PART V: PRICING AND RELATED INFORMATION

FACTORS AFFECTING PRICES
Transportation Costs to the U.S. Market

Based on 2003 data, it is estimated that transportation costs for irdning tables from China to U.S.
ports are equivalent to 20.8 percent of the customs value. This estimate is derived from official import
data (using HTS statistical reporting number 9403.20.0011) and represents the transportation and other
charges on imports valued on a c.i-f. basis, as compared with customs value.

U.S. Inland Transportation Costs and Geographic Markets

HPI reported that U.S. inland transportation costs account for *** percent of the total delivered
cost of ironing tables. Importers (not including HPI) that provided estimates indicated that U.S.-inland
transportation costs ranged from less than one percent to 50 percent of the total delivered cost of ironing
tables, with an average of 13 percent. :

HPI reported that *** percent of the ironing tables that it sells are shipped to customers within
100 miles, *** percent are shipped to customers within 101-1,000 miles, and *** percent are shipped to
customers at distances over 1,000 miles. On average, importers of the subject product (not including
HPI) reported shipping 8.2 percent of their ironing tables within 100 miles, 41.0 percent within 101-
1,000 miles, and 50.8 percent at distances over 1,000 miles.

*** reported a national market area, while ***.

Exchange Rates

The nominal value of the Chinese yuan relative to the U.S. dollar has remained virtually
unchanged since the first quarter of 1997 at 8.28 yuan per dollar. Producer price data for China are not
available; therefore, real exchange rates cannot be calculated.

PRICING PRACTICES
Pricing Methods

Questionnaire responses reveal that most firms determine prices on a customer-by-customer basis
based on current market conditions. While *** reported that 100 percent of their sales were spot sales,
*** reported that 90 to 100 percent of their sales were contract sales.' HPI described price setting in the
ironing tables industry as a series of “discrete” events rather than a process of continuous change. Prices
tend to be set or changed at specific times (such as annual line reviews or purchaser requests for price
adjustments) and then maintained at those levels for a predetermined period (typically five months to one
year).? However, because prices are rarely fixed under an agreement, auctions or line reviews “do not
foreclose competition until the next event.”? At the conference, HPI described agreements as “implied

1 eee
? Hearing transcript, testimony of Peter Graves, senior vice president of sales, HPI, pp. 62-63, and responses to
Commission questionnaires.
3 Target’s Postconference Brief, p. 11.


APPENDIX D

COMPANY-SPECIFIC PRICE DATA AS REPORTED BY U.S. PRODUCERS
AND IMPORTERS


2. Price Effects of Subject Imports
a. Importance of Price in Purchasing Decisions

The record indicates that price is an important factor purchasers use in selecting suppliers. In
questionnaire responses, 13 purchasers named lower price as a “very important” purchasing factor and
two rated lower price as “somewhat important.”"* Price was the factor purchasers most frequently named
as the second most important factor in selecting an ironing tables supplier.’°

b. Analysis of Pricing Data

The Commission collected pricing data concerning two ironing table products. Product 1 is a
perforated-top, T-leg ironing table. During the period examined, perforated-top, T-leg ironing tables
accounted for *** percent of domestic production of ironing tables."* Importers did not report any
imports of Chinese perforated-top ironing tables during the period examined.’ Product 2 is a mesh-top,
T-leg ironing table. Mesh-top, T-leg ironing tables accounted for only *** percent of domestic
production of ironing tables during the period examined."* In contrast, imports of mesh-top, T-leg ironing
tables accounted for *** percent of subject imports during the period examined."

The reported price data showed mixed trends during the period examined. Prices for domestic
product 1 decreased irregularly over the period for which data were collected, and were *** percent
lower in the first quarter of 2004 as compared to the first quarter of 2001. Prices for domestic product 2
increased irregularly over the period for which data were collected, and were *** percent higher in the
first quarter of 2004 as compared to the first quarter of 2001. Prices for imported Chinese product 2
decreased irregularly over the period for which data were collected, and were *** percent lower in the
first quarter of 2004 as compared to the first quarter of 2001.”

Since importers reported no price data for sales of product 1 (perforated-top T-leg ironing
tables), there are no comparisons of domestic and imported Chinese product 1 prices available.
Commission price data indicate that imported Chinese product 2 prices undersold domestic product 2
prices in nine quarters by margins that ranged from *** percent to *** percent, and oversold domestic
product 2 prices in four quarters by margins that ranged from *** percent to *** percent. However,
since domestic producers sold only very small quantities of product 2 (mesh-top T-leg ironing boards)
during the period examined, price data for this product are not representative of domestic prices. In
addition, because domestic producers’ sales of product 2 tended to be for relatively small quantities,”
domestic producers’ product 2 customers did not receive the same quantity discounts (set or negotiated)

'3 (continued)
domestic and imported subject ironing tables was somewhat attenuated for these three reasons.

 CR/PR, Table II-4.

'5 CR/PR, Table II-1. Quality was the factor most frequently named by purchasers as the most important factor.
Id.

"© Calculated from CR/PR, Table III-3.
'7 CRIPR, Table IV-2.
18 Calculated from CR/PR, Table III-3.

'° Calculated from CR/PR, Table IV-2. Importers also reported significant imports of Chinese mesh-top, 4-leg
ironing tables during the period examined. Id.

?° CR/PR, Tables V-1 and V-2.
2! CR/PR, Table V-2.

23


U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS

Stephen Koplan, Chairman
Deanna Tanner Okun, Vice Chairman
Marcia E. Miller
Jennifer A. Hillman
Charlotte R. Lane
Daniel R. Pearson

Robert A. Rogowsky
Director of Operations

Staff assigned:

Megan Spellacy, Investigator
Heather Sykes, Industry Analyst
Mary Pedersen, Economist
John Fry, Accountant
Rhonda Hughes, Attorney
Steve Hudgens, Statistician

Douglas Corkran, Supervisory Investigator

Address all communications to
Secretary to the Commission
United States International Trade Commission
Washington, DC 20436


Table C-3
roning tables + wall-mounted ironing boards: Summary data concerning the U.S, market, 2001-03, January-March 2003, and January-March 2006

(Quantity=1,000 units, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per unit; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes
January-March ‘Jan-Nar
item 2001 2002 2003 20032004 2001-03 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2006
U.S. consumption quantity:
‘Amount, os ~ “ - oo
Producers’ share (1). ” ” ” “ ” .
Importers’ share (1):
China (subject) ” * . ” 7 ”
Nonsubject. 2.20.0... saa “ ” ” ” ”
Totalimports nes a a a a co 7
USS. consumption value:
Producers’ share (1). . ” ” ” ” ” ” ”
Importers’ share (1):
China (subject)... ” ” ” ” o ~
Nonsubject. * “ s on 5 “ «
Total imports - = 7 a we a a =
US. shipments of
‘Subject imports from China:
‘Quantity . 456 41,252 2,538 873 370 4560 1743 1027 35.4
Value. . 5,726 41,950 21,323, 4,808 4,508 2724 982 e798 62
Unit value $12.55 $0.07 $8.40 $8.40 $1220 -33.0 277 “73 452
Ending inventory quant 185 397 344 309 282 1218 165.8 133 + 186
Ending inventory quantity. we o o ~ on ~~ o
Total imports:
Quantiy “ o on ~ oa
Value. ~ wo o a
Unit value ”

Ending inventory quanti .

US. producers
‘Average capacity quantity... ”
Production quant... ”
‘Capacity utlization (1). ” ” a ~ o on
US. shipments:
Unit value ... ” “ ~ . on
Ending inventory quantity... E “ o-
Inventoriesfotal shipments (1) oa .
Production workers... .. 7 aa oo on
Hours worked (1,000)... .. ” .
Wages paid ($1,000) ....... ” o
Cost of goods sold (COGS) ” o ow
Gross profit or(l0ss)......... ” - -
SGBA expenses .. “ on
Operating income or (oss). ~
Capital expenditures ” TM * ~ on
Unit COGS . ” ~ .
Unit SGBA expenses. ” ~ o
Unit operating income or (oss) - ~
COGSisales (1). o ~ oa
Operating income oF (oss)
sales (1). - os . ay .

(1) "Reported data" are in percent and “period changes* are in percentage points.
(2) Not applicable.

Note.~Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding,
figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

‘Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.




Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 22/Tuesday, February

3, 2004 / Notices 5127

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: Floor-
Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables
and Certain Parts Thereof from the
People’s Republic of China

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

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 3, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Paige Rivas or Sam Zengotitabengoa,
AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 4, Group
I, Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)
482-0651 or (202) 482-4195,
respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preliminary Determination

We preliminarily determine that floor-
standing, metal-top ironing tables and
certain parts thereof (ironing tables)
from the People’s Republic of China
(PRC) are being sold, or are likely to be
sold, in the United States at less than
fair value (LTFV), as provided in section
773 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act). The estimated
margins of sales at LTFV are shown in
the “Suspension of Liquidation” section
of this notice.

Case History

This investigation was initiated on
July 21, 2003. See Notice of Initiation of
Antidumping Investigation: Floor-
Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and
Certain Parts Thereof from the People's
Republic of China, 68 FR 44040 (July 25,
2003) (Initiation Notice). 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
questionnaire? to all known companies?

1 The petitioner in this investigation is Home
Products International, Inc,

2 Section A of the NME questionnaire requests
general information concerning a company's
corporate structure and business practices, the
merchandise under investigation that it sells, and
the manner in which it sells that merchandise in
all of its markets. Section C requests a complete
listing of U.S. sales. Section D requests information
on the factors of production of the merchandise
sold in or to the United States. Section E requests
information on further manufacturing.

2 The Department gathered the following PRC
company names from the June 30, 2003, petition
and the country desk in Beijing. See Memorandum

Continued



has moved toward purchasing only mesh-top tables as a higher quality opening price point product,”* only
a few buyers have expressed such exclusive preferences.” *** itself purchased perforated-top tables
during the period examined, including tables from ***.”” Further, as described above, *** has produced
a significant number of mesh-top 4-leg and T-leg tables and has the capacity to produce substantially
more.” *** even qualified *** as a supplier of mesh-top tables during the period examined.” Finally,
the record indicates substantial interchangeability between the two types of tables.*° Asa result, we do
not find respondents’ argument to be persuasive, and we consider subject imports to generally compete
with the domestic product.

Whitney Design also argues that a large portion of the increase in subject import volume is due
to its shift from domestic producer to importer, and that it is merely supplying its established customers —
who did not purchase from HPI — with imported Chinese product, and its subject imports are therefore
not injurious.*’ The record does not support these arguments. First, Whitney Design accounted for ***
of total subject imports in each year of the period, and its share of total subject imports was much lower
in 2003 than in 2001. Second, another large importer, ***, greatly increased its subject imports; in
particular, we note that *** saw an opportunity in 2001-02 to sell a “step up” subject import, i.e. a mesh-
top table, at an opening price point and seized it,** purchasing subject imports rather than domestic
products. Third, there are subject imports present in the marketplace in addition to those shipped by
*** and Whitney Design.** Finally, even though Whitney Design sells a substantial portion of its subject
imports to its longstanding customers, the record indicates that Whitney Design also has sought — and

15 tok

76 See, e.g., CR at I-7, PR at I-5; ***. For additional discussion regarding ***’s purchasing practices, see section
below regarding price effects of the subject imports.

7” Evidence in the record shows that *** purchased *** perforated-top T-legs with pad and cover from ***, and
*** perforated-top T-legs with pad and cover from ***. Petitioner’s Posthearing Brief at 4-6; see *** at 3.

78 Furthermore, there exists no record evidence that at the time of its internet reverse auctions ***, See ***,

”° See Petitioner’s Posthearing Brief at A-32 - A-36.

®° CR at II-5, Il-7 - II-8, PR at II-4 - II-5, CR/PR at Table II-2. Respondents also argued that the Commission
should discount imports of “high-end” ironing tables as non-injurious to the domestic industry. Respondent Whitney
et al.’s Prehearing Brief at 5; Respondent Whitney et al.’s Posthearing Brief at 9-10. However, the record indicates
that such tables are a small share of the market. CR at I-6, PR at 5; see also Petitioner’s Posthearing Brief at A-6.
Moreover, HPI has submitted evidence that it produces and sells high-end tables. Petitioner’s Posthearing Brief at

A-5 - A-8 & Exh. 5. Finally, the record indicates that the highest-end, or “elite,” tables are not produced in either the
United States or China. CR at I-6, PR at 5.

*! Whitney Design et al.’s Prehearing Brief at 14.

® Whitney Design accounted for *** percent of subject imports in 2001, *** percent in 2002 and *** percent in
2003. CR/PR at Table IV-2.

83 sem at 1-2.

* Orders from *** represent the *** of deliveries and anticipated deliveries of subject merchandise in 2004.
According to the company, it is ***. CR at VII-6 n.9, PR at VII-3 n.9.

§5 See CR/PR at Table IV-2 (importers during the period examined include ***, Bajer Design/Marketing, ***,
***, Home Products International, ***, ***, Polder, ***, ***, and Whitney Design. Approximately *** of subject
imports are due to importers other than Whitney Design and ***.

13




Table VII-1
Ironing tables: Data for producers in China, 2001-03, January-March 2003, January-March 2004,
and projected 2004-05

Table VIl-2
ironing tables: Data for producers in China, 2001-03 and projected 2004

* * * * * * *

Petitioners, in contrast, argue that steel prices in China are no longer increasing, and remain
below U.S. prices for comparable steel. They also contend that the energy shortfall in China is not, in
fact, a recent phenomenon, and has not in the past precluded increasing volumes of ironing table
shipments from China to the United States. Moreover, nuclear and hydroelectric initiatives may
ameliorate energy shortages in China. Finally, petitioners contend that freight rates increased in 2003,
but have declined somewhat in 2004.°

5 Petitioner’s Posthearing Brief, pp. A-41 through A-51 and exhs. 16 through 19 (citing MEPS and CRU Monitor
for steel price trends; China Daily for energy trends; and information from HPI’s director of global sourcing for
freight rates).

VI-2




35308

Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 121/Thursday, June 24, 2004/ Notices

perforated and HS 4805.2901, which covers
cardboard, are two distinct products and
there is no evidence on the record that
indicates it is appropriate to compare the two
products to determine if the price of one is
aberrational. We note that Yongjian has not
argued that the HS subheading that the
Department used in the Preliminary
Determination is inappropriate to calculate a
surrogate value for filler pads. We have
examined imports under the HS subheading
to determine if any imports under this
category were aberrational and found that
they were not. Therefore, for the final
determination, we have continued to use HS
subheading 4808.1000 to calculate a
surrogate value for filler pads.

H. Labels and Bar Code Labels

For the Preliminary Determination, the
Department relied on the Indian import
statistics for HS 4821.9000, which covers
paper labels (not printed), self-adhesive or
not, to calculate the surrogate value for labels
and bar code labels. However, Yongjian
contends that the labels and bar code labels
used by Yongjian are printed, some self-
adhesive and some not. Yongjian contends
that the Department's Preliminary
Determination valuation of labels and bar
code labels is excessive as compared with
Yongjian's surrogate value derived from
Indian import statistics for the four-digit HS
4821, which covers labels of paper or
paperboard, printed or not. Yongjian states
that the surrogate value of HS 4821 is in line
with Since Hardware’s ranged market
economy purchase price for its manual
labels. See Yongjian’s Case Brief, at 20 and
21.

Department's Position: We disagree with
Yongjian. Despite Yongjian’s assertion in its
Case Brief, there is nothing on the record of
this investigation that demonstrates that
Yongjian uses labels other than the paper
labels (not printed), self-adhesive or not, that
are classified under HS 4821.9000. In
addition, in stating that the Department's
surrogate value for labels and bar code labels
are aberrant compared to Since Hardware’s
market economy purchase price of manual
labels, we note that Yongjian made no effort
to document that the two types of labels are
similar or are classified under the same HS
number. In fact, Since Hardware itself
distinguishes between the two types of labels
that it purchases, one type is valued with a
market economy price (i.e., manual labels),
and the other type (i.e., marking label) is
valued using the same HS number used to
value Yongjian’s labels and bar code labels,
HS 4821.9000. Therefore, for the final
determination, the Department has continued
to value Yongjian’s labels and bar code labels
using HS 4821.9000.

Comment 7: Whether the Department Should
Accept Since Hardware’s Market Economy
Purchases That Were Not Verified by the
Department

The petitioner argues that for the
Preliminary Determination the Department
erred by using market-economy purchase
prices for cold-rolled steel coil and hot-rolled
steel coil used by Since Hardware. See
Petitioner's Case Brief, at 18-24. The

petitioner states that it submitted pre-
verification comments to the Department
where it challenged the authenticity of
certain market economy purchases because
(1) the material input prices appeared to be
inconsistent with regional commodity trends
and (2) the HS codes submitted to Chinese
customs do not represent the materials that
Since Hardware claimed to have imported.
These comments emphasized that all market
economy transactions warranted close
scrutiny by the Department during
verification. The petitioner acknowledges
that the Department verified market economy
purchases made in December 2002, but notes
that the Department did not verify
transactions made in 2003. Therefore, the
petitioner urges the Department to reject
Since Hardware’s 2003 purchase values of
market economy materials as unverified and
inherently unreliable. See Petitioner's Case
Brief, at 18-24.

In rebuttal, Since Hardware states that the
Department should not revise any of the
market-economy input pricing data reported
by Since Hardware in the Preliminary
Determination. See Since Hardware’s
Rebuttal Brief, at 9-11. Since Hardware
contends that it is the Department's practice
to verify information contained in a
company's responses on the basis of the
sampling of submitted data. Since Hardware
states that the Court of International Trade
{CIT) concluded that the Department “has the
discretion to choose which items it will
verify, and so long as Commerce has not
uncovered facts in the process of verification
that point to an improper accounting * * *.
Commerce is not compelled to search
further.” See PMC Specialities Group, Inc. v.
United States, 20 C.1.T. 1130, 1134-35
(1996). Since Hardware states that because
the Department verified Since Hardware's
market-economy material purchases of cold-
rolled steel coil and hot-rolled stee! coil and
noted no discrepancies, there was no
evidence of improper accounting, or evasion,
and there was no reason for the Department
to search further. As such, Since Hardware
urges the Department not to revise any of the
market-economy input pricing data reported
by Since Hardware for the final
determination. See Since Hardware’s
Rebuttal Brief, at 9-11.

Department's Position: We agree with
Since Hardware. When conducting
verification, the Department is not required
to test every single sale or purchase reported
by the respondent during the course of an
investigation. To do so would be an almost
impossible task. Instead, the Department
verifies samples of submitted data. The CIT
has affirmed this approach, observing:
Verification is like an audit, the purpose of
which is to test information provided by a
party for accuracy and completeness.
Normally an audit entails selective
examination rather than testing of an entire
universe. Hence, evasion is acommon
possibility, but only when audits uncover
facts indicating the actuality thereof are
auditors compelled to search further * * *
Commerce has the discretion in choosing
which items it will verify, and so long as.
Commerce has not uncovered facts in the
process of verification that point to an

improper accounting * * * Commerce is not
compelled to search further.”

See PMC Specialities Group, Inc. v. United
States, 20 CIT 1130, 1134-35 (1996). See
Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and
Tubes from Thailand, 65 FR 60910 (October
13, 2000).

‘We note that the petitioner's pre-
verification comments were extensive and
voluminous. In the limited amount of time
allotted to verification, the verifiers covered
a vast portion of the petitioner's concerns
while still completing a full and detailed
verification following the procedures
explained in the verification outline. At
verification, we looked at a number of market
economy purchases and found no ‘
discrepancies. For example, we examined
cold-rolled steel and hot-rolled steel market
economy purchases. Based upon the
information gathered at verification, the
Department has no reason to question Since
Hardware's reported market economy
purchases. The Department found no
discrepancies in Since Hardware's ,
methodology in reporting market economy
prices for its market economy purchases. 19
CFR 351.307(b) and (d) provide for flexibility
in conducting verifications by permitting the
examination of a sample of expenses,
adjustments, and other topics that we
consider relevant to factual information
submitted. This reflects the fact that
verification is like a sampling exercise and is
not intended to be an exhaustive examination
of every topic. See Certain Internal-
Combustion Industrial Forklift Trucks from
Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 62 FR 5592, 5602
(February 6, 1997). In this case, the
Department followed its verification
procedures and thoroughly examined the
market economy purchases of cold-rolled and
hot-rolled steel coil for certain months and
found no discrepancies.

However, we note that the petitioner's
argument with respect to the market
economy purchase price of cold-rolled steel
coil is moot. For the final determination, we
have continued to use a surrogate value for
Since Hardware’s cold-rolled steel coil input.
See Comment 8. With respect to Since
Hardware's market economy purchase price
for hot-rolled steel coil, we do not think that
the purchase price is aberrationally low.
According to Since Hardware's March 31,
2004 public version of ranged prices for its
hot-rolled steel coil purchases, Since
Hardware's purchase price of hot-rolled steel
coil is $0.32/kg. By comparing Since
Hardware’s publicly ranged price of $0.32/kg
to the Department's surrogate value for hot-
rolled steel coil of §.028/kg, the Department
finds that Since Hardware’s market economy
purchase price is reasonable. Because Indian
import statistics are based on the sum of all
imports into India during the POI, we regard
that figure as a reliable benchmark. Nowhere
in this investigation has the petitioner
suggested that the WTA data that the
Department used in calculating the surrogate
value for hot-rolled steel coil is aberrational.
Therefore, for the final determination, we
have continued to use Since Hardware's
market economy price to value hot-rolled
steel coil.


The parties differ as to whether the definition of domestic like product should be expanded to
include different forms of ironing boards.’ Petitioner advocates a domestic like product coextensive
with Commerce’s scope.?! *** asserted that ironing boards should not be included in the definition as
they are marketed to a different demographic than ironing tables, e.g., a consumer, such as a college
student, with severe storage space constraints. HPI holds a patent for over-the-door ironing boards until
2007, but does not produce countertop boards or wall-mounted ironing boards. Respondent Whitney
Design indicated that the Commission should expand the domestic like product to include over-the-door
boards as they are produced in the same facilities and used for the same purpose as ironing tables. In its
questionnaire response, *** reported that it views ironing boards as interchangeable with ironing tables,
and identified prices as the primary distinction between products for retailers.**

Physical Characteristics and Uses

Ironing tables, over-the-door ironing boards, and wall-mounted ironing boards share the same
functional role, to provide a surface area for pressing clothing and other items. These ironing boards are
distinguished by some of their physical characteristics, specifically their size, portability, storage
requirements, and by the fact that over-the-door and wall-mounted ironing boards lack true legs.

Over-the-door ironing boards consist of a metal ironing surface that is attached to a door. The
table surface dimensions typically are 42 inches in length and 15 inches in width. When in use, the board
is opened perpendicular to and supported by the door; when not in use, it is folded up against the door for
storage.”

Wall-mounted ironing boards are sold in kits or require a carpenter to build a customized cabinet
ona wall in which the ironing board is permanently enclosed. When used, the ironing board drops down
to expose the ironing surface, which is approximately 42 inches in length and 15 inches in width.

Manufacturing Facilities and Production Employees
Over-the-door ironing boards are produced in the United States exclusively by patent holder

HPI° The ironing boards are produced in the same facility and with the same employees as ironing
tables. In addition, the equipment used to manufacture parts and pack over-the-door ironing boards is the

9 (_ continued)
phase of the investigation.” Jroning Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1047

(Preliminary), USITC Publication No. 3623, August 2003, p. 8. No party identified additional data requirements
related to the domestic like product in comments regarding drafts of the Commission’s questionnaires.

2° Oyer-the-door and wall-mounted ironing boards are produced in the United States. In contrast, there is no
known domestic production of countertop or tabletop ironing boards.

3' Petitioner’s Posthearing Brief, app. A-2 through A-4. See also hearing transcript, testimony of Peter Graves,
vice president of sales, HPI, p. 52 and hearing transcript, testimony of Michael Bradley, professor of economics, The

George Washington University, p. 95.

32 Respondents’ Posthearing Brief, p. 1. See also hearing transcript, testimony of William Perry, counsel, Garvey
Schubert Barer, pp. 198-99.

33 Questionnaire response by ***, question V-8, pp. 31-32.

34 Questionnaire response of ***, question V-8 (a), p. 28.

35 Questionnaire response of ***, question V-8 (a), p. 28.

3° HPI’s patent expires in 2007. ***, interview by USITC Staff, ***, February 25, 2004.

1-7


doubt to the Petitioner who argues that Chinese mesh ironing tables compete head-to-head with, and are
fungible with, the ironing tables it manufactures, the overwhelming bulk of which are based on the older
perforated metal technology.”””

Product 1

USS. sales prices for product 1 (all sales) and sales prices for product 2 imported from China (all
sales) are shown in table V-1 and figure V-1.% In all quarters, the Chinese product was priced above
the U.S. product. The reported weighted-average unit values for U.S.-produced product 1 decreased
irregularly over the period for which data were collected, and were *** percent lower in the first quarter
of 2004 as compared to the first quarter of 2001.

Product 2

As shown in table V-2 and figure V-2, sales price comparisons for product 2 (all sales) between
the United States and China were possible in a total of 13 quarters. In four quarters, the Chinese product
was priced above the U.S. product, with margins ranging from 5.7 to 54.4 percent and averaging 24.1
percent. In the other nine quarters, the Chinese product was priced below the U.S. product, with margins
ranging from 2.4 to 22.5 percent and averaging 14.7 percent. The reported weighted-average unit values
for U.S.-produced product 2 increased irregularly over the period for which data were collected, and
were *** percent higher in the first quarter of 2004 as compared to the first quarter of 2001. The reported
weighted-average unit values for imported product 2 from China decreased irregularly over the period for
which data were collected, and were 6.6 percent lower in the first quarter of 2004 as compared to the first
quarter of 2001. 3° 3! 2

27 Respondents’ Prehearing Brief, p. 16 and att. 2.

** The Commission noted in the preliminary phase of this investigation that it would “explore further in the final
phase of the investigation the probative value of price comparisons between perforated-top and mesh-top ironing
tables.” (/roning Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from China, Inv. 731-TA-1047 (Preliminary), Publication No.
3623, August 2003, p. 12, n. 81). No price data for subject imports of product 1 were reported; however, 12 of 23
reporting firms consider perforated-top and mesh-top ironing tables to be interchangeable products.

?° Purchaser data for product | reflect purchases only from U.S. producers. The reported purchase prices show a
general, albeit irregular, decline during the period January 2001 to March 2004, with unit values ranging from $8.33
to $7.32. Reported purchase quantities also showed a general decline from 2.3 million units in 2001 to 2.0 million
units in 2002 to 1.1 million units in 2003.

30 soko

*' Price comparisons for product 2 (unbundled sales only) between the United States and China were possible in a
total of 13 quarters. In four quarters, the Chinese product was priced above the U.S. product, with margins ranging
from 5.6 to 56.8 percent and averaging 25.3 percent. In the other nine quarters, the Chinese product was priced
below the U.S. product, with margins ranging from 9.1 to 22.1 percent and averaging 17.5 percent.

* Purchase price comparisons for product 2 between the United States and China were possible in a total of 13
quarters. In two quarters, the Chinese product was priced above the U.S. product, with margins of 53.5 and 56.1
percent. In the other 11 quarters, the Chinese product was priced below the U.S. product, with margins ranging from
3.8 to 29.9 percent and averaging 13.1 percent.

V-6


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.

Troning tables without legs (such as models that mount on walls or over
doors) are not floor-standing and are specifically excluded.
Additionally, tabletop or countertop models with short legs that do not
exceed 12 inches in length (and which may or may not collapse or
retract) are specifically excluded.”

U.S. Tariff Treatment

As noted in Commerce’s scope, the subject ironing tables were previously covered by
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) statistical reporting number 9403.20.0010.
Effective July 1, 2003, the subject ironing tables are imported under HTS statistical reporting number
9403.20.0011. The subject metal top and leg components are imported under HTS statistical reporting
number 9403.90.8040. Products of China entering the United States under HTS subheadings 9403.20.00
and 9403.90.80 are free of duty.

Physical Characteristics and Uses
In this report the term “ironing tables” is used to distinguish the subject floor-standing metal-top

product from “ironing boards,” a term used to describe products excluded from the scope: countertop,
tabletop, over-the-door, and wall-mounted ironing boards.'° Ironing tables are used in households, hotel

° Tariff treatment of this product is presented in the next section of this report. Although the HTS statistical
reporting numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope is
dispositive.

© Over-the-door and wall-mounted ironing boards are discussed in the section on “Domestic Like Product
Issues.” Countertop or tabletop ironing boards are not produced domestically, and therefore are not discussed in the
aforementioned section. Countertop or tabletop ironing boards have a surface of particle board or expanded metal

(for a superior ironing surface) that is attached to short legs that may or may not be retractable. The boards are
(continued...)

1-3


we 67 ie OB doe OF eH HH 7 LPT remained ***’s vendor of perforated-top T-leg ironing
tables by reducing the price of this ironing table, but incurred significant revenue loss the following
month.” ***,72 *** reported that quality, price, familiarity with the vendor, and shipping locations were
the reasons for choosing the aforementioned suppliers.”

67 ee,
68 eee,
Crore
TO kak
” Hearing transcript, testimony of Peter Graves, senior vice president, sales and marketing, HPI, pp 26-27.
2 siaieil
73H,

TM According to its purchasers’ questionnaire response, ***.

v-9


Federal Register/Vol. 69, No, 121/Thursday, June 24, 2004/ Notices

35309

Comment 8: Whether the Department Should
Use the Market Economy Price To Value
Cold-Rolled Steel Inputs

Since Hardware urges the Department to
use the actual market economy prices paid to
a Hong Kong supplier to value Since
Hardware’s cold-rolled steel inputs. See
Since Hardware's Case Brief, at 6-10. Citing
section 351.408(c)(1) of the Department's
regulations, Since Hardware states that
“where a factor is purchased from a market
economy supplier and paid for in a market
economy currency, the Secretary normally
will use the price paid to the market
economy supplier” to value the factors of
production. However, for the Preliminary
Determination, Since Hardware alleges that
the Department disregarded the actual prices
paid by Since Hardware for Hong Kong
purchases of cold-rolled steel. Instead, Since
Hardware asserts that the Department
indicated that it had “reason to believe or
suspect that cold-rolled steel from the
country in question {was} being dumped,”
and thus the Department “disregarded prices
for cold-rolled steel from this country, and
instead used the Indian surrogate value
* * *." See Preliminary Determination, at
5131, See Since Hardware's Case Brief, at 6
and 7,

Since Hardware argues that while the cold-
rolled steel it purchased might have been
manufactured in a country subject to a PRC
antidumping duty order, Since Hardware did
not purchase the cold-rolled steel directly
from that country. Instead, Since Hardware
claims that it purchased the cold-rolled stee!
sheet directly from its Hong Kong reseller
supplier, that, in turn, may have purchased
the cold-rolled steel either directly or
indirectly from a country subject to the PRC
antidumping duty order. See Since
Hardware’s Case Brief, at 7 and 8.

Furthermore, Since Hardware notes that, in
CTVs from the PRC, the Department
considered whether to accept the prices for
inputs purchased through Hong Kong trading
companies that originated in a country with
broadly available non-industry-specific
export subsidies that might be distorted due
to subsidies. In comparing CTVs from the
PRC to the current investigation, Since
Hardware explains that its cold-rolled steel
supplier is located in Hong Kong. Since
Hardware states that this trading company
was not subject to any PRC government
dumping investigation, and cannot be
presumed to have benefitted from any input
price distortion caused by dumping.
Therefore, Since Hardware concludes that
the Department has no reason to believe or
suspect that the sales prices from this Hong
Kong supplier to Since Hardware are
distorted. Because there is no record
evidence that Since Hardware’s Hong Kong
supplier of cold-rolled steel purchased the
input at dumped prices, or that it “passed”
any distortion on to Since Hardware, Since
Hardware contends that there is no reason for
the Department to deviate from its normal
practice of using the prices paid to a market
economy supplier to value Since Hardware's
factors of production. As such, for the final
determination, Since Hardware urges the
Department to follow its practice in CTVs
from the PRC, and not reject prices of goods

purchased in Hong Kong based on the
country of origin of the goods. See Since
Hardware’s Case Brief, at 9 and 10.

‘The petitioner argues that Since
Hardware’s purchases of cold-rolled steel
produced in the market economy country
should be valued using surrogate prices. The
petitioner states that Since Hardware's
suggestion in its Case Brief that it was not
certain of the origin of the cold-rolled steel
that it purchased is hardly the case. The
petitioner notes that in Since Hardware's
‘own questionnaire response, Since Hardware
acknowledged that it purchased the steel
from the market economy country subject to
the PRC dumping case. In addition, the
petitioner points out that the sales
confirmations, which ultimately complete
the contract of sale, clearly record the
country of origin of certain cold-rolled steel
and it is undisputed that cold-rolled steel
from its market economy country is subject
to a Chinese antidumping order.

The petitioner states that Since Hardware’s
argument that there is no evidence on the
record to suggest that the prices paid by
Since Hardware's Hong Kong supplier, or
paid by Since Hardware to its Hong Kong
supplier, for cold-rolled steel were distortive,
ignores the body of authority squarely against
its position, The petitioner argues that the
existence of the PRC antidumping duty order
alone provides the Department with a reason
to believe or suspect that the input is being
dumped and no formal investigation into
costs or pricing is required. The petitioner
states that it can in no way matter whether
the dumped input is imported into the NME
country directly from the country of origin
or, indirectly, through a trading company in
a third country: country of origin, not the
country of exportation, determines whether a
product is subject to an antidumping duty
order.

Additionally, the petitioner disagrees with
Since Hardware’s argument that the
Department should accept its market
economy prices for cold-rolled steel because
the Department chose to accept the prices for
inputs purchased through Hong Kong trading
companies that originated in a country with
broadly available, potentially price-distorting
non-industry-specific export subsidies. See
CTVs from the PRC. The petitioner argues
that CTVs from the PRC is directed
specifically at subsidies (based on
information regarding general availability),
rather than at dumped inputs (based
specifically on a Chinese antidumping duty
order). The petitioner notes that the
Department noted the difference between
findings of dumping and countervailable
subsidies and it stated that it will disregard
market economy prices for imported inputs
as dumped “when the importing country has
an antidumping duty order in effect for the
products in question.” See Final
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair
Value: Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from
the People’s Republic of China, 67 FR 20090
(April 24, 2002) (Folding Metal Tables and
Chairs). The petitioner points out that a
subsidy finding may not necessarily be based
on an action taken in the importing NME
country, but could be based on a CVD order
issued anywhere in the world, or even

simply information tending to show the
existence of generally available, non-industry
specific export subsidies. See Id; See also
‘Automotive Replacement Glass Windshield
from the People’s Republic of China, 67 FR
6482 (February 12, 2002). The petitioner
argues that, in this case, the importing
country, China, conducted an investigation
and entered an antidumping order against the
product and Since Hardware offers no
evidence, nor does it even suggest that China
would permit its trade remedies to be so
easily circumvented by excluding products
subject to a dumping order from dumping
duties if they were shipped through a third
country seller.

Finally, the petitioner states that, while the
existence of the Chinese antidumping duty
order is sufficient to presume dumping or
distorted prices of products covered by that
order, the record contains evidence of
distorted and aberrational pricing of the cold-
rolled steel purchased by Since Hardware.
The petitioner claims that the prices
reportedly paid by Since Hardware during
the POI for cold-rolled steel from the market
economy country are not comparable to the
product imported into China or produced in
China or other cold-rolled steel prices in the
administrative record. The petitioner states
that the record shows that the prices paid by
Since Hardware are aberrational and
unreliable and should not be considered by
the Department. The petitioner argues that
the Department should reject Since
Hardware’s alleged market economy prices
for cold-rolled steel sheet from the market
economy country, as it has done in the
Preliminary Determination, and value this
input based on surrogate prices from India.

Department's Position: We agree with the
petitioner. In this case, Since Hardware
reported that it purchased from a Hong Kong
reseller cold-rolled steel that was produced
in the market economy country (the name of
the market economy country is business
proprietary information). See Since
Hardware’s Section C and D questionnaire
response at Exhibit 4, dated October 14,
2003. However, in contrast to CTVs from the
PRC, the Department has generally available
public information indicating that the PRC
government has imposed an antidumping
duty order on cold-rolled steel originating in
Kazakhstan, the Republic of Korea, Ukraine,
Russia, and Taiwan (PRC Antidumping
Order). See Memorandum from Sam
Zengotitabengoa, International Trade
Compliance Analyst, to the File, “PRC AD
Final Determination,” dated January 26,
2003. The country and products covered by
the PRC Antidumping Order correspond to
the cold-rolled steel purchases made by
Since Hardware during the POI. Thus, we
know that Since Hardware purchased cold-
rolled steel covered by a PRC Antidumping
Order. The Department has said that when an
importing country has an antidumping duty
order in effect for the products in question,
it will disregard the market economy prices
for these imported inputs as dumped. See
Synthetic Indigo From the People’s Republic
of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 68 FR 53711
(September 12, 2003) and accompanying
Decision Memorandum at Comments 4 and 8.




likely to purchase one because of moderate price declines.’ Nonetheless, price competition for sales to
retailers can be intense, since mass merchandisers typically only stock one brand of each type of ironing
table (i.e., T-leg, 4-leg, etc.).'°

HPI described the U.S. ironing table market as a mature market characterized by demand growth
of less than four percent annually.'' In contrast, importer Whitney Design stated that several factors were
working to restrain current demand at the consumer level, citing market satiation due to continued low
HPI prices since 1998, competitively priced substitute products, workplace trends toward more casual
and wrinkle-free clothing, and a growing consumer preference, even at mass merchandisers, for higher
end ironing tables instead of the lower end, traditional T-legs and 4-legs.'? *** also noted an increase in
demand for higher priced ironing tables with more features. Polder added that mass merchandisers are
moving toward selling more expensive, feature-laden models, and cited Kmart’s use of HPI’s Chinese-
made ironing tables in its Martha Stewart line.'?_*** stated that there had not been any significant
changes in demand, while *** stated that demand at its stores had increased in the United States.'* '°

Substitute Products

Responses from HPI, importers, and purchasers reveal that just under half of the responding
firms (9 out of 19, ***) believe that there are substitutes for ironing tables. Among importers, ***
reported that the primary substitutes for ironing tables are ironing boards outside of the scope of this
investigation. *** listed (in order of importance) tabletop ironing boards, over-the-door ironing boards,
and wall-mounted ironing boards as possible substitutes, while *** listed (in order of importance)
tabletop ironing boards, wall-mounted ironing boards, and over-the-door ironing boards. Purchasers’
responses were quite varied in terms of the order of importance for the aforementioned possible
substitute products. For example, *** listed (in order of importance) tabletop ironing boards and over-
the-door ironing boards,'® *** listed over-the-door ironing boards and tabletop ironing boards, *** listed

° Hearing transcript, testimony of Peter Graves, senior vice president, sales and marketing, HPI, pp. 20-21.
Respondents appear to be in general agreement based on hearing testimony. See hearing transcript, testimony of
James Glenn, president, Whitney Design, pp. 204-205.

© Conference transcript, testimony of Lisa Brumm, buyer, Target, pp. 135-136.

" Hearing transcript, testimony of Peter Graves, senior vice president, sales and marketing, HPI, p. 21.
12 Conference transcript, testimony of James Glenn, president, Whitney Design, pp. 67 and 71-72.

3 Hearing transcript, testimony of Calvin Scott, president, Polder, p. 155.

14 Response reflects data from the preliminary phase of this investigation for ***. *** provided very limited
information in the final phase of this investigation.

15 Available information from responses to Commission questionnaires indicates that apparent U.S. consumption
of ironing tables decreased irregularly from *** units in 2001 to *** units in 2003.

16 #** The company noted in its purchasers’ questionnaire response that, while these substitute products may be
used for pressing clothes, they may have fiberboard tops which reduces their effectiveness.

II-3


10754

Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 45/Monday, March 8, 2004/ Notices

of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of
the United States.?

For further information concerning
the conduct of this phase of the
investigation, hearing procedures, and
rules of general application, consult the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure, part 201, subparts A through
E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207,
subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 3, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Megan Spellacy (202-205-3190), Office
of Investigations, U.S. International
Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-

1 For purposes of this investigation, the
Department of Commerce has defined the subject
merchandise as ‘“* * * floor-standing, metel-top
ironing tables, assembled or unassembled, complete
or incomplete, and certain parts thereof. The subject
tables are designed and used principally for the
hand ironing or pressing of garments or other
articles of fabric, The subject tables have full-height
leg assemblies that support the ironing surface at an
appropriate (often adjustable) height above the
floor. The subject tables are produced in a variety
of leg finishes, such as painted, plated, or matte,
and they are available with various features,
including iron rests, linen racks, and others. The
subject ironing tables may be sold with or without
a pad and/or cover. All types and configurations of
floor-standing, metal-top ironing tables are covered
by this investigation.

Furthermore, this investigation specifically
covers imports of ironing tables, assembled or
unassembled, complete or incomplete, and certain
parts thereof. For purposes of this investigation, the
term “unassembled” ironing table means a product
requiring the attachment of the leg assembly to the
top or the attachment of an included feature such
as an iron rest or linen rack. The term “‘complete”
ironing table means a product sold as a ready-to-
use ensemble consisting of the metal-top table and
a pad and cover, with or without additional
features, e.g. iron rest or linen rack. The term
“incomplete” ironing table means a product
shipped or sold as a “bare board”—i.e., a metal-top
table only, without the pad and cover—with or
without additional features, e.g. iron rest or linen
rack, The major parts or components of ironing
tables that are intended to be covered by this
investigation under the term ‘‘certain parts thereof”
consist of the metal top component (with or without
assembled supports and slides) and/or the leg
components, whether or not attached together as a
leg assembly. The investigation covers separately
shipped metal top components and leg components,
without regard to whether the respective quantities
would yield an exact quantity of assembled ironing
tables.

Ironing tables without legs (such as models that
mount on walls or over doors) are not floor-standing
and are specifically excluded. Additionally,
tabletop or counter top models with short legs that
do not exceed 12 inches in length (and which may
or may not collapse or retract) are specifically
excluded.

The subject ironing tables were previously
classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS) subheading 9403.20.0010.
Effective July 1, 2003, the subject ironing tables are
classified under the new HTSUS subheading
9403.20.0011. The subject metal top and leg
components are classified under HTSUS
subheading 9403.90.8040. Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for convenience and
customs purposes, the written description of the
scope remains dispositive.”

impaired persons can obtain
information on this matter by contacting
the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202-
205-1810. Persons with mobility
impairments who will need special
assistance in gaining access to the
Commission should contact the Office
of the Secretary at 202-205-2000.
General information concerning the
Commission may also be obtained by
accessing its Internet server (http://
www.usitc.gov). The public record for
this investigation may be viewed on the
Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS)
at http://edis.usitc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background. The final phase of this
investigation is being scheduled as a
result of an affirmative preliminary
determination by the Department of
Commerce that imports of ironing tables
and certain parts thereof from China are
being sold in the United States at less
than fair value within the meaning of
section 733 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b).
The investigation was requested in a
petition filed on June 30, 2003, by Home
Products International, Inc. (HPI),
Chicago, IL.

Participation in the investigation and
public service list. Persons, including
industrial users of the subject
merchandise and, if the merchandise is
sold at the retail level, representative
consumer organizations, wishing to
participate in the final phase of this
investigation as parties must file an
entry of appearance with the Secretary
to the Commission, as provided in
section 201.11 of the Commission’s
rules, no later than 21 days prior to the
hearing date specified in this notice. A
party that filed a notice of appearance
during the preliminary phase of the
investigation need not file an additional
notice of appearance during this final
phase. The Secretary will maintain a
public service list containing the names
and addresses of all persons, or their
representatives, who are parties to the
investigation.

Limited disclosure of business
proprietary information (BPI) under an
administrative protective order (APO)
and BPI service list. Pursuant to section
207.7(a) of the Commission’s rules, the
Secretary will make BPI gathered in the
final phase of this investigation
available to authorized applicants under
the APO issued in the investigation,
provided that the application is made
no later than 21 days prior to the
hearing date specified in this notice.
Authorized applicants must represent
interested parties, as defined by 19
U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to the
investigation. A party granted access to
BPI in the preliminary phase of the

investigation need not reapply for such
access. A separate service list will be
maintained by the Secretary for those
parties authorized to receive BPI under
the APO.

