Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Notices 5127

1The petitioner in this investigation is Home 

Products International, Inc.

2Section A of the NME questionnaire requests 

general information concerning a company’s 

corporate structure and business practices, the 

merchandise under investigation that it sells, and 

the manner in which it sells that merchandise in 

all of its markets. Section C requests a complete 

listing of U.S. sales. Section D requests information 

on the factors of production of the merchandise 

sold in or to the United States. Section E requests 

information on further manufacturing.

3The Department gathered the following PRC 

company names from the June 30, 2003, petition 

and the country desk in Beijing. See Memorandum 

Continued

Washington DC 20230; telephone (202) 

482–4194.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On July 2, 2003, the Department 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice of the opportunity to request an 

administrative review in the above-cited 

segment of the antidumping duty 

proceeding (see 68 FR 39511). We 

received a timely filed request for 

review of Jilin and Shandong Xinhua 

Pharmaceutical Factory, Ltd. 

(‘‘Shandong’’) from Rhodia, Inc. 

(‘‘Rhodia’’), the petitioner in this case. 

On August 22, 2003, we initiated an 

administrative review of Jilin and 

Shandong (68 FR 50750).

On January 5, 2004, Rhodia withdrew 

its request for review of Jilin. Although 

this withdrawal was received by the 

Department after the regulatory deadline 

of November 20, 2003, 19 CFR 

351.213(d)(1) permits the Department to 

extend the deadline if ‘‘it is reasonable 

to do so.’’ Because the petitioner was 

the only party to request the review, we 

find it is reasonable to extend the 

deadline to withdraw the review 

request.

Partial Rescission of Antidumping 

Administrative Review

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding the 

administrative review with respect to 

Jilin.

Shandong remains a respondent in 

this administrative review.

Assessment

The Department will instruct U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 

to assess antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. For Jilin, from July 

1, 2002 through September 29, 2002, 

antidumping duties shall be assessed at 

rates equal to the cash deposit of 

estimated antidumping duties required 

at the time of entry, or withdrawal from 

warehouse, for consumption, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212(c)(1)(i).

Pursuant to a final court decision, 

which excluded Jilin from the order 

effective September 30, 2002, entries of 

subject merchandise from Jilin, entered 

or withdrawn from the warehouse on or 

after September 30, 2002, have been 

liquidated without regard to 

antidumping duties. See Bulk Aspirin 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Notice of Amended Final Determination 

and Amended Order Pursuant to Final 

Court Decision, 68 FR 75208 (December 

30, 2003)(‘‘Amended Order’’).

The Department will issue 

appropriate assessment instructions 

directly to the CBP within 15 days of 

publication of this notice.

Cash Deposit Rates

As mentioned above in the 

assessment section of this notice, 

because Jilin is excluded from the order 

effective September 30, 2002 (see 

Amended Order), no cash deposit is 

required from Jilin.

Notification to Importers

This notice serves as a reminder to 

importers of their responsibility under 

19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of doubled antidumping duties.

Notification Regarding APOs

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective orders (‘‘APOs’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the return or 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues 

to govern business proprietary 

information in this segment of the 

proceeding. Timely written notification 

of the return/destruction of APO 

materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and terms of an APO is a violation 

which is subject to sanction.

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with section 777(i) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended and 19 

CFR 351.213(d)(4).

Dated: January 28, 2004.

James J. Jochum,

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration.

[FR Doc. 04–2166 Filed 2–2–04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570–888]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: FloorStanding, Metal-Top Ironing Tables 

and Certain Parts Thereof from the 

People’s Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 3, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Paige Rivas or Sam Zengotitabengoa, 

AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 4, Group 

II, Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, N.W., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–0651 or (202) 482–4195, 

respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Preliminary Determination

We preliminarily determine that floorstanding, metal-top ironing tables and 

certain parts thereof (ironing tables) 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(PRC) are being sold, or are likely to be 

sold, in the United States at less than 

fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 

773 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the Act). The estimated 

margins of sales at LTFV are shown in 

the ‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section 

of this notice.

Case History

This investigation was initiated on 

July 21, 2003. See Notice of Initiation of 

Antidumping Investigation: FloorStanding, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and 

Certain Parts Thereof from the People’s 

Republic of China, 68 FR 44040 (July 25, 

2003) (Initiation Notice).1 Since the 

initiation of the investigation, the 

following events have occurred.

