U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4203 December 2010

Washington, DC 20436

Wooden Bedroom Furniture from China

Investigation No. 731-TA-1058 (Review)
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS 

 

Deanna Tanner Okun, Chairman 

Irving A. Williamson, Vice Chairman 

Charlotte R. Lane 

Daniel R. Pearson 

Shara L. Aranoff 

Dean A. Pinkert

Karen Laney

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Acting Director of Operations

Amy Sherman, Investigator 

Ralph Watkins, Industry Analyst 

John Benedetto, Economist 

Justin Jee, Accountant 

Peter Sultan, Attorney 

George Deyman, Supervisory Investigator

Special assistance from

Mara Alexander, Statistician
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4203 December 2010

Wooden Bedroom Furniture from China

Investigation No. 731-TA-1058 (Review)

CONTENTS

Page

Determination .................................................................. 1

Views of the Commission ......................................................... 3

Additional views of Commissioner Daniel R. Pearson ................................. 29

Part I: Introduction and overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

The original investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

Statutory criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

Summary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Commerce’s reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

Administrative reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

New shipper reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9

Antidumping duty avoidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9

Results of five-year review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

Distribution of Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

The subject merchandise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

Commerce’s scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

Tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-16

The domestic like product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-17

Description and applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-17

Manufacturing processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-20

Domestic like product issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-22

U.S. market participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-22

U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-22

U.S. importers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-26

U.S. purchasers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-27

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-27

Part II: Conditions of competition in the U.S. market ................................ II-1

U.S. market characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1

Geographic markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1

Channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1

U.S. purchasers ............................................................ II-2

Floor space and retail tiers .................................................... II-2

Solid wood and other materials ................................................ II-2

Brand names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-3

Supply and demand considerations ................................................ II-4

Supply ................................................................... II-4

Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-11

Substitutability issues .......................................................... II-14

U.S. purchasers’ marketing knowledge .......................................... II-14

Factors affecting purchasing decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-15

Comparison of U.S.-produced and imported wooden bedroom furniture ................ II-19

Elasticity estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-24

U.S. supply elasticity ........................................................ II-24

U.S. demand elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-24

Substitution elasticity ....................................................... II-24

Economic journal articles ....................................................... II-24

i
CONTENTS

Page

Part III: Condition of the U.S. industry ............................................ III-1

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1

Background ............................................................... III-1

Changes experienced in operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1

Anticipated changes in operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-2

Settlement agreements ....................................................... III-2

U.S. capacity, production, and capacity utilization ................................... III-3

Constraints on capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-4

U.S. producers’ shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-4

U.S. producers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-6

U.S. producers’ imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-6

U.S. producers’ purchases ...................................................... III-8

U.S. employment, wages, and productivity ......................................... III-9

Financial condition of U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-10

Background ............................................................... III-10

Operations on wooden bedroom furniture ........................................ III-11

Capital expenditures and research and development expenses ........................ III-14

Assets and return on investment ............................................... III-14

Part IV: U.S. imports, the industries in China and Vietnam, and the global market . . . . . . . IV-1

U.S. imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1

Imports from subject and nonsubject countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1

U.S. importers’ imports subsequent to December 31, 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-3

U.S. importers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-4

Antidumping investigations in third-country markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-4

The industry in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-5

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-5

Wooden bedroom furniture operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-6

Top Chinese exporters and applicable antidumping duty (cash deposit) rates . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-9

China’s wooden furniture industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-9

The industry in Vietnam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-9

Global market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-10

Production capacity and import competition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-10

Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-11

Exports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-12

Imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-13

Prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-14

Part V: Pricing and related information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Factors affecting prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Raw material costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Transportation costs to the U.S. market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2

U.S. inland transportation costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3

Exchange rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3

ii
CONTENTS

Page

Part V: Pricing and related information–Continued

Pricing practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3

Pricing methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3

Sales terms and discounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-5

Price leaders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-6

U.S. prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-6

Price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-6

Price comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-11

Appendixes

A. Federal Register notices and the Commission’s statement on adequacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

B. Hearing witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

C. Summary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

D. Responses of U.S. producers, U.S. importers, U.S. purchasers, and Chinese producers

concerning the significance of the antidumping duty order and the likely effects of revocation D-1

E. Administrative review tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

F. Selected U.S. producer data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1

G. Overlaps among questionnaire respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-1

H. Housing starts, new homes sold, and consumer sentiment indices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-1

I. Exchange rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

J. Pricing product definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J-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.

iii

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation No. 731-TA-1058 (Review)

WOODEN BEDROOM FURNITURE FROM CHINA

DETERMINATION

On the basis of the record1

 developed in the subject five-year review, the United States

International Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of

1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture

from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the

United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted this review on December 1, 2009 (74 FR 62817) and determined on

March 8, 2010 that it would conduct a full review (75 FR 14469, March 25, 2010). Notice of the

scheduling of the Commission’s review 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 on April 26, 2010 (75 FR 21657). 

The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on October 5, 2010, and all persons who requested the

opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel.

 1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR § 207.2(f)).

1

VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

Based on the record in this five-year review, we determine under section 751(c) of the Tariff Act

of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom

furniture (“WBF”) from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to

an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.1

I. BACKGROUND

On October 31, 2003, the American Furniture Manufacturers Committee for Legal Trade

(“AFMC”), an ad hoc association of U.S. manufacturers of wooden bedroom furniture, and six labor

unions2

 filed an antidumping duty petition concerning imports of WBF from China. In December 2004,

the Commission determined that an industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of

LTFV imports of WBF from China,3

 and the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) issued an

antidumping duty order on January 4, 2005.4

The Commission instituted the present review on December 1, 2009.5 The Commission received

a response to the notice of institution from a group of U.S. producers of WBF and three labor unions. 

This response was filed by the AFMC; Vaughan-Bassett Furniture Company, Inc.; Dubois Wood

Products Inc.; The Jasper Group d/b/a Klem Hospitality; Solid Comfort, Inc.; and the following three

unions: United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America Cabinet Makers, Millmen, and

Industrial Carpenters Local 721; United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America Carpenters

Industrial Council Local Union 2305; and Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Union

Local 991 (collectively the “Domestic Producers”). In addition, the Commission received individual 

responses from Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. (“Ashley”) and Furniture Traditions, domestic producers

of WBF. Ashley *** the continuation of the order. The Commission also received responses from four

producers of the subject merchandise in China and from 11 U.S. importers of the subject merchandise.

On March 8, 2010, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party group response

was adequate, and that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate. The Commission

voted to conduct a full review because of changes in the relevant conditions of competition.6

The following entities participated in this review by filing briefs and appearing at the hearing: 

the AFMC; Vaughan-Bassett Furniture Co., Inc.; Ashley; American Signature, Inc.; Fine Furniture

Design, LLC; Hillsdale Furniture, LLC, Home Meridian International; Lifestyle Enterprises, Inc.;

RiversEdge Furniture Company; TM International LLC; The Furniture Retailers of America (“FRA”);

 1 See also Additional Views of Commissioner Daniel R. Pearson.

 2

 These were: Local 721 of the Cabinet Makers, Millmen, and Industrial Carpenters; Local 2305 of the UBC

Southern Council of Industrial Workers; Local 193U of the United Steelworkers of America; Local 2093 of the

Carpenters Industrial Union; Local 991 of the Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Union; and Local

82472 of the IUE, Industrial Division of CWA.

 3

 Wooden Bedroom Furniture from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1058 (Final), USITC Pub. 3743 (Dec. 2004)

(“Original Determination”), p.1.

 4

 Antidumping Duty Order: Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People’s Republic of China, 70 Fed. Reg. 329

(Jan. 4, 2005).

 5

 74 Fed. Reg. 62817 (Dec. 1, 2009).

 6

 See Confidential Report (“CR”) and Public Staff Report (“PR”) at Appendix A, Explanation of Commission

Determination on Adequacy.

3
Guangdong Yihua Timber Industry Co., Ltd. (“Yihua”); Dalian Huafeng Furniture Group Co., Ltd.; and

the Guangdong Furniture Association, Trade Committee.

II. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT

A. Legal Standard

In making its determination under section 751(c) of the Act, the Commission defines “the

domestic like product” and the “industry.”7

 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 under this subtitle.”8

 The Commission’s practice in five-year reviews is to look to the like

product definition from the original determination and any completed reviews and consider whether the

record indicates any reason to revisit the prior findings.9

B. Product Description

In its expedited review determination, Commerce defined the scope of the imported merchandise

subject to the antidumping duty order as follows:10

Wooden bedroom furniture is generally, but not exclusively, designed,

manufactured, and offered for sale in coordinated groups, or bedrooms, in which

all of the individual pieces are of approximately the same style and

approximately the same material and/or finish. The subject merchandise is made

substantially of wood products, including both solid wood and also engineered

wood products made from wood particles, fibers, or other wooden materials such

as plywood, strand board, particle board, and fiberboard, with or without wood

veneers, wood overlays, or laminates, with or without non-wood components or

trim such as metal, marble, leather, glass, plastic, or other resins, and whether or

not assembled, completed, or finished.

The subject merchandise includes the following items: (1) Wooden beds such as

loft beds, bunk beds, and other beds; (2) wooden headboards for beds (whether

stand-alone or attached to side rails), wooden footboards for beds, wooden side

rails for beds, and wooden canopies for beds; (3) night tables, night stands,

dressers, commodes, bureaus, mule chests, gentlemen’s chests, bachelor’s chests,

 7 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 8

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10); see, e.g., Cleo Inc. v. United States, 501 F.3d 1291, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2007); 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); Timken Co. v. United States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996); Torrington Co. v.

United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 748-49 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1990), aff’d, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also S.

Rep. No. 249, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 90-91 (1979).

 9

 See, e.g., Internal Combustion Industrial Forklift Trucks From Japan, Inv. No. 731-TA-377 (Second Review),

USITC Pub. 3831 at 8-9 (Dec. 2005); Crawfish Tail Meat From China, Inv. No. 731-TA-752 (Review), USITC Pub.

3614 at 4 (July 2003); Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Turkey, Inv. No. 731-TA-745 (Review), USITC Pub.

3577 at 4 (Feb. 2003).

 10 Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review

of Antidumping Duty Order, 75 FR 19364 (April 14, 2010).

4
lingerie chests, wardrobes, vanities, chessers, chifforobes, and wardrobe-type

cabinets; (4) dressers with framed glass mirrors that are attached to, incorporated

in, sit on, or hang over the dresser; (5) chests-on-chests,11 highboys,12 lowboys,13

chests of drawers,14 chests,15 door chests,16 chiffoniers,17 hutches,18 and

armoires;19 (6) desks, computer stands, filing cabinets, book cases, or writing

tables that are attached to or incorporated in the subject merchandise; and (7)

other bedroom furniture consistent with the above list.

Commerce excluded from the scope of this investigation several types of wooden

furniture that may be used in a bedroom, such as “seats, chairs, benches, couches, sofas, sofa

beds, stools, and other seating furniture,” “mattresses, mattress supports (including box springs),

infant cribs, water beds, and futon frames,” “office furniture, such as desks, stand-up desks,

computer cabinets, filing cabinets, credenzas, and bookcases,” “dining room or kitchen furniture,

such as dining tables, chairs, servers, sideboards, buffets, corner cabinets, china cabinets, and

china hutches,” and “other non-bedroom furniture, such as television cabinets, cocktail tables, end

tables, occasional tables, wall systems, book cases, and entertainment systems.”20

WBF is wooden furniture designed and manufactured for use in the bedroom. It includes

such items of wooden furniture as beds, nightstands, chests, armoires, and dressers with mirrors. 

Although these items all have different physical characteristics and uses, they are generally

designed and offered for sale in coordinated groups in which the individual pieces of furniture

 11 A chest-on-chest is typically a tall chest-of-drawers in two or more sections (or appearing to be in two or more

sections), with one or two sections mounted (or appearing to be mounted) on a slightly larger chest; also known as a

tallboy.

 12 A highboy is typically a tall chest of drawers usually composed of a base and a top section with drawers, and

supported on four legs or a small chest (often 15 inches or more in height).

 13 A lowboy is typically a short chest of drawers, not more than four feet high, normally set on short legs.

 14 A chest of drawers is typically a case containing drawers for storing clothing.

 15 A chest is typically a case piece taller than it is wide featuring a series of drawers and with or without one or

more doors for storing clothing. The piece can either include drawers or be designed as a large box incorporating a

lid.

 16 A door chest is typically a chest with hinged doors to store clothing, whether or not containing drawers. The

piece may also include shelves for televisions and other entertainment electronics.

 17 A chiffonier is typically a tall and narrow chest of drawers normally used for storing undergarments and

lingerie, often with mirror(s) attached.

 18 A hutch is typically an open case of furniture with shelves that typically sits on another piece of furniture and

provides storage for clothes.

 19 An armoire is typically a tall cabinet or wardrobe (typically 50 inches or taller), with doors, and with one or

more drawers (either exterior below or above the doors or interior behind the doors), shelves, and/or garment rods or

other apparatus for storing clothes. Bedroom armoires may also be used to hold television receivers and/or other

audio-visual entertainment systems.

 20 Commerce also excluded from the scope any bedroom furniture “made primarily of wicker, cane, osier,

bamboo or rattan,” or “in which bentwood parts predominate,” metal side rails for beds if they are sold separately

from the headboard and footboard, certain jewelry armoires, cheval mirrors and certain combination cheval

mirror/jewelry cabinets, certain metal parts, and certain unfinished furniture parts, certain mirrors, certain

upholstered beds, and certain toy boxes. 75 Fed. Reg. 19364 (April 14, 2010).

5
share the same basic design, finish, and construction.21 WBF is used primarily in residences and

lodging, and in care facilities, such as assisted living facilities.22

C. The Original Determination

In its original injury determination, the Commission found that all WBF constituted one

domestic like product, coextensive with the scope of the investigation. The Commission

considered one like product issue, namely whether “joinery” WBF – in which no fasteners, such

as nails or screws, are used in the construction of the furniture – should be considered a different

domestic like product than other types of WBF. One respondent had argued that joinery WBF

should be treated as a separate domestic like product. The Commission rejected this argument. It

concluded that, while there may be some physical and production differences between joinery

and non-joinery WBF, they were not significant enough to warrant finding that joinery and nonjoinery furniture are different domestic like products. The record indicated that joinery and nonjoinery WBF shared the same basic physical characteristics and end uses, were interchangeable

with one another, underwent somewhat similar production processes, and were sold at

comparable price levels in similar channels of distribution.23

D. The Current Review

There is no new information obtained during this review that would suggest that the

Commission revisit the domestic like product definition from the original determination. 

Moreover, no party to this review argued that the Commission should depart from that domestic

like product definition.

Accordingly, we again find one domestic like product that encompasses WBF and is

coextensive with the scope of review.

III. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY

A. Legal Standard

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the relevant industry as the domestic “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.”24 In

defining the domestic industry, the Commission’s general practice has been to include in the

industry producers of all domestic production of the domestic like product, whether tollproduced, captively consumed, or sold in the domestic merchant market.

B. The Original Determination

In its original determination the Commission defined the domestic industry to include all

U.S. producers of WBF. The Commission considered, and rejected, Petitioners’ arguments that it

 21 CR at I-20, PR at I-17.

 22 CR at I-20, PR at I-17.

 23 Original Determination at 8-9.

 24 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

6
should exclude two domestic producers of WBF – *** and *** – from the domestic industry as

related parties under section 771(4)(B) of the Act.25 26 The Commission also examined the data

concerning the twenty-four other producers who imported subject merchandise during the period

of investigation and found that appropriate circumstances did not exist to exclude any of these

producers from the industry as a related party.27

C. The Current Review

The only domestic industry issue that arises in this review is whether appropriate

circumstances exist to exclude any domestic producer from the domestic industry as related

parties. Twenty U.S. producers of WBF, including *** members of the AFMC, imported the

subject merchandise during the POR, and thus are related parties.28 Also, three U.S. producers

are related to Chinese exporters or U.S. importers of the subject merchandise and are related

parties on this basis.29 Accordingly, we consider whether appropriate circumstances exist to

exclude any of the related parties from the industry.

We have examined the data concerning the 20 producers who imported subject

merchandise during the period of review to assess whether any of these producers should be

excluded from the industry as a related party. As an initial matter, we note that it has become

common practice for domestic producers to pursue a “blended strategy” and to import WBF from

China and other sources to supplement their domestic production, as a means of remaining

competitive in the marketplace.30 Of these 20 producers, *** shipped31 more domestically

 25 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B).

 26 The Commission noted that both of these producers were among the largest domestic producers of WBF

during the period of investigation, that they shipped considerably more domestically produced WBF in the United

States than they imported from China, that they did not benefit disproportionately from importing the subject

merchandise when compared with the rest of the industry, and that the inclusion of their financial and trade data

would not significantly skew the industry’s overall data. Based on these considerations, the Commission found that

appropriate circumstances did not exist to exclude these companies from the definition of the domestic industry. 

Original Determination at 10-13.

 27 Original Determination at 13 n.100.

 28 CR at III-16, PR at III-6, and Petitioners’ Posthearing Brief at Exhibit 10. In addition, five U.S. producers

(four of which were among the twenty direct importers mentioned above) purchased subject merchandise from China

that they did not directly import. CR/PR at Table III-11. The Commission has concluded that a domestic producer

that does not itself import subject merchandise, or does not share a corporate affiliation with an importer, may

nonetheless be deemed a related party if it controls large volumes of imports. The Commission has found such

control to exist where the domestic producer was responsible for a predominant proportion of an importer’s

purchases and the importer’s purchases were substantial. See, e.g., Foundry Coke from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-891

(Final), USITC Pub. 3449 (September 2001) at 8-9. The five U.S. producers that purchased subject merchandise

from China do not qualify as related parties under this standard. See CR/PR at Table III-11.

 29 *** indirectly owns a producer and exporter of the subject merchandise in China. *** U.S. Producer

Questionnaire Response at 3 and 4. *** is related by common ownership to three U.S. importers of WBF. *** U.S.

Producer Questionnaire Response at 3. *** is related to *** U.S. importers of WBF. *** U.S. Producer

Questionnaire Response at 3.

 30 CR at II-7 n.14 and II-34, PR at II-4 n.14 and II-21.

 31 Normally, in this analysis, imports are compared to domestic production, not domestic shipments. But,

because of the predominant use of value data in this review, the ratio was calculated based on shipments (for which

(continued...)

7
produced WBF than they imported from China in almost all years of the POR,32 thus indicating

that their primary interest was in domestic production rather than importation of the subject

merchandise (at least for the years in which they had domestic production).33 Moreover, most of

these *** producers reported operating results that were worse than the industry average,34 35 36

which indicates that these producers did not benefit disproportionately from their importation of

subject merchandise. Accordingly, we do not believe that appropriate circumstances exist to

exclude these *** producers from the industry as related parties.37 38

 31(...continued)

value data were available) and not domestic production (for which value data were not available). CR/PR at Table

III-8 n. 3.

 32 CR/PR at Table III-8.

 33 These *** producers were ***. *** of these firms – *** – ceased domestic production during the period of

review. CR/PR at Table F-1.

 34 Of these *** importing producers, only ***, ***, and *** reported operating income margins that were

significantly higher than the industry average during the period of review. CR/PR at Table III-14. 

 35 In these investigations, Commissioner Aranoff does not rely on individual company operating income margins

in assessing whether particular related parties benefit from importation of subject merchandise. Rather, she has

based her determination regarding whether to exclude related parties principally on their ratios of subject imports to

domestic shipments and on whether their primary interests lie in domestic production or importation. 

 36 Commissioner Pinkert does not rely upon companies’ financial performance as a factor in determining whether

there are appropriate circumstances to exclude them from the domestic industry in these reviews. The record is not

sufficient to infer from their profitability on U.S. operations whether they have derived a specific benefit from

importing. See Allied Mineral Products v. United States, 28 C.I.T. 1861, 1865-67 (2004)

 37 Vice Chairman Williamson notes that an argument could be made that appropriate circumstances exist to

exclude *** from the domestic industry, given its *** over the period of review. See CR/PR at Table III-8. *** also

was *** than the industry as a whole, suggesting that ***. See CR/PR at Table III-14. However, the potential for

the company’s above-average profitability to skew the industry-wide data was ***. See CR/PR at Table III-8. 

Given the forward-looking nature of a five-year review determination, skewing of industry-wide data should be of

more concern in the more recent part of the period of review. On balance, because the level of its imports never

exceeded its shipments of domestic production, because it supports the continuation of the order, and because any

skewing of industry-wide data was lessened in the more recent part of the period of review, Vice Chairman

Williamson found that appropriate circumstances do not exist to exclude *** from the domestic industry.

 38 The FRA argues that AFMC members who are importing subject merchandise should be excluded from the

domestic industry as related parties because they are allegedly more interested in enabling subject imports, which

generate settlement agreement payments, than they are in increasing domestic production and employment. FRA

Posthearing Brief, Answers to Questions at 14-18 and 52-56. (These settlement agreements are described in section

IV.B.2.d. below.) The rationale for the related parties provision is the concern that domestic producers who are

related parties may be shielded from any injury that might be caused by the subject imports. It is the benefits that

accrue from the relationship – whether it be a relationship to subject imports or one of the statutorily-defined

corporate relationships – that are of concern. See, e.g, Allied Mineral Products, Inc. v. United States, —Fed. Supp.

2d.—, Slip Op. 04-139 (Ct. Int’l Trade November 12, 2004) at 5. Here the FRA is not arguing that the AFMC

members who were importers should be excluded from the domestic industry because of any benefit received from

those importations. Instead, the FRA is arguing essentially that the AFMC members should be excluded because

they derive a financial benefit associated with the order. But all domestic producers theoretically receive “benefits”

from an outstanding order. In short, we do not agree with the argument propounded by the FRA.

8
*** producers imported subject merchandise the value of which exceeded the value of

their shipments of domestically produced WBF in most years of the POR.39 We have concluded

that appropriate circumstances exist to exclude these producers from the domestic industry, for

the following reasons.40

***. *** imports of the subject merchandise *** its domestic shipments for much of the

period of review. The ratio of its imports of subject merchandise to domestically produced U.S.

shipments was *** percent in 2004, *** percent in 2005, *** percent in 2006, *** percent in

2007, *** percent in 2008, and *** percent in 2009.41 Although *** the continuation of the

order,42 and its ***,43 we find that appropriate circumstances exist to exclude this producer from

the domestic industry because, as demonstrated by the disproportionate ratio of its imports to

domestic production throughout the period of review, its primary interest is as an importer of the

subject merchandise rather than as a domestic producer. 

*** The ratio of *** imports of subject merchandise to its domestic shipments *** over

the period of review, as its ***.44 The ratio of its imports of subject merchandise to domestically

produced U.S. shipments was *** percent in 2004, *** percent in 2005, *** percent in 2006, ***

percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008, and *** percent in 2009.45 Although *** the continuation

of the order,46 and its ***,47 we find that appropriate circumstances exist to exclude this producer

from the domestic industry because, as shown by the disproportionate ratio of its imports to

domestic production towards the end of the period of review, its primary interest is as an importer

of the subject merchandise rather than as a domestic producer. 

*** The ratio of *** imports of subject merchandise to its domestic shipments *** over

the period of review, as its ***.48 The ratio of its imports of subject merchandise to domestically

produced U.S. shipments was *** percent in 2004, *** percent in 2005, *** percent in 2006, ***

percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008, and *** percent in 2009.49 *** the continuation of the

 39 These *** producers were ***.

 40 Vice Chairman Williamson and Commissioner Lane find that appropriate circumstances do not exist to exclude

these producers from the domestic industry. While each of these producers had a high ratio of subject imports to

domestic shipments, their inclusion does not skew the data for the industry. Most importantly, none of them

accounted for a significant share of domestic production. The largest among them are ***, of which each accounted

for *** percent of domestic production in 2009. CR/PR at Table I-6. *** had operating income margins *** in that

year, and *** operating income margin, ***. Although *** operating income margin was *** in 2009, its

performance was *** the industry's average in the prior three years. CR/PR at Table III-14. Moreover, both ***. 

CR/PR at Table I-6.

 41 CR/PR at Table III-8.

 42 CR/PR at Table I-6.

 43 See CR/PR at Table III-14.

 44 CR/PR at Table III-8.

 45 CR/PR at Table III-8.

 46 CR/PR at Table I-6.

 47 See CR/PR at Table III-14.

 48 CR/PR at Table III-8.

 49 CR/PR at Table III-8.

9
order.50 Although its ***,51 we find that appropriate circumstances exist to exclude *** from the

domestic industry because its primary interest is as an importer of the subject merchandise rather

than as a domestic producer.

*** imports of the subject merchandise *** its domestic shipments for much of the

period of review, as its ***.52 The ratio of its imports of subject merchandise to domestically

produced U.S. shipments was *** percent in 2004, *** percent in 2005, *** percent in 2006, ***

percent in 2007, *** percent in 2008, and *** percent in 2009.53 *** the continuation of the

order.54 Its ***.55 We find that appropriate circumstances exist to exclude *** from the domestic

industry because its primary interest is as an importer of the subject merchandise rather than as a

domestic producer.

*** imports of the subject merchandise *** its domestic shipments for much of the

period of review. The ratio of its imports of subject merchandise to domestically produced U.S.

shipments was *** percent in 2004, *** percent in 2005, *** percent in 2006, *** percent in

2007, *** percent in 2008, and *** percent in 2009.56 *** the continuation of the order.57

Although its ***,58 we find that appropriate circumstances exist to exclude *** from the domestic

industry because its primary interest is as an importer of the subject merchandise rather than as a

domestic producer. 

We have also examined the data concerning the *** producers who have corporate

relationships with Chinese exporters or U.S. importers of the subject merchandise to assess

whether any of these producers should be excluded from the industry as a related party.59 As

there is no evidence that any of these producers derived any significant financial benefit on

account of their relationships with Chinese exporters or U.S. importers, or that there is any other

basis for exclusion, we find that appropriate circumstances do not exist to exclude these

producers from the domestic industry.

Accordingly, we define the domestic industry to include all producers of the domestic

like product, except ***.60

 50 CR/PR at Table I-6.

 51 See CR/PR at Table III-14.

 52 CR/PR at Table III-8.

 53 CR/PR at Table III-8.

 54 CR/PR at Table I-6.

 55 See CR/PR at Table III-14.

 56 CR/PR at Table III-8.

 57 CR/PR at Table I-6.

 58 See CR/PR at Table III-14.

 59 These producers are ***.

 60 Vice Chairman Williamson and Commissioner Lane define the domestic industry to include all producers of

the domestic like product.

10
IV. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL

INJURY IF THE ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDER IS REVOKED

A. Legal Standards

In a five-year review conducted under section 751(c) of the Act, Commerce will revoke

an antidumping duty order unless (1) it makes a determination that dumping or subsidization is

likely to continue or recur and (2) the Commission makes a determination that revocation of the

antidumping duty order “would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury

within a reasonably foreseeable time.”61 The Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”),

Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”), states that “under the likelihood standard, the

Commission will engage in a counter-factual analysis; it must decide the likely impact in the

reasonably foreseeable future of an important change in the status quo – the revocation or

termination of a proceeding and the elimination of its restraining effects on volumes and prices of

imports.”62 Thus, the likelihood standard is prospective in nature.63 The U.S. Court of

International Trade has found that “likely,” as used in the five-year review provisions of the Act,

means “probable,” and the Commission applies that standard in five-year reviews.64 65 66

 The Act states that “the Commission shall consider that the effects of revocation or

termination may not be imminent, but may manifest themselves only over a longer period of

 61 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

 62 The SAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. I, at 883-84 (1994). The SAA states that “[t]he likelihood of injury

standard applies regardless of the nature of the Commission’s original determination (material injury, threat of

material injury, or material retardation of an industry). Likewise, the standard applies to suspended investigations

that were never completed.” SAA at 883. 

 63 Although the SAA states that “a separate determination regarding current material injury is not necessary,” it

indicates that “the Commission may consider relevant factors such as current and likely continued depressed

shipment levels and current and likely continued [sic] prices for the domestic like product in the U.S. market in

making its determination of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of material injury if the order is revoked.” 

SAA at 884.

 64 See NMB Singapore Ltd. v. United States, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1306, 1352 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2003) (“‘likely’ means

probable within the context of 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c) and 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)”), aff’d mem., 140 Fed. Appx. 268

(Fed. Cir. 2005); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 26 CIT 1416, 1419 (2002) (same); Usinor Industeel, S.A. v.

United States, 26 CIT 1402, 1404 nn. 3, 6 (2002) (“more likely than not” standard is “consistent with the court’s

opinion”; “the court has not interpreted ‘likely’ to imply any particular degree of ‘certainty’”); Indorama Chemicals

(Thailand) Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-105 at 20 (Ct. Int’l Trade Sept. 4, 2002) (“standard is based on a

likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury, not a certainty”); Usinor v. United States, 26 CIT 767, 794 (2002)

(“‘likely’ is tantamount to ‘probable,’ not merely ‘possible’”).

 65 For a complete statement of Chairman Okun’s interpretation of the likely standard, see Additional Views of

Vice Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun Concerning the “Likely” Standard in Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel

Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe From Argentina, Brazil, Germany, and Italy, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-362 (Review) and

731-TA-707 to 710 (Review) (Remand), USITC Pub. 3754 (Feb. 2005).

 66 Commissioner Lane notes that, consistent with her views in Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape From Italy, Inv.

No. AA1921-167 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 3698 (June 2004), she does not concur with the U.S. Court of

International Trade’s interpretation of “likely,” but she will apply the Court’s standard in this review and all

subsequent reviews until either Congress clarifies the meaning or the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

addresses this issue. 

11
time.”67 According to the SAA, a “‘reasonably foreseeable time’ will vary from case-to-case, but

normally will exceed the ‘imminent’ timeframe applicable in a threat of injury analysis in original

investigations.”68

Although the standard in a five-year review is not the same as the standard applied in an

original antidumping duty investigation, it contains some of the same fundamental elements. The

Act provides that the Commission is to “consider the likely volume, price effect, and impact of

imports of the subject merchandise on the industry if the orders are revoked or the suspended

investigation is terminated.”69 It directs the Commission to take into account its prior injury

determination, whether any improvement in the state of the industry is related to the order or the

suspension agreement under review, whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the

orders are revoked or the suspension agreement is terminated, and any findings by Commerce

regarding duty absorption pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(4).70

In this review, a limited number of subject foreign producers in China responded to the

Commission’s questionnaires. Accordingly, we have relied on the facts otherwise available when

appropriate in this review, which consist primarily of information from the original investigation,

information available from published sources, and information submitted in this review, including

by the domestic interested parties and other questionnaire respondents.71 72 73

 67 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

 68 SAA at 887. Among the factors that the Commission should consider in this regard are “the fungibility or

differentiation within the product in question, the level of substitutability between the imported and domestic

products, the channels of distribution used, the methods of contracting (such as spot sales or long-term contracts),

and lead times for delivery of goods, as well as other factors that may only manifest themselves in the longer term,

such as planned investment and the shifting of production facilities.” Id.

 69 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

 70 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). The Act further provides that the presence or absence of any factor that the

Commission is required to consider shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the Commission’s

determination. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5). Although the Commission must consider all factors, no one factor is

necessarily dispositive. SAA at 886.

 71 The Commission received domestic producer questionnaire responses from 57 domestic firms that accounted

for virtually all known U.S. production of WBF in 2009. CR at I-5 and III-1, PR at I-4 and III-1. The Commission

also received usable importers’ questionnaire responses from 98 firms, which are believed to have accounted for ***

percent of subject imports in 2009 (CR at I-5; PR at I-4) and purchasers’ questionnaire responses from 61 firms. CR

at I-40; PR at I-27. The Commission received useable foreign producers’ questionnaire responses from 35 Chinese

WBF producers that are believed to account for between *** percent of exports of WBF to the United States in

2009. CR/PR at IV-6. On the day on which the record closed in this investigation, November 10, 2010, the

Commission received an additional 34 questionnaire responses purporting to be from members of the Guangdong

Furniture Association, Trade Committee. (The deadline for submitting foreign producer questionnaire responses in

this review was July 23, 2010.) When submitting these questionnaire responses, counsel for the Guangdong

Furniture Association, Trade Committee informed the Commission that the producers submitting these responses

were withholding their identities because they did not wish to become known to Petitioners. These questionnaire

responses were not usable because they contained no information as to the identity of the firms submitting the

responses, and also because they lacked the certifications of accuracy required by the statute and the Commission’s

regulations. See 19 U.C.S. § 1677m(b) and 19 C.F.R. §207.3(a).

 72 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a) authorizes the Commission to “use the facts otherwise available” in reaching a

determination when (1) necessary information is not available on the record or (2) an interested party or any other

person withholds information requested by the agency, fails to provide such information in the time or in the form or

manner requested, significantly impedes a proceeding, or provides information that cannot be verified pursuant to

(continued...)

12
B. Conditions of Competition and Business Cycle

In evaluating the likely impact of the subject imports on the domestic industry, the Act

directs the Commission to consider all relevant economic factors “within the context of the

business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”74 We

find the following conditions of competition relevant to our determination.

