[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 7, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13539-13545]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5579]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-868]
Folding Metal Tables and Chairs From the People's Republic of
China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting
an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on folding metal
tables and chairs from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''). The
period of review (``POR'') is June 1, 2010, through May 31, 2011. The
2010-2011 administrative review covers Feili Group (Fujian) Co., Ltd.
and Feili Furniture Development Limited Quanzhou City (collectively,
``Feili''). We have preliminarily determined that Feili made sales in
the United States at prices below normal value (``NV'') during the
period of review (``POR''). If these preliminary results are adopted in
our final results of the review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries of subject merchandise during the POR.
We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary
results. We intend to issue the final results no later than 120 days
from the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act'').
DATES: Effective Date: March 7, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lilit Astvatsatrian or Charles Riggle,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
6412 and (202) 482-0650, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On June 27, 2002, the Department published the antidumping duty
order on folding metal tables and chairs from the PRC.\1\ On June 1,
2010, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an
administrative review of this order for the period June 1, 2009,
through May 31, 2010.\2\ In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b),
interested parties made the following requests for an administrative
review: (1) On June 28, 2011, Meco Corporation (``Meco''), a domestic
producer of the like product, requested that the Department conduct an
administrative review of Feili and of New-Tec Integration (Xiamen) Co.,
Ltd. (New-Tec), a producer and exporter of subject merchandise to the
United States; (2) on June 29, 2011, Feili requested that the
Department conduct an administrative review of its sales; (3) on June
30, 2011, Cosco Home & Office Products (``Cosco''), a U.S. importer of
subject merchandise, requested that the Department conduct an
administrative review of Feili and New-Tec; and (4) on June 30, 2011,
New-Tec requested that the Department revoke the antidumping duty order
with respect to exports of subject merchandise manufactured and
exported by New-Tec and defer the initiation of its review for the
current POR. On July 28, 2011, the Department initiated the 2010-2011
review for Feili
[[Page 13540]]
and deferred the review of New-Tec.\3\ On October 25, 2011, the
Department revoked the order with respect to New-Tec and subsequently
corrected language in the original revocation.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Antidumping Duty Order: Folding Metal Tables and Chairs
From the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 43277 (June 27, 2002).
\2\ See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative
Review, 76 FR 31586 (June 1, 2011).
\3\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews, Requests for Revocations in Part and
Deferral of Administrative Reviews, 76 FR 45227 (July 28, 2010)
(``Initiation Notice'').
\4\ See Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and New Shipper Review, and Revocation of the Order in Part,
76 FR 66036 (October 25, 2011) and Folding Metal Tables and Chairs
From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Correction to the
Final Results of the 2009-2010 Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 76 FR 72903 (November 28, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department issued an antidumping duty questionnaire to Feili on
August 26, 2011. On September 16, 2011, Feili submitted a section A
questionnaire response (``AQR''), and on October 17, 2011, submitted
section C and D questionnaire responses (``CQR'' and ``DQR,''
respectively). On December 2, 2011, and January 9, 2012, Feili
submitted supplemental questionnaire responses (``SQR'' and ``SSQR,''
respectively).
On September 30, 2011, the Department requested that Import
Administration's Office of Policy to provide a list of surrogate
countries for the administrative review.\5\ On October 12, 2011, the
Office of Policy issued its list of surrogate countries for the
administrative review.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Memorandum to Carole Showers, Director, Office of
Policy, entitled, ``2010-2011 Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order on Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the
People's Republic of China: Request for Surrogate Country
Selection,'' dated September 30, 2011.
\6\ See Memorandum from Carole Showers, Director, Office of
Policy, entitled, ``Request for a List of Surrogate Countries for an
Administrative Review of Folding Metal Tables and Chairs (``FMTC'')
from the People's Republic of China (PRC),'' dated October 12, 2011
(``Surrogate Country Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 25, 2011, the Department requested interested parties to
submit surrogate value (``SV'') information and to provide surrogate
country selection comments for the administrative review. On November
8, 2011, Feili commented on surrogate country selection. On November
15, 2011, Cosco and Feili provided financial statements from India and
Thailand to be used for the calculation of surrogate financial ratios.