On August 14, 2003, the United States 

International Trade Commission (ITC) 

preliminarily determined that there is a 

reasonable indication that an industry 

in the United States is materially 

injured by reason of imports of ironing 

tables from the PRC. See Ironing Tables 

and Certain Parts Thereof From China, 

68 FR 50190 (August 20, 2003).

On July 31, 2003, the Department 

issued Section A of its non-market 

economy (NME) antidumping 

questionnaire2 to all known companies3

5128 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Notices 

from Sam Zengotitabengoa, International Trade 

Compliance Analyst, to the File, ‘‘Listing of Chinese 

Ironing Board Producers & Exporters,’’ dated 

August 4, 2003. These companies include: Eagle 

Metal Furniture Manufacturer Co., Ltd.; Fuyali 

Houseware Co., Ltd.; Gaoming Lihe Daily 

Necessities Co., Ltd.; Guangdong Ironing Board 

Factory; Hongfong Hardware Manufactory Co., Ltd.; 

Jiangmen Silk Import and Export Corporation of 

Guangdong; Shunde Wireking Group Wanrong 

Hardware Co., Ltd.; Since Hardware (Guangzhou) 

Co., Ltd.; Wireking Group; Lerado Industrial 

(Zhongshan) Co.; New Tech Integrated; He Bei 

Orient Hardware and Mesh Products Co., Ltd.; 

Guang Dong General Industry Development Co. 

Ltd.; Nan Hai Yan Bu Zhua Hai Hardware and 

Furniture Factory; Hai Tong Industrial Co. Ltd.; Hui 

Hui Tools Co., Ltd.; Jia Jun Ironing Board Factory; 

Jia Shan Ji Ji Ironing Board Factory; Guang Zhou 

Quanyong Novwoven Co., Ltd.; Shun De Yong Jian 

Housewares Co., Ltd.; Fu Gang Trade Co., Ltd.; and, 

Guang Dong Xin Hui Arts and Crafts Import and 

Export Co, Ltd.

that allegedly produced and/or 

exported ironing tables from the PRC. In 

the questionnaire, the Department 

requested the companies to provide 

quantity and value information of 

subject merchandise exports to the 

United States during the period of 

investigation (POI). On July 30, 2003, 

and July 31, 2003, respectively, the 

Department issued the antidumping 

questionnaire to the Embassy of the PRC 

in Washington, D.C., and to the PRC 

Ministry of Commerce, Fair Trade 

Bureau (MOC) in Beijing. The 

Department requested that MOC send 

the questionnaire to the companies who 

manufacture and export ironing tables 

to the United States, as well as to 

manufacturers who produce ironing 

tables for companies who were engaged 

in exporting subject merchandise to the 

United States during the POI.

As a result of our analysis of the 

quantity and value responses to the 

questionnaire, the Department selected 

two mandatory respondents, Since 

Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. (Since 

Hardware) and Shunde Yongjian 

Housewares Co., Ltd. (Yongjian). On 

September 10, 2003, the Department 

issued Section C and D questionnaires 

to Since Hardware and Yongjian. In 

September 2003, Forever Holdings Ltd. 

(Forever Holdings), Harvest 

International Housewares Ltd. (Harvest), 

Lerado (Zhoong Shan) Industrial Co., 

Ltd. (Lerado), and Gaoming Lihe Daily 

Necessities Co., Ltd. (Lihe), responded 

to Section A of the Department’s 

questionnaire, as non-mandatory 

respondents, for purposes of obtaining 

separate rates. By October 15, 2003, 

Since Hardware and Yongjian 

responded to Sections C and D of the 

Department’s questionnaire. The 

Department issued supplemental 

questionnaires where appropriate.

On November 21, 2003, pursuant to 

section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, the 

Department postponed the preliminary 

determination of this investigation until 

January 26, 2004. See Floor-Standing, 

Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain 

Parts Thereof From the People’s 

Republic of China: Postponement of 

Preliminary Determination of 

Antidumping Duty Investigation, 68 FR 

66816 (November 28, 2003).