1. The Original Determination

Demand. In the original investigation, the Commission observed that demand for WBF

was affected by changes in the housing market, consumer tastes, personal income levels, and

demographics; and that demand was only moderately responsive to changes in price. Apparent

U.S. consumption of WBF grew during the period of investigation (“POI”), increasing by 13.2

percent between 2001 and 2003. The Commission noted that most WBF was sold by producers

and importers to furniture retailers in the U.S. market, with smaller amounts being sold to

“hospitality/institutional” firms, distributors, and other firms in the market; and that the market

could be divided generally into three quality or pricing levels: a low-priced segment, a mediumpriced segment, and a high-end segment.75

Supply. In the original investigation, the Commission noted that there were more than 50

domestic firms reporting production of WBF during the POI. The Commission explained that the

domestic WBF industry was a high variable-cost industry, that is, an industry in which unit raw

materials, labor, and other variable costs are high relative to its unit fixed costs. An industry with

such a cost structure can be expected to respond to lower demand for its products by reducing

capacity, production and employment levels. The Commission further noted that there were a

large number of producers of WBF in China, and that China was the largest source of imports

during the POI. Chinese production capacity for the subject product grew considerably during

the POI. Non-subject imports maintained a substantial but stable presence in the U.S. market

during the POI.76

 72(...continued)

19 U.S.C. § 1677m(I). The verification requirements in 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(I) only apply to Commerce. See

Titanium Metals Corp. v. United States, 155 F. Supp. 2d 750, 765 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002) (“the ITC correctly

responds that Congress has not required the Commission to conduct verification procedures for the evidence before

it, or provided a minimum standard by which to measure the thoroughness of Commission investigations.”).

 73 Chairman Okun notes that the statute authorizes the Commission to take adverse inferences in five-year

reviews, but such authorization does not relieve the Commission of its obligation to consider the record evidence as

a whole in making its determination. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e. She generally gives credence to the facts supplied by

the participating parties and certified by them as true, but bases her decision on the evidence as a whole, and does

not automatically accept participating parties’ suggested interpretations of the record evidence. Regardless of the

level of participation, the Commission is obligated to consider all evidence relating to each of the statutory factors

and may not draw adverse inferences that render such analysis superfluous. “In general, the Commission makes

determinations by weighing all of the available evidence regarding a multiplicity of factors relating to the domestic

industry as a whole and by drawing reasonable inferences from the evidence it finds most persuasive.” SAA at 869.

 74 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). 

 75 Original Determination at 14-15.

 76 Original Determination at 16-18.

13
Substitutability. The record in the original investigation indicated that there was a

moderate to high degree of substitutability between domestic WBF and the subject imports, and

that price was an important factor in purchasing decisions.77

2. The Current Review

We find the following conditions of competition relevant to our determination in this

review.

a. Demand

Demand for WBF is closely tied to conditions in the housing market.78 Consumer

confidence and consumer access to credit are reportedly also important factors underlying

demand.79 Total apparent consumption of WBF rose from $4.7 billion in 2004 to $5.2 billion in

2005, and then declined to $5.0 billion in 2006, $4.7 billion in 2007, $4.1 billion in 2008, and

$3.4 billion in 2009.80

Any improvement in WBF demand in the reasonably foreseeable future is projected to be

modest. We note that the Blue Chip Economic Indicators consensus forecast for 2011 housing

starts is well below the normal levels of the last five decades.81

b. Supply

There continue to be a large number of WBF producers in the United States; 57 domestic

producers provided the Commission with information on their production during the period of

review.82 The five largest producers accounted for approximately 70 percent of domestic

production in 2009. Although there were several openings of new plants, or re-openings of

existing plants, during the period of review, a much larger number of plants were closed83 and the

domestic industry has generally contracted over the period of review. Between 2004 and 2009,

the industry’s total production capacity fell by *** percent, production declined by *** percent,

and the number of production-related workers decreased by *** percent.84

China has a large number of producers of wooden furniture.85 Estimates of the number of

producers in China range from over *** enterprises operating in the wooden furniture industry in

 77 Original Determination at 15-16.

 78 CR at II-18-19, PR at II-11.

 79 CR at II-19, PR at II-11.

 80 CR/PR at Table C-3.

 81 CR at II-19, PR at II-11. We note that Ashley’s argument that the housing market is improving is based on

data for only one month, August 2010, which is insufficient for us to conclude that there will be a significant

increase in WBF demand in the reasonably foreseeable future. Ashley Posthearing Brief at 11.

 82 CR at I-28, PR at I-22.

 83 Two plants were opened, one was re-opened, one was partially re-opened, and 36 plants were closed. CR at

III-1-2, PR at III-1.

 84 CR/PR at Table C-3.

 85 Information specific to the WBF industry in China was not provided to the Commission in this review. We

have relied on public source data for these estimates.

14
China in 2010,86 to approximately 50,000 enterprises of all sizes involved in the furniture

industry.87 ***.88 

Subject imports’ share of the U.S. market declined irregularly over the period of review,

although a large number of U.S. importers continued to import subject merchandise.89 Nonsubject imports increased their market share, which grew from *** percent in 2004 to *** percent

in 2009.90 By the end of the period, Vietnam had become the most significant non-subject

supplier of WBF to the U.S. market, although other countries, especially Malaysia and Indonesia,

were also significant suppliers.91 There are approximately 1,500 medium to large furniture

manufacturers in Vietnam, of which about 250 are owned by foreign investors, from countries

such as Malaysia and Taiwan.92

c. Substitutability 

The record in this review indicates that there is a moderately high degree of

substitutability between U.S. and imported WBF.93 Many of the producing countries manufacture

a range of products and qualities, but producers, importers, and purchasers generally reported at

least frequent interchangeability.94

Although solid wood WBF is generally regarded as being of higher quality than WBF 

made of other materials, 43 purchasers reported that the two types of WBF are “always,”

“usually,” or “sometimes” interchangeable.95 The record also shows that price is an important

factor in purchasing decisions for WBF; a plurality of the purchasers that responded to the

Commission’s questionnaire reported that “price/cost/value” was the number one factor in their

purchasing decisions.96

Purchasers generally agree that the market for WBF has three tiers of quality or pricing

levels: a low-priced tier, a medium-priced tier, and a high-end tier. Although most purchasers

identified these three tiers in the market, there is no consistent definition among purchasers of the

furniture quality or pricing that characterizes each tier.97 Nonetheless, the record in this review

shows that the subject imports compete with the domestic like product in all price ranges or tiers

of the market.98

 86 CR at IV-12, PR at IV-6.

 87 Final Comments of Guangdong Furniture Association, Trade Committee (Nov. 16, 2010) at 3-4.

 88 CR at IV-12, PR at IV-9.

 89 The 104 importers that responded to the Commission’s questionnaire accounted for only slightly more than

*** percent of subject imports from China. CR at I-34, PR at I-26. 

 90 CR/PR at Table C-3.

 91 CR/PR at Table C-3 and CR at IV-2, PR at IV-1.

 92 CR at IV-12-14, PR at IV-9-10

 93 CR/PR at Table II-6, CR at II-24 and II-33-37, PR at II-14 and II-20-23.

 94 CR/PR at Table II-6.

 95 CR at II-4-5, PR at II-3. Other materials include, for example, particle board.

 96 CR/PR at Table II-3.

 97 CR at II-4, PR at II-2.

 98 CR at II-40-42, PR at II-24-25.

15
d. Other Conditions of Competition

A number of other conditions of competition also inform our analysis in this review. 

First, the domestic WBF industry remains a high variable-cost industry, in which raw materials,

labor, and other variable costs are high relative to fixed costs. With such a cost structure, the

WBF industry generally will respond to lower demand for its products by reducing capacity,

production, and employment levels.99 Second, there is evidence in the record that U.S. producers’

raw material costs, particularly lumber costs, have recently risen, after falling in 2009.100

Third, the degree to which domestic producers directly imported subject merchandise

from China, and non-subject merchandise from China and other countries, generally increased

over the period of review.101

Finally, we recognize the existence during the period of review of “settlement

agreements” pursuant to which the AFMC and Vaughn-Bassett have agreed to withdraw their

annual requests for Commerce administrative reviews with respect to certain Chinese

producers/exporters or U.S. importers in exchange for payments from these parties.102

Respondents urged the Commission to gather information on these settlement payments in this

review,103 and the Commission did so. 

Several respondents argued that the Commission should recognize these settlement

payments as a relevant condition of competition in this review.104 Petitioners argued that these

settlement agreements have no relevance to any issue before the Commission in this review.105

Although these settlement payments were arguably a relevant condition of competition

during the period of review, they would not be a relevant condition of competition upon

revocation of the antidumping duty order (because there would be no administrative reviews to

 99 AFMC Prehearing Brief at 18-19.

 100 CR at V-1-3 and Figure V-1, PR at V-1-2 and Figure V-1.

 101 CR/PR at Tables III-8 and III-9.

 102 CR at III-10-11, PR at III-2-3.

 103 E.g., FRA Comments on Draft Questionnaires, June 8, 2010, pp. 4, 11.

 104 These respondents generally argued that Petitioners allowed dumped imports of WBF from China to continue

to enter the United States at relatively low antidumping duties, as long as U.S. importers and individual Chinese

producers/exporters paid Petitioners not to seek administrative reviews at Commerce. E.g., FRA Prehearing Brief,

pp. 10-13. In this way, according to Respondents, Petitioners benefitted from the continued importation of the

subject merchandise. Respondents further alleged that Petitioners differentiated among Chinese suppliers by *** to

those suppliers that supplied individual Petitioners. FRA Prehearing Brief at 10-14, Posthearing Brief at 2-6 and

Answers to Questions at 15-18; Yihua Posthearing Brief at 10-11.

 105 Petitioners maintain that the settlement agreements are legal, appropriate, and in the public interest, and that

the willingness of Chinese producers to enter into settlement agreements is evidence of the keen interest of these

producers in the U.S. market. AFMC Posthearing Brief, at 14-15 and Answers to Questions from the Commission at

6-7 and 16-27.

16
“settle” in the absence of the order).106 In a five-year review, our task is to assess what would

happen in the reasonably foreseeable future if the order were to be revoked.

Accordingly, in this review, we find that the conditions in the market discussed above

provide us with a reasonable basis on which to assess the likely effects of the revocation of the

order in the reasonably foreseeable future.

C. Likely Volume of Subject Imports

1. Legal Standards

In evaluating the likely volume of imports of subject merchandise if the antidumping

duty order were revoked, the Commission is directed to consider whether the likely volume of

imports would be significant either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in

the United States.107 In doing so, the Commission must consider “all relevant economic factors,”

including four enumerated factors: (1) any likely increase in production capacity or existing

unused production capacity in the exporting country; (2) existing inventories of the subject

merchandise, or likely increases in inventories; (3) the existence of barriers to the importation of

the subject merchandise into countries other than the United States; and (4) the potential for

product shifting if production facilities in the foreign country, which can be used to produce the

subject merchandise, are currently being used to produce other products.108

2. The Original Determination

In its original determination, the Commission found that the volume of subject imports

increased rapidly and consistently during the period of investigation, both in absolute terms and

relative to production and consumption in the United States. From 2001 to 2003, the volume of

the subject imports (measured by value) increased by *** percent, the market share of the subject

imports rose from *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2001 to *** percent in 2003, and

the ratio of subject imports to domestic production (based on pieces) increased from *** percent

in 2001 to *** percent in 2003. 

Based on these data, the Commission found that the volume and increase in volume of

subject imports, both in absolute terms and relative to production and consumption in the United

States, was significant. The Commission considered, and rejected, arguments that the domestic

 106 To the extent that some respondents have argued that these settlement agreements warrant scrutiny under U.S.

antitrust laws, we note that the Commission is not charged with enforcing those laws. See, e.g., Certain Polyester

Staple Fiber from Korea and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-825-26 (Review), USITC Pub. 3843 (March 2006) at 21, n.

146; Elkem Metals Co. v. United States, 276 F. Supp. 2d 1296, 1313 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2003) (“With respect to the

ITC’s rejection of selected antitrust litigation results and findings and Elkem’s and CCMA’s claims that the ITC was

somehow bound by such findings, the ITC is charged by Congress to administer the trade laws, and make its own

findings, by means of its own investigations with respect to material injury”); Elkem Metals Co. v. United States, --

F. Supp. 2d --, Slip Op. 04-49 (Ct. Int’l Trade, May 12, 2004) at 14-15 (“ITC did not commit legal error by failing to

employ the civil antitrust law standard of causation. Nowhere in the statutory scheme governing the ITC’s material

injury determination did Congress provide for the application of antitrust law standards of causation . . .[t]hat one of

the factors [ITC] found relevant was a price fixing conspiracy did not, as CCMA contends, trigger any obligation . . .

to examine the individual motives of the Conspirators.”).

 107 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

 108 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A)-(D).

17
industry was itself primarily responsible for the increases in subject import volumes during the

POI, and that an increased supply of moderately priced subject WBF had increased overall

demand in the market.109

3. The Current Review

Several factors support the conclusion that subject import volume is likely to be

significant in the event of revocation. 

First, as noted above, the volume of subject imports (measured by value) increased

rapidly in the period of the original investigation, both absolutely and relative to apparent U.S.

consumption and production.110 Second, notwithstanding imposition of the antidumping duty

order, subject imports maintained a significant presence in the U.S. market over the period of

review. Subject imports’ market share ranged between *** percent and *** percent over the

period.111 These data indicate that subject foreign producers remain interested in exporting to the

U.S. market and are capable of doing so. The record also contains evidence that some importers

and purchasers intend to increase their purchases of subject merchandise in the event of

revocation of the order. Thirty-seven responding importers and at least 15 responding purchasers

reported or suggested that they would likely increase their imports or purchases of imports of

WBF from China were the order to be revoked.112 Moreover, the record in this review shows that

the subject merchandise was present in all tiers of the U.S. market.113 114

Third, the record in this review generally supports the conclusion that there is significant

and growing WBF production capacity in China. China’s world exports of WBF rose by 82

percent in the 2004-2009 period.115 China was the world’s leading supplier of wooden bedroom

furniture in each year of this period.116 China’s world exports of wooden bedroom furniture had a

value exceeding $2 billion in 2007, 2008, and 2009, according to Global Trade Atlas data, as

compared to a value of $1.2 billion in 2004.117 We recognize that the questionnaire responses that

the Commission received from Chinese WBF producers in this review show a decline in

 109 Original Determination at 18-20.

 110 CR/PR at Table I-1. 

 111 Subject imports were $*** billion in 2004, $*** billion in 2005, $*** billion in 2006, $*** billion in 2007,

$*** billion in 2008, and $*** billion in 2009. CR/PR at Table I-1. Subject imports’ market share was *** percent

of apparent U.S. consumption in 2004, *** percent in 2005, *** percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007, *** percent in

2008, and *** percent in 2009. CR/PR at Table I-1.

 112 See CR/PR at Appendix D. 

 113 CR/PR at Table II-5 (most purchasers report that WBF from U.S. and China are comparable in product range)

and Figure II-1.

 114 The increasing presence in the U.S. market, after the imposition of the order, of imports from China from

producers excluded from the antidumping duty order is further evidence of likely Chinese WBF producers’ behavior

if the order were to be revoked. The market share of nonsubject imports from China increased from *** percent of

apparent U.S. consumption in 2004, to *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2009. CR/PR at Table C-3.

 115 CR at IV-17 and Table IV-7, PR at IV-12 and Table IV-7.

 116 CR at IV-17, PR at IV-12.

 117 CR/PR at Table IV-7.

18
production capacity for these producers in the last two years of the period of review118 and a small

increase in unused capacity towards the end of the period of review.119 However, we consider

this reported capacity data to be of little value in our analysis because the responding Chinese

producers represented a relatively small proportion of the Chinese WBF industry120 and because

of flaws in the way in which several large Chinese producers reported their capacity.121

Although we do not have precise data on WBF production capacity or unused capacity in

China – because of the limited participation in this review by Chinese producers – the record

contains ample evidence showing that China has a very large WBF industry that is capable of

expanding its exports rapidly.122 Also, the “Future Five-Year Development Plan on Furniture

Exports from 2010 to 2014” of the Guangdong Furniture Association (a major group of Chinese

producers) projects annual growth in the value of furniture exports from Guangdong Province of

8.2 percent in the 2010-2014 period. To put this in perspective, the projected export growth for

2010 and 2011 alone is almost twice the value of total U.S. producers’ commercial shipments in

2009.123

The fourth factor supporting the conclusion that subject import volume is likely to be

significant in the event of revocation is that the Chinese WBF industry is highly export oriented. 

In 2009, China was the largest exporter of WBF in the world,124 and the United States was the

largest global market for imports.125 The limited set of Chinese producers that responded to the

Commission’s questionnaire reported that 84 percent of their total shipments were exports, and 73

of their total shipments were exports to the United States.126 The export orientation of the

Chinese WBF industry is also underscored by the existence of a number of large, highly

automated plants in China that produce solely for export,127 and by reports that some Chinese

producers have expanded their warehousing and distribution facilities in the United States during

the period of review.128

 118 The reported aggregate capacity for the 35 Chinese producers that provided usable data was 3.4 million pieces

in 2004, 4.0 million pieces in 2005, 4.7 million pieces in 2006, 4.4 million pieces in 2007, 3.6 million pieces in

2008, and 2.7 million pieces in 2009. CR/PR at Table IV-4

 119 The reported capacity utilization rate for these producers was 88.4 percent in 2004, 90.3 percent in 2005, 92.7

percent in 2006, 88.8 percent in 2007, 88.9 percent in 2008, and 85.0 percent in 2009. CR/PR at Table IV-4.

 120 Responding Chinese producers accounted for an estimated *** to *** percent share of Chinese exports of

WBF to the United States over the period of review, with the order in place. As there are likely numerous producers

in China that do not currently export to the United States, the questionnaire data cover a smaller share of Chinese

capacity and production.

 121 These producers reported their capacity based on ***. CR at IV-7 n.14, PR at IV-6 n.14.

 122 CR at II-10-12 and IV-14, PR at II-5-7 and IV-10.

 123 AFMC Prehearing Brief at 47.

 124 CR/PR at Table IV-7.

 125 CR/PR at Table IV-8.

 126 CR at IV-7 and PR at IV-7.

 127 E.g., AFMC Prehearing Brief at 44 and Hearing Tr. at 66 (Dorn).

 128 AFMC Prehearing Brief at 51-67.

19
We are not persuaded by respondents’ arguments that growing home market demand in

China will lead to a reduction in exports to the United States.129 We note that WBF exports from

China to the United States did not abate in the period from 2004 to 2006 (even under the

discipline of the antidumping duty order),130 a period during which home market demand in China

also grew.131

There is also some evidence in the record of significant existing inventories of WBF in

China.132 In addition, the record indicates that producers are able to switch production between

other furniture products and WBF.133 Finally, although Ashley argues that the declaration

provisions of the Lacey Act134 will ultimately impose a significant burden on importers of subject

merchandise, when it is enforced, it is unclear at this point when WBF would be subject to those

requirements, and how much of a burden those requirements would be on importers in the

reasonably foreseeable future.135 Furthermore, WBF producers have had several years to conform

their supply chains, given the advance notice of the Lacey Act provisions.

Accordingly, based on the demonstrated ability of subject foreign producers to increase

exports to the U.S. market rapidly and their continued presence in the U.S. market at significant

levels even after imposition of the antidumping duty order, the subject foreign producers’ very

substantial production capacity, and their high degree of export orientation, particularly towards

the U.S. market, we find that the likely volume of subject imports, in absolute terms and relative

to both U.S. production and consumption, would be likely to increase from already significant

levels in the event of revocation.

D. Likely Price Effects of Subject Imports

1. Legal Standards

In evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports if the antidumping duty order

were revoked, the Commission is directed to consider whether there is likely to be significant

underselling by the subject imports as compared to the domestic like product and whether the

 129 E.g., Guangdong Furniture Association, Trade Committee (“GDA”) Prehearing Brief at 17-21; Yihua

Prehearing Brief at 25-26 and Posthearing Brief at 12.

 130 CR/PR at Table C-3.

 131 CR/PR at Table IV-4. 

 132 The ratio of inventories to production for those Chinese producers that responded to the Commission’s

questionnaire was 16.5 percent in 2009, the highest level of any year in the period of review. CR/PR at Table IV-4.

 133 Twenty-seven of the 35 Chinese producers that responded to the Commission’s questionnaire reported that

they are able to switch production between WBF and other products. CR at IV-10 and PR at IV-8.

 134 The Lacey Act, 16 U.S.C. § 3371 et. seq., makes it illegal to trade in unlawfully harvested wood products. It

includes a declaration requirement, pursuant to which importers will be required to declare the source country,

origin, genus, and species of wood used in finished wood products shipped to the United States. This declaration

requirement is not yet in effect for furniture. Hearing Tr. at 283-284 (Grimson) and Ashley Posthearing Brief at 12-

13. 

 135 Ashley Posthearing Brief, Answers to Questions from the Commission at p. 12-13; AFMC Posthearing Brief,

Answers to Commissioner Questions at 98-99. 

20
subject imports are likely to enter the United States at prices that otherwise would have a

significant depressing or suppressing effect on the price of the domestic like product.136

2. The Original Determination

In its original determination, the Commission found that there was a moderate to high

degree of substitutability between domestic WBF and the subject imports, and that price was an

important factor in purchasing decisions. The quarterly price comparison data showed that there

was consistent and substantial underselling by the subject imports throughout the period of

investigation, and that the margins of underselling were large. The price comparison data showed

that the subject imports depressed and suppressed domestic prices to a significant degree. The

Commission noted that the significant and consistent underselling by subject imports caused a

significant shift in purchases from the domestic merchandise to the subject imports. Thus, the

subject import underselling not only had a significant effect on the domestic industry’s prices but

on its sales volumes and market share as well. The Commission considered, and rejected,

respondents’ argument that the weighted-average price comparison data masked the fact that the

subject imports did not, in fact, have any clear impact on domestic prices during the period of

investigation.137

3. The Current Review

As noted in section IV.B.2. above, the record indicates that there is a moderately high

degree of substitutability between U.S. and imported WBF, and that price is an important

consideration in purchasing decisions.

Even with the order in place, the record indicates that subject import underselling

remained significant during the period of review. Twenty-five domestic producers and 60

importers of WBF from China provided usable quarterly net U.S. f.o.b. selling price data for sales

of the requested products, although not all firms reported pricing for all products for all

quarters.138 139 Pricing data reported by these firms accounted for approximately 5.2 percent of

the domestic industry’s U.S. shipments of WBF, 5.6 percent of U.S. sales of subject imports from

 136 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(3). The SAA states that “[c]onsistent with its practice in investigations, in considering

the likely price effects of imports in the event of revocation and termination, the Commission may rely on

circumstantial, as well as direct, evidence of the adverse effects of unfairly traded imports on domestic prices.” SAA

at 886.

 137 Original Determination at 20-23.

 138 CR at V-10, PR at V-6. 

 139 As discussed above in Section III.C. above, Vice Chairman Williamson and Commissioner Lane find that

appropriate circumstances do not exist to exclude the five domestic producers/related parties that the Commission

majority excluded from the domestic industry. The industry-wide data for the domestic industry based on the

definition adopted by Vice Chairman Williamson and Commissioner Lane do not differ significantly from the

industry-wide data for the domestic industry based on the definition adopted by the Commission majority. Compare

CR at Tables V-1-V-27 and C-1 with CR at Tables ALT1 V-1-ALT1 V-27 and C-3. Therefore, throughout these

views Vice Chairman Williamson and Commissioner Lane will not separately discuss the data that correspond to

their definition of the domestic industry. 

21
China, and 0.1 percent of U.S. direct imports of subject merchandise from China in 2009.140 

These data indicate that subject imports undersold the domestic like product in 497 of 616

quarterly comparisons, and oversold the domestic like product in 119 of 616 quarterly

comparisons.141 Subject imports undersold the domestic like product in 80.7 percent of quarterly

comparisons in this review, compared with underselling in all quarterly comparisons in the 

original investigation.142 The quarterly pricing data display no clear or consistent trends. The

unit value of the domestic industry’s net sales declined steadily over the period of review, and did

so at a faster rate than the decline in unit cost of goods sold (“COGS”), leading to a significant

increase in the domestic industry’s COGS/sales ratio.143

Although the coverage of our pricing data is not as high as in some other investigations, it

is consistent with both our findings in the original investigation of significant underselling and

with other evidence in the record that subject imports are sold or offered for sale at lower prices

than the domestic like product.144 145

In view of our finding that subject import volume would be likely to increase from

already significant levels in the event of revocation, the moderately high degree of substitutability

between subject imports and the domestic like product, the importance of price in purchasing

decisions, and the significance of subject import underselling even with the antidumping duty

order in place, we find that subject import underselling would likely intensify after revocation of

the order, as subject foreign producers seek to increase their penetration of the U.S. market, in

competition with domestically produced WBF and nonsubject imports. We also find that

significant subject import underselling after revocation would likely result in the depression or

suppression of domestic like product prices to a significant degree.

 140 CR at V-10, PR at V-6. The products for which the Commission sought pricing data cover a broad range of

WBF. See CR/PR at Appendix J.

 141 CR/PR at Table ALT1 V-28 and ALT1 V-29. In calculating these quarterly underselling data, the staff

excluded pricing data for products made with printed paper (instead of wood veneer) over particle board, because

such products did not meet the pricing product definitions. CR at V-12, PR at V-7. We note, however, that even if

these pricing data had not been excluded, subject imports would have undersold the domestic like product in 373 of

617 quarterly comparisons. CR/PR at Table ALT1 V-28A.

 142 CR/PR at Table V-29.

 143 The unit value of the domestic industry’s net sales declined from $*** in 2004 to $*** in 2009. Unit COGS

declined from $*** in 2004 to $*** in 2009, and the COGS/sales ratio rose from *** percent to *** percent in this

period. CR/PR at Table C-3.

 144 For example, 32 of 39 responding purchasers reported that WBF from China is lower-priced than the domestic

like product. CP/PR at Table II-5. 

 145 We are not persuaded by respondents’ arguments that the underselling data are not meaningful because the

large margins by which subject imports undersold the domestic like product suggest that the products were not

competing with each other. See, e.g., Yihua Prehearing Brief at 27-30. We note that there is no clear consensus

among WBF purchasers as to how the quality “tiers” should be defined, suggesting that some competition exists

among various levels of quality. CR at II-4, PR at II-2. There is also evidence in the record that consumers are not

always able to discern quality differences, with the result that higher-end U.S. WBF competes with lower-end

subject imports. CR at II-5, PR at II-3. 

22
E. Likely Impact of Subject Imports146

1. Legal Standards

In evaluating the likely impact of imports of subject merchandise if the antidumping duty

order were revoked, the Commission is directed to consider all relevant economic factors that are

likely to have a bearing on the state of the industry in the United States, including, but not limited

to the following: (1) likely declines in output, sales, market share, profits, productivity, return on

investments, and utilization of capacity; (2) likely negative effects on cash flow, inventories,

employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital, and investment; and (3) likely negative

effects on the existing development and production efforts of the industry, including efforts to

develop a derivative or more advanced version of the domestic like product.147 All relevant

economic factors are to be considered within the context of the business cycle and the conditions

of competition that are distinctive to the industry.148 As instructed by the Act, we have

considered the extent to which any improvement in the state of the domestic industry is related to

the order at issue and whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the order were

revoked.

2. The Original Determination

In its original determination, the Commission found that as lower-priced subject imports

entered the market in increasing volumes during the period of investigation, the domestic industry

experienced substantial declines in almost all of its trade and financial indicia, even during a

period of growing apparent consumption. Gains in market share by subject imports were

matched almost entirely by losses in market share by the domestic industry. The domestic

industry experienced significant declines in its capacity, production, capacity utilization, domestic

shipments, net sales values and quantities, employment levels, operating income, operating

income margins, and capital investment. Because of its relatively high variable costs, the

industry responded to subject imports primarily by reducing its capacity, production, and

 146 The SAA states that in assessing whether the domestic industry is vulnerable to injury if the order is revoked,

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 may also demonstrate that an

industry is facing difficulties from a variety of sources and is vulnerable to dumped or subsidized imports.” SAA at

885, 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). Section 752(a)(6) of the Tariff Act states that “the Commission may consider the

magnitude of the margin of dumping or the magnitude of the net countervailable subsidy” in making its

determination in a five-year review. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(6). The statute defines the “magnitude of the margin of

dumping” to be used by the Commission in five-year reviews as “the dumping margin or margins determined by the

administering authority under section 1675a(c)(3) of this title.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)(C)(iv). See also SAA at 887. 

Commerce conducted an expedited sunset review of the antidumping duty order on WBF from China and found

likely antidumping duty margins ranging from de minimis to 198.08 percent. CR/PR at Table I-3. 

Section 751(a)(4) of the Act requires Commerce, if requested by a party in an administrative review, to

determine whether a foreign producer or importer of subject merchandise has absorbed antidumping duties. The

Commission is specifically directed to take into account the findings of Commerce regarding duty absorption. 19

U.S.C. § 1675a(b)(1)(D). Commerce has found that antidumping duties have been absorbed by Fairmont on all U.S.

sales made through its affiliated importer. CR at I-10 n. 13, PR at I-8 n.13. 

 147 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 148 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

23
employment levels. The Commission concluded that subject imports adversely affected the

performance of the domestic industry during the period of investigation.149

3. The Current Review

The domestic industry’s condition was stable or improving by some measures in the early

part of the period of review, from 2004 to 2005, and to some extent even in 2006. The industry

then experienced steep declines in almost all performance indicators in the 2007-2009 period.

The domestic industry’s production declined each year of the period of review, falling

overall from *** million pieces in 2004 to *** million pieces in 2009.150 The industry’s capacity

rose from *** million pieces in 2004 to *** million pieces in 2005, and then declined each

subsequent year, reaching *** million pieces in 2009.151 Capacity utilization declined each year,

falling from *** percent in 2004 to *** percent in 2009.152

The domestic industry’s employment declined throughout the period of review, falling

overall from *** in 2004 to *** in 2009.153 Hours worked followed a similar trend, declining

from *** million hours in 2004 to *** million hours in 2009.154 Productivity increased

irregularly from *** pieces per thousand hours in 2004 to *** pieces per thousand hours in

2009.155

The domestic industry’s net sales were stable at *** million pieces in 2004 and 2005, and

then fell each subsequent year, reaching *** million pieces in 2009.156 The industry’s U.S.

shipments of WBF followed a similar trend, remaining stable at *** million pieces in 2004 and

2005, and then falling to *** million pieces in 2009.157 The domestic industry’s share of the

value of apparent U.S. consumption declined irregularly over the period of review; it was ***

percent in 2004, *** percent in 2005, *** percent in 2006, *** percent in 2007, *** percent in

2008, and *** percent in 2009.158

The domestic industry’s financial performance improved by some measures in the early

part of the period of review, but then declined sharply. The domestic industry’s operating income

increased from $*** in 2004 to $*** in 2005, and then fell each subsequent year, reaching a loss

of $*** in 2009.159 The domestic industry’s ratio of operating income to net sales followed a

similar pattern, improving from *** percent in 2004, *** percent in 2005, and then declining

each following year, reaching negative *** percent in 2009.160 The domestic industry’s capital

 149 Original Determination at 23-26.

 150 CR/PR at Table C-3.

 151 CR/PR at Table C-3. 

 152 CR/PR at Table C-3.

 153 CR/PR at Table C-3.

 154 CR/PR at Table C-3.

 155 CR/PR at Table C-3.

 156 CR/PR at Table C-3.

 157 CR/PR at Table C-3.

 158 CR/PR at Table C-3.

 159 CR/PR at Table C-3.

 160 CR/PR at Table C-3.

24
expenditures declined irregularly from $*** in 2004 to $*** in 2009,161 and its research and

development expenses also declined irregularly from $*** in 2004 to $*** in 2009.162 Its return

on investment declined irregularly from *** percent in 2004 to negative *** percent in 2009.163

Based on these data, we find that the domestic industry is vulnerable to the recurrence or

continuation of material injury by reason of subject imports were the order to be revoked. The

domestic industry experienced steep declines in almost all performance indicators nearer the end

of the period of review, in 2007-2009. We find further support for our vulnerability finding in

evidence that WBF demand is not likely to improve significantly in the reasonably foreseeable

future. 

As discussed above, we have found that revocation of the antidumping duty order on

WBF from China would likely result in a significant increase in subject import volume that would

likely undersell the domestic like product, thereby depressing or suppressing domestic like

product prices to a significant degree. We find that the likely volume and price effects of the

subject imports would likely have a significant adverse impact on the production, shipments,

sales, market share, and revenues of the domestic industry. These reductions would have a direct

adverse impact on the industry’s profitability and employment as well as its ability to raise capital

and make and maintain necessary capital investments. We therefore conclude that, if the

antidumping duty order were revoked, subject imports would be likely to have a significant

adverse impact on the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time. 

