[Federal Register: February 3, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 22)]
[Notices]
[Page 5127-5132]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr03fe04-47]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-888]
Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts
Thereof from the People's Republic of China
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 3, 2004.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paige Rivas or Sam Zengotitabengoa,
AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 4, Group II, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202) 482-0651 or (202) 482-4195, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preliminary Determination
We preliminarily determine that floor-standing, metal-top ironing
tables and certain parts thereof (ironing tables) from the People's
Republic of China (PRC) are being sold, or are likely to be sold, in
the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in
section 773 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.
Case History
This investigation was initiated on July 21, 2003. See Notice of
Initiation of Antidumping Investigation: Floor-Standing, Metal-Top
Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of
China, 68 FR 44040 (July 25, 2003) (Initiation Notice).\1\ Since the
initiation of the investigation, the following events have occurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The petitioner in this investigation is Home Products
International, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 14, 2003, the United States International Trade
Commission (ITC) preliminarily determined that there is a reasonable
indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured
by reason of imports of ironing tables from the PRC. See Ironing Tables
and Certain Parts Thereof From China, 68 FR 50190 (August 20, 2003).
On July 31, 2003, the Department issued Section A of its non-market
economy (NME) antidumping questionnaire\2\ to all known companies\3\
[[Page 5128]]
that allegedly produced and/or exported ironing tables from the PRC. In
the questionnaire, the Department requested the companies to provide
quantity and value information of subject merchandise exports to the
United States during the period of investigation (POI). On July 30,
2003, and July 31, 2003, respectively, the Department issued the
antidumping questionnaire to the Embassy of the PRC in Washington,
D.C., and to the PRC Ministry of Commerce, Fair Trade Bureau (MOC) in
Beijing. The Department requested that MOC send the questionnaire to
the companies who manufacture and export ironing tables to the United
States, as well as to manufacturers who produce ironing tables for
companies who were engaged in exporting subject merchandise to the
United States during the POI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Section A of the NME questionnaire requests general
information concerning a company's corporate structure and business
practices, the merchandise under investigation that it sells, and
the manner in which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets.
Section C requests a complete listing of U.S. sales. Section D
requests information on the factors of production of the merchandise
sold in or to the United States. Section E requests information on
further manufacturing.
\3\ The Department gathered the following PRC company names from
the June 30, 2003, petition and the country desk in Beijing. See
Memorandum from Sam Zengotitabengoa, International Trade Compliance
Analyst, to the File, ``Listing of Chinese Ironing Board Producers &
Exporters,'' dated August 4, 2003. These companies include: Eagle
Metal Furniture Manufacturer Co., Ltd.; Fuyali Houseware Co., Ltd.;
Gaoming Lihe Daily Necessities Co., Ltd.; Guangdong Ironing Board
Factory; Hongfong Hardware Manufactory Co., Ltd.; Jiangmen Silk
Import and Export Corporation of Guangdong; Shunde Wireking Group
Wanrong Hardware Co., Ltd.; Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd.;
Wireking Group; Lerado Industrial (Zhongshan) Co.; New Tech
Integrated; He Bei Orient Hardware and Mesh Products Co., Ltd.;
Guang Dong General Industry Development Co. Ltd.; Nan Hai Yan Bu
Zhua Hai Hardware and Furniture Factory; Hai Tong Industrial Co.
Ltd.; Hui Hui Tools Co., Ltd.; Jia Jun Ironing Board Factory; Jia
Shan Ji Ji Ironing Board Factory; Guang Zhou Quanyong Novwoven Co.,
Ltd.; Shun De Yong Jian Housewares Co., Ltd.; Fu Gang Trade Co.,
Ltd.; and, Guang Dong Xin Hui Arts and Crafts Import and Export Co,
Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of our analysis of the quantity and value responses to
the questionnaire, the Department selected two mandatory respondents,
Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. (Since Hardware) and Shunde
Yongjian Housewares Co., Ltd. (Yongjian). On September 10, 2003, the
Department issued Section C and D questionnaires to Since Hardware and
Yongjian. In September 2003, Forever Holdings Ltd. (Forever Holdings),
Harvest International Housewares Ltd. (Harvest), Lerado (Zhoong Shan)
Industrial Co., Ltd. (Lerado), and Gaoming Lihe Daily Necessities Co.,
Ltd. (Lihe), responded to Section A of the Department's questionnaire,
as non-mandatory respondents, for purposes of obtaining separate rates.