Staff report, The prehearing staff
report in the final phase of this
investigation will be placed in the
nonpublic record on June 1, 2004 and a
public version will be issued thereafter,
pursuant to section 207.22 of the
Commission's rules.

Hearing. The Commission will hold a
hearing in connection with the final
phase of this investigation beginning at
9:30 a.m. on June 15, 2004 at the U.S.
International Trade Commission
Building. Requests to appear at the
hearing should be filed in writing with
the Secretary to the Commission on or
before June 8, 2004, A nonparty who has
testimony that may aid the
Commission's deliberations may request
permission to present a short statement
at the hearing. All parties and
nonparties desiring to appear at the
hearing and make oral presentations
should attend a prehearing conference
to be held at 9:30 a.m. on June 10, 2004,
at the U.S. International Trade
Commission Building. Oral testimony
and written materials to be submitted at
the public hearing are governed by
sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), and
207.24 of the Commission’s rules.
Parties must submit any request to
present a portion of their hearing
testimony in camera no later than 7
days prior to the date of the hearing.

Written submissions. Each party who
is an interested party shall submit a
prehearing brief to the Commission.
Prehearing briefs must conform with the
provisions of section 207.23 of the
Commission's rules; the deadline for
filing is June 8, 2004. Parties may also
file written testimony in connection
with their presentation at the hearing, as
provided in section 207.24 of the
Commission’s rules, and posthearing
briefs, which must conform with the
provisions of section 207.25 of the
Commission’s rules. The deadline for
filing posthearing briefs is June 22,
2004; witness testimony must be filed

no later than three days before the
hearing. In addition, any person who
has not entered an appearance as a party
to the investigation may submit a
written statement of information
pertinent to the subject of the
investigation on or before June 22, 2004.
On July 9, 2004, the Commission will
make available to parties all information
on which they have not had an
opportunity to comment. Parties may
submit final comments on this
information on or before July 13, 2004,
but such final comments must not


Ironing tables have either a mesh-top or perforated-top ironing surface” and either a T-leg or a 4-
leg stand.’ A T-leg is made of a single metal tube that is shaped as an inverted “T” and inserted into a
metal leg base. A 4-leg ironing table has two legs, each made of two metal tubes that run parallel to each
other, flare out to form a 4-footed base on the floor, and typically have a cross brace at or near the flare
or at the end of the tubes. In each system, users press a lever that allows the legs to drop down and
subsequently raise the height of the table or fold flat for storage.”

In the preliminary phase of this investigation, the Commission determined that there was one
domestic like product consisting of floor-standing, metal-top ironing tables, coextensive with the scope.”
The Commission specifically stated in its preliminary phase opinion that it may reconsider the issue in
the final phase of the investigation, but noted “that the parties must specify what, if any, additional data
the Commission should collect before [it] issue[d] questionnaires.”"* No party specified any additional
data that the Commission should collect, but in this final phase investigation Commission staff gathered
data pertaining to over-the-door, wall-mounted and countertop boards.” Respondents argue in their
briefs that the Commission should expand the domestic like product beyond the scope of the
investigation to include over-the-door boards. Petitioner argues that the Commission should again find
the same domestic like product as in the preliminary phase.

Physical characteristics and uses. Troning tables and over-the-door ironing boards share the
same functional role: to provide a surface area for pressing clothing and other items. Over-the-door
boards consist of a metal ironing surface that is attached to a door, while ironing tables have legs. When
in use, an over-the-door board is opened perpendicular to and supported by the door; when not in use, it
is folded up against the door for storage. Over-the-door boards typically are 42 inches long and 15 inches
wide, whereas ironing tables are typically 48 to 54 inches long and 13 to 18 inches wide. 7° Over-the-
door boards are designed for users with space constraints, whereas ironing tables are more versatile and
are much more flexible with respect to placement.”

Manufacturing facilities and production employees. Over-the-door ironing boards are produced
in the United States exclusively by patent holder and petitioner HPI. The boards are produced in the

> Tt is generally accepted that mesh-top tables allow for slightly greater steam penetration than perforated-top
tables; thus, they are sometimes marketed as providing a better ironing result for the user. According to a test
conducted by ***, steam escape was *** percent greater for a mesh-top ironing table than for a perforated-top
ironing table. CR at I-6 & n.19, PR at I-5 & n.19. However, questionnaire responses do not generally indicate that
the type of top is very important to many purchasers or individual consumers. CR at I-7, II-7 - II-8, PR at I-S, II-5.
No party contends that mesh-top perforated-top ironing tables constitute separate domestic like products, and the
record does not support a finding of separate like products.

2! The 4-leg generally is considered superior to the T-leg because of increased stability and commands a
somewhat higher price as a result. No party contends that T-leg and 4-leg ironing tables should constitute separate
domestic like products, and the record does not support a finding of separate like products. CR at I-5, PR at I-4,

» CR at I-5, PR at I-4.

?* Ironing Tables and Components Thereof from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1047 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3623
(Aug. 2003), at 5. During the preliminary phase of the investigation, respondents stated that, in the event the
investigation proceeds to the final phase, the Commission should expand the domestic like product to include over-
the-door and wall-mounted ironing boards that are manufactured by the domestic producer. As noted above, there is
no known domestic production of countertop or tabletop ironing boards. CR at I-9 & n.30, PR at I-7 & n.30.

** Troning Tables, USITC Pub. 3623 at 6 n.24.

25 See CR/PR at Tables C-2 (including over-the-door boards data), C-3 (including wall-mounted boards data) and
C-4 (including countertop/tabletop boards data).

© CR at I-9 - I-10, PR at I-7.
27 See Petitioner’s Prehearing Brief at 8-10.



CONTENTS

Page

Determination 2.0.0.0... cee etter tee nee eee 1
Views of the Commission . 3
Separate Views of Commissioner Pearson 21
Part I: Introduction ..............4- Tl
Background Ll
Organization of the report Ll
Summary data 1-2
Summary of market participants 1-2
The product 20.0... 0c cece cece en eet eben teens 12
Commerce’s scope : 1-2

USS. tariff treatment . 2... nent ene ene eens 13
Physical characteristics and uses... 2... 0.1 cece ec eee cece ene ene e eens 13
Production process ........ : 1-6
Domestic like product issues . 1-6
Physical characteristics and uses . . . 17
Manufacturing facilities and production employees . . 17
Interchangeability and customer and producer perceptions . 1-8
Channels of distribution 18

Price 2.0.2... 0. eee 19

Part II: Conditions of competition in the U market : IL-1
Channels of distribution I-1
Supply and demand considerations ... . 2
USS. supply 2.26... eee eee eee . 2

U.S. demand .. . 2
Substitute products 2.2.6.0... c cece ee eeee eee eee n een e een eee 11-3
Substitutability issues ©... 6... e teens 11-4
Factors affecting sales . IL-4
Comparison of domestic product and subject imports beeen ence eee eee eeee IL-5
Elasticity estimates II-7
USS. supply elasticity II-7

U.S. demand elasticity U-7
Substitution elasticity U-7

Part II: U.S. producers’ production, shipments, and employment . . Tiel
USS, producers 2... 6c ccc cece eee n nett teen eens T-1
US. capacity, production, and capacity utilization ........ 6.66. e eee eee eee TH-2
USS. producers’ imports .............0 00005 . 1-2
US. producers’ shipments . Tl-3
U.S. producers’ inventories .. T-4

U.S. employment, compensation, and productivity .......... . 14

Part IV: U.S. imports, apparent U.S. consumption, and market shares IV-1
US. importers Iv-l
U.S. imports Iv-1

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares ... 26.0.0... 6c cece teen eee een eee IV-2




PART VII: THREAT CONSIDERATIONS

The Commission analyzes a number of factors in making threat determinations (see 19 U.S.C. §
1677(7)(F)(). Information on the volume and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise is presented
in Parts IV and V; and information on the effects of imports of the subject merchandise on U.S.
producers’ existing development and production efforts is presented in Part VI. Information on
inventories of the subject merchandise; foreign producers’ operations, including the potential for
“product-shifting;” any other threat indicators, if applicable; and any dumping in third-country markets,
follows.

THE INDUSTRY IN CHINA

In the final phase of this investigation, the Commission sent questionnaires to 23 Chinese firms
believed to produce and/or export ironing tables; four companies provided usable data. The firms that
responded are: Shunde Yongjian Housewares Co., Ltd. (Shunde);' Foshan City Gaoming Lihe Daily
Necessities Co., Ltd. (Gaoming); Forever Holdings, Ltd. (Forever Holdings); and Harvest International,
Ltd. (Harvest International). During the period for which data were collected, *** were the largest
producers of ironing tables in China to provide data on their operations.”

*** were the only responding producers that reported selling ironing tables to the Chinese
market. In 2002 and 2003, the quantity of ironing tables *** supplied to the Chinese domestic market
was roughly equivalent to the quantity of tables the company exported to the United States. *** reported
selling a small percentage (approximately *** percent) of its ironing tables to the U.S. market from 2001
to 2003. The majority of its production was directed to the Chinese domestic market and other export
markets.*

Data for all reporting ironing table producers in China are presented in table VII-1. Data for all
reporting ironing table producers and Since Hardware’s response to a Commission questionnaire from
the preliminary phase of the investigation are included in table VII-2. Exports to the United States
accounted for *** percent of total shipments for the four reporting firms in 2003 (*** percent when ***
is considered).* Other export markets, including ***, accounted for a greater share of shipments than
U.S. exports in the period examined.

' Shunde is also known as Wire King.

? Since Hardware, ***, provided no information in the final phase of the investigation despite repeated staff
requests. Staff requested information from Since Hardware by e-mail and fax on March 10, March 11, May 7, May
10, May 18, and June 25, 2004. Commission staff also repeatedly tried to obtain information from exporters Lerado
and Cheng Feng through e-mail and fax on March 10, May 3, May 7, and June 25. In addition, Commission staff
contacted William Perry, counsel, Garvey Schubert Barer, on May 7, May 8, May 17, and May 18, 2004, regarding
Lerado’s intention to respond to the Commission’s questionnaire. Counsel likewise contacted Lerado in an effort to
solicit their response; on May 18, 2004, Mr. Perry wrote in an e-mail to ITC Staff, “***.” Despite these efforts,
neither Lerado nor Cheng Feng responded to the Commission’s questionnaire.

? Questionnaire responses of ***, question II-8, p. 5.

* A comparison of table IV-1 with table VII-1 indicates that reported exports to the United States are markedly
lower than reported U.S. imports of ironing tables from China. The contrast is much less pronounced when
comparing table IV-1 and table VII-2.

VIl-1


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 weighted-
average of the rates of the fully analyzed
companies, excluding any rates that
were zero, de minimis, or based entirely
on facts available. See Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Certain Circular Welded
Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the
People’s Republic of China, 67 FR
36570, 36571 (May 24, 2002) (Welded
Steel Pipe). Companies receiving this
rate are identified by name in the
“Suspension of Liquidation” section of
this notice.

The PRC-Wide Rate

In all NME cases, the Department
makes a rebuttable presumption that all
exporters located in the NME country
comprise a single exporter under
common government control, the “NME
entity.” See Bicycles From the PRC.
Although the Department provided all
known PRC exporters of the subject
merchandise with the opportunity to
respond to our initial questionnaire,
only Since Hardware, Yongjian, Forever,
Harvest, Lerado, and Lihe responded.
However, because other PRC companies
did not submit a response to the
Department's Section A quantity and
value question, as discussed above in
the “Case History” section of this
notice, and thus did not demonstrate
their entitlement to a separate rate, we
have implemented the Department's
rebuttable presumption that these
exporters constitute a single enterprise
under common control by the PRC
government, and we are applying
adverse facts available to determine the
single antidumping duty rate, the PRC-
wide rate, applicable to all other PRC
exporters comprising this single
enterprise. See, e.g., Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Synthetic Indigo from the
People's Republic of China, 65 FR
25706, 25707 (May 3, 2000).

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides
that, if an interested party withholds
information that has been requested by
the Department, fails to provide such
information in a timely manner or in the
form or manner requested, significantly
impedes a proceeding under the
antidumping statute, or provides
information which cannot be verified,

the Department shall use, subject to
sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act, facts
otherwise available in reaching the
applicable determination. As explained
above, some exporters of the subject
merchandise failed to respond to the
Department's request for information.
The failure of these exporters to respond
significantly impedes this proceeding.
Thus, pursuant to section 776(a) of the
Act, in reaching our prelimin:
determination, we have based the PRC-
wide rate on total facts available.

In applying facts otherwise available,
section 776(b) of the Act provides that,
if the Department finds that an
interested party “has failed-to cooperate
by not acting to the best of its ability to
comply with a request for information,”
the Department may use information
that is adverse to the interests of that
party as facts otherwise available.
Adverse inferences are appropriate ‘‘to
ensure that. the party does not obtain a
more favorable result by failing to
cooperate than if it had cooperated
fully.” See Statement of Administrative
Action SAA accompanying the Uruguay
Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. No.
316, 103d Cong., 2d Session at 870
(1994).Furthermore, “affirmative
evidence of bad faith on the part of the
respondent is not required before the
Department may make an adverse
inference.” See Antidumping
Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR
27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997). In this
case, the complete failure of these
exporters to respond to the
Department's requests for information
constitutes a failure to cooperate to the
best of their ability.

For our preliminary determination, as
adverse facts available, we have used
the highest rate calculated for a
respondent, i.e., the rate calculated for
Yongjian. See Ta Chen Stainless Steel
Pipe, Inc. v. United States, 298 F.3d
1330 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (affirming
Commerce's application of adverse facts
available and use of an adverse
inference, resulting in the application of
the highest available dumping margin to
an uncooperative respondent). In an
investigation, if the Department chooses
as facts available a calculated dumping
margin of another respondent, the
Department will consider information
reasonably at its disposal as to whether
there are circumstances that would
indicate that using that rate is
inappropriate. In this investigation,
there is no indication that Yongjian’s
calculated margin is inappropriate to
use as adverse facts available.

Accordingly, for the preliminary
determination, the PRC-wide rate is
153.76 percent. Because this is a
preliminary margin, the Department


lroning Tables and Certain Parts Thereof
From China

Investigation No. 731-TA-1047 (Final)

Publication 3711 July 2004

U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436





APPENDIX F

EFFECTS OF IMPORTS ON U.S. PRODUCERS’
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCTION EFFORTS,
GROWTH, INVESTMENT, AND ABILITY TO RAISE CAPITAL




APPENDIX B

HEARING WITNESSES

B-1


B. Affirmative Determination for Subject Imports from China

I find that, absent an antidumping order, there is a likelihood that subject imports from China will
increase their volume and market penetration in the United States significantly. The quantity of subject
imports increased by 278 percent during 2001-2003, although subject imports declined by 45 percent
between the interim periods.” Similarly, subject imports’ market share increased by *** percentage
points during 2001-2003, although subject imports’ market share declined by *** percentage points
between the interim periods.* Although subject imports and subject imports’ market share declined
between the interim periods, the record indicates that this is due, at least in part, to the pendency of this
investigation. Given the rapid increases in subject imports and subject imports’ market share during
2001-2003, I believe that, absent an antidumping order, it is likely that subject imports will continue to
increase significantly.

Chinese producers’ reported capacity to produce ironing tables increased during the period
examined, and is projected to continue to increase in 2004 and 2005. The projected increase in Chinese
producers’ capacity for 2003-2005 (***) is nearly equal to the exports to the United States in 2003
reported by responding Chinese producers (***). Although these responding Chinese producers operated
at relatively high levels of capacity utilization during the period examined, Chinese producers’ excess
capacity in 2003 was equal to. *** percent of reported Chinese subject exports to the United States in
2003.

Inventories in the United States of subject imports from China increased sharply from 2001 to
2002, then fell in 2003. U.S. inventories of subject Chinese imports also fell between the interim
periods.*” All four responding producers reported the production of nonsubject merchandise on the same
equipment as ironing tables, although the degree of product mixing varied greatly.*

While I found that subject imports from China do not currently have significant effects on U.S.
prices, I concluded this largely based on the evidence that Chinese subject import prices oversold
domestic product prices throughout the period examined. Based on the data from the latter portion of the
period showing margins of overselling declining as Chinese subject import prices approached the level of

* CR/PR, Table IV-1.
*3 CR/PR, Table IV-4.

4 HPI filed its antidumping petition with Commerce and the Commission on June 30, 2003. The Commission
made its preliminary affirmative determination on August 14, 2003. Commerce made its preliminary determination
on February 3, 2004. Commerce made its final determination on June 24, 2004. CR at I-1, PR at I-1.

+5 Chinese producers’ capacity to produce ironing tables increased from *** units in 2001 to *** in 2002, and
continued to increase to *** units in 2003. Chinese producers’ capacity is projected to increase to *** units in 2004
and *** units in 2005. CR/PR, Table VII-1.

56 Calculated from CR/PR, Table VII-1. The foreign producer information reported to the Commission
significantly understates the size of the Chinese ironing tables industry. In the final phase of this investigation, the
Commission sent questionnaires to 23 Chinese firms believed to produce and/or export ironing tables; four
companies provided usable data. In particular, Since Hardware, ***, provided no information in the final phase of
the investigation. CR at VII-1, PR at VII-1. Including Since Hardware’s data from its response to the Commission’s
preliminary phase questionnaire in the foreign producer data indicates that capacity was projected to grow to by
nearly *** units, from an estimated *** units in 2003 to *** units in 2004. CR/PR, Table VII-2.

57 U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of subject imports from China increased from *** units in 2001 to ***
units in 2002, then fell to *** units in 2003. Inventories fell from *** units in interim 2003 to *** units in 2004.
CR/PR, Table VII-3. Data for 2003 and 2004, however, do not include inventories held by ***, CR/PR, Table VII-
3n.1.

°8 CR at VII-2, PR at VII-1.

28


16954

Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 62/Wednesday, March 31, 2004/ Notices

from public disclosure, as allowable by
law. If you wish to have your name and/
or address withheld, you must state this
prominently at the beginning of your
comment. Reclamation will make all
submissions from organizations or
businesses and from individuals
identifying themselves as
representatives or officials of
organizations or businesses available for
public disclosure in their entirety.
Dated: March 12, 2004.
Mary Josie Blanchard,
Acting Director, Office of Environmental
Policy and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 04-7186 Filed 3-30-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MN-P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement

Notice of Proposed Information
Collection for 1029-0024 and 1029-
0113

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement.
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement (OSM) is announcing
its intention to request approval for the
collections of information for the
Procedures and Criteria for Approval or
Disapproval of State Program
submissions, 30 CFR part 732; and
General Reclamation Requirements, 30
CFR part 874.

DATES: Comments on the proposed
information collection must be received
by June 1, 2004, to be assured of
consideration.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to John A.
Trelease, Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, 1951
Constitution Ave, NW., Room 210-SIB,
Washington, DC 20240. Comments may
also be submitted electronically to
jtreleas@osmre.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To
request a copy of the information
collection requests, explanatory
information and related forms, contact
John A. Trelease, at (202) 208-2783 or
electronically at jtreleas@osmre.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office
of Management and Budget (OMB)
regulations at 5 CFR part 1320, which
implementing provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub.
L. 104-13), require that interested
members of the public and affected

agencies have an opportunity to
comment on information collection
recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR
1320,8(d)). This notice identifies
information collections that OSM will
be submitting to OMB for extension.
These éollections are contained in 30
CFR parts 732 and 874.

OSM has revised burden estimates,
where appropriate, to reflect current
reporting levels or adjustments based on
reestimates of burden or respondents.
OSM will request a 3-year term of
approval for these information
collection activities.

Comments are invited on: (1) The
need for the collection of information
for the performance of the functions of
the agency; (2) the accuracy of the
agency's burden estimates; (3) ways to
enhance the quality, utility and clarity
of the information collections; and (4)
ways to minimize the information
collection burden on respondents, such
as use of automated means of collection
of the information. A summary of the
public comments will accompany
OSM’s submissions of the information
collection requests to OMB.

This notice provides the public with
60 days in which to comment on the
following information collection
activities:

Title: Procedures and Criteria for
Approval or Disapproval of State
Program Submissions, 30 CFR part 732.

OMB Control Number: 1029-0024.

Summary: Part 732 establishes the
procedures and criteria for approval and
disapproval of State program
submissions. The information submitted
is used to evaluate whether State
regulatory authorities are meeting the
provisions of their approved programs.

Bureau Form Number: None.

Frequency of Collection: Once and
annually.

Description of Respondents: 24 State
regulatory authorities.

Total Annual Responses: 51.

Total Annual Burden House: 6,405.

Title: General Reclamation
Requirements, 30 CFR part 874.

OMB Control Number: 1029-0113.

Summary: Part 874 establishes land
and water eligibility requirements,
reclamation objectives and priorities
and reclamation contractor
responsibility. 30 CFR 874.17 requires
consultation between the AML agency
and the appropriate Title V regulatory
authority on the likelihood of removing
the coal under a Title V permit and
concurrences between the AML agency
and the appropriate title V regulatory
authority on the AML project boundary
and the amount of coal that would be
extracted under the AML reclamation
project.

Bureau Form Number: None.
Frequency of Collection: Once.
Description of Respondents: 16 State
regulatory authorities and Indian tribes.
Total Annual Responses: 16.
Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,168.
Dated: March 26, 2004.
Sarah E. Donnelly,
Acting Chief, Division of Regulatory Support.
IFR Doc. 04-7216 Filed 3-30-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-05-M

INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION '

[Investigation No. 731-TA~1047 (Final)}

Ironing Tables and Certain Parts
Thereof From China

AGENCY: International Trade
Commission. .

ACTION: Revised schedule for the subject
investigation.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 25, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Megan Spellacy (202-205-3190), Office
of Investigations, U.S. International
Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-
impaired persons can obtain
information on this matter by contacting
the Commission's TDD terminal on 202—
205-1810. Persons with mobility
impairments who will need special
assistance in gaining access to the
Commission should contact the Office
of the Secretary at 202-205-2000.
General information concerning the
Commission may also be obtained by
accessing its Internet server (http://
www.usitc.gov). The public record for
this investigation may be viewed on the
Commission's electronic docket (EDIS)
at http://edis.usitc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March
3, 2004, the Commission established a
schedule for the conduct of the final
phase of the subject investigation (69 FR
10753, March 8, 2004). The Commission
is revising its schedule to redress a
scheduling conflict created by a
schedule change in another case before
the ITC.

The Commission's new schedule for
the investigation is as follows: the
deadline for filing prehearing briefs is
June 9, 2004; the hearing will be held at
the U.S. International Trade
Commission Building at 9:30 a.m. on
June 16, 2004; and the deadline for
filing posthearing briefs is June 23,
2004.

For further information concerning
this investigation see the Commission’s
notice cited above and the


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

Than Fair Value: Bulk Aspirin From the accounts” for a sample of 2,024 public
People’s Republic of China, 65 FR 33805 companies in India that were reported
in the October 2003 Reserve Bank of

(May 25, 2000). We valued brokerage
and handling using the average of the
foreign brokerage and handling p ysis
expenses in Certain Stainless Steel Wire values used in the preliminary
Rod From India: Final Results of
Administrative and New Shipper Memo.
Review, 64 FR 856 (January 6, 1999). Verification
Because the Department did not find
industry specific data on the record to

India Bulletin.

the Act, we intend to verify all

calculate the surrogate ratios for selling, information relied upon in making our

general and administrative (SG&A) final determination.
expenses, factory overhead, and profit,
the Department used the ‘2001-2002

combined income, value of production,

expenditure and appropriation

Suspension of Liquidation

For a complete analysis of surrogate

determination, see FOP Valuation

In accordance with section 782(i) of

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.
Shunde Yongjian Housewares Ci

Forever Holdings Ltd.
Harvest International
Gaoming Lihe Daily Necessities Co
PRC-Wide Rate. ..

7.66
153.76
69.59
69.59
69.59
153.76

The PRC-wide rate applies to all
entries of the subject merchandise

Yongjian, Forever Holdings, Harvest,

Disclosure
In accordance with 19 CFR

the calculations performed in the
preliminary determination to interested Further, we request that parties
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 _ the hearing 48 hours before the
submit publicly available information to scheduled date.
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

diskette.

at a time and in a room to be

written request to the Assistant

the Assistant Secretary for Import

Rebuttal briefs, the content of which is
limited to the issues raised in the case
except for entries from Since Hardware, _ briefs, must be filed within five days
after the deadline for the submission of
and Lihe. case briefs. A list of authorities used, a
table of contents, and an executive
summary of issues should accompany

an ae any briefs submitted to the Department.
351.224(b), the Department will disclose Executive summaries should be limited
to five pages total, including footnotes.

submitting briefs and rebuttal briefs
provide the Department with a copy of
the public version of such briefs on

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,

determined. Parties should confirm by
telephone the date, time, and location of

Interested parties who wish to request
a hearing, or to participate in a hearing
if one is requested, must submit a

Secretary for Import Administration,
written comments must be submitted to U.S. Department of Commerce, Room
1870, within 30 days of the date of
Administration no later than one week _ publication of this notice. Requests
after issuance of the verification reports. 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)(4) 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


It was *** units in interim 2003 and *** units in interim 2004. The market for ironing tables is
described as a mature one, with only modest annual growth.*®

Based on available information, the overall demand for ironing tables is likely to exhibit little
change in response to changes in price. Although some purchasers reported that nonsubject ironing
boards could be substituted for ironing tables, the infrequent and long-lasting nature of consumer
purchases of ironing tables suggests a low degree of price sensitivity.

There are a range of ironing tables with varying features and price points.” During the period for
which data were collected, far more lower-priced models entered the U.S. market as compared to higher-
priced models.* More than three-quarters of ironing tables consumed in the United States reportedly are
in the opening price point category. Ironing tables in the elite/upper-end category were neither
domestically produced nor imported from China during this period.” *°

Additionally, over the period, there was increased concentration among buyers as the number of
retail purchasers fell. Department stores such as Ames, Bradley, Caldor, Service Merchandise, and
Venture have exited the market, and Kmart entered bankruptcy (and closed a number of stores).*' Now,
only a few mass merchandisers dominate direct sales to consumers,” facilitating purchasers’ ability to
seek price adjustments, which they do periodically.

2. Supply

As stated above, two companies comprise the domestic industry: HPI and Whitney Design. HPI
opened a new plant in El Paso, Texas to produce ironing tables in January 2000, but terminated

* CR/PR at Table IV-4.

4© CR at IL-4, PR at II-3. There is some evidence in the record that factors such as workplace trends toward casual
or wrinkle-free clothing may constrain demand at the consumer level. CR at II-4, PR at II-3.

‘7 HPI describes the value/opening price-point (“OPP”) table, a perforated-top or mesh-top T-leg table, as costing
$15 or less. It describes a “good” table, such as a mesh-top 4-leg table, as costing $15 to $25; a “better” table, such
as a mesh-top 4-leg table with iron rest or other added feature, as costing $20 to $50; and a “best” table, such as a
mesh-top 4-leg table with a wider top, multiple built-in features and chrome metal parts as costing $30 to $60.
According to HPI, the elite/upper-end table, such as a mesh-top 4-leg table with a wider top, more stable surface and
more accessories, costs $70 or more. CR at I-5, PR at I-4. One importer, Polder, describes these categories
somewhat differently. It describes entry-level T-leg ironing tables as being sold on promotion for $10 to $15;
standard tables with 4 legs as selling for approximately $20 to $25; mid-price tables, which are longer, wider or built
with heavier construction and have an additional feature such as a clothes rack, as selling for approximately $30 to
$50; and upper-end ironing tables with multiple enhancement features as retailing for $75 to $120. CRatI-5n.14,
PRatI-4n.14.

“8 CR/PR at Tables IV-2 & IV-3.
CR at 1-6, PR at IL-5.

* Troning table sales may involve “bundling” with other products, especially other laundry products, but these
sales are estimated to account for at most 15 percent of ironing table sales. CR at V-4 - V-5, PR at V-3 - V-4. The
record suggests that this practice has limited impact on the price of ironing tables in view of the small percentage of
the market affected. See, e.g., CR at V-6 n.21, PR at V-4 n.21 (little difference between unit values of all sales and
those of unbundled sales).

5 CR at II-2, PR at II-1.
2 CR at II-2, PR at IL-1.

53 CR at V-2, PR at V-1. While ironing tables are generally purchased at discrete pricing events such as line
reviews and internet reverse auctions, the record indicates that prices are adjusted at other times as well. CR at V-2,
PR at V-1.

10


U.S. PRODUCERS’ INVENTORIES

As shown in table III-7, producer HPI and former producer Whitney Design both maintained
relatively low inventory levels over the period for which data were collected. The ability to maintain low
inventory levels is attributable to the type of sales agreements that dominate the ironing table industry.
According to HPI, “***.”!*

Table Ill-7
Ironing tables: U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories, 2001-03, January-March 2003, and

January-March 2004

U.S. EMPLOYMENT, COMPENSATION, AND PRODUCTIVITY

Information regarding employment by producer HPI and former producer Whitney Design is,
presented in table II-8. The aggregate number of production workers, hours worked, and wages paid all
decreased by approximately *** between 2001 and 2003, consistent with declining production levels.
Productivity, however, increased, outpacing more moderate gains in hourly wages, resulting in lower unit
labor costs.

Table Ill-8
Ironing tables: U.S. producers’ employment-related information, 2001-03, January-March 2003,

January-March 2004

"4 Questionnaire response of HPI, question IV-B-4.

m4


Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 121/Thursday, June 24, 2004/ Notices

35301

should calculate the surrogate value using
data obtained from InFreight.com. According
to the InFreight.com Web site, we note that
“InFreight.com is a privately held Limited
Liability Company,” which provides “a
vertical {business-to-business} portal that
covers all the critical aspects of the Indian
road transport industry* * *.” See http://
InFreight.com/. InFreight.com provides
publicly available Indian truck freight rates
as a flat fee for transportation between
specified cities. Based on an InFreight.com
data query, we were able to obtain Indian
inland freight rates from/to six major Indian
cities for the week of January 8, 2003.
Because the POI is October 2002 to March
2003, we find InFreight.com data is
contemporaneous with the POI whereas the
17 Indian freight company quotes from
November 1999 are not. Furthermore, the
inland truck freight surrogate value is used
in our calculations to value the freight for
many different raw material inputs, in
addition to complete ironing boards. For this
reason, we also find the truck freight
surrogate value from InFreight.com, which is
not limited to only a shipment of one
product, to be the better surrogate value than
the November 1999 Indian freight company
quotes, which are only for shipments of
tapered roller bearings. Therefore, for this
final determination, the Department will rely
on the data from InFreight.com to value
inland freight. See ““Yongjian’s Margin
Calculation Analysis for the Final
Determination in the Antidumping Duty
Investigation of Floor-Standing, Metal-Top
Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof
from the People’s Republic of China,” dated
June 15, 2004.

With regard to brokerage and handling, we
disagree with Yongjian that the Department
should value brokerage and handling based
on the surrogate value used in the Carrier
Bags Prelim. In choosing the appropriate
surrogate value for the final determination,
we examined whether the surrogate data are
both product-specific and contemporaneous.
‘The surrogate value used for brokerage and
handling in the Preliminary Determination is
based on a 1997 brokerage and handling
charge for a shipment of stainless steel wire
rod. See Memorandum from Sam
Zengotitabengoa, International Trade
Compliance Analyst, to the File, “Surrogate
Country Factors of Production Values,” dated
January 26, 2004, at Exhibit 72, containing
the original source documentation. In
Yongjian’s surrogate value submission,
Yongjian suggests that the Department use
the 1999-2000 surrogate value for brokerage
and handling from the Carrier Bags Prelim.
However, in its submission, Yongjian did not
include a copy of its source documents that
support its brokerage and handling value.
Without source documents that substantiate
the surrogate value advocated by Yongjian
(e.g., source documents that identify how the
value was calculated and that confirm the
reported units), we find the surrogate value
used in the Preliminary Determination to be
more reliable than Yongjian’s suggested
value. Furthermore, although Yongjian
claims that the surrogate value used in the
Preliminary Determination is inappropriate
because it is based on brokerage and

handling charges for a shipment of stainless
steel wire rod, which is a high value product,
Yongjian provided no evidence to
demonstrate that the surrogate value is based
on ad valorem charges. Therefore, we have
continued to value brokerage and handling
using brokerage and handling charges
reported in Indian Wire Rod.

Comment 4: Whether the Department Should
Modify Harmonized System Tariff
Classifications for Certain Material Inputs

A. Muriate of Potash

For the Preliminary Determination, the
Department valued muriate of potash using
HS 2815.2000, the subheading for potassium
hydroxide (caustic potash). The petitioner
alleges that potash muriate is actually
defined as potassium chloride. Therefore, the
petitioner urges the Department to value
muriate of potash using HS 2827.3909, the
classification for other chlorides, not
elsewhere specified.

In rebuttal, Since Hardware contends that
there is no evidence on the record to support
the view that potassium hydroxide (caustic
potash) is not an appropriate surrogate for
muriate of potash. Since Hardware states that
although the Department did not specifically
examine the type or grade of muriate of
potash that it consumes in the ordinary
course of business, it is reasonable to assume
from the Department's overall verification
findings that Since Hardware does consume
muriate of potash, as reported. Therefore, the
surrogate value used in the Preliminary
Determination is a reasonable and accurate
basis on which to value Since Hardware's
consumption of muriate of potash for the
final determination. See Rebuttal Comments
from Adams C. Lee, Counsel to Since
Hardware, to the Honorable Donald L. Evans,
Secretary of Commerce, “Since Hardware’s
Rebuttal Brief,” dated May 4, 2004 (Since
Hardware’s Rebuttal Brief), at 4-7.

Department's Position: We agree with
Since Hardware. We find that HS 2815.2000,
the subheading which covers potassium
hydroxide (caustic potash), is more
appropriate for Since Hardware’s production
process than the petitioner's suggested
subheading HS 2827.3909, which covers
other chlorides not elsewhere specified.
Throughout this proceeding, Since Hardware
has consistently reported HS 2815.2000 as
the appropriate subheading to calculate the
surrogate value for its input labeled muriate
of potash. We find, via internet research, that
one of the general uses of potassium
hydroxide (caustic potash), which is covered
under HS 2815.2000, is as a component of
certain plating processes, which is consistent
with Since Hardware’s manufacturing
process. See Memorandum from Paige Rivas
to the File: “Surrogate Valuation Research”
dated June 15, 2004 (Research Memo). On the
other hand, the petitioner's suggestion of HS
2827.3909, other chlorides, not elsewhere
specified, is not specific enough for the
Department to make a similar finding with
respect to the general uses of the products
covered under that subheading. Therefore,
we continue to find that HS 2815.2000 is the
most appropriate classification to value the
muriate of potash consumed by Since
Hardware during the POI.

B. PE Septa

For the Preliminary Determination, the
Department stated in the surrogate value
memorandum that it used HS 3907.6000,
which covers PE terephthalate (PET) in
primary forms (limited to liquids and pastes,
including dispersions and solutions, and
blocks of irregular shape, lumps, powders,
granules, flakes and similar bulk forms), to
calculate the surrogate value for PE septa.
The petitioner contends that PET in primary
forms cannot serve as a septum or membrane.
However, while the Department states that it
used HS 3907.6000, the petitioner alleges
that the Department based its calculations of
the surrogate value for PE septa using data
from HS 3920.1001, the classification for
plastic sheets of PET. As such, the petitioner
urges the Department to continue to value PE
septa using HS 3920.1001, the subheading for
sheets of PE, for the final determination. See
Petitioner’s Case Brief, at 14.

Since Hardware did not comment on this
issue.

Department's Position: We agree with the
petitioner. In the Preliminary Determination,
we mistakenly stated in the narrative of the
surrogate value memorandum that we used
HS 3907.6000, which covers PET in primary
forms, to calculate the surrogate value for PE
septa. See Memorandum from Sam
Zengotitabengoa to the File: “Surrogate
Country Factors of Production Values in the
Preliminary Determination of the
Antidumping Duty Investigation on Floor-
Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and
Certain Parts Thereof from the People’s
Republic of China,” dated January 26, 2004
(Prelim Factors Memo). However, in Exhibit
25 of the Prelim Factors Memo, we actually
used HS 3920.1001, which includes plates,
sheets, film consisting of PET, to calculate
the surrogate value for PE septa.

In considering which HS subheading is
appropriate, we find that the definition of
septa is a thin membrane or sheet. Therefore,
it is not appropriate to value PE septa with
HS 3907.6000, which covers PET in primary
forms. Instead, the Department finds that HS
3920.1001, which covers other plates, sheets,
film consisting of PET, is the appropriate
surrogate value for PE septa. Therefore, for
this final determination, we have continued
to use HS 3920.1001 to value PE septa.

C. Stainless Steel

For the Preliminary Determination, the
Department classified stainless steel using
HS 7210,1202, the subheading for flat-rolled
products of iron or non-alloy steel, of a width
of 600 mm or more, clad, plated or coated,
with tin, of a thickness of less than 0.5 mm
(tin plated stainless steel). The petitioner
argues that there is no evidence on the
administrative record indicating that the
stainless steel used by the respondents is tin
plated. Therefore, the petitioner urges the
Department to value stainless steel using HS
7220.1202, the subheading covering stainless
steel in strips for making pipes and tubes.
Alternatively, on the basis of material
dimensions provided by Since Hardware and
its chemical content, including nickel and
chromium, the petitioner urges the
Department to use the weighted average
value for HS 7219.3401 and HS 7219.3402,


U.S. IMPORTERS’ INVENTORIES OF IRONING TABLES

Table VII-3 presents data on U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of imported ironing tables
from China.

Table VII-3
Ironing tables: U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of imports, 2001-03, January-March 2003,

and January-March 2004

Calendar year January-March
Source
2001 2002 2003 2003 2004
End-of-period inventories (1,000 units)’ ?
China 155 397 344 309 252
‘All other sources we ae ae pees ee
Total ae ne ae cory ee
Ratio to imports (percent) ;
China 23.2 25.9 13.6 15.3 22.5
All other sources wee wee ae ey tee
Total ee ee ee ae ane
Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports (percent)
China 28.2 30.7 13.4 13.5 17.0
All other sources ee ae ee pers wee
Total ae ee ee ae +e

1*** Correspondence from *** to ITC staff, June 23, 2004.
2 *** reported no inventory of ironing tables during the period for which data were collected.

Note: Partial-year ratios are based on annualized imports and shipments of imports.
Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. IMPORTERS’ CURRENT ORDERS FOR IRONING TABLES

U.S. importers reported more than one million units of ironing tables ordered from manufacturers
in China and scheduled for delivery in 2004.° In addition to the subject imports reported in the first
quarter of 2004 (presented in Part IV of this report), importers reported receiving *** ironing tables from
China in the second quarter of 2004; in the third quarter of 2004, importers have ordered *** subject
ironing tables; and in the fourth quarter of 2004, importers have ordered *** subject ironing tables.’ *

6 Questionnaire responses of ***, question II-3, p. 4; e-mail from *** to ITC Staff, June 28, 2004.

7 Orders from *** represent the *** of deliveries and anticipated deliveries of subject merchandise in 2004.
According to the company, it is ***. Correspondence from *** to ITC Staff, June 23, 2004.

8 *** has not yet ordered its fourth quarter imports. In the second and third quarter of 2004, *** imported ***
and *** ironing tables, respectively.

VI-3


rooms, and workplaces for the purpose of pressing apparel and other textile items. The standard size of
an ironing table is 48 to 54 inches in length and 13 to 18 inches in width. The table may be equipped
with special features such as an iron rest or linen racks."

Ironing tables and their components are produced from flat-rolled steel and wire, as well as
fasteners, foam, corrugated carton, shrink film, and cotton fabric. The principal components of an
ironing table are its metal ironing surface, hangers, ribs, foot cover, slide bar, handle, hinge, and legs.

The ironing surface of ironing tables is either mesh-top or perforated-top and is attached to either
a T-leg or a 4-leg stand. The 4-leg stand is considered superior to the T-leg because it offers more .
stability. Typically T-leg ironing tables are offered at opening price points of $15 or less, while only the
4-leg is offered on the higher end models.’ A T-leg is made of a single metal tube inserted into a metal
leg base that is shaped as an inverted “T”. A 4-leg ironing table has two legs, each made of two metal
tubes that run parallel to each other, flair out to form a 4-footed base on the floor, and typically have a
cross brace at or near the flair or at the end of the tubes. In each system, users press a lever that allows
the legs to drop down and subsequently raise the height of the table or fold flat for storage.

Ironing tables reportedly are sold in as many as five different price point categories. The
following tabulation describes ironing tables at various price points:'*

1) Value / open price point (OPP ) (i.e. HPI’s Wardro Table) $15 or less
Perforated-top or mesh-top T-leg tables

2) Good (i.e. HPI’s Surefoot) $15-$25
Mesh-top 4-leg tables

3) Better (i.e. HPI’s Jroning Pro2000) $20-$50
Mesh-top 4-leg tables with iron rest or other added feature

4) Best (i.e. HPI’s Ultimate Ironing Table) $30-$60

Mesh-top 4-leg tables with wider top, multiple built-in features,
and chrome metal parts.
5) Elite / upper-end (i.e, Brabantia Obelisk Ironing Table) $70 or more
Mesh-top 4-leg table with wider tops, more stable surfaces,
and more accessories.

14

© (...continued)
typically 30 to 32 inches in length and 12 inches in width. See hearing transcript, testimony of Peter Graves, vice

president of sales, HPI, p. 23.

1 Hearing transcript, testimony of Peter Graves, senior vice president of sales, HPI, p. 21. See also questionnaire
response of HPI, question V-8, p. 28.

2 Hearing transcript, testimony of Calvin Scott, president, Polder, p. 153. See also hearing transcript, testimony
of Peter Graves, vice president of sales, HPI, p. 74.

13 #4, interview by USITC Staff, ***, February 25, 2004.

'4 These price categories differ somewhat from those described by Polder: (1) entry-level T-leg ironing boards
sold on promotion at $10-$15; (2) standard ironing boards with 4 legs which sell for approximately $20-$25; (3)
mid-price ironing tables, which are longer, wider, or built with heavier construction and have an additional feature
such as a clothes rack, approximately $30-$50; and upper-end ironing tables with multiple enhancement features that
retail for $75-$120. Hearing transcript, testimony of Calvin Scott, president, Polder, pp. 153-154.

1-4


Table Il-2
Ironing tables: Perceived degree of interchangeability between ironing tables produced in the
United States and in other countries in sales/purchases of ironing tables in the U.S. market

U.S. producers’ U.S. importers’ U.S. purchasers’
Country pair responses’? responses'? responses*
AJFIS|N/IOJTAJ/F]S|/|N]OJA]F Ss|N]O
U.S.vs.China | *** 6|-/2{—-}a]fu}-|-|-]3
U.S. vs. other ~ 4 - 3 1 4 5 -~|-]- 9
China vs. other | *** 4}/—-/[3]}-];,2]7,5)-|]-]-]9

tee
Dawe

Saee

Note — A = Always, F = Frequently, S = Sometimes, N = Never, O = No familiarity.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Table II-3

Ironing tables: Perceived importance of differences in factors other than price between ironing
tables produced in the United States and in other countries in sales of ironing tables in the U.S.
market

U.S. producers’ responses‘? U.S. importers’ responses‘?
Country pair
A F s N oO A F s N fe}
U.S. vs. China “ 2 - 4 2 1
U.S. vs. other bill 3 - 2 2 2
China vs. other bial 1 - 3 2 3

tee

2eee

Note -- A = Always, F = Frequently, S = Sometimes, N = Never, O = No familiarity.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

II-6


Table C-4
Ironing tables: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2001-03, January-March 2003, and January-March 2004

(Quantity=1,000 units, value=1,000 dolars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per unit: period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes
January-March Jan-Mar.
tem 2001 2002 2003 2003 2004 2001-03 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004
U.S. consumption quantity:
‘Amount... ” ~ oa ” “ - ”
Producers’ share (1)... =. ~ os ~ ” ~ ~ ~ ~~

Producers share (1) ~~» o ” ” ” .
Importers’ share (1):
China (subject)... ” ca ” ” ~ ”
Nonsubject. foe ” ad * a * ca
Total imports... a * oa * ~ * a
US. shipments of
‘Subject imports from China:
456 1,282 2,538 873 370 456.0 1743 1027 354
5726 11,360 21,323 4,808 4,508 224 98.2 879 62
$12.65 $9.07 $8.40 $8.40 $12.20 330 27 3 452
Ending inventory quantity. 155 307 e808 252 1218 1858 133 + 186
Nonsubject imports:
Ending inventory quart. os ~ “ o
Total imports:
US. producers’
‘Average capacity quantity ” ” ” ” ” “ ”
Produetion quantity 7 7 . ” ” . ”
Capacity utiization (1). ” ” ~ ”
US. shipments:
Quantiy eee cere ” ” soa ” ” ” ” ”
Value. : on 1 “ o o
Unit value... ” ” ” ” ” “
Hours worked (1,0008)....... ” “ * ” . ”
Wages paid ($1,000s)......- 7 - “ ” oe
Hourly wages... ... ” ad al ” * ”
Pretty (usu. " ~ ~ o a ae
Unit labor costs... oo te . oo a ”
Net sales:
Cost of goods sold (COGS). ” . ” ” ad ”
Gross profit or (1088)... +. ” ” 7 ” “ ”
SGBA expenses... se ” ” ”
Operating income or (ss) ” “ - ” ”
Capital expenditures... 7 ” ” ” 7 7 ”
Unit operating income or os) ” ” a ” ”
‘COGSIsales (1). : ad - ” ” “ ” ”
‘Operating income or (loss
sales (1). ~ on ~ ~ oa ~ ~ - -

(1) "Reported data” are in percent and “period changes® are in percentage points.
(2) Not applicable.