Respondents claim that no causal connection between subject imports from China and the

condition of the domestic industry existed during the period of review, and argued that therefore

revocation will have no effect. They cite to two studies purporting to show that the order has

been ineffective and has led to trade diversion.164 We find these arguments to be unpersuasive, as

they fail to take into account evidence that the domestic industry’s condition stabilized and even

improved after the imposition of the order, before the steep drop in demand for WBF that

accompanied the deterioration in the U.S. housing market in the latter part of the period of

review.165

 161 CR/PR at Table C-3.

 162 CR/PR at Table III-15 (revised).

 163 CR/PR at Table III-15 (revised).

 164 Prehearing Brief of Guangdong Furniture Association Trade Committee, Exhibits 4 and 5. These two studies 

(“Intervention analysis of the antidumping investigation on WBF imports from China” and “Analysis of Import

Demand for Wooden Beds in the U.S.” ) analyzed the effects of the antidumping investigation and order on U.S.

imports of WBF. Findings from the studies include that the final implementation of duties in January 2005 did not

generate a negative effect on imports from China; that the antidumping action produced trade diversion effects (to

countries such as Vietnam and Malaysia); and that imports from China are stable regardless of trade intervention

policy. We find the results of these studies unpersuasive. 

The staff report and our analysis draw from a more detailed and extensive data set than that available to the

studies’ authors. Commission data include U.S. and Chinese production, capacity, and inventory data, financial

data, and pricing data, as well as descriptive data on the WBF market from domestic and foreign producers,

importers, and purchasers. We also note that, to the extent that the second study concludes that supply of Chinese

product is not responsive to price, this is contradicted by information we have gathered in this review. CR at II-8,

PR at II-5.

 165 Commissioner Lane and Commissioner Pinkert do not join in this and the following paragraph. They find that

the statute does not require the Commission, before reaching an affirmative determination in a five-year review, to

find that an order has had a significant impact. They nevertheless note that the order at issue here has had a

(continued...)

25
We note that, as a general matter, the extent to which an order is effective is not

dispositive in a five year review, and neither the improvement in the state of the domestic

industry post-order nor the ineffectiveness of an order are reasons, per se, for a negative

determination. The Statement of Administrative Action explicitly provides, at 885, that an

industry may still be in a weakened or vulnerable condition notwithstanding the order, and that

the Commission should consider whether the industry would "deteriorate further" if the order

were revoked.166

We have considered whether there are other factors that likely would affect the domestic

industry. As discussed above, nonsubject imports significantly increased their share of U.S.

apparent consumption over the period of review from *** percent in 2004 to *** percent in 2009,

by value.167 Vietnam became the largest nonsubject supplier of WBF to the U.S. market by the

end of the period of review; its market share increased from 4.1 percent in 2004 to 24.7 percent in

2009.168 This increase in the market share of nonsubject imports came at the expense primarily of

subject imports but also at the expense of the domestic industry. Although the market share of

nonsubject imports rose from *** percent in 2004 to *** percent in 2009, the domestic industry’s

market share declined from 31.9 percent to 22.0 percent and that of subject imports fell from ***

percent to *** percent.169 Despite the inroads into the U.S. market made by nonsubject imports

over the period of review, for the reasons addressed above, we nevertheless find that subject

imports would further reduce domestic sales volumes and prices significantly, and thus would be

likely to have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry in the event of revocation. 

The Chinese industry is far larger than that in Vietnam or any other nonsubject country, it

produces a greater range and variety of WBF, and it has well-established U.S. channels of

distribution.170 Moreover, because subject imports will have to compete with low-priced

nonsubject imports to gain market share, the nonsubject imports will likely amplify the price

effects of subject imports after revocation. In addition, while nonsubject imports from Vietnam

compete with domestically produced WBF and subject imports primarily in the lower and middle

 165(...continued)

significant impact. After a sizeable increase during the original investigation, subject import market share stabilized

after the petition was filed in late 2003, fluctuated within a narrow band from 2004 to 2007, and declined *** in

2008 and 2009. CR/PR at Table I-1. The ratios of subject imports to U.S. shipments and subject imports to total

shipments stabilized in 2007 and declined *** in 2008 and 2009. Derived from CR/PR at Table C-3. Deficient

demand during the housing crisis and recession does not explain these patterns. Rather, they correspond closely to

the imposition and later strengthening of antidumping duties. 

Moreover, with respect to the argument that the order simply diverted trade with the United States from

Chinese to Vietnamese producers, Commissioners Lane and Pinkert note that such diversion was generally limited to

the lower ranges of the WBF market. CR at II-9-10, n.20, II-12-13, and II-37, Hearing Tr. At 34 (Bassett), 120

(Prillaman, Berry, Copeland), 260 and (Koenig). 

 166 The Statement of Administrative Action for the Uruguay Round Agreements Act , H.R. Rep. 316, 103 Cong.,

2d Sess., vol. 1 at 885 (1994).

 167 CR/PR at Table C-3. 

 168 CR/PR at Table C-3. 

 169 CR/PR at Table C-3. 

 170 CR at IV-17, PR at IV-12, CR/PR at Table IV-7; Hearing Tr. at 34, 74 (Bassett); and AFMC Posthearing

Brief at Exhibit 2.

26
range of the market, there are other segments of the market in which nonsubject imports do not

generally compete with subject imports.171

We recognize that the domestic industry was adversely affected by a sharp drop in

demand in the second half of the period of review and that demand for WBF is likely to remain

weak for the reasonably foreseeable future. Again, this does not alter our conclusion that subject

imports would be likely to have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry in the event

of revocation. The likely increase in subject imports at prices that undersell the domestic like

product that we project would occur in the absence of the antidumping duty order likely would

adversely affect the domestic industry that has already been weakened by reduced demand.

Finally, we have considered respondents’ argument that opposition to the continuation of

the order by some domestic producers is evidence that the revocation of the order would not

adversely affect the domestic industry.172 While relevant as a condition of competition, the

degree of industry support for continuation of an order is not dispositive of the question of

whether revocation would likely have a significant adverse impact on that industry.173 We note

also that there is more support for the continuation of the order now than there was for the

petition during the original investigation, especially when the support of labor unions is taken

into account.174

 Accordingly, we conclude that, if the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom

furniture from China were revoked, subject imports from China would be likely to have a

significant adverse impact on the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.

CONCLUSION

For the above-stated reasons, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order

on wooden bedroom furniture from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of

material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

 171 CR at II-9-10 n. 20, II-12-13, and II-37, PR at II-6 n.20, II-7-8, and II-23, and Hearing Tr. at 34 (Bassett), 120

(Prillaman, Berry, Copeland), 260 and (Koenig).

 172 E.g., Ashley Prehearing Brief at 5-6.

 173 See Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States, 287 F.3d 1365, 1375-76 (Fed. Cir. 2002). 

 174 In this review forty-one U.S. producers and three local unions support continuation of the order, while eight

producers oppose continuation of the order. CR at I-28, PR at I-22. Of the eight producers opposing continuation of

the order, the opposition of *** is of limited relevance because these firms ***. CR/PR at Table F-1. While ***

opposes continuation, the ***. CR/PR at Table I-6 n.11. In the original investigation, 38 producers supported the

petition, and nine opposed it. Original Determination at 28.

We note that producers accounting for 45.8 percent of U.S. production (by pieces) oppose continuation,

compared to 40.7 percent for supporting firms. CR at I-28, PR at I-23. However, producers accounting for 55.2

percent of shipments value support continuation, compared to 37.8 percent for opposing firms. CR at I-28, PR at I23.

27

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER DANIEL R. PEARSON

I concur with my colleagues that the record gathered in this five-year review, considered in light

of the law, indicates that revocation of the antidumping order on wooden bedroom furniture from China

would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry within a

reasonably foreseeable time. But this investigation also raises some troubling questions. In particular,

respondents have alleged that settlement agreements negotiated by counsel for the petitioners are

distorting trade flows in ways intended to provide benefits to particular domestic firms. I do not consider

it appropriate, in my position as Commissioner, to do other than comment on these matters. But I have

found this review sufficiently unusual and sufficiently disturbing to wish to draw attention to them. 

This industry would have faced difficulties during the period of review under any circumstances,

given the depth of the recession and its extensive effects on the housing market. But even before the

recession began, the industry was not apparently gaining much benefit from the imposition of the order. 

The domestic industry’s market share continued to decline after the order, as did production, capacity

utilization, and employment. In the long run the domestic industry might have been expected to struggle

to retain any benefits from this order as importers and retailers sought supply in other, lower-cost markets

outside China. But the record here suggests that the domestic industry gained little even before those

adjustments began to be made.

The order has been successful, however, in generating substantial legal activity, some of which

involved petitioners bringing large numbers of requests for administrative reviews to Commerce,

negotiating financial settlements with the targets of those requests, and then withdrawing the requests. 

The petitioners in this review have argued that the legal activity both lessened the volume of subject

imports and yielded financial support to a struggling industry. My review of the record has not convinced

me that either assertion is correct. The volume of subject imports remained substantial, particularly in

terms of market share, as long as overall apparent consumption remained strong. The record does not

indicate clear links between volume and settlements.1

 As to the financial support, the record indicates

that ***. The record does not indicate that the funds were distributed in a fashion aimed at alleviating

specific distress, nor were the funds available to the industry as a whole. The industry continued to suffer

ongoing losses in capacity and employment after the funds were gathered and distributed.

I am mindful that the law does not require that an antidumping order or countervailing duty order

be shown to benefit the domestic industry in order to reach an affirmative finding in a five-year review. 

There are certainly industries in which the structure of the larger market and low entry costs will mean

that removal of one low-cost import source will be followed by replacement by another import source, but

even in such industries it is reasonable to hope that the domestic industry would at least be able to

maintain its position upon the removal of unfairly traded goods from the market. I am also mindful that

the process by which petitioners filed administrative review requests and then withdrew those requests

after making private settlements comports with the statute. But the imposition of any antidumping duty or

countervailing duty imposes significant costs in administrative overhead and market adjustments, costs

which are borne by taxpayers and consumers. In this particular investigation, additional costs and

distortions have been added by the use of the administrative review and settlement process, with little

evidence that these distortions have yielded any benefits to the industry overall, the U.S. consumer, or the

U.S. taxpayer.

 1 Although respondents assert that petitioners manipulated the settlement process in order to control subject

imports or gain preferential access to some producers/exporters in China, the record evidence on this issue is unclear.

29

PART I: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

BACKGROUND

On December 1, 2009, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission” or “USITC”)

gave notice, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”),1

 that it had

instituted a review to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom

furniture from China would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to a domestic

industry.2 3

 On March 8, 2010, the Commission determined that it would conduct a full review pursuant

to section 751(c)(5) of the Act.4

 Selected information relating to the schedule of this proceeding appears

in the following tabulation:5

Effective date Action

January 4, 2005 Commerce’s antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from China

(70 FR 329)

December 1, 2009 Commission’s institution of five-year review (74 FR 62817)

December 1, 2009 Commerce’s initiation of five-year review (74 FR 62748)

March 8, 2010 Commission’s determination to conduct full five-year review (75 FR 14469,

March 25, 2010)

April 19, 2010 Commission’s scheduling of the review (75 FR 21657, April 26, 2010)

 1 19 U.S.C. 1675(c).

 2 Wooden Bedroom Furniture From China, 74 FR 62817, December 1, 2009. All interested parties were

requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information requested by the Commission. The Commission

received 11 submissions representing the following entities: American Furniture Manufacturers Committee for

Legal Trade; Vaughan-Bassett Furniture Co., Inc.; Dubois Wood Products Inc.; The Jasper Group d/b/a Klem

Hospitality; Solid Comfort, Inc.; United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Cabinet Makers,

Millmen, and Industrial Carpenters Local 721; United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Carpenters

Industrial Council Local Union 2305; Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Local 991; Furniture

Traditions; Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc.; A-America, Inc.; Furniture Retailers of America; Home Meridian

International; Up Country, Inc.; Vineyard Furniture International; Guangdong Yihua Timber Industry Co., Ltd.; New

Classic Home Furnishings, Inc.; Dalian Huafeng Furniture Group Co., Ltd.; Kunshan Lee Wood Product Co., Ltd.;

and Kunshan Summit Furniture Co., Ltd.

 3

 In accordance with section 751(c) of the Act, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) published a

notice of initiation of five-year review of the subject antidumping duty order concurrently with the Commission’s

notice of institution. Inv. No. A-570-890 Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review, 74 FR 62748, December 1,

2009. 

 4 Wooden Bedroom Furniture From China, 75 FR 14469, March 25, 2010. Chairman Shara L. Aranoff and

Commissioners Deanna Tanner Okun, Irving A. Williamson, and Dean A. Pinkert found that the domestic group

response for this review was adequate and the respondent group responses were inadequate, but that circumstances

warranted a full review. Vice Chairman Daniel R. Pearson and Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane found that both the

domestic group response and the respondent group responses were adequate and voted for a full review.

 5

 The Commission’s notice of institution, notice to conduct a full review, scheduling notice, and statement on

adequacy appear in appendix A and may also be found at the Commission’s web site (internet address

www.usitc.gov). Commissioners’ votes on whether to conduct expedited or full reviews may also be found at the

web site. Commerce’s notice of institution and its notice of final results of its expedited five-year review also appear

in appendix A. Appendix B presents the witnesses appearing at the Commission’s hearing.

I-1
Effective date Action

October 5, 2010 Commission’s hearing

November 30, 2010 Commission’s vote

December 15, 2010 Commission’s determination transmitted to Commerce

THE ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION

The original investigation resulted from a petition filed on October 31, 2003, by the American

Furniture Manufacturers Committee for Legal Trade (“AFMC”), Washington, DC, and its individual

members,6

 and the Cabinet Makers, Millmen, and Industrial Carpenters, Local 721, Whittier, CA.7 On

November 17, 2004, Commerce made a final affirmative determination of sales at less than fair value

(“LTFV”) with respect to wooden bedroom furniture imports from China.8

 The Commission completed

the original investigation in December 2004, determining that an industry in the United States was

materially injured by reason of imports of wooden bedroom furniture from China that were being sold at

LTFV.9

 After receipt of the Commission’s determination, Commerce issued an antidumping duty order

on imports of wooden bedroom furniture from China, effective January 4, 2005.10

The Commission had conducted no previous investigations concerning wooden bedroom

furniture prior to the original investigation, and has not conducted any related investigations concerning

wooden bedroom furniture since the completion of its original investigation.

STATUTORY CRITERIA

Section 751(c) of the Act requires Commerce and the Commission to conduct a review no later

than five years after the issuance of an antidumping or countervailing duty order or the suspension of an

investigation to determine whether revocation of the order or termination of the suspended investigation

“would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or a countervailable subsidy (as the

case may be) and of material injury.”

Section 752(a) of the Act provides that in making its determination of likelihood of continuation

or recurrence of material injury--

(1) IN GENERAL.-- . . . the Commission shall determine whether revocation of

an order, or termination of a suspended investigation, would be likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. The

 6 At the time of the filing of the petition, the American Manufacturers Committee for Legal Trade was an ad hoc

association of 27 U.S. producers of wooden bedroom furniture. USITC Publication 3743, December 2004.

 7

 On December 4, 2003 the petition was amended to include four additional labor unions as co-petitioners,

including: UBC Southern Council of Industrial Workers, Local Union 2305, Columbus, MS; United Steelworkers of

America, Local 193U, Lewisburg, PA; Carpenters Industrial Union, Local 2093, Phoenix, AZ; and Teamsters,

Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local 991, Bay Minette, AL. A sixth labor union, the IUE, Industrial

Division of CWA, Local 82472, Hagerstown, MD, was added as a co-petitioner on November 2, 2004. USITC

Publication 3743, December 2004, p. I-1.

 8 Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People’s

Republic of China, 69 FR 67313, November 17, 2004.

 9 Wooden Bedroom Furniture From China, 69 FR 77779, December 28, 2004.

 10 Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: 

Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People’s Republic of China, 70 FR 329, January 4, 2005.

I-2
Commission shall consider the likely volume, price effect, and impact of imports of the

subject merchandise on the industry if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation

is terminated. The Commission shall take into account--

(A) its prior injury determinations, including the volume, price

effect, and impact of imports of the subject merchandise on the industry

before the order was issued or the suspension agreement was accepted, 

(B) whether any improvement in the state of the industry is

related to the order or the suspension agreement, 

(C) whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the

order is revoked or the suspension agreement is terminated, and 

(D) in an antidumping proceeding . . ., (Commerce’s findings)

regarding duty absorption . . ..

(2) VOLUME.--In evaluating the likely volume of imports of the subject

merchandise if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated, the

Commission shall consider whether the likely volume of imports of the subject

merchandise would be significant if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is

terminated, either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the

United States. In so doing, the Commission shall consider all relevant economic factors,

including--

(A) any likely increase in production capacity or existing unused

production capacity in the exporting China, 

(B) existing inventories of the subject merchandise, or likely

increases in inventories, 

(C) the existence of barriers to the importation of such

merchandise into countries other than the United States, and 

(D) the potential for product-shifting if production facilities in

the foreign country, which can be used to produce the subject

merchandise, are currently being used to produce other products.

(3) PRICE.--In evaluating the likely price effects of imports of the subject

merchandise if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated, the

Commission shall consider whether--

(A) there is likely to be significant price underselling by imports

of the subject merchandise as compared to domestic like products, and 

(B) imports of the subject merchandise are likely to enter the

United States at prices that otherwise would have a significant

depressing or suppressing effect on the price of domestic like products.

(4) IMPACT ON THE INDUSTRY.--In evaluating the likely impact of imports of

the subject merchandise on the industry if the order is revoked or the suspended

investigation is terminated, the Commission shall consider all relevant economic factors

which are likely to have a bearing on the state of the industry in the United States,

including, but not limited to–

(A) likely declines in output, sales, market share, profits,

productivity, return on investments, and utilization of capacity, 

I-3
(B) likely negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment,

wages, growth, ability to raise capital, and investment, and 

(C) likely negative effects on the existing development and

production efforts of the industry, including efforts to develop a

derivative or more advanced version of the domestic like product.

The Commission shall evaluate all such relevant economic factors . . . within the context

of the business cycle and the conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected

industry.

Section 752(a)(6) of the Act states further that in making its determination, “the Commission may

consider the magnitude of the margin of dumping or the magnitude of the net countervailable subsidy. If

a countervailable subsidy is involved, the Commission shall consider information regarding the nature of

the countervailable subsidy and whether the subsidy is a subsidy described in Article 3 or 6.1 of the

Subsidies Agreement.” Information obtained during the course of the review that relates to the statutory

criteria is presented throughout this report. 

SUMMARY DATA

Table I-1 presents a summary of data from the original investigation and the current full five-year

review. As shown in the table, the market share of subject imports from China decreased by ***

percentage points since 2004, the year before the order was put into place. Imports from Vietnam

increased rapidly during the five-year review period, up from a market share of 4 percent in 2004 to 25

percent in 2009. At the same time, U.S. producers’ market share decreased by 10 percentage points from

2004 to 2009. 

U.S. industry data and related information for the original investigation are based on

questionnaire responses of 49 U.S. producers, while industry information for the current five-year review

is based on questionnaire responses of 57 U.S. producers, of which 50 provided usable data. U.S. import

data for both the original investigation and the five-year review are based on official Commerce statistics. 

Related information on imports in the current review is from the questionnaire responses of 104 U.S.

importers of wooden bedroom furniture (98 provided usable data) that are believed to have accounted for

*** percent of the subject U.S. imports of wooden bedroom furniture from China and for *** percent of

U.S. imports of wooden bedroom furniture from other sources in 2009.11 Foreign industry data and

related information are based on the questionnaire responses of 36 producers (35 provided usable data) of

wooden bedroom furniture in China that are believed to account for between *** and *** percent of

Chinese exports of wooden bedroom furniture to the United States in 2009.12 A summary of trade and

financial data for wooden bedroom furniture as collected in the review is presented in appendix C. 

Responses by U.S. producers, importers, purchasers, and foreign producers of wooden bedroom furniture

to a series of questions concerning the significance of the existing antidumping duty order and the likely

effects of revocation of the order are presented in appendix D.

 11 Coverage was calculated using the value of subject U.S. imports from China reported by responding U.S.

importers in 2009 ($308.815 million from China and $1.097 billion from nonsubject sources) compared to the value

from proprietary data provided by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) ($*** from China and $***

from nonsubject sources).

 12 Coverage was calculated based on Dalian Huafeng’s response that its exports to the United States (*** pieces)

represented *** percent of total Chinese exports to the United States in 2009, and Guangdong Yihua’s response that

its exports to the United States (*** pieces) represented *** percent of total Chinese exports to the United States in

2009. According to Global Trade Atlas data, China exported 7,379,891pieces of wooden bedroom furniture to the

United States in 2009. The number of pieces of wooden bedroom furniture exported to the United States, as reported

by 35 Chinese questionnaire responses, totaled 1,690,066 in 2009.

I-4
I-5

Table I-1Wooden bedroom furniture: Comparative data from the original investigation and the current review, 2001-03 and 2004

(Quantity=pieces; value=$1,000; unit values are per piece)

Item 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 

U.S. consumption value:

Amount 4,123,585 4,461,603 4,666,667 4,676,283 5,180,403 5,039,035 4,663,

Producers’ share1 55.6 48.2 40.3 31.9 27.3 24.7 2

Importers’ share:1

China (subject) *** *** *** *** *** *** China (nonsubject) *** *** *** *** *** *** 

Vietnam 0.0 0.2 1.0 4.1 8.9 11.7 1

All other sources 30.6 30.1 28.7 31.8 30.7 27.6 2

Total imports 44.4 51.8 59.7 68.1 72.7 75.3 7

U.S. imports’ value from--

China (subject) *** *** *** *** *** *** 

China (nonsubject) *** *** *** *** *** *** 

Vietnam 860 10,871 45,454 190,393 462,805 587,387 813,

All other countries 1,262,870 1,342,637 1,340,576 1,489,002 1,592,766 1,391,358 1,208,

All countries 1,829,281 2,311,456 2,787,927 3,185,475 3,764,811 3,794,948 3,613,

Table continued on next page.
I-6

Table I-1--ContinuedWooden bedroom furniture: Comparative data from the original investigation and the current review, 2001-03 and 2004

(Quantity=pieces; value=$1,000; unit values are per piece)

Item 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 

U.S. producers’--

Capacity quantity 17,833,664 17,884,974 17,316,172 14,018,999 14,050,004 13,640,803 12,918,

Production quantity 13,987,146 13,872,218 12,712,592 10,248,027 10,100,968 9,746,303 8,417,

Capacity utilization1 2 77.2 76.8 72.7 73.1 71.9 71.4 6

U.S. shipments:

Quantity 14,022,078 13,699,797 12,641,093 10,058,985 9,954,129 9,530,197 8,260,Value 2,294,304 2,150,147 1,878,740 1,490,808 1,415,592 1,244,087 1,050,Unit value (per piece) $163.62 $156.95 $148.62 $148.21 $142.21 $130.54 $127

Ending inventory quantity 1,825,553 1,867,947 1,810,686 1,522,078 1,474,669 1,607,029 1,494,Inventories/total shipments1 12.8 13.4 14.0 14.8 14.5 16.4 1

Production workers 32,680 30,107 26,181 20,155 18,740 15,669 13,

Hours worked (1,000 hours) 61,640 57,838 49,053 39,882 36,015 30,565 26,

Wages paid (1,000 dollars) 740,273 713,611 624,685 486,788 442,471 384,867 342,Hourly wages $12.01 $12.34 $12.73 $12.21 $12.29 $12.59 $12Productivity (pieces per

1,000 hours) 223.4 237.5 256.6 257.0 280.5 318.9 31

Table continued on next page.
I-7

Table I-1--ContinuedWooden bedroom furniture: Comparative data from the original investigation and the current review, 2001-03 and 2004

(Quantity=pieces; value=$1,000; unit values are per piece)

Item 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 

Net sales:

Quantity 13,903,209 13,475,643 12,522,006 10,342,272 10,229,348 9,786,782 8,560,

Value 2,325,701 2,166,170 1,899,142 1,526,945 1,455,871 1,274,309 1,097,

Unit value $167.28 $160.75 $151.66 $147.64 $142.32 $130.21 $128

Cost of goods sold 1,854,882 1,735,307 1,546,745 1,224,373 1,150,836 1,030,197 922,Gross profit or (loss) 470,819 430,863 352,397 302,572 305,035 244,112 175,Operating income or (loss) 109,753 100,660 47,469 63,927 84,893 45,605 (24,4

Unit cost of goods sold $133.41 $128.77 $123.52 $118.39 $112.50 $105.26 $107

Unit operating income or (loss) $7.89 $7.47 $3.79 $6.18 $8.30 $4.66 $(2Cost of goods sold/sales1 79.8 80.1 81.4 80.2 79.0 80.8 8

Operating income or 

 (loss)/sales1 4.7 4.6 2.5 4.2 5.8 3.6 (2

1 In percent.2 Capacity utilization was calculated from firms providing both production and capacity data.

Note.– Customs collects quantity data for beds but not for other wooden bedroom furniture; therefore, only value data for wooden bedroom furniture from officiSource: Data for the period 2001-03 are compiled from information presented in Wooden Bedroom Furniture from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1058 (Final), USITC 

Capacity utilization for this period was calculated from firms providing both production and capacity data; productivity for this period was calculated from firms 

employment data. Data for 2004-09 are compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. Import data are compiled from official ComCustoms data.
COMMERCE’S REVIEWS

Administrative Reviews13

Commerce has completed four administrative reviews of the outstanding antidumping duty order

on wooden bedroom furniture from China.14 The results of the administrative reviews are shown in table

I-2. A separate listing of all producer/exporter names for each review can be found in appendix E. The

fourth administrative review resulted in a partial rescission of 25 companies that reported they had made

no shipments during the period of review.15

Table I-2

Wooden bedroom furniture: Administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order for China

Date final results

published

Date(s) of

amended final

results published

Period of review Number of producers

or exporters1

Margin

(percent)

August 22, 2007

(72 FR 46957)

November 7, 2007

(72 FR 62834);

December 21, 2007

(72 FR 72674);

January 14, 2009

(74 FR 2055)

06/24/2004 -

12/31/2005

1 0.40

1 1.97

1 11.72

43 35.78

32 49.60

2 216.01

PRC-Wide Rate 216.01

Table continued on next page. 

 13 Commerce found that antidumping duties had been absorbed by Fairmont on all U.S. sales made through its

affiliated importer. Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent To Rescind Review in Part. 75 FR 5952, February 5, 2010. 

Fairmont is comprised collectively of Dongguan Sunrise Furniture Co., Ltd.; Taicang Sunrise Wood Industry Co.,

Ltd.; Taicang Fairmont Designs Furniture Co., Ltd.; and Meizhou Sunrise Furniture Co., Ltd.

 14 For previously reviewed or investigated companies not included in an administrative review, the cash deposit

rate continues to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period.

 15 Those companies are: Dalian Pretty Home Furniture; Dongguan Dihao Furniture Co., Ltd.; Dongguan

Mingsheng Furniture Co., Ltd.; Dongguan Mu Si Furniture Co., Ltd.; Dongguan Sunshine Furniture Co., Ltd.;

Fortune Furniture Ltd., Dongguan Fortune Furniture Ltd.; Foshan Guanqiu Furniture Co., Ltd.; Fujian Lianfu

Forestry Co., Ltd., a.k.a. Fujian Wonder Pacific Inc. (Dare Group); Fuzhou Huan Mei Furniture Co., Ltd. (Dare

Group); Gaomi Yatai Wooden Ware Co., Ltd., Team Prospect International Ltd., Money Gain International Co.;

Golden Well International (HK), Ltd.; Guangdong New Four Seas Furniture Manufacturing Ltd.; Guangzhou Lucky

Furniture Co. Ltd.; Jiangsu Dare Furniture Co., Ltd. (Dare Group); Macau Youcheng Trading Co., Zhongshan

Youcheng Wooden Arts & Crafts Co., Ltd.; Nantong Yangzi Furniture Co., Ltd.; Po Ying Industrial Co.; Qingdao

Beiyuan-Shengli Furniture Co., Ltd., Qingdao Beiyuan Industry Trading Co. Ltd.; Qingdao Shengchang Wooden

Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Fangjia Industry Co., Ltd.; Shenzhen Shen Long Hang Industry Co., Ltd.; Tianjin First Wood

Co., Ltd.; Winmost Enterprises Limited; Yeh Brothers World Trade, Inc.; and Zhangzhou XYM Furniture Product

Co., Ltd. Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results and Final Rescission in

Part. 75 FR 50992, August 18, 2010.

I-8
Table I-2--Continued

Wooden bedroom furniture: Administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order for China

Date final results

published

Date(s) of amended

final results

published

Period of review Number of producers or

exporters1

Margin

(percent)

August 20, 2008

(73 FR 49162)

January 28, 2009

(74 FR 4916);

March 27, 2009 

(74 FR 13417)

01/01/2006 -

12/31/2006

1 22.29

25 32.23

32 39.46

PRC-Wide Rate 216.01

August 17, 2009

(74 FR 41374)

October 29, 2009

(74 FR 55810)

01/01/2007 -

12/31/2007

182 29.89

1 216.01

PRC-Wide Entity 216.01

August 18, 2010

(74 FR 50992)

01/01/2008 -

12/31/2008

13 43.23

PRC–Wide Entity 216.01

 1 Appendix E list the names of individual producers/exporters.

 2

 Commerce separately listed three “Dare Group” entities.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

New Shipper Reviews

Pursuant to new shipper reviews, Commerce calculated antidumping duty rates for the following

companies: Meikangchi (Nantong) Furniture Company, Ltd. (“Meikangchi”), 1.17 percent; Shenyang

Kunyu Wood Industry Co., Ltd. (“Kunyu”), 216.01 percent; and Dongguan Landmark Furniture Products

Ltd., d/b/a Landmark Furniture Ltd. (“Landmark”), 0.00 percent (71 FR 70739, December 6, 2006). The

cash deposit rate for Meikangchi is currently 29.89 percent (74 FR 55810, October 29, 2009), the cash

deposit rate for Kunyu is currently 216.01 percent (74 FR 5952, February 5, 2010), and the cash deposit

rate for Landmark is currently 43.23 percent (75 FR 50992, August 18, 2010). The following firms also

received antidumping duty rates pursuant to new shipper reviews: Mei Jia Ju Furniture (Shenzhen) Co.,

Ltd., 216.01 percent (73 FR 49162, August 20, 2008); Dongguan Bon Ten Furniture Co., Ltd., 0.00

percent and Dongguan Mu Si Furniture Co., Ltd., 33.01 percent (73 FR 64916, October 31, 2008), later

amended for Dongguan Mu Si to 8.30 percent (74 FR 9386, March 4, 2009); exporter Golden Well

International (HK), Ltd. combined with producer Zhangzhou XYM Furniture Product Co., Ltd. 0.00

percent and exporter/producer Dongguan Sunshine Furniture Co., Ltd., 0.00 percent (74 FR 41374,

August 17, 2009); exporter Shanghai Fangjia Industry Co., Ltd. coupled with producer Jiangsu Danyang

Brilliant Furniture Co., Ltd., 0.00 percent (74 FR 48905, September 25, 2009); and Zhejiang Tianyi

Scientific & Educational Equipment Co., Ltd., 0.00 percent (75 FR 44764, July 29, 2010). 

Antidumping Duty Avoidance

The Commission asked U.S. producers, U.S. importers, and Chinese producers if they were aware

of any past or present actions taken to avoid antidumping duties relating to wooden bedroom furniture

from China. Twenty U.S. producers, 13 U.S. importers, and no Chinese producers were aware of any such

I-9
actions.16 U.S. importers and Chinese producers were also asked if their firms or any of their firms’

affiliated or unaffiliated customers have been investigated by any U.S. government agency for potential

avoidance of antidumping duties on wooden bedroom furniture. Four importers, *** and no Chinese

producers reported being investigated. In its posthearing brief, the AFMC presented evidence relating to

circumvention of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture, and U.S. Immigration and

Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) has investigated circumvention of the order on wooden bedroom furniture

and several other products,17 but to date there are no known findings of circumvention on wooden

bedroom furniture.

Results of Five-Year Review

Commerce has issued the final results of its expedited review with respect to wooden bedroom

furniture from China. Table I-3 presents the dumping margins calculated by Commerce in its original

investigation and in its expedited review. Current dumping margins (cash deposit rates) applicable to the

largest exporters of wooden bedroom furniture from China during 2004-09 are presented in Part IV of this

report.

Table I-3

Wooden bedroom furniture: Commerce’s original and first five-year review dumping margins for

producers/exporters in China

Producer/exporter

Original margin

(percent ad valorem)

First five-year review margins

(percent ad valorem)

Dongguan Lung Dong1 2.32 2.32

Dorbest Group1 7.87 7.87

Lacquer Craft Excluded Excluded

Markor Tianjin 0.832 0.832

Shing Mark1 4.96 4.96

Starcorp1 15.78 15.78

Separate rate firms3 7.24 7.24

PRC-wide (all other firms) 198.08 198.08

Table continued on next page. 

 16 The following scenarios were alleged: high-rate companies are using the invoices of low-rate companies that

are not a party to the transaction; shell companies are being established to import merchandise and then are dissolved

before the duties increase and become due; Chinese producers are acting as importers and are not paying the duties

due; companies are mislabeling subject merchandise on invoices to enter it as nonsubject (for example, headboards

are being described as “decorative wall hangings,” three-drawer chests are being described as “support stands,” and

night stands are being described as “side tables”); and Chinese-origin product has been shipped to Canada, where the

country-of-origin marking was changed to indicate that the furniture was made in Canada.

 17 Statement of Alonzo R. Peña, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Operations, ICE, before the U.S. House of

Representatives’ Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means, May 20, 2010.

