69 FR 35312, June 24, 2004

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-890]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value 
and Postponement of Final Determination: Wooden Bedroom Furniture 
From the People's Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 24, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine Bertrand or Robert Bolling, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3207, or 482-3434, 
respectively.

Preliminary Determination

    We preliminarily determine that wooden bedroom furniture from the 
People's Republic of China (``PRC'') is being, or is likely to be, sold 
in the United States at less than fair value (``LTFV''), as provided in 
section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). The 
estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the ``Suspension of 
Liquidation'' section of this notice.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary 
determination. We will make our final determination not later than 135 
days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination.

Case History

    On October 31, 2003, the Department of Commerce (``Department'') 
received a petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties: Wooden 
Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China (``Petition''), 
filed in proper form by the American Furniture Manufacturers Committee 
for Legal Trade and its individual members and the Cabinet Makers, 
Millmen, and Industrial Carpenters Local 721, UBC Southern Council of 
Industrial Worker's Local Union 2305, United Steel Workers of American 
Local 193U, Carpenters Industrial Union Local 2093, and Teamsters, 
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helper Local 991 (collectively 
``Petitioners'') on behalf of the domestic industry and workers 
producing wooden bedroom furniture. This investigation was initiated on 
December 17, 2003. See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty 
Investigation: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of 
China, 68 FR 70228 (December 17, 2003) (``Notice of

[[Page 35313]]

Initiation''). The Department set aside a period for all interested 
parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. See Notice of 
Initiation, 68 FR at 70229. We received comments regarding product 
coverage from interested parties. For a detailed discussion of the 
comments regarding the scope of the merchandise under investigation, 
please see the ``Scope of the Investigation'' section below.
    On January 9, 2004, the United States International Trade 
Commission (``ITC'') issued its affirmative preliminary determination 
that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United 
States is threatened with material injury by reason of imports from the 
PRC of wooden bedroom furniture, which was published in the Federal 
Register on January 28, 2004. See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from China, 
69 FR 4178 (January 28, 2004).
    On December 30, 2003, the Department requested quantity and value 
(``Q&V'') information from a total of 211 producers of wooden bedroom 
furniture in the PRC which were identified in the Petition and other 
sources and for which the Department was able to locate contact 
information. On December 30, 2003, the Department also sent a letter to 
the Government of the PRC requesting assistance locating all known 
producers/exporters of wooden bedroom furniture in the PRC which 
exported wooden bedroom furniture to the United States during the 
period April 1, 2003, through September 30, 2003.
    On January 7, 8, and 9, 2004, the Department received Q&V responses 
from 137 Chinese producers/exporters of wooden bedroom furniture. The 
Department did not receive any type of communication from the 
Government of the PRC in response to the letter of December 30, 2003.
    On January 14, 2004, PRC government officials and furniture 
industry representatives met with Department officials to discuss 
respondent selection and the criteria the Department considers 
regarding whether an industry is market-oriented.
    On January 15, 2004, Markor International Furniture (Tianjin) 
Manufacture Co., Ltd. (``Markor Tianjin''), and Lacquer Craft 
Manufacturing Company, Ltd. (``Lacquer Craft''), notified the 
Department that they intend to seek market-oriented-industry (``MOI'') 
status on behalf of the wooden bedroom furniture industry in the PRC. 
For a further discussion of MOI status for this investigation, please 
see the ``Market-Oriented Industry'' section below. On January 22, 
2004, the Department requested comments on surrogate-country and 
factor-valuation information in order to have sufficient time to 
consider such information for the preliminary determination. On January 
30, 2004, the Department requested comments on its draft proposed 
product-control number (``CONNUM'') characteristics.
    On January 14, 2004, Fine Furniture Limited (``Fine Furniture'') 
requested that the Department select it as a mandatory respondent. 
Also, on January 15, 2004, Petitioners stated that the Department 
should select Dalian Huafeng Furniture Co., Ltd. (``Dalian''), as a 
mandatory respondent. The Department received several letters regarding 
the selection of mandatory respondents. On February 17, 2004, Dalian 
requested designation as a voluntary respondent in this investigation. 
On March 11, 2004, Sanmu Wooden Furniture Group requested designation 
as a voluntary respondent in this investigation.
    On January 30, 2004, the Department issued its respondent-selection 
memorandum, selecting the following seven companies as mandatory 
respondents in this investigation: Dongguan Lung Dong Furniture Co., 
Ltd., and Dongguan Dong He Furniture Co., Ltd. (collectively ``Dongguan 
Lung Dong''); Rui Feng Woodwork Co., Ltd., Rui Feng Lumber Development 
Co., Ltd., and Dorbest Limited (collectively ``Dorbest Group''); 
Lacquer Craft; Markor Tianjin; Shing Mark Enterprise Co., Ltd., Carven 
Industries Limited (BVI), Carven Industries Limited (HK), Dongguan 
Zhenxin Furniture Co., Ltd., and Dongguan Yongpeng Furniture Co., Ltd. 
(collectively ``Shing Mark''); Starcorp Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., 
Orin Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., and Shanghai Starcorp Furniture 
Co., Ltd. (collectively ``Starcorp''); and Tech Lane Wood Mfg. and Kee 
Jia Wood Mfg. (collectively ``Tech Lane''). See Memorandum from Edward 
Yang, Director, Office IX, to Joseph Spetrini, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary, Group III, Antidumping Duty Investigation of Wooden Bedroom 
Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Selection of Respondents 
(``Respondent Selection Memo''), dated January 30, 2004.
    On January 20, 21, 23, 26, and 30, the Department received comments 
from Markor Tianjin, Lacquer Craft, and Petitioners regarding product-
matching CONNUM characteristics. On January 30, 2004, the Department 
requested comments on its proposed product CONNUM characteristics from 
all interested parties. On February 4 and 9, 2004, we received comments 
on our product-matching CONNUM characteristics from Lacquer Craft, 
Markor Tianjin, Shing Mark, and Petitioners.
    On February 2, 2004, the Department issued its Section A 
questionnaire to Dongguan Lung Dong, the Dorbest Group, Lacquer Craft, 
Markor Tianjin, Shing Mark, Starcorp, and Tech Lane. On February 2, 
2004, we also issued a Section A questionnaire to the Chinese 
Government (i.e., Ministry of Commerce).
    On February 3, 2004, the Department received a letter from Sunforce 
Furniture Co., Ltd. (``Sunforce''), requesting that the Department 
reconsider its decision with respect to the selection of mandatory 
respondents and designate Sunforce a mandatory respondent.
    On February 5, 2004, we received comments regarding our selection 
of a surrogate country from Lacquer Craft, Markor Tianjin, Furniture 
Brands International, Inc. (``Furniture Brands''), an interested party, 
and Petitioners. Both Lacquer Craft and Markor Tianjin stated that 
Indonesia would be the appropriate surrogate country. Also, Furniture 
Brands stated that the bedroom furniture industry in Indonesia is more 
comparable to the PRC industry than the Indian industry and a possible 
candidate to be a surrogate country. Petitioners stated the Department 
should select India as the surrogate country.
    On February 11, 2004, the Department issued its Section C, D, and 
E, as appropriate, questionnaire to Dongguan Lung Dong, the Dorbest 
Group, Lacquer Craft, Markor Tianjin, Shing Mark, Starcorp, and Tech 
Lane. On February 11, 2004, we also issued a Section C, D, and E 
questionnaire to the Chinese Government (i.e., Ministry of Commerce). 
On February 18, 2004, we issued a letter to all seven mandatory 
respondents and the Chinese Government in which we clarified and 
corrected (i.e., minor corrections in) only our Section C 
questionnaire.
    On February 19, 2004, Yihua Timber Industries, Shenyang Shining 
Dongxing Furniture Co., Ltd. (``Shining Dongxing''), Fuzhou Huan Mei 
Furniture Co., Ltd. (``Fuzhou Huan Mei''), and Power Dekor Group Co. 
Ltd. (``Power Dekor'') requested selection as voluntary respondents.
    For all interested parties that requested an extension for 
submitting a response to our Section A questionnaire, we provided a 
one-week extension until March 1, 2004. Additionally, we provided a 
two-week extension until March 26, 2004, to all mandatory respondents 
to respond to Sections C, D, and E of our questionnaire. On March 1, 
2004, we received 126 Section A

[[Page 35314]]

responses, including those from the mandatory respondents.
    On March 5, 2004, the Department determined that India was the 
appropriate surrogate country to use in this investigation. See 
Memorandum to Edward C. Yang, Director, Office IX, from Jon Freed, Case 
Analyst, through Robert Bolling, Program Manager: Antidumping Duty 
Investigation on Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of 
China (``Surrogate-Country Memorandum''), dated March 5, 2004. We 
received comments regarding our selection of India as the surrogate 
country from interested parties. For a detailed discussion of the 
comments regarding the surrogate country, please see the ``Surrogate 
Country'' section below. Additionally, on March 5, 2004, we extended 
the time period for interested parties to provide surrogate values for 
the factors of production until March 26, 2004. On March 1 and 5, 2004, 
we received a request from Lacquer Craft, Markor Tianjin, and Furniture 
Brands, respectively, to extend the deadline for supplying surrogate-
value information. On March 17, 2004, we informed all interested 
parties that we were again extending the time period for then to 
provide surrogate-value information until April 2, 2004. On March 31, 
2004, Petitioners requested an additional extension. The Department 
extended the due date again until April 16, 2004.
    On March 29, 2004, Petitioners requested that the Department remove 
from the record all untimely filed responses to the Department's Q&V 
questionnaire and its Section A questionnaire and apply total facts 
available to the PRC producers and exporters which have been less than 
fully cooperative. Also, on March 29, 2004, Petitioners filed two 
additional submissions; one submission contained a list of potential 
Indian surrogate companies and the other provided comments on the 
Section A only responses.
    On March 31, 2004, Petitioners made a timely request pursuant to 19 
CFR 351.205(e) for a fifty-day postponement of the preliminary 
determination, or until June 17, 2004. On April 13, 2004, the 
Department published a postponement of the preliminary antidumping duty 
determination on wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC. See Notice of 
Postponement of the Preliminary Determination of Wooded Bedroom 
Furniture from the People's Republic of China Antidumping Duty 
Investigation, 69 FR 19390 (April 13, 2004).
    On April 16, 2004, we received surrogate-value information from the 
Dorbest Group, Dongguan Lung Dong, Lacquer Craft, Markor Tianjin, Shing 
Mark, Starcorp, Furniture Brands, and Petitioners. The Dorbest Group, 
Dongguan Lung Dong, Lacquer Craft, Markor Tianjin, Shing Mark, 
Starcorp, and Petitioners submitted surrogate-value information and 
financial data on India. Additionally, Lacquer Craft, Markor Tianjin, 
and Furniture Brands submitted surrogate-value information and 
financial data on Indonesia and requested that the Department revisit 
its decision on whether India is the appropriate surrogate country. On 
April 29, 2004, Petitioners submitted rebuttal comments to the 
surrogate values proposed by the mandatory respondents and Furniture 
Brands, claiming India is the appropriate surrogate country. 
Additionally, in this submission Petitioners provided additional Indian 
financial statements. Also, on April 29, 2004, the Dorbest Group, 
Lacquer Craft, Markor Tianjin, Dongguan Lung Dong, and Shing Mark 
submitted additional arguments and surrogate-value information.
    On May 10, 2004, Lacquer Craft and Markor Tianjin rebutted 
Petitioners' submission of April 29, 2004, by stating that the 
submission does not challenge the accuracy of the values that they 
submitted on the record by Indian or Indonesian producers and 
Petitioners have put forth no evidence stating that these values are 
distortive of actual costs. Also, on May 10, 2004, Petitioners rebutted 
the April 29, 2004, submissions of Lacquer Craft, Markor Tianjin, 
Dongguan Lung Dong, and Shing Mark.
    On May 13, 2004, Shing Mark submitted additional comments on the 
surrogate values of its April 16, 2004, submission and also responded 
to Petitioners' April 29, 2004, submission. Shing Mark stated that the 
Department should have a hierarchical approach when selecting from 
among the various surrogate values (i.e., independent sources, entry-
specific import information, and the Monthly Statistics of the Foreign 
Trade of India (``MSFTI'') data). On May 20, 2004, Petitioners rebutted 
Lacquer Craft and Markor Tianjin's May 10, 2004, submission. On May 24, 
2004, Petitioners responded to Shing Mark's May 13, 2004, surrogate-
value submission by stating this submission was untimely and the 
Department should use the MSFTI data to value the mandatory 
respondents' factors of production and reject Shing Mark's proposal to 
use data from http://www.InfodriveIndia.com (``Infodrive'') and 