Selection of Respondents

Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs 

the Department to calculate individual 

dumping margins for each known 

exporter and producer of the subject 

merchandise. Where it is not practicable 

to examine all known producers/

exporters of subject merchandise, 

section 777A(c)(2) of the Act permits the 

Department to investigate either: (1) a 

sample of exporters, producers, or types 

of products that is statistically valid, 

based on the information available at 

the time of selection; or (2) exporters 

and producers accounting for the largest 

volume of the subject merchandise that 

can reasonably be examined. We 

received quantity and value information 

from six known producers of the subject 

merchandise in the PRC. Since 

Hardware and Yongjian were the 

producers of subject merchandise 

accounting for the largest volume of 

exports to the United States during the 

POI. Therefore, we selected Since 

Hardware and Yongjian as mandatory 

respondents in this investigation. See

Memorandum from Thomas F. Futtner, 

Acting Office Director, Office 4, to Holly 

A. Kuga, Acting Deputy Assistant 

Secretary, Group II, ‘‘Respondent 

Selection Memorandum,’’ dated 

September 10, 2003, on file in the 

Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the 

Main Commerce Building (CRU).

Period of Investigation

The POI is October 1, 2002, through 

March 31, 2003. This period 

corresponds to the two most recent 

fiscal quarters prior to the month of the 

filing of the petition (i.e., June 2003). 

See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).

Scope of Investigation

For purposes of this investigation, the 

product covered consists of floorstanding, metal-top ironing tables, 

assembled or unassembled, complete or 

incomplete, and certain parts thereof. 

The subject tables are designed and 

used principally for the hand ironing or 

pressing of garments or other articles of 

fabric. The subject tables have fullheight leg assemblies that support the 

ironing surface at an appropriate (often 

adjustable) height above the floor. The 

subject tables are produced in a variety 

of leg finishes, such as painted, plated, 

or matte, and they are available with 

various features, including iron rests, 

linen racks, and others. The subject 

ironing tables may be sold with or 

without a pad and/or cover. All types 

and configurations of floor-standing, 

metal-top ironing tables are covered by 

this investigation.

Furthermore, this investigation 

specifically covers imports of ironing 

tables, assembled or unassembled, 

complete or incomplete, and certain 

parts thereof. For purposes of this 

investigation, the term ‘‘unassembled’’

ironing table means a product requiring 

the attachment of the leg assembly to 

the top or the attachment of an included 

feature such as an iron rest or linen 

rack. The term ‘‘complete’’ ironing table 

means a product sold as a ready-to-use 

ensemble consisting of the metal-top 

table and a pad and cover, with or 

without additional features, e.g. iron 

rest or linen rack. The term 

‘‘incomplete’’ ironing table means a 

product shipped or sold as a ‘‘bare 

board’’ i.e., a metal-top table only, 

without the pad and cover- with or 

without additional features, e.g. iron 

rest or linen rack. The major parts or 

components of ironing tables that are 

intended to be covered by this 

investigation under the term ‘‘certain 

parts thereof’’ consist of the metal top 

component (with or without assembled 

supports and slides) and/or the leg 

components, whether or not attached 

together as a leg assembly. The 

investigation covers separately shipped 

metal top components and leg 

components, without regard to whether 

the respective quantities would yield an 

exact quantity of assembled ironing 

tables.

Ironing tables without legs (such as 

models that mount on walls or over 

doors) are not floor-standing and are 

specifically excluded. Additionally, 

tabletop or counter top models with 

short legs that do not exceed 12 inches 

in length (and which may or may not 

collapse or retract) are specifically 

excluded.

The subject ironing tables were 

previously classified under Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(HTSUS) subheading 9403.20.0010. 

Effective July 1, 2003, the subject 

ironing tables are classified under the 

new HTSUS subheading 9403.20.0011. 

The subject metal top and leg 

components are classified under HTSUS 

subheading 9403.90.8040. Although the 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope remains 

dispositive.

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Notices 5129

Product Coverage

In accordance with the preamble to 

the Department’s regulations (see 

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27295, 27323 

(May 19, 1997)) (Regulations Preamble), 

in our notice of initiation we set aside 

a period of time for parties to raise 

issues regarding product coverage and 

encouraged all parties to submit 

comments within 20 days from the 

publication of the Initiation Notice. See 

Initiation Notice, 68 FR at 44041. No 

parties submitted comments.

Non-Market Economy Country Status

The Department has treated the PRC 

as an NME country in all its past 

antidumping investigations. See Notice 

of Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Circular 

Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from 

the People’s Republic of China, 67 FR 

36570, 36571 (May 24, 2002); and 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Structured 

Steel Beams from the People’s Republic 

of China, 67 FR 35479, 35480 (May 20, 

2000); and Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value Certain: Folding Metal 

Tables and Chairs from the People’s 

Republic of China, 67 FR 20090 (April 

24, 2002). In accordance with section 

771(18)(C) of the Act, any determination 

that a foreign country is an NME 

country shall remain in effect until 

revoked. No party to this investigation 

has sought revocation of the NME status 

of the PRC. Therefore, pursuant to 

section 771(18)(C) of the Act, the 

Department will continue to treat the 

PRC as an NME country.