On December 28, 2011, the Department provided additional time to submit
publicly available information to value the factors of production
(``FOP''). On January 17, 2012, Cosco provided additional comments on
FOPs.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results
in an antidumping administrative review or new shipper review,
interested parties may submit publicly available information to value
FOPs within 20 days after the date of publication of these preliminary
results of review.
Period of Review
The POR is June 1, 2010, through May 31, 2011.
Scope of Order
The products covered by the order consist of assembled and
unassembled folding tables and folding chairs made primarily or
exclusively from steel or other metal, as described below:
(1) Assembled and unassembled folding tables made primarily or
exclusively from steel or other metal (folding metal tables). Folding
metal tables include square, round, rectangular, and any other shapes
with legs affixed with rivets, welds, or any other type of fastener,
and which are made most commonly, but not exclusively, with a hardboard
top covered with vinyl or fabric. Folding metal tables have legs that
mechanically fold independently of one another, and not as a set. The
subject merchandise is commonly, but not exclusively, packed singly, in
multiple packs of the same item, or in five piece sets consisting of
four chairs and one table. Specifically excluded from the scope of the
order regarding folding metal tables are the following:
Lawn furniture; Trays commonly referred to as ``TV trays;'' Side
tables; Child-sized tables; Portable counter sets consisting of
rectangular tables 36'' high and matching stools; and, Banquet tables.
A banquet table is a rectangular table with a plastic or laminated wood
table top approximately 28'' to 36'' wide by 48'' to 96'' long and with
a set of folding legs at each end of the table. One set of legs is
composed of two individual legs that are affixed together by one or
more cross-braces using welds or fastening hardware. In contrast,
folding metal tables have legs that mechanically fold independently of
one another, and not as a set.
(2) Assembled and unassembled folding chairs made primarily or
exclusively from steel or other metal (folding metal chairs). Folding
metal chairs include chairs with one or more cross-braces, regardless
of shape or size, affixed to the front and/or rear legs with rivets,
welds or any other type of fastener. Folding metal chairs include:
those that are made solely of steel or other metal; those that have a
back pad, a seat pad, or both a back pad and a seat pad; and those that
have seats or backs made of plastic or other materials. The subject
merchandise is commonly, but not exclusively, packed singly, in
multiple packs of the same item, or in five piece sets consisting of
four chairs and one table. Specifically excluded from the scope of the
order regarding folding metal chairs are the following:
Folding metal chairs with a wooden back or seat, or both; Lawn
furniture; Stools; Chairs with arms; and Child-sized chairs.
The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under subheadings
9401.71.0010, 9401.71.011, 9401.71.0030, 9401.71.0031, 9401.79.0045,
9401.79.0046, 9401.79.0050, 9403.20.0018, 9403.20.0015, 9403.20.0030,
9403.60.8040, 9403.70.8015, 9403.70.8020, and 9403.70.8031 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''). Although
the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise is
dispositive.