International Business Information Services (``IBIS'').
    On May 26, 2004, the Dorbest Group submitted comments to 
Petitioners'' April 29, 2004, surrogate-value rebuttal comments. In 
this submission the Dorbest Group stated that six of the seven 
financial statements submitted by Petitioners are not appropriate for 
the Department to use in its preliminary determination for a variety of 
reasons (e.g., not contemporaneous with POI, sick company, etc.). 
Further, on May 27, 2004, Tech Lane submitted comments to Petitioners' 
April 29, 2004, submission in which it stated that the Department 
should reject six of the seven financial statements submitted by 
Petitioners due to numerous problems with these financial statements 
and urged the Department not use them in its preliminary determination 
for a variety of reasons (e.g., sales were made on a retail basis, 
company is not a significant producer of wooden bedroom furniture, 
etc.). On June 2, 2004, Furniture Brands responded to Petitioners' 
rebuttal surrogate-value comments of May 10, 2004. On June 3, 2004, 
Shing Mark responded to Petitioners' rebuttal surrogate-value comments 
of May 24, 2004. On June 7, 2004, Petitioners' responded to the Dorbest 
Group's comments rebuttal on the Indian financial statements of May 26, 
2004.
    From May 10, 2004, to May 21, 2004, the Department issued 
supplemental Section A questionnaires to the 118 Section A respondents 
which submitted a section A questionnaire response. From May 21, 2004, 
to June 4, 2004, the Department received supplemental Section A 
responses from the Section A respondents.
    On May 6, 2004, the Department requested that all interested 
parties provide comments on the unit-of-measure conversion tables and 
formulas located on the World Wide Web at http://www.allmeasures.com 

because, it indicated, it planned on using this Web site to convert 
certain surrogate values for the preliminary determination. On May 12, 
2004, we received comments from Lacquer Craft, Markor Tianjin, Shing 
Mark, Starcorp, and Petitioners on this proposal. In general, the 
parties stated that they were not in favor of using the all-measures 
Web site for a variety of reasons (e.g., conversions are not specific 
enough for practical application). Shing Mark and Starcorp provided an 
alternative unit-of-measure Web site: http://www.worldagroforestrycentre.org/sea/Products/AFDbases/WD/Index.htm
.

    On May 10, 2004, the Department requested that all mandatory 
respondents provide a chart indicating the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
(``HTS'') heading and article description for each of the mandatory 
respondent's factors of production. On May 26, 2004,

[[Page 35315]]

the Department received responses to its May 10, 2004, request from all 
the mandatory respondents. On June 7, 2004, Petitioners responded to 
Dongguan Lung Dong and Starcorp's May 26, 2004, submission and urged 
the Department to use adverse facts available to value Dongguan Lung 
Dong and Starcorp's factors of production because, they allege, its 
factor categories are overly broad and vague. Additionally, on June 8, 
2004, Petitioners responded to Tech Lane's May 26, 2004, submission and 
stated that the Department should use adverse facts available to value 
Tech Lane's factors of production because its factor categories are 
overly broad and vague. Further, on June 9, 2004, Petitioners responded 
to the Dorbest Group's May 26, 2004, submission and stated that the 
Department should use adverse facts available to value its factors of 
production because its factor categories are overly broad and vague.
    On May 19, 2004, Petitioners requested that the Department remove 
from the record untimely questionnaire responses from Section A 
respondents and apply facts available to these producers and exporters. 
On May 21, 2004, Starwood Furniture Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 
(``Starwood''), submitted a rebuttal to Petitioners' May 19, 2004, 
submission, stating that Starwood acted to the best of its ability in 
responding to the Department's requests for information.
    On May 20, 2004, Lacquer Craft, Markor Tianjin, and Furniture 
Brands submitted for the record public financial statements for 2002 
for Indonesian producers of wooden bedroom furniture for Goldfindo 
Intikayu Pratama (``Goldfindo''), PT. Sinarindo Megantara (``SIMA''), 
and PT Maitland-Smith and the 2001 financial statement for PT Maitland-
Smith.
    On June 4, 2004, Petitioners provided a submission that stated the 
Department should disregard certain categories of prices in its 
valuation of certain mandatory companies' factors of production: (1) 
Prices paid for wood products purchased from Russia; (2) import prices 
from Korea, Indonesia, and Thailand; (3) prices paid for goods 
purchased from market-economy trading companies but produced in a non-
market-economy (``NME'') country. On June 7, 2004, Petitioners provided 
their comments for the preliminary determination (e.g., date of sale, 
factors of production, etc.). On June 9, 2004, Changshu HTC Import & 
Export Co., Ltd., Dongyin Huanghekou Furniture Industry Co., Ltd., 
Dream Rooms Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., Sheng Jing Wood Products 
Co., Ltd., and its affiliate, Telstar Enterprises Limited, responded to 
Petitioners' June 7, 2004, submission and stated that the Department 
should not apply facts available to companies that have cooperated and 
acted to the best of their abilities because they did not file a mini-
Section A questionnaire.

Company-Specific Chronology

    As described above, the Department staggered its issuance of 
sections of the antidumping questionnaire to the seven mandatory 
respondents. Upon receipt of the various responses, the Petitioners 
provided comments and the Department issued supplemental 
questionnaires. The chronology of this stage of the investigation 
varies by respondent. Therefore, the Department has separated the 
discussion of its information-gathering process after issuance of the 
questionnaire by company.
Dongguan Lung Dong
    On March 1, 2004, Dongguan Lung Dong submitted its Section A 
questionnaire response. On March 10, 2004, Petitioners submitted 
comments on Dongguan Lung Dong's Section A questionnaire response. On 
March 19, 2004, the Department issued a Supplemental Section A 
questionnaire covering Dongguan Lung Dong's March 1, 2004, response. On 
March 29, 2004, Dongguan Lung Dong submitted its response to Sections C 
and D of the Department's February 11, 2004, questionnaire. On March 
30, 2004, Dongguan Lung Dong submitted a replacement page to its March 
29, 2004, response. On April 9, 2004, Dongguan Lung Dong submitted its 
response to the Supplemental Section A questionnaire. On April 16, 
2004, Petitioners submitted their deficiency comments on Dongguan Lung 
Dong's response to Section C and D of the questionnaire. On April 27, 
2004, Petitioners submitted deficiency comments on Dongguan Lung Dong's 
Supplemental Section A response. On April 30, 2004, the Department 
issued its Supplemental Sections C and D questionnaire covering 
Dongguan Lung Dong's March 29, 2004, questionnaire response. On May 24, 
2004, the Department issued a second Supplemental Section A 
questionnaire covering Dongguan Lung Dong's April 9, 2004, 
questionnaire response. Also, on the same date, Dongguan Lung Dong 
submitted its Supplemental Sections C and D questionnaire responses to 
the Department. On May 25, 2004, Dongguan Lung Dong submitted 
replacement pages to its May 24, 2004, response. On May 28, 2004, 
Petitioners submitted deficiency comments on Dongguan Lung Dong's May 
24, 2004, Supplemental Sections C and D questionnaire responses.
Dorbest Group
    On March 1, 2004, the Dorbest Group submitted its Section A 
questionnaire response. On March 10, 2004, Petitioners submitted 
comments on the Dorbest Group's Section A questionnaire response. On 
March 23, 2004, the Department issued a Supplemental Section A 
questionnaire covering the Dorbest Group's March 1, 2004, response. On 
March 29, 2004, the Dorbest Group submitted its response to Sections C 
and D of the Department's February 11, 2004, questionnaire. On April 7, 
2004, Petitioners submitted their deficiency comments on the Dorbest 
Group's response to Section D of the questionnaire. On April 14, 2004, 
the Dorbest Group submitted its response to Department's March 23, 
2004, Supplemental Section A questionnaire. On April 20, 2004, 
Petitioners submitted deficiency comments on the Dorbest Group's 
Sections C and D questionnaire response. On April 27, 2004, Petitioners 
submitted deficiency comments on the Dorbest Group's Supplemental 
Section A response. On April 30, 2004, the Department issued a 
Supplemental Sections C and D questionnaire covering the Dorbest 
Group's March 29, 2004, questionnaire response. On May 11, 2004, the 
Department requested additional information for certain CONNUMs from 
Dorbest. On May 24, 2004, the Department issued a second Supplemental 
Section A questionnaire covering the Dorbest Group's April 14, 2004, 
questionnaire response. Also, on the same date, Dorbest submitted its 
Supplemental Sections C and D questionnaire responses to the 
Department. On May 28, 2004, Petitioners submitted deficiency comments 
on the Dorbest Group's May 24, 2004, Supplemental Sections C and D 
questionnaire responses. On June 3, 2004, the Dorbest Group submitted 
its response to the Second Supplemental Section A questionnaire. Also, 
on June 3, 2004, the Dorbest Group submitted response to Petitioners' 
May 28, 2004, comments on its Sections C and D questionnaire responses. 
On June 8, 2004, the Department issued a Second Supplemental Sections C 
and D questionnaire to the Dorbest Group.
Lacquer Craft
    On March 1, 2004, Lacquer Craft submitted its Section A 
questionnaire response. On March 11, 2004, Petitioners submitted 
comments on Lacquer Craft's Section A questionnaire response. On March 
23, 2004, the

[[Page 35316]]

