72 FR 46957, August 22, 2007
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-890]
Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
and New Shipper Reviews: Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's
Republic of China
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On February 9, 2007, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') published its preliminary results in the antidumping duty
administrative review and new shipper reviews and notice of partial
rescission for wooden bedroom furniture from the People's Republic of
China. The period of review (``POR'') for the administrative review and
the new shipper reviews is June 24, 2004 through December 31, 2005. For
the final results of administrative review, see this notice. As a
result of an inadvertent error, the version of this notice released on
Wednesday, August 8, 2007, contained the appendix from the
investigation of this proceeding, rather than the appendix intended for
this administrative review. These amended final results correct this
error. No changes to the analysis, methodologies employed, or the rates
calculated were made. Because this error was discovered prior to
publication in the Federal Register, this amendment is being published
in place of the original version released on August 8, 2007.
    In the administrative review, we have determined that all five
mandatory respondents (i.e., Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited and its
affiliates (``Fine Furniture''); Foshan Guanqiu Furniture Co., Ltd.
(``Foshan Guanqiu''); Fujian Lianfu Forestry Co./Fujian Wonder Pacific
Inc./Fuzhou Huan Mei Furniture Co., Ltd./Jiangsu Dare Furniture Co.,
Ltd. (``Dare Group''); Shanghai Aosen Furniture Co., Ltd. (``Shanghai
Aosen'') and Shanghai Starcorp Furniture Co., Ltd, Starcorp Furniture
(Shanghai) Co., Ltd., Orin Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., Shanghai
Star Furniture Co., Ltd., and Shanghai Xing Ding Furniture Industrial
Co., Ltd. (collectively, ``Starcorp'')) made sales in the United States
at prices below normal value. With respect to the remaining respondents
in the administrative review (collectively, ``Separate Rate
Applicants''), we have determined that 42 entities have provided
sufficient evidence that they are separate from the state-controlled
entity, and we have established a weighted-average margin based on the
rates we have calculated for the five mandatory respondents, excluding
any rates that are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on adverse facts
available, to be applied to these separate-rate entities. We invited
interested parties to comment on our preliminary results of review. For
the new shipper reviews, the Department also reviewed two exporters/
producers, i.e., Dongguan Huanghouse Furniture Co., Ltd.
(``Huanghouse'') and Tianjin First Wood Co., Ltd. (``First Wood'').
Based on our analysis of the comments we received, we have made certain
changes to our calculations for all mandatory respondents. The final
dumping margins for this review are listed in the ``Final Results
Margins'' section below.
DATES: Effective Date: August 22, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gene Degnan or Robert Bolling, Import
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20230; telephone: (202) 482-0414 and (202) 482-3434, respectively.
Background
    The Department published its preliminary results on February 9,
2007. See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
Preliminary Results of New Shipper Reviews and Notice of Partial
Rescission, 72 FR 6201 (February 9, 2007) (``Preliminary Results'').
The Department conducted verification of two of the mandatory
respondents' and certain Separate-Rate Applicants' data in the People's
Republic of China (``PRC''). See Verification section, below, for
additional information.
    On June 12, 2007, the Department extended the deadline for the
final results of review to August 8, 2007. See Wooden Bedroom Furniture
from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limits for the
Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New
Shipper Reviews, 72 FR 32281 (June 12, 2007).
    We invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. We
received comments from the Petitioners, certain mandatory respondents,
certain Separate-Rate Applicants, and other interested parties to this
review. On June 18, 2007, parties submitted case briefs. On June 26,
2007, parties submitted rebuttal briefs. On July 12, 2007, the
Department held public and closed hearings.
Analysis of Comments Received
    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in
this review are addressed in the memorandum from Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M.
Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, ``Issues and
Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews on Wooden Bedroom
Furniture from the People's Republic of China,'' Issues and Decision
Memorandum, dated August 8, 2007, which is hereby adopted by this
notice (``Issues and Decision Memorandum''). A list of the issues which
parties raised and to which we respond in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Issues and
Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file in the Central
Records Unit (``CRU''), Main Commerce Building, Room B-099, and is
accessible on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and
electronic version of the memorandum are identical in content.
Period of Review
    The POR is June 24, 2004 through December 31, 2005.
Scope of Order
    The product covered by the order is wooden bedroom furniture.
Wooden bedroom furniture is generally, but not
[[Page 46958]]
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 the following items: (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 order excludes the following items: (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; (8) bedroom furniture in which bentwood
parts predominate \10\; (9) jewelry armories \11\; (10) cheval mirrors
\12\; (11) certain metal parts \13\;(12) mirrors that do not attach to,
incorporate in, sit on, or hang over a dresser if they are not designed
and marketed to be sold in conjunction with a dresser as part of a
dresser-mirror set; and (13) upholstered beds. \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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.
    \11\ Any armoire, cabinet or other accent item for the purpose
of storing jewelry, not to exceed 24'' in width, 18'' in depth, and
49'' in height, including a minimum of 5 lined drawers lined with
felt or felt-like material, at least one side door (whether or not
the door is lined with felt or felt-like material), with necklace
hangers, and a flip-top lid with inset mirror. See Issues and
Decision Memorandum from Laurel LaCivita to Laurie Parkhill, Office
Director, Concerning Jewelry Armoires and Cheval Mirrors in the
Antidumping Duty Investigation of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the
People's Republic of China, dated August 31, 2004. See also Wooden
Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Notice of
Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review and Revocation in
Part, 71 FR 38621 (July 7, 2006).
    \12\ Cheval mirrors are, i.e., any framed, tiltable mirror with
a height in excess of 50'' that is mounted on a floor-standing,
hinged base. Additionally, the scope of the order excludes
combination cheval mirror/jewelry cabinets. The excluded merchandise
is an integrated piece consisting of a cheval mirror, i.e., a framed
tiltable mirror with a height in excess of 50 inches, mounted on a
floor-standing, hinged base, the cheval mirror serving as a door to
a cabinet back that is integral to the structure of the mirror and
which constitutes a jewelry cabinet lined with fabric, having
necklace and bracelet hooks, mountings for rings and shelves, with
or without a working lock and key to secure the contents of the
jewelry cabinet back to the cheval mirror, and no drawers anywhere
on the integrated piece. The fully assembled piece must be at least
50 inches in height, 14.5 inches in width, and 3 inches in depth.
See Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China:
Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review and Determination To
Revoke Order in Part, 72 FR 948 (January 9, 2007).
    \13\ Metal furniture parts and unfinished furniture parts made
of wood products (as defined above) that are not otherwise
specifically named in this scope (i.e., wooden headboards for beds,
wooden footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and wooden
canopies for beds) and that do not possess the essential character
of wooden bedroom furniture in an unassembled, incomplete, or
unfinished form. Such parts are usually classified under the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'')
subheading 9403.90.7000.
    \14\ Upholstered beds that are completely upholstered, i.e.,
containing filling material and completely covered in sewn genuine
leather, synthetic leather, or natural or synthetic decorative
fabric. To be excluded, the entire bed (headboards, footboards, and
side rails) must be upholstered except for bed feet, which may be of
wood, metal, or any other material and which are no more than nine
inches in height from the floor. See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from
the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Changed
Circumstances Review and Determination to Revoke Order in Part, 72
FR 7013 (February 14, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Imports of subject merchandise are classified under subheading
9403.50.9040 of the HTSUS as ``wooden * * * beds'' and under subheading
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 subheading 9403.50.9040 of the HTSUS
as ``parts of wood'' and framed glass mirrors may also be entered under
subheading 7009.92.5000 of the HTSUS as ``glass mirrors * * * framed.''
This order 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.
[[Page 46959]]
Verification
    As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(``Act''), we verified the information submitted by certain mandatory
respondents and certain Separate-Rate Applicants for use in our final
results. See the Department's verification reports on the record of
this review in the CRU with respect to Shanghai Aosen; Starcorp; Baigou
Crafts Factory of Fengkai (``Baigou Crafts''); Dongguan Dihao Furniture
Co., Ltd. (``Dihao''); and Transworld (Zhangzhou) Furniture Co., Ltd.
(``Transworld''). For all verified companies, we used standard
verification procedures, including examination of relevant accounting
and production records, as well as original source documents provided
by respondents. For the further details on the verifications, see the
aforementioned verification reports.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
    Based on an analysis of comments received, the Department has made
certain changes in the margin calculations. For the final results, the
Department has made the following changes with respect to Shanghai
Aosen, Dare Group, Foshan Guanqui, Starcorp, and Fine Furniture.
General Issues
Calculation of Surrogate Financial Ratios
     For the final results, the Department is no longer using
the Nizamuddin Furnitures Private Limited 2004-2005 financial statement
in the calculation of the surrogate financial ratios. See Issues and
Decision Memorandum.
     For the final results, the Department is using the
following additional financial statements (not used in the preliminary
results) to calculate surrogate financial ratios: (1) Nizamuddin
Furnitures Private Limited (2005-2006); (2) James Andrew Newton Art
Export Pvt. Ltd. (2004-2005); (3) Nikhil Decore Industries Pvt. Ltd.
(2004-2005); and (4) Indian Furniture Products Limited (2005-2006). See
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 17, and ``First
Administrative Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's
Republic of China: Factor Valuation Memorandum for the Final Results''
dated August 8, 2007 (``WBF Final Factor Valuation Memorandum'').
     For the final results, in the calculation of Akriti
Perfections India Pvt. Ltd.'s surrogate financial ratios, the
Department has reclassified ``Consumables'' from raw material to
manufacturing overhead. See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment
21, and WBF Final Factor Valuation Memorandum.
     For the final results, the Department has excluded
``Octroi'' expenses from the calculation of Huzaifa Furniture
Industries Pvt. Ltd.'s surrogate financial ratios. See Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 25.
     For the final results, the Department has included the
line-item ``Contract Manufacturing'' in manufacturing overhead of Ahuja
Furnishers Private Limited's surrogate financial ratios. See Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 18, and WBF Final Factor Valuation
Memorandum.
     For the final results, the Department has re-classified
``Bonuses'' and ``Gratuities'' from manufacturing overhead or selling,
general and administrative expenses to the direct labor portion of
Materials, Labor and Energy (``ML&E'') in the calculation of surrogate
financial ratios for Ahuja Furnishers Private Limited, Huzaifa
Furniture Industries Pvt. Ltd., and Indian Furniture Products Limited.
See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 20 and WBF Final Factor
Valuation Memorandum.
     For the final results, the Department has included
``Closing Stock'' and ``Opening Stock'' in the material portion of ML&E
in the calculation of Fusion Design Private Ltd.'s surrogate financial
ratios. See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 23, and WBF Final
Factor Valuation Memorandum.
Recalculation of Surrogate Values
     For the final results, the Department has recalculated
surrogate values for the polymers of styrene, cardboard, paint, and
resin. See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 10, 13, 14, 47,
and 48 and WBF Final Factor Valuation Memorandum.
     For the final results, the Department has calculated a
surrogate value for mirrors using Glass Yug instead of the Monthly
Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India, Volume II: Imports. See
http://www.gtis.com/wta.htm, which we used for the preliminary results.
See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 12 and WBF Final Factor
Valuation Memorandum.
     For the final results, the Department has recalculated the
surrogate value for labor using the surrogate value of $0.83 per hour
instead of $0.97 per hour used for the preliminary results. See Issues
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 17 and WBF Final Factor Valuation
Memorandum.
Company-Specific Issues
Dare Group
     For the final results, the Department has revised the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (``HTS'') category used to calculate the
surrogate value for cardboard. See Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 34 and WBF Final Factor Valuation Memorandum.
     For the final results, the Department has revised certain
assessment rate calculations. See Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 36 and ``Analysis Memorandum for the Final Results of
Administrative Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's
Republic of China for Fujian Lianfu Forestry Co., Ltd., Fuzhou Huan Mei
Furniture Co. Ltd., and Jiangsu Dare Furniture Co, Ltd.'' dated (August
8, 2007) (``WBF Dare Group Final Results Analysis Memo 08/08/07'').