Non-Market Economy Country Status
No party contested the Department's treatment of the PRC as a non-
market economy (``NME'') country, and the Department has treated the
PRC as an NME country in all past antidumping duty investigations and
administrative reviews.\7\ Designation as an NME country remains in
effect until it is revoked by the Department. See section 771(18)(C)(i)
of the Act. As such, we continue to treat the PRC as a NME in this
proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See, e.g., Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 73 FR 52645 (September 10, 2008); see also Folding Metal
Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China: Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 3560 (January 21,
2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surrogate Country
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to base NV on
the NME producer's FOPs, valued in a surrogate market economy country
or countries considered to be appropriate by the Department. In
accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the FOPs, the
Department shall use, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of
the FOPs in one or more market economy countries that are: (1) At a
level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country;
and (2) significant producers of comparable merchandise. The sources of
the surrogate factor values are discussed under the ``Normal Value''
section below as well as in the Surrogate Value Memorandum.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Memorandum to The File entitled, ``Preliminary Results
of the 2010-2011 Administrative Review of Folding Metal Tables and
Chairs from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Value
Memorandum,'' dated concurrently with this notice (``Prelim SV
Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 13541]]
The Department determined that the Colombia, Indonesia,
Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, and Ukraine are countries
comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development.\9\ Once we have
identified the countries that are economically comparable to the PRC,
we select an appropriate surrogate country by determining whether an
economically comparable country is a significant producer of comparable
merchandise and whether the data for valuing FOPs are both available
and reliable. Accordingly, unless we find that all of the countries
determined to be equally economically comparable are not significant
producers of comparable merchandise, do not provide a reliable source
of publicly available surrogate data or are unsuitable for use for
other reasons, we will rely on data from one of these countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Surrogate Country Memorandum. The Department notes that
these six countries are part of a non-exhaustive list of countries
that are at a level of economic development comparable to the PRC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department has determined that Thailand is the appropriate
surrogate country for use in this review. The Department based its
decision on the following facts: (1) Thailand is at a level of economic
development comparable to that of the PRC; (2) Thailand is a
significant producer of comparable merchandise (i.e., steel furniture);
and (3) Thailand provides the best opportunity to use quality, publicly
available data to value the FOPs.\10\ Feili has argued that the
Department should continue using India as the surrogate country as it
has in the previous administrative reviews. Cosco stated that the
Department should use Thailand but that it would not object if the
Department used India as the surrogate country. Because Thailand
satisfies the Department's criteria for the selection of a primary
surrogate country, resort to an alternative surrogate country which is
not as economically comparable to the PRC as the countries on the
Surrogate Country List, as suggested by Feili, is not necessary.
Furthermore, it satisfies the best data availability criterion as the
record contains usable financial statements from Thailand \11\ and
sources for valuation of all factors of production. As we do not have
financial statements and energy inputs on the record of this review
from any other country on the list of economically comparable surrogate
countries, we find that Thailand is the only country that satisfies the
best data availability criterion for the surrogate country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Prelim SV Memo at Attachment II, and Cosco's January
17, 2012 surrogate value submission at 3.
\11\ See financial statements of Siam Steel International PCL
(``Siam''), for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department has a
rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are
subject to government control and, thus, should be assessed a single
antidumping duty rate.\12\ It is the Department's policy to assign all
exporters of merchandise subject to review in an NME country this
single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently
independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.\13\ Exporters can
demonstrate this independence through the absence of both de jure and
de facto government control over export activities. The Department
analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test
arising from the Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588,
at Comment 1 (May 6, 1991) (``Sparklers''), as further developed in
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon
Carbide From the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585, 22587 (May 2,
1994) (``Silicon Carbide''). However, if the Department determines that
a company is wholly foreign-owned or located in a market economy, then
a separate-rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether it is
independent from government control.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See, e.g., Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality
Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses From the People's Republic of
China: Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 75 FR 24892,
24899 (May 6, 2010).
\13\ Id.
\14\ See, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Petroleum Wax Candles From the People's Republic of China,
72 FR 52355, 52356 (September 13, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feili reported that it is a wholly owned by a market-economy
entity. Therefore, consistent with the Department's practice, a
separate-rates analysis is not necessary to determine whether Feili's
export activities are independent from government control, and we have
preliminarily granted a separate rate to Feili.
Date of Sale
According to 19 CFR 351.401(i),
In identifying the date of sale of the subject merchandise or
foreign like product, the Secretary normally will use the date of
invoice, as recorded in the exporter or producer's records kept in
the ordinary course of business. However, the Secretary may use a
date other than the date of invoice if the Secretary is satisfied
that a different date better reflects the date on which the exporter
or producer establishes the material terms of sale.
See also Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v. United States, 132 F. Supp.
2d 1087, 1090-1092 (CIT 2001) (upholding the Department's rebuttable
presumption that invoice date is the appropriate date of sale). After
examining the questionnaire responses and the sales documentation
placed on the record by Feili, we preliminarily determine that invoice
date is the most appropriate date of sale for Feili. Nothing on the
record of this segment rebuts the presumption that invoice date should
be the date of sale.