Department issued Lacquer Craft a supplemental questionnaire concerning 
its Section A response. On March 29, 2004, Lacquer Craft submitted its 
Sections C and D questionnaire responses. On April 13, 2004, 
Petitioners submitted comments on Lacquer Craft's Sections C and D 
questionnaire responses. On April 13, 2004, Lacquer Craft submitted its 
response to the Department's Supplemental Section A Questionnaire. On 
April 30, 2004, the Department issued Lacquer Craft a supplemental 
questionnaire concerning its Sections C and D responses. On May 21, 
2004, Lacquer Craft submitted its response to the Department's Sections 
C and D Supplemental Questionnaire. On May 21, 2004, the Department 
issued Lacquer Craft a second supplemental questionnaire concerning its 
Sections A and D responses. On May 27, 2004, Petitioners submitted 
comments on Lacquer Craft's Sections C and D Supplemental Questionnaire 
responses. On June 3, 2004, Lacquer Craft submitted its response to the 
Department's Sections A and D Second Supplemental Questionnaire.
Markor Tianjin
    On March 1, 2004, Markor Tianjin submitted its Section A 
questionnaire response. On March 11, 2004, Petitioners submitted 
comments on Markor Tianjin's Section A questionnaire response. On March 
19, 2004, the Department issued a Supplemental Section A questionnaire 
covering Markor Tianjin's March 1, 2004, response. On March 29, 2004, 
Markor Tianjin submitted its response to Sections C and D of the 
Department's February 11, 2004, questionnaire. On April 7, 2004, 
Petitioners submitted deficiency comments on Markor Tianjin's responses 
to Section D of the questionnaire. On April 9, 2004, Markor Tianjin 
submitted its response to the Supplemental Section A questionnaire. On 
April 9, 2004, Petitioners submitted their deficiency comments on 
Markor Tianjin's response to Section C and D of the questionnaire. On 
April 12, 2004, Markor Tianjin and Lacquer Craft submitted rebuttal 
comments regarding Petitioners' April 7, 2004, submission. On April 21, 
2004, the Department met with Markor Tianjin to discuss double-
bracketed information contained in its April 9, 2004, Supplemental 
Section A response. On April 23, 2004, Markor Tianjin submitted a 
letter containing additional arguments for not releasing under the 
administrative protective order certain information in Markor Tianjin's 
April 9, 2004, submission. On April 29, 2004, Petitioners submitted 
deficiency comments on Markor Tianjin's Supplemental Section A 
response. On May 3, 2004, the Department issued a Supplemental Sections 
C and D questionnaire covering Markor Tianjin's March 29, 2004, 
questionnaire response. On May 5, 2004, Petitioners submitted a letter 
regarding the double-bracketing of information in Markor Tianjin's 
April 9, 2004, submission. On May 7, 2004, the Department issued a 
memorandum rejecting Markor Tianjin's request that certain information 
in its April 9, 2004, submission not be released under the 
administrative protective order. See Memorandum for Edward Yang from 
Ann M. Sebastian: Claim of Clear and Compelling Need to Withhold the 
Release of Business Proprietary Information Regarding Corporate 
Structure Issues Under Administrative Protective Order in the 
Antidumping Duty Investigation of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the 
People's Republic of China, May 7, 2004. Pursuant to the Department's 
rejection of its request for double-bracketing of certain information, 
on May 12, 2004, Markor Tianjin submitted a revised response to the 
Department's March 19, 2004, Supplemental Section A questionnaire. On 
May 24, 2004, the Department issued a second Supplemental Section A 
questionnaire concerning Markor Tianjin's May 12, 2004, questionnaire 
response. Also, on the same date, Markor Tianjin submitted its 
Supplemental Sections C and D questionnaire responses to the 
Department. On May 28, 2004, Petitioners submitted deficiency comments 
to Markor Tianjin's May 24, 2004, supplemental Sections C and D 
questionnaire responses.
Shing Mark
    On March 1, 2004, Shing Mark submitted its Section A questionnaire 
response. On March 11, 2004, Petitioners submitted comments on Shing 
Mark's Section A questionnaire response. On March 19, 2004, the 
Department issued Shing Mark a supplemental questionnaire concerning 
its Section A responses. On March 29, 2004, Shing Mark submitted its 
Sections C and D questionnaire responses. On April 9, 2004, Shing Mark 
submitted its response to the Department's Section A Supplemental 
Questionnaire. On April 12, 2004, Petitioners submitted comments to 
Shing Mark's Sections C and D questionnaire responses. On April 28, 
2004, the Department issued Shing Mark a supplemental questionnaire 
concerning its Sections C and D responses. On April 30, 2004, 
Petitioners submitted comments regarding Shing Mark's Section A 
Supplemental Questionnaire responses. On May 24 and May 26, 2004, Shing 
Mark submitted its response to the Department's Sections C and D 
Supplemental Questionnaire. On May 19, 2004, the Department issued 
Shing Mark a second supplemental questionnaire concerning its Sections 
A and D responses. On May 26, 2004, Shing Mark submitted its response 
to the Department's Sections A and D Second Supplemental Questionnaire. 
On May 26, 2004, Petitioners submitted comments on Shing Mark's 
Sections C and D Supplemental Questionnaire responses.
Starcorp
    On March 1, 2004, Starcorp submitted its response to Section A of 
the questionnaire. On March 10, 2004, Petitioners submitted comments on 
Starcorp's Section A response. On March 19, 2004, the Department sent 
Starcorp a supplemental Section A questionnaire. On March 29, 2004, 
Starcorp submitted its response to Section C and D of the 
questionnaire. On April 9, 2004, Starcorp submitted its response to the 
Department's supplemental Section A questionnaire. On April 13, 2004, 
Petitioners submitted comments on Starcorp's Section C and D response. 
On April 28, 2004, the Department sent Starcorp a supplemental Sections 
C and D questionnaire. On April 30, 2004, Petitioners submitted 
comments on Starcorp's Supplemental Section A response. On May 21, 
2004, Starcorp submitted its response to the Supplemental Sections C 
and D of the questionnaire. On May 24, 2004, the Department sent 
Starcorp a second supplemental Section A questionnaire. On May 28, 
2004, Petitioners submitted comments on Starcorp's Supplemental 
Sections C and D response. On June 3, 2004, Starcorp submitted its 
response to the second supplemental Section A questionnaire. On June 9, 
2004, Starcorp submitted its response to the second supplemental 
Sections C and D questionnaire. On June 10, 2004, Starcorp submitted 
additional clarifications regarding conversions of certain factors.
Tech Lane
    The Department received Tech Lane's Section A questionnaire 
response on March 1, 2004. The Department issued a Section A 
supplemental questionnaire to Tech Lane on March 22, 2004. On March 29, 
2004, the Department received Tech Lane's Sections C and D response.

[[Page 35317]]

    The Department received Petitioners' comments to Tech Lane's 
Section A questionnaire response on March 29, 2004, and their comments 
to Tech Lane's Sections C and D questionnaire response on April 8, 
2004. On April 15, 2004, we received Tech Lane's Section A supplemental 
questionnaire response. We received additional comments from 
Petitioners on Tech Lane's Section D questionnaire response on April 
20, 2004, and Petitioners' comments on Tech Lane's Section A 
supplemental questionnaire response on April 27, 2004. The Department 
issued a Sections C and D supplemental questionnaire to Tech Lane on 
April 28, 2004.
    On May 21, 2004, we received Tech Lane's Sections C and D 
supplemental questionnaire response and issued a second Sections A, C, 
and D supplemental questionnaire. On May 28, 2004, Tech Lane submitted 
additional exhibits it omitted in its May 21, 2004, Sections C and D 
supplemental questionnaire response. Also on May 28, 2004, we received 
Petitioners' comments on Tech Lane's Sections C and D supplemental 
questionnaire response. On June 4, 2004, we received Tech Lane's 
Sections A, C, and D second supplemental questionnaire response.

Postponement of Final Determination

    Section 735(a) of the Act provides that a final determination may 
be postponed until no later than 135 days after the date of the 
publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an 
affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement 
is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of 
exports of the subject merchandise or, in the event of a negative 
preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by 
the petitioners. The Department's regulations at 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) 
require that requests by respondents for postponement of a final 
determination be accompanied by a request for an extension of the 
provisional measures from a four-month period to not more than six 
months.
    On May 20, 2004, June 3, 2004, and June 7, 2004, Lacquer Craft, 
Markor Tianjin, and the Dorbest Group requested that, in the event of 
an affirmative preliminary determination in this investigation, the 
Department postpone its final determination until 135 days after the 
publication of the preliminary determination. Lacquer Craft, Markor 
Tianjin, and the Dorbest Group also included a request to extend the 
provisional measures to not more than six months after the publication 
of the preliminary determination. Accordingly, because we have made an 
affirmative preliminary determination and the requesting parties 
account for a significant proportion of the exports of the subject 
merchandise, we have postponed the final determination until no later 
than 135 days after the date of publication of the preliminary 
determination and are extending the provisional measures accordingly.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (``POI'') is April 1, 2003, through 
September 30, 2003. This period corresponds to the two most recent 
fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the Petition 
(October 31, 2003). See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).

Scope of Investigation

    For purposes of this investigation, the product covered is wooden 
bedroom furniture. Wooden bedroom furniture is generally, but not 
exclusively, designed, manufactured, and offered for sale in 
coordinated groups, or bedrooms, in which all of the individual pieces 
are of approximately the same style and approximately the same material 
and/or finish. The subject merchandise is made substantially of wood 
products, including both solid wood and also engineered wood products 
made from wood particles, fibers, or other wooden materials such as 
plywood, oriented strand board, particle board, and fiberboard, with or 
without wood veneers, wood overlays, or laminates, with or without non-
wood components or trim such as metal, marble, leather, glass, plastic, 
or other resins, and whether or not assembled, completed, or finished.
    The subject merchandise includes: (1) Wooden beds such as loft 
beds, bunk beds, and other beds; (2) wooden headboards for beds 
(whether stand-alone or attached to side rails), wooden footboards for 
beds, wooden side rails for beds, and wooden canopies for beds; (3) 
night tables, night stands, dressers, commodes, bureaus, mule chests, 
gentlemen's chests, bachelor's chests, lingerie chests, wardrobes, 
vanities, chessers, chifforobes, and wardrobe-type cabinets; (4) 
dressers with framed glass mirrors that are attached to, incorporated 
in, sit on, or hang over the dresser; (5) chests-on-chests,\1\ 
highboys,\2\ lowboys,\3\ chests of drawers,\4\ chests,\5\ door 
chests,\6\ chiffoniers,\7\ hutches,\8\ and armoires; \9\ (6) desks, 
computer stands, filing cabinets, book cases, or writing tables that 
are attached to or incorporated in the subject merchandise; and (7) 
other bedroom furniture consistent with the above list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A chest-on-chest is typically a tall chest-of-drawers in two 
or more sections (or appearing to be in two or more sections), with 
one or two sections mounted (or appearing to be mounted) on a 
slightly larger chest; also known as a tallboy.
    \2\ A highboy is typically a tall chest of drawers usually 
composed of a base and a top section with drawers, and supported on 
four legs or a small chest (often 15 inches or more in height).
    \3\ A lowboy is typically a short chest of drawers, not more 
than four feet high, normally set on short legs.
    \4\ A chest of drawers is typically a case containing drawers 
for storing clothing.
    \5\ A chest is typically a case piece taller than it is wide 
featuring a series of drawers and with or without one or more doors 
for storing clothing. The piece can either include drawers or be 
designed as a large box incorporating a lid.
    \6\ A door chest is typically a chest with hinged doors to store 
clothing, whether or not containing drawers. The piece may also 
include shelves for televisions and other entertainment electronics.
    \7\ A chiffonier is typically a tall and narrow chest of drawers 
normally used for storing undergarments and lingerie, often with 
mirror(s) attached.
    \8\ A hutch is typically an open case of furniture with shelves 
that typically sits on another piece of furniture and provides 
storage for clothes.
    \9\ An armoire is typically a tall cabinet or wardrobe 
(typically 50 inches or taller), with doors, and with one or more 
drawers (either exterior below or above the doors or interior behind 
the doors), shelves, and/or garment rods or other apparatus for 
storing clothes. Bedroom armoires may also be used to hold 
television receivers and/or other audio-visual entertainment 
systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The scope of the Petition excludes: (1) Seats, chairs, benches, 
couches, sofas, sofa beds, stools, and other seating furniture; (2) 
mattresses, mattress supports (including box springs), infant cribs, 
water beds, and futon frames; (3) office furniture, such as desks, 
stand-up desks, computer cabinets, filing cabinets, credenzas, and 
bookcases; (4) dining room or kitchen furniture such as dining tables, 
chairs, servers, sideboards, buffets, corner cabinets, china cabinets, 
and china hutches; (5) other non-bedroom furniture, such as television 
cabinets, cocktail tables, end tables, occasional tables, wall systems, 
book cases, and entertainment systems; (6) bedroom furniture made 
primarily of wicker, cane, osier, bamboo or rattan; (7) side rails for 
beds made of metal if sold separately from the headboard and footboard; 
and (8) bedroom furniture in which bentwood parts predominate.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ As used herein, bentwood means solid wood made pliable. 
Bentwood is wood that is brought to a curved shape by bending it 
while made pliable with moist heat or other agency, and then set by 
cooling or drying. See Customs' Headquarters' Ruling Letter 043859, 
dated May 17, 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Imports of subject merchandise are classified under statistical 
category 9403.50.9040 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States (``HTSUS'') as ``wooden * * * beds''

[[Page 35318]]

and under statistical category 9403.50.9080 of the HTSUS as ``other * * 
* wooden furniture of a kind used in the bedroom.'' In addition, wooden 
headboards for beds, wooden footboards for beds, wooden side rails for 
beds, and wooden canopies for beds may also be entered under 
statistical category 9403.50.9040 of the HTSUS as ``parts of wood'' and 
framed glass mirrors may also be entered under statistical category 
7009.92.5000 of the HTSUS as ``glass mirrors * * * framed.'' This 
investigation covers all wooden bedroom furniture meeting the above 
description, regardless of tariff classification. Although the HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our 
written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Scope Comments