     For the final results, the Department has excluded certain
non-scope merchandise from the margin calculation. See Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 37 and WBF Dare Group Final Results
Analysis Memo 08/08/07.
     For the final results, the Department is using a material-
specific conversion rate to calculate surrogate values for
``FIBERBOARDMD'', ``PAPEREDFIBERBOARDMD'', and ``FIBERBOARDPACKING.''
See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 40 and WBF Dare Group
Final Results Analysis Memo 08/08/07.
     For the final results, the Department has corrected a
conversion error in the calculation of the surrogate values for
``WOODPLUG'' and ``OKOUEMEVEMEER.'' See Issues and Decision Memorandum
at Comments 41 and 42 and WBF Dare Group Final Results Analysis Memo
08/08/07.
     For the final results, the Department is using data from a
different HTS category to calculate the surrogate value of ``PIGMENT--
O''. See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 31 and WBF Dare
Group Final Results Analysis Memo 08/08/07.
     For the final results, the Department is using updated
quantity data submitted by Dare Group and is no longer applying facts
available to certain sales where Dare Group reported zero quantity in
gross unit kilograms. See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 39
and WBF Dare Group Final Results Analysis Memo 08/08/07.
     In the preliminary results, the Department used partial
adverse facts available (``AFA'') to value the indirect and packing
labor which was not reported for certain control numbers (``CONNUMs'').
For the final results, the
[[Page 46960]]
Department is continuing to apply as partial AFA the highest labor
values reported by Dare Group for any CONNUM. See ``Application of
Partial Facts Available'' section, below, the Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 38, and WBF Dare Group Final Results Analysis
Memo 08/08/07.
Fine Furniture
     For the final results, the Department has determined not
to apply partial facts available with respect to certain of Fine
Furniture's sample sales. With respect to Fine Furniture's sample
sales, we are using Fine Furniture's reported data in our margin
calculation. See ``Analysis Memorandum for the Final Results of the
First Administrative Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the
People's Republic of China: Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited'' dated
August 8, 2007.
Foshan Guanqiu
     For the final results, the Department has recalculated
surrogate values for resin and paint used by Foshan Guanqiu. See Issues
and Decision Memorandum at Comments 47 and 48, and ``Analysis
Memorandum for the Final Results of the First Administrative Review of
Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Foshan
Guanqiu'' dated August 8. 2007.
Starcorp
     For the preliminary results, we calculated a dumping
margin of 74.69 percent for Starcorp, using partial adverse facts
available. However, for the final results, we are applying total AFA.
See Adverse Facts Available section, below. See also Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 63, and the companion Memorandum
regarding ``Application of Adverse Facts Available for Shanghai
Starcorp Funiture Co., Ltd, Starcorp Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.,
Orin Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., Shanghai Star Furniture Co., Ltd.,
and Shanghai Xing Ding Furniture Industrial Co., Ltd. in the Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Wooden Bedroom
Furniture from the People's Republic of China,'' dated August 8, 2007
(``Starcorp AFA Memorandum'').
Surrogate Country
    In the preliminary results, the Department stated that it treats
the PRC as a non-market economy (``NME'') country, and therefore, the
Department calculated normal value in accordance with section 773(c) of
the Act, which applies to NME countries. Also, the Department stated
that it selected India as the appropriate surrogate country to use in
this review for the following reasons: (1) India is at a level of
economic development comparable to that of the PRC; (2) India is a
significant producer of comparable merchandise; and (3) India provides
the best opportunity to use quality, publicly available data to value
the factors of production (``FOP''). See Preliminary Results, 72 FR at
6208. For the final results, the Department has made no changes to its
findings with respect to the selection of a surrogate country. See
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
Separate Rates
    In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department begins with
a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are
subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single
antidumping duty deposit rate (``PRC-wide rate''). 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 free of de jure (in law) and de facto (in fact)
control over its export decisions, so as to be entitled to a separate
rate.
    In the Preliminary Results, the Department found that the mandatory
respondents and numerous companies which provided responses to the
separate-rate application or separate-rate certification were eligible
for a rate separate from the PRC-wide rate. See Preliminary Results, 72
FR at 6208, 6210. For the final results, we have determined that
additional companies qualify for separate-rate status. For a complete
listing of all the companies that received a separate rate, see the
Final Results Margins section, below. See also, Memorandum regarding
``Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China:
Separate Rates for Producers/Exporters that Submitted Separate Rate
Certifications and Applications'' (``Final Separate-Rates Memo''),
dated August 8, 2007.
    In the Preliminary Results, we did not grant separate-rate status
for 14 companies. See Preliminary Results 72 FR at 6209, 6210. Of
those, we stated that we would request additional information from six
applicants after the Preliminary Results, whereupon we would reevaluate
their eligibility for a separate rate for the final results. See
Preliminary Results 72 FR at 6210. Also, three additional companies
(i.e., Zhejiang Niannian Hong Industrial Co. Ltd. (``Nanaholy'');
Triple J Enterprises Co. Ltd. (``Triple J''), Zhongshan Winny Furniture
Ltd. (``Winny'')) filed post-preliminary submissions asking that the
Department reconsider its preliminary decision to deny them separate-
rate status. See Final Separate-Rates Memo.