Normal Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of folding metal tables and chairs to
the United States by Feili were made at less than NV, we compared
export price (``EP'') to NV, as described in the ``Export Price,'' and
``Normal Value'' sections of this notice, pursuant to section 771(35)
of the Act.
Export Price
Because Feili sold subject merchandise to unaffiliated purchasers
in the United States prior to importation into the United States or to
unaffiliated resellers outside the United States with knowledge that
the merchandise was destined for the United States, and use of a
constructed export price methodology is not otherwise indicated, we
have used EP for Feili in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act.
We calculated EP based on the free-on-board or delivered price to
unaffiliated purchasers for Feili. From this price, we deducted amounts
for foreign inland freight and brokerage and handling, as applicable,
pursuant to section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Memorandum to The File entitled, ``Analysis for the
Preliminary Results of the 2010-2011 Administrative Review of
Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China:
Feili Group (Fujian) Co., Ltd. and Feili Furniture Development
Limited Quanzhou City,'' at 3-4, dated concurrently with this notice
(``Preliminary Analysis Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department valued brokerage and handling using a price list of
export procedures necessary to export a standardized cargo of goods in
Thailand. The price list is compiled based on a survey case study of
the procedural requirements for trading a standard shipment of goods by
ocean transport in India that is in Doing
[[Page 13542]]
Business 2011: Thailand, published by the World Bank.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Prelim SV Memo at 5 and Preliminary Analysis Memorandum
at 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zero-Priced Transactions
In the final results of previous administrative reviews of folding
metal tables and chairs, we included Feili's zero-priced transactions
in the margin calculation because the record demonstrated that
respondents provided the same merchandise in significant quantities,
indicating that these ``samples'' did not primarily serve for
evaluation or testing of the merchandise.\17\ Additionally, respondents
provided ``samples'' to the same customers to whom they were selling
the same products in commercial quantities.\18\ As a result, we
concluded that these transactions were not what we consider to be
samples because respondents were providing these products to strengthen
their customer relationships and to promote future sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See, e.g., Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the
People's Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 71 FR 2905 (January 18, 2006), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4; Folding
Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 71509
(December 11, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum
at Comment 4; and Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 72 FR 71355 (December 17, 2007), and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comments 10 and 11.
\18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to zero-priced transactions, the Court of
International Trade (``CIT'') in NSK Ltd. v. United States stated that
it saw ``little reason in supplying and re-supplying and yet re-
supplying the same product to the same customer in order to solicit
sales if the supplies are made in reasonably short periods of time,''
and that ``it would be even less logical to supply a sample to a client
that has made a recent bulk purchase of the very item being sampled by
the client.'' \19\ Moreover, even where the Department does not ask a
respondent for specific information to demonstrate that a transaction
is a sample, the respondent has the burden of presenting the
information in the first place to demonstrate that its transactions
qualify for exclusion as a sample.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See NSK Ltd. v. United States, 217 F. Supp. 2d 1291, 1311-
1312 (CIT 2002).
\20\ See NTN Bearing Corp. of America. v. United States, 997
F.2d 1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An analysis of Feili's section C computer sales listings reveals
that in some cases it provided zero-priced merchandise to customers to
whom it was already selling the same products in commercial quantities,
indicating that Feili was not providing this zero-priced merchandise
for a customer's evaluation and testing, with the hope of future sales.
Consequently, based on the facts cited above, the guidance of past
court decisions, and our previous decisions, we have not excluded these
zero-priced transactions from the margin calculations for Feili for the
preliminary results of this review. However, we found that, in some
instances, Feili shipped merchandise to customers for the first time in
non-commercial quantities. Therefore, we have treated these sales as
samples for the preliminary results.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See Preliminary Analysis Memorandum at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Normal Value
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that, in the case of an NME,
the Department shall determine NV using an FOP methodology if the
merchandise is exported from an NME and the information does not permit
the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices,
or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act.