By October 15, 2003, Since Hardware and Yongjian responded to Sections
C and D of the Department's questionnaire. The Department issued
supplemental questionnaires where appropriate.
On November 21, 2003, pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act,
the Department postponed the preliminary determination of this
investigation until January 26, 2004. See Floor-Standing, Metal-Top
Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of
China: Postponement of Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty
Investigation, 68 FR 66816 (November 28, 2003).
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. Where it is not practicable to examine all known
producers/exporters of subject merchandise, section 777A(c)(2) of the
Act 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 at the time of selection; or (2)
exporters and producers accounting for the largest volume of the
subject merchandise that can reasonably be examined. We received
quantity and value information from six known producers of the subject
merchandise in the PRC. Since Hardware and Yongjian were the producers
of subject merchandise accounting for the largest volume of exports to
the United States during the POI. Therefore, we selected Since Hardware
and Yongjian as mandatory respondents in this investigation. See
Memorandum from Thomas F. Futtner, Acting Office Director, Office 4, to
Holly A. Kuga, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Group II,
``Respondent Selection Memorandum,'' dated September 10, 2003, on file
in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the Main Commerce Building
(CRU).
Period of Investigation
The POI is October 1, 2002, through March 31, 2003. This period
corresponds to the two most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month
of the filing of the petition (i.e., June 2003). See 19 CFR
351.204(b)(1).
Scope of Investigation
For purposes of this investigation, the product covered consists of
floor-standing, metal-top ironing tables, assembled or unassembled,
complete or incomplete, and certain parts thereof. The subject tables
are designed and used principally for the hand ironing or pressing of
garments or other articles of fabric. The subject tables have full-
height leg assemblies that support the ironing surface at an
appropriate (often adjustable) height above the floor. The subject
tables are produced in a variety of leg finishes, such as painted,
plated, or matte, and they are available with various features,
including iron rests, linen racks, and others. The subject ironing
tables may be sold with or without a pad and/or cover. All types and
configurations of floor-standing, metal-top ironing tables are covered
by this investigation.
Furthermore, this investigation specifically covers imports of
ironing tables, assembled or unassembled, complete or incomplete, and
certain parts thereof. For purposes of this investigation, the term
``unassembled'' ironing table means a product requiring the attachment
of the leg assembly to the top or the attachment of an included feature
such as an iron rest or linen rack. The term ``complete'' ironing table
means a product sold as a ready-to-use ensemble consisting of the
metal-top table and a pad and cover, with or without additional
features, e.g. iron rest or linen rack. The term ``incomplete'' ironing
table means a product shipped or sold as a ``bare board'' i.e., a
metal-top table only, without the pad and cover- with or without
additional features, e.g. iron rest or linen rack. The major parts or
components of ironing tables that are intended to be covered by this
investigation under the term ``certain parts thereof'' consist of the
metal top component (with or without assembled supports and slides)
and/or the leg components, whether or not attached together as a leg
assembly. The investigation covers separately shipped metal top
components and leg components, without regard to whether the respective
quantities would yield an exact quantity of assembled ironing tables.
Ironing tables without legs (such as models that mount on walls or
over doors) are not floor-standing and are specifically excluded.
Additionally, tabletop or counter top models with short legs that do
not exceed 12 inches in length (and which may or may not collapse or
retract) are specifically excluded.
The subject ironing tables were previously classified under
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading
9403.20.0010. Effective July 1, 2003, the subject ironing tables are
classified under the new HTSUS subheading 9403.20.0011. The subject
metal top and leg components are classified under HTSUS subheading
9403.90.8040. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope
remains dispositive.
[[Page 5129]]
Product Coverage
In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations
(see Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR
27295, 27323 (May 19, 1997)) (Regulations Preamble), in our notice of
initiation we set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues
regarding product coverage and encouraged all parties to submit
comments within 20 days from the publication of the Initiation Notice.
See Initiation Notice, 68 FR at 44041. No parties submitted comments.