When the Department is investigating 

imports from an NME country, section 

773(c)(1) of the Act directs the 

Department to base normal value (NV) 

on the NME producer’s factors of 

production, valued in a comparable 

market economy that is a significant 

producer of comparable merchandise. 

The sources of individual factor prices 

are discussed under the ‘‘Normal Value’’

section, below.

Separate Rates

In an NME proceeding, the 

Department presumes that all 

companies within the country are 

subject to governmental control and 

should be assigned a single 

antidumping duty rate unless the 

respondent demonstrates the absence of 

both de jure and de facto governmental 

control over its export activities. See 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles From 

the People’s Republic of China, 61 FR 

19026, 19027 (April 30, 1996) (Bicycles 

from the PRC). Since Hardware, 

Yongjian, Forever Holdings, Lerado, 

Harvest, and Lihe have provided the 

requested company-specific separate 

rates information and have indicated 

that there is no element of government 

ownership or control over their 

operations. We have considered 

whether these companies are eligible for 

a separate rate, as discussed below.

The Department’s separate-rates test is 

not concerned, in general, with 

macroeconomic border-type controls 

(e.g., export licenses, quotas, and 

minimum export prices), particularly if 

these controls are imposed to prevent 

dumping. Rather, the test focuses on 

controls over the decision-making 

process on export-related investment, 

pricing, and output at the individual 

firm level. See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length 

Carbon Steel Plate From Ukraine, 62 FR 

61754, 61757 (November 19, 1997); 

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from 

the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 62 FR 61276, 

61279 (November 17, 1997); and Notice 

of Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value: Honey From the 

People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 

14725, 14727 (March 20, 1995).

To establish whether a firm is 

sufficiently independent from 

government control to be entitled to a 

separate rate, the Department analyzes 

each exporting entity under a test 

arising out of the Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers 

from the People’s Republic of China, 56 

FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as modified in 

the Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from 

the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 

22585, 22587 (May 2, 1994) (Silicon 

Carbide). Under this test, the 

Department assigns separate rates in 

NME cases only if an exporter can 

demonstrate the absence of both de jure

and de facto governmental control over 

its export activities. See Silicon Carbide 

and the Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl 

Alcohol From the People’s Republic of 

China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May 8, 

1995).

In order for the Department to 

determine whether a company is 

sufficiently independent to be entitled 

to a separate rate, the companies must 

establish that they exported the subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POI. In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.401(i), the Department will 

normally use the date of invoice to 

identify the date of sale of the subject 

merchandise. However, the Department 

may use a date other than the date of 

invoice if it is satisfied that a different 

date better reflects the date on which 

the exporter establishes the material 

terms of sale. In this instance, the 

Department found all but one of the 

companies to have exported subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POI. The Department cannot 

consider Lerado an exporter who made 

subject merchandise sales to the United 

States during the POI because Lerado 

did not present satisfactory evidence 

establishing that it had sold subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POI. See 19 CFR 351.401(i); see

Regulations Preamble, at 27349; see

Memorandum from Sam 

Zengotitabengoa, International Trade 

Compliance Analyst, Office IV, to 

Thomas F. Futtner, Acting Office 

Director, Office IV, ‘‘Separate Rates 

Analysis for the Preliminary 

Determination in the Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Floor-Standing, MetalTop Ironing Tables and Certain Parts 

Thereof from the People’s Republic of 

China,’’ dated concurrently with this 

notice (Separate Rates Memo), on file in 

the CRU.

Because we preliminarily find that 

Lerado did not export subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POI, we are not able to evaluate 

whether Lerado qualifies for a separate 

rate. See Titanium Sponge From the 

Russian Federation: Notice of Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 61 FR 58525, 

58528 (November 15, 1996), (where the 

Department states that ‘‘{A}lthough 

AVISMA made a separate rate claim, 

because there are no sales to the United 

States by AVISMA, we are not able to 

evaluate the company’s separateness 

request.’’)

1. Absence of De Jure Control

The Department considers the 

following de jure criteria in determining 

whether an individual company may be 

granted a separate rate: (1) an absence of 

restrictive stipulations associated with 

an individual exporter’s business and 

export licenses; (2) any legislative 

enactments decentralizing control of 

companies; and (3) any other formal 

measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies.