I-10
Table I-3--Continued

Wooden bedroom furniture: Commerce’s original and first five-year review dumping margins

for producers/exporters in China

 1 Encompasses additional firms under this abbreviated name. The full list of firms is presented in the relevant

Federal Register notices in appendix A.

 2 De minimis.

 3

 Commerce named 115 firms with this rate for the final determination, and 117 firms for the final results of the

expedited five-year review. Individual company names can be found in the relevant Federal Register notices

presented in appendix A. 

Note–.Some of Commerce's final determination antidumping duty rates have been, or may be, amended pursuant

to court decisions. Decca Furniture, Ltd.'s antidumping duty rate was amended from 198.08 percent (the

China-wide rate) to 6.65 percent (71 FR 34305, June 14, 2006) and to 7.24 percent (71 FR 67099, November 20,

2006); Decca's cash deposit rate was later modified several times pursuant to administrative reviews, and currently

is 43.23 percent (75 FR 50992, August 18, 2008). Guangzhou Maria Yee Furnishings Ltd.'s antidumping duty rate

was amended from 198.08 percent to 6.65 percent (71 FR 35870, June 22, 2006) to 7.24 percent (71 FR 67099,

November 20, 2006), and is currently 7.24 percent. The rate for Macau Youcheng Trading Co./Zhongshan

Youcheng Wooden Arts & Crafts Co., Ltd. went from the China-wide rate to 35.78 percent (74 FR 2055, January

14, 2009). Antidumping duty rates may also be amended as follows pursuant to a court-sustained remand of

January 7, 2009, pending any further court appeals and decisions: Rui Feng Woodwork Co., Ltd., Rui Feng

Lumber Development Co., Ltd., and Dorbest Limited, to 2.92 percent; Lung Dong Furniture Co., Ltd. and

Dongguan Dong He Furniture Co., Ltd., to 2.71 percent; Shing Mark Enterprise Co., Ltd., to 5.20 percent;

Starcorp, to 17.5 percent; and for the parties that received separate rates, 6.78 percent (74 FR 5818, February 2,

2009).

Source: Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: 

Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People’s Republic of China, 70 FR 329, January 4, 2005; Notice of

Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order/Pursuant to Court

Decision: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People’s Republic of China, 71 FR 67099, November 20, 2006;

and Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review

of Antidumping Duty Order, 75 FR 19364, April 14, 2010.

DISTRIBUTION OF CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT FUNDS

The Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (“CDSOA”) (also known as the Byrd

Amendment) provides that assessed duties received pursuant to antidumping or countervailing duty

orders must be distributed to affected domestic producers for certain qualifying expenditures that these

producers incur after the issuance of such orders.18 During the review period, qualified U.S. producers of

wooden bedroom furniture were eligible to receive disbursements from U.S. Customs and Border

Protection (“Customs”) under CDSOA relating to the order covering the subject merchandise beginning

in Federal fiscal year 2005.19 Table I-4 presents CDSOA disbursements and claims for Federal fiscal

years 2005-09, by firm.20

 18 Section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)). The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005

repealed the CDSOA with respect to duties on entries of goods made and filed on or after October 1, 2007. See Pub.

L. No. 109-171, 120 Stat. 4, 154 (2006). 

 19 19 CFR 159.64 (g).

 20 The Federal fiscal year begins on October 1 and ends on September 30 of the next calendar year.

I-11
Table I-4

Wooden bedroom furniture from China: CDSOA disbursements, by firm, and total claims, Federal fiscal

years 2005-09

Item

Fiscal year

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Disbursements

American Drew $1,043 - - - -

American of Martinsville 10,232 1,488,572 2,346,053 3,095,116 2,372,968

Ashley Furniture Industries - - - 0 0

Bassett Furniture Industries 12,288 1,548,928 2,135,357 2,122,935 1,627,615

Bebe Furniture - 36,899 72,645 88,891 68,151

Carolina Furniture Works 2,986 503,777 843,434 911,053 698,488

Century Furniture Industries 2,503 374,184 648,337 717,835 550,351

Ethan Allen Operations - - - 0 0

Furniture Brands International - - - 0 -

Harden Furniture 640 92,411 157,321 168,893 129,487

Harts Manufacturing Co. 5,584 ----

Higdon Furniture Company 2,230 602,103 824,954 765,074 586,568

Johnston Tombigbee Furniture - 811,331 1,475,350 1,581,397 1,212,428

Kimball Furniture Group - - - 0 0

Kincaid Furniture Company 10,353 1,518,312 2,277,014 2,406,560 1,845,064

L. and J.G. Stickley 3,575 574,808 981,128 1,070,478 820,716

Lea Industries 6,498 902,874 1,434,383 1,522,137 1,166,994

Michels and Co. 2,976 388,768 604,461 621,592 476,563

MJ Wood Products 1,117 180,774 273,817 288,967 221,545

Mobel 2,667 397,040 652,946 698,511 535,535

Moosehead Manufacturing Co. 1,474 202,590 310,300 - -

Oakwood Interiors - - 239,038 399,845 311,696

Orleans Furniture - - - 0 0

Perdues 1,962 505,295 804,487 843,189 646,457

Sandberg Furniture MFG Co. 6,572 953,148 1,591,597 1,691,246 1,296,647

Solid Comfort - - - - 0

Standard Furniture MFG Co. - - - 0 0

Stanley Furniture Co. 28,713 5,377,656 8,948,123 9,707,806 7,442,794

T. Copeland & Sons 1,238 176,314 293,835 319,644 245,065

TSF LLC 627 90,758 141,725 157,843 121,016

United Steel, Paper Intl. Union - - 55 54 -

Vaughan Bassett Furniture Co. 23,834 3,847,137 5,956,701 6,199,861 4,753,318

Vaughan Furniture Co. 8,064 1,150,042 1,773,978 0 -

Vermont Quality Wood Products 1,847 160,741 365,549 419,640 393,694

Webb Furniture Enterprises 5,138 ----

Witmer Industries - - - 0 -

 Total $144,160 $21,884,461 $35,152,585 $35,798,566 $27,523,160

Table continued on next page. 

I-12
Table I-4--Continued

Wooden bedroom furniture from China: CDSOA disbursements, by firm, and total claims, Federal fiscal

years 2005-09

Item

Fiscal year

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Claims (1,000 dollars)

 Total $326,253 $1,011,730 $1,605,830 $4,283,442 $3,782,523

Note.--Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. In fiscal year 2009 (latest data available), $37,610,761 in

CDSOA wooden bedroom furniture duties were not disbursed because of “administrative actions or amounts held pending

litigation.” In addition, $92,507,171 in CDSOA wooden bedroom furniture duties remained uncollected in fiscal year 2009, and

thus were not available for disbursement.

Source: U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s CDSOA Annual Reports. Retrieved from

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/priority_trade/add_cvd/cont_dump/.

THE SUBJECT MERCHANDISE

Commerce’s Scope

The imported wooden bedroom furniture subject to the antidumping duty order under review, as

defined by Commerce,21 is as follows: 

Wooden bedroom furniture is generally, but not exclusively, designed, manufactured, and offered

for sale in coordinated groups, or bedrooms, in which all of the individual pieces are of

approximately the same style and approximately the same material and/or finish. The subject

merchandise is made substantially of wood products, including both solid wood and also

engineered wood products made from wood particles, fibers, or other wooden materials such as

plywood, strand board, particle board, and fiberboard, with or without wood veneers, wood

overlays, or laminates, with or without non-wood components or trim such as metal, marble,

leather, glass, plastic, or other resins, and whether or not assembled, completed, or finished.

The subject merchandise includes the following items: (1) Wooden beds such as loft beds, bunk

beds, and other beds; (2) wooden headboards for beds (whether stand-alone or attached to side

rails), wooden footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and wooden canopies for beds;

(3) night tables, night stands, dressers, commodes, bureaus, mule chests, gentlemen's chests,

 21 Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review

of Antidumping Duty Order, 75 FR 19364. Following the promulgation of the antidumping duty order on January 4,

2005, Commerce made a number of scope rulings in which it found that certain companies’ products were not within

the scope of the order, namely: Sunrise Medical, Inc., certain overbed tables (70 FR 70785, November 23, 2005);

LumiSource Inc., certain stash chairs and stash cubes (71 FR 5646, February 2, 2006); Dorel Asia SrL, infant (baby)

changing tables with no drawers or doors and with the flat top surface surrounded by a permanent guard rail, and

toddler beds (71 FR 66167, November 13, 2006); Tuohy Furniture Corp., storage towers, TV stands, coffee tables,

and wood panels (72 FR 5677, February 7, 2007); Toys ‘R Us, Inc., Toy Box with Wheels, manufactured by Fun

Times (72 FR 23802, May 1, 2007); Target Corp., the products in its “Manhattan Collection” (which consists of a

bench, computer cart, bookcase, modular room divider, and desk (72 FR 43245, August 3, 2007); AP Industries,

certain convertible cribs ((73 FR 49418, August 21, 2008); Dutailier Group, Inc., convertible cribs (infant crib to

toddler bed, certain model numbers) (73 FR 72771, December 1, 2008); Shermag Inc., Three-in-One Cribs, certain

model numbers (73 FR 72771, December 1, 2008); Stanley Furniture Co., Inc., convertible cribs (74 FR 14521,

March 31, 2009); Acme Furniture Industry, Inc., certain mattress supports (74 FR 43680, August 27, 2009); Zinus,

Inc. and Zinus (Xiamen) Inc., the Smartbox mattress support and box spring (74 FR 43680, August 27, 2009); and

Target Corp., the Shabby Chic secretary desk and mirror (74 FR 49859, September 29, 2009).

I-13
bachelor's chests, lingerie chests, wardrobes, vanities, chessers, chifforobes, and wardrobe-type

cabinets; (4) dressers with framed glass mirrors that are attached to, incorporated in, sit on, or

hang over the dresser; (5) chests-on-chests,22 highboys,23 lowboys,24 chests of drawers,25

chests,26 door chests,27 chiffoniers,28 hutches,29 and armoires;30 (6) desks, computer stands,

filing cabinets, book cases, or writing tables that are attached to or incorporated in the subject

merchandise; and (7) other bedroom furniture consistent with the above list.

The scope of the order excludes the following items: (1) Seats, chairs, benches, couches, sofas,

sofa beds, stools, and other seating furniture; (2) mattresses, mattress supports (including box

springs), infant cribs, water beds, and futon frames; (3) office furniture, such as desks, stand-up

desks, computer cabinets, filing cabinets, credenzas, and bookcases; (4) dining room or kitchen

furniture such as dining tables, chairs, servers, sideboards, buffets, corner cabinets, china

cabinets, and china hutches; (5) other non-bedroom furniture, such as television cabinets,

cocktail tables, end tables, occasional tables, wall systems, book cases, and entertainment

systems; (6) bedroom furniture made primarily of wicker, cane, osier, bamboo or rattan; (7) side

rails for beds made of metal if sold separately from the headboard and footboard; (8) bedroom

furniture in which bentwood parts predominate;31 (9) jewelry armoires;32 (10) cheval mirrors;33

 22 A chest-on-chest is typically a tall chest-of-drawers in two or more sections (or appearing to be in two or more

sections), with one or two sections mounted (or appearing to be mounted) on a slightly larger chest; also known as a

tallboy.

 23 A highboy is typically a tall chest of drawers usually composed of a base and a top section with drawers, and

supported on four legs or a small chest (often 15 inches or more in height).

 24 A lowboy is typically a short chest of drawers, not more than four feet high, normally set on short legs.

 25 A chest of drawers is typically a case containing drawers for storing clothing.

 26 A chest is typically a case piece taller than it is wide featuring a series of drawers and with or without one or

more doors for storing clothing. The piece can either include drawers or be designed as a large box incorporating a

lid.

 27 A door chest is typically a chest with hinged doors to store clothing, whether or not containing drawers. The

piece may also include shelves for televisions and other entertainment electronics.

 28 A chiffonier is typically a tall and narrow chest of drawers normally used for storing undergarments and

lingerie, often with mirror(s) attached.

 29 A hutch is typically an open case of furniture with shelves that typically sits on another piece of furniture and

provides storage for clothes.

 30 An armoire is typically a tall cabinet or wardrobe (typically 50 inches or taller), with doors, and with one or

more drawers (either exterior below or above the doors or interior behind the doors), shelves, and/or garment rods or

other apparatus for storing clothes. Bedroom armoires may also be used to hold television receivers and/or other

audio-visual entertainment systems.

 31 As used herein, bentwood means solid wood made pliable. Bentwood is wood that is brought to a curved shape

by bending it while made pliable with moist heat or other agency and then set by cooling or drying. See Customs’

Headquarters’ Ruling Letter 043859, dated May 17, 1976.

 32 Any armoire, cabinet or other accent item for the purpose of storing jewelry, not to exceed 24 in width, 18 in

depth, and 49 in height, including a minimum of 5 lined drawers lined with felt or felt-like material, at least one side

door (whether or not the door is lined with felt or felt-like material), with necklace hangers, and a flip-top lid with

inset mirror. See Issues and Decision Memorandum from Laurel LaCivita to Laurie Parkhill, Office Director,

Concerning Jewelry Armoires and Cheval Mirrors in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Wooden Bedroom

Furniture from the People’s Republic of China, dated August 31, 2004. See also Wooden Bedroom Furniture From

the People’s Republic of China: Final Changed Circumstances Review, and Determination To Revoke Order in

(continued...)

I-14
(11) certain metal parts;34 (12) mirrors that do not attach to, incorporate in, sit on, or hang over

a dresser if they are not designed and marketed to be sold in conjunction with a dresser as part of

a dresser-mirror set; (13) upholstered beds;35 and (14) toy boxes.36

Imports of subject merchandise are reported under statistical reporting number 9403.50.9040 of

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) as "wooden ... beds" and under

statistical reporting number 9403.50.9080 of the HTS as "other ... wooden furniture of a kind

used in the bedroom." In addition, wooden headboards for beds, wooden footboards for beds,

wooden side rails for beds, and wooden canopies for beds may also be imported under statistical

reporting number 9403.50.9040 of the HTS as "parts of wood" and framed glass mirrors may

also be imported under statistical reporting number 7009.92.5000 of the HTS as "glass mirrors

... framed." This order covers all wooden bedroom furniture meeting the above description,

regardless of tariff classification. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience

and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

 32 (...continued)

Part, 71 FR 38621 (July 7, 2006).

 33 Cheval mirrors are any framed, tiltable mirror with a height in excess of 50 inches that is mounted on a

floor-standing, hinged base. Additionally, the scope of the order excludes combination cheval mirror/jewelry

cabinets. The excluded merchandise is an integrated piece consisting of a cheval mirror, i.e., a framed tiltable mirror

with a height in excess of 50 inches, mounted on a floor-standing, hinged base, the cheval mirror serving as a door to

a cabinet back that is integral to the structure of the mirror and which constitutes a jewelry cabinet line with fabric,

having necklace and bracelet hooks, mountings for rings and shelves, with or without a working lock and key to

secure the contents of the jewelry cabinet back to the cheval mirror, and no drawers anywhere on the integrated

piece. The fully assembled piece must be at least 50 inches in height, 14.5 inches in width, and 3 inches in depth. 

See Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People’s Republic of China: Final Changed Circumstances Review and

Determination To Revoke Order in Part, 72 FR 948 (January 9, 2007).

 34 Metal furniture parts and unfinished furniture parts made of wood products (as defined above) that are not

otherwise specifically named in this scope (i.e., wooden headboards for beds, wooden footboards for beds, wooden

side rails for beds, and wooden canopies for beds) and that do not possess the essential character of wooden bedroom

furniture in an unassembled, incomplete, or unfinished form. Such parts are usually classified under the Harmonized

Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheading 9403.90.70.

 35 Upholstered beds that are completely upholstered, i.e., containing filling material and completely covered in

sewn genuine leather, synthetic leather, or natural or synthetic decorative fabric. To be excluded, the entire bed

(headboards, footboards, and side rails) must be upholstered except for bed feet, which may be of wood, metal, or

any other material and which are no more than nine inches in height from the floor. See Wooden Bedroom Furniture

from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review and Determination to

Revoke Order in Part, 72 FR 7013 (February 14, 2007).

 36 To be excluded the toy box must: (1) Be wider than it is tall; (2) have dimensions within 16 inches to 27 inches

in height, 15 inches to 18 inches in depth, and 21 inches to 30 inches in width; (3) have a hinged lid that

encompasses the entire top of the box; (4) not incorporate any doors or drawers; (5) have slow-closing safety hinges;

(6) have air vents; (7) have no locking mechanism; and (8) comply with American Society for Testing and Materials

(“ASTM”) standard F963-03. Toy boxes are boxes generally designed for the purpose of storing children’s items

such as toys, books, and playthings. See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Final

Results of Changed Circumstances Review and Determination to Revoke Order in Part, 74 FR 8506 (February 25,

2009). Further, as determined in the scope ruling memorandum “Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's

Republic of China: Scope Ruling on a White Toy Box,” dated July 6, 2009, the dimensional ranges used to identify

the toy boxes that are excluded from the wooden bedroom furniture order apply to the box itself rather than the lid.

I-15
Tariff Treatment

 Table I-5 presents current tariff rates for wooden bedroom furniture as defined in Commerce’s

scope.37 Wooden bedroom furniture is classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United

States (“HTS”) under subheadings 9403.50.90, 9403.90.70 and 7009.92.50. Most of the subject imports

enter under statistical reporting numbers 9403.50.9040 (wooden beds) and 9403.50.9080 (other wooden

furniture of a kind used in the bedroom). Official import statistics for wooden bedroom furniture in this

report are collected under these two HTS statistical reporting numbers: 9403.50.9040 and

9403.50.9080.38

Table I-5

Wooden bedroom furniture: Tariff rates, 2010

HTS provision Article description

General1 Special2

Column

23

Rates (percent ad valorem)

9403

9403.50

9403.50.90

40

80

Other furniture and parts thereof:

 Wooden furniture of a kind used in the bedroom:

 Other:

 Other.......................................................................

 Beds

 Other

Free (4

) 40%

9403

9403.90

9403.90.70

Other furniture and parts thereof:

 Parts:

 Other:

 Of wood................................................................... Free (4

) 40%

7009

7009.92

7009.92.50

Glass mirrors, whether or not framed, including rear-view

mirrors:

 Other:

 Framed:

 Over 929 cm2

 in reflecting area.............................. 6.5% Free5 45%

 1 Normal trade relations, formerly known as the most-favored-nation duty rate, applicable to China. 

 2

 General note 3(c)(i) defines the special duty program symbols enumerated for this provision. China is not eligible for any

special duty rate.

 3

 Applies to imports from a small number of countries that do not enjoy normal trade relations duty status.

 4

 Special rates not applicable when the General rate is free.

 5 Applies to imports from A, AU, B, BH, CA, CL, E, IL, J, JO, MA, MX, OM, P, PE, SG.

Source: Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2010).

 37 U.S. Customs and Border Protection (Customs) collects quantity data for beds but not for other wooden

bedroom furniture; therefore, only value data for wooden bedroom furniture from official statistics are presented in

this report, except as noted.

 38 The remaining HTS subheadings mentioned in the product scope are not included in official import statistics

because they contain other products. HTS subheading 9403.90.70 contains, among other items, certain metal

furniture parts and certain unfinished furniture parts made of wood products. HTS subheading 7009.90.50 is a

residual or “basket” category for larger, framed glass mirrors. It contains, among other items, framed glass mirrors

of a kind used in the bedroom. To the extent that subject imports enter the latter subheadings, import data in this

report may be slightly understated.

I-16
THE DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT

Description and Applications39

Wooden bedroom furniture consists of furniture made of wood products and having physical

characteristics applicable to the intended use in a bedroom. The furniture consists of different individual

articles (e.g., beds, night stands, chests, armoires, and dressers with mirrors) with different configurations

and uses, all of which share the physical characteristics imparted by their common raw material (wood) 

and by their intended function for use in a bedroom, as opposed to other types of wooden furniture such

as dining room tables, china chests, and office desks. Figure I-1 presents examples of selected wooden

bedroom furniture pieces.

Wooden bedroom furniture is used primarily in residences, but is also used in lodging and in

care facilities such as assisted living facilities. Specific types of wooden bedroom furniture included in

this investigation are listed in the scope of the investigation presented earlier in this section of the report. 

Wooden bedroom furniture is generally, but not exclusively, designed, manufactured, and

offered for sale in coordinated groups, commonly called bedroom suites40 or “bedrooms” in which all of

the individual pieces share the same basic design, raw materials, construction, and finish.41 Figure I-2

presents an example of a wooden bedroom furniture suite.

At a minimum, a suite includes a bed frame, chest of drawers, and a night stand. As one

furniture retailer stated during the initial investigation: “Although we are perfectly willing to sell

different bedroom furniture items separately, the vast majority of our customers, more than 90 percent,

buy suites. This is the way virtually all retailers operate.”42 Respondents in the initial investigation

agreed with the fact that bedroom furniture is sold as a single unit or suite may be true for many sales, but 

it is “most certainly not true for all,”43 indicating that the definition of a suite is quite fluid (different

suites may contain one or two night stands, a chest or no chest, perhaps a mirror, and a range of bed sizes)

and even differs by region.44 Moreover, customers may buy a single piece of furniture or any subset of

the “so-called” suite.45 Wooden bedroom furniture suites are typically designed for either the adult,

youth, or hospitality markets. 

 39 The bulk of this discussion is derived from the staff report to the Commission for investigation No. 731-TA1058 (Final): Wooden Bedroom Furniture from China, November 29, 2004, pp. I-11-14, and I-17, and from other

sources as cited.

 40 In the furniture trade, the term “suites” is pronounced like the word “suits” as in bathing suits.

 41 Wooden bedroom suites can also be referred to as bedroom collections, bedroom groups, or bedrooms.

 42 See testimony of Harold Hewitt, President, Superior Furniture, conference transcript, p. 59, investigation No.

731-TA-1058 (Final).

 43 See joint respondents’ postconference brief, p. 8, investigation No. 731-TA-1058 (Final).

 44 For instance, in the New York market, a suite typically consists of a dresser, mirror, armoire, bed, and two

night stands. However, in California, a suite typically consists of a dresser, mirror, bed, and two night stands, while

in the southeastern United States, a suite typically consists of a dresser, mirror, chest, and bed. While there are

different ways of defining a suite across the country, retailers within a geographic region usually quote a suite in the

same way. See testimony of Wyatt Bassett, Executive Vice President of Vaughan-Bassett Furniture Company,

conference transcript, p. 116-117, investigation No. 731-TA-1058 (Final).

 45 See joint respondents’ postconference brief, p. 8, investigation No. 731-TA-1058 (Final).

I-17
Figure I-1

Examples of selected wooden bedroom furniture pieces

Bed Dresser

Tall chest Armoire

Night stand Mirror

Source: Ethan Allen (www.ethanallen.com).

I-18
Figure I-2

Example of a wooden bedroom furniture suite

Wooden bedroom suite

Source: Kincaid Furniture (www.kincaidfurniture.com).

Adult bedroom suites may be produced for multiple different price/quality points: e.g., low,

middle, and high (more information on retail tiers are presented in part II). The quality of the material

used in construction is a major factor (along with other factors, e.g., quality of construction and quality of

finish) in the price point at which the suites are sold.46 Materials generally found in the lower categories

of bedroom suites tend to consist of (1) particleboard components for the interior structure that holds the

drawers; (2) glued paper covering the interior of drawers; (3) a certain amount of stapled construction;

and (4) plastic components that are designed to look similar to wood; the front of a chest or dresser is

often covered with a wood veneer, while the sides are most likely of particle board. Mid-priced bedroom

suites usually include solid wood on the top of chests or dressers, while wood veneered47 on the particle

board is used on the side and front; a plywood interior structure holds the drawers in place. High-priced

bedroom suites normally use solid wood on drawer fronts and the top and sides of chests and dressers and

may include more detailed styling and design.

Wooden bedroom furniture is generally sold in retail stores, as is non-bedroom furniture.48

Although non-bedroom furniture may be sold in the same stores, it is often displayed in a separate area of

the store. Retailers reserve what are known as “slots” (allocated space in a certain area of a store) for

 46 These materials include: (1) solid wood; (2) solid wood veneer on plywood; (3) solid wood veneer on particle

board; and (4) paper glued on composite board. 

 47 Solid wood veneer is defined as a thin slice of solid wood. Papers, vinyls, composite panels, and non-wood

materials are not solid-wood veneers.

 48 Other channels of distribution include sales to hospitality/institutional purchasers and distributors.

I-19
bedroom suites, and it is these slots which serve as the primary channel of distribution for wooden

bedroom furniture.

*** stated that U.S.-made wooden bedroom furniture and furniture imported from China

reportedly compete directly at the entry level, lower-middle, and upper-middle price points.49

Domestically produced and imported furniture can be very similar in appearance. Several U.S. producers

have shifted their production to China or have outsourced a portion of their production to China and

provide design specifications to their suppliers in China, contributing to the similarity in appearance

between U.S.-made furniture and furniture imported from China.

Manufacturing Processes

Wood furniture producers tend to be located in relative proximity to the forests and sawmills

that are the sources of the lumber that is their key raw material. Wooden bedroom furniture is produced

in facilities that may also produce other types of wooden furniture, such as dining room furniture and case

goods for living rooms, such as bookcases, entertainment centers, and end tables. Some producers see

economies from specialization in the manufacture of specific types of furniture and produce only wooden

bedroom furniture.50 Companies making a broad range of furniture may locate the production of different

types of furniture in different factories, with separate plants for the production of case goods, wood

chairs, and upholstered furniture.

The process of manufacturing wooden bedroom furniture is similar in the United States, China,

and other producing countries. Lumber, veneers, plywood, and particle board are sawed into shapes. The

furniture parts are prepared for assembly by routing, drilling, and sanding. Furniture is assembled from

those parts by nailing and gluing. The finishing stage can include sanding, painting, staining, lacquering,

and rubbing.51

Manufacturing processes involved in the production of wooden bedroom furniture have been

increasingly automated, especially in North America and Europe. Computer-numerically-controlled

(CNC) equipment, which allows operators to input complex, sequential demands instructing production

machinery on how to cut, rout, and/or carve different furniture parts, has improved productivity. 

Although the use of labor-saving technology is less common in China,52 the difference in manufacturing

processes between the United States and China is narrowing as producers in China have increased the use

of automated materials handling machines and computer-controlled solid wood carving machines.53

In typical bedroom furniture manufacturing operations, green (moist) lumber received from a

sawmill is stacked with spacers to allow air flow in the stacks prior to transfer to a kiln for drying. The

drying process can take 7-35 days to reduce the moisture to the required content, depending on the

wetness and species of the wood. (White oak takes the longest to dry.) After drying, the lumber is

cooled, then allowed to readjust to the ambient atmosphere. Rough edges are sawed from the dried

lumber, revealing knots, grains, surface coloring, and defects. A scanner matches each of these features,

as well as the dimensions of the lumber, against a computer program containing the number and size of

specific furniture parts needed to complete the batch of wood bedroom furniture to be produced. Saws

are directed by the computer program to maximize the utility of each piece of lumber and minimize

waste. Conveyors deliver pieces sawed to specific dimensions to their proper storage location, while the

remaining pieces of random cuts are later glued together to form a solid block of wood. The blocks

 49 ***.

 50 Ibid.

 51 Ibid.

 52 Ibid.

 53 Hearing transcript, p. 108 (W. Bassett) and p. 238 (Tsai).

I-20
formed from random wood pieces are typically used for surfaces that are not visible to the consumer. For

example, blocks of poplar formed from random cuts may be covered with a cherry veneer for a dresser

drawer front.54

Veneer slices, typically of maple, cherry, oak, ash, or pine, arrive in long sheets from specialty

mills. The slices can be as thin as 1/42nd of an inch. Stacks of 24 to 48 slices of veneer can be cut first

lengthwise, then crosswise to form rectangular or square shapes. Each veneer shape is inspected and

repaired, if necessary. Veneer shapes can be glued to the surface of lesser-quality solid wood (poplar), or

to plywood or particle board.55

CNC routing, drilling, and carving machines prepare the wood pieces for their decorative look

(if they have a visible surface) and precise fit with other pieces.56 The assembly of case goods, such as

dressers and night stands, is set up separately from the processing layout for beds, which consists of

headboards, footboards, and railings. Case goods are shipped assembled, whereas the bed components

are often shipped as a set of four unassembled parts.

Case good components and some bed subassemblies are glued and sometimes nailed together

manually. Dresser drawers are assembled, drawer runners are attached to the dresser frames, and the

drawers are inserted into the dresser frame in a relatively labor-intensive process. Bed posts are inserted

into the headboard and footboard of the bed. Bedposts are usually made of solid wood and are lathed

manually.57 

In the finishing operation, surfaces are sanded by hand, lacquer or paint is spayed on manually,

and stains are rubbed in manually. Case goods are finished after they are fully assembled, whereas the

major bed components are finished prior to shipping unassembled. Certain bed frames, however, such as

sleigh beds, are finished and shipped fully assembled.58

*** stated that some producers of wooden bedroom furniture in China are less vertically

integrated than furniture producers in the United States. Some producers in China may purchase their

lumber already dried. Others may purchase pieces of sawed wood already cut to specific dimensions

required for the batch of furniture the company is going to produce. 

Some entry price point wooden bedroom furniture, including furniture for the rental market, is

made almost entirely from plywood and/or particle board. Paper that has been printed to look like wood

is glued to the surface of the plywood or particle board. In both the United States and China, plants

producing “printed furniture” tend to be high volume operations.59

 54 ***.

 55 Ibid.

 56 Some furniture factories in China still carve their furniture manually. Ibid.

 57 Some wooden bedroom furniture producers contract out lathework (also called “turning”) to companies that

specialize in turning. Ibid.

 58 Ibid.

 59 Ibid.

I-21
DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT ISSUES

In its original determination, the Commission found one domestic like product, consisting of

both joinery60 and non-joinery wooden bedroom furniture.61 In its notice of institution in the current fiveyear review, the Commission solicited comments from interested parties regarding the appropriate

domestic like product and domestic industry.62 Two interested parties commented on the Commission’s

definitions of domestic like product. The domestic interested parties agree with the Commission’s

definitions of the domestic like product and the domestic industry in the original investigation, which was

set forth in the notice of institution of this review. Guangdong Yihua Timber Industry Co., Ltd. and New

Classic Home Furnishings did not comment on the definitions, but did note that Customs has sometimes

applied antidumping duties under the order to merchandise that is clearly outside the order’s scope, and

that respondents reserve their right to raise this issue to the extent that it is relevant in this review (but

they have not done so).63 No party requested that the Commission collect data concerning other possible

domestic like products in their comments on the Commission’s draft questionnaires. 

U.S. MARKET PARTICIPANTS

U.S. Producers

During the original investigation, 49 firms supplied the Commission with usable information on

their U.S. operations with respect to wooden bedroom furniture. These firms accounted for

approximately 88 percent of the value of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of wooden bedroom furniture in

2003.64 In this current proceeding, the Commission issued producers’ questionnaires to 163 firms, 57 of

which provided the Commission with information on their wooden bedroom furniture operations (50

provided usable data). Presented in table I-6 is a list of responding domestic producers of wooden

bedroom furniture and each company’s position on the continuation of the antidumping duty order,

production location(s), related and/or affiliated firms, and share of reported production of wooden

bedroom furniture in 2009. Forty-one firms support continuation of the antidumping duty order, eight

firms oppose it, six firms have no position, and three firms did not respond. The share of producers that

support, oppose, and take no position on continuation of the order, by share of U.S. production quantities

and shipment values for the 50 firms that provided such data, are presented in the following tabulation. A

firm-by-firm listing of the data can be found in appendix F.

 60 Joinery wooden furniture is produced using a technique in which wood is assembled by expert craftsmen using

precise and tightly fitted interlocking joints without the use of nails or screws. Wooden Bedroom Furniture from

China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1058 (Final), USITC Publication 3743 (December 2004), p. I-15.

 61 Wooden Bedroom Furniture from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1058 (Final), USITC Publication 3743 (December

2004), p. 9.

 62 Wooden Bedroom Furniture From China, 74 FR 62817, December 1, 2009.

 63 AFMC’s response to the notice of institution, December 31, 2009, p. 18, and Guangdong Yihua Timber

Industry and New Classic Home Furnishings’ response to the notice of institution, December 31, 2009, p. 23.

 64 Of the 49 U.S. producers that supplied the Commission with usable questionnaire information during the

original investigation, 34 have provided responses to the current review, 9 have gone out of business, stopped

manufacturing wooden bedroom furniture, or have been acquired by other firms; and 6 did not respond to the

Commission’s questionnaire.

I-22
Position

Calendar year

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Share of U.S. production (percent)

Support (38) 45.9 44.9 44.4 43.4 43.1 40.7

Oppose (7) 37.6 40.3 40.4 44.6 44.6 45.8

No Position (5) 16.5 14.7 15.1 12.0 12.2 13.5

 Total (50) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of shipments value (percent)

Support (38) 64.3 64.0 61.4 59.9 58.7 55.2

Oppose (7) 26.9 27.3 29.1 32.4 33.4 37.8

No Position (5) 8.8 8.7 9.5 7.6 7.9 7.0

 Total (50) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Note.--Seven firms and *** did not provide usable data and are not included in these aggregate data.