Non-Market Economy Country Status
The Department has treated the PRC as an NME country in all its
past antidumping investigations. See Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Circular Welded Carbon-Quality
Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 36570, 36571 (May
24, 2002); and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Structured Steel Beams from the People's Republic of China, 67
FR 35479, 35480 (May 20, 2000); and Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value Certain: Folding Metal Tables and Chairs
from the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 20090 (April 24, 2002). In
accordance with section 771(18)(C) of the Act, any determination that a
foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked.
No party to this investigation has sought revocation of the NME status
of the PRC. Therefore, pursuant to section 771(18)(C) of the Act, the
Department will continue to treat the PRC as an NME country.
When the Department is investigating imports from an NME country,
section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to base normal
value (NV) on the NME producer's factors of production, valued in a
comparable market economy that is a significant producer of comparable
merchandise. The sources of individual factor prices are discussed
under the ``Normal Value'' section, below.
Separate Rates
In an NME proceeding, the Department presumes that all companies
within the country are subject to governmental control and should be
assigned a single antidumping duty rate unless the respondent
demonstrates the absence of both de jure and de facto governmental
control over its export activities. See Notice of Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles From the People's Republic
of China, 61 FR 19026, 19027 (April 30, 1996) (Bicycles from the PRC).
Since Hardware, Yongjian, Forever Holdings, Lerado, Harvest, and Lihe
have provided the requested company-specific separate rates information
and have indicated that there is no element of government ownership or
control over their operations. We have considered whether these
companies are eligible for a separate rate, as discussed below.
The Department's separate-rates test is not concerned, in general,
with macroeconomic border-type controls (e.g., export licenses, quotas,
and minimum export prices), particularly if these controls are imposed
to prevent dumping. Rather, the test focuses on controls over the
decision-making process on export-related investment, pricing, and
output at the individual firm level. See Notice of Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel
Plate From Ukraine, 62 FR 61754, 61757 (November 19, 1997); 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); and
Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Honey From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 14725, 14727 (March
20, 1995).
To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from
government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department
analyzes each exporting entity under a test arising out of the Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the
People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as modified in
the 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). Under this test, the Department assigns
separate rates in NME cases only if an exporter can demonstrate the
absence of both de jure and de facto governmental control over its
export activities. See Silicon Carbide and the Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From
the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995).
In order for the Department to determine whether a company is
sufficiently independent to be entitled to a separate rate, the
companies must establish that they exported the subject merchandise to
the United States during the POI. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(i),
the Department will normally use the date of invoice to identify the
date of sale of the subject merchandise. However, the Department may
use a date other than the date of invoice if it is satisfied that a
different date better reflects the date on which the exporter
establishes the material terms of sale. In this instance, the
Department found all but one of the companies to have exported subject
merchandise to the United States during the POI. The Department cannot
consider Lerado an exporter who made subject merchandise sales to the
United States during the POI because Lerado did not present
satisfactory evidence establishing that it had sold subject merchandise
to the United States during the POI. See 19 CFR 351.401(i); see
Regulations Preamble, at 27349; see Memorandum from Sam
Zengotitabengoa, International Trade Compliance Analyst, Office IV, to
Thomas F. Futtner, Acting Office Director, Office IV, ``Separate Rates
Analysis for the Preliminary Determination in the Antidumping Duty
Investigation of Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain
Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China,'' dated concurrently
with this notice (Separate Rates Memo), on file in the CRU.
Because we preliminarily find that Lerado did not export subject
merchandise to the United States during the POI, we are not able to
evaluate whether Lerado qualifies for a separate rate. See Titanium
Sponge From the Russian Federation: Notice of Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 58525, 58528 (November
15, 1996), (where the Department states that ``{A{time} lthough AVISMA
made a separate rate claim, because there are no sales to the United
States by AVISMA, we are not able to evaluate the company's
separateness request.'')
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) any other
formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies.