Since Hardware, Yongjian, Forever 

Holdings, Harvest, and Lihe have placed 

on the record a number of documents to 

demonstrate the absence of de jure

control, including their business 

licenses and the ‘‘Company Law of the 

People’s Republic of China.’’ Other than 

limiting these companies’ operations to 

5130 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Notices 

the activities referenced in the license, 

we noted no restrictive stipulations 

associated with the license. In addition, 

in previous cases, the Department has 

analyzed the ‘‘Company Law of the 

People’s Republic of China’’ and found 

that it establishes an absence of de jure 

control. See, e.g., Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Partial-Extension 

Steel Drawer Slides with Rollers from 

the People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 

54472, 54474 (October 24, 1995). We 

have no information in this proceeding 

which would cause us to reconsider this 

determination. Therefore, based on the 

foregoing, we have preliminarily found 

an absence of de jure control for these 

companies.

2. Absence of De Facto Control

The Department typically considers 

four factors in evaluating whether each 

respondent is subject to de facto

governmental control of its export 

functions: (1) whether the export prices 

are set by, or subject to, the approval of 

a governmental authority; (2) whether 

the respondent has authority to 

negotiate and sign contracts and other 

agreements; (3) whether the respondent 

has autonomy from the government in 

making decisions regarding the 

selection of its management; and (4) 

whether the respondent retains the 

proceeds of its export sales and makes 

independent decisions regarding 

disposition of profits or financing of 

losses.

With regard to the issue of de facto

control, Since Hardware, Yongjian, 

Forever Holdings, Harvest, and Lihe 

have reported the following: (1) there is 

no government participation in setting 

export prices; (2) their managers have 

authority to bind sales contracts; (3) 

they do not have to notify any 

government authorities of their 

management selection, and (4) there are 

no restrictions on the use of their export 

revenue and they are responsible for 

financing their own losses. Furthermore, 

our analysis of these companies’

questionnaire responses reveals no other 

information indicating governmental 

control of export activities. Therefore, 

based on the information provided, we 

preliminarily determine that there is an 

absence of de facto government control. 

Consequently, we preliminarily 

determine that Since Hardware, 

Yongjian, Forever Holdings, Harvest, 

and Lihe have met the criteria for the 

application of separate rates. For a more 

detailed discussion of this issue, see

Separate Rates Memo.

Margins for Cooperative Exporters Not 

Selected

To those exporters: (1) who submitted 

a timely response to section A of the 

Department’s questionnaire, but were 

not selected as mandatory respondents, 

and (2) for whom the section A response 

indicates that the exporter is eligible for 

a separate rate, we assigned a weightedaverage of the rates of the fully analyzed 

companies, excluding any rates that 

were zero, de minimis, or based entirely 

on facts available. See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Circular Welded 

Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the 

People’s Republic of China, 67 FR 

36570, 36571 (May 24, 2002) (Welded 

Steel Pipe). Companies receiving this 

rate are identified by name in the 

‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section of 

this notice.

The PRC-Wide Rate

In all NME cases, the Department 

makes a rebuttable presumption that all 

exporters located in the NME country 

comprise a single exporter under 

common government control, the ‘‘NME 

entity.’’ See Bicycles From the PRC. 

Although the Department provided all 

known PRC exporters of the subject 

merchandise with the opportunity to 

respond to our initial questionnaire, 

only Since Hardware, Yongjian, Forever, 

Harvest, Lerado, and Lihe responded. 

However, because other PRC companies 

did not submit a response to the 

Department’s Section A quantity and 

value question, as discussed above in 

the ‘‘Case History’’ section of this 

notice, and thus did not demonstrate 

their entitlement to a separate rate, we 

have implemented the Department’s 

rebuttable presumption that these 

exporters constitute a single enterprise 

under common control by the PRC 

government, and we are applying 

adverse facts available to determine the 

single antidumping duty rate, the PRCwide rate, applicable to all other PRC 

exporters comprising this single 

enterprise. See, e.g., Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Synthetic Indigo from the 

People’s Republic of China, 65 FR 

25706, 25707 (May 3, 2000).