‘Note.~Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding,
figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

‘Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.


ironing tables to complement their line of standard ironing tables.”” Whitney Design asserts that it closed
production due to what it characterized as HPI’s “aggressive” pricing techniques.'° According to
Whitney Design, “***.”"' ?

As shown in table III-4, *** between 2001 and 2003, and ***. By 2002, ***’s imports of ironing
tables ***, As shown in table II-5, however, for the ***, the company’s ***.

Table Ill-4
Ironing tables: U.S. producers’ total imports (quantity) and imports as a percentage of total

production, by firm, 2001-03, January-March 2003, and January-March 2004

* * * * * * *

Table Ill-5
Ironing tables: U.S. producers’ quantity of production and imports, by month, 2001-02
* * * * * * *
U.S. PRODUCERS’ SHIPMENTS

As shown in table III-6, both U.S. shipments of domestically produced ironing tables and exports
of domestically produced ironing tables decreased between 2001 and 2003.? While U.S. shipments were
higher in January-March 2004 than in January-March 2003, U.S. exports were lower. HPI and Whitney
Design exported ironing tables to ***.

Table III-6
Ironing tables: U.S. producers’ shipments and exports of ironing tables, 2001-03, January-March

2003, and January-March 2004

* * * * * * *

° Respondents’ Postconference Brief, p. 18.

1 Respondents’ Postconference Brief, pp. 4-6. See also conference transcript, testimony of James Glenn,
president, Whitney Design, p. 67-68.

" Questionnaire response of Whitney Design, question II-2, page 3; hearing transcript, testimony of James Glenn,
president, Whitney Design, p. 146; Respondents’ Posthearing Brief, p. 4-6.

12 HPI responded to Whitney Design’s allegations, noting that “... Whitney Design has ***, it has been
understandably reluctant to acknowledge the substantial harm to its former domestic production caused by Chinese
imports.” HPI further argues that as approximately “*** of ironing tables sold at the wholesale level are purchased
by only three customers, who then sell them at retail.” The price competition among retailers exerts downward
pressure on wholesale prices, thus enabling imports of ironing tables from China to exert downward pressure on the
entire market, resulting in lower prices and decreased market share for the domestic industry. Petitioner’s Prehearing
Brief, pp. 15-26. See also Petitioner’s Posthearing Brief, pages A-23 through A-25 (stressing HPI’s “stable” prices
until mid-2002; specific sales histories with specified customers; and HPI’s loss of market share between 2001 and
2003).

13 Neither company reported internal consumption or related party transfers of ironing tables.

TI-3


According to ***, there is no product produced in the United States that is comparable to
what it imports from China. *** reported that it focuses on better quality, feature-loaded ironing tables
that are only produced in China and Europe. *** further stated that U.S.-produced ironing tables are
lower priced, lower quality products that do not fit well into its segment of the U.S. market.

Purchasers were asked to rate a number of factors in terms of their importance in purchase
decisions for ironing tables, as well as rate domestically produced ironing tables against ironing tables
imported from China using these same factors. Purchasers’ responses are presented in table 11-4.

ELASTICITY ESTIMATES
U.S. Supply Elasticity

The domestic supply elasticity for ironing tables measures the sensitivity of the quantity supplied
by the U.S. producer to changes in the U.S. market price for ironing tables. The elasticity of domestic
supply depends on several factors, including the level of excess capacity, the existence of inventories,
and the availability of alternate markets for U.S.-produced ironing tables. Previous analysis of these
factors indicates that the U.S. industry is likely to have the ability to increase or decrease shipments to
the U.S. market, due primarily to unused capacity. An estimate in the range of 5 to 8 is suggested. No
party commented on this estimate.

U.S. Demand Elasticity

The U.S. demand elasticity for ironing tables measures the sensitivity of the overall quantity
demanded to changes in the U.S. market price for ironing tables. This estimate depends on the factors
discussed earlier, such as the existence, availability, and commercial viability of substitute products. As
noted earlier, just over half of the responding firms stated that there are potential substitute products for
ironing tables, primarily ironing boards outside of the scope of this investigation.

The petitioner noted in its prehearing brief that the existence of potential substitutes is not
incongruent with a finding of inelastic demand,” and respondents appear to be in general agreement
based on hearing testimony.”’ Based on the statements of both parties, staff has adjusted this estimate to

-0.25 to -0.75.
Substitution Elasticity

The elasticity of substitution depends upon the extent of product differentiation between the
domestic and imported products. Product differentiation, in turn, depends upon such factors as quality
and conditions of sale. Based on available information, the elasticity of substitution between U.S.-
produced ironing tables and ironing tables from China is estimated to be in the range of 2 to 5. No party
commented on this estimate.

25 Purchasers were also asked how often domestically produced and imported subject ironing tables meet
minimum quality specifications. Nine of 13 purchasers (***) reported that domestically produced ironing tables
“always” meet such specifications, three purchasers reported that the U.S. product “usually” meets such
specifications, and one purchaser reported that the U.S. product “sometimes” meets such specifications. Regarding
imported subject ironing tables, seven of 11 purchasers (***) reported that the subject product “always” meets such
specifications and four purchasers reported that the subject product “usually” meets such specifications.

6 Petitioner’s Prehearing Brief, p. 17.
2” Hearing transcript, testimony of James Glenn, president, Whitney Design, pp. 204-205.

I-7




Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 45/Monday, March 8, 2004/ Notices

10755

contain new factual information and
must otherwise comply with section
207.30 of the Commission's rules. All
written submissions must conform with
the provisions of section 201.8 of the
Commission's rules; any submissions
that contain BPI must also conform with
the requirements of sections 201.6,
207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s
tules. The Commission’s rules do not
authorize filing of submissions with the
Secretary by facsimile or electronic
means, except to the extent permitted by
section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules,
as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8,
2002).

In accordance with sections 201.16(c)
and 207.3 of the Commission's rules,
each document filed by a party to the
investigation must be served on all other
parties to the investigation (as identified
by either the public or BPI service list),
and a certificate of service must be
timely filed. The Secretary will not
accept a document for filing without a
certificate of service.

Authority: This investigation is being
conducted under authority of title VII of the
Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published
pursuant to section 207.21 of the
Commission's rules.

Issued: March 3, 2004.

By order of the Commission.

Marilyn R. Abbott,

Secretary to the Commission.

[FR Doc. 04~5160 Filed 3-5-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION

[Investigation No, TA-2104—11]

U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement:
Potential Economywide and Selected
Sectoral Effects

AGENCY: International Trade
Commission.

ACTION: Institution of investigation and
scheduling of public hearing.

SUMMARY: Following receipt on February
17, 2004 of a request from the United
States Trade Representative (USTR), the
Commission instituted investigation No.
TA-2104-11, U.S.-Australia Free Trade
Agreement: Potential Economywide and
Selected Sectoral Effects, under section
2104(f) of the Trade Act of 2002 (19
U.S.C. 3804(f)).

Background: As requested by the
USTR, the Commission will prepare a
report as specified in section 2104(f)(2)—
(3) of the Trade Act of 2002 assessing
the likely impact of the U.S. Free Trade
agreement with Australia on the United
States economy as a whole and on

specific industry sectors and the
interests of U.S. consumers. The report
will assess the likely impact of the
agreement on the United States
economy as a whole and on specific
industry sectors, including the impact
the agreement will have on the gross
domestic product, exports and imports,
aggregate employment and employment
opportunities, the production,
employment, and competitive position
of industries likely to be significantly
affected by the agreement, and the
interests of United States consumers.

In preparing its assessment, the
Commission will review available
economic assessments regarding the
agreement, including literature
regarding any substantially equivalent
proposed agreement, and will provide
in its assessment a description of the
analyses used and conclusions drawn in
such literature, and a discussion of areas
of consensus and divergence between
the various analyses and conclusions,
including those of the Commission
regarding the agreement.

Section 2104(f)(2) requires that the
Commission submit its report to the
President and the Congress not later
than 90 days after the President enters
into the agreement, which he can do 90
days after he notifies the Congress of his
intent to do so. The President notified
the Congress on February 13, 2004, of
his intent to enter into an FTA with
Australia.

The Commission has begun its
assessment, and it will seek public
input for the investigation through a
public hearing on March 30, 2004 (see
below).

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 2, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Thomas Jennings, Project Leader, Office
of Economics (202-205-3260). For
information on the legal aspects of this
investigation, contact William Gearhart
of the Office of the General Counsel
(202-205-3091 or
william.gearhart@usitc.gov). For media
information, contact Peg O’Laughlin
(202-205-1819). Hearing impaired
individuals are advised that information
on this matter can be obtained by
contacting the TDD terminal on (202—
205-1810).

Public Hearing: A public hearing in
connection with this investigation is
scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. on
March 30, 2004, at the U.S. International
Trade Commission Building, 500 E
Street SW., Washington, DC. Requests to
appear at the public hearing should be
filed with the Secretary, no later than
5:15 p.m., March 16, 2004 in accordance
with the requirements in the
“Submissions” section below. In the

event that, as of the close of business on
March 16, 2004, no witnesses are
scheduled to appear at the hearing, the
hearing will be canceled. Any person
interested in attending the hearing as an
observer or non-participant may call the
Secretary (202-205-2000) after March
16, 2004, to determine whether the
hearing will be held.

‘ Statements and Briefs: In lieu of or in
addition to participating in the hearing,
interested parties are invited to submit
written statements or briefs concerning
the investigation in accordance with the
requirements in the “Submissions”
section below. Any prehearing briefs or
statements should be filed not later than
5:15 p.m., March 22, 2004; the deadline
for filing post-hearing briefs or
statements is 5:15 p.m., April 6, 2004.

Submissions: All written submissions
including requests to appear at the
hearing, statements, and briefs, should
be addressed to the Secretary, United
States International Trade Commission,
500 E Street SW., Washington, DC
20436. All written submissions must
conform with the provisions of section
201.8 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.8);
any submissions that contain
confidential business information must
also conform with the requirements of
section 201.6 of the Commission’s Rules
of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
201.6). Section 201.8 of the rules require
that a signed original (or a copy
designated as an original) and fourteen
(14) copies of each document be filed.
In the event that confidential treatment
of the document is requested, at least
four (4) additional copies must be filed,
in which the confidential information
must be deleted. Section 201.6 of the
rules require that the cover of the
document and the individual pages
clearly be marked as to whether they are
the “confidential” or “nonconfidential”
version, and that the confidential
business information be clearly
identified by means of brackets.

The Commission intends to publish
only a public report in this
investigation. Accordingly, any
confidential business information
received by the Commission in this
investigation and used in preparing the
report will not be published in a manner
that would reveal the operations of the
firm supplying the information.

The Commission’s rules do not
authorize filing submissions with the
Secretary by facsimile or electronic
means, except to the extent permitted by
section 201.8 of the Commission's Rules
(19 CFR 201.8) (see Handbook for
Electronic Filing Procedures, ftp://
fip.usitc.gov/pub/reports/
electronic_filing_handbook.pdf).



PART II: CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IN THE U.S. MARKET

Current suppliers of ironing tables to the U.S. market primarily consist of HPI and importers of
ironing tables from China. Among purchasers of ironing tables, three firms account for the majority of
purchases in the U.S. market. These three firms are Kmart, Target, and Wal-Mart, which together
accounted for approximately *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2003.!

|

CHANNELS OF DISTRIBUTION

In the U.S. market, both domestically produced and imported ironing tables are sold primarily to
retailers. Available data for 2003 indicate that *** percent of sales by HPI and virtually all sales by U.S.
importers were to retailers (or, in the case of ***, the U.S. importer was itself a retailer).

During the period for which data were collected, HPI and Whitney Design were the sole U.S.
producers of ironing tables in the U.S. market, and supplied most of the market. Whitney Design ended
U.S. production in 2002 and now exclusively imports ironing tables from China. To some extent,
different producers and importers have different emphases among the types of ironing tables (standard
versus high-end).” For example, *** primarily sell standard ironing tables to mass merchandisers, while
*** emphasize sales of higher end ironing tables to specialty stores.’ * ‘

There are a relatively large number of ironing table purchasers in the U.S. market.’ The largest
group of ironing table purchasers by volume, however, are mass merchandisers such as Wal-Mart,
Target, and Kmart. Indeed, most producer and importer sales of ironing tables are to these retailers,
which then sell directly to consumers. Nonetheless, there are some distributors, such as *** and eK 6
Other purchasers include hardware stores, home improvement stores, and other discount stores. There
has been a substantial decrease in the number of retailer purchasers in the last few years, with department
stores such as Ames, Bradley, Caldor, Service Merchandise, and Venture exiting the market, and Kmart
entering bankruptcy (and hence closing a number of stores).”

1 dee

2? HPI and Polder provided general descriptions of the varying quality levels for ironing tables. See Petitioner’s
Prehearing Brief, p. 25, and the hearing transcript, testimony of Calvin Scott, president, Polder, pp. 153-154.

3 Polder described its customers as big box specialty stores (e.g., Bed Bath & Beyond, the Container Store, etc.)
that are different from the larger mass merchandisers in that they sell to customers willing to pay higher prices for
additional features. Polder said that it does not compete with HPI in the standard or lower end ironing tables.
Hearing transcript, testimony of Calvin Scott, president, Polder, pp. 152 and 154-155.

4 eek

5 *** reported more than *** accounts.

6 Hotels tend to buy through a single distributor, ***; sales to *** generally account for less than *** percent of
#** sales. ***, telephone interview by USITC staff, July 30, 2003. Polder described hotel customers as wanting
lower priced ironing tables. Conference transcript, testimony of Calvin Scott, president, Polder, p. 79.

7 According to respondents, the decrease in the overall number of retailer purchasers increased the buying power
of Kmart, Target, and Wal-Mart; however, no individual retailer that exited the market had a major impact.
Respondents stated that Kmart, Target, and Wal-Mart have always had significant buying power irrespective of the
increased consolidation among purchasers. Hearing transcript, testimony of James Glenn, president, Whitney
Design, pp. 186-187, 190-191.

T-1


Table E-1
Ironing tables: Delivered purchase prices and quantities as reported by Kmart, Target, and Wal-
Mart, by quarters, January 2001-March 2004

* * * * * * *

Table E-2 .
Ironing tables: Delivered purchase prices and quantities as reported by Kmart, Target, and Wal-
Mart, by quarters, January 2001-March 2004

* * * * * * *

Table E-3
Ironing tables: Delivered purchase prices and quantities as reported by Kmart, Target, and Wal-
Mart, by quarters, January 2001-March 2004

* * * * * * *

E-3


SESSION 3 (Closed to the public; open to APO signatories only):

Respondents’ in camera session

SESSION 4 (Closed to the public; open to APO signatories only):

Petitioner’s rebuttal in camera session
REBUTTAL/CLOSING REMARKS

Petitioners (Michael D. Bradley, The George Washington University)
Respondents (Richard D. Boltuck, Charles River Associates)

B-5




APPENDIX E

PURCHASE PRICE DATA AS REPORTED BY KMART, TARGET,
AND WAL-MART

E-1


U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436

www.usitc.gov

Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof
From China

Investigation No. 731-TA-1047 (Final)

Publication 3711 July 2004


Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 121/Thursday, June 24, 2004/ Notices

35311

and cabinets in that both are finished
consumer goods. Since Hardware contends
that data published in the RBI Bulletin are
based on a broad spectrum of Indian
manufacturers, agricultural companies, and
service providers. Moreover, Since Hardware
claims that the Department has rejected RBI
data when data from a producer of
comparable merchandise were available, See,
e.g., Lawn and Garden Fence Posts from the
People’s Republic of China, 67 FR 72141
(December 4, 2002); Glycine from the
People’s Republic of China: Final Results of
New Shipper Administrative Review, 66 FR
8383 (January 31, 2001) (Glycine), 66 FR 8383
Qanuary 31, 2001); and Final Results and
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Certain Cased Pencils
from the People’s Republic of China, 67 FR
48,612 (July 25, 2002) (Cased Pencils), and
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum, at Comment 5. In addition,
Since Hardware alleges that the CIT has
acknowledged that the RBI data are not an
appropriate surrogate value source because of
their generalized nature. See Shanghai
Foreign Trade Enterprises Co., Ltd. and
Shanghai Pudong Malleable Iron Plant, v. the
United States and Anvil International, Inc.
and Ward Manufacturing, Inc., No. 03—
00218, Slip Op. 04-33 (CIT April 9, 2004)
(Non-Malleable Remand); and Yantai
Oriental Juice Co. v. United States, Slip Op.
02-56, at 27 (CIT June 18, 2002) (Yantai
Oriental). Lastly, since the Department
previously accepted Godrej financial data to
calculate surrogate financial ratios in Folding
Chairs, Since Hardware urges the Department
to also accept the Godrej financial data in
this investigation given the nearly identical
physical characteristics shared by folding
metal tables and chairs and ironing boards.
As such, Since Hardware contends that the
data published in the RBI Bulletin cannot be
more appropriate than the Godrej data for
purposes of calculating the financial ratios.
‘As such, Since Hardware urges the
Department to use the financial data from
Godrej. See Since Hardware’s Case Brief, at
10-15; See Since Hardware's Rebuttal Brief,
at 1-4.

‘Yongjian contends that the valuation of
financial ratios needs to be based on the
experience of market economy producers of
“identical or comparable merchandise.” See
Section 351.408(c)(4) of the Department's
regulations. Yongjian asserts that to
determine whether merchandise is identical
or comparable to the subject merchandise,
the Department should consider “whether
the products have similar physical
characteristics, end uses, and production
processes. When evaluating production
processes, the Department [should consider]
the complexity and duration of the processes
and types of equipment used in production.”
See Cased Pencils, Issues and Decision
Memorandum, at Comment 5. Yongjian
asserts that in Glycine the Department states
that it is its “practice to use financial data
that are more narrowly limited to a producer
of comparable merchandise than data based
on a wider range of products when the
former data are available. In addition,
Yongjian claims that in the Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value: Bulk Aspirin from the People’s
Republic of China, 65 FR 33805 (May 25,
2000) (Bulk Aspirin), Issues and Decision
Memorandum, at Comment 4, the
Department states that “because we seek
information that pertains as narrowly as
possible to the subject merchandise, the
Department, in most cases, has used the
producer-specific data since industry-specific
data available to the Department tends to be
broad in terms of the merchandise included.
This, however, does not mean that we would
always prefer the producer-specific data, if
we were presented with industry and
producer data that were equally specific in
terms of the merchandise produced.” Id.

Yongjian alleges that Godrej's fabricated
metal merchandise and the subject
merchandise are two slightly different classes.
of fabricated metal products that are
comparable to one another because they are:
(1) Made of steel sheet, flat steel products,
metal fasteners and the like, probably steel
pipe/tube (as garment hanging rods in
wardrobes), various plastic and rubber
components, and oven baked luster enamel
coatings; and (2) joined together with the
same general production process (i.e.,
welding and assembly of moving parts).
Yongjian asserts that the data published in
the RBI Bulletin are insignificantly impacted
by the fabricated metal products companies.
In addition, Yongjian points out that the
gross profits and profits after tax in 2002-
2003 were negative for the fabricated metal
products industry. As such, Yongjian
contends that, because the data published in
the RBI Bulletin are too generic to withstand
serious scrutiny in view of the Department's
stated policy, its specific regulation, and
recent and consistent pronouncements of the
CIT, the Department should use the financial
data from Godrej, that allegedly operates in
the same fabricated metals industry as
ironing table producers, to calculate the
surrogate financial ratios. See Yongjian’s
Case Brief, at 25-32; Yongjian’s Rebuttal
Brief, at 2 and 3,

Yongjian summarizes that in the Notice of
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate from the
People’s Republic of China, 64 FR 71,204
(December 20, 1999) (Creatine Monohydrate),
Issues and Decision Memorandum, at
Comment 1, the Department “eschewed” the
use of data published in the RBI where
information relating to a narrower category of
comparable products was available. As prior
examples of how the Department analyzed
comparability, Yongjian points to the
following notices: Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Urea Ammonium Nitrate Solutions
from the Russian Federation, 68 FR 9977
(March 3, 2003) (Urea Ammonium Nitrate
Solutions), Issues and Decision
Memorandum, at Comment 6, where the
Department considered ammonium nitrate
and urea to be comparable to the urea
ammonium nitrate solutions under
investigation; Cased Pencils, Issues and
Decision Memorandum, at Comment 5,
where the Department considered wooden
cabinets, doors, and handicrafts to be
comparable to the cased pencils under
review. In Cased Pencils, Yongjian cites that

the Department “did not have industry
sector-specific RBI data for an industry more
comparable to pencil production.” Id.;
Glycine, Issues and Decision Memorandum,
at Issue f, where the Department considered
phenylglycine to be comparable to the
glycine under investigation, because the
products appeared to have similar raw
materials, similar production equipment, and
similar production processes; Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair
Value: Pure Magnesium in Granular Form
from the Russian Federation, 66 FR 49,347
(September 27, 2001) (Pure Magnesium),
Issues and Decision Memorandum, at
Comment 1, where the Department
determined zinc to be comparable to the pure
magnesium under investigation. See
Yongjian's Case Brief, at 25 and 27; Synthetic
Indigo from the People’s Republic of China:
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value, 65 FR 25,706 (May 3, 2000)
(Synthetic Indigo), Issues and Decision
Memorandum, at Comment 6, where
Yongjian first states that the Department
considered general chemical and hydrogen
peroxide not to be comparable to the
synthetic indigo under investigation (See
Yongjian’s Case Brief, at 26, footnote 44) but
then states that the Department found that
phenylglycine and synthetic indigo used
some of the same raw materials and had
similar production processes (See Yongjian’s
Case Brief, at 28). See Yongjian’s Case Brief,
at 25 and 27-28.

In rebuttal, the petitioner explains that
Godrej is a conglomerate of companies that
does not produce merchandise that is
identical or comparable to the subject
merchandise. Instead, the petitioner argues
that Godrej’s data are based upon so diverse
a product mix that they cannot reflect data
from a producer of ironing tables. The
petitioner also contends that the Godrej
financials are not as contemporaneous as the
data published in the RBI Bulletin.
Furthermore, the petitioner argues that
Godrej's 2003 financial data is aberrational
and distortive because of Godrej’s changes in
structure and operations, as well as changes
in accounting methods that affect the
surrogate financial ratios. Lastly, the
petitioner contends that Godrej’s 2002-2003
performance represents an extreme
divergence from the preceding year and is an
outlier with respect to all of the Godrej data
on this record, Moreover, the petitioner
argues that the data published in the RBI
Bulletin represent a year-to-year reliably
stable source for surrogate financial ratios.
Comparatively, the petitioner argues,
Godrej’s aggregate ratios vary widely, with
year-to-year performances exceeding 10
percentage points between single years
which can hardly be viewed as reliable. As
such, the petitioner claims that the
Department turned to data published in the
RBI Bulletin well within its authority.

In its rebuttal, Since Hardware argues that
the Department's regulations and practice do
not recognize the level of capitalization as a
determinant for selecting appropriate
surrogate value information. See Bulk
Aspirin, Issues and Decision Memorandum,
at Comment 4, (where the Department states
that “{rlegarding the petitioner's arguments


INTERNET REVERSE AUCTIONS

In addition to traditional lost sales and revenues information, the Commission also requested that
producers, importers, and purchasers supply detailed information on any internet reverse auctions in
which they had participated. Firms reported *** internet reverse auctions for ironing tables during the
period for which data were collected; *** involving *** and *** involving ***. Compiled auction data
are shown in table V-5. Responses from *** are summarized next.*

Table V-5
Ironing tables: Internet reverse auctions

* * * * * * *

HRS sok 46 ook 47 seine 48 aeaeed9 seaea 50 stare 51 aoe 52 HPT said that its loss of incumbency

resulted in significant lost sales for HPI starting in 2002.
seo 54

se SS ek 56 tek 57 etek 58 aes 59
Re 60 Ae 61 eK 62 A 63 eH 64
HRKOS Hoek 66

RK

“ Both petitioner and respondents provided additional information on *** in their posthearing briefs.
Respondents provided *** in Target’s Posthearing Brief, att. 1-3 and Respondents’ Posthearing Brief, att. A.
Petitioner provided ***. Petitioner’s Posthearing Brief, pp. A-32 - A-38, and exh. 10-13.

45 eke

46 ee
47 ee,

48 ek,

” According to HPI, ***. Petitioner’s Posthearing Brief, pp. A-32 - A-34.

50 ee

Sh eke,

32 eee,

* Hearing transcript, testimony of Peter Graves, senior vice president, sales and marketing, HPI, p. 26.
54 ke,

5S ee

56 eek,

57 ee,

58 kee,

39 ee,

60

61 eee,

© **, telephone interview by USITC staff, July 23, 2003.

68 ae,

64 kk

65 te Petitioner’s Posthearing Brief, exh. 11.

66 ee

V-8


U.S. CAPACITY, PRODUCTION, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION

U.S. capacity, production, and capacity utilization for HPI and Whitney Design are presented in
table III-2.5 Overall capacity declined as a result of Whitney Design’s termination of its U.S. production
of ironing tables in 2002. Declining production and capacity utilization between 2001 and 2003,
however, reflect diminished production by both companies. Overall, capacity decreased by *** percent
between 2001 and 2003; production declined by *** percent; and capacity utilization fell by ***
percentage points. In January-March 2004, however, capacity was unchanged from the level reported for
January-March 2003; production was *** percent higher than in January-March 2003; and capacity
utilization was *** percentage points higher than in January-March 2003.

As shown in table III-3, domestic production of ironing tables is concentrated in perforated-top
T-leg models, although a substantial minority of production is in mesh-top 4-leg models. Mesh-top 4-leg
models have accounted for an increasing share of domestic production since the closure of Whitney
Design’s production operations, even though production levels have declined.°

Table Ill-2
lroning tables: U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2001-03, January-

March 2003, and January-March 2004

* * * * * * *

Table IIl-3
Ironing tables: U.S. production of ironing tables by type, 2001-03, January-March 2003, and

January-March 2004

U.S. PRODUCERS’ IMPORTS

Both HPI and Whitney Design imported subject merchandise from China during the period for
which data were collected.” HPI reported that it imported ironing tables from China because it could not
compete with Chinese-produced ironing tables in some higher end price categories, but wanted to be able
to provide its clients with a complete range of tables.* Whitney Design reported during the period for
which it produced ironing tables domestically it “imported the relatively small volumes of higher end

5 HPI reportedly has the capacity to produce *** mesh-top and *** perforated-top tables annually. The
manufacturing bottle-neck that constrains HPI’s capacity is in its ***. ***, telephone interview by USITC staff, June
21, 2004; Petitioner’s Posthearing Brief, p. A-11. The manufacturing process is described in the section of this

report entitled “Production Process.”

© Mesh-top 4-leg models accounted for *** percent of domestic production in 2001, *** percent in 2002, and ***
percent in 2003.

Tee

® Conference transcript, testimony of Peter Graves, senior vice president of sales and marketing, HPI, p. 22. See
also Petitioner’s Posthearing Brief, exh. 5 (more than *** percent of HPI’s imports during the period for which data
were collected reportedly had a retail price of $*** or above).

THl-2


35306

Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 121/Thursday, June 24, 2004/ Notices

‘Yongjian actually used cold-rolled coil in its
production process instead of the cold-rolled
sheet it previously reported. See Yongjian’s
sections C and D questionnaire response
dated October 15, 2003. See also, Comment
11.

Consequently, for the final determination,
we valued Yongjian’s cold-rolled steel input
based on HS 7209.1700. The appropriate HS
subheading for cold-rolled steel coil is HS
7209.1700, and discussed in Comment 5, we
do not believe this HS subheading is overly
broad. However, we have re-examined the
surrogate value data on the record of this
investigation for this HS subheading in order
to determine whether any of the data falling
under this HS subheading are, in fact,
aberrational.

Based on this examination, we have
excluded from our calculations certain
imports under this HS subheading which we
determined were aberrationally high in
relation to the other Indian import data
contained in this HS subheading. See the
June 15, 2004, memorandum to the File from
Sam Zengotitabengoa entitled, “Final
Determination Factors Valuation
Memorandum” (Final Factors Memo).
Therefore, with these adjustments, for the
final determination, we have continued to
‘use HS 7209.1700 to value cold-rolled steel
coil.

B. Hot-Rolled Steel

For the Preliminary Determination, the
Department relied on WTA data to calculate
the surrogate value for hot-rolled steel. As
discussed above, Yongjian asserts that the
InfodriveIndia.com data demonstrate that the
majority of hot-rolled steel imported under
HS 7208,3900 is a semi-finished or otherwise
processed material that does not reflect the
input used in the production of ironing
boards. As such, Yongjian contends that the
Department's Preliminary Determination
valuation of hot-rolled steel is based on.
aberrant data as compared with Yongjian’s
surrogate value filing of Infodrivelndia.com,
Since Hardware’s market economy prices of
hot-rolled steel coil purchases, Essar Steel
home market price of hot-rolled steel coil,
CRU export prices, and AMM price. See
Yongjian’s Case Brief, at 11 and 12.

The petitioner states that Yongjian’s
comparison of hot-rolled steel values is
faulty. The petitioner argues that Yongjian's
summary of a database submitted in another
case by a single respondent (Essar Steel)
selected by Yongjian, providing only ranged
price and quantity data for a sampling of
home market sales in a non-
contemporaneous period and for a product of
undisclosed description or specification
cannot be taken seriously. In addition, the
petitioner states that Since Hardware’s
claimed market economy purchase prices do
not relate to Yongjian’s input; therefore they
‘would not be appropriate for use in valuing
Yongjian’s inputs, while other suitable
surrogate value information is available. In
this instance, the petitioner continues, the
Since Hardware value detracts directly from
‘Yongjian’s assertion that its comparison
values represent “‘export pricing that would
have been available to Indian and Chinese
importers.” The petitioner notes that, if this

were the case, and Yongjian’s values had
validity, one would expect that Since
Hardware would have purchased at the
Infodrivelndia price rather than at a higher
cost.

Department's Position: We agree with the
petitioner. Consistent with the material
reported in Yongjian’s questionnaire
responses, the Department used HS
7211.1900, the subheading for hot-rolled
steel sheet, to calculate a surrogate value for
Yongjian’s hot-rolled steel inputs in the
Preliminary Determination. In its case brief,
Yongjian compares the hot-rolled steel sheet
surrogate value to data based on prices of
hot-rolled steel coil, which is either listed as
HS 7208.3900 or labeled hot-rolled steel coil
to demonstrate that the sheet prices were
aberrational. However, as discussed above,
the Department found at verification that
Yongjian actually used hot-rolled steel coil in
its production process instead of the hot-
rolled steel sheet it previously reported. See
Yongjian’s sections C and D questionnaire
response dated October 15, 2003. See also,
Comment 11.

Because the Department is using a
surrogate value for hot-rolled steel coil in the
final determination, we examined imports
under the HS subheading to determine if any
imports under this category were
aberrational. We also examined whether the
Department's surrogate value for hot-rolled
steel coil, is aberrational as compared to
Yongjian's alternative pricing data contained
in its case brief. We find that the surrogate
value used in final determination is not
aberrationally high. For the final
determination, we have calculated a
surrogate value for hot-rolled coil of $.28/kg.
In comparing the surrogate value calculated
by the Department to the range of prices
contained in Yongjian's case brief (§0.28/kg
to $0.35/kg), we find that the Department's
surrogate value for hot-rolled steel coil is
appropriate for the final determination.

C. Steel Wire Rod

For the Preliminary Determination, the
Department relied on WTA data to calculate
the surrogate value for steel wire.’ Yongjian
contends that the valuation of steel wire is
based on aberrant data as compared with the
steel wire rod prices from
InfodriveIndia.com, Since Hardware’s market
economy purchase price, P.T. Ispat Indo’s
home market price, and AMM prices. See
Yongjian’s Case Brief, at 12-14.

With respect to wire rod, the petitioner
claims that Yongjian's comparison is not
reliable because Since Hardware’s claimed
market economy purchase price of steel wire
rod was at a price higher than Yongjian's
comparison prices from Infodrivelndia.com
and AMM prices. The petitioner contends
that if such low prices of steel wire rod were
available, Since Hardware would have
purchased steel wire rod at that price. The
petitioner also states that the comparison is
not meaningful because the material used by
Yongjian is substantially different from Since

+ We note that Yongjian reported steel wire in its
section D questionnaire responses. However, at
verification, we found that Yongjian consumed steel
wire rod. For the final determination, we are
valuing this input as steel wire rod,

Hardware’s steel wire rod input. In addition,
the petitioner claims that Yongjian’s use of
another case, in which Yongjian summarized
the public version of another respondent's
home market database, to compare to the
Department's surrogate value for steel wire
rod in this investigation, is unacceptable
because it abandons contemporaneity and
involves products of undisclosed description
and specification.

Department's Position: We disagree with
Yongjian and the petitioner. Consistent with
the material reported in Yongjian’s
questionnaire responses, the Department
used HS 7217.1001, the subheading for steel
wire, to calculate a surrogate value for
Yongjian’s steel wire inputs in the
Preliminary Determination. In its case brief,
Yongjian compares the steel wire surrogate
value to data using prices of steel wire rod,
which is either listed as HS 7217.1001 or
labeled steel wire rod to demonstrate that the
sheet prices are aberrational. However, as.
discussed above, the Department found at
verification that Yongjian actually used steel
wire rod in its production process instead of
the steel wire it previously reported. See
Yongjian’s sections C and D questionnaire
response dated October 15, 2003. See also
Comment 11.

Because the Department is using a
surrogate value for steel wire rod in the final
determination, we examined imports under
the HS subheading to determine if any
imports under this category were
aberrational. Therefore, for the final
determination, we have calculated a
surrogate value for steel wire rod based on
HS 7213.9109.

D. Circular Pipe and Tube and Non-Circular
(Rectangular) Pipe and Tube

For the Preliminary Determination, the
Department relied on WTA data to calculate
the surrogate value for circular and non-
circular (rectangular) cross-section pipe and
tube. Yongjian contends that the
Department's valuation of circular and non-
circular (rectangular) pipe and tube in the
Preliminary Determination is based on
aberrant data compared with net prices
contained in the home market databases for
four companies that were respondents in U.S.
antidumping duty proceedings involving
certain types of pipe and tube from Mexico,
Turkey, Thailand, and Taiwan. For circular
pipe and tube, Yongjian used prices from the
publicly ranged home market databases for
two companies, Saha Thai from Thailand,
and Yieh Hsing from Taiwan. For non-
circular pipe and tube, Yongjian used prices
from the publicly ranged home market
databases from a Mexican company,
Regiomontana, and a Turkish company,
MMZ. See Yongjian’s Case Brief, at 14 and
15. Although Yongjian provided the
Department with pricing information as a
benchmark, it did not suggest which
surrogate value to use.

‘The petitioner argues that Yongjian relies
solely upon summarized, sampled data from
selected respondents in other antidumping
cases. The petitioner also claims that the data
obtained from these other cases are not
contemporaneous with the POI, and are from
markets having no economic comparability to


that its larger product 1 customers, or the larger imported Chinese product 2 customers, received.” Asa
result, domestic product 2 prices would tend to be biased upward with respect to domestic product 1
prices and prices for imported Chinese product 2.”

Another way to compare ironing tables prices is to compare domestic product 1 prices to
imported Chinese product 2 prices. Both petitioner and respondents agree that, for most customers,
perforated-top and mesh-top T-leg ironing tables are interchangeable and differences between the two
types of ironing tables are minimal.“ Domestic product 1 prices and imported Chinese product 2 prices
are the most representative price series.” Finally, domestic producers’ reported sales quantities of
product | were more comparable to importers’ reported sales quantities of Chinese product 2, and
therefore less likely to reflect a quantity discount bias.” For these reasons, I believe that domestic
product 1 and imported Chinese product 2 prices are the most comparable.”

Commission price data indicate that Chinese product 2 prices oversold domestic product 1 prices
in all thirteen quarters for which data were available, by margins ranging from *** percent to ***
percent. However, margins of overselling tended to decline toward the end of the period, as Chinese
product 2 prices fell to the level of domestic product 1 prices. These price data suggest that HPI is the
price leader in this market, and that subject import prices are not depressing domestic prices.” *°

» *** reported that discount policies are determined on a customer-by-customer basis. *** stated that it did not
have a firm discount policy and that competition with price leader HPI drove pricing. *** reported some standard
volume discounts, and *** reported discounts based on cost of doing business with a customer (e.g., freight, volume,
prepaid, etc.). CR at V-5, PR at V-3.

*5 Further evidence of the non-comparability of domestic and imported product 2 prices is the fact that price trends
for these two data series diverged over the period examined.

** At the hearing, counsel for petitioner stated “The argument has been is that it (the mesh-top) permits steam to
flow through at a higher rate. We understand that it's very, very minimally higher, and we can present in our post-
hearing report a laboratory analysis showing you precisely how much more steam gets through. We're talking about
a very, very small difference.” Hearing transcript, p. 98. A witness for the petitioner stated “As I mentioned earlier,
the mesh table takes slightly more labor to produce. But as far as the durability and the functionality of the two
tables, they are pretty much interchangeable.” Hearing transcript, p. 95. Respondents maintain that “Testimony by
both respondent and petitioner witnesses indicated that, with the known and notable exception of Target, many
buyers regard mesh- and perforated-top ironing tables to be commercially and functionally the same.” Respondents’
posthearing brief, appendix 1, p. 16.

?5 CR/PR, Table V-1.

°° Importers’ reported sales quantities of Chinese product 2 were relatively small during 2001 and the first two
quarters of 2002. Not surprisingly, these quarters tended to show the greatest margins of overselling. CR/PR, Table
V-1.

27 *«*°s purchase prices for its direct imports of the subject product are presented separately from the other price
data in the staff report. It is not appropriate to combine ***’s purchase price data with the subject imports sales price
data, primarily because when *** imports directly, it self-provides a variety of costly and valuable distribution
services required by buyers. The costs of providing these services are reflected in the sales prices of both HPI and
importer distributors such as Whitney Design and Polder, but are not reflected in ***’s purchase prices of direct
imports. ***. Respondents’ final comments, pp. 9-10.

2 CR/PR, Table V-1.
© CR/PR, Table V-1 and Figure V-1.

*° Whitney Design maintains that HPI has been the price leader in this market. Whitney Design cites conference
testimony and specific examples of aggressive HPI pricing to support this allegation. Respondents’ prehearing brief,
pp. 21-32. Respondents’ posthearing brief, pp. 4-6. Respondents’ final comments, pp. 11-12. This allegation is
further supported by Commission price data which show that, while Whitney Design was still a domestic producer,

(continued...)

24




35310

Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 121/Thursday, June 24, 2004/ Notices

Regarding Since Hardware’s argument that
there is no evidence on the record to suggest
that the prices it paid for cold-rolled steel
were dumped or distorted, we find that no
specific evidence is necessary. The
Department only needs to have a reason to
believe or suspect that this input is being
dumped. See Final Determination for the
1996-99 Administrative Review of Tapered
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished
and Unfinished, from the People’s Republic
of China, 66 FR 1953 (January 10, 2001),
Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 1. In this case, the PRC
Antidumping Order provides the Department
with a reason to believe or suspect that cold-
rolled steel produced in a covered market
economy country may be dumped. Therefore,
for the final determination, we have
continued to use Indian import statistics to
value Since Hardware’s cold rolled steel coil
input.

Comment 9: Whether the Department Should
Consider Billing Adjustments in the
Calculation of Since Hardware’s U.S. Price

The petitioner argues that for the
Preliminary Determination the Department
erred by granting Since Hardware a billing
adjustment for extra inland freight and origin
receiving charges (ORCs) incurred on behalf
of Since Hardware's customers and for which
Since Hardware was reimbursed. See
Petitioner's Case Brief, at 17 and 18. The
petitioner emphasizes that Since Hardware
distinguishes these costs from the “general
inland freight and port handling charges for
all sales of the subject merchandise.” See
Petitioner's Case Brief at 17. The petitioner
states that because “these fixed charges are
incurred at the request of the customer, are
paid initially by Since Hardware but are
reimbursed directly by the customer, and
quite logically are not included in the price
of the merchandise, there is no need for the
Department to devise an adjustment to
account for such “extra costs”—but there
also is no need for the extra costs to be
added, as billing adjustments, to the sales
price (since they are not any part of such
price).” See Petitioner's Case Brief, at 18.
Instead, the petitioner believes that these
extra charges should be appropriately treated
as a separate item, not affecting the price of
the subject merchandise. As such, for the
fina] determination, the petitioner urges the
Department not to consider these extra costs
for purposes of a billing adjustment in the
calculation of Since Hardware’s export value.
See Petitioner's Case Brief, at 17 and 18.

In rebuttal, Since Hardware states that the
Department should not adjust the treatment
of Since Hardware’s claimed and verified
billing adjustment as incorporated in the
Preliminary Determination. See Since
Hardware’s Rebuttal Brief, at 7-9. In
justifying the billing adjustment, Since
Hardware claims that the price used to
establish export price and constructed export
price shall be “(1) increased by (A) when not
included in such price, the cost of all
containers and coverings and all other costs,
charges, and expenses incident to placing the
subject merchandise in condition packed
ready for shipment to the United States." See
section 772(c) of the Act. Since Hardware

alleges that the Department has interpreted
the “charges” as requiring that U.S. price be
increased by the amount of any freight,
packing, and handling revenue that is
charged to the U.S. customer. See, ¢.g., Ball
Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller
Bearings) and Parts Thereof, From Germany:
Preliminary Results of New Shipper
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61
FR 4763, 4764 (February 8, 1996). See, also,
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat
Products from the Netherlands: Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 68 FR 68341, 68344 (December 8,
2003). See, also, Wax and Wax/Resin
Thermal Transfer Ribbons From the Republic
of Korea, 68 FR 71078, 71080 (December 22,
2003). In addition, Since Hardware claims
that the Department noted that “where
freight and movement charges are not
included in the price, but are invoiced to the
customer at the same time as the charge for
the merchandise, the Department considers
the transaction to be similar to a delivered
price transaction since the seller may
consider its return on both transactions in
setting price.” See Stainless Steel Wire Rod
from the Republic of Korea: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69
FR 19153 (April 12, 2004) (Stainless Steel
Wire Rod), at Issues and Decisions
Memorandum, Comment 9. For this final
determination Since Hardware urges the
Department to add to the gross unit price
Since Hardware's ORC revenue associated
with each sale (reported in “BILLADJU”},
and subtract from the gross unit price the
brokerage and handling expense incurred by
Since Hardware to ship the subject
merchandise to the United States. See Since
Hardware's Rebuttal Brief, at 7-9.