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

Table I-6

Wooden bedroom furniture: U.S. producers, positions on the antidumping duty order,

headquarters location, related and/or affiliated firms, and shares of 2009 reported U.S. production

Firm

Position on

continuation

of the order

Headquarters

location

Related and/or

affiliated firms

Share of 2009

production

(percent)

A&B Furniture1 *** Pine River, MN *** (

1

)

American Drew *** High Point, NC *** ***

Ashley ***2 Arcadia, WI *** ***

Baker Road ***3 South Elgin, IL *** ***

Bassett *** Bassett, VA *** ***

Bernhardt *** Lenoir, NC *** ***

Brown Street *** Whitefield, NH *** ***

Carolina ***4 Sumter, SC *** ***

Century *** Hickory, NC *** ***

Councill *** Denton, NC *** ***

Craftique Furniture1 *** Mebane, NC *** (

1

)

Table continued on next page. 

I-23
Table I-6--Continued

Wooden bedroom furniture: U.S. producers, positions on the antidumping duty order,

headquarter location, related and/or affiliated firms, and shares of 2009 reported U.S. production

Firm

Position on

continuation

of the order

Headquarters

location

Related and/or

affiliated firms

Share of 2009

production

(percent)

Creative Elegance1 ***

South El Monte,

CA *** (1)

Dubois *** Huntingburg, IN *** ***

Ethan Allen *** Danbury, CT *** ***

Ferguson Copeland1 *** Morganton, NC *** (

1

)

Furniture Brands *** St. Louis, MO *** ***

Furniture Traditions *** Orange, CA *** ***

Harden ***

McConnellsville,

NY *** ***

Henkel Harris *** Winchester, VA *** ***

Higdon *** Quincy, FL *** ***

HM Operating (dba 

Harden

Manufacturing) *** Haleyville, AL *** ***

Hooker ***5 Martinsville, VA *** ***

Joerns ***

Stevens Point,

WI *** ***

Johnston/TomBigbee ***6 Columbus, MS *** ***

Kimball ***7 Jasper, IN *** ***

Kincaid *** Hudson, NC *** ***

Kush1 *** Ontario, CA *** (

1

)

L. & J.G. Stickley *** Manlius, NY *** ***

Lea *** High Point, NC *** ***

Legends *** Tolleson, AZ *** ***

Lexington (dba

Lexington Home

Brands) *** Thomasville, NC *** ***

Linwood *** Lexington, NC *** ***

MacKenzie Dow1 *** Huntington, WV *** (

1

)

Table continued on next page. 

I-24
Table I-6--Continued

Wooden bedroom furniture: U.S. producers, positions on the antidumping duty order,

headquarter location, related and/or affiliated firms, and shares of 2009 reported U.S. production

Firm

Position on

continuation

of the order

Headquarters

location

Related and/or

affiliated firms

Share of 2009

production

(percent)

Maine Cottage1 *** Yarmouth, ME *** (

1

)

Michels *** Lynwood, CA *** ***

MJ Wood *** Morrisville, VT *** ***

Mobel ***8 Ferdinand, IN *** ***

Perdues *** Rapid City, SD *** ***

Progressive *** Archbold, OH *** ***

Riverside ***9 Fort Smith, AR *** ***

Sandberg ***

Los Angeles,

CA *** ***

Sauder ***10 Archbold, OH *** ***

Solid Comfort *** Fargo, ND *** ***

Spectra ***

State College,

PA *** ***

Standard ***11 Bay Minette, AL *** ***

Stanley *** Stanleytown, VA *** ***

T. Copeland & Sons *** Bradford, VT *** ***

Thos. Moser *** Auburn, ME *** ***

Tom Seely ***

Berkley Springs,

WV *** ***

Trend Manor ***12 Industry, CA *** ***

Trendwood ***13 Phoenix, AZ *** ***

Vaughan-Bassett *** Galax, VA *** ***

Vermont Quality *** Brandon, VT *** ***

Webb *** Galax, VA *** ***

Whittier ***14 Eugene, OR *** ***

Witmer ***15 Abbotsford, WI *** ***

Wright Table ***

Morgantown,

NC *** ***

Footnotes continued on next page. 

I-25
Table I-6--Continued

Wooden bedroom furniture: U.S. producers, positions on the antidumping duty order,

headquarter location, related and/or affiliated firms, and shares of 2009 reported U.S. production

 1 ***.

 2

 ***.

 3

 ***.

 4

 ***.

 5

 ***.

 6

 ***.

 7

 ***.

 8

 ***.

 9

 ***.

 10 ***.

 11 ***.

 12 ***.

 13 ***.

 14 ***.

 15 ***.

Note.–***.

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

Seven U.S. producers are related to importers/exporters of Chinese or nonsubject merchandise.65

In addition, as discussed in greater detail in Part III, 20 U.S. producers directly import the subject

merchandise and five purchase the subject merchandise from U.S. importers.

U.S. Importers

In the original investigation, 123 U.S. importing firms supplied the Commission with usable

information on their operations involving the importation of wooden bedroom furniture, accounting for

80 percent of U.S. imports of wooden bedroom furniture from China between January 2001 and June

2004. The 123 firms included 26 responding U.S. producers which directly imported wooden bedroom

furniture from China.66

In these current proceeding, the Commission issued importers’ questionnaires to 146 firms

believed to be importers of subject wooden bedroom furniture, as well as to all U.S. producers of wooden

bedroom furniture. Questionnaire responses were received from 104 companies (98 provided usable

data),67 representing *** percent68 of subject imports from China. Twenty U.S. producers reported

directly importing wooden bedroom furniture from subject Chinese sources. Table I-7 lists all responding

U.S. importers of wooden bedroom furniture from China and other sources, their headquarters locations,

and their shares of subject U.S. imports from China in 2009. 

 65 ***.

 66 Petitioning firms accounted for 13 of the 26 U.S. producers importing the subject merchandise.

 67 Large importers that failed to respond include ***. *** importer questionnaire was returned by FedEx as

undeliverable.

 68 Coverage was calculated using the value of subject U.S. imports from China reported by responding U.S.

importers in 2009 ($308.815 million from China) compared to the value from official import statistics ($*** from

China).

I-26
Table I-7

Wooden bedroom furniture: U.S. importers, source(s) of imports, U.S. headquarters, and shares of

imports in 2009

* * * * * * *

U.S. Purchasers

The Commission received 61 usable purchaser questionnaire responses from firms that bought

wooden bedroom furniture during 2004-09. Forty-three responding purchasers are retailers, eight are

distributors, and ten are other (including producers, rental companies, and hospitality products

suppliers).69 Purchasers are located throughout the continental United States. A majority of purchasers

expressed familiarity with wooden bedroom furniture from the United States, China, and at least one

nonsubject country. More information on purchasers is contained in Part II.

APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION AND MARKET SHARES

Data concerning apparent U.S. consumption and market shares of wooden bedroom furniture

during the period for which data were collected in this proceeding are shown in table I-8 and in figure I-3. 

Official Commerce import statistics and proprietary Customs data were used to derive the import

component of apparent U.S. consumption.

Apparent U.S. consumption of wooden bedroom furniture increased in 2005 and then declined

in each year thereafter, especially during 2007-09. The market shares of U.S. producers and of subject

imports from China declined measurably between 2004 and 2009, whereas the market share of imports

from Vietnam increased substantially.

Table I-8

Wooden bedroom furniture: U.S. shipments of domestically produced wooden bedroom furniture,

U.S. imports, and apparent U.S. consumption, 2004-09

Item

Calendar year

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Value (1,000 dollars)

U.S. producers’ U.S.

shipments 1,490,808 1,415,592 1,244,087 1,050,946 897,456 747,785

U.S. imports1

 from–

 China (subject) *** *** *** *** *** ***

 China (nonsubject) *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Vietnam 190,393 462,805 587,387 813,931 952,537 839,136

 All other sources 1,489,002 1,592,766 1,391,358 1,208,461 1,094,591 1,062,414

 Total U.S. imports 3,185,475 3,764,811 3,794,948 3,613,016 3,196,269 2,655,854

Apparent U.S.

consumption 4,676,283 5,180,403 5,039,035 4,663,962 4,093,725 3,403,639

Table continued on next page. 

 69 One distributor described itself also as a producer, one retailer described itself also as a distributor, and two

retailers described themselves also as other.

I-27
Table I-8--Continued

Wooden bedroom furniture: U.S. shipments of domestically produced wooden bedroom

furniture, U.S. imports, and apparent U.S. consumption, 2004-09

Item

Calendar year

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Share of value (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S.

shipments 31.9 27.3 24.7 22.5 21.9 22.0

U.S. imports1

 from–

 China (subject) *** *** *** *** *** ***

 China (nonsubject) *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Vietnam 4.1 8.9 11.7 17.4 23.3 24.6

 All other sources 31.8 30.7 27.6 25.9 26.7 31.2

 Total U.S. imports 68.1 72.7 75.3 77.5 78.1 78.0

 1 Official import statistics presented for wooden bedroom furniture are comprised of imports under two HTS

statistical reporting numbers: 9403.50.9040 (wooden beds of a kind used in the bedroom) and 9403.50.9080

(wooden furniture of a kind used in the bedroom not elsewhere classified). The scope mentions four HTS

subheadings and statistical reporting numbers; however, most of the subject imports enter under 9403.50.9040 and

9403.50.9080. The third number, HTS subheading 9403.90.70, contains, among other items, certain metal furniture

parts and certain unfinished furniture parts made of wood products. The fourth number, HTS subheading

7009.92.50, is a residual or “basket” category that contains, among other items, framed glass mirrors of a kind used

in the bedroom. To the extent that subject imports enter under the latter subheadings, import data may be slightly

understated.

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

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

Figure I-3

Wooden bedroom furniture: Apparent U.S. consumption, by sources, 2004-09

* * * * * * *

Data concerning apparent U.S. consumption of all wooden furniture for residential use from

2006-09 are shown in table I-9. Apparent U.S. consumption of all wooden furniture decreased by 36

percent from 2006 to 2009, while apparent U.S. consumption for wooden bedroom furniture decreased by

32 percent during the same period.

Table I-9

Wooden furniture for residential use: U.S. shipments of domestically produced wooden furniture,

U.S. imports, and apparent U.S. consumption, 2006-09

* * * * * * *

I-28
PART II: CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IN THE U.S. MARKET

U.S. MARKET CHARACTERISTICS

Geographic Markets

Most U.S. producers and importers shipped wooden bedroom furniture to multiple regions of the

United States and over medium-to-long distances. Thirty-nine U.S. producers1

 reported that a plurality

(usually a majority) of their sales was 101-1,000 miles from their storage or production facilities, while

six reported that a plurality of their sales was more than 1,000 miles from their production facilities and

two reported that a plurality of their sales was within 100 miles of their production facilities. Forty-four

importers reported that a plurality of their sales was 101-1,000 miles from their facilities. Another 18

importers indicated that a plurality of their sales was within 100 miles of their facilities, and 21 importers

reported that a plurality of their sales was more than 1,000 miles from their facilities.2

Geographic Locations

Most producers and importers sold to a national market, with 49 producers and 80 importers

selling to at least five national regions.3

Channels of Distribution

As shown in table II-1, the majority of shipments of wooden bedroom furniture by U.S.

producers and importers of product from China and other countries is through the retail channel, with the

majority of these sales to other retailers.4

 Whereas the shares of own-firm retail sales for U.S. producers 

and importers from China have increased, these shares have decreased for imports from Vietnam and the

rest of the world. The overall shares sold through own-firm or other firm retail, however, have remained

stable or declined over 2004-09. Tom Seely described price deflation in the industry as leading to

retailers’ need for greater volume, hurting small local retailers and helping larger ones.5

 Additionally, the

Furniture Retailers of America (FRA) indicated their belief that U.S. producers participated in importing

product from China without concern for antidumping actions until they began to lose sales (of Chinese

product) from their own stores to large retailers.6

 1 Numerous firms submitted a combination of producers', importers', purchasers', and/or foreign producers'

questionnaires, or submitted questionnaires for firms that were related to each other. These overlaps are summarized

in appendix G. Staff has included all questionnaire responses.

 2

 Additionally, two importers had a majority of their sales under 1,000 miles from their facilities, and one had a

majority of its sales more than 100 miles from its facility.

 3

 Additionally, two producers sold to four regions and one sold to three regions. Eleven importers sold to threeto-four regions while eight sold to one-to-two regions.

 4

 In every year, a majority of the large share of imports from Vietnam in the retail sales channel was from ***.

 5

 Hearing transcript, pp. 59-60 (Caperton).

 6

 Hearing transcript, p. 190 (K. Koenig).

II-1
Table II-1

Wooden bedroom furniture: U.S. producers’ and importers’ U.S. commercial shipments, by

sources and channels of distribution, 2004-09

* * * * * * *

U.S. Purchasers

The Commission received responses from 61 purchasers7

 that reported purchases accounting for

24.2 percent of the volume of U.S. producers’ total U.S. shipments in 2009 and 32.3 percent of U.S.

importers’ U.S. shipments of Chinese product in 2009.8

 Forty-three purchasers were retailers, with three

of those adding that they were wholesalers, importers, or distributors as well. Eight purchasers were

distributors, and one was a hospitality products provider. Two other purchasers were furniture rental

companies, and three answered that they were U.S. producers.

Floor Space and Retail Tiers

Retailing purchasers were asked to discuss the major factors that their firms consider when

awarding floor space to specific suppliers of wooden bedroom furniture. Retailers identified factors such

as look, price, quality, floor sample discounts, availability, sales productivity (sales per square foot),

traditional supplier, and consumer demand. *** stated that floor space is not awarded by supplier, but

rather by item.

Purchasers were also asked whether there are different tiers within the retail market for wooden

bedroom furniture. Forty-four answered Yes and six answered No. Those that answered Yes named a

variety of different ways of defining the tiers. Some named three tiers of high, middle, and low (or used

other designations, such as good, better, best or promotional, popular, and high-end). Of these, ***

referred to those suites that cost up to $1,200 as “promotional,” those suites that cost between $1,300 and

$2,500 as “mid-price,” and those suites that cost over $2,500 as “high-end,” noting that the dollar values

may vary, particularly by geographic region. *** divided the three tiers at $1,200 and $2,000, while ***

divided them at $1,000 and $2,000. Others pointed to materials used as the basis for tier divisions, with

*** stating that low-end “paper veneered” product was usually U.S.-made, the middle-tier solid and

veneer products were generally imported, and the high-end brand names were a mix of domestic and

imported. Still other purchasers reported a wide range of tiers across different levels of wooden bedroom

furniture prices, from $399 to $50,000 for a suite.

Solid Wood and Other Materials

When asked how often wooden bedroom furniture made of solid wood and that made of other

materials is interchangeable, 8 producers and 6 importers answered “always,” 20 producers and 18

importers answered “usually,” 15 producers and 43 importers answered “sometimes,” and 4 producers

and 29 importers answered “never.” Across many of these answers, though, producers and importers

 7 Purchasers’ purchase data show total reported purchases dropping from a high of 5.6 million pieces in 2007 to

5.1 million pieces in 2009. Specific trends, however, vary by source. Purchases of U.S. and Chinese wooden

bedroom furniture peaked at 1.9 million pieces and 2.0 million pieces (respectively) in 2005, before falling to 1.3

million pieces and 1.4 million pieces (respectively) in 2009. Purchases of Vietnamese product rose from under

60,000 pieces in 2004 to 1.2 million pieces in 2009. Finally, purchases of other countries’ product rose from 0.6

million pieces in 2004 to 1.2 million in 2006, approximately the same level as in 2009. Some purchasers did not

provide data or could not provide data for earlier years.

 8

 These estimates exclude the quantity data provided by ***, which staff did not find useable.

II-2
generally described solid-wood furniture as a higher-quality, longer-lasting product than that made of

other materials. However, these same questionnaire respondents often described the customer base for

solid-wood furniture as smaller than that for furniture made of less expensive materials. A few producers

also described U.S. consumers as not having the disposable income to spend on solid-wood furniture as

they did in previous years. Importers described consumers in lower-end segments as being particularly 

price-sensitive and thus much less interested in solid wood. Importer *** stated that while the perception

exists that solid wood is better quality, a real wood veneer over a high quality substrate material is a better

choice due to solid wood’s tendency to crack or warp. Importer *** stated that the styles it sells can only

be produced using wood veneers and substrates. Importer *** also pointed to style limitations with solid

wood.

Producer Sandberg described wooden bedroom furniture made with printed paper as generally

being sold to lower-income consumers. However, it stated that its printed paper wooden bedroom

furniture sometimes competes with lower-end Chinese wooden bedroom furniture made with wood

veneers, because the latter are sold at low prices.9

 On the other end of the price range, T. Copeland &

Sons described producing higher-end, made-to-order product, although it added that before imports from

China increased, it had produced in larger runs as well.10 Tom Seely added that some consumers’

inability to understand underlying quality differences meant that U.S. producers of higher-end product

competed on price with lower-end imports from China.11

When purchasers were asked how often wooden bedroom furniture made of solid wood and that

made of other materials is interchangeable, 5 answered “always,” 12 answered “usually,” 26 answered

“sometimes,” and 13 answered “never.” Most purchasers described some retail customers as preferring

solid wood while others are indifferent to material and thus more focused on price or style. Purchasers

provided a wide range of estimates of the share of their customers that prefers solid wood. Solid wood is

generally regarded as higher quality, but maintenance and moisture concerns can hurt consumer

preference for it, especially in the hospitality segment.

Among Chinese producers, 8 stated that wooden bedroom furniture made of solid wood and that

made of other materials is “never” interchangeable, 19 stated that it is “sometimes” interchangeable, 5

stated that it is “usually” interchangeable, and 1 stated that it was “always” interchangeable. The main

cited difference was the customer perception that solid wood was a higher quality material that

commanded a higher price.

Brand Names

Thirty-three producers and 46 importers indicated that they sell wooden bedroom furniture under

brand names (with almost all such producers and most such importers selling 100 percent of their product

under brand names), while 19 producers and 56 importers did not. Twenty-four purchasers sold wooden

bedroom furniture under brand names, while 19 did not. When asked how often brand names are

important in their sales, 8 purchasers answered “always,” 6 answered “usually,” 26 answered

“sometimes,” and 18 answered “never.”

 9 Hearing transcript, pp. 50-52 (Sandberg).

 10 Hearing transcript, p. 54 (Copeland).

 11 Hearing transcript, p. 85 (Caperton).

II-3
SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS

Supply

U.S. Supply

Based on available information, U.S. wooden bedroom furniture producers have the ability to

respond to changes in demand with large changes in the quantity of shipments of U.S.-produced wooden

bedroom furniture to the U.S. market. The main contributing factors to the large degree of responsiveness

of supply are substantial unused capacity, large and increasing inventories, and alternative production

possibilities, though responsiveness is tempered by low export levels.12

Industry capacity and product/marketing trends

U.S. producers’ capacity utilization declined from 73.1 percent in 2004 to 58.4 percent in 

2009, even as total capacity was also falling. However, plant productivity rose over the same period as

U.S. plants became more automated.13 Respondents described U.S. producers as still competitive for

market segments that require speedy delivery.14

Thirty-nine producers stated that they had not observed any significant changes in the product

range, product mix, or marketing of wooden bedroom furniture, and 49 did not anticipate any such

changes. The eleven producers that had seen changes cited general innovation, more entertainment

(audio/video) furniture, expanding product lines to keep sales volume, and a reduction in the number of

upscale retailers as they are replaced by lower-end retailers (with Ashley cited as an example of the

latter).15 Nine producers anticipated changes in product mix, range, or marketing, including increased

internet sales, promotion of product as domestic, and government procurement. *** stated that U.S.

producers have improved quality with greater attention to finishing. 

Alternative markets

Export shipments represented a small share of U.S. producers’ shipments during 2004-09. 

Thirty-three producers did not identify any tariff or nontariff barriers for their exports of wooden

bedroom furniture, but two did, noting that they experience duties or tariffs selling into the United

Kingdom, Ireland, and the remainder of Europe as well as Brazil, India, and Russia, which were described

as having high duties.16 While not reporting many formal barriers, most U.S. producers reported that they

were focused on the U.S. market and did not have many export opportunities, citing potential competition

 12 On a related issue, Vaughan-Bassett described wooden bedroom furniture as a high variable-cost industry,

meaning that lower prices would quickly result in lower volumes. Hearing transcript, p. 35 (W. Bassett).

 13 Hearing transcript, p. 152 (Dorn).

 14 Respondents added that “basic economic forces” were responsible for increased imports from China, Vietnam,

and Malaysia, and that, since 2004, all larger U.S. producers have engaged in a “blended” sourcing strategy in which

they source large parts of their U.S. sales from imports. Hearing transcript, pp. 167 (Greenwald) and 190 (K.

Koenig).

 15 Stanley described itself as restructuring its production to produce all of its youth bedroom furniture in the

United States, while closing U.S. capacity for other wooden bedroom furniture. Hearing transcript, p. 39

(Prillaman).

 16 Brazil and India have applied tariffs of 10 percent or more for HS 9403.50, which includes wooden bedroom

furniture. See WTO tariff data at http://tariffdata.wto.org/ReportersAndProducts.aspx. The EU has no tariffs on HS

9403.50, but may apply a VAT (value-added tax) at the border.

II-4
with Chinese product and the lack of a sales force in third-country markets. Four producers reported

small-volume sales to Canada or the Caribbean.

Inventory levels

U.S. producers’ inventories as a ratio to production increased from 14.9 percent of production in

2004 to 21.5 percent in 2009. Additionally, many producers sell only produced-to-order product (see

“Lead Times” later in this chapter).

Production alternatives

Forty producers stated that they had the ability to produce other products (mostly other furniture

products) on the same product lines on which they produced wooden bedroom furniture, while 12 stated

that they did not.

Subject Imports from China

Based on available information, Chinese producers have the ability to respond to changes in

demand with moderately large changes in the quantity of shipments of wooden bedroom furniture to the

U.S. market.17 The main contributing factors to the moderately large degree of responsiveness of supply

are the likely high levels of exports to alternative markets, recently increasing inventories, and the ability

to produce alternative products, though responsiveness may be tempered by reportedly high capacity

utilization levels,18 possible differences in the types of wooden bedroom furniture produced in the United

States and China, and rising Chinese labor standards and wages.19

Industry capacity

Data for responding Chinese producers suggest that capacity utilization is moderately high,

declining to 85.0 percent in 2009 after remaining at or above 88.4 percent from 2004 to 2008. Chinese

producers identified the availability of skilled labor, the yuan-dollar exchange rate, and machinery

availability as constraints on their ability to produce wooden bedroom furniture. Nine Chinese producers

cited revised labor agreements (because of 2008 changes in Chinese labor law) as changes in their

operations, while eight Chinese producers had not observed any changes in their operations. Other

Chinese producers stated that they had opened and/or closed manufacturing facilities or had ordered new

machinery. At least eleven Chinese producers did not anticipate any additional changes to their

operations, while *** stated that it would increase production in Malaysia and decrease production in

China in 2010, *** anticipated more development of the Chinese domestic market, and *** stated that it

had stopped sourcing from China. 

 17 Usable data for Chinese producers collected in this review cover 35 Chinese producers representing between

*** and *** percent of China’s exports of wooden bedroom furniture to the United States in 2009. Where possible,

staff attempted to supplement these data with publicly available information.

 18 The AFMC described Chinese capacity utilization as ***. See AFMC’s prehearing brief, appendix A, pp. 3-4. 

Additionally, AFMC supplied information on the Chinese government’s plans for increased Chinese exports of

furniture. See AFMC’s posthearing brief, p. 5 and exhibit 3.

 19 The AFMC stated that Chinese producers’ investments in new equipment would increase their labor

productivity, offsetting the effect of increased Chinese wages. To the extent that higher productivity offsets

increased wages, Chinese producers would have more ability to respond to changes in U.S. demand. See AFMC’s

prehearing brief, app. A, p. 4. 

II-5
Twenty-four Chinese producers stated that there had been no significant changes in the product

range or marketing of wooden bedroom furniture since 2004, while six described changes in design, style,

and/or size. Most did not anticipate any changes.20

The AFMC alleged that the Chinese wooden bedroom furniture industry is substantially larger

than the Vietnamese industry, and has the added benefit of more deepwater ports, better infrastruture,

Chinese government aid, and more knowledge of marketing product in the United States.21 However,

respondents described the Chinese industry as under pressure from labor shortages and an appreciating

currency (see Part V), while refocusing on growing Chinese demand.22 They added that while there are

numerous Chinese producers, there are only one or two hundred that are trusted enough by U.S. retailers

to function as a source for U.S. importers.23 Fairmont also described the Chinese industry as moving

toward more automated production.24

Alternative markets

Global Trade Atlas data suggest that Chinese producers ship substantial amounts of wooden

bedroom furniture to non-U.S. markets.25 Twenty-four Chinese producers reported some shipments to 

 20 Importers were asked if there had been any significant changes in the product range, product mix, or marketing

(including sales over the internet) of wooden bedroom furniture since 2004. Seventy-two answered no, but 26

answered yes. *** noted increased internet sales, though *** stated that they did not sell through the internet, which

they described as mostly for retail sales (as opposed to their own business-to-business sales). *** also saw more

internet sales, but added that shipping across the country was still difficult for such sales. *** reported that now

there were fewer items in a bedroom group because of inventory pressure. *** cited increased case pieces for

electronic equipment (e.g., televisions). *** described high-end products as still being produced in China, while

production of low-price promotional bedrooms moved to Vietnam. *** described international sourcing as

supporting a wider range of styles and materials, including more labor-intensive features such as carving, fancy-face

veneers, and complex finishes. On the other hand, *** described style having changed to more contemporary with

less carving and cleaner finishes. *** stated that it believed that some Chinese producers have been copying U.S.

designs exhibited at trade shows.

Eighty-three importers did not anticipate any changes to the product range, product mix, or marketing

(including sales over the internet) of wooden bedroom furniture in the future, but 17 did, citing changing styles,

increased internet sales, more changes due to entertainment (e.g., televisions) changes, and potentially increased

prices of product imported from Asia. 

 21 Hearing transcript, pp. 34, 122 (W. Bassett and Prillaman). Counsel for respondents disagreed that Vietnam

has infrastructure deficiencies. Hearing transcript, p. 232 (Greenwald).

 22 Hearing transcript, pp. 180-182 (Tsai).

 23 Hearing transcript, pp. 215-216 (Tsai and Koenig).

 24 Hearing transcript, p. 238 (Tsai).

 25 China exported more than $2 billion of “wooden furniture of a kind used in bedrooms” (i.e., meeting HS

subheading 9403.50 and including out-of-scope product) in 2008 and 2009. Of the $2.1 billion in 2009 Chinese

exports, $0.7 billion went to the United States. Data collected in this review show that U.S. imports of wooden

bedroom furniture from China were approximately $0.6 billion in 2009, a large portion of total Chinese exports of

“wooden furniture of a kind used in bedrooms” (under HS subheading 9403.50) to the United States (although in

general there are substantial discrepancies between U.S. and Chinese trade data). If the ratio of Chinese exports of

wooden bedroom furniture to exports of “wooden furniture of a kind used in bedrooms” to other countries is

reasonably close to the ratio that prevails in their exports to the U.S. market, then there may be a large additional

Chinese capacity to produce and ship Chinese wooden bedroom furniture worldwide. The interchangeability of this

capacity with product shipped to the United States may be limited by different country preferences for particular

types of wooden bedroom furniture.

II-6
non-U.S. markets, while 11 reported that they only exported to the U.S. market. Other markets cited

included the Caribbean, Europe, Japan, Korea, and other Asian countries. Chinese producers did not

report any barriers to their exports in other countries.

Ten Chinese producers stated that they could shift sales between the United States and other

markets, including Australia, Europe, India, the Middle East, and Singapore. However, 7 others stated

that they had no exports outside the United States, and an additional 14 stated that their familiarity with

U.S. channels of distribution as well as unique U.S. design features (including size) would make market

shifting difficult to impossible.

Eleven Chinese producers further indicated that the wooden bedroom furniture that they sold in

the United States was interchangeable with the wooden bedroom furniture that they sold in other markets,

while 16 stated that it was not. Those that stated that product was not interchangeable cited individual

customer specifications or design, size, and function differences.26

Inventory levels

Data for responding Chinese producers suggest that Chinese inventories decreased in 2009 after

rising irregularly from 2004 to 2008. However, the ratio of inventories to production reached 16.1

percent in 2009, up from 13.2 percent in 2008 and its 2004-09 low of 9.2 percent in 2006.

Production alternatives

Thirty-two Chinese producers reported that they could or did produce other products (usually

other wooden furniture) with the same equipment and workers used to produce wooden bedroom

furniture, while four stated that they could not. Twenty-two Chinese producers described switching

between wooden bedroom furniture and other wooden furniture as not costing much in terms of either

time or money. However, eleven Chinese producers stated that they could not. *** stated that it does not

shift production because of price changes but rather builds exclusive design-specific products for

companies that offer designs for a year or more of production. *** stated that it would take a 15-20

percent relative price change to shift between producing wooden bedroom furniture and other wooden

furniture.

Nonsubject Imports

Questionnaire respondents broadly agreed that U.S. imports from Vietnam (and some other Asian

countries such as Indonesia and Malaysia) had increased substantially since 2004. Forty-two U.S.

producers stated that the availability of nonsubject-country supply had increased since 2004 while five

stated that it had not. Most of those describing increased availability cited increased imports from

Vietnam and other Asian countries, sometimes from factories owned by Chinese firms. Although most

producers did not offer a comparison, a few U.S. producers (e.g., ***) described the increase from

Vietnam as not on the same scale as the increase from China witnessed during the original investigation. 

*** stated that it suspects that some Chinese product is being fraudulently transshipped through Vietnam. 

Two producers also named Mexico or South America as potential sources for increased nonsubject

imports.

Multiple U.S. producers stated that Vietnamese exports to the United States increased after the

imposition of duties on Chinese product. Some producers attributed this increase in Vietnamese exports

 26 Parties offered different estimates of the size of the Chinese home market for furniture, with the Gunagdong

Furniture Association estimating total Chinese furniture sales at $65 billion and the AFMC citing the Chinese

National Furniture Association estimate of $36 billion. See prehearing brief of Guandong Furniture Association,

exh. 3, and AFMC’s posthearing brief, p. 51.

II-7
to Chinese factories moving to Vietnam; others identified Vietnam as the new low-cost source for

wooden bedroom furniture. Many producers also described the presence of Vietnamese product in the

U.S. market as adding to pricing pressure and/or reducing the benefits of the antidumping duty order

against China. However, others added that either because of lower Vietnamese quality or volume,

Vietnamese wooden bedroom furniture did not pose as large a risk to U.S. producers as did Chinese

product.27 Producers *** did not see imports from Vietnam as having had much effect on the U.S. market

other than to take market share from Chinese producers. 

Seventy-one importers indicated that the availability of nonsubject-country product had increased

since 2004, mostly citing increased imports from Vietnam and other Asian countries. Some of these

importers added that Chinese factories had moved to Vietnam or that China was no longer competitive

with Vietnam on labor costs. City Furniture stated that the antidumping duty order had accelerated the

transfer of wooden bedroom furniture from China to Vietnam without affecting its purchases of U.S.

product.28 Twenty-five importers answered that the availability of nonsubject-country supply had not

changed since 2004.

Fifteen importers reported no effect or minimal effects on the U.S. market from imports of

wooden bedroom furniture from Vietnam. However, 67 importers did comment on imports from

Vietnam, with their comments falling into four general categories: (1) imports from Vietnam have

displaced imports from China in the U.S. market; (2) imports from Vietnam have increased price pressure

in the U.S. market; (3) imports from Vietnam have allowed importers to meet U.S. consumer demand; and

(4) Chinese factories have moved to Vietnam because of the duty order, with Vietnam improving its

infrastructure and production capabilities. Among more specific comments, *** described U.S. product

as not competitive with Vietnamese product, which it described as having volume and quality control

capabilities that U.S. producers lacked. *** stated that if the antidumping duties were lifted, it did not

believe that factories would move back to China because of lower costs in Vietnam. *** stated that many

AFMC members now source product from Vietnam to replace reduced U.S. capacity. *** reported that

no matter where wooden bedroom furniture is made, it is all designed for the U.S. market. *** added that

the price of Vietnamese product is 15 to 20 percent lower than that of the Chinese product.

Additionally, Fairmont estimated that there were currently 120 furniture finishing lines in

Vietnam, up from 60 in 2004. It stated that 60 of the current 120 finishing lines are dedicated to wooden

bedroom furniture, but that more could switch to wooden bedroom furniture if U.S. demand improved.29

It added that the Vietnamese government does not allow the shipping of old furniture-producing

equipment from China to Vietnam, so that new Chinese-owned factories in Vietnam will likely have new

 27 Vaughan-Bassett described its competition with Vietnamese product as occurring in the middle price ranges for

wooden bedroom furniture, i.e., not in all solid wood product. Hearing transcript, pp. 133-134 (W. Bassett). 

Sandberg stated that it was only aware of two Vietnamese producers of printed paper wooden bedroom furniture,

neither of which exported to the United States. Hearing transcript, p. 52 (Sandberg). Additionally, Stanley stated

that it does not compete in the youth furniture segment with imports from Vietnam, and Johnston stated that it does

not compete in the hospitality segment with imports from Vietnam. Hearing transcript, p. 120 (Prillaman and Berry). 