    In accordance with the preamble to our regulations (see Antidumping 
Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), we 
set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding 
product coverage and encouraged all parties to submit comments within 
20 calendar days of publication of the Notice of Initiation (see 68 FR 
at 70229).
    The Department received numerous scope comments from a variety of 
interested parties. On January 12, 2004, LTD Commodities, LLC 
(``LTD''), and ABC Distributing, LLC (``ABC''), U.S. importers of 
wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC, provided scope comments 
concerning the exclusion of ready-to-assemble (``RTA'') wooden bedroom 
furniture from the PRC. On January 13, 2004, the Furniture Retailers of 
America (``FRA'') provided comments recommending that the scope of the 
investigation be limited to furniture sold in suites. On January 13, 
2004, Shing Mark provided comments concerning whether daybeds are 
within the scope of the investigation and whether the description of 
wooden bedroom furniture as ``made substantially of wood'' is too 
broad. On January 13, 2004, Sunrise Medical Inc. (``Sunrise Medical'') 
provided comments concerning whether patient room furniture used in the 
long-term care, nursing home, or similar markets (collectively, the 
``LTC market'') are within the scope of the investigation. On January 
13, 2004, Markor Tianjin, Lacquer Craft, and the Committee for Free 
Trade in Furniture (``CFTF'') provided comments concerning whether 
parts and home office pieces are within the scope of the investigation.
    On January 21, 2004, Petitioners provided two separate documents 
responding to the above-mentioned comments on patient room furniture, 
the exclusion of pieces not sold in suites, the inclusion of parts, the 
exclusion of day beds, the standard of ``made substantially of wood,'' 
and RTA furniture.
    On January 26, 2004, LTD and ABC submitted rebuttal comments 
concerning RTA furniture. On January 29, 2004, the FRA submitted 
rebuttal comments concerning products not sold in suites. On February 
4, 2004, Sunrise Medical provided rebuttal comments concerning patient 
room furniture in the LTC market. On March 23, 2004, LTD and ABC 
provided further comments proposing specific language to exclude RTA 
wooden bedroom furniture from the scope of the investigation.
    Due to the extraordinary detail and length of these comments, the 
Department will continue to analyze them for purposes of the final 
determination. As part of this process, the Department has fully 
summarized all of the comments received to date in a memorandum to the 
file. See Memorandum to the File from Laurel LaCivita, Analyst, to 
Laurie Parkhill, Office Director, Antidumping Duty Investigation of 
Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Summary 
on Comments to the Scope, dated June 17, 2004. Therefore, we will 
afford interested parties an opportunity to address only the comments 
summarized in our memorandum as this memorandum contains all of the 
comments received. Interested parties have until July 30, 2004, to 
submit additional comments on the scope of the investigation. We will 
address all of the scope comments in our final determination.

Selection of Respondents

    Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to calculate 
individual dumping margins for each known exporter and producer of the 
subject merchandise. Section 777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the Department 
discretion, when faced with a large number of exporters/producers, 
however, to limit its examination to a reasonable number of such 
companies if it is not practicable to examine all companies. Where it 
is not practicable to examine all known producers/exporters of subject 
merchandise, this provision permits the Department to investigate 
either (1) a sample of exporters, producers, or types of products that 
is statistically valid based on the information available to the 
Department at the time of selection or (2) exporters/producers 
accounting for the largest volume of the merchandise under 
investigation that can reasonably be examined. After consideration of 
the complexities expected to arise in this proceeding and the resources 
available to it, the Department determined that it was not practicable 
in this investigation to examine all known producers/exporters of 
subject merchandise. Instead, we limited our examination to the seven 
exporters and producers accounting for the largest volume of the 
subject merchandise pursuant to section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act. The 
seven Chinese producers/exporters (Dongguan Lung Dong; Dorbest, Lacquer 
Craft, Markor Tianjin, Shing Mark, Starcorp, and Tech Lane) accounted 
for a significant percentage of all exports of the subject merchandise 
from the PRC during the POI and were selected as mandatory respondents. 
See Respondent Selection Memo at 5.

Non-Market-Economy Country

    For purposes of initiation, the Petitioners submitted LTFV analyses 
for the PRC as a non-market economy. See Notice of Initiation, 69 FR at 
70230. In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the 
PRC has been treated as an NME country. In accordance with section 
771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is 
an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the 
administering authority. See also Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results 2001-2002 Administrative Review and Partial 
Rescission of Review, 68 FR 7500 (February 14, 2003). Therefore, we 
have treated the PRC as an NME country for purposes of this preliminary 
determination.

Surrogate Country

    When the Department is investigating imports from an NME, section 
773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base normal value (``NV''), in most 
circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of production, valued in a 
surrogate market-economy country or countries considered to be 
appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of 
the Act, in valuing the factors of production, the Department shall 
utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of factors of 
production in one or more market-economy countries that are at a level 
of economic development comparable to that of the NME country and are 
significant producers of comparable merchandise. The sources of the 
surrogate values we have used in this investigation are discussed under 
the NV section below.

[[Page 35319]]

    The Department determined that India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Sri 
Lanka, and the Philippines are countries comparable to the PRC in terms 
of economic development. See Memorandum from Ron Lorentzen to Robert 
Bolling: Antidumping Duty Investigation on Wooden Bedroom Furniture 
from the People's Republic of China, dated January 16, 2004. 
Customarily, we select an appropriate surrogate country based on the 
availability and reliability of data from the countries. In this case, 
we have found that India is a significant producer of comparable 
merchandise, wooden bedroom furniture, and is at a similar level of 
economic development pursuant to 733(c)(4) of the Act. See Surrogate-
Country Memorandum.
    On April 16, 2004, Lacquer Craft, Markor Tianjin, and Furniture 
Brands submitted surrogate-value information and financial data on 
Indonesia and requested that the Department revisit its decision on 
whether India is the appropriate surrogate country. On April 29, 2004, 
Petitioners submitted rebuttal comments to the interested parties' 
April 16, 2004, submission, stating that the Department should continue 
to determine that India is the appropriate surrogate country for this 
investigation. On May 13, 2004, representatives for the interested 
parties met with James Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import 
Administration, and discussed the Department's selection of a surrogate 
country as well as the selection of surrogate values to be applied in 
this investigation. See Memorandum to the File from John Herrmann, 
Senior Advisor to the Assistant Secretary, dated May 13, 2004. On May 
21, 2004, representatives for Petitioners met with Assistant Secretary 
Jochum and discussed the Department's selection of a surrogate country 
as well as the selection of surrogate values to be applied in this 
investigation. See Memorandum to the File from John Herrmann, Senior 
Advisor to the Assistant Secretary, dated May 21, 2004. The Department 
has evaluated all parties' concerns and comments and has determined 
India is the appropriate surrogate country to use in this 
investigation. The Department based its decision on the following 
facts: (1) India is at a level of economic development comparable to 
the PRC; (2) Indian manufacturers produce comparable merchandise and 
are significant producers of wooden furniture; (3) India provides the 
best opportunity to use appropriate, publicly available data to value 
the factors of production. See Surrogate-Country Memorandum.
    Therefore, we have used India as the surrogate country and, 
accordingly, we have calculated NV using Indian prices to value the 
respondents' factors of production, when available and appropriate. We 
have obtained and relied upon publicly available information wherever 
possible. See Memorandum to the File from Michael Holton, Case Analyst, 
through Robert Bolling, Program Manager, and Laurie Parkhill, Office 
Director, Factors Valuation Memorandum for Dongguan Lung Dong, the 
Dorbest Group, Lacquer Craft, Markor Tianjin, Shing Mark, Starcorp, and 
Tech Lane (``Factor-Valuation Memo''), dated June 17, 2004.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), for the final 
determination in an antidumping investigation, interested parties may 
submit publicly available information to value the factors of 
production within 40 days after the date of publication of the 
preliminary determination.

Market-Oriented Industry

    On January 15, 2004, Markor Tianjin and Lacquer Craft informed the 
Department that they intended to seek MOI status on behalf of the 
wooden bedroom furniture industry in the PRC. On February 2, 2004, 
Petitioners submitted a letter to the Department stating that the 
wooden bedroom furniture industry in the PRC does not warrant MOI 
status because there are NME forces at work in the PRC that distort the 
wooden bedroom furniture's cost of production. On April 20, 2004, the 
Furniture Sub-chamber of China Chamber of Commerce for Import & Export 
of Light Industrial Products and Arts-Crafts (``CCCLA'') and the China 
National Furniture Association (``CNFA'') requested as representatives 
of the wooden bedroom furniture industry that the Department initiate 
an inquiry to determine whether the wooden bedroom furniture industry 
in the PRC is an MOI. On May 5, 2004, Petitioners rebutted the 
submission by CCCLA and CNFA, stating that the request to initiate an 
MOI inquiry is untimely given the Department's statutory deadline for 
issuing its preliminary determination. On May 12, 2004, the Department 
placed on the record of this investigation a facsimile message from the 
U.S. Embassy in Beijing, China, which was a letter in Chinese and a 
translated version of the letter from the Chinese Ministry of Commerce 
requesting that the Department treat the furniture industry as an MOI 
industry. On May 14, 2004, the Department issued letters to the CCCLA, 
CNFA, and the Chinese government which informed the parties that it did 
not have sufficient substantive evidence to support the initiation of 
an MOI inquiry. On May 28, 2004, the CCCLA and CNFA submitted 
information they believe meets the Department's criteria for initiating 
an MOI inquiry. On June 8, 2004, Petitioners responded to CCCLA and 
CNFA's May 28, 2004, submission, stating that the Department should not 
initiate an MOI inquiry.
    In order to consider an MOI claim, the Department requires 
information on each of the three prongs of the MOI test regarding the 
situation and experience of the PRC wooden bedroom furniture industry 
as a whole. Specifically, the MOI test requires that information 
supports the following conclusions: (1) There is virtually no 
government involvement in production or prices for the industry; (2) 
the industry is marked by private or collective ownership that behaves 
in a manner consistent with market considerations; and (3) producers 
pay market-determined prices for all major inputs and for all but an 
insignificant proportion of minor inputs. Even in those cases where the 
Department limits the number of firms it investigates, a MOI allegation 
must cover all (or virtually all) of the producers in the industry in 
question. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: 
Certain Color Television Receivers from the People's Republic of China, 
69 FR 205494 (April 16, 2004), and Accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 1. See also Notice of Preliminary Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final 
Determination: Synthetic Indigo from the People's Republic of China, 64 
FR 69723, 59725 (December 14, 1999). See also Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Freshwater Crawfish 
Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China, 62 FR 41347, 41353 
(August 1, 1997).
    On May 28, 2004, CCCLA and CNFA provided further information for 
the Department to evaluate. Because we received the MOI allegation and 
supporting information so recently and so close to the fully extended 
due date of the preliminary determination, we have not had adequate 
time to consider this information. We will continue to evaluate the 
request and address it as soon as possible.

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department has a 
rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are

[[Page 35320]]

subject to government control and thus should be assigned a single 
antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign 
all exporters of merchandise subject to investigation in an NME country 
this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is 
sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. The 
seven mandatory respondents and the Section A respondents have provided 
company-specific information and each has stated that it meet the 
standards for the assignment of a separate rate.
    It is the Department's policy to treat Hong Kong companies as 
market-economy companies. See Application of U.S. Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Law to Hong Kong, 62 FR 42965 (August 11, 1997). 
Further consistent with our practice, we do not conduct a separate-
rates test for respondents wholly owned by companies outside the PRC. 
Based on a review of the responses we have concluded that the Dorbest 
Group, Shing Mark, Tech Lane, and Lacquer Craft are companies not based 
in an NME. Therefore, we determine that no separate-rate analysis is 
required for these companies.
    We have considered whether each company based in the PRC is 
eligible for a separate rate. The Department's separate-rate test to 
determine whether the exporters are independent from government control 
does not consider, in general, macroeconomic/border-type controls, 
e.g., export licenses, quotas, and minimum export prices, particularly 
if these controls are imposed to prevent dumping. The test focuses, 
rather, on controls over the investment, pricing, and output decision-
making process at the individual firm level. See Certain Cut-to-Length 
Carbon Steel Plate from Ukraine: Final Determination of Sales at Less 
than Fair Value, 62 FR 61754, 61757 (November 19, 1997), and Tapered 
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the 
People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 17, 1997).
    To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from 
government control of its export activities to be entitled to a 
separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the 
subject merchandise under a test arising from the Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the 
People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (``Sparklers''), 
as amplified by Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 
22585 (May 2,1994) (``Silicon Carbide''). In accordance with the 
separate-rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates in NME 
cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both de jure 
and de facto governmental control over export activities.