Since Hardware, Yongjian, Forever Holdings, Harvest, and Lihe have
placed on the record a number of documents to demonstrate the absence
of de jure control, including their business licenses and the ``Company
Law of the People's Republic of China.'' Other than limiting these
companies' operations to
[[Page 5130]]
the activities referenced in the license, we noted no restrictive
stipulations associated with the license. In addition, in previous
cases, the Department has analyzed the ``Company Law of the People's
Republic of China'' and found that it establishes an absence of de jure
control. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Certain Partial-Extension Steel Drawer Slides with Rollers
from the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 54472, 54474 (October 24,
1995). We have no information in this proceeding which would cause us
to reconsider this determination. Therefore, based on the foregoing, we
have preliminarily found an absence of de jure control for these
companies.
2. Absence of De Facto Control
The Department typically 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
subject to, the approval of a governmental authority; (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 its 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.
With regard to the issue of de facto control, Since Hardware,
Yongjian, Forever Holdings, Harvest, and Lihe have reported the
following: (1) there is no government participation in setting export
prices; (2) their managers have authority to bind sales contracts; (3)
they do not have to notify any government authorities of their
management selection, and (4) there are no restrictions on the use of
their export revenue and they are responsible for financing their own
losses. Furthermore, our analysis of these companies' questionnaire
responses reveals no other information indicating governmental control
of export activities. Therefore, based on the information provided, we
preliminarily determine that there is an absence of de facto government
control. Consequently, we preliminarily determine that Since Hardware,
Yongjian, Forever Holdings, Harvest, and Lihe have met the criteria for
the application of separate rates. For a more detailed discussion of
this issue, see Separate Rates Memo.
Margins for Cooperative Exporters Not Selected
To those exporters: (1) who submitted a timely response to section
A of the Department's questionnaire, but were not selected as mandatory
respondents, and (2) for whom the section A response indicates that the
exporter is eligible for a separate rate, we assigned a weighted-
average of the rates of the fully analyzed companies, excluding any
rates that were zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available.
See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Certain Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the People's
Republic of China, 67 FR 36570, 36571 (May 24, 2002) (Welded Steel
Pipe). Companies receiving this rate are identified by name in the
``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice.
The PRC-Wide Rate
In all NME cases, the Department makes a rebuttable presumption
that all exporters located in the NME country comprise a single
exporter under common government control, the ``NME entity.'' See
Bicycles From the PRC. Although the Department provided all known PRC
exporters of the subject merchandise with the opportunity to respond to
our initial questionnaire, only Since Hardware, Yongjian, Forever,
Harvest, Lerado, and Lihe responded. However, because other PRC
companies did not submit a response to the Department's Section A
quantity and value question, as discussed above in the ``Case History''
section of this notice, and thus did not demonstrate their entitlement
to a separate rate, we have implemented the Department's rebuttable
presumption that these exporters constitute a single enterprise under
common control by the PRC government, and we are applying adverse facts
available to determine the single antidumping duty rate, the PRC-wide
rate, applicable to all other PRC exporters comprising this single
enterprise. 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).
Use of Facts Otherwise Available
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party
withholds information that has been requested by the Department, fails
to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner
requested, significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping
statute, or provides information which cannot be verified, the
Department shall use, subject to sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act,
facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. As
explained above, some exporters of the subject merchandise failed to
respond to the Department's request for information. The failure of
these exporters to respond significantly impedes this proceeding. Thus,
pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act, in reaching our preliminary
determination, we have based the PRC-wide rate on total facts
available.
In applying facts otherwise available, section 776(b) of the Act
provides that, if the Department finds that an interested party ``has
failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply
with a request for information,'' the Department may use information
that is adverse to the interests of that party as facts otherwise
available. Adverse inferences are appropriate ``to ensure that the
party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate
than if it had cooperated fully.'' See Statement of Administrative
Action SAA accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. No.
316, 103d Cong., 2d Session at 870 (1994).Furthermore, ``affirmative
evidence of bad faith on the part of the respondent is not required
before the Department may make an adverse inference.'' See Antidumping
Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997).
In this case, the complete failure of these exporters to respond to the
Department's requests for information constitutes a failure to
cooperate to the best of their ability.
For our preliminary determination, as adverse facts available, we
have used the highest rate calculated for a respondent, i.e., the rate
calculated for Yongjian. See Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe, Inc. v.