However, City Furniture stated that it buys “everything” in residential wooden bedroom furniture from Vietnam,

including youth furniture (that Yihua Timber and New Classic also described as available from Vietnam). Hearing

transcript, p. 209, posthearing brief of Guangdong Furniture Association, p. 2, and posthearing brief of Yihua

Timber and New Classic, part II, p. 5. City Furniture also described competition between Chinese and Vietnamese

product in the U.S. market as “fierce” and “aggressive.” Hearing transcript, p. 222 (K. Koenig). Fairmont indicated

that Ashley is starting to produce “intricately carved” high-end product in Vietnam, and City Furniture described the

“best” high-end factory in the world as Vietnam’s Theodore Alexander plant. Hearing transcript, pp. 223 (Tsai) and

260 (Koenig).

 28 Hearing transcript, p. 190 (K. Koenig).

 29 Hearing transcript, pp. 183-184 (Tsai).

II-8
production facilities.30 The FRA described the Vietnamese industry as built by investment from

experienced furniture producers in Singapore, Taiwan, and the United States.31

Among purchasers, 6 reported no effect on the U.S. wooden bedroom furniture market from

imports from Vietnam, while 31 purchasers reported that imports from Vietnam had put downward

pressure on U.S. prices, kept prices stable, and/or increased their presence in the U.S. market. 

Approximately six of these purchasers also stated that imports from Vietnam had not affected U.S.

production because imports from Vietnam had replaced imports from China, while approximately five

purchasers stated that imports from Vietnam did compete with U.S. product. Additionally, other

purchasers noted that imports from Vietnam had supplanted imports from China or kept U.S. prices low

without indicating whether imports from Vietnam competed with U.S. product.32 Others also added that

Vietnamese product quality had become competitive with other countries’ products.

Factors Affecting Supply

U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers were asked if there have been any changes in factors

affecting the supply of U.S.-produced wooden bedroom furniture.33 Forty-two producers, 49 importers,

and 30 purchasers answered No, while 9 producers, 36 importers, and 23 purchasers answered Yes.34 Six

producers cited increased raw material costs (including as a result of U.S. lumber producers exiting their

industry because of the shrinking U.S. furniture industry reducing lumber demand), increased labor and

benefit costs, and/or increased transportation costs. Producer *** noted that the 2010 Chilean earthquake

had increased the price of medium-density fiberboard (MDF). Producer *** said that energy, labor,

Federal regulatory, and modernization costs had resulted in fewer U.S. companies operating case goods

plants. Importers that noted changes in factors affecting supply made statements that changes included

shifts overseas (including by U.S. producers) due to high U.S. labor and regulatory costs, lack of interest

in modernization and re-investment by U.S. producers, and fewer U.S. producers due to U.S. producer

inflexibility.

Purchasers named a wide variety of factors affecting supply. *** named increasing Chinese labor

costs and fluctuating commodity and shipping costs. It added that labor unions make the U.S. furniture

workforce uncompetitive and unwilling to work as hard as its Chinese counterpart. *** noted that

availability of U.S. product has diminished because of factory closings since 2008. *** also noted the

decline in U.S. capacity, attributing it to the proliferation of factories in Vietnam, Malaysia, and other

countries. *** stated that lead times and transportation costs have made U.S. product more attractive. 

*** reported tightening supply of wooden bedroom furniture along with rising raw material,

transportation, and labor costs. Likewise, *** reported increases in transportation costs, with ***

indicating that container rates had risen from $2,889 per container in June 2009 to $4,087 in May 2010. 

*** stated that labor costs have steadily increased since 2004, the number of U.S. suppliers has decreased,

and the number of Canadian suppliers has increased. *** stated that the remaining U.S. factories either

 30 Hearing transcript, p. 235 (Tsai).

 31 Posthearing brief of the FRA, p. 9.

 32 Responses to this question varied widely in specific details, and so categorization here is subject to some

interpretation.

 33 Factors identified as affecting supply include changes in the availability or prices of energy or labor;

transportation conditions; production capacity and/or methods of production; technology; export markets; or

alternative production opportunities that affected the availability of U.S.-produced wooden bedroom furniture in the

U.S. market since 2004.

 34 Some of the importers that answered Yes elaborated on factors affecting the supply of imported wooden

bedroom furniture in the U.S. market, citing factors such as increased shipping costs (due in part to a shortage of

ocean shipping vessels), rising Chinese and Vietnamese labor costs, and exchange rate movements. 

II-9
produce low-quality “paper veneer” product or high-end product that its customers cannot afford. 

Similarly, *** stated that there is no U.S. product available at the price points and quality levels

comparable to what it purchases overseas, but that imports from Asia are not undermining U.S. producers

as there is now so little U.S. production. *** indicated that Vaughan-Bassett had created an express

program for quick shipping. *** stated that the U.S. industry is adversely affected by imports, not other

factors.

Thirty Chinese producers reported changes in factors affecting the supply of Chinese wooden

bedroom furniture in the U.S. market, specifically rising Chinese wages, yuan appreciation since 2004,

shipping container shortages, energy and commodity price increases, and shifting of some production to

Vietnam. Five reported no changes in factors affecting supply. Twenty-one Chinese producers predicted

a decrease in the availability of subject supply, citing the same reasons as well as the antidumping duty

order and decreasing U.S. demand. However, eleven Chinese producers foresaw no change in subject

supply while one predicted that the end of the financial crisis would restore demand.

Forty-four U.S. producers did not anticipate any changes in the availability of U.S.-produced

wooden bedroom furniture (with some qualifying that the antidumping duty order needed to remain in

place). Six firms predicted a decrease, citing the ongoing difficulties of independent U.S. furniture

retailers (major customers for U.S.-produced furniture), increased costs from the new health care law, and

the continuation of the general trend toward decreasing U.S. production. Two firms predicted an

increase, citing potential economic growth and/or firm success.

Sixty-one importers did not anticipate any change in the availability of subject-country wooden

bedroom furniture, some conditioning their answer on the continuation of the order.35 Twenty-six

importers anticipated a decrease in such availability, citing the order (and potential retroactive duties),

movement of production from China to Vietnam or Indonesia, diversion of Chinese supply to Chinese

consumption, increasing Chinese labor costs, the yuan’s appreciation since 2004, and increased shipping

costs. Eight importers anticipated an increase in imports from China.

Twenty-seven purchasers were not aware of any new suppliers since 2004, but 30 were, often

citing Chinese and Vietnamese suppliers or trading companies. Purchasers stated that they hear about

new suppliers through trade shows and contacts from supplier representatives. *** stated that it was

aware of 20-60 new suppliers, some of which were already out of business. *** and *** described the

number of new suppliers as substantial, and *** explained that the furniture industry is fragmented with

low barriers to entry, resulting in many suppliers entering and exiting at any given time.36

Twenty-six purchasers expected new suppliers to enter the U.S. market, and 25 did not. ***

reported its understanding that two investor groups intend to build or purchase factories in Indonesia in

the next year. Other purchasers expected that with revocation of the antidumping duty order, new

Chinese suppliers would enter the U.S. market. Still other purchasers expected new suppliers as part of

the normal course of business in the furniture industry.

 35 When asked about constraints on their shipments to other countries, 30 importers answered that they would not

be able to shift or did not know, often because their company focus was primarily on the U.S. market. An additional

26 importers stated that shifting sales to other countries was difficult because of other factors, such as furniture

designed for the U.S. market or currency issues. *** pointed out that most developed countries have entrenched

furniture producers, making exports to those countries more difficult. Thirteen importers stated that there were no

barriers to shifting their sales to other countries, with two of those stating that such a shift could be accomplished

within a year.

 36 While 13 purchasers had not changed their suppliers since 2004, 45 other purchasers had. Many of those that

had changed often stated that they had a long list of suppliers or that many suppliers had exited the market. ***

indicated that they try not to change suppliers often, but had changed suppliers since 2004. Reasons cited for

changing suppliers included price, quality, look, reliability, customer service, restrictions not to sell in certain

markets, close-out opportunities, and the antidumping duty order.

II-10
Demand

Based on available information, the overall demand for wooden bedroom furniture is likely to

experience moderately small changes in response to changes in price. The main contributing factor is the

lack of close substitute products, tempered by some indication of consumer willingness to treat wooden

bedroom furniture as a discretionary purchase. However, demand remains closely tied to conditions in

the housing market.

Available data indicate that total apparent U.S. consumption of wooden bedroom furniture rose

from 2004 to 2005 before flattening out in 2006 and then decreasing during 2007-09, with at least some

of the decline likely due to the current recession and the difficulties in the housing market.

Demand Characteristics

Thirty-nine producers and 79 importers named residential uses for wooden bedroom 

furniture, eight producers and eight importers named residential and hospitality uses, and five producers

and four importers named just hospitality uses.37 Producers reported that furniture costs were usually a

small percentage of the cost of a residence or hospitality facility.38 Chinese producers also named

residential and hospitality as the end uses of wooden bedroom furniture.

Demand Trends

Questionnaire respondents generally reported fluctuating or decreasing demand since 2004,

describing an increase in demand over 2004-07 and a decrease since then. They frequently described

demand for wooden bedroom furniture as following housing market activity, consumer confidence, and

consumer access to credit.39 Housing starts have shown a steep decline since 2006, and consumer

confidence has been low since 2007.40 The Blue Chip consensus forecast for 2011 housing starts is

740,000, well below normal levels of the last five decades.41

Thirty-six producers reported that demand for wooden bedroom furniture had fluctuated since

2004, while 15 reported that it had decreased. Regardless of whether they answered “fluctuated” or

“decreased,” most described a decrease in demand since late 2006, 2007, or 2008, with many adding that

demand had been strong before then. Producers generally cited the housing market, general economic

conditions, consumer credit, and the hospitality market as leading indicators for wooden bedroom

furniture demand. As all of these have fallen, demand for wooden bedroom furniture has as well. ***

said that general demand for wooden bedroom furniture had fluctuated, but that demand for its products

had fallen due to low-priced imports. *** added that “deflationary” pricing has not yet increased

consumption.

Similarly, 49 importers described U.S. demand as fluctuating since 2004, with 31 describing a

decrease. As with producers, importers that described a fluctuation or decrease in demand cited wider

 37 A few U.S. producers and importers also mentioned furniture rental as an end use.

 38 U.S. producer Johnston described the hospitality market as consisting of sales to new hotels and sales to

refurbish existing hotels. It described competition with imports from China as price-based in both instances. 

Hearing transcript, pp. 47-48 (Berry). Importer Fairmont disagreed, stating that it is a preferred supplier on some

U.S. hotel projects (such as Marriott and the New York Grand Marquis) but does not compete with U.S. producers

with other customers, such as Hampton Inn. It described this competition as not based on price. Hearing transcript,

pp. 240-241 (Tsai).

 39 See also hearing transcript, pp. 69-70 (Prillaman).

 40 Data on housing starts, new homes sold, and consumer confidence are provided in app. H.

 41 Blue Chip Economic Indicators, Vol. 35, No. 10, October 10, 2010.

II-11
economic conditions, especially in housing, but also increased cited competition with imports from

Vietnam and increased shipping costs. Only 7 importers described an increase in demand, and 11

reported no change. Some of these importers were active in non-residential sectors (such as ***) or were

referring to company-specific events (***).

Thirty purchasers stated that U.S. demand for wooden bedroom furniture had fluctuated since

2004, with 9 stating that it had increased, 12 stating that it had decreased, and 6 reporting no change. 

Most purchasers, though, agreed that demand had increased before 2007-08, and then decreased along

with the housing market and the wider economy. A few purchasers noted that their firm had been able to

increase sales (e.g., ***) or had been forced to reduce sales (e.g., ***) despite wider industry trends in the

opposite directions from their own firm’s actions (at different times).

Additionally, 10 Chinese producers described U.S. demand for wooden bedroom furniture as

having fluctuated since 2004, while 22 described it as having decreased and 2 stated that it had not

changed. 

Twenty-two producers anticipated fluctuating U.S. demand for wooden bedroom furniture,

following trends in U.S. economic variables such as employment, housing starts, and consumer

confidence. Twelve producers anticipated increasing demand, and generally cited anticipated economic

recovery as the reason. Fifteen producers did not foresee any change in U.S. demand, and two anticipated

a decrease, citing economic conditions, wooden bedroom furniture lagging other economic variables, and

increasing substitution toward bedroom furniture made of less expensive (and less durable) materials.

Eighteen importers saw future U.S. demand increasing, 45 saw future demand fluctuating, 6 saw

demand decreasing, and 28 saw no change. As with producers, importers’ assessments of future U.S.

demand depended mostly on their assessment of near-term economic growth, especially housing growth. 

On a more specific issue, *** predicted that continuing consumer difficulty in distinguishing newer “nonwood” products from real wood products would lead to decreasing demand for wooden bedroom furniture

made of solid wood.

Fourteen purchasers anticipated an increase in U.S. demand for wooden bedroom furniture, 22

anticipated fluctuating demand, 3 anticipated a decrease in demand, and 16 anticipated no change. These

different veiwpoints generally reflected different assessments of the future health of the U.S. economy,

U.S. retail demand, and the U.S. housing market. Some purchasers saw retail demand rising already 

(albeit slowly, e.g., ***), while others (e.g., *** did not anticipate an economic turnaround for several

more years. Additionally, *** indicated that if shipping costs continued to rise, it would need to move to

lower-cost, lower quality “paper-veneer” bedroom products in order to meet its established price points. 

*** similarly indicated that inflation and economic conditions may drive customers to purchase more

lower-priced “laminate products,” and more promotionally-priced imports.

Chinese producers held a variety of views on future U.S. demand, with 6 expecting an increase, 8

expecting fluctuations, 11 expecting a decrease, and 7 expecting no change, with most expectations based

on forecasts for the overall U.S. economy.

Business Cycles

Forty producers stated that the wooden bedroom furniture market is subject to business cycles

distinctive to wooden bedroom furniture, while 13 stated that it was not. Many producers said that the

business cycle is slower in the summer and busier in the fall and winter, and after tax rebates in spring. 

Many also said that the business cycle is tied to the general economic climate (e.g, credit availability, the

housing market, and consumer confidence). *** reported that low Chinese pricing and the willingness of

consumers to go without new furniture longer than other items characterized the wooden bedroom

furniture market. *** described wooden furniture in general as more severely affected than other

industries during recessions. *** stated that wooden bedroom furniture demand usually follows U.S.

housing demand with a one-year time lag, but that this recession has been worse than usual. *** noted

that increasing home sizes over 2000-08 increased demand, but that now home sizes are decreasing. ***

II-12
characterized the industry as one with high variable costs, high interchangeability with Chinese imports,

and high purchaser focus on lowest price. *** noted that the hospitality industry prefers to order furniture

during its offseason.

Twenty-six producers had not seen any change in the business cycles for wooden bedroom

furniture, but thirteen had, citing the length and severity of this recession as well as competition from

low-priced Chinese imports leaving a smaller U.S. industry.

In contrast to producers, 41 purchasers stated that the wooden bedroom furniture market is not

subject to distinctive business cycles, while 19 thought that it was. Many of those that reported that it

was subject to such cycles were also producers and/or importers, and described the cycle in a similar way

as producers did, i.e., seasonally weak in the summer and following the general economy and housing

trends. Forty-five purchasers indicated that the emergence of new markets had not affected the business

cycle or conditions of competition for wooden bedroom furniture, but twelve stated that they had,

generally citing imports from China and nonsubject countries, the antidumping duty order, and/or a shift

in imports from China to Vietnam and Malaysia. *** added that there has been an increase in online

merchandising, increasing the number of retailers. *** stated that increased Chinese domestic

consumption had reduced Chinese exports.

Substitute Products

Twenty-six producers and six importers reported that there were no substitutes for wooden

bedroom furniture. Fifteen producers and 23 importers listed substitutes for wooden bedroom furniture,

including metal and upholstered furniture, paper density furniture, and sleeper sofas. However, only a

few producers and importers reported that changes in the prices of substitutes had affected the price of

wooden bedroom furniture.42

Sixteen Chinese producers stated that there were no substitutes for wooden bedroom furniture,

while nine named other products including bamboo, rattan, polyurethane, and metal furniture. Those

naming bamboo, rattan, and metal furniture stated that it had no effect on the price of wooden bedroom

furniture, but the producer naming polyurethane furniture stated that it could affect wooden bedroom

furniture prices because it costs 5 percent less. Thirty-one Chinese producers had not seen any changes in

substitutes, and 32 did not anticipate any changes in substitutes.43

Forty-nine responding producers and 95 responding importers had not observed any changes in

substitutes since 2004, and 51 producers and 101 importers did not anticipate any in the future. However,

producers *** cited an increased retailer interest in low-cost printed paper and/or particleboard bedroom

furniture since 2004, and *** expected that increased lumber costs would bring new types of engineered

lumber. Importer *** reported that there were more metal, plastic, and composite products being sold by

lower-priced entrants (such as IKEA and Walmart) in the retail market. *** reported an increase in the

amount of particle board and wood substitutes, with technological advances allowing effective disguise of

the amount of non-wooden fillers used, so that the average consumer does not realize that s/he is not

buying “real wood.” *** described more built-in closets with shelving drawers.

Fifty purchasers reported that there were not any substitute products for wooden bedroom

furniture, but eight named substitutes, including furniture made of upholstery, metal, plastic, rattan, and

paper finish over MDF. None of these purchasers saw the price of these substitutes affecting the price of

wooden bedroom furniture. Fifty purchasers had also not seen any changes in the number or types of

 42 *** stated that “veneered surface” bedroom furniture had affected the price of wooden bedroom furniture, and

*** stated that “laminate-on-particle board” furniture had kept wooden bedroom furniture prices down. Both

references are likely to products that are subject products, not substitutes for wooden bedroom furniture.

 43 ***, which listed polyurethane furniture as a substitute, had seen changes in substitutes and did anticipate

changes in substitutes, but did not elaborate.

II-13
substitutes, although *** stated that it had seen more metal beds and upholstered beds with promotional

prices. Fifty-seven purchasers did not anticipate any changes in substitutes.

SUBSTITUTABILITY ISSUES

The degree of substitution between domestic and imported wooden bedroom furniture depends

upon such factors as price, quality (e.g., reliability of supply, defect rates, etc.), and conditions of sale

(e.g., price discounts/rebates, lead times between order and delivery dates, payment terms, product

services, etc.). Based on available data, staff believes that there is a moderately high degree of

substitution between U.S. and imported wooden bedroom furniture.

U.S. Purchasers’ Marketing Knowledge

Thirty-eight purchasers expressed marketing/pricing knowledge for U.S., Chinese, and

Vietnamese wooden bedroom furniture. Six expressed such knowledge for U.S. and Chinese products

only, and seven for only the U.S. product. Forty-two purchasers reported purchases of U.S. product, 34

reported purchases of Chinese product, 26 reported purchases of Vietnamese product, and 28 reported

purchasers from other countries (including Canada, Indonesia, Italy, Malaysia, Mexico, and the

Philippines).44

Purchasers generally identified their customers as retail consumers that bought wooden bedroom

furniture for residential uses, although five purchasers identified other businesses (e.g., in the hospitality

industry) as their customers. *** identified its customers as lower- to middle-income, while ***

described its customers as female homeowners between 25 and 54 years old with an income of over

$75,000.

Thirty-nine purchasers (plus an additional two that indicated “probably”) had purchased wooden 

bedroom furniture from China before 2004, while 21 had not. Of those 39, 16 reported discontinuing or

reducing their purchases from China because of the antidumping duty order.45 Thirteen reported changing

their purchasing pattern from China for reasons other than the order. Many purchasers indicated that they

had replaced Chinese product with product from other Asian countries, whether or not because of the

order. Among reasons cited for not changing purchasing patterns, *** indicated that it tries to buy

American-made product as much as possible, *** expressed its interest in having a diversified sourcing

strategy, and *** stated that China remains its best source because of the Chinese work ethic.

Twenty purchasers reported that they had increased their purchases of nonsubject product

because of the order, while 14 indicated that they had changed their purchasing patterns from nonsubject

countries for other reasons, including U.S. demand changes, increased production and inventories in

nonsubject countries, lower prices in nonsubject countries, and a higher euro (as discouraging imports

from Italy). *** reported buying more *** from nonsubject countries ***, as ***. Ten purchasers

reported no change in their purchases of wooden bedroom furniture from nonsubject countries since 2004.

Purchasers were asked how relative levels of their purchases from the United States, China,

Vietnam, and other countries had changed since 2004.46 Their answers are summarized in table II-2. 

 44 Not all purchasers provided purchase data.

 45 One purchaser, ***, reported shifting its purchases back to U.S.-based manufacturers because of the

antidumping duty order.

 46 Additionally, purchasers were asked if they had purchased from only one country, why they had done so. Only

five purchasers did so, with one citing loyalty to U.S. suppliers and three others being U.S. producers that purchased

*** to supplement their domestic production.

II-14
Table II-2

Wooden bedroom furniture: Change in purchasers’ relative levels of purchases from different

countries

* * * * * * *

Certification

Twenty-two purchasers required that their suppliers be certified or prequalified for all or virtually

all purchases, while 37 did not. Some of those that did not (e.g., ***) reported that they were familiar

with their suppliers and their clients’ opinions of their suppliers’ products, and so did not need a formal

qualification process. Those that required qualification examine product quality, factory standards,

supplier profits, supplier capacity, price, payment terms, and delivery. Regulations 

played a role in certification, with some purchasers mentioning compliance with Consumer Product

Safety Commission (CPSC ) regulations, the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), and

the Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) program as qualification factors. 

Additionally, forestry issues such as forest traceability, forest stewardship council certified wood, the

Lacey Act,47 and others were cited as qualification factors by ***. For six purchasers, qualification can

take 14 days or fewer, but nine purchasers required 30-90 days, and one required 180 days. Thirty-seven

purchasers stated that no suppliers had failed to qualify since 2004, but seven stated that there had been at

least one failure.

Factors Affecting Purchasing Decisions

Thirty-eight purchasers stated that buying a product that is produced in the United States was not

an important factor in their purchases of wooden bedroom furniture. Twelve stated that purchasing U.S.

product was important because of customer requirements, while nine stated that it was important for other

reasons, such as dependability and domestic preference. One purchaser stated that laws or regulations

sometimes made purchasing U.S. product an important factor in their purchases. At the hearing, AFMC

described some consumer preference (in both the residential and hospitality segments) for U.S.-made

product, but not strong enough to result in a large price premium.48

When purchasers were asked how often they made purchasing decisions based on the producer of

wooden bedroom furniture, 14 answered “always,” 10 answered “usually,” 15 answered “sometimes,”

and 20 answered “never.” Purchasers examined price, quality, brand name, reputation, reliability, and

delivery, as well as the financial stability of the supplier, when making purchasing decisions.

When asked how often their customers made purchasing decisions based on the producer of

wooden bedroom furniture, 22 purchasers answered “never,” 31 answered “sometimes,” four answered

“usually,” and one answered “always.” Some purchasers reported that their retail customers do not know 

the identity of the manufacturer, but only the name of the seller (e.g., ***), and often purchase primarily

on price. Other purchasers indicated that name brands are sometimes important to some customers. ***

estimated that about 5 percent of customers select particular producers. *** indicated that some

customers have a preference for U.S. product. Purchasers also reported that, in the hospitality segment,

the hotel chain establishes the price, quality, and reputation it wants for the wooden bedroom furniture

that its suppliers purchase.

 47 At the hearing, counsel for Ashley described the “more onerous” import burden of the Lacey Act as the

declaration requirement, which has not yet gone into effect. Hearing transcript, pp. 283-284 (Grimson).

 48 Hearing transcript, pp. 140-141 (Berry, Caperton, Copeland, and Prillaman).

II-15
Purchasers were asked if their firm made purchasing decisions based on the country of origin of 

wooden bedroom furniture. Six answered “always,” 5 answered “usually,” 21 answered “sometimes,”

and 28 answered “never.” Price, lead time, quality, freight costs, particular designs, supplier

diversification, and domestic preference were all reasons why purchasers might base a purchasing

decision on country of origin.

Purchasers were asked if their customers made purchasing decisions based on the country of

origin of the wooden bedroom furniture that they purchase. One answered “always,” 3 answered

“usually,” 26 answered “sometimes,” and 29 answered “never.” Several purchasers reported that their

customers, or some of their customers, prefer to buy U.S.-made product. This advantage was described

by *** as “slight,” and *** estimated that the share of customers preferring U.S. product was less than 5

percent. *** stated that its hospitality customers have sometimes avoided Chinese product because of the

antidumping duty order, but never previously considered country-of-origin.

Table II-3 summarizes the purchasers’ responses concerning the top three reported purchasing

decision factors. As indicated in the table, the most important factors were price, quality, and look.

Table II-3

Wooden bedroom furniture: Ranking of factors used in purchasing decisions, as reported by U.S.

purchasers

Factor

Number of firms reporting

Number one factor Number two factor Number three factor

Price/cost/value 22 14 14

Quality1 13 21 4

Look/style/design 10 5 1

Reputation/relationship/

traditional supplier 5 2 1

Availability 3 5 12

Consistency 3 3 2

Preapproval/customer

preference 2 1 1

Reliability/delivery 0 4 10

1

 Quality means look, finish, construction, durability, global regulatory requirements, retail customer desirability,

meeting industry standards, percent of moisture, type of wood, ease of assembly, and functionality.

Note.––Design exclusivity received one vote as the number one factor. Other factors receiving one vote as the

number two factor include finish options, meeting standards, discounts, location, and service. Other factors

receiving at least one vote as the number three factor include credit terms (four votes), range (two votes), matching

pieces, and durability.

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

Purchasers were asked to rate the importance of 15 specified factors in their purchasing decisions

(table II-4). Product consistency, quality meeting industry standards, reliability of supply, availability,

delivery time, and price were the most often characterized as very important.

II-16
Table II-4

Wooden bedroom furniture: Importance of purchasing factors, as reported by U.S. purchasers

Factor

Number of firms reporting

Very important

Somewhat

important Not important

Availability 47 11 0

Delivery terms 35 20 2

Delivery time 46 10 2

Discounts offered 24 27 7

Extension of credit 12 14 32

Price 45 13 0

Minimum quantity requirements 16 30 12

Packaging 30 23 5

Product consistency 51 6 0

Quality meets industry standards 51 5 2

Quality exceeds industry standards 30 24 4

Product range 10 30 17

Reliability of supply 48 9 1

Technical support/service 22 29 7

U.S. transportation costs 25 21 12

Other1 12 0 0

 1 Other factors mentioned included style, brand, finish options, U.S. entity, duty order, accurate order tracking,

proprietary design, and meeting specifications.

Note.–Not every purchaser ranked every factor.

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

Purchasers were asked for a country-by-country comparison on the same factors (table II-5). A

majority of purchasers found U.S. wooden bedroom furniture to be superior to Chinese and Vietnamese

product in three factors, comparable in seven factors, and inferior in price (i.e., the U.S. product is higher

priced). A majority of purchasers also found Chinese and Vietnamese product to be comparable in every

listed factor.

II-17
Table II-5

Wooden bedroom furniture: Comparisons between U.S.-produced and subject and nonsubject

countries, as reported by U.S. purchasers

Factor

U.S. vs.

China

U.S. vs.

Vietnam

U.S. vs.

Other1

China vs.

Vietnam

China vs.

Other

Vietnam

vs. Other

SC I SC I SC I SC I SC I SC I

Availability 15 6 9 18 8 8 16 20 1 10 23 5 2 16 5 1 8 2

Delivery terms 19 22 0 17 17 0 19 17 1 1 37 0 1 19 3 0 10 1

Delivery time 30 8 2 30 3 1 24 11 2 13 24 1 1 17 5 0 9 2

Discounts offered 4 28 7 2 26 6 4 29 3 2 34 1 1 20 1 0 11 0

Extension of credit 12 27 0 10 24 0 11 24 0 1 35 0 2 18 1 0 10 0

Price 2 7 32 1 4 29 3 9 25 3 27 8 6 13 4 2 9 0

Minimum quantity

requirements 24 15 1 20 13 1 16 19 2 1 37 0 1 18 4 0 10 1

Packaging 3 33 5 2 28 4 1 31 5 1 37 0 2 21 0 0 11 0

Product consistency 6 31 4 5 27 2 4 28 5 5 32 1 4 16 3 0 11 0

Quality meets industry

standards 4 34 2 3 30 1 2 32 2 3 33 2 2 18 2 0 11 0

Quality exceeds industry

standards 4 35 2 3 30 1 3 32 2 3 33 1 2 18 3 0 11 0

Product range 4 22 15 4 16 14 9 20 8 12 22 4 10 12 1 4 7 0

Reliability of supply 18 19 3 13 18 3 11 22 4 7 28 3 4 14 5 0 9 2

Technical support/service 14 24 2 12 21 1 13 23 1 4 33 1 3 15 5 0 11 0

U.S. transportation costs 16 20 4 14 15 4 17 17 3 5 28 4 2 16 3 0 10 1

Other2 014112012140120010

 1 Other countries mentioned included Brazil, Canada, “Europe,” Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, the Philippines, and

Thailand. Vietnam was compared mostly to Malaysia among other countries.

 2

 Other factors mentioned included look (design), construction, vendor flexibility, design exclusivity, and perceived

value. Purchasers found the U.S. product to be inferior to the Chinese product in flexibility, design exclusivity, and

perceived value, but comparable in look.

Note.--S=first listed country’s product is superior; C=both countries’ products are comparable; I=first listed country’s

product is inferior. A rating of superior means that price/U.S. transportation cost is generally lower. For example, if a

firm reported “U.S. superior,” it meant that the price of U.S. product was generally lower than the price of the

imported product.

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

II-18
Fifty purchasers said that neither they nor their customers ever specifically order wooden

bedroom furniture from one country in particular over other possible sources of supply. However, nine

other purchasers stated that they did, citing high-quality furniture from Malaysia and Vietnam, U.S.

product for furniture to be leased, and better availability for U.S. and Canadian furniture. Other

purchasers indicated that some purchasers prefer U.S. product.

Asked if certain grades, sizes, or types of wooden bedroom furniture were available from a single

source, 50 purchasers answered No and 9 answered Yes. Among those answering Yes, *** noted that

wood species availability varies internationally, with South Asia tending to use rubberwood and acacia

while oak, pine, and poplar are more popular in the United States. *** also noted that a few wood types

may only be available from particular countries. *** stated that the more complicated bedroom sets

previously produced in China have been hard to locate in other countries. *** stated that it can only

secure the grade, type, and size it wants from suppliers in South Carolina. 

Purchasers were asked how often they purchased the lowest priced wooden bedroom furniture. 

Six answered “always,” 17 answered “usually,” 28 answered “sometimes,” and 8 answered “never.”

Forty-five purchasers also indicated that they purchased wooden bedroom furniture from one source

although a comparable product was available at a lower price from another source. Reasons given

include transportation times or costs (with several purchasers noting recent difficulty in securing

transportation from Asia), reliability, supplier relationship, payment terms, minimum order size, and look. 

Lead Times

Seventeen producers sold the majority of their wooden bedroom furniture out of inventory, while

30 sold the majority produced-to-order.49 Lead times usually ranged from one week to a month for sales

from inventory. For sales produced to order, lead times usually ranged from one to three months. Lead

times were three days to one month for the 49 importers that reported a plurality of their sales out of their

own inventories, while lead times were one to three months for the 14 importers that reported a plurality

of their sales out of a foreign producer’s inventories. For the 22 importers selling a plurality of their

product produced to order, lead times ranged from two to four months.

Among Chinese producers, three reported that 60 percent or more of their sales were from 

inventory, while 30 reported that 85 percent or more of their sales were produced to order. The lead time

for sales from inventory was usually less than two weeks, while the lead time for product produced to

order was usually 45 days to 12 weeks.

Comparison of U.S.-Produced and Imported Wooden Bedroom Furniture

Producers and importers were asked if certain types or styles of wooden bedroom furniture

imported from China are not produced in the United States. Forty-four producers answered No, but four

answered Yes, citing labor-intensive features such as carving, fancy face veneers, and complex finishes.50

*** also cited regulatory costs and taxes as costs of producing such products in the United States. ***

stated that it imports certain product types (e.g., solid woods, heavily carved pieces, and marble tops) but

produces solely *** wooden bedroom furniture in the United States. *** stated that it did not produce

*** wooden bedroom furniture in the United States, instead importing such products from China.

Sixty importers answered No, but 31 answered Yes, citing furniture that is heavily carved, uses

traditional joinery techniques, has exotic veneers, or contains bamboo or marble. These importers stated

 49 Two additional producers split their sales evenly between sales from inventory and sales produced-to-order.

 50 On the other hand, Vaughan-Bassett stated that it had invested about $1 million in computer controlled

solid wood carvers that can replicate the work of hand carvers. However, it added that it rarely sees carved product

in showrooms of low- to middle-price range product. Hearing transcript, pp. 108 and 144 (W. Bassett).

II-19
that there were not enough skilled U.S. workers or that wages and other costs were too high to produce

some of these products in the United States. *** added that contemporary style bedrooms are only

produced in Asia and Europe, and *** added that modern-style Scandinavian- and Italian-style furniture

was not produced in the United States. *** stated that most current mid-market residential bedrooms,

featuring low-grade solid wood and extensive use of wood veneers, were never produced in the United

States. *** responded that the Chinese product range is wider, and U.S. producers are not as flexible.