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides 

that, if an interested party withholds 

information that has been requested by 

the Department, fails to provide such 

information in a timely manner or in the 

form or manner requested, significantly 

impedes a proceeding under the 

antidumping statute, or provides 

information which cannot be verified, 

the Department shall use, subject to 

sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act, facts 

otherwise available in reaching the 

applicable determination. As explained 

above, some exporters of the subject 

merchandise failed to respond to the 

Department’s request for information. 

The failure of these exporters to respond 

significantly impedes this proceeding. 

Thus, pursuant to section 776(a) of the 

Act, in reaching our preliminary 

determination, we have based the PRCwide rate on total facts available.

In applying facts otherwise available, 

section 776(b) of the Act provides that, 

if the Department finds that an 

interested party ‘‘has failed to cooperate 

by not acting to the best of its ability to 

comply with a request for information,’’

the Department may use information 

that is adverse to the interests of that 

party as facts otherwise available. 

Adverse inferences are appropriate ‘‘to 

ensure that the party does not obtain a 

more favorable result by failing to 

cooperate than if it had cooperated 

fully.’’ See Statement of Administrative 

Action SAA accompanying the Uruguay 

Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. No. 

316, 103d Cong., 2d Session at 870 

(1994).Furthermore, ‘‘affirmative 

evidence of bad faith on the part of the 

respondent is not required before the 

Department may make an adverse 

inference.’’ See Antidumping 

Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 

27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997). In this 

case, the complete failure of these 

exporters to respond to the 

Department’s requests for information 

constitutes a failure to cooperate to the 

best of their ability.

For our preliminary determination, as 

adverse facts available, we have used 

the highest rate calculated for a 

respondent, i.e., the rate calculated for 

Yongjian. See Ta Chen Stainless Steel 

Pipe, Inc. v. United States, 298 F.3d 

1330 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (affirming 

Commerce’s application of adverse facts 

available and use of an adverse 

inference, resulting in the application of 

the highest available dumping margin to 

an uncooperative respondent). In an 

investigation, if the Department chooses 

as facts available a calculated dumping 

margin of another respondent, the 

Department will consider information 

reasonably at its disposal as to whether 

there are circumstances that would 

indicate that using that rate is 

inappropriate. In this investigation, 

there is no indication that Yongjian’s 

calculated margin is inappropriate to 

use as adverse facts available.

Accordingly, for the preliminary 

determination, the PRC-wide rate is 

153.76 percent. Because this is a 

preliminary margin, the Department 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Notices 5131

will consider all margins on the record 

at the time of the final determination for 

the purpose of determining the most 

appropriate final PRC-wide margin.

Fair Value Comparison

To determine whether Since 

Hardware’s and Yongjian’s sales of 

ironing tables to customers in the 

United States were made at LTFV, we 

compared Export Price (EP) to NV, using 

our NME methodology, as described in 

the ‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’

sections of this notice below. In 

accordance with section 

777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we 

calculated weighted-average EPs.

Export Price

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Act, EP is the price at which the 

subject merchandise is first sold (or 

agreed to be sold), before the date of 

importation, by the producer or exporter 

of the subject merchandise to an 

unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for 

exportation to the United States, as 

adjusted under subsection (c).

We used an EP methodology in 

accordance with section 772(a) of the 

Act because Since Hardware and 

Yongjian sold subject merchandise to 

unaffiliated U.S. customers prior to 

importation and because a constructed 

export price methodology was not 

otherwise warranted. We calculated EP 

based on the packed, freight-on-board 

port-of-export price charged to the first 

unaffiliated customer for exportation to 

the United States. Where appropriate, 

we made deductions from the starting 

price (gross unit price) for foreign 

inland freight and brokerage and 

handling. Where foreign inland freight 

and brokerage and handling were 

provided by NME companies, we used 

surrogate values from India to value 

these expenses. See Memorandum from 

Sam Zengotitabengoa, International 

Trade Compliance Analyst, to the File, 

‘‘Surrogate Country Factors of 

Production Values in the Preliminary 

Determination of the Antidumping Duty 

Investigation on Floor-Standing, MetalTop Ironing Tables and Certain Parts 

Thereof from the People’s Republic of 

China, dated concurrently with this 

notice (FOP Valuation Memo), on file in 

the CRU.

Normal Value

1. Surrogate Country

Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires 

that the Department value the NME 

producer’s factors of production, to the 

extent possible, based on the prices or 

costs of factors of production in one or 

more market economy countries that 

are: 1) at a level of economic 

development comparable to that of the 

NME country; and 2) significant 

producers of comparable merchandise. 