1. Absence of De Jure Control

    The Department considers the following de jure criteria in 
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate 
rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an 
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative 
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal 
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See 
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
    Our analysis shows that the evidence on the record supports a 
preliminary finding of de jure absence of governmental control based on 
the following: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated 
with the individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) the 
applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of the 
companies; and (3) any other formal measures by the government 
decentralizing control of companies. See Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill, 
Office Director, Import Administration, from Eugene Degnan, Case 
Analyst, through Robert Bolling, Program Manager, Wooden Bedroom 
Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Separate Rates for 
Producers/Exporters that Submitted Questionnaire Responses (``Separate-
Rates Memo''), dated June 17, 2004.

2. Absence of De Facto Control

    Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating 
whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of 
its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or are 
subject to the approval of a governmental agency; (2) whether the 
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other 
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government 
in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) 
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and 
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or 
financing of losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-87; see also 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 
22545 (May 8, 1995). The Department has determined that an analysis of 
de facto control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in 
fact, subject to a degree of governmental control which would preclude 
the Department from assigning separate rates.
    We determine that, for the mandatory respondents located in the PRC 
and certain Section A respondents, the evidence on the record supports 
a preliminary finding of de facto absence of governmental control based 
on record statements and supporting documentation showing the 
following: (1) Each exporter sets its own export prices independent of 
the government and without the approval of a government authority; (2) 
each exporter retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent 
decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses; (3) 
each exporter has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and 
other agreements; and (4) each exporter has autonomy from the 
government regarding the selection of management.
    Therefore, the evidence placed on the record of this investigation 
by the mandatory respondents and certain Section A respondents 
demonstrates an absence of government control, both in law and in fact, 
with respect to each of the exporter's exports of the merchandise under 
investigation, in accordance with the criteria identified in Sparklers 
and Silicon Carbide. As a result, for the purposes of this preliminary 
determination, we have granted separate, company-specific rates to the 
mandatory respondents and certain Section A respondents which shipped 
bedroom furniture to the United States during the POI. For a full 
discussion of this issue and list of Section A respondents, please see 
the Separate-Rates Memo.

PRC-Wide Rate

    The Department has data that indicates there were more exporters of 
wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC during the POI than those which 
responded to the Q&V questionnaire. See Respondent Selection Memo. 
Although we issued the Q&V questionnaire to 211 known Chinese exporters 
of subject merchandise, we received only 137 Q&V questionnaire 
responses, including those from the seven mandatory respondents. Also, 
on February 2, 2004, we issued a Section A questionnaire to the Chinese 
Government (i.e., Ministry of Commerce). Although all exporters were 
given an opportunity to provide information showing they qualify for

[[Page 35321]]

separate rates, not all of these other exporters provided a response to 
either the Department's Q&V questionnaire or its Section A 
questionnaire. Therefore, the Department determines preliminarily that 
there were exports of the merchandise under investigation from PRC 
producers/exporters that did not respond to the Department's 
questionnaire. We treated these PRC producers/exporters as part of the 
countrywide entity. Further, the Government of the PRC did not respond 
to the Department's questionnaire.
    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party 
(A) withholds information that has been requested by the Department, 
(B) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form 
or manner requested, subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the 
Act, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping 
statute, or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be 
verified, the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the 
Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable 
determination.
    Pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department shall not 
decline to consider submitted information if all of the following 
requirements are met: (1) The information is submitted by the 
established deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the 
information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable 
basis for reaching the applicable determination; (4) the interested 
party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and 
(5) the information can be used without undue difficulties.
    Information on the record of this investigation indicates that 
there are numerous producers/exporters of the wooden bedroom furniture 
in the PRC. As described above, all exporters were given the 
opportunity to respond to the Department's questionnaire. Based upon 
our knowledge of the volume of imports of subject merchandise from the 
PRC and the fact that information indicates that the responding 
companies did not account for all imports into the United States from 
the PRC, we have preliminarily determined that certain PRC exporters of 
wooden bedroom furniture failed to respond to our questionnaires. As a 
result, use of adverse facts available (``AFA'') pursuant to section 
776(a)(2)(A) of the Act is appropriate. Additionally, in this case, the 
Government of the PRC did not respond to the Department's 
questionnaire, thereby necessitating the use of AFA to determine the 
PRC-wide rate. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value, Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical 
Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Frozen 
Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 4986 
(January 31, 2003).
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among 
the facts available, the Department may employ adverse inferences if an 
interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best of its 
ability to comply with requests for information. See Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled 
Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products from the Russian Federation, 
65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000). See also ``Statement of 
Administrative Action'' accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, 
870 (1994) (``SAA''). We find that, because the PRC-wide entity did not 
respond at all to our request for information, they have failed to 
cooperate to the best of their ability. Therefore, the Department 
preliminarily finds that, in selecting from among the facts available, 
an adverse inference is appropriate.
    Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use AFA 
information derived from the petition, the final determination from the 
LTFV investigation, a previous administrative review, or any other 
information placed on the record. As AFA, we have assigned to the PRC-
wide entity a margin based on information in the petition, because the 
margins derived from the petition are higher than the calculated 
margins for the selected respondents. In this case, we have applied a 
rate of 198.08 percent.
    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies 
on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the 
course of an investigation as facts available, it must, to the extent 
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources 
reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is described in the 
SAA as ``information derived from the petition that gave rise to the 
investigation or review, the final determination concerning subject 
merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the 
subject merchandise.'' See SAA at 870. The SAA provides that to 
``corroborate'' means simply that the Department will satisfy itself 
that the secondary information to be used has probative value. See id. 
The SAA also states that independent sources used to corroborate may 
include, for example, published price lists, official import statistics 
and customs data, and information obtained from interested parties 
during the particular investigation. See id. As explained in Tapered 
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, 
and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, 
and Components Thereof, from Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative 
Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996), to corroborate 
secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, 
examine the reliability and relevance of the information used.
    The Petitioners' methodology for calculating the export price and 
NV in the petition is discussed in the initiation notice. See 
Initiation Notice, 68 FR at 70229. To corroborate the AFA margin we 
have selected, we compared that margin to the margins we found for the 
respondents.
    As discussed in the Memorandum to the File regarding the 
corroboration of the AFA rate, dated June 17, 2004, we found that the 
margin of 198.08 percent has probative value. See Memorandum to the 
File from Brian Ledgerwood, Analyst, through Robert Bolling, Program 
Manager, and Laurie Parkhill, Office Director, Preliminary 
Determination in the Investigation of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the 
People's Republic of China, Corroboration Memorandum (``Corroboration 
Memo''), dated June 17, 2004. Accordingly, we find that the rate of 
198.08 percent is corroborated within the meaning of section 776(c) of 
the Act.
    Consequently, we are applying a single antidumping rate--the PRC-
wide rate--to producers/exporters that failed to respond to the Q&V 
questionnaire or Section A questionnaire. This rate will also apply to 
exporters which did not demonstrate entitlement to a separate rate. 
See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Synthetic Indigo from the People's Republic of China, 65 FR 25706, 
25707 (May 3, 2000). The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of the 
merchandise under investigation except for entries from the seven 
mandatory respondents and certain Section A respondents.
    Because this is a preliminary margin, the Department will consider 
all margins on the record at the time of the final determination for 
the purpose of determining the most appropriate final PRC-wide margin. 
See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Saccharin from the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 79049, 
79054 (December 27, 2002).

[[Page 35322]]

Partial Adverse Facts Available

    We have preliminarily determined that the use of a partial adverse 
inference is warranted for certain sales by Markor Tianjin.
    According to section 771(33)(E) of the Act, as amended by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''), ``any person directly or 
indirectly owning, controlling, or holding with power to vote, five 
percent or more of the outstanding voting stock or shares of any 
organization and such organization'' shall be considered affiliated. 
For purposes of section 771(33), ``a person shall be considered to 
control another person if the person is legally or operationally in a 
position to exercise restraint or direction over the other person.'' 
According to section 771(33)(F) of the Act, as amended by the URAA, 
``two or more persons directly or indirectly controlling, controlled 
by, or under common control with, any person'' shall be considered 
affiliated.
    The Department has concluded that Markor Tianjin and Lacquer Craft 
are likely affiliated because strong evidence on the record indicates 
Markor Tianjin and Lacquer Craft were affiliated during the POI by 
virtue of common ownership and shared stock interest through a third 
party (i.e., Company A). See Memorandum for Laurie Parkhill, Office 
Director, from Jon Freed, Case Analyst, Affiliation between Markor 
Tianjin and Lacquer Craft, dated June 17, 2004. Thus, an analysis of 
record evidence demonstrates that there is a strong likelihood that 
under section 771(33)(E) of the Act Markor Tianjin and Lacquer Craft 
are affiliated.
    Lacquer Craft has acknowledged that it is affiliated, by virtue of 
common ownership, with a party in the United States (Company B). Markor 
Tianjin sold subject merchandise to Company B during the POI. Because 
we have determined that Markor Tianjin is likely affiliated with 
Lacquer Craft, this also raises issues of potential affiliation between 
Markor Tianjin and its customer, Company B. If Markor Tianjin were, in 
fact, affiliated with Company B, the appropriate sales to use in our 
dumping analysis would be sales of Markor Tianjin's affiliated customer 
in the United States to its unaffiliated U.S. customers. Those sales 
would be classified as constructed export price (``CEP'') transactions 
because they would have been made in the United States after the date 
of importation. See section 772(b) of the Act. Further, for CEP sales, 
the Department deducts from the U.S. resale price to an unaffiliated 
purchaser all selling, distribution, and manufacturing expenses 
incurred in the United States and an amount for profit allocable to 
these expenses. See section 772(c) of the Act. Therefore, the 
Department cannot calculate an accurate dumping margin based on export 
price (``EP'') sales when there is strong evidence for the Department 
to determine that the respondent should have reported the affiliates' 
CEP sales.
    Although Markor Tianjin responded to the Department's questionnaire 
and supplemental questionnaires regarding affiliation, it failed to 
disclose the nature of its relationship during the POI to Company A. 
Sections 776(a)(2)(A) and 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act provide for the use 
of facts available when an interested party withholds information that 
has been requested by the Department or when an interested party fails 
to provide the information requested in a timely manner and in the form 
required. Additionally, section 776(b) of the Act provides for the use 
of AFA when an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting 
to the best of its ability. We have concluded that Markor Tianjin did 
not cooperate to the best of its ability because it neither disclosed 
the nature of its affiliation with Company A and with its U.S. 
customer, Company B, nor provided the correct sales information for its 
U.S. customer, as we requested in the questionnaire. Markor Tianjin's 
failure to cooperate to the best of its ability has inhibited the 
Department's ability to conduct a meaningful analysis of its sales to 
Company B. As long recognized by the CIT, the burden is on the 
respondent, not the Department, to create a complete and accurate 
record. See Pistachio Group of Association Food Industries v. United 
States, 671 F. Supp. 31, 39-40 (CIT 1987). Therefore, because it did 
not disclose the true nature of its affiliation with Company A and 
Company B, nor did it report the sales of the affiliated reseller 
(i.e., Company B), we find that the application of AFA is warranted. 
Because Markor Tianjin did not provide this information, section 782(d) 
of the Act is not applicable. Further, absent this information, i.e., 
the sales price to the unaffiliated customer and the expenses incurred 
in making those sales, the Department cannot calculate CEP and 
therefore cannot calculate an accurate dumping margin. Thus, the 
information on the record cannot serve as a reliable basis for this 
determination under section 782(e) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance 
with sections 776(a)(2) and 776(b) of the Act, we have applied AFA for 
each of Markor Tianjin's sales that should have been reported as CEP 
sales. As AFA we have applied the highest individual weighted-average 
margin for Markor Tianjin after dismissing the aberrational margins. 
Because we have used primary information as AFA (i.e., information 
Markor Tianjin submitted), the corroboration requirements of section 
776(c) do not apply.
    Further, we have preliminarily determined that the use of a partial 
adverse inference is warranted for certain surrogate values for Tech 
Lane. As described earlier, on May 10, 2004, the Department requested 
all mandatory respondents to provide a chart indicating the HTS heading 
and article description for each of their factors of production. On May 
26, 2004, Tech Lane submitted its response and stated that it is not 
familiar with the Indian tariff schedule but it submitted only certain 
surrogate values. Additionally, Tech Lane stated it incorporated 
submissions by Lacquer Craft on HTS information by reference.
    Through its incomplete response, Tech Lane has not met its burden 
of providing adequate information for the Department to value the 
factors of production. In other words, because Tech Lane provided no 
HTS headings for certain of its factors of production, the Department 
has no way of determining where in the spectrum of factors of 
production Tech Lane's factors fall. We have concluded that, because 
Tech Lane has not submitted an entire listing of its HTS heading and 
article descriptions for its submitted factors of production, it is 
appropriate to use the highest surrogate values on the record to 
calculate certain of Tech Lane's factors of production. See Tech Lane 
Preliminary Determination Analysis Memorandum dated June 17, 2004. 
Further, we have determined that an adverse inference is warranted 
pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. Tech Lane did not cooperate to 
the best of its ability by providing its HTS heading and article 
descriptions for its factors of production and certain of its factors 
of production have multiple HTS headings for the same or similar 
products (i.e., as submitted by mandatory respondents). Therefore, for 
the preliminary determination, we have used the highest surrogate 
values on the record to value certain factors of production for Tech 
Lane.
    For those companies that did not report a sandpaper usage rate, for 
the preliminary determination, the Department has used facts available 
to estimate the amount of sandpaper used in the production of subject 
merchandise. We made this determination based on the fact that 
sandpaper is essential to the production