Additionally, producers and importers were asked if there were certain types or styles of wooden

bedroom furniture imported from China that are copies of wooden bedroom furniture that they used to

produce in the United States. Twelve producers said No, but 33 said Yes, with some citing specific

styles, while many others stated that almost all product produced in China and Asia has been copied from

U.S. producers. *** attached copies of their products that they said had been copied in China. ***

expressed surprise at visits to its website from China despite not having any Chinese customers. 

Additionally, Stanley described competing with a Chinese supplier of youth bedroom furniture that told

Stanley’s customers that it could provide “Stanley designs at China prices.”51

Importers differed, with 62 answering No and 18 answering Yes. Those answering Yes cited

Louis-Philippe and Cottage styles. *** stated that it now imports transitional, cottage, and other styles

that do not require labor-intensive features ***. Similarly, *** stated that all of its imports are copies of

products that are or were produced in its U.S. manufacturing facilities. *** noted that its blended strategy

means that it commonly produces part of an order in the United States and then outsources copies to

China and elsewhere.

In order to determine whether U.S.-produced wooden bedroom furniture can generally be used in

the same applications as imports from China, Vietnam, and other countries, U.S. producers, U.S.

importers, and U.S. purchasers were asked whether the products can “always,” “frequently,”

“sometimes,” or “never” be used interchangeably. As shown in table II-6, most respondents answered

that wooden bedroom furniture from different countries was always or frequently interchangeable. 

However, a number of importers and purchasers disagreed and found products to be only sometimes or

never interchangeable.

 51 Hearing transcript, p. 40 (Prillaman).

II-20
Table II-6

Wooden bedroom furniture: Perceived interchangeability between wooden bedroom furniture

produced in the United States and in other countries, by country pairs

Country pair

Number of U.S. 

producers reporting

Number of U.S.

importers reporting

Number of U.S.

purchasers reporting

AFSNAFSNAFSN

U.S. vs. subject countries:

 U.S. vs. China 39 9 4 0 45 17 16 9 21 6 11 10

U.S. vs. nonsubject country comparisons:

 U.S. vs. Vietnam 36 8 4 1 41 13 17 9 20 3 12 8

 U.S. vs. Other nonsubject 31 6 6 0 37 11 15 8 15 5 10 9

Subject country vs. nonsubject country comparisons:

 China vs. Vietnam 36 7 1 0 41 20 13 6 21 10 7 9

 China vs. Other nonsubject 31 5 4 0 36 14 15 6 19 9 6 9

 Vietnam vs. Other nonsubject 31 5 4 0 34 15 15 6 18 9 7 9

Note.--A = Always, F = Frequently, S = Sometimes, N = Never.

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

In additional comments, producer *** stated that U.S. and imported product is always

interchangeable except when the buyer specifically wants a U.S.-made product. *** described wooden

bedroom furniture as “infinitely interchangeable” among countries. *** said that it produces wooden

bedroom furniture using printed paper and MDF or particle board, and that such production might be

difficult in other countries. *** described Vietnamese and Chinese product as interchangeable with

Malaysian product but not Indonesian. It maintained that while U.S. producers could make many of the

same products as from these other countries, the labor costs would make such production infeasible. ***

said that Vietnamese production is sometimes inferior to U.S. production in terms of quality. 

Among purchasers, *** stated that comparisons are more meaningful for individual factories than

for countries, as all countries have both “disappointing” as well as state-of-the-art factories. *** stated

that U.S. product is not interchangeable with Chinese and Vietnamese product because of the large price

difference, but that low-priced particle wooden bedroom furniture from the United States might be

interchangeable with Canadian product. *** described U.S. quality as sometimes higher than Vietnamese

quality. *** stated that while Chinese and Vietnamese product is interchangeable, the lack of availability

of U.S. product makes it not interchangeable with product from those countries. *** also cited the lack of

product range available from U.S. producers, and *** noted that carved product is not available from the

United States. Several other purchasers described differences in finishes as limiting interchangeability.

Among importers, *** described quality, color, and price as sometimes limiting its ability to use

products interchangeably. *** described factory capabilities, wood species, price, labor training, and

ocean freight rates as important factors affecting interchangeability, while *** named scale, room size,

and features. 

Among importers making comparisons, *** noted that imports are made of rubber wood while

U.S. product is made from domestic wood. *** stated that in the custom hospitality segment, different

countries can make the same pieces, but quality, finish, and construction can vary. *** stated that U.S.-

produced furniture is not competitive due to regulations, more expensive materials, and higher wages. 

*** also cited higher U.S. labor costs as well as some specific substrates that make U.S. product not costcompetitive. *** cited high U.S. labor costs and added that Asian furniture manufacturers are more

equipped with state-of-the-art machinery. It continued that Chinese factories are more experienced than

Vietnamese factories, although Chinese labor is more expensive, making China less competitive in

II-21
promotional price products. Similarly, *** described Vietnamese product as competitive in the low- and

middle-end markets in the United States, while China can compete in more upscale markets as well. ***

agreed somewhat, describing U.S. product as high-end product made of traditional hardwood (e.g., oak,

maple, cherry) while Chinese and Vietnamese product was for lower-end markets and made with lowergrade solid wood (e.g., rubber, mango, poplar) and veneers. *** stated that Vietnamese production is

sometimes inferior to U.S. production in terms of quality. *** described U.S. product as better for solid

wood, Chinese product as better for highly ornate styles and complex finishes, and Vietnam and Malaysia

as better for smaller scale and simpler styles. *** stated that China is the only country that can produce

the heavily-carved product that they sell. *** stated that a lot of nonsubject product is less diverse than

product from the United States, China, and Vietnam, making it less competitive outside its niches. ***

stated that limited U.S. furniture production limited interchangeability with imports.

In order to determine the significance of differences other than price between U.S.-produced

wooden bedroom furniture and imports from China, Vietnam, and other countries, U.S. producers and

U.S. importers were asked how often differences other than price were a significant factor in their sales or

purchases of wooden bedroom furniture. As shown in table II-7, a majority of producers and importers

found that factors other than price were sometimes or never a significant factor in their sales of wooden

bedroom furniture.

Table II-7

Wooden bedroom furniture: Differences other than price between wooden bedroom furniture

produced in the United States and in other countries, by country pairs

Country pair

Number of U.S. producers

reporting

Number of U.S. importers

reporting

AF S N A F S N

U.S. vs. subject countries:

 U.S. vs. China 4 5 27 13 17 15 24 20

U.S. vs. nonsubject country comparisons:

 U.S. vs. Vietnam 3 5 26 13 11 14 26 19

 U.S. vs. Other nonsubject 2 5 24 8 11 11 25 15

Subject country vs. nonsubject country comparisons:

 China vs. Vietnam 1 5 26 11 8 6 34 21

 China vs. Other nonsubject 0 4 25 7 5 8 28 20

 Vietnam vs. Other nonsubject 0 4 24 9 4 7 33 20

Note.--A = Always, F = Frequently, S = Sometimes, N = Never.

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

In additional comments, *** described trying to compete with imports in terms of quality and

features, but being unable to compete on price. *** said that quality, service, style, and/or transportation

costs can differentiate products. *** stated that foreign producers are able to use finishes that cannot be

used in the United States due to Federal regulations. 

Among importers, *** described its product as high-end and competing on craftsmanship,

quality, and environmental responsibility. *** named transportation, technical abilities, style, and raw

material availability as important factors. *** stated that it placed a high priority on its relationship with

particular factories. *** named capacity, warehousing capability, and technical ability as important,

while *** named freight costs and transportation times as factors. *** named quality as an important

factor, and *** added that Chinese quality and customer service were superior to those for U.S. product. 

II-22
*** described itself as first considering style, quality, and price, but sometimes choosing U.S. product for

reliability of supply.

Importer *** stated that product range and technical support are superior in China and Vietnam,

which can also execute more intricate designs. Similarly, *** described U.S. factories as only able to

produce a limited range of designs, usually simple and contemporary, while Asian factories could produce

a wider range. *** stated that initially China was the only country that could produce ornate carved

product, but that since 2006, most Asian countries can produce similar product. *** described U.S.

producers as unable to provide heavily carved product, unwilling to work with its specifications, and

producing a “cheap” “paper veneer” product. *** also stated that it could not offer heavily carved

product made in the United States at the same price point as such product made in other countries.

As can be seen from table II-8, a majority of responding purchasers generally reported that U.S.,

Chinese, and nonsubject-country wooden bedroom furniture “usually” meets minimum quality

specifications. 

Table II-8

Wooden bedroom furniture: Ability to meet minimum quality specifications, by source

Country

Number of firms reporting1

Always Usually Sometimes Never

 United States 18 33 4 1

 China (subject) 12 39 1 1

 China (nonsubject) 9 32 1 1

 Vietnam 6 30 1 0

 Nonsubject2 7 38 0 0

 1 Purchasers were asked how often domestically produced or imported wooden bedroom furniture meets

minimum quality specifications for their own or their customers’ uses. 2 “Nonsubject” includes Brazil, Canada, Europe, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand. The seven

always” responses were for Brazil, Canada, Indonesia (two times), and Malaysia (three times).

Source: Compiled from responses to Commission questionnaires.

Sales within Price Ranges

U.S. producers and importers were asked to provide the total value of sales of queen-sized beds 

and 6-9 drawer dressers produced or imported from China by their firms in 2009, within fifty-dollar price

ranges from $0 to $1,000, and above $1,000.52 Not all producers and importers provided data, and some

did not provide values. The data provided are summarized below in figure II-1. The large value of sales

of 6-9 drawer dressers in the *** price range for U.S. producers is due to ***.

Figure II-1

Sales price ranges for two wooden bedroom furniture products produced in the United States and

imported from China, 2009

* * * * * * *

 52 Importers were asked to exclude data for products produced by Markor and Lacquer Craft.

II-23
ELASTICITY ESTIMATES

This section discusses elasticity estimates; parties were encouraged to comment on these

estimates in their prehearing or posthearing briefs.

U.S. Supply Elasticity53

The domestic supply elasticity for wooden bedroom furniture measures the sensitivity of the

quantity supplied by U.S. producers to changes in the U.S. market price of wooden bedroom furniture. 

The elasticity of domestic supply depends on several factors including the level of excess capacity, the

ease with which producers can alter capacity, producers’ ability to shift to production of other products,

the existence of inventories, and the availability of alternate markets for U.S.-produced wooden bedroom

furniture. In the prehearing report, staff analysis of these factors indicated that U.S. producers had

substantial ability to increase or decrease shipments to the U.S. market; an estimate in the range of 3 to 6

was initially suggested. The AFMC described domestic supply elasticity as far more elastic due to higher

inventories and lower capacity utilization levels than in 2004, and due to the high variable cost nature of

the industry. Staff is revising its estimate to 5 to 10.

U.S. Demand Elasticity

The U.S. demand elasticity for wooden bedroom furniture measures the sensitivity of the overall

quantity demanded to a change in the U.S. market price of wooden bedroom furniture. This estimate

depends on factors discussed earlier such as the existence, availability, and commercial viability of

substitute products, as well as the component share of the wooden bedroom furniture in the production of

any downstream products. Based on the available information in the prehearing report, staff estimated

that the aggregate demand for wooden bedroom furniture is likely to be moderately inelastic to

moderately elastic; a range of -0.5 to -1.5 was suggested. In their prehearing brief, the AFMC described

wooden bedroom furniture as tightly tied to the residential housing demand and new hospitality

construction.54 Noting these points, staff is revising its estimate to -0.5 to -1.0, or moderately inelastic.

Substitution Elasticity

The elasticity of substitution depends upon the extent of product differentiation between the

domestic and imported products.55 Product differentiation, in turn, depends upon such factors as quality

(e.g., chemistry, appearance, etc.) and conditions of sale (e.g., availability, sales terms/discounts/

promotions, etc.). Based on available information, the elasticity of substitution between U.S.-produced

wooden bedroom furniture and imported wooden bedroom furniture is likely to be in the range of 3 to 6.

ECONOMIC JOURNAL ARTICLES

The Guangdong Furniture Association Trade Committee submitted two economic journal articles

that analyzed the effects of the antidumping investigation and order on U.S. imports of wooden bedroom

furniture. Both articles, “Intervention analysis of the antidumping investigation on wooden bedroom

 53 A supply function is not defined in the case of a non-competitive market.

 54 See AFMC’s prehearing brief, pp. 8-10.

 55 The substitution elasticity measures the responsiveness of the relative U.S. consumption levels of the subject

imports and the domestic like products to changes in their relative prices. This reflects how easily purchasers switch

from the U.S. product to the subject products (or vice versa) when prices change.

II-24
furniture imports from China”56 and “Analysis of Import Demand for Wooden Beds in the U.S.”57

examine what the authors term “investigation effects.” By this term, the authors mean that one would

expect to see three stages of effects from an antidumping investigation and duty order: first, an initial

increase in import values when the investigation is announced; second, a decrease in import values when

the affirmative preliminary determination is reached; and third, a slower increase in import values if the

duties are ineffective.

“Intervention analysis” uses Harmonized Tariff System (HTS) data for import prices (average

unit values) and values of wooden beds, and determines that the data show the predicted effects of a rise

in Chinese import values upon announcement of the investigation and a fall in Chinese import values

upon announcement of the preliminary affirmative determination. However, the final implementation of

duties in January 2005 did not generate a negative effect on imports from China. The authors speculate

that the lack of significant effects may be due to low duty rates. The authors also found that the

antidumping action produced trade diversion effects (i.e., increased imports of wooden bedroom

furniture) from six major competing countries (Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Italy, Malaysia, and Vietnam),

but that those effects were smaller than the effects on imports from China.

“Analysis of Import Demand” estimates several price elasticities for Chinese and nonsubject

country imports. Again, the data for prices (average unit values) and quantities are drawn from the HTS.

The results include the finding that imports from China are relatively price inelastic, i.e., less sensitive to

changes in their own prices than imports from other countries are to changes in their own prices. The

authors characterize this finding as showing that imports from China are stable regardless of trade

intervention policy. 

Parties disagreed over how to interpret the articles’ findings. The Guangdong Furniture

Association Trade Committee quotes extensively from the authors’ findings, including that low duties

have had little effect on imports of Chinese product and imports from nonsubject countries having

substituted for imports from China.58 On the other hand, the AFMC noted that the studies do show an

effect from the duties, but that the authors do not examine the 2007 administrative reviews nor look at

other relevant data such as those covering the domestic industry’s operations.59

 56 Authors are Yang Wan, Changyou Sun, and Donald Grebner. See prehearing brief of Guangdong Furniture

Association Trade Committee, exh. 4.

 57 Authors are Yang Wan, Changyou Sun, and Donald Grebner. See prehearing brief of Guangdong Furniture

Association Trade Committee, exh. 5.

 58 See prehearing brief of Guangdong Furniture Association Trade Committee, pp. 14-16.

 59 Hearing transcript, pp. 131-132, and AFMC’s posthearing brief, pp. 43-47. Staff also notes that the authors’

finding that “wooden beds from these countries {China, Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Vietnam} are far

from perfect substitutes” can be compared to information presented in tables II-5, II-6, and II-7. 

II-25

PART III: CONDITION OF THE U.S. INDUSTRY

OVERVIEW

Background

Since the Commission’s 2004 investigation concerning wooden bedroom furniture from China,

the U.S. industry has experienced various changes. Several firms have gone out of business, and there

have been numerous plant closings and production curtailments, as well as some plant openings,

reopenings, or expansions. Those events are detailed in tables III-1 through III-3.

In the current review, the Commission issued U.S. producer questionnaires to 167 firms identified

in the original investigation, or identified by parties in the responses to the notice of institution, as

possible producers of wooden bedroom furniture in the United States. Fifty firms (including all known

large producers) provided the Commission with completed U.S. producer questionnaires.1

 The list of

these firms, each company’s position on continuation of the antidumping duty order, headquarters

location, related and/or affiliated firms, and share of reported production of wooden bedroom furniture in

2009, is presented in Part I. 

Changes Experienced in Operations

U.S. wooden bedroom furniture producers were asked to indicate whether their firms had

experienced any plant openings, relocations, expansions, acquisitions, consolidations, closures, prolonged

shutdowns or production curtailments, revised labor agreements, investments abroad, or any other change

in the character of their operations or organization relating to the production of wooden bedroom furniture

since 2004. There were several reported changes in wooden bedroom furniture operations since 2004,

including two plant openings (*** and ***), as well as one partial plant re-opening (***). In addition,

*** reopened a plant formerly closed by another furniture manufacturer, (***). Two firms, ***, reported

opening plants in Vietnam. There were 36 wooden bedroom furniture plant closings in the United States

since 2004. Tables III-1 through III-3 summarize important industry events that have taken place since

2004. 

Table III-1

Wooden bedroom furniture: Plant openings, expansions, and investments abroad since 2004

* * * * * * *

Table III-2

Wooden bedroom furniture: Company and plant closings, production shutdowns/curtailments,

and bankruptcies since 2004

* * * * * * *

Table III-3

Wooden bedroom furniture: Acquisitions and consolidations since 2004

* * * * * * *

 1 Five firms confirmed they have not produced wooden bedroom furniture since 2004; 7 producers provided

incomplete data responses; 80 firms did not respond to the Commission’s questionnaire; and 25 questionnaires were

returned as undeliverable by FedEx. 

III-1
In addition to the industry events detailed in tables III-1 through III-3, the *** shifted all

remaining production to the *** facility in *** in June 2009. Four firms reported revised labor

agreements. Twelve firms reported other changes in operations relating to technology or capital

investments, including investments in computed numerically controlled (CNC) machinery, finishing lines,

routers, saws, sanders, a CRM/ERP system, and a boiler. One firm, ***, switched from a blended

(domestic and import) business to a domestic business for one of its wooden bedroom furniture lines.

Anticipated Changes in Operations

The Commission asked whether domestic producers anticipate any changes in the character of

their operations relating to the production of wooden bedroom furniture in the future. Nine producers

anticipate changes in the future. Specifically, *** has replaced some of its wooden bedroom furniture

capacity with other products such as entertainment centers and home office furniture, since (as it stated)

sales volume has been decreasing and will continue to decrease significantly. *** reported that it will

continue layoffs until the economy improves, but it will keep current machinery and capacity in place. 

*** will launch a new marketing strategy that it anticipates will generate an additional $5 to $10 million

in sales per year. However, capacity will remain the same. *** reported the opening of a new plant,

which will increase production by *** percent in 2010 and 2011. *** is slowly increasing production. 

*** entered the rent-to-rent market in 2010 and is adding a new finishing method to its manufacturing

operations, requiring more durable high pressure laminates and lacquer spraying capabilities. ***

reported plans to sell furniture over the internet in 2011. *** anticipates purchasing a CNC router in

2011, and *** will be adding new bedroom collections to its product line to try and improve its overall

sales volume, as well as attempting to enter the hospitality market.

The Commission requested that domestic producers provide a copy of their business plans or

other internal documents that describe, discuss, or analyze expected future market conditions for wooden

bedroom furniture. Two producers submitted information on their business plans, and all other producers

stated that they do not have a business plan or any internal documents regarding market conditions for

wooden bedroom furniture. *** business plan indicated that it has a blended manufacturing strategy

including a mix of domestic production with production sourced offshore, primarily in ***. Its domestic

production facilities are located in ***. *** stated that the unpredictable nature of the economy drives

many of the long-term decisions of its company; it stated that furniture manufacturers must plan multiple

strategies, then implement the best plan based on the economic conditions that prevail and be willing to

change as conditions warrant.

Settlement Agreements

Each year in the anniversary month of an antidumping duty order any domestic interested party

can request that Commerce review the entries of subject merchandise from specific exporters/foreign

producers covered by the order, and any exporter/foreign producer and any importer can request a review

of its own shipments and entries.2

 A request for an administrative review can be withdrawn with no

reasons given. Twenty U.S. producers3

 reported that their firms4 received settlement payments, directly

or indirectly, from Chinese producer/exporters or U.S. importers of wooden bedroom furniture from

China in connection with an agreement to withdraw a request to initiate, or avoid a request to initiate, an

administrative review by Commerce.

 2 19 C.F.R. § 351.213(b).

 3

 Those firms are ***.

 4

 Including any affiliate, representative, or group to which their firm belongs.

III-2
The Commission asked U.S. producers to provide details as to whether they have received any

settlement payments since 2004, and to list the amounts and rates from each entity. All 20 producers

indicated that ***. The reported net values of settlement agreement funds received by producers were

$0.3 million in 2006, $3.4 million in 2007, $4.4 million in 2008, and $5.2 million in 2009. The total

reported gross settlement amounts received by the AFMC were $*** in 2006, $*** in 2007, $*** in

2008, and $*** in 2009. Sixteen firms indicated that their companies ***. Nineteen firms indicated that

they do not have information on individual settlements, including whether payments were received from

Chinese suppliers or non-suppliers, or the applicable annual rate of such payments. 

One producer, ***, indicated that amounts of individual settlements are highly confidential. The

company further explained that ***.5

 The AFMC contends that settlement agreements of administrative

reviews conducted by Commerce have no relevance to any issue before the Commission.6

 Respondents

contend that settlement agreements affect the conditions of competition in the wooden bedroom furniture

industry and that payments received by U.S. producers have not been reinvested in domestic production.7

Another contention is that because of settlements, AFMC members have no incentive to increase their

domestic production of wooden bedroom furniture.8

U.S. CAPACITY, PRODUCTION, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION

U.S. producers’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization data for wooden bedroom furniture 

are presented in table III-4.9

 Individual producer data can be found in appendix F. Total reported wooden

bedroom furniture capacity increased slightly in 2005 and then decreased in each year from 2006-09. 

U.S. production of wooden bedroom furniture decreased in each year from 2004 to 2009, most notably by

14 percent in 2007 and by 14 percent in 2009. Capacity utilization remained above 71 percent from 2004

to 2006, then dropped to 58 percent by 2009. Much of the decrease in production and production

capacity can be attributed to the closing of wooden bedroom furniture plants since 2004.

U.S. producers supporting continuation of the antidumping duty order represented 46 percent of

production by quantity in 2004, 45 percent in 2005, 44 percent in 2006, 43 percent in 2007 and 2008, and

41 percent in 2009. U.S. producers supporting continuation of the order represented 64 percent of the

value of total shipments in 2004 and 2005, 61 percent in 2006, 60 percent in 2007, 59 percent in 2008,

and 55 percent in 2009. Individual producer shares can be found in appendix F. 

 5 ***.

 6

 AFMC’s Comments on Draft Questionnaires, June 8, 2010, p. 11.

 7

 Furniture Retailers of America (FRA’s) Response to the Notice of Institution, June 8, 2010, p. 9.

 8

 Vineyard, Home Meridian, and Up Country’s comments on the adequacy of substantive responses filed by

parties, February 19, 2010, p. 2.

 9

 U.S. producer American of Martinsville participated in the original investigation, but did not submit a U.S.

producers’ questionnaire for this review. The company closed in April 2010 and filed for bankruptcy a month later. 

According to the AFMC’s response to the notice of institution, December 31, 2009, Attachment 11, American of

Martinsville’s 2008 production capacity was *** pieces, production was *** pieces, U.S. commercial shipments and

net sales were *** pieces ($***); its operating income was $***.

III-3
Table III-4

Wooden bedroom furniture: U.S. capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2004-09

Item

Calendar year

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Capacity (pieces) 14,018,999 14,050,004 13,640,803 12,918,768 11,894,272 11,079,849

Production (pieces) 10,248,027 10,100,968 9,746,303 8,417,946 7,491,611 6,467,592

Capacity utilization

(percent) 73.1 71.9 71.4 65.2 63.0 58.4

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

Constraints on Capacity

The Commission asked domestic producers to report the constraints on their capacity to produce

wooden bedroom furniture. Nineteen producers reported that finishing and/or assembly was a constraint

on capacity. The second-largest constraint, reported by 14 producers, was machinery and equipment

capacity. Other constraints mentioned by producers were environmental air quality permits, plant size

and storage space, and raw material and labor availability.

Twenty-nine firms reported that they are able to switch production between wooden bedroom

furniture and other products. Those other products include other wooden case goods, such as dining room

furniture, office furniture, and occasional tables. Firms indicated that there would be minimal costs and

time involved in switching production to or from wooden bedroom furniture. 

 Thirty-seven firms reported producing or anticipate producing other products on the same

equipment and machinery as in the production of wooden bedroom furniture and using the same

production and related workers. In 2009, companies that produced other products on the same equipment

as wooden bedroom furniture reported producing 11.5 million pieces of other wooden furniture and 1,900

pieces of other products.

U.S. PRODUCERS’ SHIPMENTS

Data on U.S. producers’ shipments of wooden bedroom furniture are presented in table III-5. The

quantity of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments of wooden bedroom furniture declined in each year from 2004

to 2009, and by 37 percent over the entire period. The value of U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments also

decreased in each year from 2004 to 2009, and by 50 percent over the entire period. The most

pronounced declines were in 2007, 2008, and 2009. 

U.S. producers were asked to report the approximate percentages of their U.S. shipments in 2009

by type. Thirty-seven producers reported that all of their U.S. shipments in 2009 were solid wood or

solid wood veneer10 wooden bedroom furniture, while seven producers reported that all of their U.S.

shipments in 2009 were non-solid wood or non-solid wood veneer11 wooden bedroom furniture. Three

producers reported U.S. shipments of both types in 2009. 

 10 The exposed surface area (including fronts, tops, and sides, but not backs and bottoms) is predominately solid

wood or solid wood veneer. Solid wood veneer is defined as a thin slice of solid wood. Papers, vinyls, composite

panels, and non-wood materials are not solid-wood veneers.

 11 The exposed exterior surface(s) may include printed or unprinted paper, vinyl, or other non-wood material

(such as sealed or unsealed fiberboard, particle board, or other composite panel) commonly but not exclusively

referred to as printed furniture, which may be finished, unfinished, or pre-finished.

III-4
Table III-5

Wooden bedroom furniture: U.S. producers’ shipments, by types, 2004-09

Item

Calendar year

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Quantity (pieces)

Commercial shipments 9,991,552 9,894,554 9,472,294 8,203,662 7,176,044 6,279,780

Internal consumption 3,710 4,590 5,609 3,039 4,272 13,165

Transfers to related firms 63,723 54,985 52,294 53,710 56,209 49,679

U.S. shipments 10,058,985 9,954,129 9,530,197 8,260,411 7,236,525 6,342,624

Export shipments 195,765 193,452 248,418 268,402 306,634 244,217

Total shipments 10,254,750 10,147,581 9,778,615 8,528,813 7,543,159 6,586,841

Value (1,000 dollars)

Commercial shipments 1,465,278 1,390,029 1,221,620 1,030,136 874,787 724,674

Internal consumption 296 298 370 251 386 2,511

Transfers to related firms 25,234 25,265 22,097 20,559 22,283 20,600

U.S. shipments 1,490,808 1,415,592 1,244,087 1,050,946 897,456 747,785

Export shipments 24,636 26,898 28,361 33,507 36,109 27,076

Total shipments 1,515,444 1,442,490 1,272,448 1,084,453 933,565 774,861

Unit value (per piece)

Commercial shipments $146.65 $140.48 $128.97 $125.57 $121.90 $115.40

Internal consumption 79.78 64.92 65.97 82.59 90.36 190.73

Transfers to related firms 396.00 459.49 422.55 382.78 396.43 414.66

U.S. shipments 148.21 142.21 130.54 127.23 124.02 117.90

Export shipments 125.84 139.04 114.17 124.84 117.76 110.87

Total shipments 147.78 142.15 130.13 127.15 123.76 117.64

Share of quantity (percent)

Commercial shipments 97.4 97.5 96.9 96.2 95.1 95.3

Internal consumption (1

) (1) 0.1 (1) 0.1 0.2

Transfers to related firms 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

U.S. shipments 98.1 98.1 97.5 96.9 95.9 96.3

Export shipments 1.9 1.9 2.5 3.1 4.1 3.7

Total shipments 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1 Less than 0.05 percent.

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

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

III-5
U.S. PRODUCERS’ INVENTORIES

Table III-6 presents U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories for wooden bedroom furniture.12 It

shows that inventories declined by 8.8 percent from 2004 to 2009. The ratio of inventories to total

shipments increased by 6.2 percentage points over the period. The 2004-09 ratios are also slightly higher

than during the original investigation where the ratios of inventories to total shipments ranged from 12.8

to 14.0 percent between 2001 and 2003. U.S. producer Vaughan-Bassett indicated that everything it

produces goes to inventory and that it carries tens of millions of dollars in inventory,13 typically over

***.14 Stanley and Sandberg also produce for inventory.15

Table III-6

Wooden bedroom furniture: U.S. producers’ end-of-period inventories, 2004-09

Item

Calendar year

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Inventories (pieces) 1,522,078 1,474,669 1,607,029 1,494,364 1,498,950 1,387,600

Ratio to production (percent) 14.9 14.6 16.5 17.8 20.0 21.5

Ratio to U.S. shipments (percent) 15.1 14.8 16.9 18.1 20.7 21.9

Ratio to total shipments (percent) 14.8 14.5 16.4 17.5 19.9 21.1

Note.–Ratios are calculated using data from producers that provided both inventory data and production or U.S.

shipment data.

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

U.S. PRODUCERS’ IMPORTS

U.S. producers’ imports of wooden bedroom furniture are presented in tables III-7, III-8, and III9. Twenty U.S. producers reported directly importing wooden bedroom furniture from subject Chinese

sources. U.S. producers’ imports (based on value) accounted for 20 percent of U.S. imports of the subject

merchandise from China in 2009, up from 18 percent in 2004.16 During the original investigation, 26

U.S. producers reported directly importing wooden bedroom furniture from China, and accounted for 33

percent of subject imports.17 

 12 Data obtained from U.S. producers concerning inventories, production, and shipments do not reconcile; several

producers provided various reasons on why their data do not reconcile.

 13 Hearing transcript, p. 117 (W. Bassett).

 14 ***.

 15 Hearing transcript, p. 117 (Prillaman and Sandberg).

 16 In 2009, AFMC members’ direct imports and purchases of subject merchandise accounted for *** percent of

total subject imports. AFMC’s posthearing brief, Answers to Questions from the Commission, p. 3.

 17 The data collected during the original investigation were based on a different data set of U.S. producers than

the set collected during this review. See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1058 (Final),

USITC Publication 3743 (December 2004), p. IV-9.

III-6
Nineteen U.S. producers reported directly importing wooden bedroom furniture from Vietnam.

U.S. producers’ imports from Vietnam (based on value) accounted for 26 percent of U.S. imports of

wooden bedroom furniture from Vietnam in 2009, up from 3 percent in 2004.18 

Table III-7

Wooden bedroom furniture: U.S. producers’ direct imports, by source, 2004-09

Item

Calendar year

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Value ($1,000)

Imports from:

 China (subject) *** *** *** *** *** ***

 China (nonsubject) *** *** *** *** *** ***

 China, total 316,391 358,204 390,541 362,982 314,268 158,713

 Vietnam 6,153 49,326 98,090 186,118 235,563 214,546

 All other countries 160,113 144,188 114,833 101,026 100,249 90,001

 Total direct imports 482,657 551,718 603,464 650,125 650,081 463,259

Imports from:

 China (subject) *** *** *** *** *** ***

 China (nonsubject) *** *** *** *** *** ***

 China, total 65.6 64.9 64.7 55.8 48.3 34.3

 Vietnam 1.3 8.9 16.3 28.6 36.2 46.3

 All other countries 33.2 26.1 19.0 15.5 15.4 19.4

 Total direct imports 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

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

 18 In 2009, AFMC members’ direct imports and purchases from Vietnam accounted for *** percent of total

wooden bedroom furniture imports from Vietnam. AFMC’s posthearing brief, Answers to Questions from the

Commission, p. 4.

III-7
Table III-8

Wooden bedroom furniture: U.S. producers’ direct imports of the subject merchandise from

China, U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, and ratios of U.S. producers’ direct imports from China to

total imports from China and to U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, 2004-09

* * * * * * *

Table III-9

Wooden bedroom furniture: U.S. producers’ direct imports from Vietnam, U.S. producers’ U.S.

shipments, and ratios of U.S. producers’ direct imports from Vietnam to total imports from Vietnam

and to U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, 2004-09

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCERS’ PURCHASES

Information on U.S. producers’ purchases of domestically produced and imported

wooden bedroom furniture (other than direct imports) are presented in tables III-10 and III-11. Five

producers (***) purchased subject merchandise from China during 2004-09.

Table III-10

Wooden bedroom furniture: U.S. producers’ purchases, by source, 2004-09

Item

Calendar year

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Value ($1,000)

Purchases of imports from:

 China1 4,263 2,929 10,203 21,796 59,309 26,491

 Vietnam 43 33 2,324 25,583 85,896 37,083

 All other countries 7,545 5,547 1,885 4,269 4,403 3,061

 Subtotal, imported 11,851 8,509 14,411 51,648 149,609 66,634

Purchases from domestic producers 22,636 19,751 19,220 20,812 16,596 22,928

Purchases from other domestic sources 994 850 869 705 502 445

 Subtotal, domestic purchases 23,630 20,601 20,089 21,517 17,098 23,373

 Total 35,481 29,110 34,500 73,165 166,707 90,007

Table continued on next page.