Department's Position: We agree with the
petitioner. In the Preliminary Determination,
the Department granted Since Hardware’s
billing adjustment by adding the billing
adjustment to the U.S. gross unit price. At
verification, the Department verified that
Since Hardware did, indeed, charge certain
U.S. customers for an expense incurred at the
port called the ORC. This charge was
reported as a billing adjustment. However,
we disagree with Since Hardware's
characterization of this expense as freight or
handling revenue. The amount that Since
Hardware charged the U.S. customer is
merely a reimbursement for an expense Since
Hardware incurred. In this case, the customer
elects to bear this extra cost when it requests
that Since Hardware ship merchandise out of
certain ports where the ORC is assessed.
Since Hardware initially pays for this
expense on behalf of the customer and then
charges the customer for the fixed amount as.
a separate line item on the invoice. It is not
part of the negotiated price of the
merchandise and there is no indication that
it is part of the surrogate value for brokerage
and handling.

Additionally, we note that Since
Hardware’s reliance on Stainless Steel Wire
Rod is misplaced. In Stainless Steel Wire
Rod, the delivery terms were part of the
terms of sale and, hence, can be expected to
have a direct impact on the negotiated sales
price. However, in this case, Since Hardware
clearly indicated that the ORC charges are

“extra costs borne by Since Hardware's
customers” and, as extra costs, are not a part
of the delivery terms and should have no
impact on the negotiated sales price.
Therefore, for the Final Determination, we
have not included the billing adjustment in
the calculation of export price.

Comment 10: Whether the Department
Selected the Proper Data Source for its
Calculation of Surrogate Overhead, SG&A,
and Profit Ratios ”

The petitioner contends that the
administrative record does not contain
information from a producer of merchandise
identical or comparable to the producer of
the subject merchandise. As such, the :
petitioner urges the Department to calculate
the surrogate ratios for factory overhead,
selling, general, and administrative (SG&A)
expenses, and profit (collectively financial
ratios) by using data published in the Reserve
Bank of India Bulletin (RBI Bulletin).
Specifically, the petitioner urges the
Department to use the data for 997
companies, as published in the April 2004
RBI Bulletin, because these are the most
contemporaneous data of companies that
have a paid-up capital that are similar to the
capitalization of the respondents. See HPI's
Case Brief, at 2-11.

Since Hardware contends that in the
Preliminary Determination, the Department
erred in using the data for 2,024 companies,
as published in the October 2003 RBI
Bulletin, to calculate the financial ratios.
Since Hardware asserts that the Department
will normally use non-proprietary
information gathered from producers of
identical or comparable merchandise in the
surrogate country to calculate financial
ratios. See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(4). Since
Hardware alleges that the Department has a
preference for using data from individual
producers of identical or comparable
merchandise rather than data having a more
generalized industry-wide basis. See Notice
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe
Fittings from the People’s Republic of China,
68 FR 7765 (February 18, 2003), Issues and
Decision Memorandum, at Comment 4.
Moreover, Since Hardware suggests that the
Department rely on Import Administration's
Policy Bulletin 04.1, ““Non-Market Economy
Surrogate Country Selection Process”
(Surrogate Country Selection Policy
Bulletin), dated March 1, 2004, as a guide to
determine what is identical or comparable
merchandise.

Since Hardware states that Godrej & Boyce
Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Godrej) is a
company that produces metal-fabricated
cabinets, shelves, and wardrobes. Since
Hardware contends that Godrej produces
products that are comparable to the subject
merchandise because: (1) They have similar
physical characteristics, and use the same
material inputs (e.g. steel/cold-rolled steel);
(2) the production processes for ironing
tables and the metal-fabricated shelving and
cabinets are similar in that both involve
relatively simple metal-fabrication and
assembly production processes; and (3) in
terms of end uses, ironing tables are
comparable to the metal-fabricated shelving


SUMMARY DATA

A summary of data collected in the investigation is presented in appendix C, tables C-1 through
C-5. Except as noted, U.S. industry data are based on questionnaire responses of two firms that
accounted for all of U.S. production of ironing tables and certain parts thereof during the period for
which data were collected (January 2001 to March 2004).* U.S. imports are based on responses to
Commission questionnaires; coverage is estimated to be 90 percent or greater.

SUMMARY OF MARKET PARTICIPANTS

The domestic industry producing ironing tables currently consists of one company, petitioner
HPI. Whitney Design, a respondent in this investigation, produced ironing tables in the United States
until closing its production facilities in April 2002. The largest known ironing table manufacturers in
China are ***, which provided all requested data to the Commission, and ***, which did not. The largest
U.S. importers are ***. The few known importers of ironing tables from countries other than China
primarily import elite upper-end tables from Western Europe. Free-standing metal-top ironing tables are
sold by the domestic producers and importers to mass retail stores such as Kmart, Wal-Mart, Sears, -
Target, and Family Dollar, as well as to distributors servicing the hospitality/hotel market. In the past,
non-binding agreements with mass retailers provided for a specified volume of certain models to be
delivered at a set price for a fixed term (usually one year). More recently, certain purchasers have
conducted online reverse auctions, although this practice has been sporadic.° Ironing tables occasionally
are bundled and sold with irons and other household items.’

THE PRODUCT
Commerce’s Scope

For purposes of this investigation, Commerce has defined the subject merchandise, ironing tables
and certain parts thereof,* as follows:
(F)loor-standing, metal-top ironing tables, assembled or unassembled,
complete or incomplete, and certain parts thereof. The subject tables are
designed and used principally for the hand ironing or pressing of
garments or other articles of fabric. The subject tables have full-height
leg assemblies that support the ironing surface at an appropriate (often
adjustable) height above the floor. The subject tables are produced in a
variety of leg finishes, such as painted, plated, or matte, and they are
available with various features, including iron rests, linen racks, and
others. The subject ironing tables may be sold with or without a pad
and/or cover. All types and configurations of floor-standing, metal-top
ironing tables are covered by this investigation.

5 Whitney Design, Inc. ceased ironing table production in April 2002.

© Reverse auctions involve vendors bidding against each other at decreasing sales prices. Such auctions typically
involve offering a weighted-average price for a package of specified models and quantities. Petition, p. 8.

7 Details on online reverse auctions and on bundled sales appear in Part V of this report.
® Commerce’s definitions do not necessarily apply to the customs treatment of these goods under HTS.

12


APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA

C1


Table IV-2
Ironing tables: U.S. imports from China, by type, 2001-03, January-March 2003, and January-

March 2004
* * * * * * *

Table IV-2 (continued)
Ironing tables: U.S. imports from China, by type, 2001-03, January-March 2003, and January-
March 2004

Table IV-3
Ironing tables: Volume, low price, and high price of U.S. imports from China, 2003

* * * * * * *

Table: IV-4
Ironing tables: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. import shipments, by source, apparent
U.S. consumption, and market shares, 2001-03, January-March 2003, and January-March 2004

* * * * * * *


In Support of the Imposition of
Antidumping Duties:

Joe Deppen, Vice President, Manufacturing,
Metal Technology, Home Products
International, Inc.

Michael D. Bradley, Professor of Economics,
The George Washington University

Frederick L. Ikenson )
) — OF COUNSEL

Roberta Kienast Daghir _)

In Opposition to the Imposition of
Antidumping Duties:

SESSION 2 (Open to the public):

Garvey Schubert Barer
Washington, D.C.
on behalf of

Whitney Design, Inc.
Polder, Inc.
Harvest International Housewares, Ltd.

James Glenn, President, Whitney Design, Inc.

Mark Brown, Vice President, Finance, Whitney
Design, Inc.

Calvin Scott, President, Polder, Inc.

Ron Ho, Managing Director, Harvest International
Housewares, Ltd.

Richard D. Boltuck, Vice President, Charles River
Associates, Inc.

William E. Perry )
) - OF COUNSEL
J. Patrick Briscoe )

B-4


DUMPING IN THIRD-COUNTRY MARKETS

Based on available information, ironing tables from China have not been subject to any other
import relief investigations in the United States or in any other countries.

VII-4


between the interim periods.” Inventory levels increased substantially in 2002, then fell to 2001 levels in
2003 and declined between the interim periods.** The domestic industry’s share of apparent U.S.
consumption fell during 2001-2003, but increased during the interim periods.” Employment and hours
worked fell throughout the period.” Productivity, by contrast, increased during the period examined.*'
The industry’s capital expenditures were higher in 2003 than in 2001, and U.S. producers reported no
research and development expenses during the period examined.” *

Even with the decline in some performance indicators, the domestic industry’s operating income
margins were at levels ***. U.S. producers’ operating income as a ratio to net sales increased from ***
percent in 2001 to *** percent in 2002, then fell to *** percent in 2003. U.S. producers’ operating
income margins fell from *** percent in interim 2003 to *** percent in interim 2004.“ These ***
operating income margins are all the more striking given that the U.S. ironing tables industry is not a
highly-capitalized industry which, arguably, would require above-average operating income margins to
cover higher fixed costs.** The domestic industry’s healthy profitability is further demonstrated by its
*** rates of return on fixed assets. U.S. producers’ rates of return on fixed assets were *** percent in

*7’ The domestic industry’s capacity declined from *** units in 2001 to *** units in 2002, and continued to decline
to *** units in 2003. Capacity was unchanged between the interim periods at *** units. CR/PR, Table III-2.

38 Inventories increased from *** units in 2001 to *** units in 2002, and then fell to *** units in 2003. Inventories
fell from *** units in interim 2003 to *** units in interim 2004. CR/PR, Table III-7.

* The domestic industry’s share of U.S. apparent consumption declined from *** percent in 2001 to *** percent in
2002, and continued to decline to *** percent in 2003. U.S. producers’ market share increased from *** percent in
interim 2003 to *** percent in 2004. CR/PR, Table IV-4.

* The number of production and employment workers declined from *** in 2001 to *** in 2002, and continued to
decline to *** in 2002. Production workers further declined from *** in interim 2003 to *** in interim 2004. Hours
worked declined from *** in 2001 to *** in 2002, and continued to decline to *** in 2003. Hours worked increased
from *** in interim 2003 to *** in interim 2004. CR/PR, Table III-8.

‘| Productivity increased from *** units/hour in 2001 to *** units/hour in 2002, and continued to increase to ***
units/hour in 2003. Productivity further increased from *** units/hour in interim 2003 to *** units/hour in interim
2004. CR/PR, Table III-8.

© Capital expenditures declined from *** in 2001 to *** in 2002, and then increased to *** in 2003. CR/PR,
Table VI-4.

* The magnitudes of the declines of some of these performance indicators are somewhat misleading because the
domestic industry data include data for Whitney Design. Whitney Design maintains that it was aggressive pricing by
HPI, and not subject imports from China, that drove Whitney Design from the market. Whitney Design states that,
from 1998 through 2000, HPI drove U.S. low-end ironing table prices down by over *** percent to historically low
levels, resulting in post-2000 pricing that rendered Whitney Design’s St. Louis-based production operation
unprofitable. Respondents’ prehearing brief, pp. 12-13 and 21-28. Respondents’ posthearing brief, p. 2. These
allegations are supported by Commission price data that show that, while Whitney Design was still a domestic
producer, HPI’s product | prices undersold Whitney Design’s product 1 prices in *** quarters for which price
comparisons were available (January 2001-June 2002). CR/PR, Table D-1. Target notes that both parties appear to
agree that Whitney Design’s departure from the market was prior to any important Chinese presence in the U.S.
market, Target’s prehearing brief, pp. 4-5. Considering only HPI’s performance indicators still shows declines in a
number of these indicators, but the magnitudes of declines in the volume indicators are generally less. CR/PR,
Tables III-2, IIl-6, III-8, IV-4, and VI-2.

“ CR/PR, Table VI-2.

* Respondents argue that the domestic industry’s ***. Respondents’ prehearing brief, pp. 32-33. Respondents’
posthearing brief, pp. 6-7.

26


Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 121/Thursday, June 24, 2004/ Notices

35299

Dated: June 15, 2004.
James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretary, for Import
Administration.

Appendix—Issues and Decision
Memorandum

Comment 1: Whether the Department Should
Correct Alleged Ministerial Errors in the
Preliminary Determination

Comment 2: Whether the Department Should
Use the Most Current Wage Rate for
China

Comment 3: Whether the Department Should
Correct Surrogate Values for Inland
Freight and Brokerage and Handling

Comment 4: Whether the Department Should
Use Different Harmonized Tariff
Classifications for Certain Material
Inputs

Comment 5: Whether the Department Used
the Best Available Data Source To Value
Certain Material Inputs

Comment 6: Whether the Department Used
Aberrant Surrogate Values for Certain
Material Inputs

Comment 7: Whether the Department Should
Accept Since Hardware’s Market
Economy Purchases That Were Not
Verified by the Department

Comment 8: Whether the Department Should
Use the Market Economy Price to Value
Cold-Rolled Steel Inputs

Comment 9: Whether the Department Should
Consider Billing Adjustments in the
Calculation of Since Hardware's U.S.
Price

Comment 10: Whether the Department
Selected the Proper Data Source for its
Calculation of Surrogate Overhead,
SG&A, and Profit Ratios

Comment 11: Corrections Arising From
Verification

A-570-888, Investigation, POI: 10/01/2002—
3/31/2003, Public Document, GII04:SZ,

Memorandum to: James Jochum, Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration.

From: Holly A. Kuga, Acting Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, Office I.

Subject: Issues and Decision Memorandum
for the Final Determination in the
Antidumping Duty Investigation of
Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing
Tables and Certain Parts Thereof From
the People’s Republic of China.

Summary: We have analyzed the
comments and rebuttal comments of the
interested parties in the antidumping duty
investigation of floor-standing, metal-top
ironing tables and certain parts thereof
(ironing tables) from the People’s Republic of
China (PRC). As a result of our analysis of the
preliminary determination, we have made
changes in the margin calculations, including
corrections of certain inadvertent errors. We
recommend that you approve the positions
we have developed in the “Discussion of the
Issues” section of this memorandum for this
final determination.

Below is the complete list of issues in this
investigation for which we received
comments and rebuttal comments from Home
Products International, Inc. (the petitioner),
and the respondents, Since Hardware

(Guangzhou) Co., Ltd., (Since Hardware), and
Shunde Yongjian Housewares Co., Ltd.
(Yongjian):

Comment 1: Whether the Department Should
Correct Alleged Ministerial Errors in the
Preliminary Determination

Comment 2: Whether the Department Should
Use the Most Current Wage Rate for
China

Comment 3: Whether the Department Should
Correct Surrogate Values for Inland
Freight and Brokerage and Handling

Comment 4: Whether the Department Should
Use Different Harmonized Tariff
Classifications for Certain Material
Inputs

Comment 5: Whether the Department Used
the Best Available Data Source to Value
Certain Material Inputs

Comment 6: Whether the Department Used
Aberrant Surrogate Values for Certain
Material Inputs

Comment 7: Whether the Department Should
Accept Since Hardware’s Market
Economy Purchases That Were Not
Verified by the Department

Comment 8: Whether the Department Should
Use the Market Economy Price To Value
Cold-Rolled Steel Inputs

Comment 9: Whether the Department Should
Consider Billing Adjustments in the
Calculation of Since Hardware’s U.S.
Price

Comment 10: Whether the Department
Selected the Proper Data Source for its
Calculation of Surrogate Overhead,
SG&A, and Profit Ratios

Comment 11: Corrections Arising From
Verification

Background

On February 3, 2004, the Department of
Commerce (the Department) published the
preliminary determination in the less-than-
fair-value investigation of ironing tables from
the PRC. See Notice of Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing
Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the
People’s Republic of China, 69 FR 5127
(February 3, 2004) (Preliminary
Determination). The products covered by this
investigation are certain ironing tables. The
period of investigation (POI) is October 1,
2002, through March 31, 2003.

We invited parties to comment on the
preliminary determination. The respondents
filed case briefs on April 29, 2004, and the
petitioner filed its case brief on April 30,
2004. The respondents filed rebuttal briefs on
May 4, 2004, and the petitioner filed its
rebuttal brief on May 5, 2004. On June 2,
2004, we received additional comments from
Yongjian. On June 10, 2004, we returned the
comments to Yongjian as untimely submitted
and removed the submission from the official
record. Based on our analysis of the
comments received, as well as our findings
at verification, we have changed the
weighted-average margins from those
presented in the preliminary determination.

Discussion of the Issues

Comment 1: Whether the Department Should
Correct Alleged Ministerial Errors in the
Preliminary Determination

Since Hardware claims that in the
Preliminary Determination, the Department
made two ministerial errors in the margin
calculation program that must be corrected
for the final determination, See Comments
from Adams C. Lee, Counsel to Since
Hardware, to the Honorable Donald L. Evans,
Secretary of Commerce, “Since Hardware’s
Case Brief,” dated April 29, 2004 (Since
Hardware's Case Brief), at 1-3.

First, Since Hardware contends that, in
calculating the deduction for domestic inland
freight and brokerage and handling, the
Department inadvertently added the weight
for the pads and covers inputs to the reported
WEIGHT variable. Since Hardware states
that, at verification, the Department
confirmed that the total weight of each
product reported in the field WEIGHT
includes both the weight of the material
inputs used for the metal ironing board and,
also, the inputs used to produce the ironing
board pad and cover. See Since Hardware's
Case Brief, at 2, citing to Since Hardwa
Factors of Production Verification Exhibits,
Exhibit 5, page 1, including handwritten
notes from the Department's verifier stating
that the reported product weight for
production code SFT28-I-1454 is reported
“~w/ pad, cover, string.” Since Hardware
urges that the Department correct this error
for the purposes of the final determination.

Second, Since Hardware and Yongjian
allege that the Department improperly added
the cost of packing materials to the total cost
of manufacturing prior to the application of
the surrogate overhead ratio. Since Hardware
notes that it has been the Department's
practice to add packing costs in its normal
value calculation after the application of the
surrogate financial ratios. See Since
Hardware's Case Brief, at 2 and 3; See
Rebuttal Comments from Francis J. Sailer,
Counsel for Shunde Yongjian Housewares
Co., Ltd., to the Honorable Donald L. Evans,
Secretary of Commerce, “Yongjian’s Rebuttal
Brief,” dated May 4, 2004 (Yongjian's
Rebuttal Brief), at 3 and 4. Since Hardware
and Yongjian urge that the Department
correct this error for the purposes of the final
determination.

In rebuttal, the petitioner claims that
various errors alleged by Since Hardware do
not warrant correction by the Department.
The petitioner notes that the Department was
justified in adding pad and cover materials
to Since Hardware’s reported WEIGHT
variable for purposes of calculating
adjustments for domestic inland freight and
brokerage and handling. The petitioner
claims that the record does not show that
Since Hardware included the pad and cover
weights in the reported WEIGHT values. The
petitioner points out that the only product
unit weight reference by Since Hardware
with respect to the factors of production data
is the “unit steel weight of each product”
used to derive a steel consumption ratio and
recovered steel scrap figure. Id., at 45 and 46.
Moreover, the petitioner states that the Since
Hardware Cost Verification Report does not



same facility and with the same employees as ironing tables. The equipment used to manufacture parts
and pack over-the-door boards is the same that is used for floor-standing tables. However, different die
and fabrication equipment is required for over-the-door boards due to their unique dimensions.”

Interchangeability and customer and producer perceptions. While one purchaser, ***, indicated
that it believed that its customers considered ironing boards to be interchangeable with ironing tables,
seven purchasers reported that they believed individual customers did not perceive ironing boards to be
interchangeable with ironing tables, and four purchasers indicated that they were unaware of whether
individual consumers perceived them to be interchangeable.” The two domestic producers disagree as to
whether they are interchangeable. *** believes that an ironing board cannot substitute for an ironing
table, as ironing boards are niche products appealing to consumers with living space constraints. ***
asserts that ironing boards are interchangeable with ironing tables as they serve the same function and
differ only in methods of storage and portability.”

Channels of Distribution. Over-the-door boards are sold in mass-market channels. Ironing tables
are sold to mass retail stores and distributors servicing the hospitality/hotel market.*!

Price. In 2003, the price for over-the-door boards (***) was slightly greater than the price for
perforated-top T-leg ironing tables (***).** However, domestically produced ironing tables are sold at a
range of prices up to $60.*°

There is some overlap in terms of physical characteristics and uses, in that ironing tables and
ironing boards are all designed to provide a surface to press clothes and other items, as well as some
overlap with respect to manufacturing facilities and production employees, channels of distribution and
price. However, there are substantial differences with respect to physical characteristics and uses,
interchangeability, customer and producer perceptions, and price. On balance we find that the
differences provide a sufficient dividing line between the two products and, therefore, we decline to
expand the definition of the domestic like product to include over-the-door boards.** *°

5 CR at I-10, PR at I-8.

® CR at I-10 - I-11, PR at I-8.
°° CR at I-11, PR at I-7 - 1-8.
* CR at I-11, PR at 1-8.

* CR at I-12, PR at I-9.

35 CR at I-5, PR at I-4.

4 We do not include wall-mounted boards in the definition of the domestic like product. Wall-mounted boards
are sold in kits or require a carpenter to build a customized cabinet on a wall in which the board is permanently
enclosed. When used, the board drops down to expose the ironing surface, which is approximately 42 inches in
length and 15 inches in width. CR at I-9 - I-10, PR at I-7 - I-8. Wall-mounted boards are produced at different
facilities and with different employees than ironing tables. CR at I-10, PR at I-8. There are two known domestic
manufacturers of wall-mounted boards: Iron-A-Way and Rev-A-Shelf. Neither firm produces over-the-door boards
or ironing tables and neither responded to the Commission’s questionnaire. Neither HPI nor Whitney Design
produces or produced wall-mounted boards. CR at I-10 & n.38, PR at I-8 & n.38. Seven purchasers reported that
they believed individual customers did not perceive ironing boards to be interchangeable with ironing tables, and
four purchasers indicated that they were unaware of whether individual consumers perceived them to be
interchangeable. CR at I-11, PR at I-8. Wall-mounted boards are sold through small businesses and occasionally
through major distributors, CR at I-11, PR at I-8, and retail for between $100 - $500. CR at I-12, PR at 1-9.

%> Although joining the majority view on the definition of the domestic like product, Vice Chairman Okun and
Commissioner Miller consider the issue to be a close one. They find a reasonable basis exists for concluding that the
definition of the domestic like product should be expanded to include the over-the-door ironing boards. CR at I-9,
PR at I-7. HPI, which holds a patent on over-the-door ironing boards, manufactures these boards in the same facility

(continued...)


APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

Al


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()(1)(A)G) of the Act, we
calculated weighted-average EPs.

Export Price

In accordance with section 772(a) of
the Act, EP is the price at which the
subject merchandise is first sold (or
agreed to be sold), before the date of
importation, by the producer or exporter
of the subject merchandise to an
unaffiliated purchaser in the United
States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for
exportation to the United States, as
adjusted under subsection (c).

We used an EP methodology in
accordance with section 772(a) of the
Act because Since Hardware and
Yongjian sold subject merchandise to
unaffiliated U.S. customers prior to
importation and because a constructed
export price methodology was not
otherwise warranted. We calculated EP
based on the packed, freight-on-board
port-of-export price charged to the first
unaffiliated customer for exportation to
the United States. Where appropriate,
we made deductions from the starting
price (gross unit price) for foreign
inland freight and brokerage and
handling. Where foreign inland freight
and brokerage and handling were
provided by NME companies, we used
surrogate values from India to value
these expenses. See Memorandum from
Sam Zengotitabengoa, International
Trade Compliance Analyst, to the File,
“Surrogate Country Factors of
Production Values in the Preliminary
Determination of the Antidumping Duty
Investigation on Floor-Standing, Metal-
Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts
Thereof from the People’s Republic of
China, dated concurrently with this
notice (FOP Valuation Memo), on file in
the CRU.

Normal Value

1, Surrogate Country

Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires
that the Department value the NME
producer’s factors of production, to the
extent possible, based on the prices or
costs of factors of production in one or

more market economy countries that
are: 1) at a level of economic
development comparable to that of the
NME country; and 2) significant
producers of comparable merchandise.
‘The Department’s Office of Policy
initially identified five countries that
are at a level of economic development
comparable to the PRC in terms of per-
capita gross national product and the
national distribution of labor. Those
countries are India, Pakistan, Indonesia,
Sri Lanka, and the Philippines. See
Memorandum from Ron Lorentzen,
Acting Director, Office of Policy, to
Thomas F, Futtner, Acting Office
Director, Office 4, “Request for a List of
Surrogate Countries,”’ dated September
4, 2003, on file in the CRU. Among
these countries, India is the most
significant producer of comparable
merchandise. Therefore, we have
preliminarily calculated NV by applying
Indian values to Since Hardware’s and
Yongjian’s factors of production.

2. Factors of Production

In their questionnaire responses,
Since Hardware and Yongjian reported
factors of production for the
manufacture of the subject merchandise
during the POI. The factors of
production include: (1) hours of labor
required; (2) quantities of raw materials
employed; (3) amounts of energy and
other utilities consumed; and (4)
representative capital costs. See Section
773(c)(3) of the Act. To calculate NV, we
multiplied the reported per-unit
quantities by publicly available
surrogate values from India.

Generally, the surrogate values
employed in the valuation of the factors
of production were selected because of
their quality, specificity, and
contemporaneity. We modified those
values not contemporaneous with the
POI using wholesale price indices (WPI)
published by the Office of the Economic
Adviser to the Government of India,
Ministry of Commerce and Industry, to
account for inflation or deflation
between the effective period and the
POI. As appropriate, we included freight
costs in input prices to make them
delivered prices. Specifically, we added
to the surrogate values a surrogate
freight cost calculated using the shorter
of the reported distance from the
domestic input supplier to the factory
processing subject merchandise or the
distance from the nearest seaport to the
relevant factory. This adjustment is in
accordance with the Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit’s decision in
Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d
1401, 1407-1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

To value inputs and packing materials
that derived from market economy

countries, we used the reported prices.
We valued all other material inputs and
packing materials using publicly
available Indian import statistics from
the appropriate Indian Harmonized
Tariff Schedule classification, obtained
from the Government of India, Ministry
of Commerce and Industry, Director
General, Commercial Intelligence and
Statistics, as published in the.World
Trade Atlas (WTA). See FOP Valuation
Memo. Because the Department has
determined that Indonesia, South Korea,
and Thailand maintain broadly
available, non-industry specific export
subsidies which may benefit all
exporters to all export markets, we
eliminated the quantities and values of
imports from these countries from the
import statistics used to calculate the
surrogate values. See Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Certain Automotive
Replacement Glass Windshields From
the People’s Republic of China, 67 FR
6482 (February 12, 2002). In addition,
the Department eliminated Indian
imports of non-market economy
countries from the import statistics used
to calculate the surrogate values.

One of the respondents purchased
cold-rolled steel inputs from a market
economy supplier in a market economy
currency. At this time, the Department
has generally available information
indicating that the PRC government
imposed an antidumping order on
imports of cold-rolled steel products
from various countries, including the
country in question. See Memorandum
from Sam Zengotitabengoa,
International Trade Compliance
Analyst, to the File, “PRC AD Final
Determination,” dated concurrently
with this notice, on file in the CRU.
Because the Department has reason to
believe or suspect that cold-rolled steel
from the country in question is being
dumped, we have disregarded prices for
cold-rolled steel from this country, and
instead used the Indian surrogate value
for both respondents.

For energy, we valued argon gas using
a 1997 price quote from an Indian
producer of argon; diesel oil and
electricity using the 2003 International
Energy Agency's Key World Energy
Statistics; and water using four price
quotes reported by the Asian
Development Bank on October 1997.

We valued labor using the latest
regression-based wage rate for China
found on Import Administration’s Web
page (http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/), as
described in 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3).

To value foreign inland truck freight
costs, we relied upon 17 price quotes
used by the Department in the Notice of
Final Determination of Sales at Less


VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

Based on the record in this investigation, we find that an industry in the United States is
materially injured by reason of imports of ironing tables and certain parts thereof from China that are
sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”).'

I. BACKGROUND

Floor-standing metal-top ironing tables are used in households, hotel rooms, and workplaces for
the purpose of pressing apparel and other textile items. Some ironing tables are also equipped with
special features such as an iron rest or linen rack.” Ironing tables and their components are produced
from flat-rolled steel and wire, as well as fasteners, foam, corrugated carton, shrink film, and cotton
fabric.’ Ironing tables have a mesh-top or perforated-top ironing surface and either a T-leg or a 4-leg
stand.*

This petition was filed by Home Products International, Inc. (“HPI”), Chicago, IL, on June 30,
2003, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured and threatened with material
injury by reason of LTFV imports of ironing tables and certain parts thereof from China.’ ° HPI is the
sole remaining domestic producer, following Whitney Design’s termination of its U.S. production of
ironing tables in April 2002.

Domestic production of ironing tables is concentrated in perforated-top T-leg models, although a
substantial minority of production is in mesh-top 4-leg models. Mesh-top 4-leg models have accounted
for an increasing share of domestic production since the closure of Whitney Design’s production
operations, even though absolute production levels have declined. Declining production and capacity
utilization between 2001 and 2003 reflect diminished production by both HPI and Whitney Design.”

Domestic production accounted for a large majority of the U.S. market for ironing tables in 2001,
but declined significantly in both 2002 and 2003. Virtually all of the balance was accounted for by
ironing tables from China.’ Both HPI and Whitney Design imported subject merchandise from China
during the period for which data were collected, but Whitney Design’s imports were ***.°

' Commissioner Daniel R. Pearson finds that an industry in the United States is threatened with material injury by
reason of imports of ironing tables and certain parts thereof from China that are sold in the United States at less than
fair value (“LTFV”). He joins sections I through IV.A. of these views. See his separate views for his evaluation of
causation.

? Tr. at 21 (Mr. Graves); see also HPI’s Producer Questionnaire Response at 28.
+ Confidential Staff Report (“CR”) at I-4 - I-5; Public Staff Report (“PR”) at I-3 - 1-4 (July 2, 2004).
* CR at 1-4, PR at 1-4.

5 The merchandise subject to this investigation, floor-standing, metal-top ironing tables, assembled or
unassembled, complete or incomplete, and certain parts thereof, is described by the Department of Commerce in its
definition of the product scope.

©CRatF-1, PRatL-1.

7 CR at Il-2, PR at Il-2.
§ CR/PR at Table IV-4.

° CR at III-4, PR at IL-3.



CALENDAR OF PUBLIC HEARING
Those listed below appeared as witnesses at the United States International Trade
Commission’s hearing:
Subject: Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from China *
Inv. No.: 731-TA-1047 (Final)
Date and Time: June 16, 2004 - 9:30 a.m.
Sessions were held in connection with this investigation in the Main Hearing Room (room
101), 500 E Street, SW, Washington, D.C.
OPENING REMARKS:

Petitioner (Frederick L. Ikenson, Blank Rome LLP)
Respondents (William E. Perry, Garvey Schubert Barer)

In Support of the Imposition of
Antidumping Duties:

SESSION 1 (Open to the public):
Blank Rome LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Home Products International, Inc.

Charles F. Avery, Jr., Senior Vice President, Finance,
Home Products International, Inc.

Peter Graves, Vice President, Sales,
Home Products International, Inc.

B-3


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 toa
separate rate, the Department analyzes
each exporting entity under a test
arising out of the Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers
from the People’s Republic of China, 56
FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as modified in
the Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from
the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR
22585, 22587 (May 2, 1994) (Silicon
Carbide). Under this test, the
Department assigns separate rates in
NME cases only if an exporter can
demonstrate the absence of both de jure
and de facto governmental control over
its export activities. See Silicon Carbide
and the Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl
Alcohol From the People’s Republic of
China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May 8,
1995).

In order for the Department to
determine whether a company is
sufficiently independent to be entitled
to a separate rate, the companies must
establish that they exported the subject
merchandise to the United States during
the POI. In accordance with 19 CFR
351.401(i), the Department will
normally use the date of invoice to

identify the date of sale of the subject
merchandise. However, the Department
may use a date other than the date of
invoice if it is satisfied that a different
date better reflects the date on which
the exporter establishes the material
terms of sale. In this instance, the
Department found all but one of the
companies to have exported subject
merchandise to the United States during
the POI. The Department cannot
consider Lerado an exporter who made
subject merchandise sales to the United
States during the POI because Lerado
did not present satisfactory evidence
establishing that it had sold subject
merchandise to the United States during
the POI. See 19 CFR 351.401(i); see
Regulations Preamble, at 27349; see
Memorandum from Sam
Zengotitabengoa, International Trade
Compliance Analyst, Office IV, to
Thomas F. Futtner, Acting Office
Director, Office IV, “Separate Rates
Analysis for the Preliminary
Determination in the Antidumping Duty
Investigation of Floor-Standing, Metal-
Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts
Thereof from the People’s Republic of
China,” dated concurrently with this
notice (Separate Rates Memo), on file in
the CRU.

Because we preliminarily find that
Lerado did not export subject
merchandise to the United States during
the POI, we are not able to evaluate
whether Lerado qualifies for a separate
rate. See Titanium Sponge From the
Russian Federation: Notice of Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 61 FR 58525,
58528 (November 15, 1996), (where the
Department states that “{A}Ithough
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


35312

Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 121/Thursday, June 24, 2004/ Notices

about capacity, we do not believe that size or
capacity of the surrogate producer always
poses a necessary consideration. In this case,
unlike Sigma v. United States, 117 F. 3d
1401, 1414 (Fed. Cir. July 7, 1997) (Sigma),
we have no evidence demonstrating that
overhead rates vary directly with the scale or
capacity of Indian aspirin (or other chemical)
producers.”). See Since Hardware's Rebuttal
Brief, at 1-3.

‘Department's Position: We agree with the
respondents. The Department's regulations
directs the Department to “normally * * *
use non-proprietary information gathered
from producers of identical or comparable
merchandise in the surrogate country.” See
19 CFR 351.408(c}(4). To determine whether
merchandise is identical or comparable to the
subject merchandise, the Department
compares physical characteristics, end uses,
and production processes between the
merchandise produced by a company and the
subject merchandise. See Cased Pencils,
Issues and Decision Memorandum, at
Comment 5. If the record contains reliable
and contemporaneous data from a company
that produces merchandise that is identical
or comparable to the subject merchandise,
then the Department will use that company’s
financial data to calculate the surrogate
financial ratios.

In this instance, Godrej’s 2002-2003
Annual Report indicates that Godrej
manufactures a variety of products, a
significant portion of which is steel furniture.
See Information from Keir A. Whitson, to the
Honorable Donald L. Evans, Secretary of
Commerce, “Publicly Available
Information,” dated March 29, 2004, at
exhibit 2 “Godrej's Annual Report &
Accounts for the Year Ended 31st March,
2003.” We find that steel furniture is more
comparable to ironing boards than the broad
industry groupings provided in the RBI
Bulletin, which reflect an unknown, but
likely substantially smaller, portion of
comparable merchandise. The Department
uses broader industry averages as published
in the RBI Bulletin when no usable financial
data from producers of comparable
merchandise are available. In this case, the
Department does not need to rely upon
surrogate information derived from broader
industry groupings (i.e. data published in the
RBI Builetin) to calculate surrogate financial
ratios. Instead, in accordance with section
351.408(c)(4) of the Department's regulations,
we find that Godrej’s 2002-2003 Annual
Report provides non-proprietary information
gathered from a producer of comparable
merchandise in the surrogate country that is
suitable for purposes of calculating surrogate
financial ratios.

In response to the petitioner's argument
that Godrej’s financial data is aberrational
and distortive, we disagree. Godrej's 2002-
2003 Annual Report states that Godrej
acquired two companies and accounted for
them in accordance with “auditing standards
generally accepted in India * * * and
relevant requirements under the Companies
Act of 1956.” See Godrej’s 2002-2003
Annual Report, at 12 and 29.
Notwithstanding Godrej’s acquisitions, the
2002-2003 Annual Report states that steel
furniture sales increased significantly from

the previous year, and that steel furniture
sales remain at the top of Godre’s product
mix. Therefore, although we recognize that
Godrej did undergo a change in corporate
structure, we find that the change did not
substantially impact the production or sales
of steel furniture.

Because data published in the RBI Bulletin
represents the average experience of
companies from broad industry groupings,
we find that Godrej's financial statements
offer more product-specific financial
information than RBI data. Although Grodrej
manufactures other products besides steel
furniture, we are able to discern that a
significant portion of its production is
devoted to steel furniture. In contrast, we are
unable to find whether or not comparable
merchandise represents a significant portion
of the data published in the RBI Bulletin.

Therefore, for the reasons mentioned
above, and consistent with prior practice, the
Department is relying on Godrej’s 2002-2003
financial information to calculate surrogate
financial ratios.

Comment 11: Corrections to Yongjian’s
Database Presented at Verification

Yongjian noted that at verification it
presented the Department with a revised
factors of production chart containing
corrections and clarifications for cold-rolled
steel, hot-rolled steel, steel wire, and powder
coating, Yongjian states that these corrected
materials should be used in the calculation
of Yongjian’s normal value. See Yongjian’s
Case Brief, at 6 and 7.

The petitioner did not comment on this
issue.

Department's Position: On the first day of
verification, Yongjian provided the
Department with a list of minor corrections.
During the course of verification, we
reviewed these corrections and verified that
they were accurately submitted. See
Yongjian’s FOP Verification Exhibits, Exhibit
1. Therefore, we have included Yongjian’s
corrections in the final determination.

Recommendation: Based on our analysis of
the comments received, we recommend
adopting all of the above positions and
adjusting all related margin calculations
accordingly. If these recommendations are
accepted, we will publish the final
determination in this investigation and the
final weighted-average dumping margins in
the Federal Register.

Agree
Disagree
Dated: June 15, 2004.

James Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.

[FR Doc. 04-14360 Filed 6-23-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P_

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


Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 121/Thursday, June 24, 2004/ Notices

35297

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.

Troning 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.

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in the case and
rebuttal briefs by parties to this
proceeding, and to which we have
responded, are listed in the Appendix to
this notice and addressed in the Issues
and Decision Memorandum, which is
hereby adopted by this notice. See
Memorandum from Holly A. Kuga,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, Office II, to

James Jochum, Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, “Issues and
Decision Memorandum for the Final
Determination in the Antidumping Duty
Investigation of Floor-Standing, Metal-
Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts
Thereof from the People’s Republic of
China,” dated concurrently with this
notice, (Issues and Decision
Memorandum) on file in the Central
Records Unit (CRU) located in room B—
099 of the Main Commerce Building.)
and accessible on the Internet at http:/
/ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper copy and
electronic version of the Issues and
Decision Memorandum are identical in
content.

Non-Market Economy Country Status

The Department has treated the PRC
as a non-market economy (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. For further
details, see the Preliminary
Determination.

Separate Rates

In our Preliminary Determination, we
found that both mandatory responding
companies, Since Hardware and
Yongjian, and three of the four
companies responding to Section A of
the Department’s questionnaire, Forever
Holdings Ltd. (Forever Holdings),
Gaoming Lihe Daily Necessities Co.,
Ltd. (Gaoming Lihe), and Harvest
International Housewares Ltd. (Harvest
International), met the criteria for the
application of separate, company-
specific antidumping duty rates. We
have not received any other information
since the preliminary determination
which would warrant reconsideration of
our separates rates determination with
respect to these companies. For a

complete discussion of the Department's
determination that the respondents are
entitled to a separate rate, see the
Preliminary Determination.

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 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 PRO).
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
Holdings, Gaoming Lihe, Harvest
International, and Lerado 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 the
Preliminary Determination, and 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. Accordingly, we are
applying adverse facts available to
determine the single antidumping duty
rate, the PRC-wide rate, applicable to all
other PRC exporters comprising this
single enterprise. See, e.g., Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Synthetic Indigo from the
People’s Republic of China, 65 FR
25706, 25707 (May 3, 2000).

Surrogate Country

For purposes of the final
determination, we continue to find that
India remains the appropriate surrogate
country for the PRC. For further
discussion and analysis regarding the
surrogate country selection for the PRC,
see the Preliminary Determination.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the
Act, we verified the information
submitted by the respondents for use in
our final determination. We used
standard verification procedures
including examination of relevant
accounting and production records, and
original source documents provided by
the respondents. For changes from the
Preliminary Determination as a result of
verification, see the “Changes Since the
Preliminary Determination” section
below.


contracts” based on an estimated annual volume at a particular price.* *** stated that “contract” in the
ironing table industry is often defined as just a pricing agreement, but no signed performance issues are
involved. Moreover, according to the petitioner, lower prices resulting from a negotiation at a line
review may take four to six months to show up due to “implementation lag,” i.e., actual shipments from a
December 2003 line review may not begin until April through July of 2004.°

*#* described typical purchase patterns for ironing tables as falling into the categories of straight
single purchase (rare because purchasers want price commitments), annual line reviews (the most popular
method), reverse auctions, and competitive line reviews (similar to a reverse auction but conducted in
person).’ * HPI reported that sales commonly are completed at face-to-face annual line reviews with a
trade buyer where suppliers present an assortment of products for the trade buyer to consider as retail
selling items in the subsequent year.’ *** described annual line reviews as including prequalification
and then meetings between suppliers and purchasers to negotiate price.'” The negotiation process is
based on estimated annual volumes by model.'' However, annual line reviews are used more for larger
customers rather than for all customers.” Typically, a retailer will buy only one type of ironing table per
supplier. Thus, the negotiations at annual line reviews determine the sole supplier of each particular
ironing table product (e.g., T-leg, 4-leg, etc.) that any particular purchaser will offer for retail sale.'*

The reverse auction is described by HPI as involving preselection of competing suppliers and the
products to be purchased, followed by on-line bidding that starts at prices specified by the purchaser.'*
Target described its reverse auction as merely the last step in its annual line review process, preceded by
extensive quality checks.'* Data received by the Commission indicate that since January 2001, ***
conducted *** reverse internet auctions, and *** conducted ***. Parties to the investigation supplied
information on these reverse auctions, which are discussed in more detail at the end of this chapter.

Finally, competitive line reviews (CLRs) were described by Polder as similar to a normal line
review except that, instead of involving two to three months as in a typical line review, a CLR involves

* Conference transcript, testimony of Peter Graves, senior vice president, sales and marketing, HPI, pp. 59-60,
and responses to Commission questionnaires.

> Hearing transcript, testimony of Michael Bradley, economist, The George Washington University, pp. 33-34.
*** also stated that shipping often begins 3-6 months after an annual line review. Respondents’ Postconference

Brief, att. 9.
© Respondents argue that there is no evidence in the final phase of this investigation to support HPI’s assertion
that injury from the subject product follows an “implementation lag.” Respondents’ Prehearing Brief, pp. 19-20.

7 Respondents’ Postconference Brief, att. 9.

* U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers were asked what portion of their sales/purchases were traditional line
reviews, internet auctions, or some other form of sale/purchase. The majority of firms (16 of 19) reported that all or
virtually all of their sales/purchases occur through traditional line reviews; however, *** reported that *** occurred
through traditional line reviews with the remaining sales occurring through internet auctions, *** reported that ***
occurred through traditional line reviews and *** occurred through internet auctions (all purchases in 2001 and 2002
occurred through traditional line reviews), and *** reported that *** occurred through traditional line reviews with
the remaining purchases occurring through internet auctions.

° Hearing transcript, testimony of Peter Graves, senior vice president, sales and marketing, HPI, pp. 55-56.

" Respondents’ Postconference Brief, att. 9.

" Conference transcript, testimony of Peter Graves, senior vice president, sales and marketing, HPI, p. 63.

" Conference transcript, testimony of Michael Bradley, economist, The George Washington University, p. 62.
' Conference transcript, testimony of Lisa Brumm, buyer, Target, pp. 135-136.

‘4 Hearing transcript, testimony of Peter Graves, senior vice president, sales and marketing, HPI, p. 56.

'5 Conference transcript, testimony of Lisa Bruamm, buyer, Target, pp. 101-102.

V-2


Whitney Design (along with ***) accounted for *** of the growth in subject imports between 2001 and
2002, *** accounted for *** of the growth between 2002 and 2003, and was the *** in 2003.

Petitioner HPI contends that the range of the subject imports expanded during the period for
which data were collected, moving from “high end” ironing tables to include lower priced models.* As
noted in Part I of this report, “opening price point” ironing tables are largely T-leg ironing tables, while
more expensive models are largely 4-leg ironing tables. Table IV-2 demonstrates that the largest increase
in subject imports was for the T-leg ironing tables, although the quantity of 4-leg ironing tables increased
as well. Similarly, as shown in table IV-3, U.S. importers representing the largest volumes and/or most
rapid growth generally reported prices within the “opening price point” range of $15.00 or less.

APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION AND MARKET SHARES

As shown in table IV-4, the quantity of apparent U.S. consumption of ironing tables decreased
between 2001 and 2002, by *** percent, but remained relatively steady in 2003 and the first quarter of
2004 (table IV-4). U.S. producer shipments accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in
2001 and *** percent in 2003. U.S. shipments of imports from China accounted for *** percent of
apparent U.S. consumption in 2001 and *** percent in 2003.

Former U.S. producer Whitney Design’s U.S. shipments of imports by quantity accounted for
*** percent of apparent U.S. consumption of the ironing tables in 2001 and *** percent in 2003. The
quantity of Whitney Design’s U.S. shipments of subject merchandise increased from *** units in 2001 to
*** units in 2002 and *** units in 2003, and were *** units in January-March 2004 compared to ***
units in January-March 2003.’ During 2001-03, U.S. shipments of subject imports by all other
companies increased from *** units in 2001 to *** units in 2003.

HPI's market share, based on both its domestic production and subject imports, is as follows:
*** Whitney Design’s market share, based on both its domestic production and its subject imports,
follows a similar trend: ***.°

‘ Hearing transcript, testimony of Peter Graves, senior vice president of sales and marketing, HPI, pp. 24-25.

+ Whitney Design’s U.S. shipments of imports by value accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption
of the ironing tables in 2001 and *** percent in 2003.

© Whitney Design ceased domestic production in the first quarter of 2002.


an opportunity to offer a fresh, quality product with outstanding value.”"” As *** qualified *** for its
***, we interpret “outstanding value” to, at least in part, mean lower price.

The product-specific pricing data also show that, while subject import prices were falling, the
domestic industry’s prices also declined. The reported weighted-average unit values for domestic
product 1 decreased irregularly over the period for which data were collected, and were *** percent
lower in the fourth quarter of 2003 as compared to the first quarter of 2001.''° As more than 75 percent
of ironing tables consumed in the United States reportedly are in the opening price point category,''' and
the majority of HPI's sales into this category are perforated-top ironing tables (similar to or the same as
product 1), we find significant price depression based on the product-specific data as well as other
information in the record, including information on internet reverse auctions and lost sales and
revenue.'!?

While respondents have alleged that HPI is the price leader, the evidence in the record is
inconclusive. Respondents’ analysis of the price data alleges an aggressive pricing strategy by HPI that
drove down prices for imported ironing tables,''? whereas HPI’s analysis of the price data alleges that,
adjusted for inflation, HPI’s *** price declines did not occur until after the arrival of large quantities of
subject imports in the U.S. market in the third quarter of 2002.''* Internet reverse auction data indicate
that HPI generally was not the lowest bidder in these events, and in most instances HPI reported that it
stopped bidding once bid prices fell below HPI’s pre-established prices based on its profit margin
percentage targets.''> Further, most purchasers indicated that there is no price leader.

We conclude, in view of the foregoing, that there has been significant price underselling by the
subject imports and that the effect of such imports has been to depress prices for the domestic like
product to a significant degree.

108 (. continued)
#4, *** HPI denies this claim, HPI’s Final Comments at 4 n. 7, and *** did not supply any evidence to support its
statement. We note, however, that HPI ***. Phone notes with Petitioner’s Counsel, Fred Ikensen on July 8, 2004
(EDIS DOC ID 210021). In its posthearing brief, HPI provided a table indicating that it ***. HPI’s Posthearing
Brief at Exh. 5. Finally, *** stated in its response to the purchaser questionnaire that its reason *** was “best cost.”
***>s Purchaser Questionnaire Response at 5b.

109 ee,

1° CR/PR at Table V-1.

"CR at 1-6, PR at I-5.

'TM Because most ironing tables produced and sold by HPI in the U.S. market are perforated-top ironing tables, we
find the decrease in those prices to be most significant. We recognize that U.S. mesh-top ironing table prices rose
*** percent between the first quarter of 2001 and the fourth quarter of 2003. CR/PR at Table V-2. However, we
note that U.S. mesh-top prices rose at the same time that domestic shipments declined sharply, CR/PR at Table V-2
(falling from *** units in second quarter 2002 to *** units in third quarter 2002), in response to rising shipments of
subject imports. CR/PR at Table V-2 (shipments of subject imports rose from *** units in second quarter 2002 to
*** units in third quarter 2002). We note that we have already found, as discussed earlier, that there is substantial
competition between subject imports of mesh-top ironing tables and domestic perforated-top tables; therefore, prices
for the latter are affected by prices for the former.

‘3 Whitney Design et al.’s Prehearing Brief at 21-28 & Atts. 4-7; Whitney Design et al.’s Posthearing Brief at 4-
6.

14 HPI’s Prehearing Brief at 40-44.
115 CR/PR at Table V-5, CR at V-20 to V-25, PR at V-7 - V-9.
"6 See HPI’s Prehearing Brief at 43-44.

16


ironing tables they are purchasing are U.S.-produced or imported. Regarding the manufacturer, four of
15 responding purchasers “always” know this information, six firms (***) reported that they “usually”
know this information, four firms (***) reported that they “sometimes” know this information, and one
firm reported that it “never” knows this information.

HPI, importers, and purchasers were asked to discuss the importance of additional features (e.g.,
iron rests, cord holders, clothes racks) in their sales/purchases of ironing tables. *** reported that
additional features are “somewhat” important, but generally are not important on the opening price point
ironing tables (which reportedly account for more than three quarters of the U.S. market). According to
*** as the price increases, the additional features become more important. Among other responding
importers, *** reported that such features are “very” important, *** reported that such features are
“somewhat” important, and *** reported that such features are not important. Of the 15 responding
purchasers, three firms *** reported that such features are “very” important, nine firms (***) reported
that such features are “somewhat” important, and three firms reported that such features are not
important.

HPI, importers, and purchasers were also asked to discuss the interchangeability of mesh-top and
perforated-top ironing tables. *** reported that they are interchangeable, while *** reported that they are
not interchangeable because mesh-top ironing tables offer a superior ironing surface (but ***).?) Among
other responding importers, *** reported that mesh-top and perforated-top ironing tables are
interchangeable, while *** reported that they are not interchangeable. Of the 15 responding purchasers,
eight (***) reported that mesh-top and perforated-top ironing tables are interchangeable while the other
seven purchasers (***) reported that they are not interchangeable.”

Regarding the importance of differences in quality between mesh-top and perforated-top ironing
tables, *** reported that such differences are “somewhat” important while *** reported that such
differences are not important. Among the other responding importers, *** reported that such differences
are “very” important, *** reported that such differences are “somewhat” important, and *** reported that
such differences are not important.” Of the 15 responding purchasers, three firms (***) responded that
such differences are “very” important, three firms (***) responded that such differences are “somewhat”
important, and nine firms (***) responded that such differences are not important.

Comparison of Domestic Product and Subject Imports
Questionnaire responses reveal general agreement on the issue of interchangeability between

U.S.-produced and subject ironing tables (table II-2); however, U.S. producers and importers showed
more diversity regarding the significance of factors other than price (table II-3).

2! At the hearing, Whitney Design stated that, in most instances, retailers are primarily interested in price and are
not specifically requesting perforated-top or mesh-top ironing tables. Hearing transcript, testimony of James Glenn,
president, Whitney Design, p. 180.

2 At the conference, Target stated that, “.. . the Chinese industry is supplying a different product to the U.S.
market, mesh-top ironing tables, which are an alternative and improvement over the traditional perforated-top table
made almost entirely by the domestic industry. The availability of this product and its added components and not
simply the lowest offered price is what Target seeks regardless of whether the sale is by direct relationship or so-
called reverse auction.” Conference transcript, testimony of Lisa Brumm, buyer, Target, p. 101.

23k

24 HPI, importers, and purchasers were asked whether a price premium exists between mesh-top and perforated-
top ironing tables. ***.

I-5


PART III: U.S. PRODUCERS’ PRODUCTION, SHIPMENTS, AND
EMPLOYMENT

The Commission analyzes a number of factors in making injury determinations (see 19 U.S.C. §§
1677(7)(B) and 1677(7)(C)). Information on the margins of dumping was presented earlier in this report
and information on the volume and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise is presented in Parts IV
and V. Information on the other factors specified is presented in this section and/or Part VI and (except
as noted) is based on the questionnaire responses of two firms that accounted for all U.S. production of
ironing tables and certain parts thereof during the period for which data were collected.'

U.S. PRODUCERS

As shown in table III-1, petitioner HPI and respondent Whitney Design both produced ironing
tables during the period for which data were collected, and both experienced ironing table plant closures.
The petitioner reported opening a new plant in E] Paso, TX, to produce ironing tables in January 2000.
This production was terminated and certain production equipment from this facility was relocated to its
Seymour, IN, plant in the first quarter of 2001, ***.? The other producer, Whitney Design, closed its St.
Louis, MO, ironing table production facility in April 2002, ***.> Whitney Design attributed this closure
to its conclusion that the company’s “...facilities were old and inefficient and had become unprofitable at
prices that HPI had established in the market in the late nineties through 2002....”* Whitney Design,
which is *** owned by Tricor Consumer Products, Inc., ***.

Table Ill-1
lroning tables: U.S. firms, positions on the petition, U.S. production locations, related and/or

affiliated firms, and shares of 2003 reported U.S. production of ironing tables

Firm name Position on | U.S. production | Related and/or affiliated Share of
" Petition locations firms production

Current Domestic Producer

HPI Support Seymour, IN None 100 percent

Former Domestic Producer

Owned by Tricor
Whitney Design id St. Louis, MO Consumer Products, Inc. (‘)

‘ Whitney Design ceased production of ironing tables in April 2002.

Source: Data compiled from responses to Commission questionnaires.

‘ Neither producer reported production or sales of ironing table parts.

? The El Paso, TX, facility is still operational. After HPI ***, however, HPI converted the *** square feet of
ironing table manufacturing area into warehouse space. Petitioner’s Posthearing Brief, p. A-64.

3 Questionnaire response by Whitney Design, question II-2, p. 3.
‘ Hearing transcript, testimony of James Glenn, president, Whitney Design, p. 146. See also Respondents’
Posthearing Brief, p. 2.

I-1



5128

Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 22/Tuesday, February

3, 2004/ Notices

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

from Sam Zengotitabengoa, International Trade
Compliance Analyst, to the File, “Listing of Chinese
Ironing Board Producers & Exporters,” dated
‘Auigust 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 (Guangehou)
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.

Department postponed the preliminary
determination of this investigation until
January 26, 2004. See Floor-Standing,
Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain
Parts Thereof From the People’s
Republic of China: Postponement of
Preliminary Determination of
Antidumping Duty Investigation, 68 FR
66816 (November 28, 2003).

Selection of Respondents

Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs
the Department to calculate individual
dumping margins for each known.
exporter and producer of the subject
merchandise. Where it is not practicable
to examine all known producers/
exporters of subject merchandise,
section 777A(c)(2) of the Act permits the
Department to investigate either: (1) a
sample of exporters, producers, or types
of products that is statistically valid,
based on the information available at
the time of selection; or (2) exporters
and producers accounting for the largest
volume of the subject merchandise that
can reasonably be examined. We
received quantity and value information
from six known producers of the subject
merchandise in the PRC. Since
Hardware and Yongjian were the
producers of subject merchandise
accounting for the largest volume of
exports to the United States during the
POI. Therefore, we selected Since
Hardware and Yongjian as mandatory
respondents in this investigation. See
Memorandum from Thomas F. Futtner,
Acting Office Director, Office 4, to Holly
A. Kuga, Acting Deputy Assistant
Secretary, Group II, “Respondent
Selection Memorandum,” dated
September 10, 2003, on file in the
Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the
Main Commerce Building (CRU).

Period of Investigation

The POI is October 1, 2002, through
March 31, 2003. This period
corresponds to the two most recent
fiscal quarters prior to the month of the
filing of the petition (i.e., June 2003).
See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).

Scope of Investigation

For purposes of this investigation, the
product covered consists of floor-
standing, metal-top ironing tables,
assembled or unassembled, complete or
incomplete, and certain parts thereof.
The subject tables are designed and
used principally for the hand ironing or
pressing of garments or other articles of
fabric. The subject tables have full-
height leg assemblies that support the
ironing surface at an appropriate (often
adjustable) height above the floor. The
subject tables are produced in a variety
of leg finishes, such as painted, plated,

or matte, and they are available with
various features, including iron rests,
linen racks, and others. The subject
ironing tables may be sold with or
without a pad and/or cover. All types
and configurations of floor-standing,
metal-top ironing tables are covered by
this investigation.

Furthermore, this investigation
specifically covers imports of ironing
tables, assembled or unassembled,
complete or incomplete, and certain
parts thereof. For purposes of this
investigation, the term “unassembled”
ironing table means a product requiring
the attachment of the leg assembly to
the top or the attachment of an included
feature such as an iron rest or linen
rack. The term “complete” ironing table
means a product sold as a ready-to-use
ensemble consisting of the metal-top
table and a pad and cover, with or
without additional features, e.g. iron
rest or linen rack. The term
“incomplete” ironing table means a
product shipped or sold as a “bare
board” i.e., a metal-top table only,
without the pad and cover- with or
without additional features, e.g. iron
rest or linen rack. The major parts or
components of ironing tables that are
intended to be covered by this
investigation under the term “certain
parts thereof” consist of the metal top
component (with or without assembled
supports and slides) and/or the leg
components, whether or not attached
together as a leg assembly. The
investigation covers separately shipped
metal top components and leg
components, without regard to whether
the respective quantities would yield an
exact quantity of assembled ironing
tables.

Ironing tables without legs (such as
models that mount on walls or over
doors) are not floor-standing and are
specifically excluded. Additionally,
tabletop or counter top models with
short legs that do not exceed 12 inches
in length (and which may or may not
collapse or retract) are specifically
excluded.

The subject ironing tables were
previously classified under Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS) subheading 9403.20.0010.
Effective July 1, 2003, the subject
ironing tables are classified under the
new HTSUS subheading 9403.20,0011.
The subject metal top and leg
components are classified under HTSUS
subheading 9403.90.8040. Although the
HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the scope remains
dispositive.


production and relocated certain production equipment to another plant in the first quarter of 2001.**
Whitney Design closed its ironing table production facility in April 2002 ***.°°

The domestic industry’s share of the ironing tables market declined steadily and significantly
between 2001 and 2003. It was *** percent in 2001, *** percent in 2002 and *** percent in 2003.°°
Sales of ironing tables from nonsubject countries are almost nonexistent and consist mostly of higher-
value products.*” Nonsubject import market share, as measured by quantity, was *** percent in 2001,
*** percent in 2002 and *** percent in 2003.

The domestic industry, even after the exit of Whitney Design in April 2002, has *** capacity to
supply the U.S. market. HPI has the ability to manufacture significant quantities of mesh-top ironing
tables as well as perforated-top tables; HPI’s Indiana facility has two plants for producing the domestic
like product: one for perforated-top tables and one for mesh-top tables.” In 2003, HPI manufactured ***
mesh-top tables and *** perforated-top tables." It reportedly has the capacity to manufacture *** mesh-
top tables and *** perforated-top tables annually.” Nonetheless, subject imports captured nearly *** of
the U.S. market in 2003."

3. Substitutability

There is a relatively high degree of substitutability between domestic ironing tables and subject
imports.“ Producers, importers and purchasers are in general agreement that the domestic and Chinese
products are substitutable, with the vast majority of all market participants (including major retailers such
as ***) reporting that they were always interchangeable.® ©

4 The El Paso facility is still operational. After HPI ***, however, it converted the *** square feet of ironing
table manufacturing area into warehouse space. CR/PR at III-1 n.2.

8° CR/PR at IIl-1.

5° CR/PR at Table IV-4.

57 See CR at I-6, PR at 1-5.
58 CR/PR at Table IV-4.

* In 2003, HPI’s capacity was *** units. CR/PR at Table III-2. Apparent U.S. consumption was *** units that
year. CR/PR at Table IV-4.

© Petitioner’s Posthearing Brief at A-11; Verification Report at 3.

° CR/PR at Table II-3.

© CR at III-2 n.5, PR at HI-2 n.5.

® Subject import market share was *** percent in 2003. CR/PR at Table IV-4.
CR at II-5, PR at I-3.

© CR/PR at Table II-2 & n.3. While *** has expressed a preference for mesh-top ironing tables over perforated-
top ironing tables, it has stated in its questionnaire response that U.S. produced and imported Chinese products are
interchangeable. ***’s Purchaser Questionnaire Response; *** Final Comments at 1-3.

© Commissioner Pearson recognizes that the vast majority of responding purchasers reported that U.S.-produced
and imported Chinese ironing tables were always interchangeable. However, he notes that three of 15 responding
purchasers (***) reported that differences in quality between mesh-top and perforated-top ironing tables were “very”
important, and three purchasers (***) reported that such differences are “somewhat” important. CR at II-8, PR at II-
5. This suggests that, while most purchasers may view domestic and imported Chinese mesh-top ironing tables to be
interchangeable, some purchasers (***) believe that quality differences between domestic perforated-top and
imported Chinese mesh-top ironing tables are important. *** has repeatedly argued that it has a definite preference
for mesh-top T-leg ironing tables over perforated-top T-leg ironing tables. In fact, *** notes that HPI’s own

(continued...)

11


PART IV: U.S. IMPORTS, APPARENT CONSUMPTION, AND
MARKET SHARES

U.S. IMPORTERS

The Commission sent importers’ questionnaires to 19 firms believed to be importers of ironing
tables.’ Of these questionnaires, the Commission received usable data on imports of ironing tables from
eleven companies, while four responded that they did not import ironing tables.” Petitioner HPI and
respondent Whitney Design both reported importing the subject merchandise from China during the
period for which data were collected.

U.S. IMPORTS

Troning tables were covered by HTS statistical reporting number 9403.20.0010 under the broad
heading “Metal Household Furniture,” until July 1, 2003, when they were reclassified into the more
specific HTS statistical reporting number 9403.20.0011, “Floor-standing metal-top ironing boards,
household.” The subject metal top and leg components are imported under HTS statistical reporting
number 9403.90.8040. No responding company, however, reported imports of ironing table components.
Data in this section on the quantity and value of U.S. imports of ironing tables are based on responses to
Commission questionnaires for the U.S. importers that provided usable data, rather than official
Commerce import statistics (which are believed to overstate the quantity of imports of the subject
merchandise). Coverage is estimated to be 90 percent or greater.

The quantity of U.S. imports of ironing tables from China increased between 2001 and 2003,
rising by 278 percent, but was 45 percent lower in January-March 2004 than in January-March 2003
(table IV-1).> As shown in table IV-2, former U.S. producer Whitney Design accounted for a *** share
of U.S. imports of the subject merchandise during the period for which data were collected. The quantity
of Whitney Design’s subject imports increased by *** percent between 2001 and 2003, rising from ***
units in 2001 to *** units in 2002 and *** units in 2003, and were *** units in January-March 2004
compared to *** units in January-March 2003. During 2001-03, however, U.S. imports by other
companies increased by more than *** percent, rising from *** units in 2001 to *** units in 2003. While

‘In addition, to expand its coverage, the Commission sent importer questionnaires to 19 firms believed to be
purchasers. Nine firms identified as purchasers responded that they did not import ironing tables, while one, ***,
responded that it was an importer.

? The 11 respondents are: ***.

* The parties have offered different interpretations of the trends in U.S. imports. Chinese respondents attribute
much of the growth in subject imports between 2002 and 2003 to “high-end” ironing tables not produced by HPI,
imports by Whitney Design that replaced its former domestic production, imports by *** of the mesh-top ironing
tables specified by the company’s *** documents, and imports used by HPI in its own efforts to submit winning bids
at auction. Lower subject import volumes in the first quarter of 2004, Chinese respondents argue, reflect increasing
costs and declining competitiveness on the part of ironing tables from China. Respondents’ Posthearing Brief, pp. 9-
14; Target’s Posthearing Brief, pp. 1-10 (discussing Target’s product requirements and the availability of such
products from different sources). Petitioner points to the *** share of subject imports accounted for by Whitney
Design, reports its own production of higher end ironing tables (characterized as a small part of the overall market),
and assesses the competitiveness of its products in the context of ***. Petitioner attributes the decline in subject
imports in the first quarter of 2004 to the announcement of Commerce’s antidumping duty margins in early 2004.
Petitioner’s Posthearing Brief, pp. 2-6 and A-39.

TV-1


CONTENTS

Page

Part V: Pricing and related information ........+--00 00s sees eee eee e eect eee e tee et ees v-1
Factors affecting prices ..... V-1
Transportation costs to the U.S. market : V-1

US. inland transportation costs and geographic markets _ vl
Exchange rates ............05 Wel
Pricing practices ... V-1
Pricing methods . V-1
Discounts and price lists ........- 0+ sees eee eee 2. V3
Price data .....-... esse V-4
Lost sales and lost revenues ......0.0 060 e cece center eters -.  V-7
Internet reverse auctions ....... 6.66. c beeen ee eee ee .. V8
Part VI: Financial experience of the U.S. industry VI-1
Background . . . VI-1
Operations on ironing table: VI-1

Investment in productive facilities, capital expenditures, and research and development
expenses ......+
Capital and investment .
Part VI: Threat considerations .
The industry in China .......
USS. importers’ inventories of ironing tables .... 1.0... +00 esse eee ete ere ete n eens

U.S. importers’ current orders for ironing tables .. VU-3
Dumping in third-country markets ..........-.+--+++0+0- vil-4
Appendixes
A. Federal Register notices ...... 6.006 e eee cette eee tenet ett e etree es Al
B. Hearing witnesses ......-..6- 00s eee eee eee eee te B-1
C. Summary data 2.0.6... cece eee eee eee eee C-1
D. Company-specific price data as reported by U.S. producers and importers . D-1
E. Purchase price data as reported by Kmart, Target, and Wal-Mart . E-1
F. Effects of imports on U.S. producers’ existing development and production efforts, growth,
investment, and ability to raise capital ....... 6.2.06 e cee eee e teeter renee eens F-1

Note.—Information that would reveal confidential operations of individual concerns may not be published
and therefore has been deleted from this report. Such deletions are indicated by asterisks.




There is also no basis for a finding of price suppression. The domestic industry’s ratio of COGS
to net sales declined from *** percent in 2001 to *** percent in 2002, and *** percent in 2003. The
ratio of COGs to net sales did increase during the interim periods, however, from *** percent in interim
2003 to *** percent in interim 2004." The record thus indicates that price competition by subject
imports from China did not cause any cost-price squeeze, although the interim data indicate that domestic
producers may face a cost-price squeeze in the near future.

Consequently, absent significant underselling, or price depression or suppression by the subject
imports, I find that imports of ironing tables from China do not have significant effects on prices for the
domestic like product at present. There are, however, indications that the prices for the higher-priced
Chinese subject imports were converging with domestic product prices, which suggests that underselling
would be likely during subsequent periods. In addition, the ***.

3. Impact of the Subject Imports on the Domestic Industry

Although a number of the domestic industry’s performance indicators declined, the domestic
industry remained highly profitable throughout the period examined. However, the domestic industry’s
profitability did show signs of eroding at the end of the period.

As discussed above in the section on conditions of competition, apparent U.S. consumption of
ironing tables declined from 2001 to 2002 and then rose in 2003 to a level less than that of 2001.
Consumption fell slightly during the interim periods.” Several output-related indicators of U.S. industry
performance declined during 2001-2003, but increased during the interim periods. These included
production,” U.S. shipments,TM and capacity utilization.’ The domestic industry’s export shipments
declined throughout the period examined.” Capacity declined during 2001-2003, and was unchanged

*° (continued)
HPI’s product 1 prices undersold Whitney Design’s product 1 prices in *** quarters for which price comparisons
were available (January 2001-June 2002). CR/PR, Table D-1.

* CR/PR, Table VI-1.

2 The statute instructs the Commission to consider the “magnitude of the margin of dumping” in an antidumping
proceeding as part of its consideration of the impact of imports. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii)(V). In its final
determination, Commerce assigned a 6.60 percent dumping margin to Since Hardware; 52.04 percent to Forever
Holdings, Harvest International Hardwares, and Gaoming Lihe Daily Necessities; 113.80 percent to Shunde Yongjan
Housewares; and an “all others” rate of 113.80 percent. 69 Fed. Reg. 35296 (June 24, 2004).

3 Domestic production declined from *** units in 2001 to *** units in 2002, and continued to decline to *** units
in 2003. Domestic production increased from *** units in interim 2003 to *** units in interim 2004. CR/PR, Table
Ill-2.

* The quantity of the domestic industry’s U.S. shipments declined from *** units in 2001 to *** units in 2002, and
continued to decline to *** units in 2003. U.S. shipments increased from *** units in interim 2003 to *** units in
interim 2004. CR/PR, Table III-6.

>> U.S. producers’ capacity utilization declined from *** percent in 2001 to *** percent in 2002, and continued to
decline to *** percent in 2003. Capacity utilization increased from *** percent in interim 2003 to *** percent in
interim 2004. CR/PR, Table III-2.

*© The quantity of the domestic industry’s export shipments declined from *** units in 2001 to *** units in 2002,

and continued to decline to *** units in 2003. Export shipments further declined from *** units in interim 2003 to
*** units in interim 2004. CR/PR, Table III-6.

25


Table Vi-1
Results of operations of U.S. producers in the production of ironing tables, fiscal years 2001-03,

January-March 2003, and January-March 2004

* * * * * * *

Table VI-2
Results of operations of U.S. producers of ironing tables, by firms, fiscal years 2001 -03, January-

March 2003, and January-March 2004

* * * * * * *

HPI accounted for *** percent of total quantity sold by U.S. producers in 2001, increasing to ***
percent in 2002 as Whitney Design ceased domestic production, and *** percent in 2003.

The variance analysis for the U.S. ironing table industry is presented in table VI-3. This variance
analysis is derived from information presented in table VI-1 and provides an assessment of changes in
profitability as related to changes in pricing, cost, and volume. A variance analysis is most effective
when the product involved is a homogeneous product with no variation in product mix within a firm and
between firms. The current analysis shows that the unfavorable operating income variance from 2001 to
2003 was attributable to both unfavorable price and net volume variances. These unfavorable variances
were only partially offset by a favorable net cost/expense variance, causing the industry to experience
declining operating income. When comparing the interim periods, the net volume and net cost/expense
variances were favorable but entirely offset by an unfavorable price variance, causing operating income
for the domestic industry to be lower in January-March 2004 than in January-March 2003.

INVESTMENT IN PRODUCTIVE FACILITIES, CAPITAL EXPENDITURES,
AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES

The responding firms’ data on capital expenditures, research and development (R&D) expenses,
and the value of their property, plant, and equipment (PPE) for their ironing tables operations are shown
in table VI-4. Commission staff excluded operating leases reported by HPI from the domestic industry’s
PPE, in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).> HPI argues that a more
accurate measure of the book value of HPI’s fixed assets for ironing tables operations would be to
combine owned assets and leased assets. Chinese respondents replied that:

Sook ae 99

Chinese respondents are correct that if HPI’s operating leases were treated as capital leases and
included in PPE, GAAP treatment would require removing certain lease expenses from cost of goods
sold (COGS) and increasing interest expense in HPI’s operations data. However, treating operating
leases as capital Jeases would also increase depreciation expense in COGS. In many cases, the sum total
of these adjustments would raise HPI’s operating income for each period examined. The “return on
assets” analysis in HPI’s posthearing submission does not make any adjustments to operating income.”
Capital expenditures, by firm, are presented in table VI-5.*

5 See footnote 1 of table VI-4 for more details on GAAP treatment of operating leases.
6 Posthearing Brief of Chinese Respondents, exh. 1, p. 12.
7 Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief, exh. A, pp. A-56 through A-57.

5 On July 30, 2003, Standard & Poor’s announced the downgrade of HPI’s corporate credit rating from B+ to B,
as well as the downgrade of its senior secured debt rating from BB- to B+ and the downgrade of its subordinated
debt rating from B- to CCC+. According to the Standard & Poor’s publication, the downgrade “reflects increased

(continued...)

VI-2


Table V-1
lroning tables: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities for U.S.-produced product 1 (all
sales) and imports of Chinese product 2 (all sales), as reported by U.S. producers and importers,

by quarters, January 2001-March 2004
* * * * * * *

Table V-2
Ironing tables: Weighted-average f.0.b. prices and quantities for product 2 (all sales), and margins

of underselling/(overselling), as reported by U.S. producers and importers, by quarters, January
2001-March 2004

Figure V-1
Ironing tables: Weighted-average f.o.b. sales prices for U.S.-produced product 1 (all sales) and
imported Chinese product 2 (all sales), as reported by U.S. producers and importers, by quarters,

January 2001-March 2004

* * * * * * *

Figure V-2
lroning tables: Weighted-average f.o.b. sales prices for product 2 (all sales), as reported by U.S.
producers and importers, by quarters, January 2001-March 2004

* * * * * * *

Figure V-3
Ironing tables: Sales quantities (all sales) as reported by U.S. producers and importers, by

quarters, January 2001-March 2004

* * * * * * *

Both petitioner and respondents believe that alternative presentations of the price data collected
in the final phase of this investigation may be more informative than the Commission’s traditional
presentations. Petitioner believes that *** should be included in the calculations of margins of
underselling/overselling. Petitioner also believes that price comparisons between the domestic industry
(as represented by HPI) and those importers that sell to Kmart, Target, and/or Wal-Mart (***) provide
the most useful indicator of the nature of price competition for ironing tables in the U.S. market.”*
Finally, petitioner believes that a more appropriate method for determining margins of
underselling/overselling with respect to perforated-top T-leg ironing tables (product 1) would involve a
downward adjustment of import prices for mesh-top T-leg ironing tables (product 2) based on HPI’s
historical “price premium” for sales of its mesh-top ironing tables as compared to sales of its perforated-
top ironing tables.”* Respondents believe that sales price data for product 1 and product 2 as reported by
U.S. producers should be combined and compared to import sales price data for product 2 to determine
margins of underselling/overselling. According to respondents, this approach “extends the benefit of the

25 Petitioner’s Prehearing Brief, pp. 32-34.
6 Petitioner’s Prehearing Brief, pp. 39-40.

V-5


Employment-related indicators have declined as well. The average number of production and
related workers decreased by *** between 2001 and 2003,’ and the hours they worked decreased to an
even greater extent.'*

Financial indicators also eroded between 2001 and 2003. The quantity of net sales decreased by
*#* in terms of quantity and *** in terms of value.'”> Gross profit declined ***'”° and operating income
declined as well.'?” Although the domestic industry remained profitable in 2003 and its operating income
ratio fluctuated but remained *** between 2001 and 2003,'* the operating income ratio is only one of
many factors the Commission examines in making its finding as to the impact of subject imports on the
domestic industry. Moreover, we note that most of the industry’s cost of goods sold are *** costs, and
the cost of HPI’s plant and equipment is ***. Because the majority of costs are *** and therefore ***.!”
Thus, the *** of operating leverage reflected in the manufacturing cost structure of ironing tables helps
to explain how the industry was able to maintain its operating margins despite experiencing observed
declines in sales/production volume.'*° In sum, maintenance of the reported positive operating income to
net sales ratio does not necessarily indicate that the industry has not been materially injured by subject
imports. Rather, the injury manifests itself primarily in the large declines in many of the industry’s other
indicators as noted above.

3 The average number of production and related workers fell from *** in 2001 to *** in 2002, then to *** in
2003. It was *** in interim 2003 and *** in interim 2004. HPI’s production and related workers decreased from
*** in 2001 to *** in 2002, then to *** in 2003. They numbered *** in interim 2003 and *** in interim 2004.
CR/PR at Table III-3.

% Total hours worked by production and related workers declined from *** in 2001 to *** in 2002, then to ***
in 2003. They were *** in interim 2003 and *** in interim 2004. HPI’s hours worked by its production and related
workers fell from *** in 2001 to *** in 2002, then to *** in 2003. They were *** in interim 2003 and *** in interim
2004. CR/PR at Table III-8.

25 The quantity of net sales decreased from *** units in 2001 to *** units in 2002, then to *** units in 2003. It
was *** in interim 2003 and *** in interim 2004. CR/PR at Table VI-1. The quantity of HPI’s net sales declined
from *** units in 2001 to *** units in 2002, then to *** units in 2003. It was *** in interim 2003 and *** in interim
2004. CR./PR at Table VI-2.

The value of net sales decreased from $*** in 2001 to $*** in 2002, then to $*** in 2003. It was $*** in
interim 2003 and $*** in interim 2004. CR/PR at Table VI-1. The value of HPI’s net sales declined from $*** in
2001 to $*** in 2002, then to $*** in 2003. It was $*** in interim 2003 and $*** in interim 2004. CR/PR at Table
VI-2.

6 Gross profit declined from $*** in 2001 to $*** in 2002, then to $*** in 2003. It was $*** in interim 2003
and $*** in interim 2004. CR/PR at Table VI-1.

27 Operating income fell from $*** in 2001 to $*** in 2002, then to $*** in 2003. It was $*** in interim 2003
and $*** in interim 2004. CR/PR at Table VI-1. HPI’s operating income was $*** in 2001, falling to $*** in 2002
and then to $*** in 2003. It was $*** in interim 2003 and $*** in interim 2004. CR/PR at Table VI-2.

"8 The ratio of operating income to net sales increased from *** percent in 2001 to *** percent in 2002, then fell
to *** percent in 2003. It was *** percent in interim 2003 and *** percent in interim 2004. CR/PR at Table VI-1.
The ratio of HPI’s operating income to net sales was *** percent in 2001, *** percent in 2002 and *** percent in
2003. It was *** percent in interim 2003 and *** percent in interim 2004. CR/PR at Table VI-2.

2° A large proportion of *** costs would have had the opposite effect by ***.

°° The total cost of goods sold decreased from $*** in 2001 to $*** in 2002, then to $*** in 2003. It was $***
in interim 2003 and $*** in interim 2004. CR/PR at Table VI-1. Other factory costs, which include fixed costs,
were only *** percent of total cost of goods sold for the domestic industry in 2001, *** percent in 2002 and ***

percent in 2003. The remainder of total cost of goods sold, including raw materials and direct labor, are variable
costs. Calculated from CR/PR at Table VI-1.

18


More than three-quarters of ironing tables consumed in the United States reportedly are in the open
price point category.’* Ironing tables in the elite/upper end category, in contrast, were neither
domestically produced nor imported from China during the period for which data were collected.

As recently as 1999, Chinese ironing tables in the middle and lower price ranges generally were
considered by *** to be of inferior quality to domestically produced ironing tables.'° However, since
2000, the U.S. market has witnessed continual improvement in the auality of Chinese ironing tables,
although some generalized differences remain.

U.S. imports of ironing tables from China are exclusively mesh- top, while the majority of
domestic ironing tables are perforated.'? HPI has the capability of producing a mesh-top or perforated-
top table, but produces more perforated-top tables as ***. While in operation, Whitney Design ***
produced perforated-top T-legs.'* Chinese manufacturers, in contrast, reportedly produce only mesh-top
tables through a labor-intensive production process. None of the companies responding to the
Commission’s questionnaires reported producing, exporting, or importing perforated-top tables from
China.

It is generally accepted that mesh-top tables allow for slightly greater steam penetration than
perforated-top tables and thus are marketed as providing a better ironing result for the user.' At the
Commission’s hearing, however, domestic producer HPI and former producer Whitney Design appeared
to downplay the actual significance of this distinction between mesh-top and perforated-top ironing
tables.?° Although some retailers *** express their belief that a mesh-top table is superior to a
perforated-top table and there are examples of marketing ads that advocate the merits of a mesh-top
table,”' most retailers did not express a preference for the type of top at opening price points.” Individual

'5 Conference transcript, testimony of Peter Graves, senior vice president of sales, HPI, pp. 42 and 47. See also
questionnaire response of ***, question IV-B-14, p. 20.

16 #4* interview by USITC Staff, ***, February 25, 2004.

"In 2003, *#* of the *** ironing tables that HPI produced (*** percent) were mesh-top. Questionnaire response
of HPI, question II-10, p. 5.

'8 Questionnaire response from Whitney Design, question II-10, p. 6.

1° According to a test conducted by ***, steam escapement was *** percent greater for a mesh-top ironing table
than for a perforated-top ironing table. Calculated from Petitioner’s Posthearing Brief, exh. 7.

?° See, e.g., hearing transcript, testimony of James Glenn, president, Whitney Design, pp. 201-02 (discussing the
historical marketing of ironing tables, the distinction between “real” value and “perceived” value, and characterizing
the benefits of a mesh-top ironing table to the steam process as “marginal”). See also hearing transcript, testimony of
Joe Deppen, vice president of manufacturing, HPI, pp. 91-92 (indicating that perforated-top and mesh-top ironing
tables are “pretty much the same” to HPI; although mesh-top tables require “slightly more” labor to produce, the
ironing tables are “pretty much interchangeable” in terms of durability and functionality).

?! Hearing transcript, testimony of James Glenn, president, Whitney Design, pp. 180 and 201-02. See also HPI’s
marketing brochure a description of StableTable includes the following, “SteamPress vented top for faster ironing.
Even steam flow produces better results. Encased mesh top with no sharp edges...” ***, interview by USITC Staff,
***, February 25, 2004. Conference transcript, testimony of Lisa Brumm, buyer, Target Corporation, pp. 101, 109-
110. See also questionnaire responses from Whitney Design and HPI, question IV-B-15, pp. 21 and 17. Producer
and customer perceptions regarding the interchangeability of perforated-top and mesh-top ironing tables are
presented in part II of this report.

22 Question IIJ-21-b in the purchasers’ questionnaire posed the following question: “How important are
differences in quality between mesh-top and perforated-top ironing tables for your firm’s purchases?” Nine firms,
*** responded that it was “not important”; three, ***, responded it was “somewhat important”; and three, ***,
responded that it was “very important”.

LS


Table IV-1

Ironing tables: U.S. imports, by source, 2001-03, January-March 2003, and January-March 2004

Calendar year

January-March

Item
2001 2002 2003 2003 2004
Quantity (1,000 units)
China 668 1,534 2,523 508 279
All other sources ia “ ~~ al il
Total ee ae ee wee ae
Value ($1,000)
China 6,423 12,037 18,857 3,909 3,383
All other sources fers we tee tee ee
Total wee ee ee +e wae
Unit value (per unit)
China $9.61 $7.85 $7.47 $7.75 $12.11
All other sources ae we ae ee ee
Average ee ee ae ee ae
Share of quantity (percent)
China wee +e ee ee ee
All other sources we ee ae ae nee
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Share of value (percent)
China ae ee he ead wee
All other sources ee wee wee wee ee
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Ratio of imports to U.S. production (percent)

China ee ee ae ee ee
All other sources wee foes a we ae
Total wee tee wee ate ae

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.



SEPARATE VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER PEARSON

Based on the record in this investigation, I find that an industry in the United States is threatened
with material injury by reason of imports of ironing tables from China that are sold in the United States
at less than fair value (LTFV). However, I agree with the Commission’s findings with respect to the
domestic like product, the domestic industry and related parties, and conditions of competition, and
therefore join in sections I, II, I, and IV-A of the views of the Commission.

1 NO MATERIAL INJURY BY REASON OF SUBJECT IMPORTS'

A. General Legal Standards

In the final phase of antidumping duty investigations, the Commission determines whether an
industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of the imports under investigation.? In
making this determination, the Commission must consider the volume of imports, their effect on prices
for the domestic like product, and their impact on domestic producers of the domestic like product, but
only in the context of U.S. production operations.’ The statute defines “material injury” as “harm which
is not inconsequential, immaterial, or unimportant.”* In assessing whether the domestic industry is
materially injured by reason of subject imports, we consider all relevant economic factors that bear on
the state of the industry in the United States.* No single factor is dispositive, and all relevant factors are
considered “within the context of the business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to
the affected industry.”®

With respect to the volume of the subject imports, section 771(7)(C)(i) of the Act provides that
the “Commission shall consider whether the volume of imports of the merchandise, or any increase in
that volume, either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States, is
significant.””

With respect to the price effects of the subject imports, section 771(7)(C)(ii) of the Act provides
that, in evaluating the price effects of the subject imports, the Commission shall consider whether —

(J there has been significant price underselling by the imported merchandise as
compared with the price of domestic like products of the United States, and

' Subject imports from China are not negligible. Subject imports from China constituted nearly *** percent of the
quantity of all imports throughout 2002-2003. CR/PR at Table IV-1. Thus, the available data indicate that subject
imports from China were well above the 3 percent statutory negligibility threshold for the 12 months prior to the
filing of the petition on June 30, 2003.

? 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(b).

3 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)(i). The Commission “may consider such other economic factors as are relevant to the
determination” but shall “identify each [such] factor . . . [a]nd explain in full its relevance to the determination.”
19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B). See also Angus Chemical Co. v. United States, 140 F.3d 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

“19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(A).
519 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C\(iii
$19 USC. § 1677(7\(C)(iii).
719 USC. § 1677(7(C)(i).

21


Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 62/ Wednesday, March 31, 2004/Notices

16955

Commission’s rules of practice and
procedure, part 201, subparts A through
E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207,
subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).

Authority: This investigation is being
conducted under authority of title VII of the
Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published
pursuant to section 207.21 of the
Commission's rules.

By order of the Commission.

Issued: March 25, 2004.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 04-7151 Filed 3-30-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION

[Investigation Nos. 701-TA-439-440 and
731-TA-1077-1080 (Preliminary)]

Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET)
Resin From India, Indonesia, Taiwan,
and Thailand

AGENCY: International Trade
Commission.

ACTION: Institution of countervailing
duty and antidumping investigations
and scheduling of preliminary phase
investigations.

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives
notice of the institution of investigations
and commencement of preliminary
phase countervailing duty and
antidumping investigations Nos. 701—
TA-439-440 (Preliminary) and 731-
TA-1077-1080 (Preliminary) under
703(a) and 733(a) of the Tariff Act of
1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 1673b(a))
(the Act) to determine whether there is
a reasonable indication that an industry
in the United States is materially
injured or threatened with material
injury, or the establishment of an
industry in the United States is
materially retarded, by reason of
imports from India and Thailand of
polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resin,
provided for in subheading 3907.60.00
of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of
the United States, that are alleged to be
subsidized by the Governments of India
and Thailand and by reason of imports
from India, Indonesia, Taiwan, and
Thailand of PET resin that are alleged to
be sold in the United States at less than
fair value. Unless the Department of
Commerce extends the time for
initiation pursuant to 702(c)(1)(B) and
732(c)(1)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C.
1671a(c)(1)(B) and 1673a(c)(1)(B)), the
Commission must reach preliminary
determinations in countervailing and
antidumping duty investigations in 45
days, or in this case by May 10, 2004.

The Commission’s views are due at
Commerce within five business days
thereafter, or by May 17, 2004.

For further information concerning
the conduct of these investigations and
tules of general application, consult the
Commission’s rules of practice and
procedure, part 201, subparts A through
E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207,
subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207).

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 24, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim
McClure (202-205-3191), Office of
Investigations, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-
impaired persons can obtain
information on this matter by contacting
the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202—
205-1810. Persons with mobility
impairments who will need special
assistance in gaining access to the
Commission should contact the Office
of the Secretary at 202-205-2000.
General information concerning the
Commission may also be obtained by
accessing its Internet server (http://
www.usite.gov). The public record for
these investigations may be viewed on
the Commission’s electronic docket
(EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background

These investigations are being
instituted in response to petitions filed
on March 24, 2004, by the U.S. PET
Resin Producers’ Coalition, Washington,
pc.

Participation in the Investigations and
Public Service List

Persons (other than petitioners)
wishing to participate in the.
investigations as parties must file an
entry of appearance with the Secretary
to the Commission, as provided in
sections 201.11 and 207.10 of the
Commission’s rules, not later than seven
days after publication of this notice in
the Federal Register. Industrial users
and (if the merchandise under
investigation is sold at the retail level)
representative consumer organizations
have the right to appear as parties in
Commission countervailing and
antidumping duty investigations. The
Secretary will prepare a public service
list containing the names and addresses
of all persons, or their representatives,
who are parties to these investigations
upon the expiration of the period for
filing entries of appearance.