The Department bases NV on FOPs because the presence of government
controls on various aspects of NME economies renders price comparisons
and the calculation of production costs invalid under our normal
methodologies. Therefore, in these preliminary results, we have
calculated NV based on FOPs in accordance with sections 773(c)(3) and
(4) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c). The FOPs include: (1) Hours of
labor required; (2) quantities of raw materials employed; (3) amounts
of energy and other utilities consumed; and (4) representative capital
costs. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), the Department normally
uses publicly available information to value the FOPs. However, when a
producer sources a meaningful amount of an input from a market-economy
country and pays for it in market-economy currency, the Department may
value the factor using the actual price paid for the input.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1); see also Lasko Metal Products v.
United States, 43 F.3d 1442, 1445-1446 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (affirming
the Department's use of market-based prices to value certain FOPs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with the OTCA 1988 legislative history, the
Department continues to apply its long-standing practice of
disregarding SVs if it has a reason to believe or suspect the source
data may be subsidized.\23\ In this regard, the Department has
previously found that it is appropriate to disregard such prices from
India, Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand because we have determined
that these countries maintain broadly available, non-industry specific
export subsidies.\24\ Based on the existence of these subsidy programs
that were generally available to all exporters and producers in these
countries at the time of the POR, the Department finds that it is
reasonable to infer that all exporters from India, Indonesia, South
Korea and Thailand may have benefitted from these subsidies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, Conf.
Report to Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. Rep. No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd
Sess. (1988) (``OTCA 1988'') at 590.
\24\ See, e.g., Expedited Sunset Review of the Countervailing
Duty Order on Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India, 75 FR 13257
(March 19, 2010) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
pages 4-5; Expedited Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order
on Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Quality Steel Plate from Indonesia,
70 FR 45692 (August 8, 2005) and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at 4; See also Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat
Products from the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Countervailing
Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 2512 (January 15, 2009) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 17, 19-20; See also
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Thailand: Final
Results of Countervailing Duty Determination, 66 FR 50410 (October
3, 2001), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factor Valuations
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV
based on the FOPs reported by Feili during the POR. To calculate NV, we
multiplied the reported per-unit factor quantities by publicly
available Thai surrogate values (except as noted below). In selecting
the SVs, we considered the quality, specificity, public availability,
and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we adjusted input
prices by including freight costs to render them delivered prices.
Specifically, we added to Thai import SVs a surrogate freight cost
using the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier
to the factory or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory
where appropriate (i.e., where the sales terms for the market-economy
inputs were not delivered to the factory). This adjustment is in
accordance with the decision of the CAFC in Sigma Corp. v. United
States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). For a detailed
description of all SVs used for Feili, see the Surrogate Value
Memorandum.
For the preliminary results, except where noted below, we used data
from the Thai Import Statistics in the Global Trade Atlas (``GTA'') and
other publicly available Thai sources in order to calculate SVs for
Feili's FOPs (i.e.,
[[Page 13543]]
direct materials, energy, and packing materials) and certain movement
expenses. As Thailand is the primary surrogate country, we used Thai
data. In selecting the best available information for valuing FOPs in
accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the Department's practice
is to select, to the extent practicable, SVs which are non-export
average values, most contemporaneous with the POR, product-specific,
and tax-exclusive.\25\ The record shows that data in the Thai Import
Statistics are contemporaneous with the POR, product-specific, and tax-
exclusive.\26\ In those instances where we could not obtain publicly
available information contemporaneous to the POR with which to value
factors, we adjusted the SVs using, where appropriate, the Thai
Consumer Price Index (``CPI'') as published in the IMF's International
Financial Statistics.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary Determination of Critical
Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain
Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged in Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and
Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69
FR 71005 (December 8, 2004).
\26\ See Prelim SV Memo at 2-3.