[[Page 35323]]

process of the subject merchandise and because there is no indication 
that the cost of sandpaper is included in the overhead figures of the 
Indian surrogate companies. For the companies that did not report 
sandpaper usage rates, we calculated a simple average of the combined 
consumption of sandpaper and sand cloth from the respondents that did 
report sandpaper and/or sandcloth usage rates.

Margins for Section A Respondents

    The exporters which submitted responses to Section A of the 
Department's antidumping questionnaire and had sales of the subject 
merchandise to the United States during the POI but were not selected 
as mandatory respondents in this investigation (``Section A 
respondents'') have applied for separate rates and provided information 
for the Department to consider for this purpose. Therefore, for the 
Section A respondents which provided sufficient evidence that they are 
separate from the state-controlled entity and answered other questions 
in Section A of the questionnaire, we have established a weighted-
average margin based on the rates we have calculated for the seven 
mandatory respondents, excluding any rates that are zero, de minimis, 
or based entirely on adverse facts available. That rate is 10.92 
percent. Companies receiving this rate are identified by name in the 
``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice.
    Because Power Dekor Group Co. Ltd. and Fuzhou Huan Mei Furniture 
Co., Ltd., reported that they did not have sales of the merchandise 
under investigation to the United States during the POI, these 
companies are not eligible to receive a separate rate.

Date of Sale

    Section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations state that, ``in 
identifying the date of sale of the subject merchandise or foreign like 
product, the Secretary normally will use the date of invoice, as 
recorded in the exporter or producer's records kept in the normal 
course of business.'' After examining the sales documentation placed on 
the record by the mandatory respondents, we preliminarily determine 
that invoice date is the most appropriate date of sale for the Dorbest 
Group, Lacquer Craft, Markor Tianjin, and Starcorp. We made this 
determination because, at this time, there is insufficient evidence on 
the record to determine whether the contracts used by the respondents 
establish the material terms of sale to the extent required by our 
regulations in order to rebut the presumption that invoice date is the 
proper date of sale. See Saccharin from China, 67 FR at 79054.
    Furthermore, after examining the sales documentation placed on the 
record by Dongguan Lung Dong, we also preliminarily determine that 
invoice date is the most appropriate date of sale for Dongguan Lung 
Dong. Dongguan Lung Dong claimed that its purchase-order date is the 
appropriate date of sale because its sales terms do not change. We have 
determined that, based on record evidence, its sales terms did change 
after the purchase-order date, and thus we have used invoice date as 
the date of sale for the preliminary determination for Dongguan Lung 
Dong.
    Shing Mark reported shipment date as the date of sale. Shipment 
date typically falls on or about the invoice date. There is no record 
evidence to indicate otherwise, and thus we have used shipment date as 
the date of sale for the preliminary determination for Shing Mark. 
Additionally, Tech Lane provided record evidence that indicated its 
purchase-order date was the appropriate date of sale and there is no 
record evidence to indicate otherwise; thus, we have used purchase-
order date as the date of sale for the preliminary determination for 
Tech Lane.
    The Department intends to examine the date-of-sale issue at 
verification thoroughly and may reconsider its position for the final 
determination based on the results of verification.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of wooden bedroom furniture to the 
United States by the seven mandatory respondents were made at less than 
fair value, we compared EP or CEP to NV, as described in the ``Export 
Price,'' ``Constructed Export Price,'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of 
this notice.

U.S. Price

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we used EP for the 
seven mandatory respondents, as appropriate, because the subject 
merchandise was first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of 
importation by the producer or exporter of the subject merchandise 
outside the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United 
States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United 
States and because the use of CEP was not otherwise indicated. In 
accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we used CEP for certain 
sales by Lacquer Craft and Shing Mark because the subject merchandise 
was sold in the United States after the date of importation by a U.S. 
seller affiliated with the producer.
    We calculated EP and CEP based on the packed F.O.B., C.I.F., or 
delivered price to unaffiliated purchasers in, or for exportation to, 
the United States. We made deductions, as appropriate, for any movement 
expenses (e.g., foreign inland freight from the plant to the port of 
exportation, domestic brokerage, ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. 
brokerage, and inland freight from warehouse to unaffiliated U.S. 
customer) in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. For a 
detailed description of all adjustments, see the company-specific 
Analysis Memoranda dated June 17, 2004.
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act and the SAA at 823-
824, we calculated the CEP by deducting selling expenses associated 
with economic activities occurring in the United States, which includes 
credit, commissions, direct selling expenses, inventory carrying costs, 
and other indirect selling expenses. We compared NV to weighted-average 
EPs and CEPs, in accordance with section 777A(d)(1) of the Act. Where 
appropriate, in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the 
Act, we deducted CEP profit. For a detailed description of all 
adjustments, see the company-specific Analysis Memoranda dated June 17, 
2004.
    For the Dorbest Group, the Department has denied its claim for 
billing adjustments for this preliminary determination because the 
Dorbest Group did not provide sufficient information for these 
adjustments in its responses. The Dorbest Group provided a billing-
adjustments field in the database, but it did not provide a narrative 
explanation for these adjustments.
    In the U.S. sales database it submitted with the original response, 
the Dorbest Group reported commissions that it paid to some of its 
customers. In the database that the Dorbest Group submitted with its 
supplemental response, however, it removed a portion of commissions 
from its database, claiming that those commissions were actually other 
types of expenses. We disagree with the Dorbest Group's classification 
of its commissions as other types of expenses. Therefore, for the 
preliminary determination, we have applied the commissions reported in 
the Dorbest Group's original U.S. sales database to the sales reported 
in the database submitted with its supplemental response.
    For some sales observations, Lacquer Craft and Markor Tianjin 
combined multiple invoices for a single observation in their respective 
U.S. sales listings. Both explained that this was

[[Page 35324]]

the most reasonable method for reporting these items because the 
component pieces making up the furniture item sold were not always 
captured on the same invoice. In these instances, Lacquer Craft and 
Markor Tianjin explained, they combined the total gross unit price and 
total quantity of subject merchandise sold to a particular customer 
where the price for the subject merchandise was the same on each 
invoice. Generally, it is the Department's preference to evaluate each 
sale on a single invoice basis but the Department does not have any 
information on the record to indicate that Markor Tianjin and Lacquer 
Craft's method would cause a distortion in the comparison of U.S. price 
to NV. Therefore, for the preliminary determination, the Department has 
accepted this reporting methodology. The Department intends to examine 
this issue at verification thoroughly and may reconsider its position 
for the final determination based on the results of verification.

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine the NV using a factors-of-production methodology if the 
merchandise is exported from an NME and the information does not permit 
the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, 
or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. The Department 
bases NV on the factors of production because the presence of 
government controls on various aspects of these economies renders price 
comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under its 
normal methodologies.

Factor Valuations

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on factors of production reported by respondents for the POI. To 
calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor quantities by 
publicly available Indian surrogate values (except as discussed below). 
In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, 
specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we 
adjusted input prices by including freight costs to make them delivered 
prices. Specifically, we added to Indian import surrogate values a 
surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported distance from 
the domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the nearest 
seaport to the factory where appropriate. This adjustment is in 
accordance with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision 
in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Due 
to the extensive number of surrogate values it was necessary to assign 
in this investigation, we present a discussion of the main factors. For 
a detailed description of all surrogate values used for respondents, 
see Factor-Valuation Memo. For a detailed description of all actual 
values used for market-economy inputs, see the company-specific 
analysis memoranda dated June 17, 2004.
    Except as discussed below, we valued raw material inputs using the 
weighted-average unit import values derived from the World Trade 
Atlas[reg] online (``Indian Import Statistics''). See Factor-Valuation 
Memo. The Indian Import Statistics we obtained from the World Trade 
Atlas were published by the DGCI&S, Ministry of Commerce of India, 
which were reported in rupees and are contemporaneous with POI. Where 
we could not obtain publicly available information contemporaneous to 
the POI with which to value factors, we adjusted the surrogate values 
using the Indian Wholesale Price Index (``WPI'') as published in the 
International Financial Statistics of the International Monetary Fund.
    On May 13, 2004, Shing Mark provided comments stating that, if the 
Department chooses India as the surrogate country, it should use 
InfodriveIndia to calculate surrogate values. On May 24, 2004, 
Petitioners responded to Shing Mark's May 13, 2004, submission and 
stated that the Department should not use InfodriveIndia to value the 
surrogate data.
    For this preliminary determination, in accordance with past 
practice, we used data from the Indian Import Statistics in order to 
calculate surrogate values for the mandatory respondents' material 
inputs. In selecting the best available information for valuing factors 
of production in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the 
Department's practice is to select, to the extent practicable, 
surrogate values which are non-export average values, most 
contemporaneous with the POI, product-specific, and tax-exclusive. The 
record shows that data in the Indian Import Statistics represents 
import data, is contemporaneous with the POI, is product-specific, and 
is tax-exclusive. See Manganese Metal From the People's Republic of 
China; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 63 FR 12441, 12442 (March 13, 1998). 
Additionally, there is no record evidence which indicates that any of 
the factors being valued are of low value compared to other items in 
the basket categories; thus, our use of these statistics does not 
result in a distortion in favor of higher values. Further, the Indian 
Import Statistics contain values at both ends of the spectrum (i.e., 
high value and low value), further indicating that the Indian Import 
values are not distorted when taken as an average, as we are doing in 
this case. Therefore the Department has determined that the Indian 
Import Statistics provide the best available information for valuing 
the factors of production.
    Additionally, we have determined not to use InfodriveIndia data 
because we found InfodriveIndia data does not account for all imports 
into India (i.e., it only accounts for 60% of the imports), and the 
information is not reported uniformly (e.g., units of measure and 
descriptions of items). Due to the statistics not being reported 
uniformly, the Department would be required to select items in 
InfodriveIndia subjectively and then correlate these items with 
respondent's reported inputs. Additionally, due to the lack of 
uniformity, there would be numerous occasions where the Department 
would be unable to use the data because InfodriveIndia may report 
individual imports in different units of measurements (e.g., pieces, 
kilograms, meters squared, etc.) for a given HTS number, whereas Indian 
Import Statistics are reported using a single uniform measurement 
(e.g., meters squared, kilograms).
    The Dorbest Group and Lacquer Craft purchased certain raw-material 
inputs from NME suppliers and paid for them in market-economy 
currencies. Consistent with Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value in Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from the People's 
Republic of China (``PRCBs'') at Comment 4, issued on June 9, 2004, the 
Department has used its surrogate-value methodology to value inputs 
produced in an NME.
    Furthermore, with regard to both the Indian import-based surrogate 
values and the market-economy input values, we have disregarded prices 
that we have reason to believe or suspect may be subsidized. We have 
reason to believe or suspect that prices of inputs from Indonesia, 
South Korea, and Thailand may have been subsidized. We have found in 
other proceedings that these countries maintain broadly available, non-
industry-specific export subsidies and, therefore, it is reasonable to 
infer that all exports to all markets from these countries are 
subsidized. See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less 
than Fair Value: Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields from