Limited Disclosure of Business
Proprietary Information (BPI) Under an
Administrative Protective Order (APO)
and BPI Service List

Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the
Commission’s rules, the Secretary will
make BPI gathered in these
investigations available to authorized
applicants representing interested
parties (as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9))
who are parties to the investigations
under the APO issued in the
investigations, provided that the
application is made not later than seven
days after the publication of this notice
in the Federal Register. A separate
service list will be maintained by the
Secretary for those parties authorized to
receive BPI under the APO.

Conference

The Commission’s Director of
Operations has scheduled a conference
in connection with these investigations
for 9:30 a.m. on April 14, 2004, at the
U.S. International Trade Commission
Building, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC. Parties wishing to
participate in the conference should
contact Jim McClure (202-205-3191)
not later than April 12, 2004, to arrange
for their appearance. Parties in support
of the imposition of countervailing and
antidumping duties in these
investigations and parties in opposition
to the imposition of such duties will
each be collectively allocated one hour
within which to make an oral
presentation at the conference. A
nonparty who has testimony that may
aid the Commission’s deliberations may
request permission to present a short
statement at the conference.

Written Submissions

As provided in sections 201.8 and
207.15 of the Commission's rules, any
person may submit to the Commission
on or before April 19, 2004, a written
brief containing information and
arguments pertinent to the subject
matter of the investigations. Parties may
file written testimony in connection
with their presentation at the conference
no later than three days before the
conference. If briefs or written
testimony contain BPI, they must
conform with the requirements of
sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the
Commission’s rules. The Commission's
rules do not authorize filing of
submissions with the Secretary by
facsimile or electronic means, except to
the extent permitted by section 201.8 of
the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67
FR 68036 (November 8, 2002).

In accordance with sections 201.16(c)
and 207.3 of the rules, each document


SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS®
U.S. Supply

Based on available information, HPI has the ability to respond to changes in demand with
moderately large changes in the quantity of shipments of U.S.-produced ironing tables to the U.S. market.
The main factor contributing to this degree of responsiveness is the availability of unused capacity.

Industry Capacity

Data reported by U.S. producers HPI and Whitney Design indicate there is excess capacity with
which to expand production in the event of price changes. Domestic capacity utilization decreased from
*** percent in 2001 to *** percent in 2003 despite a reduction in average capacity following Whitney
Design’s cessation of U.S. production. Capacity utilization was *** percent in the first quarter of 2004,
as compared to *** percent in the first quarter of 2003.

Inventory Levels

U.S. producers’ inventories of ironing tables, as a ratio to total shipments, increased irregularly
from *** percent in 2001 to *** percent in 2003. Inventories were equivalent to *** percent of
annualized total shipments in the first quarter of 2004 as compared to *** percent in the same time frame
in 2003. These data indicate that HPI has some limited ability to use inventories as a means of increasing
shipments to the U.S. market.

Export Markets

Exports decreased from *** percent of total shipments in 2001 to *** percent in 2003. Exports
accounted for *** percent of total shipments in the first quarter of 2004, compared to *** percent in the
first quarter of 2003. These data suggest that HPI has some ability to divert shipments to or from
alternate markets in response to changes in the price of ironing tables in the U.S. market.

U.S. Demand

Based on available information, the overall demand for ironing tables is likely to exhibit little
change in response to changes in price. The main factor contributing to this degree of price sensitivity is
the infrequent and long-lasting nature of consumer purchases, offsetting the availability of ironing boards
outside of the scope of this investigation that are viewed by some purchasers as potential substitutes for

ironing tables.

Demand Characteristics

HP] describes demand for ironing tables as inelastic at the consumer level. According to HPI,
ironing table demand is based around home purchases and household formation, meaning purchases are
infrequent and not price dependent. The long-lasting nature of ironing tables also makes consumers less

® Reported data on Chinese production capacity, production, capacity utilization, inventories, and exports of
ironing tables are shown in detail in Part VII of this report.

T-2


Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 37/Wednesday, February 25, 2004/ Notices

8625

(excluding from the order only
merchandise “produced and exported”
by a zero margin respondent).

If these preliminary results are
adopted in the final results of this
changed circumstances review, we will
instruct CBP to continue to exclude
shipments of subject merchandise
produced and exported by the Stelco
Group from the order and, for all
merchandise produced but not exported
by the Stelco Group to collect a cash
deposit equal to the rate established for
the exporter, or if the exporter does not
have its own rate, the “‘all others” rate
of 8.11 percent, effective as of the date
of the final results of this changed
circumstances review. Furthermore, for
the period prior to the effective date of
the final results of this changed
circumstances review, we will instruct
CBP to liquidate any entries of
merchandise produced by Stelco,
regardless of exporter, without regard to
antidumping duties.

Public Comment

Any interested party may request a
hearing within 30 days of publication of
this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any
hearing, if requested, will be held 44
days after the date of publication of this
notice, or the first working day
thereafter. Interested parties may submit
case briefs and/or written comments not
later than 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice. Rebuttal
briefs and rebuttals to written
comments, which must be limited to
issues raised in such briefs or
comments, may be filed not later than
37 days after the date of publication of
this notice. Parties who submit
arguments are requested to submit with
the argument (1) a statement of the
issue, (2) a brief summary of the
argument, and (3) a table of authorities.

Consistent with section 351.216(e) of
the Department's regulations, we will
issue the final results of this changed
circumstances review no later than 270
days after the date on which this review
was initiated, or within 45 days if all
parties agree to our preliminary finding.
We are issuing and publishing this
finding and notice in accordance with
sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the
Act and sections 351.216 and
351.221(c)(3) of the Department’s
regulations.

Dated: Februaru 19, 2004,
James J. Jochum,

Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.

[FR Doc, 04-4138 Filed 2-24-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-570-888}

Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing
Tables and Certain Parts Thereof From
the People’s Republic of China:
Postponement of Final Antidumping
Determination

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 25, 2004.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Paige Rivas or Sam Zengotitabengoa at
(202) 482-0651 or (202) 482-4195,
respectively; AD/CVD Enforcement,
Office 4, Group I, Import
Administration, Room 1870,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(the Department) is postponing the final
determination in the antidumping duty
investigation of floor-standing, metal-
top ironing tables and certain parts
thereof from the People’s Republic of
China.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Postponement of Final Determination
and Extension of Provisional Measures

On February 3, 2004, the Department
published its affirmative preliminary
determination of this antidumping duty
investigation in the Federal Register.
See Notice of Preliminary Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Floor-
Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and
Certain Parts Thereof From the People’s
Republic of China, 69 FR 5127
(February 3, 2004). This notice of
preliminary determination states that
the Department will issue its final
determination no later than 75 days
after the date on which the Department
issued its preliminary determination.

Section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19
CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii) provide that a final
determination may be postponed until
not 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. Additionally, 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 January 30, 2004, in accordance

with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and

19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), Shunde
Yongjian Housewares Co., Ltd.
(Yongjian), a mandatory respondent in
this investigation, requested that the
Department postpone its final
determination. On February 3,,2004,
Yongjian requested that the Department
fully extend the provisional measures
by 60 days in accordance with sections
733(d) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.210(e)(2). Accordingly, pursuant to
section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), we are postponing
the final determination until no later
than 135 days after the publication of
the preliminary determination in the
Federal Register (i.e., until no later than
June 13, 2004), because: (1) The
preliminary determination is
affirmative, and therefore the exporters
or producers have standing to request
this postponement; and (2) the
requesting exporter/producer accounts
for a significant proportion of exports of
the subject merchandise (see
Memorandum from Thomas F. Futtner,
Acting Office Director, Office 4, to Holly
A. Kuga, Acting Deputy Assistant
Secreatry, Group II, “Respondent
Selection Memorandum,” dated
September 10, 2003); and, (3) no
compelling reasons for denial exist.
Suspension of liquidation will be
extended accordingly.

This notice of postponement is
published pursuant to section 735(a) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(g).

Dated: February 19, 2004.

James J. Jochum,

Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.

[FR Doc. 04-4139 Filed 2-24-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-Ds-P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-570-863]

Notice of Extension of Time Limit of
Final Results of New Shipper Review:
Honey From the People’s Republic of
China

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

ACTION: Notice of extension of time limit
of final results of antidumping duty new
shipper review.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
is extending the time limit of the final
results of the new shipper review of the



PRICE DATA

The Commission requested U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers of ironing tables to
provide quarterly f.0.b. point of shipment data for the total quantity and value of ironing tables that were
shipped to unrelated customers in the U.S. market.’ Data were requested for the period January 2001 to
March 2004. The products for which pricing data were requested are as follows:””

Product 1.-Floor-standing, metal perforated-top ironing table, T-Leg, with pad and cover
Product 2.-Floor-standing, metal mesh-top ironing table, T-Leg, with pad and cover

Two U.S. producers, five importers, and nine purchasers provided usable pricing data for sales of
the requested products, although not all firms reported pricing for all products for all quarters.’
Pricing data reported by U.S. producers and importers accounted for *** percent of U.S. producers’ U.S.
shipments of ironing tables and virtually all of U.S. shipments of subject imports in 2003. Purchasers’
price data accounted for 42.8 percent of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments and 64.0 percent of U.S.
shipments of subject imports in 2003. Data on total selling prices and quantities of product 1 and product
2 are presented in tables V-1 and V-2 and figures V-1 through V-3. Company-specific data on total
selling prices and quantities of product 1 and product 2 are presented in appendix D. Purchaser price
data as reported by *** are presented in appendix E.

21 U.S. producers and importers were requested to provide data on all sales of product 1 and product 2, as well as
separate data on unbundled sales for the requested products. With the exception of *** and ***, all responding firms
that provided usable price data reported that all sales were unbundled. ***, and ***. Due to the lack of significant
difference between the reported unit values for all sales versus unbundled sales, unbundled sales data are not shown
in this section of the report but are footnoted as necessary to explain differences with reported total sales data.

Purchasers were requested to provide data only for unbundled purchases of product 1 and product 2.
Purchaser data are discussed in footnotes accompanying the related discussions of U.S. producer and importer data.

22 The Commission noted in the preliminary phase of this investigation that in the final phase it would examine
product mix issues and whether pricing items needed to be more narrowly defined. Jroning Tables and Certain
Parts Thereof from China, Inv. 731-TA-1047 (Preliminary), Publication No. 3623, August 2003, p. 12, n. 84.
Parties were asked to address these issues in their comments regarding the selected pricing products in the
Commission’s draft questionnaires. No party suggested or requested any changes or additions to the pricing
products.

2 U.S, producers and importers that provided usable price data are ***. Purchasers that provided usable price
data are ***,

2 In its purchasers’ questionnaire response, ***. Petitioner’s Posthearing Brief, pp. 4-5 and exh. 3-4.

V4


Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 45/Monday, March 8, 2004/ Notices 10753
RESPONDENT ANNUAL BURDEN HOUR CHART—Continued
Annual Annual
i a 7 Burden hours
30 CFR section Reporting requirement number of burden
Perresponse | responses hours

218.57(a)(2) ....

218.57(b)(3)

218.201(b) ...

cept as follows

ment * * *

Providing information and claiming rewards. (a) General. * * *
(2) If a person has any information he or she believes
would be valuable to MMS, that person ("informant") should
submit the information in writing, in the form of a letter * * *

Providing information and claiming rewards. (b) Claim for re-
ward. * * * (3) To file a claim for reward the informant
must: (i) Notify the Director, MMS * * * that he/she is claim-
ing a reward * * *

Method of payment

include both your customer identification and your customer
document identification numbers on your payment docu-

u must tender all payments * * *, ex-
(b) For Form MMS-4430 payments,

20 seconds ....

Total .....

Burden covered by OMB Control Number 1010—
0107.

Burden covered by OMB Control Number 1010—
0107.

1,095 6

5,631 1,488

Estimated Annual Reporting and
Recordkeeping “Non-hour Cost”
Burden: We have identified no “‘non-
hour” cost burdens.

Comments: The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501,
et seq.) provides an agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
Before submitting an ICR to OMB, PRA
section 3506(c)(2)(A) requires each
agency “* * * to provide notice * * *
and otherwise consult with members of
the public and affected agencies
concerning each proposed collection of
information * * *.” Agencies must
specifically solicit comments to: (a)
Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the agency to perform its duties,
including whether the information is
useful; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information; (c)
enhance the quality, usefulness, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) minimize the burden
on the respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.

The PRA also requires agencies to
estimate the total annual reporting
“non-hour cost” burden to respondents
or recordkeepers resulting from the
collection of information. We have not
identified non-hour cost burdens for
this information collection. If you have
costs to generate, maintain, and disclose
this information, you should comment
and provide your total capital and
startup cost components or annual
operation, maintenance, and purchase
of service components. You should
describe the methods you use to
estimate major cost factors, including
system and technology acquisition,

expected useful life of capital
equipment, discount rate(s), and the
period over which you incur costs.
Capital and startup costs include,
among other items, computers and
software you purchase to prepare for
collecting information; monitoring,
sampling, and testing equipment; and
record storage facilities. Generally, your
estimates should not include equipment
or services purchased: (i) Before October
1, 1995; (ii) to comply with
requirements not associated with the
information collection; (iii) for reasons
other than to provide information or
keep records for the Government; or (iv)
as part of customary and usual business
or private practices.

We will summarize written responses
to this notice and address them in our
ICR submission for OMB approval,
including appropriate adjustments to
the estimated burden. We will provide
a copy of the ICR to you without charge
upon request, and the ICR will also be
posted on our Web site at http://
www.mrm.mms.gov/Laws_R_D/
FRNotices/FRInfColl.htm.

Public Comment Policy: We will post
all comments in response to this notice
on our Web site at http://
www.mrm.mms.gov/Laws_R_D/
FRNotices/FRInfColl.htm. We will also
make copies of the comments available
for public review, including names and
addresses of respondents, during regular
business hours at our offices in
Lakewood, Colorado. Individual
respondents may request we withhold
their home addresses from the public
record, which we will honor to the
extent allowable by law. There also may
be circumstances in which we would
withhold from the rulemaking record a
respondent's identity, as allowable by
law, If you request that we withhold
your name and/or address, state this

prominently at the beginning of your
comment. However, we will not
consider anonymous comments. We
will make all submissions from
organizations or businesses, and from
individuals identifying themselves as
representatives or officials of
organizations or businesses, available
for public inspection in their entirety.
MMS Federal Register Liaison Officer:
Denise Johnson (202) 208-3976.
Dated: March 1, 2004.
Lucy Querques Denett,
Associate Director for Minerals Revenue
Management.
[FR Doc. 04-5066 Filed 3-5-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MR-U

INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 731-TA-1047 (Final)]

Ironing Tables and Certain Parts
Thereof from China

AGENCY: International Trade
Commission.

ACTION: Scheduling of the final phase of
an antidumping investigation.

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives
notice of the scheduling of the final
phase of antidumping investigation No.
731-TA-1047 (Final) under section
735(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19
U.S.C. 1673d(b)) (the Act) to determine
whether an industry in the United
States is materially injured or
threatened with material injury, or the
establishment of an industry in the
United States is materially retarded, by
reason of less-than-fair-value imports
from China of ironing tables and certain
parts thereof, provided for in
subheadings 9403.20.00 and 9403.90.80


Table C-5
Ironing tables + over-the-door/wall mounted + countertopitabletop: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2001-03, January-March 2003, and January-March 2004

{Quantity=1,000 units, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per unit; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes
January-March “an-War
teen 2001 2002 2003 2003, 2004 2001-03 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

U.S. consumption vanity

“Amount. . ny
Producers’ share (1). ” -
Importers’ share (1):

China (subject)... ” ” ” ” 7
Nonsubject.. ” * vs
Total imports a 7 a >
USS. consumption value:
‘Amount... an on ~ ~~ ~ o "
Producers’ share (1)...... ” ” ” ” ” ” ”
Importers’ share (1):
China (subject)... ” ” 7 ”
Nonsubject... eee a a ” ” cia a
Total imports = co = a 7 oo oo a
US. shipments of:
‘Subject imports from China:
Quantity. 456 4,252 2,538 673 370 456.0 1743 1027 354
Value fetes 5,726 11,360 21,323 4,808 4,508 2724 98.2 87.9 62
Unitvalue..... $1255 $9.07 $8.40 $8.40 $12.20 33.0 27 73 452
Ending inventory quantty 155 397 344 308 252 1218 1558 133 “18.6.
Nonsubject imports:
Quantity. eee 198 620 45 et 263 928.1 2140 363 2233
Value .. 4,332 3,081 3,500 259 2,081 162.8 1313 136 7038
Unit value . $6.74 $497 $4.14 $3.18 $7.90 386 263 “167 148.6
Ending inventory quantity... 40 132 150 118 195 2765 2322 133 644
Total imports:
Quantity... : 654 1.872 3,383 654 633 4174 106.3 807 32
Valu cee 7,058 14,431 24.822 5,087 6.589 2517 104.5 720 300
Unit value $10.78 srt $7.34 $775 $10.41 32.0 286 48 344
Ending inventory quantity. 195 528 494 428 447 153.4 114 £6 44

US. producers’:

‘Average capacity quantity ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Production quantity ” . ” 7” ” - a
Capacity utilization (1)... ” ” 7 ” ” ” ”
US. shipments:

Quantity. fe ”
Vatu :

Unit vaive ce
Export shipments:
‘Quantity. ww oa os ay ~ “ ~
Vaue. ~ o . os
Unit value ” TM
Ending inventory quantity... ” oa ” ”
Inventoriesfotal shipments (1) . "
Production workers... ” ” ” ” ”
Hours worked (1,000s).... ” " ” “
‘Wages paid ($1,000s) ” ” ” * ~”
Hourly wages . 7 ” 7 ”
Productivity (units/nour).. 7 cad ” ” 7 ”
Unit labor costs... . “ ” ” ca ”
Net sales:
‘Quantity o “ ~ o oo ny
Value .. ” a oa we
Unit value ... ” ” 7 ”
Cost of goods sold (COGS)... ” " ” ” ~
Gross profit or (loss) ..... ~ ~~ " =
‘SGBA expenses... ” ” ”
Operating income oF oss). ad ”
Capital expenditures ” ” ”
Unit COGS... ” "
Unit SGBA expenses ..... ” ~ os 2
Unit operating income or (oss) ” ” ” ” ~”
COGSisales (1)... om on o o ~~ - “
Operating income or lossy
‘sales (1).. oa - ” ~ as ~~ ~

(1) "Reported data” are in percent and “period changes” are in percentage points.

‘Note.—Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding,
figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.




domestic product prices, I conclude that underselling is likely to occur. Because subject imports from
China are reasonably good substitutes for the domestic like product, particularly when they are of the
same type, and price is important in ironing table purchasing decisions, underselling by these imports at
increased quantities is likely to require domestic producers either to cut prices or run the risk of losing
sales.

The domestic ironing table industry’s operating performance, although still healthy, showed
signs of declining at the end of the period. The data concerning the domestic industry’s loss of market
share and overall financial performance indicates that the domestic industry is vulnerable to material
injury by additional volumes of subject imports.

Based on my review of the statutory threat factors,” I conclude that further imports of subject
imports China are imminent and that, absent issuance of an antidumping order, the domestic ironing
tables industry would sustain material injury by reason of subject imports. Accordingly, I make an
affirmative threat determination concerning LTFV imports from China.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, I conclude that the domestic ironing tables industry is threatened with
material injury by reason of LTFV imports from China.

* T also reviewed information in the record pertinent to the statutory threat factor concerning existing development
and production efforts of the domestic industry. Petitioners did not submit any information specifically addressing
the nature of their efforts to develop derivative or advanced versions of ironing tables.

© Indeed, the quantity of subject imports ordered and/or delivered in the second and third quarters of 2004 suggest
a rapid rebound in subject import volume from the lower, but still substantial, level reported in the first quarter of
2004. CR at VII-6 and mn. 9,10, PR at VII-3 and nn. 9,10.

29


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 reset or linen
tack. 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
tespective quantities would yield an exact quantity of assembled ironing tables.

Troning 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.'” '*

Ironing tables and their components are produced from flat-rolled steel and wire, as well as
fasteners, foam, corrugated carton, shrink film, and cotton fabric. The principal components of an
ironing table are its metal ironing surface, hangers, ribs, foot cover, slide bar, handle, hinge, and legs.”

' 69 Fed. Reg. 35296, 35297 (June 24, 2004).

'S We use the term “ironing tables” to distinguish the subject floor-standing metal-top product from “ironing
boards,” a term used to describe products excluded from the scope: countertop, tabletop, over-the-door, and wall-
mounted ironing boards. Countertop or tabletop ironing boards are not produced domestically; they have a surface
of particle board or expanded metal attached to short legs that may or may not be retractable, and are typically 30 to
32 inches in length and 12 inches in width. CR at I-4 n.10, PR at I-4 n.10.

' CR at 1-5, PR at I-4.


wall-mounted ironing boards and over-the-door ironing boards, *** listed wall-mounted ironing boards
and tabletop ironing boards, and *** listed only tabletop ironing boards.'7 '*

SUBSTITUTABILITY ISSUES

The degree of substitution between domestic and imported ironing tables depends upon such
factors as relative prices, quality, and conditions of sale. Based on available data, staff believes that there
is a relatively high degree of substitution between domestic ironing tables and subject imports from’
China.

Factors Affecting Sales
Table I-1 summarizes purchasers’ responses concerning their top three factors in purchase

decisions. As indicated in the table, quality was cited most frequently as the primary factor in buying
decisions, while price and availability/reliability of supply were also frequently cited among the top three

factors.'° °
Table Il-1

Ironing tables: Ranking factors used in purchasing decisions, as reported by U.S. purchasers

Number of firms reporting
Factor Number one factor | Number two factor | Number three factor

Availability/reliability of supply 2 2 9

Price 2 7 4

Quality 8 3 4

Other’ 3 3 1

* Other factors include current vendor of record, innovation, and ability of supplier to provide “total program
support.”

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

When asked how often their firm purchases ironing tables that are offered at the lowest price, no
purchasers indicated “always,” five (***) indicated “usually,” seven (***) indicated “sometimes,” and
three indicated “never.” Questions concerning purchasers’ awareness of the country of origin and the
manufacturer indicate that 14 of 15 responding purchasers (***) “always” or “usually” know whether the

‘7 HPI and importers were asked to provide estimated price ranges for their firm’s U.S. shipments of ironing
tables or ironing boards. A compilation of all responses reveals that perforated-top T-leg ironing tables range in
price from $6.47 to $11.37, mesh-top T-leg ironing tables range in price from $4.14 to $15.68, mesh-top 4-leg
ironing tables range in price from $5.83 to $35.00, over-the-door ironing boards range in price from $9.49 to $13.25,
and tabletop ironing boards range in price from $1.51 to $10.80. No firm provided responses for perforated-top 4-
Jeg ironing tables.

'® This discussion focuses on potential substitute products. Producer and customer perceptions regarding the
actual interchangeability of ironing tables and ironing boards outside of the scope of this investigation are presented
in Part I of this report.

19 ee

20 Purchasers were asked if they require their suppliers to become certified or prequalified (i.e., products and/or
services must meet or exceed a predetermined level of quality) in order to sell to their firms. Of the 15 responding
purchasers, eight (***) stated that they require suppliers to become certified or prequalified.

T-4


I. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT

To determine whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with
material injury by reason of imports of the subject merchandise, the Commission first defines the
“domestic like product” and the “industry.”'° Section 771(4)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(‘the Act”), defines the relevant domestic industry as the “producers as a [whole of a domestic like
product, or those producers whose collective output of a domestic like product constitutes a major
proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”'’ In turn, the Act defines “domestic like
product” as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses
with, the article subject to an investigation.”

The decision regarding the appropriate domestic like product(s) in an investigation is a factual
determination, and the Commission has applied the statutory standard of “like” or “most similar in
characteristics and uses” on a case-by-case basis.'* No single factor is dispositive, and the Commission
may consider other factors it deems relevant based on the facts of a particular investigation.'* The
Commission looks for clear dividing lines among possible like products, and disregards minor
variations.'*> Although the Commission must accept the determination of the Department of Commerce
(“Commerce”) as to the scope of the imported merchandise sold at less than fair value, the Commission
determines what domestic product is like the imported articles that Commerce has identified.’

In its final determination with respect to subject imports from China, Commerce defined the
imported merchandise within the scope of investigation as:

floor-standing, metal-top ironing tables, assembled or unassembled, complete or
incomplete, and certain parts thereof. The subject tables are designed and used
principally for the hand ironing or pressing of garments or other articles of fabric. The
subject tables have full-height leg assemblies that support the ironing surface at an
appropriate (often adjustable) height above the floor. The subject tables are produced in

19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).
"Id.
19 U.S.C. § 1677(10).

® See, e.g., NEC Corp. v. Department of Commerce, 36 F. Supp.2d 380, 383 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998); Nippon Steel
Corp. v. United States, 19 CIT 450, 455 (1995); Torrington Co. v. United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 749 n.3 (Ct. Int’
Trade 1990), aff'd, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“every like product determination ‘must be made on the
particular record at issue’ and the ‘unique facts of each case”). The Commission generally considers a number of
factors including: (1) physical characteristics and uses; (2) interchangeability; (3) channels of distribution;
(4) customer and producer perceptions of the products; (5) common manufacturing facilities, production processes,
and production employees; and, where appropriate, (6) price. See Nippon, 19 CIT at 455, n.4; Timken Co. v.
United States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’! Trade 1996).

" See, e.g., S. Rep. No. 96-249, at 90-91 (1979).

"5 Nippon Steel, 19 CIT at 455; Torrington, 747 F. Supp. at 748-49; see also S. Rep. No. 96-249, at 90-91 (1979)
(Congress has indicated that the domestic like product standard should not be interpreted in “such a narrow fashion
as to permit minor differences in physical characteristics or uses to lead to the conclusion that the product and article
are not ‘like’ each other, nor should the definition of ‘like product’ be interpreted in such a fashion as to prevent
consideration of an industry adversely affected by the imports under consideration.”).

'® Hosiden Corp. v. Advanced Display Mfrs., 85 F.3d 1561, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (Commission may find single
domestic like product corresponding to several different classes or kinds defined by Commerce); Torrington,

747 F. Supp. at 748-52 (affirming Commission’s determination of six domestic like products in investigations where
Commerce found five classes or kinds).



same that is used for floor-standing ironing tables. However, different die and fabrication equipment is
required for over-the-door ironing boards due to their unique dimensions.”

Wall-mounted ironing boards are not produced by either HPI or Whitney Design, and therefore
use different facilities and employees. There are two known domestic manufacturers of wall-mounted
ironing boards, Iron-A-Way and Rev-A-Shelf. Neither firm produces over-the-door ironing boards or

subject ironing tables.”
Interchangeability and Customer and Producer Perceptions

Seven purchasers, ***, reported that they believed individual customers did not perceive ironing
boards (either wall-mounted, over-the-door, or countertop) to be interchangeable with ironing tables.”
Four purchasers, ***, indicated they were unaware of whether individual consumers perceived ironing
boards and ironing tables to be interchangeable.” One purchaser, ***, indicated it believed that its
customers considered the products to be interchangeable.*' One purchaser, ***, did not respond.”

The two domestic producers disagree as to whether ironing tables and over-the-door ironing
boards or wall-mounted ironing boards are interchangeable. *** does not perceive any ironing board to
be a substitute for an ironing table, as ironing boards are a niche product that appeal to consumers with
living space constraints.” *** asserts that ironing boards are interchangeable with ironing tables as they
fill the same function and differ only in methods of storage and portability.“

Channels of Distribution

Ironing tables are sold by U.S. producers and importers to mass retail stores and distributors
servicing the hospitality/hotel market. As discussed above in the summary of Market Participants
section, purchases generally are conducted through non-binding agreements with mass retailers that
provide for a specified volume of certain models to be delivered at a set price for a fixed term. Over-the-
door ironing boards are sold in mass market channels, whereas wall-mounted ironing boards are sold
through small businesses and occasionally through major distributors.**

37 ##**, interview by USITC Staff, ***, February 25, 2004.

38 There is limited information on these firms. Although both companies were issued questionnaires by the
Commission, neither responded.

38 *#%, telephone interview by USITC Staff, May 25 and 26, 2004. Questionnaire response by ***, question VII-
1p. 21.

4° Questionnaire responses by ***, question VII-1, p. 21.

“1 Questionnaire response by ***, question VII-1, p. 21.

“2 Questionnaire response by ***, question VII-1, p. 21.

* Questionnaire response of ***, question V-8 (a), p. 31.

“* Questionnaire response of ***, question V-8 (a), p. 31.

45 ##*, telephone interview by USITC Staff, May 10, 2004.

1-8


Table C-4

Ironing tables + countertop/tabletop Ironing boards: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2001-03, January-March 2003, and January-March 2004

(Quantity=1,000 units, value=1,000 dottars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per unit, period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes
“January-March Jan-Mar.
tem 2001 2002 2003 2003 2008 2001-03 2001-2002 __2002-2003__2003-2004
US. consumption quantiy
‘Amount... o - o o . o o .
Producers’ share (1). on ae - “ “ " “
Importers’ share (1):
China (subject). ” ” ” ” ” “ oo
Nonsubject a “ os
Total imports. * - = “= * oa
US. consumption value:
‘Amount... ca ” ” a * “
Producers’ share (1). " ” ” ” “
Importers’ share (1):
China (subject). * ” ” ” ”
Nonsubject... oo “ os . ““ oo
Total imports. 7 a a = a a =
US. shipments of
456 1,282 2.538 873 370 456.0 1743 102.7 35.4
5,728 11,380 21,323 4,808 4,508 2724 98.2 878 62
$12.65 $0.07 $8.40 $8.40 $12.20 33.0 277 73 452
155 307 344 308 252 1218 1558 133 “1868
Unit value. TM o “ - ~
Ending inventory quantity. ” ” “ ”
Inventoresfoal shipments (1)
Production workers . ” a - ~
Hours worked (1,000s) ” ” ” “ “
‘Wages paid ($1,000s) o on on - ”
Unit valve .......-.. 7 ” ~ ”
Cost of goods sold (COGS) ” “ co
Gross profit or (loss) “ " ” - ”
‘SG&A expenses... - - ” “ a
‘Operating income or (loss). ” ” ” ” o
Capital expendi « os ~ ~ ~ ~ w
Unt COGS. “~~ o os “ “ - -
Unit SGBA expenses . . ~ ” ” TM oo
Unit operating income oF (oss) ” o wo = ”
CoGSisales (1). ” ” ” ” ~ “
(Operating income or (loss

sales (1).

(1) “Reported data” are in percent and "period changes” are in percentage poinis.

Note.—Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding,
figures may not add tothe totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

‘Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

cs


D. Impact of the Subject Imports

In examining the impact of the subject imports on the domestic industry, we consider all relevant
economic factors that bear on the state of the industry in the United States.''’ These factors include
output, sales, inventories, capacity utilization, market share, employment, wages, productivity, profits,
cash flow, return on investment, ability to raise capital, and research and development. No single factor
is dispositive and all relevant factors are considered “within the context of the business cycle and
conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”!'*

While we examine the domestic industry as a whole,'!? we note that, as indicated above, Whitney
Design exited the domestic industry in April 2002, which significantly reduced domestic production
capacity.'2° Even accounting for Whitney Design’s exit and focusing on data for HPI, the industry’s sole
remaining domestic producer after April 2002, production and capacity utilization decreased significantly
between 2001 and 2003.'2' The domestic industry’s end-of-period inventories fluctuated over the period,
remaining steady when comparing 2003 to 2001, but the ratio of inventories to production and to U.S.
shipments *** between 2001 and 2003.’

"719 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C) (iii). See also SAA at 851 and 885 (“In material injury determinations, the
Commission considers, in addition to imports, other factors that may be contributing to overall injury. While these
factors, in some cases, may account for the injury to the domestic industry, they also may demonstrate that an
industry is facing difficulties from a variety of sources and is vulnerable to dumped or subsidized imports.”).

"8 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii). See also SAA at 851 and 885 and Live Cattle from Canada and Mexico, Inv.
Nos. 701-TA-386 and 731-TA-812-813 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3155 (Feb. 1999) at 25 n.148.

19 See, e.g., Timken Co. v. United States, _ F.Supp.2d__, Slip Op. 04-17 (Feb. 25, 2004) at 13 n.2;
Calabrian Corp. v. United States, 794 F. Supp. 377, 385-86 (Ct. Int’! Trade 1992).

120 Whitney Design’s capacity was *** units in 2001. HPI’s capacity throughout the period examined was ***
units. CR/PR at Table II]-2. Whitney Design claims that it exited the domestic industry not because of subject
imports, but because of HPI’s aggressive pricing. For purposes of considering impact, we consider data for both the
domestic industry as a whole and HPI alone; both sets of data support a finding of material adverse impact by subject
imports.

121 Total domestic production decreased from *** units in 2001 to *** units in 2002, then to *** units in 2003. It
was *** units in interim 2003 and *** units in interim 2004. HPI’s production decreased from *** units in 2001 to
*** units in 2002, then to *** units in 2003. It was *** units in interim 2003 and *** units in interim 2004. CR/PR
at Table III-2.

Average capacity utilization decreased from *** percent in 2001 to *** percent in 2002, then to *** percent
in 2003. It was *** percent in interim 2003 and *** percent in interim 2004. HPI’s capacity utilization decreased
from *** percent in 2001 to *** percent in 2002, then to *** percent in 2003. It was *** percent in interim 2003
and *** percent in interim 2004. CR/PR at Table III-2.

2 Total end-of-period inventories were *** units in 2001, *** units in 2002 and *** units in 2003. They were
*** units in interim 2003 and *** units in interim 2004. HPI’s end-of-period inventories were *** units in 2001, ***
units in 2002 and *** units in 2003. They were *** units in interim 2003 and *** units in interim 2004.

The average ratio of inventories to production was *** percent in 2001, *** percent in 2002 and ***
percent in 2003. It was *** percent in interim 2003 and *** percent in interim 2004. HPI’s ratio of inventories to
production was *** percent in 2001, *** percent in 2002 and *** percent in 2003. It was *** percent in interim
2003 and *** percent in interim 2004.

The average ratio of inventories to total shipments was *** percent in 2001, *** percent in 2002 and ***
percent in 2003. It was *** percent in interim 2003 and *** percent in interim 2004. HPI’s ratio of inventories to
total shipments was *** percent in 2001, *** percent in 2002 and *** percent in 2003. It was *** percent in interim
2003 and *** percent in interim 2004. CR/PR at Table III-7.

17


B. Volume of the Subject Imports

Section 771(7)(C)(D) of the Act provides that the “Commission shall consider whether the
volume of imports of the merchandise, or any increase in that volume, either in absolute terms or relative
to production or consumption in the United States, is significant.”

U.S. imports of ironing tables from China nearly quadrupled in terms of quantity and nearly
tripled in terms of value between 2001 and 2003.” While subject imports declined in interim (January-
March) 2004 as compared to interim 2003, we attribute the decline to the filing of the petition in June
2003 and the imposition of duties in February 2004. Subject import market share increased
dramatically between 2001 and 2003 as well, rising by nearly *** percentage points in terms of quantity
and nearly *** in terms of value.”

As subject import shipments increased between 2001 and 2003, the domestic industry’s
production fell by ***.”” U.S. shipments also declined over this period, falling by *** in terms of
quantity and by *** in terms of value.” The industry’s share of apparent U.S. consumption fell from ***
percent in 2001 to *** percent in 2003; this market share was lost entirely to subject imports.” Due to
the long lasting nature of ironing tables, moderate price declines do not significantly increase purchases;
thus, the increased shipment volumes of subject imports at LTFV have taken market share from the
remaining domestic producer, rather than resulting in increased consumption.

Despite the rapid and substantial increase of subject imports and their market share, respondents
argue that some of this volume does not compete with the domestic product, and therefore should be
discounted as not injurious to the domestic industry.”* Respondents state that, because HPI produces
mainly perforated-top ironing tables and subject imports are entirely mesh-top tables,” there is little
head-to-head competition between the two. The record does not support this argument. Even though ***

° (...continued)
marketing brochures promoted mesh surfaces as a trade up over perforated surfaces, and that HPI’s packaging

materials make reference to mesh tops being a better ironing surface due to their better steam penetration ability.
908

® In terms of quantity, subject imports increased from 668,000 units in 2001 to 1.5 million units in 2002, then to
2.5 million shipments in 2003. They totaled 508,000 units in interim 2003 and 279,000 units in interim 2004. In
terms of value, subject import shipments increased from $6.4 million in 2001 to $12.0 million in 2002, then to $18.9
million in 2003. They were $3.9 million in interim 2003 and $3.4 million in interim 2004. CR/PR at Table IV-1. In
our evaluation of the volume of subject imports, their price effects and their impact on the domestic industry, we give
less weight to the interim 2004 data in view of the pendency of this investigation. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(I).

© See Tr. at 210 (Mr. Ho).

© In terms of quantity, subject import market share increased from *** percent in 2001 to *** percent in 2002
and then to *** percent in 2003. It was *** percent in interim 2003 and *** percent in interim 2004. In terms of
value, subject import market share increased from *** percent in 2001 to *** percent in 2002, then increased further
to *** percent in 2003. It was *** percent in interim 2003 and *** percent in interim 2004. CR/PR at Table IV-4.

Domestic production decreased from *** units in 2001 to *** units in 2003. CR/PR at Table III-2.

” As measured by quantity, the domestic industry’s U.S. shipments decreased from *** units in 2001 to *** units
in 2002, then to *** units in 2003. They totaled *** in interim 2003 and *** in interim 2004. As measured by
value, the domestic industry’s U.S. shipments decreased from $*** in 2001 to $*** in 2002, then to $*** in 2004.
They were $*** in interim 2003 and $*** in interim 2004. CR/PR at Table IV-4.

” CRIPR at Table IV-4,

*3 Respondent Whitney Design et al.’s Prehearing Brief at 14-15; Respondent Whitney Design et al.’s Posthearing
Brief at 9-11.

”* Chinese manufacturers reportedly produce only mesh-top tables. CR at I-6, PR at I-5.

12


UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation No. 731-TA-1047 (Final)

IRONING TABLES AND CERTAIN PARTS THEREOF FROM CHINA

DETERMINATION

On the basis of the record! developed in the subject investigation, the United States International
Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 735(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19
U.S.C. § 1673d(b)) (the Act), that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of
imports from China of ironing tables and certain parts thereof, provided for in subheadings 9403.20.00
and 9403.90.80 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that have been found by the
Department of Commerce (Commerce) to be sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV)?

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted this investigation effective June 30, 2003, following receipt of a petition
filed with the Commission and Commerce by Home Products International, Inc. (HPI), Chicago, IL. The
final phase of the investigation was scheduled by the Commission following notification of a preliminary
determination by Commerce that imports of ironing tables and certain parts thereof from China were
being sold at LTFV within the meaning of section 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1673b(b)). Notice of
the scheduling of the final phase of the Commission’s investigation and of a public hearing to be held in
connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S.
International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register
of March 8, 2004 (69 F.R 10753) and March 8, 2004 (69 F.R. 16954). The hearing was held in
Washington, DC, on June 16, 2004, and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to
appear in person or by counsel.

' The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR §
207.2(f).

2 Commissioner Daniel R. Pearson determines that the domestic industry is threatened with material injury by
reason of subject imports from China.






PART VI: FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE OF THE U.S. INDUSTRY

BACKGROUND

Two companies, producer HPI and former producer Whitney Design, represent all known
production of ironing tables in the United States during the period examined. Both companies provided
usable financial data on their ironing table operations.' HPI currently produces subject merchandise in
Seymour, IN, but closed a plant in El Paso, TX, in the first quarter of 2001. HPI acquired its ironing table
operations on December 30, 1997, when the company purchased Seymour Sales Corporation, a privately
held company that designs, manufactures, and markets a full line of ironing tables and related accessories.
Seymour was merged into HPI as of December 26, 1999.?* Whitney Design produced ironing tables
until April 2002, when it closed down its St. Louis, MO, production facility.

OPERATIONS ON IRONING TABLES

Income-and-loss data for the U.S. producers on their ironing table operations are presented in
table VI-] and selected financial data, by firm, are presented in table VI-2. Both the quantity and value
of net sales for the domestic industry declined during 2001-03, with net sales quantity decreasing by ***
percent and value decreasing by *** percent over the period. However, interim data show that net sales
quantity and value were *** percent and *** percent higher, respectively, in the first three months of
2004 than in the first three months of 2003.

Operating profit for the domestic producers declined from $*** in 2001 to $*** in 2003. During
the interim period, operating profit was *** lower in January-March 2004 ($***) than in January-March
2003 ($***). Declines in operating profit during 2001-03 reflect the trend in net sales values, which
declined rapidly, and other factory costs, which did not fall as quickly as did net sales values.

During the interim period, cost of goods sold rose relative to sales value. Operating profit for
domestic producers continued to decline despite higher net sales values because raw materials increased
at a higher rate than net sales value. Because steel is a primary raw material in the production of subject
ironing tables, rising steel prices during 2003 and 2004 contributed to increased overall input costs when
comparing January-March 2003 and January-March 2004.*

The average unit selling price decreased throughout 2001-03, and was lower in January-March
2004 than in January-March 2003. Average unit cost of goods sold also declined during 2001-03,
resulting in stable unit gross profit. But during the interim period, average unit cost of goods sold
increased as the average unit selling price declined, resulting in average unit gross profit of $*** in
January-March 2004, compared with $*** in January-March 2003. Per-unit operating profit rose from
$*** in 2001 to $*** in 2002 before declining to $*** in 2003. During the interim period, per-unit
operating profit was $*** in January-March 2004 compared to *** in January-March 2003.

‘U.S. producers of ironing tables and their fiscal year ends are HPI (***) and Whitney Design (***).
? HPI 2003 Form 10-K, p. 3, found at Attp:/Avww.sec.gov/Archives/edgar.

3 HPI’s reported sales of ironing tables represent approximately *** percent of net sales for its laundry
management segment and *** percent of its total sales revenue during 2003. HPI’s reported operating income from
ironing tables represents *** percent of its total operating income during 2003, up from *** percent in 2002. (See
HPI 2003 Form 10-K, p. 16, found at hitp://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar.)

4 HPI states that the cost of steel is *** of raw material costs. For example, in a typical T-Leg, steel represents
approximately *** percent of total raw material cost. HPI experienced increased steel costs in the first quarter of
2004 when compared to the first quarter of 2003, and the company estimates that increases in the cost of steel
accounted for about *** percent of the rise in raw material cost per unit. Email from Charles Avery, Senior Vice
president of finance, HPI, May 31, 2004.

VI-1


(I) the effect of imports of such merchandise otherwise depresses prices to a significant
degree or prevents price increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a significant
degree.®

In examining the impact of the subject imports on the domestic industry, we consider all relevant
economic factors that bear on the state of the industry in the United States.’ These factors include output,
sales, inventories, capacity utilization, market share, employment, wages, productivity, profits, cash flow,
return on investment, ability to raise capital, and research and development. No single factor is
dispositive and all relevant factors are considered “within the context of the business cycle and
conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”"°

For the reasons discussed below, I determine that the domestic ironing tables industry is not
materially injured by reason of LTFV imports from China.

1. Volume of the Subject Imports

The quantity of subject imports from China increased from 668,000 units in 2001 to 1.5 million
units in 2002 and then to 2.5 million units in 2003. The quantity of subject imports declined from
508,000 units in interim 2003 to 279,000 units in interim 2004.'' These imports’ share of total apparent
U.S. consumption increased from *** percent in 2001 to *** percent in 2002, and then increased further
to *** percent in 2003. Subject imports’ share of total apparent U.S. consumption fell from *** percent
in interim 2003 to *** percent in interim 2004.”

The absolute quantity of subject imports from China increased rapidly from 2001 to 2002, and
again from 2002 to 2003. These imports’ share of apparent U.S. consumption also increased rapidly on
an annual basis. Based on this rapid growth, and the substantial share of U.S. consumption accounted for
by subject imports, I find the volume of subject imports, as well as the increase in that volume, to be
significant."

* 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)Gii).

° 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii). See also SAA at 851, 885 (“In material injury determinations, the Commission
considers, in addition to imports, other factors that may be contributing to overall injury. While these factors, in
some cases, may account for the injury to the domestic industry, they also may demonstrate that an industry is facing
difficulties from a variety of sources and is vulnerable to dumped or subsidized imports.” Id. at 885.).