    Based on the information submitted in response to our post-
preliminary supplemental questionnaires, we find that Guangdong New
Four Seas Furniture Manufacturing Ltd.; King Kei Furniture Factory/King
Kei Trading Co., Ltd./Jin Ching Trading Co. Ltd.; and Top Art Furniture
Factory/Sanxig Top Art Funiture/Ngai Kun Trading have provided
sufficient information to establish an absence of government control
and eligibility for separate-rate status. Therefore, the evidence
placed on the record of this administrative review by these separate-
rate respondents demonstrates an absence of government control, both in
law and in fact, with respect to each of the exporter's exports of the
subject merchandise, in accordance with the criteria identified in
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from
the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), and Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from
the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2,1994). As a result,
for the purposes of these final results, we have granted separate rate
status to the above-named separate-rate applicants that shipped wooden
bedroom furniture to the United States during the POR. Additionally, we
have granted a separate rate to other separate-rate applicants.\15\ See
Final Separate-Rates Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Ace Furniture & Crafts Ltd. (a.k.a. Deqing Ace Furniture &
Crafts Limited); Baigou Crafts Factory of Fengkai; Best King
International Ltd.; Dalian Pretty Home Furniture; Decca Furniture
Limited; Der Cheng Wooden Works of Factory; Dongguan Dihao Furniture
Co., Ltd.; Dongguan Hua Ban Furniture Co., Ltd.; Dongguan Mingsheng
Furniture Co., Ltd.; Dongguan New Technology Import & Export Co.,
Ltd.; Dongguan Sunpower Enterprise Co., Ltd.; Dongguan Yihaiwei
Furniture Limited; Kalanter (Hong Kong) Furniture Company Limited;
Foshan Guanqiu Furniture Co., Ltd.; Fujian Lianfu Forestry Co.,
Ltd./Fujian Wonder Pacific Inc.; Furnmart Ltd.; Fuzhou Huan Mei
Furniture Co. Ltd.; Guangdong New Four Seas Furniture Manufacturing
Ltd.; Guangzhou Lucky Furniture Co. Ltd.; Hong Yu Furniture
(Shenzhen) Co. Ltd.; Hung Fai Wood Products Factory, Ltd.; Hwang Ho
International Holdings Limited; Jiangsu Dare Furniture Co, Ltd.;
King Kei Furniture Factory; Kingwood Furniture Co. Ltd.; Meikangchi
Nantong Furniture Company Ltd.; Nantong Yangzi Furniture Co., Ltd.;
Po Ying Industrial Co.; Profit Force Ltd.; Qingdao Beiyuan-Shengli
Furniture Co., Ltd.; Qingdao Shenchang Wooden Co., Ltd.; Red Apple
Trading Co. Ltd.; Shanghai Aosen Furniture Co., Ltd.; Starcorp
Furniture Co., Ltd., Starcorp Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., Orin
Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., Shanghai Star Furniture Co., Ltd.,
and Shanghai Xing Ding Furniture Industrial Co., Ltd. (collectively
``Starcorp''); Shenyang Kunyu Wood Industry Co., Ltd.; Shenzhen
Dafuhao Industrial Development Co., Ltd.; Shenzhen Shen Long Hang
Industry Co., Ltd.; Sino Concord International Corporation; T.J.
Maxx International Co. Ltd.; Top Art Furniture Factory/Sanxig Top
Art Funiture/Ngai Kun Trading; Top Goal Development Co.; Transworld
(Zhangzhou) Furniture Co. Ltd.; Wan Bao Chen Group Hong Kong Co.
Ltd.; Winmost Enterprises Limited; Xilinmen Group Co. Ltd.; Yongxin
Industrial (Holdings) Limited; Zhongshan Gainwell Furniture Co. Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 46961]]
    Furthermore, we continue to find that the following separate-rate
applicants have not demonstrated an absence of government control over
their export activities, both in law and in fact: Conghua J. L. George
Timber & Co. Ltd. (``Conghua''); Zhongshan Youcheng Wooden Arts &
Crafts Co., Ltd. (``ZY Wooden'') and Macau Youcheng Trading Co. (``MY
Trading'') (collectively, ``ZY Wooden/MY Trading''); Kunwa Enterprise
Company (``Kunwa''), Nanaholy; Triple J, Winny, Kong Fong Art Factory
and Kong Fong Mao Iek Hong (``Kong Fong''), Putian Ou Dian Furniture
Co., Ltd. (``Putian''), and Speedy International, Ltd. (``Speedy'').
Therefore, we determine that Conghua, Kunwa, Nanaholy, Triple J, Winny,
ZY Wooden/MY Trading, Kong Fong, Putian, and Speedy are part of the
PRC-wide entity and, therefore, do not qualify for a separate rate and
will be subject to PRC-wide rate. See Final Separate-Rates Memo.
    The margin we calculated in the Preliminary Results for these
separate-rate companies was 62.94 percent. Because the rates of the
selected mandatory respondents have changed since the Preliminary
Results, we have recalculated the rate for Separate-Rate Applicants.
The final rate is 35.38 percent. See Memorandum to the File from Eugene
Degnan, ``Calculation of Separate Rate,'' dated August 8, 2007.
Affiliation
    In the Preliminary Results, we stated Fujian Lianfu Forestry Co.
Ltd./Fujian Wonder Pacific Inc./Fuzhou Huan Mei Furniture Co., Ltd./
Jiangsu Dare Furniture Co., Ltd., collectively, (``Dare Group'') were
affiliated pursuant to sections 771(33)(A), (E) and (F) of the Act and
that these companies should be treated as a single entity for the
purposes of the antidumping administrative review of wooden bedroom
furniture from the PRC. See Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 6208. For the
final results, we have made no changes to our findings with respect to
Dare Group's affiliation.
Adverse Facts Available
    Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act provide that the Department
shall apply ``facts otherwise available'' if necessary information is
not on the record or an interested party or any other person (A)
withholds information that has been requested, (B) fails to provide
information within the deadlines established, or in the form and manner
requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of
section 782, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D) provides
information that cannot be verified as provided by section 782(i) of
the Act.
    Where the Department determines that a response to a request for
information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act
provides that the Department will so inform the party submitting the
response and will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the
opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to
remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits and subject to
section 782(e) of the Act, the Department may disregard all or part of
the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Section 782(e)
of the Act provides that the Department ``shall not decline to consider
information that is submitted by an interested party and is necessary
to the determination but does not meet all applicable requirements
established by the administering authority'' if the information is
timely, can be verified, is not so incomplete that it cannot be used,
and if the interested party acted to the best of its ability in
providing the information. Where all of these conditions are met, the
statute requires the Department to use the information if it can do so
without undue difficulties.
    Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may
use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when
a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its
ability to comply with a request for information. Section 776(b) of the
Act also authorizes the Department to use as AFA information derived
from the petition, the final determination, a previous administrative
review, or other information placed on the record.