\27\ See, e.g., Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks
From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final
Determination, 74 FR 9591, 9600 (March 5, 2009), unchanged in
Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks From the People's
Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair
Value, 74 FR 36656 (July 24, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feili reported purchases of raw materials produced in market-
economy countries, sourced from market-economy suppliers and paid for
in a market-economy currency during the POR. In accordance with our
practice outlined in Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy
Inputs,\28\ when at least 33 percent of an input is sourced from
market-economy suppliers and purchased in a market-economy currency,
the Department will use actual market-economy purchase prices to value
these inputs.\29\ Where the quantity of the reported input purchased
from ME suppliers is below 33 percent of the total volume of the input
purchased from all sources during the POI, and were otherwise valid, we
weight-average the ME input's purchase price with the appropriate SV
for the input according to their respective shares of the reported
total volume of purchases.\30\ Therefore, the Department has valued
certain inputs using the market-economy purchase prices reported by
Feili, where appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs,
Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for
Comments, 71 FR 61716, 61717-19 (October 19, 2006) (``Antidumping
Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs'').
\29\ For a detailed description of all actual values used for
market-economy inputs, see Preliminary Analysis Memorandum at 7.
\30\ See Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, 71 FR
at 61718.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 21, 2011, the Department revised its methodology for
valuing the labor input in NME antidumping proceedings.\31\ In Labor
Methodologies, the Department determined that the best methodology to
value the labor input is to use industry-specific labor rates from the
primary surrogate country. Additionally, the Department determined that
the best data source for industry-specific labor rates is Chapter 6A:
Labor Cost in Manufacturing, from the International Labor Organization
(ILO) Yearbook of Labor Statistics (``Yearbook'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See Antidumping Methodologies in Proceedings Involving Non-
Market Economies: Valuing the Factor of Production: Labor, 76 FR
36092 (June 21, 2011) (``Labor Methodologies'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In these preliminary results, the Department has calculated the
labor input using the wage method described in Labor Methodologies. To
value the respondent's labor input, the Department relied on data
reported by Thailand to the ILO in Chapter 6A of the Yearbook. Although
the Department further finds the two-digit description under ISIC--
Revision 3 (``Manufacture of furniture; manufacture of n.e.c.'') to be
the best available information on the record because it is specific to
the industry being examined, and is therefore derived from industries
that produce comparable merchandise, Thailand has not reported data
specific to the two-digit description since 2000. However, Thailand did
report total manufacturing wage data in 2005. Accordingly, relying on
Chapter 6A of the Yearbook, the Department calculated the labor input
using total labor data reported by Thailand to the ILO, in accordance
with section 773(c)(4) of the Act. For these preliminary results, the
calculated industry-specific wage rate is 134.92 Baht/hour. A more
detailed description of the wage rate calculation methodology is
provided in the Surrogate Value Memorandum at page 5.
As stated above, the Department used Thailand ILO data reported
under Chapter 6A of Yearbook, which reflects all costs related to
labor, including wages, benefits, housing, training, etc. Additionally,
where the financial statements used to calculate the surrogate
financial ratios include itemized detail of labor costs, the Department
made adjustments to certain labor costs in the surrogate financial
ratios.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See Labor Methodologies, 76 FR at 36093.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We used Thai transport information in order to value the freight-in
cost of the raw materials. To value inland truck freight, we obtained
(1) August 2005 price data from the Thailand Board of Investment's 2006
publication, Costs of Doing Business in Thailand, and (2) distances
from Google Maps, at http://maps.google.com. The Department calculated
the per-kilometer price to transport one kg from Bangkok to five cities
in Thailand. We inflated this value to the POR.
To value diesel, we used a per-liter value obtained from Thailand
Board of Investment's Web page at http://www.boi.go.th/index.php?page=transportation_costs_including_fuel_and_freight_rates, effective August 30, 2011. We converted the source value in
liters into the unit of measure reported by Feili and made adjustments
to account for deflation.
To value electricity, we used the average price of Thai power
suppliers, as published by Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
in ``2010 Annual Report: Key Statistical Data.'' We did not inflate
this value because utility rates represent current rates, as indicated
by the effective dates listed for each of the rates provided.\33\ We
valued water using data from Thailand's Board of Investment.\34\ This
source provides water rates for industrial users that are VAT
exclusive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See Prelim SV Memo at 5 and Attachment VI.