The Department’s Office of Policy 

initially identified five countries that 

are at a level of economic development 

comparable to the PRC in terms of percapita gross national product and the 

national distribution of labor. Those 

countries are India, Pakistan, Indonesia, 

Sri Lanka, and the Philippines. See

Memorandum from Ron Lorentzen, 

Acting Director, Office of Policy, to 

Thomas F. Futtner, Acting Office 

Director, Office 4, ‘‘Request for a List of 

Surrogate Countries,’’ dated September 

4, 2003, on file in the CRU. Among 

these countries, India is the most 

significant producer of comparable 

merchandise. Therefore, we have 

preliminarily calculated NV by applying 

Indian values to Since Hardware’s and 

Yongjian’s factors of production.

2. Factors of Production

In their questionnaire responses, 

Since Hardware and Yongjian reported 

factors of production for the 

manufacture of the subject merchandise 

during the POI. The factors of 

production include: (1) hours of labor 

required; (2) quantities of raw materials 

employed; (3) amounts of energy and 

other utilities consumed; and (4) 

representative capital costs. See Section 

773(c)(3) of the Act. To calculate NV, we 

multiplied the reported per-unit 

quantities by publicly available 

surrogate values from India.

Generally, the surrogate values 

employed in the valuation of the factors 

of production were selected because of 

their quality, specificity, and 

contemporaneity. We modified those 

values not contemporaneous with the 

POI using wholesale price indices (WPI) 

published by the Office of the Economic 

Adviser to the Government of India, 

Ministry of Commerce and Industry, to 

account for inflation or deflation 

between the effective period and the 

POI. As appropriate, we included freight 

costs in input prices to make them 

delivered prices. Specifically, we added 

to the surrogate values a surrogate 

freight cost calculated using the shorter 

of the reported distance from the 

domestic input supplier to the factory 

processing subject merchandise or the 

distance from the nearest seaport to the 

relevant factory. This adjustment is in 

accordance with the Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit’s decision in 

Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 

1401, 1407–1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

To value inputs and packing materials 

that derived from market economy 

countries, we used the reported prices. 

We valued all other material inputs and 

packing materials using publicly 

available Indian import statistics from 

the appropriate Indian Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule classification, obtained 

from the Government of India, Ministry 

of Commerce and Industry, Director 

General, Commercial Intelligence and 

Statistics, as published in the World 

Trade Atlas (WTA). See FOP Valuation 

Memo. Because the Department has 

determined that Indonesia, South Korea, 

and Thailand maintain broadly 

available, non-industry specific export 

subsidies which may benefit all 

exporters to all export markets, we 

eliminated the quantities and values of 

imports from these countries from the 

import statistics used to calculate the 

surrogate values. See Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Automotive 

Replacement Glass Windshields From 

the People’s Republic of China, 67 FR 

6482 (February 12, 2002). In addition, 

the Department eliminated Indian 

imports of non-market economy 

countries from the import statistics used 

to calculate the surrogate values.

One of the respondents purchased 

cold-rolled steel inputs from a market 

economy supplier in a market economy 

currency. At this time, the Department 

has generally available information 

indicating that the PRC government 

imposed an antidumping order on 

imports of cold-rolled steel products 

from various countries, including the 

country in question. See Memorandum 

from Sam Zengotitabengoa, 

International Trade Compliance 

Analyst, to the File, ‘‘PRC AD Final 

Determination,’’ dated concurrently 

with this notice, on file in the CRU. 

Because the Department has reason to 

believe or suspect that cold-rolled steel 

from the country in question is being 

dumped, we have disregarded prices for 

cold-rolled steel from this country, and 

instead used the Indian surrogate value 

for both respondents.

For energy, we valued argon gas using 

a 1997 price quote from an Indian 

producer of argon; diesel oil and 

electricity using the 2003 International 

Energy Agency’s Key World Energy 

Statistics; and water using four price 

quotes reported by the Asian 

Development Bank on October 1997.

We valued labor using the latest 

regression-based wage rate for China 

found on Import Administration’s Web 

page (http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/), as 

described in 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3).

To value foreign inland truck freight 

costs, we relied upon 17 price quotes 

used by the Department in the Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

5132 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Notices 

Than Fair Value: Bulk Aspirin From the 

People’s Republic of China, 65 FR 33805 

(May 25, 2000). We valued brokerage 

and handling using the average of the 

foreign brokerage and handling 

expenses in Certain Stainless Steel Wire 

Rod From India: Final Results of 

Administrative and New Shipper 

Review, 64 FR 856 (January 6, 1999).