Application of Facts Available
First Wood
    In the Preliminary Results, we determined pursuant to sections
776(a)(1), 776(a)(2), and 776(b) of the Act to apply AFA to First Wood
in the new shipper review because First Wood: withheld the sales and
cost reconciliations as well as extensive factors of production
(``FOP'') data requested by the Department; failed to provide the units
of measure for its FOP consumption in a form or manner requested by the
Department; reported its FOP consumption in units of measure in a
manner that does not allow the Department to identify the actual
consumption rates or calculate the value for the FOP consumed in the
production of subject merchandise, thereby significantly impeding the
proceeding, resulting in the sales and FOP data being unverifiable. See
Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 6212-13. We also determined that First
Wood did not act ``to the best of its ability,'' as required by the
statute. See Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 6212-13. Thus, based on
First Wood's actions, we preliminarily determined that it failed to
cooperate to the best of its ability in responding to the Department's
requests for information. Therefore, we preliminarily determined that,
when selecting from among the facts otherwise available, an adverse
inference is warranted for First Wood pursuant to section 776(b) of the
Act. See Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 6212, 6213. For the final
results, we have made no changes to our findings with respect to First
Wood's total AFA determination. See Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comments 43 and 44.
Huanghouse
    In the Preliminary Results, we determined that because Huanghouse
ceased participating in the new shipper review, and none of its
submitted information could be verified, Huanghouse did not demonstrate
its entitlement to a separate rate and was, therefore, subject to the
PRC-wide rate. See Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 6212-13. For the final
results, we made no changes to our findings with respect to
Huanghouse's determination.
Kong Fong Art Factory and Kong Fong Mao Iek Hong
    In the Preliminary Results, we determined that because Kong Fong
ceased participating in the administrative review and would not provide
a response to the Department's supplemental questionnaire, Kong Fong
did not demonstrate its entitlement to a separate rate and was,
therefore, subject to the PRC-wide rate. See Preliminary Results, 72 FR
at 6210-12. For the final results, we made no changes to our findings
with respect to Huanghouse's determination.
Putian Ou Dian Furniture Co., Ltd.
    In the Preliminary Results, we determined that because Putian
submitted a withdrawal of its request for the administrative review
after the 90-day regulatory deadline (i.e., November 30, 2006), and
stated that it would not provide a response to the Department's
[[Page 46962]]
supplemental questionnaire. Thus Putian stopped participating in this
review, did not demonstrate its entitlement to a separate rate and was,
therefore, subject to the PRC-wide rate. See Preliminary Results, 72 FR
at 6211-12. For the final results, we made no changes to our findings
with respect to Putian's determination.
Speedy International, Ltd.
    In the Preliminary Results, we determined that because Speedy
International, Ltd. (``Speedy'') failed to support its claim that its
owner was a citizen of Taiwan, and did not complete the sections of the
separate rate application for NME owned entities, thus, Speedy did not
demonstrate its entitlement to a separate rate and was, therefore,
subject to the PRC-wide rate. See Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 6211-
12. For the final results, we have made no changes to our findings with
respect to Speedy's determination.
Starcorp
    The Department finds that the information necessary to calculate an
accurate and reliable margin is not available on the record with
respect to Starcorp. See Issues and Decision Memo at Comment 63; and
Starcorp AFA Memorandum. Specifically, Starcorp has significantly
impeded the Department's ability to calculate accurate margins for a
significant percentage of its U.S. sales as a direct result of its
misreporting and withholding of information that would have served as
the basis for the Department's analysis. Therefore, we find use of
facts available appropriate pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B) and
(C) of the Act, and as discussed in extensive detail in the Starcorp
AFA Memorandum. Despite having numerous opportunities to provide the
Department with requested information with respect to merchandise sold
but not produced during the POR, the facts on the record lead the
Department to the conclusion that Starcorp did not act as a reasonable
respondent by withholding certain information necessary to calculate an
accurate margin (i.e., it failed to disclose the methodology it used to
derive its proxy FOPs for merchandise sold but not produced during the
POR (i.e., proxy FOPs) and failed to provide forthcoming responses in a
timely manner to the Department's numerous direct questions regarding
its reporting methodology (i.e., use of proxy FOPs and use of sales
quantities instead of production quantities to weight certain FOPs
within numerous CONNUMs)). See Starcorp AFA Memorandum and Comment 63
of the Issues and Decision Memorandum. These failures significantly
impeded the Department's ability to comprehend and analyze Starcorp's
data adequately within the Department's statutory timeframe. As a
result of Starcorp's repeated misreporting and failure to provide
information that was responsive to the Department's requests, the
Department's ability to calculate accurate margins for a significant
portion of Starcorp's sales was compromised.
    Starcorp further impeded the Department's ability to calculate
accurate margins as a direct result of its failure to provide, in the
form and manner requested by the Department and within the Department's
established deadlines, the information that would have served as the
basis of the Department's analysis, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(B)
and (C) of the Act. Specifically, and as discussed in great detail in
the Starcorp AFA Memorandum, Starcorp did not provide plant-specific
plant data until very late in the proceeding, and did not disclose that
these data do not contain FOPs for all of the CONNUMs correlating to
its U.S. sales (i.e., the plant-specific databases did not contain the
requisite data for calculating normal values for all of Starcorp's U.S.
sales and thus do not contain the data necessary to calculate a dumping
margin for those sales). Despite having numerous opportunities to
provide the plant-specific and weighted-average data in a timely
manner, as evidenced by the Department's numerous supplemental
questionnaires addressing deficiencies in Starcorp's responses,
Starcorp did not do so. Thus, as explained in detail in the Starcorp
AFA Memorandum, the facts on the record lead the Department to the
conclusion that Starcorp failed to provide forthcoming responses in a
timely manner to the Department's numerous direct requests, and this
failure significantly impeded the Department's ability to comprehend
and analyze Starcorp's data adequately within the Department's
statutory time frame. As a result, the Department's ability to
calculate accurate margins for any of Starcorp's sales was compromised.