19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii). See also SAA at 851, 885; Live Cattle from Canada and Mexico, Inv. Nos. 701-
TA-386, 731-TA-812-813 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3155 (Feb. 1999) at 25 n.148.

" CR/PR, Table IV-1.
? CR/PR, Table IV-4.

The reported subject import volumes are somewhat misleading for three reasons: 1) The reported subject import
volumes include direct imports by ***. These direct imports by *** accounted for *** percent of subject imports
during 2003. *** maintains that an important non-price factor in its decision to import subject product from China
was HPI’s lack of a proven track record of producing mesh-top T-leg ironing tables in the quantities *** required; 2)
the reported subject import volumes include imports by Whitney Design. Whitney Design was a domestic producer
of ironing tables until it closed its ironing table production facility in April 2002. Whitney Design argues that a
substantial share of its imports, subsequent to its exit from the domestic industry, were sold to existing Whitney
Design customers, and therefore these sales did not take sales from HPI; and 3) the reported subject import volumes
include imports of “high-end” ironing tables. HPI produces relatively few of these types of ironing tables, and both
HPI and Whitney Design (while it was a domestic producer) historically imported “high-end” ironing tables from
Chinese producers to round out their product lines. Respondents’ prehearing brief, pp. 13-14. Respondents’
posthearing brief, pp. 9-13. Target’s posthearing brief, pp. 1-9. Therefore, I believe that competition between

(continued...)

22


In view of the above, we find, as the Commission did in the preliminary phase of the
investigation, one domestic like product consisting of floor-standing, metal-top ironing tables,
coextensive with the scope of the investigation.

il. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY AND RELATED PARTIES

The domestic industry is defined as “producers as a [wJhole of a domestic like product, or those
producers whose collective output of a domestic like product constitutes a major proportion of the total
domestic production of the product.”** In defining the domestic industry, the Commission’s general
practice has been to include in the industry all domestic production of the domestic like product, whether
toll-produced, captively consumed, or sold in the domestic merchant market.”

The principal domestic industry issue in the final phase investigation concerns whether
appropriate circumstances exist to exclude either of the two producers from the domestic industry
pursuant to the statutory related parties provision codified in section 771(4)(B) of the Act. That
provision of the statute allows the Commission, if appropriate circumstances exist, to exclude producers
from the domestic industry that are related to an exporter or importer of subject merchandise or which
are themselves importers.** Exclusion of any such producer is within the Commission’s discretion based

35. continued)
with the same employees as where its ironing tables are produced, and there is overlap in channels of distribution.
CR at I-9 - I-11, PR at I-7 - 1-8. There is also overlap in price at least with respect to the lower priced ironing tables,
CR at I-12, PR at I-9, and physical size is comparable. CR at I-4, I-9, PR at I-3, I-7. A majority of purchasers,
however, do not find these ironing boards and ironing tables to be interchangeable. CR at I-10 - I-11, PR at 1-8.
Moreover, over-the-door boards are designed for users with space constraints, whereas ironing tables are more
versatile and are much more flexible with respect to placement. CR at I-11, PR at I-8. Including the over-the-door
ironing boards in the definition of the domestic like product does not change the volume and impact trends, and leads
to the same affirmative determination of present material injury. Based on the data for the broader industry, subject
imports’ U.S. market share increased by *** percentage points from 2001 to 2003, while U.S. producers lost
equivalent market share, and most financial and performance indicators of the domestic industry, including
production, shipments, employment, sales, and operating income, declined sharply. CR/PR at Table C-2.

19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

*” See United States Steel Group v. United States, 873 F. Supp. 673, 681-84 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1994), aff'd, 96 F. 3d
1352 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

8 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B).


2001, *** percent in 2002, and *** percent in 2003. Despite the domestic industry’s *** operating
income margins, U.S. producers’ operating income fell throughout the period, following the domestic
industry’s loss of volume.” However, I note that the Commission was only able to confirm lost sales
allegations concerning ***.*

During the period examined, subject imports did increase significantly, both on a quantity basis
and as a share of the U.S. market. However, the Commission price data show that domestic producers
were the price leaders in this market, and that subject import prices did not depress or suppress domestic
prices. As a result, although a number of the domestic industry’s volume-based indicators declined over
the period examined, domestic producers were able to maintain *** levels of profitability, both in
relation to net sales and to fixed assets. For the foregoing reasons, I conclude that subject imports from
China did not have a significant impact on the domestic ironing tables industry. I consequently
determine that the domestic ironing tables industry is not materially injured by reason of LTFV imports
from China.

I. ANALYSIS OF THREAT OF MATERIAL INJURY BY REASON OF SUBJECT
IMPORTS

A. General Legal Standards

Section 771(7)(F) of the Act directs the Commission to determine whether the U.S. industry is
threatened with material injury by reason of the subject imports by analyzing whether “further dumped or
subsidized imports are imminent and whether material injury by reason of imports would occur unless an
order is issued or a suspension agreement is accepted.” The Commission may not make such a
determination “on the basis of mere conjecture or supposition,” and considers the threat factors “as a
whole” in making its determination whether dumped or subsidized imports are imminent and whether
material injury by reason of subject imports would occur unless an order is issued.*° In making my
determination, I consider all statutory threat factors that are relevant to this investigation.*!

“© Calculated from CR/PR, Tables VI-2 and VI-4.

47 The domestic industry’s operating income fell from *** in 2001 to *** in 2002, and continued to fall to *** in
2003. Operating income further fell from *** in interim 2003 to *** in interim 2004. CR/PR, Table VI-1.

48 CR/PR, Table V-4. In particular, ***. CR/PR, Tables V-3 and V-4. ***. ***, Target’s posthearing brief, pp. 6-
9.

19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii).

© 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii).

* 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(i). These factors include: any existing unused production capacity or imminent,
substantial increase in production capacity in the exporting country; a significant rate of increase of the volume or
market penetration of imports of the subject merchandise indicating the likelihood of substantially increased imports;
whether imports of the subject merchandise are entering at prices that are likely to have a significant depressing or
suppressing effect on the domestic prices and are likely to increase demand for further imports; inventories of the
subject merchandise; the potential for product shifting; and the actual and potential negative effects on the existing
development and production efforts of the domestic industry. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(i). Statutory threat factor (I)
is inapplicable, as no countervailable subsidies are involved, and statutory threat factor (VII) is inapplicable, as no
imports of agricultural products are involved. Id.

27


Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 121/Thursday, June 24, 2004/ Notices

35303

(Since Hardware’s October 14, 2003,
response). Therefore, for the final
determination, the Department will use HS
3824.9015 to value Since Hardware's
consumption of silica gel parts.

G. Cotton Thread

In the Preliminary Determination the
Department valued cotton thread using HS
5204.1101, the subheading for cotton thread.
Since Hardware claims that this subheading
does not reflect the physical characteristics of
the cotton thread that Since Hardware
consumes in the ordinary course of business.
Instead, Since Hardware urges the
Department to use HS 5204-2009, the
subheading for other cotton sewing thread
offered for retail sale, to value cotton in the
fina] determination. See Since Hardware's
Case Brief, at 4.

The petitioner claims that Since
Hardware's criticisms of the Department's
choice of HS subheading for cotton thread are
lacking in merit. The petitioner states that the
HS 5204.1101, the subheading used by the
Department in the Preliminary Determination
covers cotton sewing thread, containing 85
percent or more by weight of cotton, not
offered for retail sale. The petitioner notes
that the subheading advocated by Since
Hardware as providing ‘a more appropriate
basis" covers other cotton sewing thread
offered for retail sale. The petitioner
questions whether Since Hardware is
acquiring its cotton thread in a configuration
offered for retail sale, noting that the
respondent has proffered no evidence to
support such an improbable claim.

Department's Position: We agree with the
petitioner. We find that HS 5204.1101
identifies cotton thread, containing 85
percent or more of cotton, not offered for
retail sale, to be an appropriate subheading
in calculating the surrogate value for cotton
thread. Since Hardware's suggested
subheading, HS 5204.2009, covers other
cotton sewing thread offered for retail sale.
Because Since Hardware is a manufacturing
company that purchases cotton thread as one
of many inputs used to produce ironing
boards, it is reasonable to assume that it
purchases cotton thread in bulk from a
wholesaler, rather than purchasing this
material at retail. In addition, Since
Hardware has provided no evidence that its
reported cotton thread input contains less
than 85 percent by weight of cotton and does
not state why HS 5204.2009, the subheading
for other cotton sewing thread offered for
retail sale, better reflects Since Hardware's
cotton thread input. Therefore, for the final
determination, we continue to find that HS
5204.1101 is the appropriate subheading to
value Since Hardware's consumption of
cotton thread.

H. Cotton Rope

For the Preliminary Determination, the
Department classified cotton rope using HS
5604.9000, the subheading for other rubber
thread and cord. However, Since Hardware
alleges that this classification does not reflect
the physical characteristics of the cotton rope
that Since Hardware consumes in the
ordinary course of business. Instead, Since
Hardware urges the Department to use HS

5607.9002, the subheading for cordage, cable
ropes, and twine of cotton, to value cotton
rope in the final determination. See Since
Hardware’s Case Brief, at 5.

The petitioner claims that Since
Hardware’s criticisms of the Department’s
choice of HS subheading for cotton rope are
unwarranted. The petitioner notes that Since
Hardware’s submissions, dated December 17,
2003, and January 12, 2004, indicated that
HS 5604.9000 is the subheading applicable to
Since Hardware's cotton rope. This is the
subheading that the Department applied in
its Preliminary Determination. In addition,
the petitioner states that Since Hardware's
March 29, 2004, submission, was made
subsequent to the Preliminary Determination.
Furthermore, the petitioner notes that the
data submitted by Since Hardware were not
drawn from the period covered by the POI
and were submitted with no explanation as
to the material which Since Hardware
considered them relevant.

Department'’s Position: We agree with
Since Hardware. The subheading HS
5604.9000 that the Department used in the
Preliminary Determination covers rubber
thread and cord, textile covered; textile yarn
and strip and the like of headings 5404 and
5405 (which cover man-made materials),
impregnated, coated, covered or sheathed
with rubber or plastics. The materials under
this subheading appear to be predominantly
man-made. Item number HS 5607.9002,
which covers cordage, cable ropes, and twine
of cotton, includes materials more similar to
the material reported by Since Hardware. As
a result, we find that HS 5607.9002 is
appropriate for the valuation of cotton rope
in this final determination. For the timing of
Since Hardware's submission, see the
Department's Position under comment 4-E.

I. Zinc Galvanized Iron Clips

For the Preliminary Determination, the
Department valued zinc galvanized iron clips
using HS 7318.2400, the subheading for non-
threaded cotters and cotter pins. However,
Since Hardware alleges that this
classification does not reflect the physical
characteristics of the zinc galvanized iron
clips that Since Hardware consumes in the
ordinary course of business. Instead, Since
Hardware urges the Department to use HS
7210.4900, the subheading for other products
of iron/non-alloy steel otherwise plated/
coated with zinc, to value zinc galvanized
iron clips in the final determination. See
Since Hardware's Case Brief, at 5.

The petitioner claims that Since
Hardware's criticisms of the Department’s
choice of HS subheading for galvanized iron
clips are unwarranted. The petitioner notes
that Since Hardware’s submissions, dated
December 17, 2003, and January 12, 2004,
indicated that HS 7318.2400 is the
subheading applicable to Since Hardware’s
zinc galvanized iron clips. In addition, the
petitioner states that Since Hardware's March
29, 2004, submission was made subsequent
to the Preliminary Determination.
Furthermore, the petitioner notes that the
data submitted by Since Hardware were not
drawn from a period covered by the POI and
were submitted with no explanation as to the
material which Since Hardware considered

them relevant. The petitioner also states that
in its January 15, 2004, submission, it
provided explanatory information on
“circlips,” which might describe the
galvanized iron clips used by Since
Hardware.

Department's Position: We agree with the
petitioner. We find that Since Hardware’s
surrogate value suggestion on HS 7210.4900
ismot appropriate to value zinc galvanized
irdn clips because subheading HS 7210 refers
to flat rolled steel products of iron or
nonalloy steel, of a width of 600 mm or more,
clad, plated, or coated. There is no indication
that this subheading refers to any type of
clip, or any article employed in a clip-like
application, similar to that used in the
production of ironing boards. In fact, the
‘width of 600 mm or more indicates that it is
not used in an application similar to a clip,
but is much larger in size. HS subheading
7318.2400 is a more appropriate surrogate for
zinc galvanized iron clips for the following
reasons: (1) HS subheading 73 is the
subheading for articles of iron or steel, some
plated and coated (a zinc galvanized iron clip
is an article of iron); and (2) HS subheading
7318 refers to screws, nuts, bolts, coach
screws, screw hooks, rivets, cotters, cotter
pins, washers, and similar articles of iron and
steel. Although zinc galvanized clips are not
specifically mentioned, the above-listed
items perform functions similar to the
function a clip performs, or at least are more
similar than a flat-rolled iron sheet.
Therefore, the Department continues to value
zinc galvanized iron clips using HS
7318,2400. For the timing of Since
Hardware’s submission, see the Department's
Position under comment 4~E.

J. Glue

For the Preliminary Determination, the
Department valued glue using subheading HS
3214.1000, the subheading for glaziers putty,
grafting putty, resin cements, and caulking.
Since Hardware alleges that this subheading
does not reflect the physical characteristics of
the glue that Since Hardware consumes in
the ordinary course of business. Instead,
Since Hardware urges the Department to use
HS 3505.2000, the subheading for glues to
value glue in the final determination. See
Since Hardware's Case Brief, at 5.

The petitioner claims that Since
Hardware’s criticisms of the Department's
choice of HS subheading for glue are
unwarranted. The petitioner notes that Since
Hardware's submissions, dated December 17,
2003, and January 12, 2004, indicated that
HS 3214.1000 is the classification applicable
to Since Hardware’s glue. This is the
classification that the Department applied in
its Preliminary Determination. In addition,
the petitioner states that Since Hardware’s
March 29, 2004, submission was made
subsequent to the Preliminary Determination.
Furthermore, the petitioner notes that the
data submitted by Since Hardware were not
drawn from the period covered by the POT
and were submitted with no explanation as
to the material which Since Hardware
considered them relevant.

Department's Position: We agree with
Since Hardware. Upon further review of the
HS subheadings, we find that the subheading


35296

Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 121/Thursday, June 24, 2004/ Notices

determination. Interested parties may
submit case briefs on the later of 50 days
after the date of publication of this
notice or one week after the issuance of
the verification reports. See 19 CFR
351.309(c)(1)(i). 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. See 19
CFR 351.309(d). 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, NW., 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 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 135 days after the date of
publication of this preliminary
determination.

This determination is issued and
published in accordance with sections
733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: June 18, 2004.

James J. Jochum,

Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.

[FR Doc. 04-14363 Filed 6-23-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-Ds-P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-570-888]

Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: Floor-
Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables.
and Certain Parts Thereof From the
People’s Republic of China

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

ACTION: Notice of final determination of
sales at less than fair value.

DATES: Effective Date: June 24, 2004.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Paige Rivas or Sam Zengotitabengoa,
AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 4, Group
IL, Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0651 or
(202) 482-4195, respectively.
‘SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Final Determination

We determine that floor-standing,
metal-top ironing tables and certain
parts thereof (ironing tables) from the
People’s Republic of China (PRC) are
being sold, or are likely to be sold, in
the United States at less than fair value
(LTFV), as provided in section 735 of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act). The estimated margins of sales at
LTFV are shown in the “Final
Determination of Investigation” section
of this notice.

Case History

On February 3, 2004, the Department
of Commerce (the Department)
published the preliminary
determination of sales at LTFV in the
antidumping duty investigation of
ironing tables from the PRC. See Notice
of Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Floor-Standing,
Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain
Parts Thereof from the People’s
Republic of China, 69 FR 5127
(February 3, 2004) (Preliminary
Determination). Since the preliminary
determination, the following events
have occurred.

On February 3, 2004, Shunde
Yongjian Housewares Co. Ltd.
(Yongjian), a mandatory respondent in
this investigation, requested a full
postponement of the final
determination. Accordingly, on
February 19, 2004, the Department
published the postponement of the final
determination from April 10, 2003, until

June 13, 2004. See Floor-Standing,
Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain
Parts Thereof From the People’s
Republic of China: Postponement of
Final Antidumping Determination, 69
FR 8625 (February 25, 2004). From
February 23, 2004, through March 8,
2004, the Department conducted a sales
and factors of production verification of
Yongjian and Since Hardware,
(Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. (Since Hardware),
the other mandatory respondent in this
investigation. On March 4, 2004, the
petitioner? filed a request for a public
hearing in this investigation, but then
withdrew its request on May 5, 2004.
Since Hardware and Yongjian filed
publicly available surrogate value
information and data on March 29,
2004. The respondents filed case briefs
on April 29, 2004, and the petitioner
filed its case brief on April 30, 2004.
The respondents filed rebuttal briefs on
May 4, 2004, and the petitioner filed its
rebuttal brief on May 5, 2004.

Due to the unexpected closure of the
main Commerce building on Friday,
June, 11, 2004, the Department has
tolled the deadline for this final
determination by two days to June 15,
2004.

Period of Investigation

The period of investigation (POI) is
October 1, 2002, through March 31,
2003. This period corresponds to the
two most recent fiscal quarters prior to
the month of the filing of the petition
(i.e., June 2003). See 19 CFR
351.204(b)(1).

Scope of Investigation

For purposes of this investigation, the
product covered consists of floor-
standing, metal-top ironing tables,
assembled or unassembled, complete or
incomplete, and certain parts thereof.
The subject tables are designed and
used principally for the hand ironing or
pressing of garments or other articles of
fabric. The subject tables have full-
height leg assemblies that support the
ironing surface at an appropriate (often
adjustable) height above the floor. The
subject tables are produced in a variety
of leg finishes, such as painted, plated,
or matte, and they are available with
various features, including iron rests,
linen racks, and others. The subject
ironing tables may be sold with or
without a pad and/or cover. All types
and configurations of floor-standing,
metal-top ironing tables are covered by
this investigation.

Furthermore, this investigation
specifically covers imports of ironing

1 The petitioner in this case is Home Products
International, Inc. (HPI).


upon the facts presented in each case.” The purpose of the provision is to exclude domestic producers
that substantially benefit from their relationships with foreign exporters.”

No party has argued that either HPI or Whitney Design, Inc. should be excluded from the
domestic industry as a related party.*' However, both are related parties in that they imported subject
merchandise throughout the period examined. In the preliminary phase of the investigation, the
Commission found that appropriate circumstances did not exist to exclude either producer from the
domestic industry.*? There is no new information on the record indicating that exclusion of either
producer is appropriate; therefore, as in the preliminary phase of the investigation, we find that
appropriate circumstances do not exist to exclude HPI or Whitney Design from the domestic industry.

IV. MATERIAL INJURY BY REASON OF LESS THAN FAIR VALUE IMPORTS“
A. Conditions of Competition
Several conditions of competition are pertinent to our analysis.
1. Demand

Demand, as measured by apparent U.S. consumption, was relatively stable over the period
examined. Apparent U.S. consumption was *** units in 2001, *** units in 2002 and *** units in 2003.

+° Sandvik AB v. United States, 721 F. Supp. 1322, 1331-32 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1989), aff'd without opinion, 904
F.2d 46 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Empire Plow Co. v. United States, 675 F. Supp. 1348, 1352 (Ct. Int’] Trade 1987). The
primary factors the Commission has examined in deciding whether appropriate circumstances exist to exclude the
related parties include: (1) the percentage of domestic production attributable to the importing producer; (2) the
reason the U.S. producer has decided to import the product subject to investigation, i.e., whether the firm benefits
from the LTFV sales or subsidies or whether the firm must import in order to enable it to continue production and
compete in the U.S. market; and (3) the position of the related producers vis-a-vis the rest of the industry, ie.,
whether inclusion or exclusion of the related party will skew the data for the rest of the industry. See, e.g.,
Torrington Co. v. United States, 790 F. Supp. 1161, 1168 (Ct. Int’! Trade 1992), aff'd without opinion, 991 F.2d 809
(Fed. Cir. 1993). The Commission has also considered the ratio of import shipments to U.S. production for related
producers and whether the primary interests of the related producers lie in domestic production or in importation.
See, e.g., Melamine Institutional Dinnerware from China, Indonesia, and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-741-743 (Final),
USITC Pub. 3016 (Feb. 1997) at 14, n.81.

*° USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp.2d 1, 12 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2001).

‘| HPI specifically argues that neither it nor Whitney Design should be excluded as a related party. HPI’s
Prehearing Brief at 13-16. Respondents Whitney Design, Polder and Harvest International Housewares make the
same argument. Respondent Whitney Design et al.’s Prehearing Brief at 10; Respondent Whitney Design et al.’s
Posthearing Brief at 2.

*® Ironing Tables, USITC Pub. 3623 at 7-8.

* See CR/PR at Table IV-2; CR/PR at Tables III-4 - III-5; CR at III-4 - I1I-5, PR at Ill-2 - III-3; compare CR/PR
at Table III-4 with CR/PR at Table IV-1; compare CR/PR at Table III-6 with CR/PR at Table IV-2; compare CR/PR
at Table IV-1 with CR/PR at Table IV-2; see Whitney Design’s Producer Questionnaire Responses (Preliminary
Phase); see HPI’s Producer Questionnaire Responses (Preliminary Phase). See also USEC, Inc. v. United States,
132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 12 (Ct. Int’! Trade 2001) (“the [related party] provision’s purpose is to exclude from the industry
headcount domestic producers substantially benefitting from their relationships with foreign exporters”), aff'd, Slip
Op. 01-1421 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 22, 2002).

“ We find that subject imports from China are not negligible under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24). See CR/PR at Table
Iv-1.



35302

Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 121/Thursday, June 24, 2004/Notices

the subheadings covering flat-rolled products
of stainless steel, of a width equal to or
greater than 600 mm, cold-rolled, of a
thickness equal to or greater than 0.5 mm but
Jess than 1 mm, For the final determination,
the petitioner urges the Department to revise
the material input values according to the HS
subheadings listed above. See Petitioner's
Case Brief, at 14 and 15,

In rebuttal, Since Hardware contends that
there is no evidence on the record to suggest
that tin-plated stainless steel is not an
appropriate surrogate for stainless steel. In
fact, Since Hardware states that although the
Department did not specifically examine the
type or grade of stainless steel that Since
Hardware consumes in the ordinary course of
business, it is reasonable to assume from the
Department's overall verification findings
that Since Hardware consumes the type or
grade of stainless steel that it reported, which
is close or identical to the stainless steel
covered by HS 7210.1202. For the final
determination, Since Hardware stresses that
the Department has no basis or justification
for altering the Preliminary Determination's
surrogate value used to value Since
Hardware’s consumption of stainless steel.
See Since Hardware’s Rebuttal Brief, at 5 and
6.

Department's Position: We agree with the
petitioner. A review of the record indicates
that there is no evidence that Since
Hardware's stainless steel input is plated. As
a result, we find that a surrogate value
calculated from HS 7219.34 better represents
Since Hardware’s stainless steel than
subheading HS 7210.1202, which covers
plated or coated material. Moreover,
subheading HS 7219.34 covers flat-rolled
products of stainless steel, which are
comparable to the description in Exhibit 7 of
the input materials being valued in Since
Hardware submission, dated January 12,
2004 (the actual product description is
business proprietary information). Because
there is no evidence on the record of the
specific nickel and chromium content of
Since Hardware’s stainless steel input, we
have not used a weighted-average of HS
7219.3401 and HS 7219.3402, as suggested by
the petitioner. Instead, we find that the
broader HS 7219.34, which encompasses
both HS 7219.3401 and HS 7219.3402, is
more appropriate given the lack of
information on the record concerning the
chemical content of stainless steel. In
addition, we have not used the petitioner's
suggested stainless steel in strips subheading,
HS 7220.1202, because it covers flat-rolled
products of stainless steel of a width of less
than 600 mm and does not match Since
Hardware's product description of its
stainless steel input. Therefore, for this final
determination, we find that HS 7219.34 is
appropriate to value the stainless steel
consumed by Since Hardware during the
POI.

D. Welding Wire
For the Preliminary Determination, the
Department classified welding wire under HS
7408.1902, the subheading for copper wire.
However, the petitioner alleges that there is
no evidence on the record indicating that the
welding wire used by Since Hardware is

made of copper. The petitioner urges the
Department to value welding wire using HS
8311.2000, the classification covering cored
wire of base metal for electric arc welding.
For the final determination, the petitioner
urges the Department to revise the material
input values according to the HS
subheadings provided. See Petitioner's Case
Brief, at 15 and 16.

In rebuttal, Since Hardware contends that
there is no evidence on the record to suggest
that welding wire of copper is not an
appropriate surrogate for welding wire. In
fact, Since Hardware states that although the
Department did not specifically examine the
type or grade of welding wire that Since
Hardware consumes in the ordinary course of
business, it is reasonable to assume from the
Department's overall verification findings
that Since Hardware consumes the type or
grade of welding wire that it reported, which
is close or identical to the welding wire
covered by HS 7408.1902. As such, for the
final determination, Since Hardware stresses
that the Department has no basis or
justification for altering the Preliminary
Determination’s surrogate value used to value
Since Hardware's consumption of welding
wire. See Since Hardware's Rebuttal Brief, at
6 and 7.

Department's Position: We agree with the
petitioner. A review of the record indicates
that there is no evidence that Since Hardware
uses welding wire made of copper. In fact,
Since Hardware indicates that the welding
wire it uses is made out of a material other
than copper. See Since Hardware’s fourth
supplemental questionnaire response, dated
February 11, 2004, at Exhibit 2 (Since
Hardware’s Fourth Supplemental). Based on
that information, we find that HS 831.2000,
the subheading for cored wire of base metal
for electric arc welding, is more
representative of Since Hardware’s welding
wire than HS 7408,1902, the subheading for
copper wire. Therefore, for the final
determination, we find that HS 8311.2000 is
appropriate to value the welding wire
consumed by Since Hardware during the
POI.

E. Pigment

For the Preliminary Determination, the
Department classified pigment under HS.
3801.9000, the subheading for other graphite-
based preparations, However, Since
Hardware alleges that this subheading does
not reflect the physical characteristics of the
pigment that Since Hardware consumes in
the ordinary course of business. Instead,
Since Hardware urges the Department to use
HS 2803.0009, the subheading for carbon
black, a form of pigment or dye used in
common manufacturing applications, to
value pigment in the final determination. See
Since Hardware’s Case Brief, at 3 and 4.

The petitioner claims that Since
Hardware'’s criticisms of the Department's
choice of HS subheading for the valuation of
pigment are unwarranted. The petitioner
notes that Since Hardware’s submissions,
dated December 17, 2003, and January 12,
2004, indicated that HS 3801.9000 is the
classification applicable to Since Hardware’s
pigment. In addition, the petitioner states
that Since Hardware's submission on

surrogate values, dated March 29, 2004, was
made subsoquent to the Preliminary
Determination. The petitioner notes that the
data submitted by Since Hardware were not
drawn from the period covered by the POI
and were submitted with no explanation as
to the material which Since Hardware
considered them relevant.

Department's Position: We agree with
Since Hardware. We find, via internet
research, that the carbon black cayered under
subheading HS 2803.0009 is considered a
common pigment. In addition, our internet
research indicates that graphite, which is
covered by subheading 3801.9000, can be
used in paints and pigments but is not used
for its color. Instead, graphite is typically ‘
used as lubrication to spread the pigment
more quickly. See Research Memo. In Since
Hardware's Fourth Supplemental, Exhibit 1,
Since Hardware includes a description of its
inputs that is more consistent with carbon
black (the specific product description is
business proprietary information). Therefore,
for the final determination, we have used HS
2803.0009 to value pigment using Indian
import statistics.

With respect to the petitioner's statement
that Since Hardware’s March 29, 2004,
submission was made after the Department's
Preliminary Determination, we note that
Since Hardware's submission was timely and
in accordance with the Department's
regulations. According to section
351.301(c)(3)(i) of the Department's
regulations, parties have until 40 days after
the publication of the Preliminary
Determination to submit publicly available
information to value factors of production.
Since Hardware’s submission was within this
40 day time limit.

F. Silica Gel Parts

For the Preliminary Determination, the
Department valued silica gel parts using HS
2811.2200, the subheading for silicon
dioxide, However, Since Hardware alleges
that this subheading does not reflect the
physical characteristics of the silica gel parts
that Since Hardware consumes in the
ordinary course of business. Instead, Since
Hardware urges the Department to use HS
3824.9015 to value silica gel parts in the final
determination. HS 3824.9015 is the
subheading for mixed PE glycols, which
Since Hardware alleges are chemicals
commonly used in the production of rubber
or plastic parts used in manufacturing and
assembly operations. See Since Hardware's
Case Brief, at 4.

The petitioner did not comment on this
issue.

Department's Position: We agree with
Since Hardware. We confirmed via internet
research that silica gel, which is a form of
silicon dioxide covered under HS 2811.2200,
is commonly used as an absorbent. Mixed PE
glycols, covered by HS 3824.9015, on the
other hand, are materials that are used with
plastic parts processing. See Research Memo.
In fact, PE is specifically identified as a
component of Since Hardware’s plastic parts
processing segment of its production process
in the Production Flowchart in Since
Hardware's section C and D questionnaire
response at Exhibit 2, dated October 14, 2003,



Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 121/Thursday, June 24, 2004/ Notices

35307

the PRC. In addition, the petitioner asserts
that Yongjian fails to explain how the
respondents’ production in these
antidumping cases involves merchandise
comparable to the material inputs for ironing
tables.

Department's Position: We agree with the
petitioner. For both of these material inputs,
we find that the WTA data used in the
Preliminary Determination are reasonable to
use in the final determination for the
following reasons: (1) There is no evidence
on the record that the merchandise in the
other antidumping cases cited in Yongjian’s
case brief are more similar to the material
inputs used in this investigation by Yongjian;
(2) gross prices are more appropriate for
comparison to Indian import statistics, not
net prices; and (3) the other respondents’
data are not contemporaneous to the POI..
We note that neither the respondents in this
case nor the petitioner is arguing the
Department used incorrect HS subheadings
in the Preliminary Determination and we
have no evidence on the record that indicates
that HS 7306.300 (circular pipe and tube) or
HS 7306.6000 (non-circular pipe and tube)
are overly broad or otherwise inappropriate
subheadings for these material inputs. In
addition we examined imports under the HS
subheading to determine if any imports
under these categories were aberrational and
we do not find that the information
contained in these HS subheadings are
aberrational. Since the HS is not overly broad
and the Indian import statistics are not
aberrant, we continue to find that the WTA
data represent the best available information
for calculating surrogate values for circular
and non-circular pipe and tube for the final
determination.

E. Powder Coating

For the Preliminary Determination, the
Department used WTA data for HS 3208.1009
to calculate the surrogate value for powder
coating, the subheading for paints and
varnishes (including enamels and laquers),
based on polyesters. However, Yongjian
alleges that this classification does not reflect
the physical characteristics of the powder
coating that it uses to produce subject
merchandise. Instead, Yongjian asserts that
the Department verified that the powder
coating used by Yongjian is not in liquid
form, like standard paint or varnish, but
rather is in the form of a dry powder, and the
powder coating is not solely based on
polyesters, but rather on a i:1 mixture of
polyester and epoxy resins. As such, for the
final determination, Yongjian urges the
Department to use HS 3907.3001 and HS
3907.9102 to value powder coating.

The petitioner states that it agrees with
Yongjian that Indian import statistics should
be used to value powder coating but
questions why the respondent provided
import data covering the whole year rather
than the POI, The petitioner argues that, in
view of the respondent's failure to provide
data contemporaneous to the POI, the
Department should value powder coating as
it did in the Preliminary Determination as the
best information available.

Department's Position: We agree with
Yongjian. During verification, we found that

the powder coating Yongjian uses is a dry
mixture of polyester and epoxy resins. We
are using HS 3907.3001, the subheading for
epoxide resins, and HS 3907.9102, the
subheading for polyester resins, to calculate
a surrogate value for powder coating.
However, we find that it is not appropriate
to calculate the surrogate value for this
material input based on a full year’s data, as
suggested by Yongjian. Therefore, we have
valued powder coating with surrogate values
using data for the POI based on HS 3907.3001
and HS 3907.9102 for the purposes of the
final determination. See Comment 11.

F. Cardboard Cartons

For the Preliminary Determination, the
Department relied on Indian import statistics
for HS 4819.1009 to calculate the surrogate
value for cardboard cartons. Yongjian
contends that this value is aberrant compared
with a domestic Indian price quote from
Aakritee Packaging, which was cited in the
Carrier Bags Prelim, and Since Hardware's
market economy purchase price for
cardboard cartons.,

Yongjian claims that the Department has
expressed a preference for the use of
domestic prices from the surrogate country
rather than import values. See, e.g., Pure
Magnesium from the People’s Republic of
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
New Shipper Administrative Review, 63 FR
3085, 3087 (January 21, 1998) (Pure
Magnesium). Moreover, Yongjian contends
that the Department has rejected Indian
import statistics in favor of domestic prices
based on the relative specificity of the data
to the input being valued. See Certain Non-
Frozen Apple Juice Concentrate from the
People’s Republic of China: Final Results of
1999-2001 Administrative Review and
Rescission of Review, 67 FR 68987
(November 14, 2002), Issues and Decision
Memo at Comment 1. Therefore, Yongjian
argues that where the Department has the
choice between domestic and import prices,
it should select the price derived from the
source that is more reliable and product-
specific. See Yongjian’s Case Brief, at 18-20.

The petitioner argues that there is nothing
to indicate error in the Department's
valuation of this input. The petitioner
contends that the data sources that are used
by Yongjian confirm that the Indian import
statistics are to be relied upon more heavily
than domestic price quotations. In this
instance, according to the petitioner, because
the dimensions of the cardboard cartons are
not appropriate for a product similar to
ironing boards, the domestic sales price
quote proposed by Yongjian could not have
applied to an input of the same size that is
used by Yongjian. Therefore, the Department
should retain the surrogate value for
cardboard cartons that it used for the
Preliminary Determination. The petitioner
states that Yongjian offers no valid reason to
change the surrogate value and the
Department should retain the surrogate value
it employed for purposes of the Preliminary
Determination.

Department’s Position: We agree with the
petitioner. In the Preliminary Determination,
we used HS 4909.1009, the subheading for
cartons, boxes and cases of corrugated paper

or paperboard, to calculate a surrogate value
of cardboard cartons. There is no information
on the record of this investigation that
indicates that the domestic price from
Aakritee Packaging? is more reliable and
specific to the product being valued than the
surrogate value calculated using Indian
import statistics. We acknowledge the fact
that the Department may have in a particular
case expressed a preference for domestic
prices instead of Indian import statistics.
However, this is a case-by-case
determination, In Pure Magnesium, for
example, the domestic prices that were
selected were more representative and closer
in time to the period of review than other
sources, See Pure Magnesium. In this case,
Yongjian does not provide any evidence that
the cardboard cartons sold by Aarkritee
Packing are the same or more similar to the
type of cardboard carton used by ironing
board manufacturers than the cartons
imported under HS 4909.1009. Therefore, we
have continued to use the Indian import
statistics in the final determination.

G. Filler Pads,

For the Preliminary Determination, the
Department calculated the surrogate value for
filler pads using Indian import statistics for
HS 4808.1000, which covers corrugated
paper and paperboard, whether or not
perforated. Yongjian contends that the
Department's Preliminary Determination
valuation of filler pads is based on aberrant
data as compared with Yongjian’s surrogate
value derived from Indian import statistics
under HS 4805.2901, which covered
cardboard and was used in the Carrier Bags
Prelim. Yongjian claims that the surrogate
value calculated for HS 4805.2901 is
corroborated by Since Hardware’s market
economy purchase price of corrugated paper.
See Yongjian’s Case Brief, at 20.

The petitioner states that Yongjian offers
no support for its claim that the filler pads
are specific or even similar to the specific
input that Since Hardware uses. Moreover,
the petitioner argues that Yonjian selected
the lower value, without justification, of the
two HS subheadings used to value filler pads
in the Carrier Bags Prelim. The petitioner
states that Yongjian offers no valid reason to
change this surrogate value and the
Department should continue the surrogate
value treatment it employed for purposes of
the Preliminary Determination.

Department's Position: We agree with the
petitioner. Nowhere on the record of this
investigation has Yongjian stated that the
filler pads it used during the POI are similar
to the separating corrugated paper reported
by Since Hardware or the products covered
under HS 4805.2901, which the Department
used in Carrier Bags from China to value
cardboard inserts as cited in Yongjian’s
March 29, 2004, submission. Yongjian
classifies filler pads as a part of its packing
materials but does not fully explain their use.
HS 4808.1000, which covers corrugated
paper and paperboard, whether or not

2 Furthermore, we note that the Department did
not use the domestic price of Aakritee Packaging in
the Carrier Bags Prelim. Instead, the Department
used a weighted-average of HS subheadings
4919.1001 and 4819.1009.


Table C-2

Ironing tables + over-the-door ironing : Summary data 9 the U.S. 2001-03, January-March 2003, and January-March 2004
(Quantity=1,000 units, value= 1,000 dotiars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per unit: petiod changes=percent, except where noted)
Reported data Period changes
January-March Jan-Mar.
Item 2001 2002 2003 2003 2008 2001-03 2001-2002 2002-2003 __-2003-2004
USS. consumption quantity:
‘Amount ~ ow os o . ” .
Producers’ share (1). ” ” ” ” oad “ ” ”
Importers’ share (1)
China (subject). o oa ” oe
Nonsubject........ Z ~ ” ” ”
Total imports... a ~ * ~ = oa -
USS. consumption value
‘Amount. woe - ~ os ~ - o
Producers’ share (1)...-.... ” ” ” “ ” ”
Importers’ share (1):
U.S. shipments of:
‘Subject imports from China:
Quantity : 456 1.282 2,538 873 370 456.0 1743 102.7 35.4
Value... 5,726 11,350 24,323 4,808 4,608 224 982 e798 42
Unit value. $12.55 $9.07 $8.40 $8.40 $12.20 330 277 73 452
Ending inventory quantity 155 367 344 308 252 1218 156.8 2133 186
Nonsubject imports: :

Unit value : . ” ” 7 -
Ending inventory quantity... ” ~
Total imports:
Quantity... eee ” oo - ” oe om ”
Value . cece ” ” ” oo
Unit value. a ” ” ” " .
Ending inventory quantity... ” . os - ” ” a
U.S. producers’:
‘Average capacity quantity... - ” 7 os - 7
Production quantity ...... a ~ " . .

Hours worked (1,0008) . ” cia ~ oo
Wages paid ($1,003) ” we ” ” ” 7
Hourly wages... o ~ ~ ~ “ o
Productivity tuto. a ” ” ” -
Unit labor costs . : ” - “ - a a
Net sate
Quantity... . o- ~ ~~ ~
Value. o ~ ~ “ .
Unit value... - ~ ~~ ~ ~
Ccost of goods sold (COGS) .. ” ” oe
Gross profit or (loss) .. ” ~ 5
SGBA expenses... ” S “ ~ ~

Operating income or (oss).

Unit SGBA expenses . ” ” ~

Unit operating income oF (08s) “ ” -

COGSIsales (1). - - ~ ”
‘Operating income. tess

sales (1).

(1) "Reported data" are in percent and “period changes” are in percentage points.
(2) Not applicable.

Note.—Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding,
figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

‘Source; Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.


LOST SALES AND LOST REVENUES *

The Commission requested that U.S. producers of ironing tables report any instances of lost sales
and lost revenues they experienced due to competition from imports from China during January 2000-
March 2004. There were *** lost revenue allegations totaling $*** and involving *** ironing tables;
these allegations are presented in table V-3. Additionally, there were *** lost sales allegations totaling
$*** and involving *** ironing tables; these allegations are shown in table V-4. Purchasers’ responses
are summarized next.** *°

Table V-3
Ironing tables: HPI’s lost revenue allegations

Table V-4
Ironing tables: HPI’s lost sales allegations

* * * * * * *

coord
HH 36 ee 37 38
ek
eee ID
ek
ex 40
ee
see 41
2x
oe a2
ex
wee A

*3 No additional lost sales or lost revenue allegations were submitted in the final phase of this investigation;
however, ***, Respondents’ Posthearing Brief, att. D.
34 eek

* At the hearing, HPI provided a timeline of events that allegedly illustrate its lost sales and lost revenue
experiences since December 2001. Hearing transcript, testimony of Peter Graves, senior vice president, sales and
marketing, pp. 26-28.

36 telephone interview by USITC staff, July 28, 2003. See also Petitioner’s Postconference Brief, exh. 1,
which shows ***. According to its purchasers’ questionnaire response, ***.

37 See Petitioner’s Postconference Brief, exh. 3.
38 #**_ Respondents’ Prehearing Brief, pp. 29-30.

3° #4, telephone interview by USITC staff, July 22, 2003. According to its purchasers’ questionnaire response,
co

“0 *#%, telephone interview by USITC staff, July 22, 2003.
4! **%, telephone interview by USITC staff, July 22, 2003.

42 ee

“3 *#*, telephone interview by USITC staff, July 22, 2003. According to its purchasers’ questionnaire response,
pers

V-7


Table VI-3
Variance analysis for ironing tables operations of U.S. producers, 2001-03, January-March 2003,

and January-March 2004

* * * * * * *

Table VI-4 :
Capital expenditures, research and development expenses, and value of assets of U.S. producers

of ironing tables, fiscal years 2001-03, January-March 2003, and January-March 2004

* * * * * * *

Table VI-5
Capital expenditures of U.S. producers of ironing tables, by firms, fiscal years 2001-03, January-
March 2003, and January-March 2004

CAPITAL AND INVESTMENT

The Commission requested U.S. producers to report whether there were any actual or potential
negative effects of imports of ironing tables and parts thereof from China on their firms’ growth,
investment, and ability to raise capital or development and production efforts (including efforts to
develop a derivative or more advanced version of the product). Their responses are presented in
appendix F.

*(.. continued)
competitive pressures that have eroded profitability, including intense price competition at the retail level from
imported products and sharply higher raw material costs.” (Standard & Poor’s article submitted in e-mail from
Frederick Ikenson, counsel for HPI, July 31, 2003.) Note that this downgrade reflects Standard & Poor’s analysis
of HPI’s overall operations, not just ironing table operations.

VI-3


gained — sales to customers such as *** and ***,%
LTFV subject imports.*” *
In view of the foregoing, we find both the volume and increase in volume of subject imports,

both in absolute terms and relative to consumption and production in the United States, to be significant.

and is supplying these purchasers with additional

Cc. Price Effects of the Subject Imports

Section 771(7)(C)(ii) of the Act provides that, in evaluating the price effects of the subject
imports, the Commission shall consider whether —

(1) there has been significant price underselling by the imported
merchandise as compared with the price of domestic like products of the
United States, and

(ID) the effect of imports of such merchandise otherwise depresses prices
to a significant degree or prevents price increases, which otherwise
would have occurred, to a significant degree.”

As stated above, there is a concentration of purchasers, and evidence in the record indicates that
approximately *** percent of the ironing tables sold at the wholesale level are purchased by only three
customers — Target, Wal-Mart and Kmart — who then sell at retail.”° The few large buyers can negotiate
lower prices when necessary, and lower prices by one may well result in widespread downward retail
pricing, resulting in turn in downward pressure placed on wholesale prices.”!

As noted earlier, Chinese and domestic ironing tables are interchangeable. There is a wide range
of prices between the opening price point (generally $15 or less retail) and the various step up models (up
to $70).> The mesh-top table historically has been more expensive (HPI states that ***).°> Some
purchasers perceive the mesh-top table to be a higher quality product.** The Commission collected
pricing data on two products — a perforated-top T-leg ironing table (the predominant product of the
domestic industry and not produced at all by the Chinese industry) and a mesh-top T-leg ironing table
(produced by the Chinese industry and produced in significant volumes by the domestic industry). Given
the record evidence of pricing differences between mesh-top and perforated-top ironing tables, we

®© See CR at V-14 - V-15 & n.38, V-17 n.43, PR at V-7 - V-8; see also CR at V-24, PR at V-8.