Because the Department did not find 

industry specific data on the record to 

calculate the surrogate ratios for selling, 

general and administrative (SG&A) 

expenses, factory overhead, and profit, 

the Department used the ‘‘2001–2002 

combined income, value of production, 

expenditure and appropriation 

accounts’’ for a sample of 2,024 public 

companies in India that were reported 

in the October 2003 Reserve Bank of 

India Bulletin.

For a complete analysis of surrogate 

values used in the preliminary 

determination, see FOP Valuation 

Memo.

Verification

In accordance with section 782(i) of 

the Act, we intend to verify all 

information relied upon in making our 

final determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

We are directing U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) to suspend 

liquidation of all entries of ironing 

tables from the PRC entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the date on 

which this notice is published in the 

Federal Register. In addition, we are 

instructing CBP to require a cash 

deposit or the posting of a bond equal 

to the weighted-average amount by 

which the NV exceeds the EP, as 

indicated in the chart below. These 

instructions suspending liquidation will 

remain in effect until further notice.

We preliminarily determine that the 

following percentage weighted-average 

margins exist for the POI:

Manufacturer/exporter Weighted-Average Margin (percent) 

Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. .................................................................. 7.66

Shunde Yongjian Housewares Co., Ltd. ................................................................. 153.76

Forever Holdings Ltd. .............................................................................................. 69.59

Harvest International Housewares Ltd. ................................................................... 69.59

Gaoming Lihe Daily Necessities Co., Ltd. ............................................................... 69.59

PRC-Wide Rate. ...................................................................................................... 153.76

The PRC-wide rate applies to all 

entries of the subject merchandise 

except for entries from Since Hardware, 

Yongjian, Forever Holdings, Harvest, 

and Lihe.

Disclosure

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.224(b), the Department will disclose 

the calculations performed in the 

preliminary determination to interested 

parties within five days of the date of 

publication of this notice.

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 733(f) of 

the Act, we have notified the ITC of the 

Department’s preliminary affirmative 

determination. If the final determination 

in this proceeding is affirmative, the ITC 

will determine before the later of 120 

days after the date of this preliminary 

determination or 45 days after the final 

determination whether imports of 

ironing tables from the PRC are 

materially injuring, or threaten material 

injury to, the U.S. industry.

Public Comment

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3)(i), interested parties may 

submit publicly available information to 

value the factors of production for 

purposes of the final determination 

within 40 days after the date of 

publication of this preliminary 

determination. Case briefs or other 

written comments must be submitted to 

the Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration no later than one week 

after issuance of the verification reports. 

Rebuttal briefs, the content of which is 

limited to the issues raised in the case 

briefs, must be filed within five days 

after the deadline for the submission of 

case briefs. A list of authorities used, a 

table of contents, and an executive 

summary of issues should accompany 

any briefs submitted to the Department. 

Executive summaries should be limited 

to five pages total, including footnotes. 

Further, we request that parties 

submitting briefs and rebuttal briefs 

provide the Department with a copy of 

the public version of such briefs on 

diskette.

In accordance with section 774 of the 

Act, we will hold a public hearing, if 

requested, to afford interested parties an 

opportunity to comment on arguments 

raised in case or rebuttal briefs. If a 

request for a hearing is made, we will 

tentatively hold the hearing two days 

after the deadline for submission of 

rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230, 

at a time and in a room to be 

determined. Parties should confirm by 

telephone the date, time, and location of 

the hearing 48 hours before the 

scheduled date.

Interested parties who wish to request 

a hearing, or to participate in a hearing 

if one is requested, must submit a 

written request to the Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 

1870, within 30 days of the date of 

publication of this notice. Requests 

should contain: (1) the party’s name, 

address, and telephone number; (2) the 

number of participants; and (3) a list of 

the issues to be discussed. At the 

hearing, oral presentations will be 

limited to issues raised in the briefs. See

19 CFR 351.310(c). The Department will 

make its final determination no later 

than 75 days after the preliminary 

determination.

This determination is issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: January 26, 2004.

James J. Jochum,

Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 04–2168 Filed 2–2–04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570–831]

Fresh Garlic From the People’s 

Republic of China: Notice of Extension 

of Time Limit for the Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative and 

New Shipper Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of extension of time limit 

for the final results of antidumping duty 

administrative and new shipper 

reviews.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

is extending the time limit for the final