Co., Ltd et al....................... 10.92
Ever Spring Furniture Company Ltd, et al.............. 10.92
Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited..................... 10.92
Fujian Lianfu Forestry Co., Ltd, et al................ 10.92
Garri Furniture (Dong Guan) Co., Ltd et al............ 10.92
Guangming Group Wumahe Furniture Co., Ltd............. 10.92
Hainan Jong Bao Lumber Co., Ltd....................... 10.92
Hamilton & Spill Ltd.................................. 10.92
Dongguan Grand Style Furniture et al.................. 10.92
Hang Hai Woodcraft's Art Factory...................... 10.92
Hualing Funriture (China) Co., Ltd et al.............. 10.92
[[Page 35328]]
Jardine Enterprise, Ltd............................... 10.92
Jiangsu Weifu Group Fullhouse Furniture Mfg. Corp..... 10.92
Jiangsu Yuexing Funriture Group Co., Ltd.............. 10.92
Jiedong Lehouse Furntiure Co., Ltd.................... 10.92
King Way Furniture Industries Co., Ltd et al.......... 10.92
Kunshan Summit Furniture Co., Ltd..................... 10.92
Langfang Tiancheng Furniture Co., Ltd................. 10.92
Leefu Wood (Dongguan) Co., Ltd........................ 10.92
Link Silver Ltd et al................................. 10.92
Locke Furniture Factory (dba Kai Chan Furniture) et al 10.92
Nantong Dongfang Orient Furniture Co., Ltd............ 10.92
Nantong Yushi Furniture Co., Ltd...................... 10.92
Nathan International Ltd et al........................ 10.92
Perfect Line Furniture Co., Ltd....................... 10.92
Qingdao Liangmu Co., Ltd.............................. 10.92
Restonic (Dongguan) Furniture Ltd et al............... 10.92
RiZhao SanMu Woodworking Co., Ltd..................... 10.92
Season Furniture Manufacturing Co. et al.............. 10.92
Sen Yeong International Co., Ltd et al................ 10.92
Shanghai Maoji Imp and Exp Co., Ltd................... 10.92
Shanghai Aosen Furniture Co., Ltd..................... 10.92
Shenyang Shining Dongxing Furniture Co., Ltd.......... 10.92
Shenzhen Forest Furniture Co., Ltd.................... 10.92
Shenzhen Jiafa High Grade Furniture Co., Ltd et al.... 10.92
Shenzhen New Fudu Furniture Co., Ltd.................. 10.92
Shenzhen Wonderful Furniture Co., Ltd................. 10.92
Shenzhen Xingli Furniture Co., Ltd.................... 10.92
Shun Feng Furniture Co., Ltd.......................... 10.92
Songgang Jasonwood Furniture Factory et al............ 10.92
Starwood Furniture Manufacturing Co. Ltd.............. 10.92
Starwood Industries Ltd............................... 10.92
Strongson Furniture (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd et al......... 10.92
Sunforce Furniture (Hui-Yang) Co., Ltd et al.......... 10.92
Tarzan Furniture Industries Ltd et al................. 10.92
Teamway Furniture (Dong Guan) Ltd, et al.............. 10.92
Techniwood Industries Limited......................... 10.92
Sheng Jing Wood Products (Beijing) Co., Ltd et al..... 10.92
Tianjin Fortune Funriture Co., Ltd.................... 10.92
Tianjin Phu Shing Woodwork Enterprise Co., Ltd........ 10.92
Tianjin Sande Fairwood Furniture Co., Ltd............. 10.92
Tube-Smith Enterprise (ZhangZhou) Co., Ltd et al...... 10.92
Union Friend International Trade Co., Ltd............. 10.92
U-Rich Furniture (Zhangzhou) Co., Ltd et al........... 10.92
Wanhengtong Nueevder (Furniture) Manufacture Co., Ltd 10.92
et al................................................
Woodworth Wooden Industries (Dong Guan) Co., Ltd...... 10.92
Xiamen Yongquan Sci-Tech Development Co., Ltd......... 10.92
XiangSheng Bedtime Furniture Co., Ltd................. 10.92
Xingli Arts & Crafts Factory of Yangchun.............. 10.92
Yangchun Hengli Company Limited....................... 10.92
Yeh Brothers World Trade, Inc......................... 10.92
Yichun Guangming Furniture Co., Ltd................... 10.92
Yihua Timber Industry Co., Ltd........................ 10.92
Zhang Zhou Sanlong Wood Product Co., Ltd.............. 10.92
Zhangjiagang Zheng Yan Decoration Co., Ltd............ 10.92
Zhangzhou Guohui Industrial & Trade Co. Ltd........... 10.92
Zhong Shan Fullwin Funriture Co., Ltd................. 10.92
Zhongshan Fookyik Furniture Co., Ltd.................. 10.92
Zhongshan Golden King Furniture Industrial Co., Ltd... 10.92
Zhoushan For-Strong Wood Co., Ltd..................... 10.92
PRC-Wide Rate......................................... 198.08
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosure
We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the
date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
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
entries of subject merchandise, 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 indicated above. The suspension of
liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.
[[Page 35329]]
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 less than
fair value. Because we have postponed the deadline for our final
determination to 135 days from the date of publication of this
preliminary determination, section 735(b)(2) of the Act requires the
ITC to make its final determination as to whether domestic industry in
the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material
injury, by reason of imports of wooden bedroom furniture, or sales (or
the likelihood of sales) for importation, of the subject merchandise
within 45 days of our final determination.
Public Comment
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no later than seven days
after the date of the final verification report issued in this
proceeding and rebuttal briefs limited to issues raised in case briefs,
no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs. A 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.
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. If a request
for a hearing is made, we will intend to hold the hearing three days
after the deadline of submission of rebuttal briefs at the U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230, at a time and location to be determined. Parties
should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing
two days before the scheduled date.
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. See
19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests should contain the party's name, address,
and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the
issues to be discussed. At the hearing, each party may make an
affirmative presentation only on issues raised in that party's case
brief and may make rebuttal presentations only on arguments included in
that party's rebuttal brief.
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: June 17, 2004.
James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 04-14361 Filed 6-23-04; 8:45 am]