*” We also note that in 2004, *** “purchased” Chinese-manufactured ironing tables from Whitney Design,
although ***, CR at VII-6 n.9, PR at VII-3 n.9.

*® Moreover, even Whitney Design’s sales to established customers are now of subject imports sold at LTFV that
do not necessarily have the same effect on the market as Whitney Design’s domestic product previously had.

® 19US.C. § 1677(7(C)(ii).

°° CR at II-1, PR at I-1.

5! See Petitioner’s Prehearing Brief at 26.

* CR at 1-5, PR at I-4.

3 CR at 1-6 - I-7 & n.20, PR at I-5 - I-6 & n.20; see also CR at II-8 n.24, PR at Il-5 n.24.
°* CR at I-7, PR at 1-6.

14


35304

Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 121/Thursday, June 24, 2004 / Notices

initially suggested by the respondent, HS
3214.1000, does not include glue or glue-like
materials. The HS subheading suggested by
Since Hardware in its last surrogate value
submission, HS 3505.2000, however, does
cover glue. Therefore, for the final
determination, we find that subheading HS
3505.2000 is appropriate for calculating a
surrogate value for glue. For the timing of
Since Hardware's submission, see the
Department's Position under comment 4-E.

K. Cotton Fixing Strips

For the Preliminary Determination, the
Department classified cotton fixing strips
using HS 5604.9000, the subheading for other
rubber thread and cord. Since Hardware
alleges that this subheading does not reflect
the physical characteristics of the cotton
fixing strips that it consumes in the ordinary
course of business. Instead, Since Hardware
urges the Department to use for the final
determination its market-economy purchase
price for cotton fabric or, alternatively, the
surrogate value that the Department used in
the Preliminary Determination to value
Yongjian’s consumption of cloth strip, HS
5208.1901. Since Hardware argues that
Yongjian’s cloth strip is an input that is
presumably identical to cotton fixing strips.
See Since Hardware'’s Case Brief, at 6.

The petitioner claims that Since
Hardware’s criticisms of the Department's
choice of HS subheading for cotton fixing
strips are unwarranted. The petitioner notes
that Since Hardware's submissions, dated
December 17, 2003, and January 12, 2004,
indicated that HS 5604.9000 is the
subheading applicable to Since Hardware’s
cotton fixing strips. In addition, the
petitioner states that Since Hardware’s March
29, 2004, submission was made subsequent
to the Preliminary Determination.
Furthermore, the petitioner notes that the
data submitted by Since Hardware were not
drawn from the period covered by the POI
and were submitted with no explanation as
to the material which Since Hardware
considered them relevant.

Department's Position: We agree with
Since Hardware, in part. Regarding Since
Hardware's assertion that the Department
should value cotton fixing strips with its
reported market economy price of cotton
fabric, Since Hardware does not claim that it
uses the cotton fabric it purchases from a
market economy supplier as cotton fixing
strips. In fact, Since Hardware reports cotton
fabric as a separate material input altogether.
See Since Hardware’s Fourth Supplemental
at Exhibit 1. Therefore, we have not valued
cotton fixing strips with the market economy
price it reported for cloth fabric.

However, with respect to Since Hardware’s
argument that we should value cotton fixing
strips using HS 5208.1901, we agree. In the
Preliminary Determination, the Department
valued Since Hardware’s cotton fixing strips
using HS 5604.9000, which covers rubber
thread and cord, textile covered; textile yarn
and strip and the like of heading 5404 and
5405 (which cover man-made materials),
impregnated, coated, covered or sheathed
with rubber or plastics. The materials under
this subheading are predominantly man-
made. The name of the material input, cotton

fixing strips, indicates that it is a strip made
out of cotton. Item number HS 5208.1901
covers other fabrics of woven fabrics
containing 85% or more by weight of cotton.
As a result, we find that HS 5208.1901 is
appropriate for the valuation of cotton fixing
strips in this final determination, For the
timing of Since Hardware's submission, see
the Department's Position under comment 4—
E.

Comment 5: Whether the Department Used
the Best Available Data Source To Value
Certain Material Inputs

Yongjian notes that the Department relied
on the Government of India, Ministry of
Commerce & Industry, Director General,
Commercial Intelligence and Statistics data,
published in the WTA, to calculate the
values for hot-rolled steel, and cold-rolled
steel. As an alternative, Yongjian submitted
various data taken from InfodriveIndia.com
that, according to Yongjian, reports official
Indian government import statistics on an
entry by entry basis. See Yongjian’s Surrogate
Value Submission, dated March 29, 2004.
Yongijian states that the Department in other
proceedings used certain data derived from
Infodrivelndia.com. See, e.g., Memorandum
from the Team to the File, “Certain Color
Television Receivers from the People’s
Republic of China: Preliminary
Determination Factors Valuation
Memorandum,” dated November 21, 2003.
Therefore, for the final determination,
Yongjian urges the Department to use the
data it submitted from InfodriveIndia.com to
calculate surrogate values for certain material
inputs. See Yongjian’s Case Brief, at 2, 3, and
8.

‘The petitioner argues that Yongjian’s
position lacks merit and should be dismissed
by the Department. The petitioner notes that
‘Yongjian is the only party in this proceeding
raising an objection to the Indian import
statistics. The petitioner claims that the
Department should continue to value
Yongjian's material inputs on the basis of
WTA data (also referred to as Indian import
statistics). In addition, the petitioner states
the only assistance that Yongjian offered the
Department with respect to the surrogate
valuation of inputs consisted of data based
exclusively upon India’s official import
statistics. The petitioner argues that the
values utilized by the Department in the
Preliminary Determination have been
available to Yongjian throughout this
proceeding and yet the respondent offered no
rebuttal to the petitioner’s surrogate
valuation submission dated October 24, 2003,
nor did Yongjian submit any comment at any
time in opposition to the WTA data.

In addition, the petitioner argues that
Yongjian provides no valid basis for a
departure from surrogate valuation on the
basis of WTA data. The petitioner states that
the Department has previously used Indian
import statistics published by the WTA for
surrogate valuation purposes in numerous
nonmarket economy (NME) cases. The
petitioner argues that Yongjian provides no
data that are superior in reliability, nor does
it provide any data that are usable as
benchmarks, which can be used to judge the
WTA data. The petitioner claims that the

WTA figures are official government statistics
maintained by the Government of India, they
are matched exactly to the POI, and are based
upon commodity descriptions detailed to an
8-digit level of specificity. In addition, the
petitioner states that the WTA data are
demonstrably internally consistent in terms
of economic and commercial logic.
According to the petitioner, the Department
should continue to use the WTA data to
value all of Yongjian’s material inputs
because the Indian import statistics meet the
Department's criteria of availability,
contemporaneity, specificity and reliability.

The petitioner claims that Yongjian fails to
demonstrate that the surrogate values based
upon the Indian import statistics used by the .
Department are aberrant or unreliable. On the
contrary, the petitioner argues that the data
relied upon by Yongjian are inapposite or
unreliable. The petitioner argues that
Yongjian’s comparison sources for cold-
rolled steel, Infodrivelndia.com is an
unofficial and non-governmental source and
has been used only once for the surrogate
valuation of inputs. The petitioner further
states that, in that case, the Department states
that its preferred source of surrogate value
data continues to be the WTA data because
it represents the best information available,
but the Department would not be precluded
from turning to Infodrivelndia.com data
‘where the Indian import classification
categories “‘are overly broad.” Concerning
specificity, the petitioner argues that the HS
categories are extremely precise with respect
to the inputs at issue in this case.

The petitioner argues that
Infodrivelndia.com information submitted by
Yongjian is not drawn from Indian customs
entry forms but from commodity descriptions
appearing on bills of lading and/or vessel
manifests. The petitioner claims that these
descriptions reflect exporter subjectivity and
the HS classifications associated with them
would be subject to no official verification
and thus are inherently unreliable. For
example, the petitioner points out that the
Infodrivelndia.com printout identifies the
“Foreign Country” only intermittently.
According to the petitioner, Yongjian tells us
that it is able to identify shipments that
would be excluded as sourced from NME or
export-subsidy countries on the basis of the
name of the exporter. The petitioner adds
that the Department may question whether
such an approach is reliable or sustainable,
or whether it may be subject to
inconsistency.

The petitioner contends that each of the
values selected or concocted by Yongjian for
purposes of demonstrating that the value
used by the Department may be aberrant is:
(1) Inapposite with respect to the input at
issue (with respect to the input-specific value
that Yongjian seeks to challenge), (2)
inappropriate for the purposes of valuation,
(3) unreliable or patently inaccurate, or (4) so
generic as to have no utility in an input-
specific context.

Department's Position: We agree with the
petitioner. In the Preliminary Determination,
in accordance with past practice, we utilized
WTA data (more specifically, Indian import
statistics) in order to calculate surrogate
values for many of Yongjian’s material


In light of the significant increases in the volume and market penetration of the subject imports
between 2001 and 2003, the significant adverse price effects of the subject imports and the causal linkage
between the subject imports and the domestic industry’s declines in output, market share, employment,
and operating performance, we conclude that the subject imports have had a significant adverse impact

on the domestic ironing tables industry. Accordingly, we reach an affirmative determination in this
investigation.

V. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we find that the domestic ironing tables industry is materially injured
by reason of LTFV imports from China.

19


Table Il-4
Ironing tables: Importance of purchase factors and comparisons of U.S. product with Chinese
product, as reported by purchasers

Importance U.S. vs. China’
Vv Ss N Ss c i]
Factor Number of purchaser responses .
Ability to bundle 1 3 11 1 7 0
Availability 14 1 0 3 7 0
Delivery terms 9 5 1 2 7 1
Delivery time 12 2 1 3 4 1
Discounts offered 7 6 2 2 7 0
Extension of credit 2 5 8 2 7 0
Lower price 13 2 0 1 4 4
Lower U.S. transportation costs 7 4 4 2 6 (0)
Minimum quantity requirements 7 3 5 2 5 1
Multiple sources of supply 2 7 6 () ) ?)
Packaging 8 4 3 1 8
Product consistency 14 0 1 4 9
Product range 6 7 2 1 8 1
Quality meets industry standards 15 0 0 1 9 0
Quality exceeds industry standards 41 4 0 0 8 1
Reliability of supply 14 0 1 2 8 0
Technical support/service 4 8 3 1 8 te)

‘Ten purchasers responded to this section of the questionnaire, and not all responding purchasers provided a
rating for each factor.
? Not applicable.

Note.— For importance, V=very important, S=somewhat important, N=not important. For the country
comparisons, S = U.S. product is superior, C = both countries’ products are comparable, | = U.S. product is
inferior.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

1-8



35300

Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 121/Thursday, June 24, 2004/ Notices

support Since Hardware’s claim that the
reported total weights include the weight of
pads and covers. In fact, the petitioner claims
that, with respect to component weights (not
the reported total product weight), the Since
Hardware Cost Verification Report states that
the verifiers “took apart the selected ironing
boards model * * * and weighed the actual
weight of the above-mentioned materials and
compared the weights to the weights reported
* * *” Therefore, the petitioner argues, the
materials were weighed separately and not
included in the weight of the bare board.
According to the petitioner, Since
Hardware’s allegation of double-counting the
pad and cover weights should be
disregarded. See Comments from Roberta
Kinsela Daghir, Counsel to Home Products
International Inc., to the Honorable Donald L.
Evans, Secretary of Commerce, “Petitioner's
Case Brief," dated April 30, 2004 (Petitioner's
Case Brief).

Department's Position: We agree with the
petitioner. In the Preliminary Determination,
the Department (1) properly added pad and
cover weights to Since Hardware’s WEIGHT
variable, in order to achieve a proper full
weight for purposes of calculating
adjustments for domestic inland freight and
brokerage and handling, and (2)
appropriately added packing to each of the
respondent's total cost of manufacturing in
the build up to normal value. Therefore, the
Department did not make two ministerial
errors in the margin calculation program.

In order to calculate the deduction for
domestic inland freight and brokerage and
handling, the Department must use the total
weight of the merchandise being transported
and handled. The record indicates that
“Since Hardware has reported the weight of
the bare board product (i.e. without pad and
cover) * * *."’ See Since Hardware’s
Sections C and D Questionnaire Response,
dated October 14, 2003, at 5. For the
calculation of Since Hardware’s margin in
the preliminary determination, the
Department stated that Since Hardware’s
WEIGHT field represents the “bare weight of
the ironing board* * *.” See Memorandum
to the File from Sam Zengotitabengoa, Import
Compliance Specialist, to the File, “Since
Hardware’s Margin Calculation Analysis for
the Preliminary Determination in the
Antidumping Duty Investigation of Floor-
Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and
Certain Parts Thereof from the People's
Republic of China,” dated January 26, 2004.
As a result of Since Hardware's response that
its WEIGHT variable includes only the bare
weight of the ironing board, the Department
added the pad, cover, and packing material
weights to the WEIGHT variable. Therefore,
by adding the weight of the pad, cover, and
packing materials to the weight of the bare
board weight reported in the field WEIGHT,
the Department obtained the total weight of
the ironing board, which is required in order
to calculate the selling expense deductions
for domestic inland freight and brokerage and
handling.

At verification, the Department's verifiers
found no discrepancies in Since Hardware’s
questionnaire response with regard to the
weight of the bare board reported in the field
WEIGHT. See Memorandum from Paige Rivas

and Sam Zengotitabengoa, Import
Compliance Specialists, to Tom Futtner,
Acting Office Director, "Report on the
Verification of the Questionnaire Responses
of Since Hardware,” dated April 20, 2004.
With respect to Since Hardware’s allegation
that the verifiers’ handwritten note confirms
that the weight reported in the field WEIGHT
includes the pad and cover weight, we
disagree. The handwritten note does not
verify that Since Hardware’s reported
product weight for production code SFT28—
1-1454 includes “* * *pad, cover, string.” In
this note, the verifiers were referring, instead,
to the verifies’ methodology. The verifiers
measured the reported WEIGHT of the bare
board, as well as the other components
associated with production code SFT28-I-
1454. The verifiers’ note indicates that the
pad, cover, and string were also measured
but the verified weights were not taken as an
exhibit. As the final verification report
indicates, the Department's verifiers noted no
discrepancies in Since Hardware’s bare board
WEIGHT questionnaire response. Therefore,
for this final determination, the Department
will continue to calculate Since Hardware's
adjustment for domestic inland freight and
brokerage and handling by adding the pad
and cover weights with the weight of the bare
board reported in the field WEIGHT.

Second, Since Hardware alleges that the
Department mistakenly added packing costs
to the normal value calculation before the
application of the surrogate financial ratios.
We disagree that this methodology is
incorrect. In this case, the Department was
not able to separately identify packing costs
in the financial statements of Godrej & Boyce
Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Godrej), the
company used to calculate the financial
ratios used in our calculation of normal
value. Because it is reasonable to assume that
all expenses are included in any income
statement, we know that packing costs are
included in the Godrej data. Although
packing is not presented as a separate line
item within the Godrej's data, the primary
line item used by the Department in
calculating the cost of manufacture is “raw
materials consumed.” Furthermore, we note
that Schedule T of the income statement
provides a list of the items that constitute
new materials consumed, one of which is
titled “others.” Since companies frequently
include packing materials in the cost of
manufacturing, it is reasonable to assume
that packing costs are included in this line
item. In the Preliminary Determination
calculation build up to normal value, the
Department added the cost of packing
materials to the cost of manufacturing prior
to the application of the surrogate financial
ratio in order to apply these ratios in a
manner consistent with how the ratios were
calculated, Therefore, for this final
determination, the Department continues to
add packing to the cost of manufacturing in
the calculation build up to normal value.

Comment 2: Whether the Department Should
Use the Most Current Wage Rate for China

The petitioner contends that the data
source used to derive the PRC’s labor wage
rate was last updated on May 14, 2003,
subsequent to the Preliminary Determination.

As such, for this final determination, the
petitioner urges the Department to value the
wage rate for the PRC by incorporating the
most current and contemporaneous data
available. See Petitioner's Case Brief, at 11.
Department's Position: We agree with the
petitioner. The Department will value the
PRC's labor wage rate using the most current
labor rate of USD 0.90/hr. See “Expected
Wages of Selected Non-market Economy
Countries, 2001 Income Data,” Revised
September 2003, as published by the
Department at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/
O1wages/01wages.html.

Comment 3: Whether the Department Should
Correct Surrogate Values for Inland Truck
Freight and Brokerage and Handling

Yongjian argues that the surrogates that the
Department used to value inland truck freight
and brokerage and handling in the
Preliminary Determination are based on stale
and unreliable data. For this final
determination, Yongjian urges the
Department to use the data it submitted in
calculating the surrogate values for inland
truck freight and brokerage and handling. See
Comments from Francis J. Sailer, Counsel for
Shunde Yongjian Housewares Co., Ltd., to
the Honorable Donald L. Evans, Secretary of
Commerce, “Yongjian's Case Brief,” dated
April 29, 2004 (Yongjian’s Case Brief), at 21
and 22.

Yongjian contends that, for the final
determination, the Department should value
inland truck freight using data from
InFreight.com, rather than the 17 Indian
freight company quotes, for shipping tapered
roller bearings, from November 1999 that
were used in the Preliminary Determination.
Yongjian notes that the data from
InFreight.com were originally used by the
Department in the preliminary determination
of Carrier Bags from the PRC. See Notice of
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final
Determination: Polyethylene Retail Carrier
Bags from the People’s Republic of China, 69
FR 3544, 3546 (January 26, 2004) (Carrier
Bags Prelim).

Yongjian also notes that, in the Preliminary
Determination, the Department relied on data
derived from Certain Stainless Steel Wire
Rod from India: Final Results of
Administrative Review and New Shipper
Review, 64 FR 856 (January 6, 1999) (Indian
Wire Rod) to calculate surrogate values for
brokerage and handling. The surrogate value
from Indian Wire Rod is from 1997 and was
obtained from an Indian broker. Yongjian
asserts there are two reasons to reject these
data in the final determination: (1) They are
stale compared to alternative and nearly
contemporaneous data; and (2) they are
improper for use in this case since they are
premised on a high value product. Therefore,
Yongjian urges the Department to use the
data it submitted, which the Department
used in Carrier Bags Prelim, to value
brokerage and handling in the final
determination, See Yongjian’s Case Brief, at
22.

Department's Position: We agree with
Yongjian, in part.

With regard to inland truck freight, we
agree with Yongjian that the Department


PART I; INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND

This investigation results from a petition filed by Home Products International, Inc. (HPI),
Chicago, IL, on June 30, 2003, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured and
threatened with material injury by reason of less-than-fair value (LTFV) imports of ironing tables and
certain parts thereof from China.’ Information relating to the background of the investigation is

presented below.

Date Action

June 30, 2003 ..... Petition filed with Commerce and the Commission; institution of Commission
investigation

July 25, 2003 ...... Commerce’s notice of initiation

August 14, 2003... Commission’s preliminary determination

February 3, 2004 .. Commerce’s preliminary determination (69 F.R. 5127, February 3, 2004);
scheduling of final phase of Commission investigation (69 F.R. 10753,
March 8, 2004, and 69 F.R. 16954, March 31, 2004)

June 16, 2004 ..... Commission’s hearing*

June 24, 2004 . Commerce’s final determination (69 F.R. 35296, June 24, 2004)*
July 15, 2004 . Commission’s vote
July 28, 2004 ...... Commission determination transmitted to Commerce

ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

Information on the subject merchandise, Commerce’s dumping margins, and the domestic like
product is presented in Part I. Information on conditions of competition and other economic factors is
presented in Part I. Information on the condition of the U.S. industry, including data on capacity,
production, shipments, inventories, and employment, is presented in Part III. Information on the volume
of imports of the subject merchandise, apparent U.S. consumption, and market shares is presented in Part
IV. Part V presents data on prices in the U.S. market. Part VI presents information on the financial
experience of U.S. producers. Information on the subject country foreign producers and U.S. importers’
inventories is presented in Part VII.

' The merchandise subject to this investigation, floor-standing, metal-top ironing tables, assembled or
unassembled, complete or incomplete, and certain parts thereof, is described in the section entitled “The Product” in
Part I of this report.

? Federal Register notices cited in the tabulation are presented in app. A.
> App. B presents a list of witnesses appearing at the hearing.
4 Commerce calculated the following final LTFV margins:
Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd., 6.60 percent;
Forever Holdings Ltd., 52.04 percent;
Harvest International Housewares Ltd., 52.04 percent;
Gaoming Lihe Daily Necessities Co., Ltd., 52.04 percent;
Shunde Yongjian Housewares Co., Ltd., 113.80 percent; and
PCR-wide rate, 113.80 percent, (69 F.R. 35296)

ee ee ee

Tl


The Commission requested U.S. producers to describe any actual or anticipated negative effects
of imports of subject ironing tables and certain parts thereof from China on their return on investment or
their growth, investment, ability to raise capital, and existing development and production efforts
(including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of the product), or their scale of
capital investments undertaken as a result of such imports. The responses are as follows:

Actual Negative Effects

HPI coe”
Whitney Design Coes

Anticipated Negative Effects
HPI cose
Whitney Design rane

F-3


consider price comparisons between domestic and subject imported mesh-top tables to be more useful
than price comparisons between domestic perforated-top tables and subject imported mesh-top tables.**

The pricing data” show that, through the first quarter of 2002, prices for Chinese mesh-top T-leg
ironing tables were generally higher-priced than comparable domestically produced mesh-top ironing
tables. The Chinese product then became lower-priced than domestic product as subject import volumes
rose and subject import prices fell. There was significant underselling for mesh-top T-leg ironing tables
in nine of 13 quarters for which data were collected, with underselling margins ranging from 2.4 percent
to 22.5 percent and averaging 14.7 percent.*” Subject imports undersold the comparable domestic
product in every period after the first quarter of 2002.° We deem this underselling to be significant,
particularly in view of the large influx of subject import volumes in 2003.

Evidence regarding internet reverse auctions” and lost sales and revenues” indicates that the
Chinese mesh-top table is overtaking the market previously dominated by the perforated-top table, and is
doing so by underselling the domestic product and driving prices lower. During the period examined,
*** reported internet reverse auctions for ironing tables: ***.'°! In these auctions, the purchaser
specifies the products and quantities for bidding by potential suppliers, who are preselected to
participate. Electronic, real-time bidding starts at a certain price and falls until no lower prices are bid.
Normally, whoever bids the lowest price is awarded the business of the buyer hosting the auction.’

In the first reported internet reverse auction conducted by ***.' In *** internet reverse auction,
*** !°4 We note that *** instructed ***.'% This indicates that *** expected import prices to be ***.
Although *** states that it ***,'°° *** qualified *** for its online auctions, indicating that it thought
¥#* 107 108 Finally, we note that *** now states that it moved to mesh-top tables because “it represented

°5 Tr. at 40 (Dr. Bradley); Petitioner’s Posthearing Brief at A-13 - A-16. The record indicates that purchasers
paid a price premium for mesh-top tables even though mesh-top and perforated-top tables are interchangeable and
mesh-top tables account for only slightly greater steam penetration than perforated-top tables. CR at I-6 & n.19, PR
at I-5 &n.19. Although prices for the two types of products are not entirely comparable, we note that the price
differential between mesh-top imports and domestically produced perforated-top ironing tables narrowed at the end
of the period examined. CR/PR at Table V-1.

°° We note that we do not include ***’s direct import prices in our calculations as they involve a different level of
trade. But see CR/PR at Tables V-1 - V-2 & n.1 for ***’s direct imports (the price per unit of these imports was
$*** in the last quarter of 2002, $*** in the first quarter of 2003, $*** in the second quarter, $*** in the third
quarter, $*** in the fourth quarter, and $*** in the first quarter of 2004).

%” CR/PR at Table V-2, CR at V-11, PR at V-6.
58 CR/PR at Table V-2.

» CR at V-17 - V-23, PR at V-8.

10 CR at V-12 - V-17, PR at V-7 - V-8.

‘| CR at V-17, PR at V-8.

1 Tr. at 56 (Mr. Graves).

13 CR at V-20 - V-21, PR at V-7.

14 CR at V-22 - V-23, PR at V-8.

5 See CR at V-23 n.65, PR at V-8 n.65.

106 CR at V-23, PR at V-8.

'°’ The record details the extensive qualification process *** undertakes to prequalify a bidder before an online
auction takes place. Petitioner’s Posthearing Brief at A-32 - A-38 & Exhs. 10-11.

'°§ Furthermore, as discussed earlier, *** purchased perforated-top tables from *** in 2001 and 2002.
See Petitioner’s Posthearing Brief at Exh. 2. In addition, for the first time in its posthearing brief, *** stated that it
(continued...)

15


bringing all suppliers together at one time in order for the purchaser to make buying decisions in one
day.!®

During the preliminary phase of this investigation, respondents stated that pricing often involves
“bundling” with other products, especially in sales to customers of many laundry products; these bundled
sales are estimated by respondents to account for perhaps 10 to 15 percent of ironing table sales.'’ Bajer
said that it would often take lower prices on ironing tables (due to competition with HPI) in order to
secure other bundled business.'* HPI denied that ironing table sales typically involve bundling with other
goods, although it did say some sales involve a weighted-average of multiple ironing table products.”

HPI, importers, and purchasers were asked what amount of their firm’s sales/purchases of ironing
tables were sold/purchased separately or bundled with other products. Most firms (15 of 21) reported
that all sales/purchases are sold/purchased separately; however, importers *** and *** reported that all
or virtually all of their sales were bundled with other products, and purchasers ***, ***, and *** reported
that all of their purchases were bundled with other products (both with ironing boards outside of the
scope of this investigation and products other than ironing tables or boards). In addition, *** reported
that *** percent of its 2003 purchases were bundled with other products.”

Discounts and Price Lists

*** reported that discount policies are determined on a customer-by-customer basis. *** stated
that it did not have a firm discount policy and that competition with price leader HPI drove pricing. ***
reported some standard volume discounts, and *** reported discounts based on cost of doing business
with a customer (e.g., freight, volume, prepaid, etc.).

*** reported that price lists are rarely used, and when used the resulting prices typically reflect
discounts from the list prices. Other parties described slightly different processes, with *** and ***
reporting using price lists or discounts off price lists.

'6 Hearing transcript, testimony of James Glenn, president, Whitney Design, p. 164.

1” Respondents’ Prehearing Brief, p. 13.

18 Conference transcript, testimony of Mike Kellogg, president, Bajer, p. 84, and Respondents’ Postconference
Brief, pp. 10-11, 20-21, and att. 12.

® Conference transcript, testimony of Peter Graves, senior vice president, sales and marketing, HPI, pp. 63-64.

20 According to ***, there is no significant price difference between bundled and unbundled ironing tables. In
contrast, *** reported that the bundling of laundry items will drive the price of each individual product down, and
*** reported that it made one seasonal purchase of ironing tables bundled with laundry hampers and that the price
was lower than for ironing tables purchased separately.

V-3










35298 Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 121/Thursday, June 24, 2004 / Notices

Changes Since the Preliminary 9. We revised our surrogate value for Weighted-

Determination glue. See Issues and Decision Manufacturer/exporter average
Based on our findings at verification Memorandum, at Comment 4-J. (ey

and on our analysis of the comments 10. We revised our surrogate value for

received, we have made adjustments to _ cotton fixing strips. See Issues and Since Hardware (Guangzhou)

the calculation methodologies used in Decision Memorandum, at Comment 4— Co., Ltd soe 6.60

the preliminary determination. These K. Shunde Yongjian Housewares

adjustments are listed below and . ue f 7 113,80

discussed in detail in the: (1) Issues and gig We revised ur urogate Value Jor Forever Holdings Lid. 52.04

Decision Memorandum; (2) Decision Memorandum, at Comment 6 Gaoming Line Daily Necessities

Memorandum from Sam and Comment 6A. oy LAD one 52.04

Zengotitabengoa, International Trade . Harvest International

Compliance Analyst, Group II, Office 4, 12. We revised our surrogate value for __ Housewares Ltd ... 52.04

to the File, “Surrogate Country Factors _hot rolled steel. See Issues and Decision PRC-Wide Rate ... 113.80

of Production Values in the Final
Determination of the Antidumping Duty
Investigation on Floor-Standing, Metal-
Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts
Thereof from the People’s Republic of
China,” dated concurrently with this
notice, (Surrogate Factors Valuation
Memo); and, (3) Memorandum from
Sam Zengotitabengoa, International
Trade Compliance Analyst, Group II,
Office 4, to the File, “Since Hardware’s
Margin Calculation Analysis for the
Final Determination in the
Antidumping Duty Investigation of
Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing
Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from
the People's Republic of China,” dated
concurrently with this notice (Since
Hardware’s Calculation Memorandum),
and Memorandum from Sam
Zengotitabengoa, International Trade
Compliance Analyst, Group Il, Office 4,
to the File, “Yongjian's Margin
Calculation Analysis for the Final
Determination in the Antidumping Duty
Investigation of Floor-Standing, Metal-
Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts
Thereof from the People’s Republic of
China,” dated concurrently with this
notice (Yongjian’s Calculation
Memorandum).

1. We revised the PRC labor rate. See
Issues and Decision Memorandum, at
Comment 2.

2. We revised the calculation of
inland truck freight. See Issues and
Decision Memorandum, at Comment 3.

3. We revised our surrogate value for
PE septa. See Issues and Decision
Memorandum, at Comment 4-B.

4. We revised our surrogate value of
stainless steel. See Issues and Decision
Memorandum, at Comment 4-C.

5, We revised our surrogate value of
welding wire. See Issues and Decision
Memorandum, at Comment 4—D.

6. We revised our surrogate value of
pigment. See Issues and Decision
Memorandum, at Comment 4-E.

7. We revised our surrogate value for
silica gel parts. See Issues and Decision
Memorandum, at Comment 4-F.

8. We revised our surrogate value for
cotton rope. See Issues and Decision
Memorandum, at Comment 4-H.

Memorandum, at Comment 6-B.

13. We revised our surrogate value for
steel wire rod. See Issues and Decision
Memorandum, at Comment 6-C.

14. We revised our surrogate value for
powder coating. See Issues and Decision
Memorandum, at Comment 6-F.

15. We did not grant Since
Hardware’s billing adjustment. See
Issues and Decision Memorandum, at
Comment 9.

16. We revised the surrogate financial
ratios for overhead, SG&A, and profit.
See Issues and Decision Memorandum,
at Comment 10.

17. We revised the data contained in
Yongjian’s factors of production
database, based on our findings at
verification. See Issues and Decision
Memorandum, at Comment 11.

18. We revised the inland freight
distances for the materials whose values
were either not reported or mis-reported
at the preliminary determination. See
Surrogate Factors Valuation Memo.

Continuation of Suspension of
Liquidation

In accordance with section
735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, we are
directing U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) to continue suspension
liquidation of entries of subject
merchandise from the PRC that are
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after February 3,
2004 (the date of publication of the
Preliminary Determination 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 NV exceeds the U.S.
price, as indicated in the chart below.
‘These suspension-of-liquidation
instructions will remain in effect until
further notice.

Final Determination of Investigation

We determine that the following
weighted-average percentage margins
exist for the period October 1, 2002,
through March 31, 2003:

‘The PRC-wide rate applies to all
entries of the subject merchandise
except for entries from Since Hardware,
Yongjian, Forever Holdings, Harvest
International, and Gaoming Lihe.

International Trade Commission
Notification :

In accordance with section 735(d) of
the Act, we have notified the
International Trade Commission (ITC) of
our determination. As our final
determination is affirmative, the ITC
will determine, within 45 days, whether
these imports are materially injuring, or
threaten material injury to, the U.S.
industry. If the ITC determines that
material injury, or threat of material
injury does not exist, the proceeding
will be terminated and all securities
posted will be refunded or cancelled. If
the ITC determines that such injury
does exist, the Department will issue an
antidumping duty order directing CBP
officials to assess antidumping duties on
all imports of subject merchandise
entered for consumption on or after the
effective date of the suspension of
liquidation.

Notification Regarding Administrative
Protective Order

This notice also serves as a reminder
to parties subject to administrative
protective order (APO) of their
responsibility concerning the
disposition of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely
notification of return/destruction of
APO materials or conversion to jud
protective order is hereby requested.
Failure to comply with the regulations
and the terms of an APO isa
sanctionable violation.

This determination is issued and
published in accordance with sections
735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

ial



consumers do not appear to use the type of top as a factor in their purchasing decision, either because
they are not aware of the difference or they consider the two tops to be substitutable.”*

Production Process

Ironing tables currently are produced in China, Europe, and the United States, primarily from
flat-rolled steel and wire. The production of ironing tables involves common capital equipment such as
a metal roll-former, punch press, welding equipment, and painting facilities. The metal top may be”
formed by various processes, including pressing, stamping, and punching. Alternatively, much of the
production may be accomplished by hand, with tools such as hand benders and welders, wire cutters,
metal shears, and a sewing machine for covers.** The production process in the United States reportedly
is far more capital-intensive than the production process in China.

According to the petitioner, flat-rolled steel is first formed into various parts. In a perforated-top,
flat-rolled steel is pressed by a die to form the top. However, for a mesh-top, steel is processed through a
metal expanding machine and then is cut into the top shape by a die. The rim is then crimped and the
parts joined through welding. This metal ironing surface is then welded to a set of tracks (hangers) that
run the full length of the table. These hangers are stamped on a punch press. Ironing tables also contain
vertical supports, known as ribs, that are formed on a roll former.”° The legs are manufactured from steel
tubing that is bent in an automatic leg-bending machine. The tops and legs are painted, brought to a gas
oven to cure the paint, and then attached. The legs are connected to the hangers by a stamped piece of
metal known as a hinge bar and are connected to the ribs with a slide bar.” A height-adjusting handle,
made on a wire machine, is also added to the ironing table. The pad and cover can then be added to the
ironing table before it is shrink-wrapped and packed in a carton.”*

DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT ISSUES

The Commission’s determination regarding the appropriate domestic products that are “like” the
subject imported products is based on a number of factors including (1) physical characteristics and uses;
(2) common manufacturing facilities and production employees; (3) interchangeability; (4) customer and
producer perceptions; (5) channels of distribution; and, where appropriate, (6) price, all of which are
discussed below. In the preliminary phase of this investigation, the Commission defined the domestic
like product as coextensive with the scope, but indicated that it might re-examine the issue.”

23 Hearing transcript, testimony of Fred Ikensen, counsel, Blank Rome, p. 94. See also hearing transcript
testimony of James Glenn, president, Whitney Design, pp. 201-02.

24 HPI ironing tables are made from cold-rolled steel with a *** inch thickness. Ironing tables from China have a
*** inch thickness, according to the petitioner. ***, interview by USITC Staff, ***, February 25, 2004.

°5 Petition, p. 4.

26 Hearing transcript, Joe Deppen, vice president of manufacturing, HPI, pp. 41-47. See also ***, interview by
USITC Staff, ***, February 25, 2004.

2” Hearing transcript, Joe Deppen, vice president of manufacturing, HPI, pp. 41-47. See also ***, interview by
USITC Staff, ***, February 25, 2004.

28 Reportedly, more than 90 percent of ironing tables are sold with pads installed. Hearing transcript, James
Glenn, president, Whitney Design, p. 200.

2° The Commission stated in its Views that “(w)e may reconsider this issue in the final phase of this investigation
should the parties argue that we should expand the definition of the domestic like product, but note that the parties
must specify what, if any, additional data the Commission should collect before we issue questionnaires in the final
(continued...)

1-6


Table D-1
Ironing tables: Weighted-average f.0.b. selling prices and quantities (all sales) as reported by U.S.
producers of product 1, by quarters and by producers, January 2001-March 2004

* * * * * * *

Table D-2 "
Ironing tables: Weighted-average f.0.b. selling prices and quantities (all sales) as reported by U.S.
producers of product 2, by quarters and by firms, January 2001-March 2004

* * * * * * *

Table D-3
Ironing tables: Weighted-average f.0.b. selling prices and quantities (all sales) as reported by U.S.
importers of product 2, by quarters and by firms, January 2001-March 2004

* * * * * * *

Table D-3--Continued
Ironing tables: Weighted-average f.0.b. selling prices and quantities (all sales) as reported by U.S.
importers of product 2, by quarters and by firms, January 2001-March 2004

* * * * * * *


Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 121/Thursday, June 24, 2004/ Notices

35305

inputs. In selecting the best available
information for valuing factors of production,
in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we
selected values which are: (1) Non-export
average values; (2) most contemporaneous
with the POI; (3) product-specific; and (4)
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
(Mar. 13, 1998). While we recognize that both
Indian import statistics and
Infodrivelndia.com: (1) Represents import
data; (2) are contemporaneous with the POI;
(3) are product-specific; and (4) are tax
exclusive, we find that Indian import
statistics represent the best available
information in this case.

With regard to Yongjian's assertion that the
Department has used Infodriveindia.com in
previous cases, we note that the Department
has used this source only once in a final
determination. 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 20594 (April 16,
2004) (CTVs from the PRC). For the inputs
valued using Infodrivelndia.com, we used
this source because it provided the most
product-specific information available and
not because Indian import statistics were
aberrational or unreliable. In addition, we
clearly stated in this case our preference for
Indian import statistics over
Infodriveindia.com except in instances where
the HS categories are overly broad. See CTV's
from the PRC, Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 9. In the current
proceeding, there is no evidence on the
record that the HS subheadings used by the
Department to calculate surrogate values for
cold-rolled steel coil and hot-rolled steel coil
are overly broad.

Regarding Yongjian’s argument that the HS
subheadings used to value its steel inputs are
too broad, we note that there is no evidence
on the record of this investigation to support
that contention. With respect to cold-rolled
steel, in its October 15, 2003, section D
questionnaire response, Yongjian states that
it uses cold-rolled steel sheet with a
thickness of 0.8 millimeters and cold-rolled
steel sheet with a thickness of 1 mm to form
meshes. In its case brief, Yongjian claims that
HS 7209.1700 is too broad. HS 7209.1700
covers flat-rolled products of iron or non-
alloy steel, of a width of 600 mm or more,
cold-rolled, (cold-reduced), not clad, plated
or coiled; in coils, not further worked than
cold-rolled (cold-reduced) of a thickness of
0.5 or more but not exceeding 1 mm. This
description matches the cold-rolled steel
characteristics of the material input that
Yongjian reported in its questionnaire
responses.

With respect to hot-rolled steel, in its
October 15, 2003, section D questionnaire
response, Yongjian states that it uses hot-
rolled steel with a thickness ranging from 0.6
millimeters to 2.5 millimeters. In its case
brief, Yongjian claims that HS 7208.3900,
used in the Preliminary Determination, is too
broad. HS 7208.3900 covers flat-rolled

products of iron or non-alloy steel, of a width
of 600 mm or more, hot-rolled, not clad,
plated or coiled; in coils, of a thickness less
than 3 mm. This description matches the hot-
rolled steel characteristics reported of the
material input that Yongjian reported in its
questionnaire responses.

Asa result of verification, we found that
Yongjian used cold-rolled steel coil and hot-
rolled steel coil instead of the cold-rolled and
hot-rolled steel sheet it reported in its section
D questionnaire responses. Therefore, for the
final determination, we have valued
Yongjian’s cold-rolled steel coil using HS
7209.1700 and hot-rolled coil using HS.
7208.3900, For additional discussion of this
issue, see Comments 7 and 12.

‘Although Yongjian states that the
Department relied on data that ‘‘clearly
included further processed products from.
those used in Yongjian’s production * * *”
to calculate its surrogate value for cold-rolled
steel coil and hot-rolled steel coil, Yongjian
provided no information to indicate why it
considered certain materials listed in
Infodrivelndia.com to be inappropriate for
comparison to the above-listed steel inputs.
For example, for cold-rolled stee] coil,
‘Yongjian suggests that automotive steel
blanks are not comparable to the steel coil
used in ironing table production but does not
justify that assertion with evidence or facts.
See Yongjian's Case Brief at 24. With respect
to hot-rolled steel coil, Yongjian generally
states that much of the materials imported
under HS 7208.3900, which the Department
used to value hot-rolled steel coil in the final
determination, is of a semi-finished or
otherwise processed material. However,
Yongjian fails to state in its case brief which
specific materials are semi-finished and
otherwise processed material and does not
cite any evidence in support of its claim. In
addition, even if semi-finished or otherwise
processed materials are included in HS
7208.3900, Yongjian fails to demonstrate why
such materials do not reflect the same steel
used in Yongjian's production of ironing
tables. The Department prefers to use
surrogate values that are representative of a
range of prices in effect during the period
under consideration. Thus, using only a
portion of the imports under HS 7209.1700
and HS 7208.3900 to calculate the surrogate
values for cold-rolled and hot-rolled steel,
respectively, without evidence to support
this approach, is inconsistent with the
criteria the Department uses to select
surrogate values.

‘As a result, the Department does not find
that the HS subheadings used in the final
determination are overly broad and continues
to rely on WTA to calculate surrogate values
for cold-rolled and hot-rolled steel coil.

Comment 6: Whether the Department's Used
Aberrant Surrogate Values for Certain
Material Inputs

Yongjian contends that it is Department
practice that unreasonable and aberrational
surrogate values will not be used in the
calculation of normal value. See Refined
Antimony Trioxide from the PRC: Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value, 57 FR 6801, 6803 (February 28, 1992).
Yongjian argues that although the

Department stated that “the surrogate values
employed in the valuation of the factors of
production were selected because of their
quality, specificity, and contemporaneity”
(See Preliminary Determination, at 5131), the
record evidence demonstrates the aberrant
nature of the surrogate values used in the
Preliminary Determination. See Yongjian’s
Case Brief, at 3-5.

A, Cold-Rolled Steel

For the Preliminary Determination, the
Department relied upon WTA data to
calculate the surrogate value for cold-rolled
steel sheet. As discussed above, Yongjian
asserts that the Infodrivelndia.com data
demonstrate that the majority of cold-rolled
steel imported under HS 7209.1700 is a semi-
finished or otherwise processed material that
does not reflect the input used in the
production of ironing boards. Therefore,
‘Yongjian contends that the Department's
Preliminary Determination surrogate value of
cold-rolled steel sheet is based on aberrant
data as compared with Yongjian’s surrogate
value filing of Infodrivelndia.com for cold-
rolled steel coil, Since Hardware’s market
value of cold-rolled steel coil, CRU Monitor
export prices of cold-rolled steel coil, and the
American Metal Market (AMM) price for
cold-rolled steel coil. See Yongjian's Case
Brief, at 9 and 10. In addition, Yongjian
contends, in a footnote, that the surrogate
value for cold-rolled steel used by the
Department in the Preliminary Determination
for Since Hardware also yields an aberrant
value.

‘The petitioner argues that it is not
aberrational but entirely logical and
predictable that cold-rolled steel coil would
carry a lower average value than steel that
has been subjected to a capital-intensive
slitting process, like cold-rolled steel sheet.
The petitioner also notes that a comparison
to Since Hardware’s claimed market
economy purchases reflects an apple to
oranges approach because Since Hardware’s
inputs are vastly different from Yongjian’s
inputs. With respect to Yongjian’s AMM
prices, the petitioner argues that the sources
provide no meaningful specificity
whatsoever with respect to the commodity
addressed in relation to the input valued by
the Department and notes that Yonjian
acknowledges the lack of utility these prices
have for valuation purposes. In addition, the
petitioner notes that the AMM does not
disclose the quantities upon which the
reported average prices are based, which
makes it impossible to assess the breadth of
the data sample.

Department's Position: We agree with the
petitioner. Consistent with the material
reported in Yongjian’s questionnaire
responses, the Department used HS.
7211,2300, or cold-rolled steel sheet, to
calculate a surrogate value for Yongjian’s
cold-rolled steel inputs in the Preliminary
Determination. In its case brief, Yongjian
compares the cold-rolled sheet surrogate
value to data using the prices of cold-rolled
coil, which is either listed as HS 7209.1700
or labeled cold-rolled steel coil to
demonstrate that the sheet prices are
aberrational. However, as discussed above,
the Department found at verification that


Price

In 2003, the price for over-the-door ironing boards (***) was slightly greater than the price for
perforated-top T-leg ironing tables (***).“° Wall-mounted ironing boards, in contrast, are more
expensive than ironing tables, retailing for between $100 and $500.”

“© Questionnaire response by HPI, question IV-B-16, p. 17.
47 *** telephone interview by USITC Staff, May 10, 2004.

1-9