\34\ See Prelim SV Memo at 4 and Attachment VIII.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses
(``SG&A''), and profit values, we used the financial statements of
Siam. We have not used the other two Thai financial statements on the
record of this review because one is not contemporaneous to the POR,
and the other does not provide sufficient detail for calculation of
surrogate financial ratios. We find that Siam is the best available
information with which to determine factory overhead as a percentage of
the total raw materials, labor and energy (``ML&E'') costs; SG&A as a
percentage of ML&E plus overhead (i.e., cost of manufacture); and the
profit rate as a percentage of the cost of manufacture plus SG&A.
For packing materials, we used the per-kilogram values obtained
from the GTA and made adjustments to account for freight costs incurred
between the PRC supplier and Feili's plants.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See Prelim SV Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 13544]]
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, where appropriate,
in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange
rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the
Federal Reserve Bank.
Preliminary Results of Review
We preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average
dumping margin exists:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feili Group (Fujian) Co., Ltd./Feili Furniture.............. 36.45
Development Limited Quanzhou City...........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosure
We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties
to this proceeding within five days of the publication date of this
notice.\36\ Interested parties are invited to comment on the
preliminary results and may submit case briefs and/or written comments
within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice.\37\
Interested parties may file rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written
comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, no later
than five days after the date on which the case briefs are due.\38\ The
Department requests that parties submitting written comments provide an
executive summary and a table of authorities as well as an additional
copy of those comments electronically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See 19 CFR 351.224(b).
\37\ See 19 CFR 351.309(c).
\38\ See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of
publication of this notice.\39\ If a request for a hearing is made,
parties will be notified of the time and date for the hearing to be
held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.\40\ The Department will issue the
final results of this administrative review, which will include the
results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, within
120 days of publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to
section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
\40\ See 19 CFR 351.310(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deadline for Submission of Publicly Available Surrogate Value
Information
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), the deadline for
submission of publicly available information to value FOPs under 19 CFR
351.408(c) is 20 days after the date of publication of the preliminary
results. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), if an interested
party submits factual information less than ten days before, on, or
after (if the Department has extended the deadline), the applicable
deadline for submission of such factual information, an interested
party has ten days to submit factual information to rebut, clarify, or
correct the factual information no later than ten days after such
factual information is served on the interested party. However, the
Department generally will not accept in the rebuttal submission
additional or alternative SV information not previously on the record,
if the deadline for submission of SV information has passed.\41\
Furthermore, the Department generally will not accept business
proprietary information in either the SV submissions or the rebuttals
thereto, as the regulation regarding the submission of SVs allows only
for the submission of publicly available information.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See, e.g., Glycine from the People's Republic of China:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final
Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809 (October 17, 2007), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
\42\ See 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment Rates
Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine,
and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries
covered by the review. The Department intends to issue assessment
instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final
results of the review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we
calculated exporter/importer (or customer)-specific assessment rates
for the merchandise subject to the review.
Where the respondent reports reliable entered values, we calculate
importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rates by aggregating the
dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer (or
customer) and dividing this amount by the total entered value of the
sales to each importer (or customer).\43\ Where an importer (or
customer)-specific ad valorem rate is greater than de minimis, we will
apply the assessment rate to the entered value of the importers'/
customers' entries during the POR.\44\ Where we do not have entered
values for all U.S. sales, we calculate a per-unit assessment rate by
aggregating the antidumping duties due for all U.S. sales to each
importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total quantity
sold to that importer (or customer).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
\44\ See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To determine whether the duty assessment rates are de minimis, in
accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we
calculated importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem ratios based on
the estimated entered value. Where an importer (or customer)-specific
ad valorem rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to
liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of the administrative review for all
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For Feili, the
cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate established in the
final results of the review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis,
no cash deposit will be required); (2) for previously investigated or
reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate
rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific
rate published for the most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of
subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a
separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 70.71
percent; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise that
have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the
rate applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied that non-PRC
exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in
effect until further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
[[Page 13545]]
Dated: March 1, 2012.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-5579 Filed 3-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P