[[Page 35325]]

the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 11670 (March 15, 2002). We are 
also directed by the legislative history not to conduct a formal 
investigation to ensure that such prices are not subsidized. See H.R. 
Rep. 100-576 at 590 (1988). Rather, Congress directed the Department to 
base its decision on information that is available to it at the time it 
makes its determination. Therefore, we have not used prices from these 
countries either in calculating the Indian import-based surrogate 
values or in calculating market-economy input values. In instances 
where a market-economy input was obtained solely from suppliers located 
in these countries, we used Indian import-based surrogate values to 
value the input. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields From The 
People's Republic of China, 67 FR 6482 (February 12, 2002), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
    Where appropriate, we adjusted surrogate values to reflect 
inflation up to the POI using the WPI or the PPI published by the IMF, 
as appropriate.
    For wood inputs (e.g., logs and lumber of various species), wood 
veneer of various species, processed woods (e.g., fiberboard, 
particleboard, plywood, etc.), adhesives and finishing materials (e.g., 
glue, paints, stains, lacquer, etc.), hardware (e.g., nails, staples, 
screws, bolts, knobs, pulls, drawer slides, hinges, clasps, etc.), 
other materials (e.g., mirrors, glass, leather, marble, cloth, foam, 
etc.), and packing materials (e.g., cardboard, cartons, styrofoam, 
bubblewrap, plastic bags, labels, tape, etc.), we used import values 
from the World Trade Atlas when respondents purchased these inputs from 
suppliers in the PRC. For a complete listing of all the inputs and the 
valuation for each mandatory respondent see the Factor-Valuation Memo.
    On June 4, 2004, Petitioners asserted that the Department should 
disregard prices paid for wood products purchased from Russia because 
the Russian timber prices are distorted by illegal activities and NME 
conditions in the timber industry in Russia. Petitioners stated that 
illegal logging, false documentation of commercial grade timber as 
``salvage'' or other forged documents, smuggling of timber, and control 
of many Russian timber firms by PRC nationals result in NME prices for 
timber imported into the PRC. Additionally, Petitioners commented that 
stumpage fees are far lower than in neighboring European countries.
    For the preliminary determination, the Department has rejected 
Petitioners' argument and has used the market prices of Russian wood 
for the following reasons. First, we designated Russia as a market 
economy on August 6, 2002, with an effective date of April 1, 2002. 
Like many market economies, Russia's market economy has imperfections, 
which should not preclude use of its export prices. If establishing 
documenting imperfections in a market economy were sufficient cause to 
abandon using a country's export price, prices from many market 
economies would be unusable.
    Second, the Department excludes prices that are subsidized by the 
foreign government, but it has no policy of excluding prices that are 
low because of evasion of that government's policy. Petitioners have 
made no allegations of a subsidy program in Russia.
    Third, the sources cited by Petitioners are dated and the 
conditions that may have prevailed when the reports were issued may no 
longer hold today. None of the sources cited by Petitioners reflects 
the POI (i.e., they refer to 1998 through January 2003 whereas the POI 
is April 2003 through September 2003) and, in fact, most of the reports 
cited pre-date the Department's graduation of Russia to market-economy 
status. Given the pace of change in Russia over the last several years, 
reliance on dated information may not be representative of the timber 
market in Russia during the POI. Additionally, allegations of illegal 
logging and smuggling in Russia without evidence that demonstrate 
respondents' wood products are, in fact, obtained from these sources 
provide an insufficient basis on which to reject these prices as NME 
prices.
    For the purposes of the preliminary determination, the Department 
has decided to use http://www.allmeasures.com and other publicly 

available information where interested parties did not submit 
alternative conversion values for specific factors of production. Shing 
Mark and Starcorp submitted an alternative website for wood measurement 
conversions. Due to the complexity and number of the conversions, 
however, the Department has preliminarily determined to use the 
allmeasures website to convert certain values. For the final 
determination, the Department will continue to consider other 
appropriate conversion ratios.
    As stated above, the Dorbest Group claimed that it had market-
economy purchases for certain inputs produced in the PRC and shipped 
from the supplier's plant(s) in the PRC to the Dorbest Group's plants. 
Consistent with PRCBs, the Department has used its surrogate-value 
methodology to value inputs produce in an NME.
    Additionally, as stated above, Lacquer Craft claimed that it had 
market-economy purchases of various paints and finishing materials 
produced in the PRC and shipped from the supplier's plant(s) in the PRC 
to Lacquer Craft's plant. Consistent with PRCBs, the Department has 
used its surrogate-value methodology to value inputs produce in an NME.
    For the preliminary determination with respect to Shing Mark, the 
Department has relied generally upon its submitted factor inputs. Shing 
Mark reported that certain of its inputs were subcontracted. The 
Department's normal practice is to use a surrogate value for the 
production of subcontracted items, because the overhead, selling, 
general and administrative expenses (``SG&A''), and profit are 
reflected in the surrogate value and not the subcontracted factor 
inputs. For the preliminary determination, the Department has used 
Shing Mark's factor inputs to value these subcontracting costs. For the 
final determination, we will evaluate Shing Mark's subcontracted factor 
inputs further to determine whether these costs are distortive and 
examine this issue more closely at verification.
    As the basis for NV, Starcorp provided factors-of-production data 
based on log processing and lumber purchases as Starcorp has its own 
log-processing facility. For each type of reported species of wood, 
Starcorp stated that it purchases both lumber and logs which are then 
processed internally into lumber. In response to a supplemental 
questionnaire, Starcorp provided factors-of-production information 
based only on lumber consumption. Although Starcorp reported the inputs 
(i.e., logs) used to produce lumber, for the purposes of this 
preliminary determination, we have not valued those inputs when 
calculating NV. Rather, our NV calculation begins with a valuation of 
lumber consumption used to produce the merchandise under investigation 
for the following reasons.
    Consistent with section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Act, our general policy 
is to value the factors of production that a respondent uses to produce 
the subject merchandise. To the extent that the NME respondent is an 
integrated producer, we take into account the factors utilized in each 
stage of the production process. For example, in the case of preserved 
canned mushrooms produced by a grower of mushrooms, the Department 
valued the factors used to grow the mushrooms, the factors used

[[Page 35326]]

to further process and preserve the mushrooms, and any additional 
factors used to can and package the mushrooms, including any used to 
manufacture the cans (if produced in-house). If, on the other hand, the 
firm was simply a processor that bought fresh mushrooms to preserve and 
can, the Department valued the purchased mushrooms and not the factors 
used to grow them. See final results valuation memorandum for Final 
Results of First New Shipper Review and First Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's 
Republic of China, 66 FR 31204 (June 11, 2001) (Final Results Valuation 
Memorandum). This policy has been applied to both agricultural and 
industrial products. See, e.g., Persulfates From the People's Republic 
of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
and Notice of Partial Recision, 67 FR 50866 (August 6, 2002) (unchanged 
in final), and Notice of Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Brake Drums and Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of 
China, 62 FR 9160 (February 28, 1997). Accordingly, our standard NME 
questionnaire asks respondents to report the factors used in the 
various stages of production.
    There are two limited exceptions to this general rule. First, in 
some cases a respondent may report factors used to produce an 
intermediate input that accounts for a small or insignificant share of 
total output. The Department recognizes that, in those cases, the 
increased accuracy in its overall calculations that would result from 
valuing each of those factors separately may be so small so as to not 
justify the burden of doing so. Therefore, in those situations, the 
Department would value the intermediate input directly.
    Second, in certain circumstances, it is clear that attempting to 
value the factors used in a production process yielding an intermediate 
product may lead to an inaccurate result because the constructed value 
would not reflect a significant element of cost adequately. For 
example, in a recent case, we addressed whether we should value the 
respondent's factors used in extracting iron ore, an input to its wire 
rod factory. The Department determined that, if it were to use those 
factors, it would not account sufficiently for the capital costs 
associated with the iron ore mining operation, given that the surrogate 
company the Department used for valuing production overhead did not 
have mining operations. Therefore, because ignoring this important cost 
element would distort the calculation, the Department declined to value 
the inputs used in mining iron ore and valued the iron ore instead. See 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Carbon 
and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Ukraine, 67 FR 55785 (August 30, 
2002), Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 
Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From the People's Republic of 
China, 66 FR 49632 (September 28, 2001), Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value; Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From 
the People's Republic of China, 62 FR 61964 (November 20, 1997), and 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; 
Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544 (May 
8, 1995).
    In this investigation, we have determined that the second exception 
discussed above applies here. We have reviewed and analyzed the 
information submitted by Starcorp and find that the data pertaining to 
the log processing cannot be used for purposes of the preliminary 
determination. Starcorp reported that, for some of the solid wood used 
in the manufacture of subject merchandise, it purchased logs and 
processed the logs internally into lumber. Additionally, Starcorp 
reported the electricity, water, and labor associated with the log-
processing facility. The Department has determined that, if it were to 
value the logs, it would not account for the capital costs associated 
with processing the logs into lumber due to the fact that the overhead 
costs (i.e., overhead ratio) of the surrogate companies do not indicate 
that these surrogate companies process logs into lumber. Therefore, for 
the preliminary determination, we have declined to value the inputs 
used in production of logs and have instead valued the lumber because 
this methodology yields a more accurate result.
    For Tech Lane, the Department has denied its claim for a by-product 
offset to its board inputs for this preliminary determination, because 
Tech Lane did not provide sufficient information in order for the 
Department to adjust for this by-product offset. Tech Lane only 
submitted per-unit inputs used to produce recycled boards sold to 
unaffiliated third parties, but Tech Lane provided no record evidence 
of how it calculated its per-unit inputs for recycled boards. 
Additionally, Tech Lane did not explain the methodology it used to 
calculate the by-product offset it claimed. Furthermore, Tech Lane did 
not provide sufficient evidence that it sold board to unaffiliated 
third parties during the POI. Thus, for the preliminary determination, 
we have not applied a by-product offset adjustment to its board inputs. 
We intend to examine this issue more closely at verification.
    Tech Lane purchased oak and cherry logs from the United States and 
had them processed into veneer in Vietnam by an unaffiliated Taiwanese 
company. The unaffiliated Taiwanese company received the logs, 
processed them, paid all costs incurred in Vietnam and all 
transportation expenses and insurance from Vietnam to Tech Lane's 
factory in the PRC. Tech Lane paid the Taiwanese company a flat fee for 
these services based on the square feet of veneer processed. Tech Lane 
reported this veneer as a market-economy input.
    Because we valued ``veneer'' in the production of subject 
merchandise, not ``logs,'' and because the majority of Tech Lane's oak 
veneer and a significant portion of Tech Lane's cherry veneer was 
purchased from market-economy suppliers, we have not used the price 
paid to the Taiwanese company for the processing in Vietnam and have 
valued Tech Lane's oak and cherry veneer using market-economy prices.
    For Lacquer Craft, Shing Mark, and Tech Lane, the Department valued 
their stain paint, thinner paint, glaze paint, lacquer paint, and 
sealer paint (collectively ``paints'') by using a single HTS for the 
these paints. These companies either did not provide the Department 
with an HTS classification for their paint inputs or they provided the 
Department with multiple HTS classifications that represent the 
necessary ingredients for making the paints. Additionally, each company 
reported a usage rate for the final product and did not provide usage 
rates for the specific ingredients that make up the paints. Because 
there is no record evidence with respect to the usage rates for the HTS 
classifications component that make up the paints and because other 
information indicates that these components are mixed to create a 
single product, the Department has determined that best surrogate value 
to use for the paints in the preliminary determination is a single 
value for paint. For the final determination, the Department will 
evaluate whether usage rates for the component parts should be reported 
and whether to value each component.
    Regarding certain minor factors of production (e.g., cabinet 
lights, covers, paper covers, etc.) reported by the mandatory 
respondents, we did not value these factors because surrogate-value 
information was not available and conversion factors were not 
available. For a detailed list of the factors we did