    Further, the Department also found Starcorp's financial statements
to be unreliable. See Comment 56 of the Issues and Decision Memorandum
and the Starcorp AFA Memo. Because the Department finds that Starcorp's
submitted information cannot be tied to reliable financial statements
or a reliable financial recording system, the Department must conclude
that any submitted data are also not reliable.
    Finally, there remain significant discrepancies between Starcorp's
numerous data files and the narrative descriptions Starcorp provided
purporting to explain those data files. For example, there are
inconsistencies related to: which unique products were not sold during
the POR and which FOPs were therefore based on proxy FOP data;
Starcorp's reported production quantities for sets, notwithstanding
Starcorp's repeated statements that it does not produce sets; and
Starcorp's inclusion of the same product in the FOP buildups for more
than one CONNUM.
    Based on the analysis above, for the final results, we applied
facts available pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the
Act with respect to Starcorp's sales. Furthermore, it is apparent from
the facts on the record, i.e., Starcorp's repeated unresponsiveness to
information requests, its repeated failure to provide requested data in
a timely manner, its withholding of its methodology to determine the
product-specific source of proxy FOP data, and the significant level of
inconsistencies and contradictions in its data and narrative
submissions (including information obtained at verification), that
Starcorp did not act as a reasonable respondent because its failure to
be responsive was unnecessary. See Starcorp AFA Memorandum. Thus, we
find that Starcorp failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its
ability. For this reason, we find it appropriate that an adverse
inference be applied when selecting from among the facts available in
accordance with section 776(b) of the Act.
    As AFA we are applying a rate of 216.01 percent, the rate
calculated for a respondent in the most recently completed new shipper
reviews of wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC, covering the first 12
months of this administrative review. See Final Results of the 2004-
2005 Semi-Annual New Shipper Reviews: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the
People's Republic of China, 71 FR 70739 (December 6, 2006) (``04-05 New
Shipper Reviews''). This represents the highest rate from the history
of this proceeding.
Application of Partial Facts Available
    Sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (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
[[Page 46963]]
AFA when an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to
the best of its ability. We have concluded that the Dare Group did not
cooperate to the best of its ability.
Dare Group
    Because the Dare Group did not provide complete information with
respect to indirect and packing labor for certain CONNUMs, as requested
in the Department's questionnaires, we preliminarily determined that
the use of an adverse inference was warranted to value these FOPs. See
Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 6214. For the final results, we have
determined to continue to apply sections 776(a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B), and
(b) of the Act because the Dare Group did not provide us with the
information we requested. Therefore, in accordance with sections
776(a)(2) and (b) of the Act, we have applied partial AFA in
calculating the Dare Group's margin. For each CONNUM for which zero
labor hours were reported, we have applied the highest labor hour value
for any CONNUM reported in the Dare Group's FOP database. See Issues
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 38.
Corroboration
    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 or review, it shall, to the extent
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that
are reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is information
derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or
review, the final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or
any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject
merchandise. See e.g., Statement of Administration Action accompanying
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, (1994) (SAA)
at 870. Corroborate means that the Department will satisfy itself that
the secondary information to be used has probative value. To
corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent
practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information
to be used. See e.g., 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) (unchanged in the final determination). Independent
sources used to corroborate such evidence may include, for example,
published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and
information obtained from interested parties during the particular
investigation or review. See 19 CFR 351.308(d).
    The AFA rate that the Department is now using was determined in the
recently published new shipper review. See 04-05 New Shipper Reviews 71
FR at 70741. In that new shipper review, the Department calculated a
company-specific rate of 216.01 percent, which was above the PRC-wide
rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation. Because
this new rate is a company-specific calculated rate concerning subject
merchandise, we have determined this rate to be reliable.
    With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to
determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where
circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as
AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an
appropriate margin. For example, in Fresh Cut Flowers From Mexico:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812
(February 22, 1996), the Department disregarded the highest margin in
that case as adverse best information available (the predecessor to
facts available), because the margin was based on another company's
uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high
margin. Similarly, the Department does not apply a margin that has been
discredited. See D&L Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1221
(Fed. Cir. 1997) where the Court ruled that the Department will not use
a margin that has been judicially invalidated. Nothing on the record of
this review calls into question the relevance of the margin selected as
AFA. Further, the selected margin is a company-specific calculated rate
for another respondent for a period covering 12 months (i.e., June 24,
2004, through June 30, 2005) of this 18-month administrative review.
Moreover, this rate has not been invalidated judicially, and falls
within the range of margins calculated for another respondent in this
review. Therefore, it is appropriate to use the selected rate as AFA
and we have determined the 216.01 percent rate to be relevant for use
in this administrative review.
    As the adverse margin is both reliable and relevant, we determine
that it has probative value. Accordingly, we determine that this rate
meets the corroboration criteria established in section 776(c) that
secondary information have probative value. As a result, the Department
determines that the margin is corroborated for the purposes of this
administrative review and may reasonably be applied to First Wood,
Huanghouse, Kong Fong, Putian, Speedy, and Starcorp, and the PRC-wide
entity as AFA.
The PRC-Wide Rate
    Because we begin with the presumption that all companies within an
NME country are subject to government control and because only the
companies listed under these ``Final Results Margins'' section, below,
have overcome that presumption, we are applying a single antidumping
rate (i.e., the PRC-wide rate) to all other exporters of subject
merchandise from the PRC. Such companies did not demonstrate
entitlement to a separate rate. See e.g., Notice of 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 subject merchandise except for entries from
the respondents that are listed in the ``Final Results Margins''
section, below (except as noted).