United States, 298 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (affirming Commerce's
application of adverse facts available and use of an adverse inference,
resulting in the application of the highest available dumping margin to
an uncooperative respondent). In an investigation, if the Department
chooses as facts available a calculated dumping margin of another
respondent, the Department will consider information reasonably at its
disposal as to whether there are circumstances that would indicate that
using that rate is inappropriate. In this investigation, there is no
indication that Yongjian's calculated margin is inappropriate to use as
adverse facts available.
Accordingly, for the preliminary determination, the PRC-wide rate
is 153.76 percent. Because this is a preliminary margin, the Department
[[Page 5131]]
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.
Fair Value Comparison
To determine whether Since Hardware's and Yongjian's sales of
ironing tables to customers in the United States were made at LTFV, we
compared Export Price (EP) to NV, using our NME methodology, as
described in the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this
notice below. In accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act,
we calculated weighted-average EPs.
Export Price
In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, EP is the price at
which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold),
before the date of importation, by the producer or exporter of the
subject merchandise to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States
or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States,
as adjusted under subsection (c).
We used an EP methodology in accordance with section 772(a) of the
Act because Since Hardware and Yongjian sold subject merchandise to
unaffiliated U.S. customers prior to importation and because a
constructed export price methodology was not otherwise warranted. We
calculated EP based on the packed, freight-on-board port-of-export
price charged to the first unaffiliated customer for exportation to the
United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting
price (gross unit price) for foreign inland freight and brokerage and
handling. Where foreign inland freight and brokerage and handling were
provided by NME companies, we used surrogate values from India to value
these expenses. See Memorandum from Sam Zengotitabengoa, International
Trade Compliance Analyst, to the File, ``Surrogate Country Factors of
Production Values in the Preliminary Determination of the Antidumping
Duty Investigation on Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and
Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China, dated
concurrently with this notice (FOP Valuation Memo), on file in the CRU.
Normal Value
1. Surrogate Country
Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires that the Department value the
NME producer's factors of production, to the extent possible, based on
the prices or costs of factors of production 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 Department's Office of Policy initially
identified five countries that are at a level of economic development
comparable to the PRC in terms of per-capita gross national product and
the national distribution of labor. Those countries are India,
Pakistan, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and the Philippines. See Memorandum
from Ron Lorentzen, Acting Director, Office of Policy, to Thomas F.
Futtner, Acting Office Director, Office 4, ``Request for a List of
Surrogate Countries,'' dated September 4, 2003, on file in the CRU.
Among these countries, India is the most significant producer of
comparable merchandise. Therefore, we have preliminarily calculated NV
by applying Indian values to Since Hardware's and Yongjian's factors of
production.
2. Factors of Production
In their questionnaire responses, Since Hardware and Yongjian
reported factors of production for the manufacture of the subject
merchandise during the POI. The factors of production 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. See Section 773(c)(3) of the Act. To calculate NV, we
multiplied the reported per-unit quantities by publicly available
surrogate values from India.
Generally, the surrogate values employed in the valuation of the
factors of production were selected because of their quality,
specificity, and contemporaneity. We modified those values not
contemporaneous with the POI using wholesale price indices (WPI)
published by the Office of the Economic Adviser to the Government of
India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, to account for inflation or
deflation between the effective period and the POI. As appropriate, we
included freight costs in input prices to make them delivered prices.
Specifically, we added to the surrogate values a surrogate freight cost
calculated using the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic
input supplier to the factory processing subject merchandise or the
distance from the nearest seaport to the relevant factory. This
adjustment is in accordance with the Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit's decision in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 1401,
1407-1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
To value inputs and packing materials that derived from market
economy countries, we used the reported prices. We valued all other
material inputs and packing materials using publicly available Indian
import statistics from the appropriate Indian Harmonized Tariff
Schedule classification, obtained from the Government of India,
Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Director General, Commercial
Intelligence and Statistics, as published in the World Trade Atlas
(WTA). See FOP Valuation Memo. Because the Department has determined
that Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand maintain broadly available,
non-industry specific export subsidies which may benefit all exporters
to all export markets, we eliminated the quantities and values of
imports from these countries from the import statistics used to
calculate the surrogate values. 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). In
addition, the Department eliminated Indian imports of non-market
economy countries from the import statistics used to calculate the
surrogate values.