[[Page 35327]]

not value for the preliminary determination, see the company-specific 
analysis memoranda dated June 17, 2004.
    To value electricity, we used data from the International Energy 
Agency (``IEA'') Key World Energy Statistics (2003 edition), submitted 
by the Petitioners in Exhibit 4 of their April 16, 2004, submission. 
Because the value was not contemporaneous with the POI, we adjusted the 
rate for inflation. See Factor-Valuation Memo.
    To value water, we used the average water tariff rate as reported 
in the Asian Development Bank's Second Water Utilities Data Book: Asian 
and Pacific Region (published in 1997), based on the average rupee per 
cubic meter rate for three cities in India during 1997. Because the 
value was not contemporaneous with the POI, we adjusted the rate for 
inflation. See Factor-Valuation Memo.
    To value diesel fuel, we used data from IEA's Key World Energy 
Statistics (2003 edition) which was submitted by petitioners in their 
April 16, 2004, submission. Because the value was not contemporaneous 
with the POI, we adjusted the rate for inflation. See Factor-Valuation 
Memo.
    For direct, indirect, crate-building and packing labor, consistent 
with 19 CFR Sec.  351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC regression-based wage 
rate as reported on Import Administration's home page, Import Library, 
Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries, revised in September 2003, 
http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/01wages/01wages.html. The source of these 

wage-rate data on the Import Administration's Web site is the Yearbook 
of Labour Statistics 2002, ILO (Geneva: 2002), Chapter 5B: Wages in 
Manufacturing. Because this regression-based wage rate does not 
separate the labor rates into different skill levels or types of labor, 
we have applied the same wage rate to all skill levels and types of 
labor reported by the respondent.
    The respondents also reported packing inputs. We used Indian Import 
Statistics data from the period April 2003 through September 2003 to 
value these inputs except where respondents obtained the inputs from 
market-economy suppliers and paid for them in a market-economy 
currency. See Factor-Valuation Memo.
    We used Indian transport information in order to value the 
transportation of raw materials. To calculate domestic inland freight 
for trucking services, we selected freight values from Chemical Weekly. 
Some inputs were transported by market-economy transportation firms and 
paid for in a market-economy currency. Where this was the case, we 
added the actual market-economy transportation expense to the valuation 
of the factor of production.
    We used Indian rail freight information in order to value the 
transportation of raw materials. To value the rail freight, we used two 
price quotes from November 1999 for steel shipments within India. 
Because the value was not contemporaneous with the POI, we adjusted the 
rate for inflation. See Factor-Valuation Memo.
    To value factory overhead, SG&A and profit, we used the audited 
financial statements for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2003, from 
the following producers of wooden furniture: Indian Furniture Products 
Ltd., Raghbir Interiors Pvt. Ltd., Nizamuddin Furnitures Pvt. Ltd., 
Fusion Design Private Ltd., Jayaraja Furniture Group, and Akriti 
Perfections India Pvt. Ltd. See Factor-Valuation Memo for a full 
discussion of the calculation of these ratios from these financial 
statements.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with 
section 773A(a) of the Act based on the exchange rates in effect on the 
dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we intend to verify 
the information upon which we will rely in making our final 
determination.

Preliminary Determination

    The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Weighted-
                 Manufacturer/exporter                   average margin
                                                            (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dongguan Lung Dong....................................              7.04
The Dorbest Group.....................................             19.24
Lacquer Craft.........................................              4.90
Markor Tianjin........................................              8.38
Shing Mark............................................              6.59
Starcorp..............................................             24.34
Tech Lane.............................................              9.36
Cheng Meng Furniture (PTE) Ltd., et al................             10.92
Classic Furniture Global Co., Ltd.....................             10.92
Dalian Guangming Furniture Co., Ltd...................             10.92
Dalian Huafeng Furniture Co., Ltd.....................             10.92
Dongguan Cambridge Furniture Co., et al...............             10.92
Dongguan Creation Furniture Co., Ltd et al............             10.92
Dongguan Great Reputation Furniture Co., Ltd..........             10.92
Dongguan Hung Sheng Artware Products Co., Ltd et al...             10.92
Dongguan Kin Feng Furniture Co., Ltd..................             10.92
Dongguan Kingstone Furniture Co., Ltd et al...........             10.92
Dongguan Qingxi Xinyi Craft Furniture Factory (Joyce               10.92
 Art Factory).........................................
Dongguan Singways Furniture Co., Ltd..................             10.92
Eurosa (Kunshan) Co., Ltd et al.......................             10.92
Ever Spring Furniture Company Ltd, et al..............             10.92
Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited.....................             10.92
Fujian Lianfu Forestry Co., Ltd, et al................             10.92
Garri Furniture (Dong Guan) Co., Ltd et al............             10.92
Guangming Group Wumahe Furniture Co., Ltd.............             10.92
Hainan Jong Bao Lumber Co., Ltd.......................             10.92
Hamilton & Spill Ltd..................................             10.92
Dongguan Grand Style Furniture et al..................             10.92
Hang Hai Woodcraft's Art Factory......................             10.92
Hualing Funriture (China) Co., Ltd et al..............             10.92

[[Page 35328]]


Jardine Enterprise, Ltd...............................             10.92
Jiangsu Weifu Group Fullhouse Furniture Mfg. Corp.....             10.92
Jiangsu Yuexing Funriture Group Co., Ltd..............             10.92
Jiedong Lehouse Furntiure Co., Ltd....................             10.92
King Way Furniture Industries Co., Ltd et al..........             10.92
Kunshan Summit Furniture Co., Ltd.....................             10.92
Langfang Tiancheng Furniture Co., Ltd.................             10.92
Leefu Wood (Dongguan) Co., Ltd........................             10.92
Link Silver Ltd et al.................................             10.92
Locke Furniture Factory (dba Kai Chan Furniture) et al             10.92
Nantong Dongfang Orient Furniture Co., Ltd............             10.92
Nantong Yushi Furniture Co., Ltd......................             10.92
Nathan International Ltd et al........................             10.92
Perfect Line Furniture Co., Ltd.......................             10.92
Qingdao Liangmu Co., Ltd..............................             10.92
Restonic (Dongguan) Furniture Ltd et al...............             10.92
RiZhao SanMu Woodworking Co., Ltd.....................             10.92
Season Furniture Manufacturing Co. et al..............             10.92
Sen Yeong International Co., Ltd et al................             10.92
Shanghai Maoji Imp and Exp Co., Ltd...................             10.92
Shanghai Aosen Furniture Co., Ltd.....................             10.92
Shenyang Shining Dongxing Furniture Co., Ltd..........             10.92
Shenzhen Forest Furniture Co., Ltd....................             10.92
Shenzhen Jiafa High Grade Furniture Co., Ltd et al....             10.92
Shenzhen New Fudu Furniture Co., Ltd..................             10.92
Shenzhen Wonderful Furniture Co., Ltd.................             10.92
Shenzhen Xingli Furniture Co., Ltd....................             10.92
Shun Feng Furniture Co., Ltd..........................             10.92
Songgang Jasonwood Furniture Factory et al............             10.92
Starwood Furniture Manufacturing Co. Ltd..............             10.92
Starwood Industries Ltd...............................             10.92
Strongson Furniture (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd et al.........             10.92
Sunforce Furniture (Hui-Yang) Co., Ltd et al..........             10.92
Tarzan Furniture Industries Ltd et al.................             10.92
Teamway Furniture (Dong Guan) Ltd, et al..............             10.92
Techniwood Industries Limited.........................             10.92
Sheng Jing Wood Products (Beijing) Co., Ltd et al.....             10.92
Tianjin Fortune Funriture Co., Ltd....................             10.92
Tianjin Phu Shing Woodwork Enterprise Co., Ltd........             10.92
Tianjin Sande Fairwood Furniture Co., Ltd.............             10.92
Tube-Smith Enterprise (ZhangZhou) Co., Ltd et al......             10.92
Union Friend International Trade Co., Ltd.............             10.92
U-Rich Furniture (Zhangzhou) Co., Ltd et al...........             10.92
Wanhengtong Nueevder (Furniture) Manufacture Co., Ltd              10.92
 et al................................................
Woodworth Wooden Industries (Dong Guan) Co., Ltd......             10.92
Xiamen Yongquan Sci-Tech Development Co., Ltd.........             10.92
XiangSheng Bedtime Furniture Co., Ltd.................             10.92
Xingli Arts & Crafts Factory of Yangchun..............             10.92
Yangchun Hengli Company Limited.......................             10.92
Yeh Brothers World Trade, Inc.........................             10.92
Yichun Guangming Furniture Co., Ltd...................             10.92
Yihua Timber Industry Co., Ltd........................             10.92
Zhang Zhou Sanlong Wood Product Co., Ltd..............             10.92
Zhangjiagang Zheng Yan Decoration Co., Ltd............             10.92
Zhangzhou Guohui Industrial & Trade Co. Ltd...........             10.92
Zhong Shan Fullwin Funriture Co., Ltd.................             10.92
Zhongshan Fookyik Furniture Co., Ltd..................             10.92
Zhongshan Golden King Furniture Industrial Co., Ltd...             10.92
Zhoushan For-Strong Wood Co., Ltd.....................             10.92
PRC-Wide Rate.........................................            198.08
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we will instruct U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to suspend liquidation of all 
entries of subject merchandise, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in 
the Federal Register. We will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or 
the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average amount by which the 
normal value exceeds U.S. price, as indicated above. The suspension of 
liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

[[Page 35329]]

International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our preliminary affirmative determination of sales at less than 
fair value. Because we have postponed the deadline for our final 
determination to 135 days from the date of publication of this 
preliminary determination, section 735(b)(2) of the Act requires the 
ITC to make its final determination as to whether domestic industry in 
the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material 
injury, by reason of imports of wooden bedroom furniture, or sales (or 
the likelihood of sales) for importation, of the subject merchandise 
within 45 days of our final determination.

Public Comment

    Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no later than seven days 
after the date of the final verification report issued in this 
proceeding and rebuttal briefs limited to issues raised in case briefs, 
no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs. A list 
of authorities used and an executive summary of issues should accompany 
any briefs submitted to the Department. This summary should be limited 
to five pages total, including footnotes.
    In accordance with section 774 of the Act, we will hold a public 
hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to 
comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. If a request 
for a hearing is made, we will intend to hold the hearing three days 
after the deadline of submission of rebuttal briefs at the U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230, at a time and location to be determined. Parties 
should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing 
two days before the scheduled date.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate 
if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 
1870, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. See 
19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests should contain the party's name, address, 
and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the 
issues to be discussed. At the hearing, each party may make an 
affirmative presentation only on issues raised in that party's case 
brief and may make rebuttal presentations only on arguments included in 
that party's rebuttal brief.
    We will make our final determination no later than 135 days after 
the date of publication of this preliminary determination, pursuant to 
section 735(a)(2) of the Act.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: June 17, 2004.
James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 04-14361 Filed 6-23-04; 8:45 am]