    The Department based the margin for the PRC-wide entity on adverse
facts available. See Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 6212, 6214. Pursuant
to section 776(a) of the Act, the Department found that because the
PRC-wide entity failed to respond to the Department's questionnaires,
withheld or failed to provide information in a timely manner or in the
form or manner requested by the Department, submitted information that
could not be verified, or otherwise impeded the process, it was
appropriate to apply a dumping margin for the PRC-wide entity using
facts otherwise available on the record. The Department further
determined that an adverse inference was appropriate because the PRC-
wide entity failed to respond to requests for information and therefore
failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability. As AFA we
are applying the highest calculated rate from the history of this
proceeding, a rate calculated for a respondent in the most recently
completed new shipper reviews of wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC,
covering the first 12 months of this administrative review. See Wooden
Bedroom Furniture from the People 's Republic of China: Final Results
of the 2004-2005 Semi-Annual New Shipper Reviews, 71 FR 70739 (December
6, 2006).
[[Page 46964]]
Final Results Margins
    We determine that the following percentage weighted-average margins
exist for the POR:
                  Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the PRC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Weighted-average
                 Producer/exporter                    margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fujian Lianfu Forestry Co. Ltd /Fujian Wonder                      48.97
 Pacific Inc. (Dare Group)........................
Fuzhou Huan Mei Furniture Co., Ltd (Dare Group)...                 48.97
Jiangsu Dare Furniture Co., Ltd (Dare Group)......                 48.97
Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited.................                  1.97
Foshan Guanqiu Furniture Co., Ltd.................                 11.72
Shanghai Aosen Furniture Co., Ltd.................                  0.53
Starcorp Funiture Co., Ltd, Starcorp Furniture                    216.01
 (Shanghai) Co., Ltd, Orin Furniture (Shanghai)
 Co., Ltd, Shanghai Star Furniture Co., Ltd, and
 Shanghai Xing Ding Furniture Industrial Co., Ltd
 *................................................
Tianjin First Wood Co., Ltd.......................                216.01
Ace Furniture & Crafts Ltd (a.k.a. Deqing Ace                      35.38
 Furniture and Crafts Limited)....................
Baigou Crafts Factory of Fengkai..................                 35.38
Best King International Ltd.......................                 35.38
Dalian Pretty Home Furniture......................                 35.38
Decca Furniture Limited...........................                 35.38
Der Cheng Wooden Works of Factory.................                 35.38
Dongguan Dihao Furniture Co., Ltd.................                 35.38
Dongguan Hua Ban Furniture Co., Ltd...............                 35.38
Dongguan Mingsheng Furniture Co., Ltd.............                 35.38
Dongguan New Technology Import & Export Co., Ltd..                 35.38
Dongguan Sunpower Enterprise Co., Ltd.............                 35.38
Dongguan Yihaiwei Furniture Limited...............                 35.38
Kalanter (Hong Kong) Furniture Company Limited....                 35.38
Furnmart Ltd......................................                 35.38
Guangdong New Four Seas Furniture Manufacturing                    35.38
 Ltd..............................................
Guangzhou Lucky Furniture Co. Ltd.................                 35.38
Hong Yu Furniture (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd..............                 35.38
Hung Fai Wood Products Factory, Ltd...............                 35.38
Hwang Ho International Holdings Limited...........                 35.38
King Kei Furniture Factory........................                 35.38
King Wood Furniture Co., Ltd......................                 35.38
Meikangchi Nantong Furniture Company Ltd..........                 35.38
Nantong Yangzi Furniture Co., Ltd.................                 35.38
Po Ying Industrial Co.............................                 35.38
Profit Force Ltd..................................                 35.38
Qingdao Beiyuan-Shengli Furniture Co., Ltd........                 35.38
Qingdao Shenchang Wooden Co., Ltd.................                 35.38
Red Apple Trading Co. Ltd.........................                 35.38
Shenyang Kunyu Wood Industry Co., Ltd.............                 35.38
Shenzhen Dafuhao Industrial Development Co., Ltd..                 35.38
Shenzhen Shen Long Hang Industry Co., Ltd.........                 35.38
Sino Concord International Corporation............                 35.38
T.J. Maxx International Co., Ltd..................                 35.38
Top Art Furniture Factory/Sanxiang Top Art                         35.38
 Funiture/Ngai Kun Trading........................
Top Goal Development Co...........................                 35.38
Transworld (Zhangzhou) Furniture Co. Ltd..........                 35.38
Wan Bao Chen Group Hong Kong Co. Ltd..............                 35.38
Winmost Enterprises Limited.......................                 35.38
Xilinmen Group Co. Ltd............................                 35.38
Yongxin Industrial (Holdings) Limited.............                 35.38
Zhongshan Gainwell Furniture Co. Ltd..............                 35.38
PRC-Wide Rate.....................................                216.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Starcorp is not subject to the PRC-wide rate.
Assessment Rates
    The Department has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (``CBP'') shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries. For customers/importers of respondents that did
not report entered value, we calculated customer/importer-specific
antidumping duty assessment amounts based on the ratio of the total
amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales of
subject merchandise to the total quantity of subject merchandise sold
in those transactions. For customers/importers of respondents that
reported entered value, we calculated customer-specific antidumping
duty assessment amounts based on customer/importer-specific ad valorem
rates in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). For the companies
receiving a separate rate that were not selected for individual review
(i.e., separate rate companies) we will calculate an assessment rate
based on the weighted average of the cash deposit rates calculated for
the companies
[[Page 46965]]
selected for individual review excluding any that are zero, de minimis,
or based entirely on AFA pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act.
The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP within
15 days after the date of publication of these final results of
administrative and new shippers review.
Cash Deposit Requirements
    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of these final results of this administrative review and
new shippers 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 the
exporters listed above, the cash deposit rate will be the rates shown
for those companies (except if the rate is de minimis, i.e., less than
0.5 percent, no cash deposit will be required for that company); (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 which have not
been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate
will be the PRC-wide rate of 216.01 percent; and (4) for all non-PRC
exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own
rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC
exporters that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit
requirements shall remain in effect until further notice.
Notification of Interested Parties
    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective orders (``APOs'') of their responsibility
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under the APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which
continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of
the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction
of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby
requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO
is a violation which is subject to sanction.
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).