One of the respondents purchased cold-rolled steel inputs from a
market economy supplier in a market economy currency. At this time, the
Department has generally available information indicating that the PRC
government imposed an antidumping order on imports of cold-rolled steel
products from various countries, including the country in question. See
Memorandum from Sam Zengotitabengoa, International Trade Compliance
Analyst, to the File, ``PRC AD Final Determination,'' dated
concurrently with this notice, on file in the CRU. Because the
Department has reason to believe or suspect that cold-rolled steel from
the country in question is being dumped, we have disregarded prices for
cold-rolled steel from this country, and instead used the Indian
surrogate value for both respondents.
For energy, we valued argon gas using a 1997 price quote from an
Indian producer of argon; diesel oil and electricity using the 2003
International Energy Agency's Key World Energy Statistics; and water
using four price quotes reported by the Asian Development Bank on
October 1997.
We valued labor using the latest regression-based wage rate for
China found on Import Administration's Web page (http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/
), as described in 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3).
To value foreign inland truck freight costs, we relied upon 17
price quotes used by the Department in the Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less
[[Page 5132]]
Than Fair Value: Bulk Aspirin From the People's Republic of China, 65
FR 33805 (May 25, 2000). We valued brokerage and handling using the
average of the foreign brokerage and handling expenses in Certain
Stainless Steel Wire Rod From India: Final Results of Administrative
and New Shipper Review, 64 FR 856 (January 6, 1999).
Because the Department did not find industry specific data on the
record to calculate the surrogate ratios for selling, general and
administrative (SG&A) expenses, factory overhead, and profit, the
Department used the ``2001-2002 combined income, value of production,
expenditure and appropriation accounts'' for a sample of 2,024 public
companies in India that were reported in the October 2003 Reserve Bank
of India Bulletin.
For a complete analysis of surrogate values used in the preliminary
determination, see FOP Valuation Memo.
Verification
In accordance with section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify
all information relied upon in making our final determination.
Suspension of Liquidation
We are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to
suspend liquidation of all entries of ironing tables from the PRC
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the
date on which this notice is published in the Federal Register. In
addition, we are instructing CBP to require a cash deposit or the
posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV
exceeds the EP, as indicated in the chart below. These instructions
suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.
We preliminarily determine that the following percentage weighted-
average margins exist for the POI:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer/exporter Weighted-Average Margin (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd................... 7.66
Shunde Yongjian Housewares Co., Ltd................... 153.76
Forever Holdings Ltd.................................. 69.59
Harvest International Housewares Ltd.................. 69.59
Gaoming Lihe Daily Necessities Co., Ltd............... 69.59
PRC-Wide Rate......................................... 153.76
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of the subject merchandise
except for entries from Since Hardware, Yongjian, Forever Holdings,
Harvest, and Lihe.
Disclosure
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose
the calculations performed in the preliminary determination to
interested parties within five days of the date of publication of this
notice.
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the
ITC of the Department's preliminary affirmative determination. If the
final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, the ITC will
determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this
preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination
whether imports of ironing tables from the PRC are materially injuring,
or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.
Public Comment
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), interested parties may
submit publicly available information to value the factors of
production for purposes of the final determination within 40 days after
the date of publication of this preliminary determination. Case briefs
or other written comments must be submitted to the Assistant Secretary
for Import Administration no later than one week after issuance of the
verification reports. Rebuttal briefs, the content of which is limited
to the issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within five days
after the deadline for the submission of case briefs. A list of
authorities used, a table of contents, and an executive summary of
issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department.
Executive summaries should be limited to five pages total, including
footnotes. Further, we request that parties submitting briefs and
rebuttal briefs provide the Department with a copy of the public
version of such briefs on diskette.
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 tentatively hold the hearing two days
after the deadline for submission of rebuttal briefs at the U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20230, at a time and in a room to be determined. Parties
should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing
48 hours before the scheduled date.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate
in a hearing 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 of the date of publication of this
notice. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and
telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the
issues to be discussed. At the hearing, oral presentations will be
limited to issues raised in the briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). The
Department will make its final determination no later than 75 days
after the preliminary determination.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with
sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: January 26, 2004.
James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 04-2168 Filed 2-2-04; 8:45 am]