    We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
     Dated: August 15, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix
Issues in the Issues and Decision Memorandum
I. General Issues
    Comment 1: Surrogate Country Selection
    A. Economic Comparability
    B. Significant Producer
    C. Data Considerations
    D. Burden and Predictability
    Comment 2: Labor Rate Methodology
    Comment 3: Application of the 33 Percent Threshold for Market
Economy Purchases
    Comment 4: Zeroing
    Comment 5: Department Should Apply Combination Rates to Separate
Rate Companies
    Comment 6: Use of Values Versus Quantities To Determine the
Weighted-Average Separate Rate Margin
    Comment 7: Incorporation of Zero, De Minimis, and Total Adverse
Facts Available Margins in Non-selected Respondents' Rate
    Comment 8: Standard for Accepting Respondents Factor
Descriptions and Appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule of India
Categories
    Comment 9: Time Period Used To Calculate Surrogate Values
    Comment 10: Ministerial Error in the Valuation of Polymers of
Styrene
    Comment 11: Exclusion of Myanmar and Bhutan Data in the
Surrogate Value Calculation for Plywood
    Comment 12: Surrogate Value Source for Mirrors
    Comment 13: HTS Classification for Corrugated Paper
    Comment 14: HTS Classification for Cardboard
    Comment 15: Surrogate Value Source for Electricity
    Comment 16: Electricity and Coal Inflator
II. Surrogate Financial Ratio Issues
    Comment 17: Use of Certain Financial Statements for the
Calculation of Surrogate Financial Ratios
    A. Ahuja
    B. Evergreen
    C. Huzaifa (2005-2006)
    D. IFP (2004-2005 and 2005-2006)
    E. Imperial (2006)
    F. Jayabharatham (2006)
    G. Newton (2005)
    H. Nikhil (2005)
    I. Nizamuddin (2005-2006)
    J. Raghbir (2004-2005 & 2005-2006)
    K. Usha Shriram (2005 & 2006)
    Comment 18: Treatment of Polish, Contract Manufacturing, and
Manufacturing Glass in Ahuja's Financial Statement
    Comment 19: Treatment of Job Work Expense in Huzaifa and IFP's
Financial Statement
    Comment 20: Treatment of Labor-Related Expenses in Multiple
Surrogate Financial Statement
    Comment 21: Treatment of Consumables in Akriti's Financial
Statement
    Comment 22: Treatment of ``Designing Charges,'' Consumables, and
Profit on Sale of Assets in Imperial's 2004-2005 Financial
Statements
    Comment 23: Treatment of Nizamuddin's 2004-2005 Financial
Statement and Treatment of Manufacturing Charges Labour in
Nizamuddin's 2005-2006 Financial Statement
    Comment 24: Use of 2004-2005 Data from Jayabharathan's 2005-2006
Financial Statements
    Comment 25: Treatment of Octroi Expenses in Huzaifa's Financial
Statement
    Comment 26: Allocation of Aggregated Personnel Expenses in the
Calculation of Surrogate Financial Ratios Based on ASI Data
    Comment 27: Allocation of Aggregated Personnel Expenses in the
Calculation of Surrogate Financial Ratios Based on Record Financial
Statements
III. Aosen-Specific Issues
    Comment 28: Application of Partial AFA for Nails
    Comment 29: HTS Classification for ``PLYWOOD,'' ``MDBD,''
``PINE,'' ``ASHVEN,'' ``EXPLYSHT,'' and ``POLYFOAM''
IV. Baigou Crafts
    Comment 30: Application of Total AFA to Baigou Crafts
V. Dare Group-Specific Issues
    Comment 31: HTS Classification for ``PIGMENT--O''
    Comment 32: HTS Classification for ``CURVINGWOODY'' and
``VENEERPLY''
    Comment 33: HTS Classification for ``WOODSALICACEAE''
    Comment 34: HTS Classification for Box/Carton
    Comment 35: Unit of Measure for ``TURNINGDY''
    Comment 36: Assessment Rate Calculations
    Comment 37: Certain Non-Scope Merchandise Should be Excluded
from the Margin Calculation
    Comment 38: Post Preliminary Results Updated FOP database to
Reflect Correction for Previously Unreported Labor Hours Data
    Comment 39: Updated Sales Database Which Includes Previously
Unreported Weight Information
[[Page 46966]]
    Comment 40: Use of Material-Specific Conversion Rate for
FIBERBOARDMD, PAPEREDFIBERBOARDMD, and FIBERBOARDPACKING
    Comment 41: WOODPLUG--Clerical Error Allegation
    Comment 42: OKOUEMEVEMEER--Clerical Error Allegation
VI. First Wood-Specific Issues
    Comment 43: Rescission of First Wood's New Shipper Review is
Consistent With Department Precedent
VII. Guanqiu-Specific Issues
    Comment 44: HTS Classification for Plywood
    Comment 45: HTS Classification for MDF
    Comment 46: HTS Classification for Resin
    Comment 47: HTS Classification for Paint
    Comment 48: Surrogate Value Selection for Ocean Freight
VIII. Starcorp-Specific Issues
    Comment 49: Total Labor Hour Consumption
    Comment 50: Market Economy Purchases, Wood Materials and Wood
Screws
    Comment 51: Department's Conduct at Verification
    Comment 52: Timing of Verification Outline
    Comment 53: Appropriateness of Plant-Specific versus Combined
FOP Data and Valuation of the Appropriate Data
    Comment 54: Application of Partial Adverse Facts Available for
CONNUMs Consisting of Sets and ``Sold But Not Produced''
    Comment 55: Starcorp's Financial Statements
    Comment 56: Raw Material Consumption Methodology
    Comment 57: Non-Wood Materials
    Comment 58: Valuation of Thinner
    Comment 59: Electricity
    Comment 60: Packing Materials
    Comment 61: Minor Corrections
    Comment 62: Application of Total Adverse Facts Available
IX. Separate Rate Company-Specific Issues
    Comment 63: Separate-Rate Status for New Four Seas
    Comment 64: Separate-Rate Status for Winny and Triple J
    Comment 65: Separate-Rate Status for ZY Wooden/MY Trading
[FR Doc. E7-16584 Filed 8-21-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P