III-8
Table III-10–Continued

Wooden bedroom furniture: U.S. producers’ purchases, by source, 2004-09

Item

Calendar year

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Share of total purchases (percent)

Purchases of imports from:

 China1 12.0 10.1 29.6 29.8 35.6 29.4

 Vietnam 0.1 0.1 6.7 35.0 51.5 41.2

 All other countries 21.3 19.1 5.5 5.8 2.6 3.4

 Subtotal, imported 33.4 29.2 41.8 70.6 89.7 74.0

Purchases from domestic producers 63.8 67.8 55.7 28.4 10.0 25.5

Purchases from other domestic sources 2.8 2.9 2.5 1.0 0.3 0.5

 Subtotal, domestic purchases 66.6 70.8 58.2 29.4 10.3 26.0

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1 May include purchases of nonsubject imports of wooden bedroom furniture from China. 

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

Table III-11

Wooden bedroom furniture: U.S. producers’ purchases of imports from China, U.S. shipments,

and ratio of purchases of subject imports to the firms’ U.S. shipments, by firm, 2004-09

* * * * * * *

U.S. EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, AND PRODUCTIVITY

Data provided by U.S. producers on the number of production and related workers (“PRWs”)

engaged in the production of wooden bedroom furniture, the total hours worked by such workers, and

wages paid to such PRWs during the period for which data were collected in this review are presented in

table III-12. Employment, in terms of both PRWs and hours worked, decreased between 2004 and 2009

by 55 percent and 53 percent respectively. Hourly wages increased in each year between 2004 and 2008,

then declined in 2009 to a level only 3.8 percent above the level in 2004. Productivity, however,

increased by 35 percent between 2004 and 2009. 

III-9
Table III-12

Wooden bedroom furniture: U.S. producers’ employment-related data, 2004-09

Item

Calendar year

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Production and related workers (PRWs) 20,155 18,740 15,669 13,342 11,062 9,062

Hours worked by PRWs (1,000 hours) 39,882 36,015 30,565 26,624 22,684 18,617

Hours worked per PRW 1,979 1,922 1,951 1,996 2,051 2,054

Wages paid to PRWs (1,000 dollars) 486,788 442,471 384,867 342,588 299,002 235,871

Hourly wages $12.21 $12.29 $12.59 $12.87 $13.18 $12.67

Productivity (pieces produced per 1,000

hours) 257.0 280.5 318.9 316.0 330.3 347.4

Unit labor costs (per piece) $47.50 $43.80 $39.47 $40.72 $39.91 $36.47

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

Workers at four firms, ***, are represented by a union at their U.S. production facilities. Since

2004, 18 firms19 or their workers reportedly applied for Trade Adjustment Assistance certification directly

related to imports of wooden bedroom furniture from China.

FINANCIAL CONDITION OF U.S. PRODUCERS

Background

Forty-eight U.S. producers provided usable financial data on their operations on wooden bedroom

furniture during the period examined.20 Three of the producers also reported internal consumption21 and

eight producers reported transfers to related firms.22 However, combined internal consumption (***

percent of the combined net sales value in 2009) and related company transfers (2.36 percent of the

combined net sales value in 2009) were less than 2.7 percent of the combined companies’ net sales

quantity and value in each of the years 2004-09 (percentages were even lower in the years 2004-08) and

thus are not presented separately.

The questionnaire data of Stanley were verified with its company records at its corporate

facilities. The verification adjustments were incorporated into this report.23 The financial data of Stanley

were changed to ***. The adjustments for Stanley resulted in ***.

 19 Those firms are ***.

 20 An additional nine U.S. producers, ***, submitted questionnaire responses. However, their responses were not

used because they either contained no financial data or were significantly incomplete. The producers with fiscal

year ends other than Dec. 31 are ***. In summary, 27 producers reported their financial data on a calendar year

basis and 21 producers reported financial data on a fiscal year basis. 

 21 Firms reporting internal consumption were ***.

 22 Firms reporting transfers to related firms were ***.

 23 ***.

III-10
Operations on Wooden Bedroom Furniture

The combined results of U.S. producers’ manufacturing operations on wooden bedroom furniture

are presented in table III-13. Based on the table, the quantity sold and the net sales value decreased in 

every year, contributing to an overall decline in the operating income, from almost $64 million in 2004 to 

an operating loss of over $23 million in 2009, although the annual operating income/losses fluctuated

over the period. The ratio of operating income to net sales (operating income margin) also decreased

from 4.2 percent in 2004 to a negative (3.1) percent in 2009. Total costs decreased in each year (except

2007 in terms of per-unit total cost). All measures of income decreased from period to period (except in 

2005 and 2008), and were all substantially lower in 2009 compared to 2004. Operating income decreased

by 137 percent, and the operating income ratio fell by 7.3 percentage points between 2004 and 2009.

An analysis of unit financial data is not presented because there are no reliable uniform measures 

of quantity, and even if sales quantities were reliable, this analysis would not be useful because of the

large product mix. Therefore, no per-unit sales, COGS, and SG&A expenses are presented.24 A variance

analysis is also not presented in this case because the variances in sales revenues and total costs were

largely affected by product mix and because there are no reliable per-unit sales price and cost and sales

quantity data available.

 24 Selected per-unit sales, cost, and operating income (loss) data of the producers on their operations are not

presented in this section since value is a more reliable and accurate measure of U.S. operations than quantity

(quantities are generally not reported in the furniture industry given the variety of the products made in the sector, 

and there is no uniform measure of quantity); moreover, wooden bedroom furniture is offered for sale in coordinated

groups called bedroom suites or bedroom collections and thus product mix may have a significant impact on the

average unit values. In this case, differences in product mix, especially the types of bedroom furniture collections,

play a major role in the fluctuations of per-unit sales value and cost, unlike industries in which fluctuations in

financial results reflect changes in the unit selling prices and costs for virtually the same products. Therefore, unit

selling price and cost data are not presented in this section.

III-11
Table III-13

Wooden bedroom furniture: Results of operations of U.S. producers, fiscal years 2004-09

Item

Fiscal year

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Quantity (pieces)

Net sales1 10,342,272 10,229,348 9,786,782 8,560,684 7,507,918 6,498,395

Value ($1,000)

Net sales1 1,526,945 1,455,871 1,274,309 1,097,469 940,985 774,626

COGS 1,224,373 1,150,836 1,030,197 922,101 799,947 665,675

Gross profit 302,572 305,035 244,112 175,368 141,038 108,951

SG&A expenses 238,645 220,142 198,507 199,865 157,187 132,605

Operating income (loss) 63,927 84,893 45,605 (24,497) (16,149) (23,654)

Interest expense 6,326 7,093 11,001 10,973 9,062 7,227

Other expense 12,371 17,934 4,753 21,604 10,790 8,237

CDSOA funds received 0 70 13,625 27,622 31,880 26,135

Other income 4,739 5,324 5,023 9,715 14,721 8,131

Net income (loss) 49,969 65,260 48,499 (19,737) 10,600 (4,852)

Depreciation/amortization 34,836 30,887 27,340 24,545 20,578 19,077

Cash flow 84,805 96,147 75,839 4,808 31,178 14,225

Ratio to net sales (percent)

COGS 80.2 79.0 80.8 84.0 85.0 85.9

Gross profit 19.8 21.0 19.2 16.0 15.0 14.1

SG&A expenses 15.6 15.1 15.6 18.2 16.7 17.1

Operating income (loss) 4.2 5.8 3.6 (2.2) (1.7) (3.1)

Number of firms reporting

Operating losses 20 22 20 25 31 27

Data 45 45 47 45 45 44

 1 The combined internal consumption and transfers were less than 2.7 percent of the combined companies’ net

sales values in all periods and, therefore, are not shown separately.

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

III-12
Table III-14 presents selected financial data on a company-by-company basis for net sales values, 

operating income/(loss), and the ratio of operating income/(loss) to net sales value. These data are 

dominated by *** producers: ***. Together, these *** producers accounted for more than *** of total

net sales values in every period and *** of the aggregate operating income during the period examined. 

*** reported operating income for the entire period.

Twenty U.S. producers reported that they received settlement agreements funds from Chinese 

producers/exporters and/or U.S. importers of the subject merchandise.25 The reported net values of

settlement agreement funds received were $0.3 million in 2006, $3.4 million in 2007, $4.4 million in

2008, and $5.2 million in 2009. One producer, ***, recorded and reported the funds received as net sales

revenues, while another producer, ***, recorded and reported the funds received as part of its general and

administrative (“G&A”) expenses as a reduction to total legal expenses.26 The remaining eighteen

producers recorded and reported these funds received as other income and two of them (***) reported

these funds as part of Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (“CDSOA”) funds.

***.27 ***.28 ***.29 ***.30

Other companies reported nonrecurring charges31 and these charges were mainly asset 

impairment losses, restructuring costs, severance costs/expenses related to plant closings/shutdowns, and

inventory and goodwill write-offs.32

Table III-14

Wooden bedroom furniture: Results of operations of U.S. producers, by firm, fiscal years 2004-09

* * * * * * *

 25 They are ***.

 26 E-mail, supplemental responses from ***, August 2, 2010.

 27 E-mails, supplemental responses from ***, August 2, 9, and 11, 2010.

 28 E-mail, supplemental responses from ***, August 5, 2010.

 29 E-mail, supplemental responses from ***, July 28, 2010.

 30 E-mail, supplemental responses from ***, August 11, 2010.

 31 Some U.S. producers experienced substantial operating losses in 2007-09 due partly to plant closing

costs/restructuring charges which resulted from plant shutdowns/closings. These additional expenses were reflected

either in COGS as labor costs and other factory overhead, as SG&A expenses, or as other expenses, and effectively

increased COGS and SG&A expenses for the periods. Restructuring charges and impairment losses on long-lived

assets to be held and used shall be reported as components of income from continuing operations, according to

GAAP (Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 144, “Accounting for the impairment or disposal

of long-lived assets”), with appropriate footnote disclosure. These charges and losses could have many components,

such as severance-related costs and write-down of certain fixed assets and inventories which are usually recorded in

cost of sales and/or SG&A, or as separate items above the operating income line. The results of operations of a

component that has been disposed of or is classified as held for sale may be reported in discontinued operations if

the operations of the component have been eliminated from the ongoing operations of the entity as a result of the

disposal and the entity will have no significant continuing involvement in the operations of the component after the

disposal transaction (SFAS No. 144, para. 42). Furthermore, SFAS No. 146, “Accounting for costs associated with

exit or disposal activities,” para. 18 states that “Costs associated with an exit or disposal activity that does not

involve a discontinued operation shall be included in income from continuing operations before income taxes...Costs

associated with an exit or disposal activity that involves a discontinued operation shall be included in the results of

discontinued operations.” 

 32 ***.

III-13
Capital Expenditures and Research and Development Expenses

The responding firms’ aggregate data on capital expenditures and research and development

(“R&D”) expenses are shown in table III-15. Capital expenditures decreased from 2004 to 2005 and

increased substantially in 2006 due mainly to the expenditures of ***. Capital expenditures decreased

continuously thereafter. *** accounted for the majority of the industry’s capital expenditures. R&D

expenses fluctuated between 2004 and 2007, and then decreased between 2007 and 2009. ***,33 ***,34

***,35 ***,36 and ***37 had considerable amounts of R&D expenses at one time or another. Capital

expenditures, by firm, are presented in table III-16 and some details of the major capital expenditures of

certain producers are also described in the footnotes to the table. The majority of the U.S. producers

reported capital expenditures while 29 producers reported R&D expenses. 

Table III-15

Wooden bedroom furniture: Capital expenditures and R&D expenses by U.S. producers, fiscal

years 2004-09 

Item

Fiscal year

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Value ($1,000)

Capital expenditures:1

 23,045 22,538 34,251 18,462 15,579 9,581

R&D expenses:2

 6,942 6,052 7,581 7,195 4,604 3,730

 1 Forty-two producers reported capital expenditures. 2 Twenty-nine producers reported R&D expenses.

 

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

Table III-16

Wooden bedroom furniture: Capital expenditures by U.S. producers, by firms, fiscal years 2004-09

* * * * * * *

Assets and Return on Investment

U.S. producers were requested to provide data on their assets used in the production and sales of

wooden bedroom furniture during the period examined to assess their return on investments (“ROI”). 

Although ROI can be computed in different ways, a commonly used method is income earned during the

period divided by the total assets utilized for the operations. Therefore, staff calculated ROI as operating

income divided by total assets used in the production and sale of wooden bedroom furniture. Data on the

U.S. producers’ total assets and their ROI are presented in table III-17.

While total assets utilized by the U.S. producers in their wooden bedroom furniture operations

decreased continuously from 2004 to 2009, due mainly to decreased balances of accounts receivable and

 33 ***, August 2, 2010.

 34 ***, August 18 and 17, 2010.

 35 ***.

 36 ***, August 11, 2010.

 37 ***.

III-14
inventories which resulted from lower production and sales, as well as some plant closings/shutdowns, the

U.S. producers’ operating income also decreased considerably during the same period. ROI increased

from 6.1 percent of total assets in 2004 to 9.0 percent in 2005, and then decreased in every year thereafter

(except 2008 when the operating loss was somewhat lower than in 2007) to a negative (4.4) percent in

2009. The trend of ROI over the period was the same as the trend of the operating loss margin to net

sales in table III-13 over the same period.

The value of total assets decreased steadily and substantially between 2004 and 2009 as the

original cost (“OC”) and net book value (“NBV”) of property, plant, and equipment (“PPE”) also

decreased over the same period. ***.38 L. & J.G. Stickley’s ***.39 ***.40 ***.41 ***.42

Table III-15

Wooden bedroom furniture: Value of assets and return on investment of U.S. producers, fiscal

years 2004-09

Item

At end of fiscal year

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Value of assets: Value ($1,000)

1. Current assets:

 A. Cash and equivalents 54,908 69,821 72,171 91,751 86,879 74,174

 B. Trade receivables (net) 216,374 199,512 176,380 140,403 103,278 87,506

 C. Inventories 413,232 356,185 325,486 275,912 208,446 159,033

 D. All other current 22,403 19,919 31,004 27,904 21,263 32,951

 Total current 706,917 645,437 605,041 535,970 419,866 353,664

2. Non-current assets:

 A. Productive facilities1 806,166 790,681 698,971 612,452 604,576 550,097

 B. Productive facilities (net)2 288,139 258,632 240,756 209,566 187,425 165,650

 C. Other non-current 46,337 35,589 65,297 20,846 18,580 16,549

 Total non-current 334,476 294,221 306,053 230,412 206,005 182,199

 Total assets 1,041,393 939,658 911,094 766,382 625,871 535,863

 Value ($1,000)

Operating income (loss) 63,927 84,893 45,605 (24,497) (16,149) (23,654)

Ratio of operating income to total assets (percent)

Return on investment 6.1 9.0 5.0 (3.2) (2.6) (4.4)

 1 Original cost of property, plant, and equipment (PPE).

 2

 Net book value of PPE (original cost less accumulated depreciation). 

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

 38 E-mails, supplemental responses from ***, August 18 and 17, 2010.

 39 E-mail, supplemental responses from ***, August 9, 2010.

 40 E-mail, supplemental responses from ***, August 9, 2010.

 41 E-mail, supplemental responses from ***, July 27, 2010.

 42 E-mail, supplemental responses from ***, August 11, 2010.

III-15

PART IV: U.S. IMPORTS, THE INDUSTRIES IN CHINA AND VIETNAM,

AND THE GLOBAL MARKET

U.S. IMPORTS

Overview

The Commission issued questionnaires to 148 firms believed to have imported wooden bedroom

furniture between 2004 and 2009 as well as to all (163) U.S. producers of wooden bedroom furniture. 

One hundred four firms1

 provided data and information in response to the questionnaires, while 21 firms

indicated that they had not imported wooden bedroom furniture during the period for which data were

collected.2

 U.S. import data are based on official Commerce statistics for imports of wooden bedroom

furniture and on proprietary Customs data.3

 Firms responding to the Commission’s questionnaire

accounted for *** percent of the subject U.S. imports of wooden bedroom furniture from China and for

*** percent of U.S. imports of wooden bedroom furniture from other sources in 2009.4

Imports from Subject and Nonsubject Countries

Table IV-1 presents data for U.S. imports of wooden bedroom furniture from China and all other

sources. Imports of wooden bedroom furniture from subject Chinese sources increased somewhat from

2004 to 2006, then decreased from $*** in 2006 to $*** in 2009, or by *** percent. Imports from

Vietnam have increased markedly, increasing by 341 percent since 2004, and capturing nearly 32 percent

of the share of all imports in 2009. Other leading sources of nonsubject imports in 2009 were Malaysia

(10 percent of total imports) and Indonesia (8 percent of total imports).

 1 Of the 104 responding U.S. importers, usable questionnaire data were received from 98 importers.

 2

 Fifty questionnaires were returned as undeliverable by Fedex, and 136 firms did not respond to the

Commission’s questionnaire. Large importers that failed to respond include ***. *** importer questionnaire was

returned by FedEx as undeliverable.

 3

 Official import statistics presented for wooden bedroom furniture are collected under two HTS statistical

reporting numbers: 9403.50.9040 (wooden beds of a kind used in the bedroom) and 9403.50.9080 (wooden furniture

of a kind used in the bedroom not elsewhere classified). The scope mentions four HTS subheadings and statistical

reporting numbers; however, most of the subject imports enter under 9403.50.9040 and 9403.50.9080. The third

number, HTS subheading 9403.90.70, contains, among other items, certain metal furniture parts and certain

unfinished furniture parts made of wood products. The fourth number, HTS subheading 7009.92.50, is a residual or

“basket” category for larger, framed glass mirrors. It contains, among other items, framed glass mirrors of a kind

used in the bedroom. To the extent that subject imports enter under the latter subheadings, import data may be

slightly understated. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (Customs) collects quantity data for beds but not for other

wooden bedroom furniture; therefore, only value data for wooden bedroom furniture from official statistics are

presented in this report, except as noted.

 4

 Coverage was calculated using the value of subject U.S. imports from China reported by responding U.S.

importers in 2009 ($308.815 million from China and $1.097 billion from nonsubject sources) compared to the value

from proprietary Customs data ($*** from China and $*** from nonsubject sources).

IV-1
Table IV-1

Wooden bedroom furniture: U.S. imports, by sources, 2004-09

Source

Calendar year

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Value (1,000 dollars)

1

China (subject) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Nonsubject:

 China (nonsubject) *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Vietnam 190,393 462,805 587,387 813,931 952,537 839,136

 All other sources 1,489,002 1,592,766 1,391,358 1,208,461 1,094,591 1,062,414

 Subtotal, nonsubject *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total 3,185,475 3,764,811 3,794,948 3,613,016 3,196,269 2,655,854

Share of value (percent)

China (subject) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Nonsubject:

 China (nonsubject) *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Vietnam 6.0 12.3 15.5 22.5 29.8 31.6

 All other sources 46.7 42.3 36.7 33.4 34.2 40.0

 Subtotal, nonsubject *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1 Landed, duty-paid.

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics and from proprietary Customs data.

Table IV-2 presents data on U.S. imports of wooden beds. Official import statistics provide

quantity data for wooden beds5

 but not for other wooden bedroom furniture. Therefore, value and unit

values can only be presented for wooden beds.

 5 Official import statistics count each piece of a wooden bed (e.g., headboard, footboard, sideboards) as separate

pieces. However, the Commission’s questionnaires defined a wooden bed as any combination of headboard,

footboard, or sideboards.

IV-2
Table IV-2

Wooden beds: U.S. imports, by sources, 2004-091

Source

Calendar year

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Quantity (pieces)

China2 3,128,129 3,516,084 3,841,124 3,630,694 2,786,546 2,191,856

Nonsubject:

 Vietnam 549,639 1,476,722 1,961,666 2,605,941 3,182,400 2,946,097

 All other sources 3,836,133 4,472,984 3,986,051 3,475,198 3,321,960 3,403,804

 Subtotal, nonsubject 4,385,772 5,949,706 5,947,717 6,081,139 6,504,360 6,349,901

 Total 7,513,901 9,465,790 9,788,841 9,711,833 9,290,906 8,541,757

Value (1,000 dollars)

3

China2 480,462 539,464 581,552 547,162 418,095 288,142

Nonsubject:

 Vietnam 71,121 177,768 211,061 290,574 357,797 327,729

 All other sources 428,062 517,330 457,876 425,935 405,376 374,462

 Subtotal, nonsubject 499,182 695,098 668,937 716,509 763,172 702,190

 Total 979,645 1,234,562 1,250,489 1,263,670 1,181,267 990,332

Unit value (per piece)

China2 $153.59 $153.43 $151.40 $150.70 $150.04 $131.46

Nonsubject:

 Vietnam 129.40 120.38 107.59 111.50 112.43 111.24

 All other sources 111.59 115.66 114.87 122.56 122.03 110.01

 Subtotal, nonsubject 113.82 116.83 112.47 117.82 117.33 110.58

 Total 130.38 130.42 127.75 130.12 127.14 115.94

 1 Official import statistics for beds, as classified under HTS statistical reporting number 9403.50.9040 (wooden beds of a kind

used in the bedroom). Official import statistics count each piece of a wooden bed (e.g., headboard, footboard, sideboards) as

separate pieces. However, the Commission's questionnaires defined a wooden bed as any combination of headboard, footboard,

or sideboards.

 2

 Includes imports produced and exported by nonsubject firms Lacquer Craft and Markor Tianjin. 

 3

 Landed, duty-paid.

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics.

U.S. IMPORTERS’ IMPORTS SUBSEQUENT TO DECEMBER 31, 2009

The Commission requested importers to indicate whether they imported or arranged for the

importation of wooden bedroom furniture from China for delivery after December 31, 2009. Seventy

importers responded that they have imported or arranged for the imports of wooden bedroom furniture

IV-3
from China6

 after December 31, 2009. Data on U.S. importers’ actual and arranged imports in 2010 are

presented in the following tabulation.7

 

Item

2010

Jan.-Mar. Apr.-Jun. July-Sept. Oct.-Dec. Total

Quantity (pieces) 1,478,500 1,649,066 684,330 342,951 4,154,847

Value ($1,000) 123,234 141,678 91,319 52,150 408,381

U.S. IMPORTERS’ INVENTORIES

Table IV-3 presents data for inventories of U.S. imports of wooden bedroom furniture from China

and all other sources held in the United States.8

 No Chinese producer reported maintaining any

inventories of wooden bedroom furniture in the United States since 2004.

ANTIDUMPING INVESTIGATIONS IN THIRD-COUNTRY MARKETS

There are no known antidumping duty investigations or determinations on wooden bedroom

furniture in any other country.

Table IV-3

Wooden bedroom furniture: U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of imports, by source, 2004-

09

Item

Calendar year

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Imports from China (subject):

Inventories (pieces) 1,341,429 1,529,915 1,675,197 1,474,293 1,323,861 1,100,214

Ratio to U.S. imports1

 37.1 27.7 29.3 25.9 30.3 37.8

Ratio to U.S. shipments 

 of imports1 36.9 29.0 29.0 25.8 29.4 37.9

Imports from China (nonsubject):

Inventories (pieces) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ratio to U.S. imports1 *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ratio to U.S. shipments 

 of imports1 *** *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on next page.

 6 May include imports from nonsubject Chinese sources.

 7

 Data in the tabulation are based on usable questionnaire data from 64 U.S. importers.

 8

 Data obtained from U.S. importers concerning inventories, imports, and shipments do not reconcile; several

importers provided various reasons on why their data do not reconcile.

IV-4
Table IV-3--Continued

Wooden bedroom furniture: U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of imports, by source,

2004-09

Item

Calendar year

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Imports from Vietnam:

Inventories (pieces) 247,868 378,427 676,594 848,123 1,037,252 1,004,780

Ratio to U.S. imports1 31.9 20.5 24.4 19.2 20.3 18.4

Ratio to U.S. shipments 

 of imports1 38.6 26.8 31.2 22.8 24.5 22.5

Imports from all other sources:

Inventories (pieces) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ratio to U.S. imports1 *** *** *** *** *** ***

Ratio to U.S. shipments 

 of imports1 *** *** *** *** *** ***

Imports from all sources:

Inventories (pieces) 2,128,540 2,589,899 3,165,785 3,159,227 3,181,817 2,845,065

Ratio to U.S. imports1 25.7 21.5 24.8 21.7 23.3 21.7

Ratio to U.S. shipments 

 of imports1 26.4 22.8 25.4 22.8 25.1 24.1

1

 In percent.

Note.–Ratios are calculated using data from importers that provided both inventory information and import and/or

import shipment information.

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

THE INDUSTRY IN CHINA

Overview

At the time of the Commission’s original investigation, usable questionnaire responses were

received from 154 firms estimated to account for approximately 62 percent of Chinese exports of the

subject merchandise to the United States in 2003. The responding Chinese producers9

 reported shipments

of 8.6 million pieces of wooden bedroom furniture, of which 6.6 million, or 77 percent, were exported to

the United States.

 9 These did not include nonsubject Chinese producers Lacquer Craft or Markor Tianjin.

IV-5
Wooden Bedroom Furniture Operations

In this review, the Commission submitted foreign producer questionnaires to 176 Chinese firms10

believed to produce and/or export wooden bedroom furniture. Questionnaire responses were received

from 36 Chinese producers (35 questionnaires contained usable data) that are believed to account for ***

percent of Chinese exports of wooden bedroom furniture to the United States in 2009.11 12 Most

responding producers also sell other products; sales of wooden bedroom furniture as a percentage of each

firm’s total sales in its most recent fiscal year ranged from less than one percent to 80 percent.

Chinese producers were asked to indicate whether their firms had experienced any plant

openings, closings, relocations, expansions, acquisitions, consolidations, prolonged shutdowns or

curtailments, revised labor agreements, or any other change in the character of their operations or

organization relating to the production of wooden bedroom furniture since 2004. Seven producers

reported plant openings, eight reported plant closings, five reported expansions, one reported an

acquisition, and ten reported shutdown or production curtailments. Four producers reported moving their

wooden bedroom furniture production to other countries since 2004. *** moved production to Malaysia

and *** moved production to Thailand. *** reported moving all types of wooden furniture production,

including wooden bedroom furniture, to Vietnam because the production cost in Vietnam is far lower than

in China. *** also reported building a factory in Vietnam in 2006 because of lower production costs than

in China.

Information on reported Chinese producers’ production capacity, production, shipments, and

inventories are presented in table IV-4.13 The data show increases in capacity in each year from 2004 to

2006; capacity then declined in 2007-09, resulting in a 21 percent decrease over the 2004-09 period.14

Thirty-two Chinese producers reported producing or anticipate producing other products using the same

machinery and equipment or using the same production and related workers used to produce wooden

bedroom furniture. 

Production and total shipments also followed a similar pattern to reported capacity, declining in

2007 after a period of growth in each year since 2004. Production decreased by 24 percent over the

period, and total shipments decreased by 22 percent. Inventories decreased from 2004 to 2009 by eight

percent. The responding Chinese wooden bedroom furniture producers are highly export-oriented. In

 10 The Commission attempted to submit foreign producer questionnaires to 274 Chinese firms via fax or e-mail;

however, the Commission was unable to transmit the questionnaires to 98 of these firms due to busy or out-ofservice fax numbers and/or undeliverable e-mail addresses.

 11 Coverage was calculated based on Dalian Huafeng’s response that its exports to the United States (*** pieces)

represented *** percent of total Chinese exports to the United States in 2009, and Guangdong Yihua’s response that

its exports to the United States (*** pieces) represented *** percent of total Chinese exports to the United States in

2009. According to Global Trade Atlas data, China exported 7,379,891 pieces of wooden bedroom furniture to the

United States in 2009. The total pieces of wooden bedroom furniture exported to the United States, as reported by

35 Chinese questionnaire responses, totaled 1,690,066 in 2009.

 12 Responses did not include nonsubject Chinese producers Lacquer Craft or Markor Tianjin.

 13 In its prehearing brief, the GuangDong Furniture Association provided summary data of 55 Chinese producers

for which questionnaire responses were not submitted to the Commission. Twenty-two foreign producers’

questionnaires that were included in the summary data of 55 firms were subsequently submitted to the Commission. 

The quantity of 2009 production capacity of the remaining 33 firms is 1,850,073 pieces; the production is 1,539,357

pieces; and exports to the United States are 555,664 pieces.

 14 Petitioners contend that several of the large Chinese producers reported unreliable capacity and capacity

utilization data because ***. Domestic interested parties’ prehearing brief, p. 45-46. In addition, *** did not report

capacity or capacity utilization data in 2004-06 because they were not available; its capacity utilization rate in 2007-

09 was over 100 percent because it reported capacity without overtime labor. *** stated that it incurred significant

overtime in 2007-09 and that it cannot easily add more overtime/capacity to produce wooden bedroom furniture.

IV-6
2009, 84 percent of their total shipments were exports, and 72 percent of their total shipments were

exports to the United States. Twenty-two producers reported that all of their exports to the United States

in 2009 were solid wood or solid wood veneer15 wooden bedroom furniture, while three foreign producers

reported that all of their exports to the United States in 2009 were non-solid wood or non-solid wood

veneer16 wooden bedroom furniture. Six producers reported exports to the United States of both types in

2009. 

Table IV-4

Wooden bedroom furniture: China’s reported capacity, production, and shipments, 2004-09

Item

Calendar year

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Quantity (pieces)

Capacity 3,371,222 4,006,421 4,663,799 4,418,259 3,601,271 2,675,300

Production 2,979,703 3,617,852 4,321,014 3,923,129 3,201,957 2,273,360

End-of-period inventories 399,168 396,535 397,403 413,211 422,293 366,050

Shipments:

 Internal 

 consumption/transfers 7,061 7,967 6,624 6,819 7,156 6,553

 Home market 273,525 306,634 511,098 375,139 467,593 378,634

 Exports:

 United States 2,520,320 3,043,871 3,485,004 3,233,120 2,431,322 1,690,066

 European Union 113,214 114,342 137,500 132,105 131,722 124,648

 Asia 49,885 49,528 56,083 40,236 43,606 50,322

 All other markets 40,718 111,319 132,303 115,430 138,856 84,583

 Total exports 2,724,137 3,319,060 3,810,890 3,520,891 2,745,506 1,949,619

 Total shipments 3,004,723 3,633,661 4,328,612 3,902,849 3,220,255 2,334,806

Ratios and shares (percent)

Capacity utilization 88.4 90.3 92.7 88.8 88.9 85.0

Inventories/production 13.4 11.0 9.2 10.5 13.2 16.1

Inventories/shipments 13.3 10.9 9.2 10.6 13.1 15.7

Table continued on next page. 

 15 The exposed surface area (including fronts, tops, and sides, but not backs and bottoms) is predominately solid

wood or solid wood veneer. Solid wood veneer is defined as a thin slice of solid wood. Papers, vinyls, composite

panels, and non-wood materials are not solid-wood veneers.

 16 The exposed exterior surface(s) may include printed or unprinted paper, vinyl, or other non-wood material

(such as sealed or unsealed fiberboard, particle board, or other composite panel) commonly but not exclusively

referred to as printed furniture, which may be finished, unfinished, or pre-finished.

IV-7
Table IV-4--Continued

Wooden bedroom furniture: China’s reported capacity, production, and shipments, 2004-09

Item

Calendar year

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Ratios and shares (percent)

Share of total shipments:

 Internal 

 consumption/transfers 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3

 Home market 9.1 8.4 11.8 9.6 14.5 16.2

 Exports:

 United States 83.9 83.8 80.5 82.8 75.5 72.4

 European Union 3.8 3.1 3.2 3.4 4.1 5.3

 Asia 1.7 1.4 1.3 1.0 1.4 2.2

 All other markets 1.4 3.1 3.1 3.0 4.3 3.6

 Total exports 90.7 91.3 88.0 90.2 85.3 83.5

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

Chinese producers’ reported production capacity, production and capacity utilization for other

wooden furniture produced on the same equipment as wooden bedroom furniture is listed in table IV-5.

Table IV-5

Other wooden furniture produced on the same equipment as wooden bedroom furniture: China’s

reported capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2004-09

Item

Calendar year

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Quantity (pieces)

Capacity 5,731,559 5,672,018 7,944,105 7,577,213 5,219,672 3,758,845

Production 5,374,820 5,454,522 7,287,847 7,102,648 4,533,191 2,994,741

Capacity utilization

(percent) 93.8 96.2 91.7 93.7 86.8 79.7

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

The Commission asked Chinese producers to report the constraints on their capacity to produce

wooden bedroom furniture. The largest constraint on capacity was related to labor, including the

availability of skilled labor, rising labor costs, and limits under China’s labor laws. In addition, several

producers cited an insufficient supply of electrical power and the appreciation of China’s currency as top

constraints on capacity. Other reported constraints on capacity were similar to those reported by U.S.

producers, including machinery and equipment, finishing and/or assembly, plant size, and raw material

availability and cost increases.

Twenty-seven Chinese producers reported that they are able to switch production between

wooden bedroom furniture and other products. Most producers indicated minimal cost and time involved

IV-8
with switching production. Three producers indicated that it would take significant time and cost, ranging

from $500,000 to $1 million, and between 15 days and three months. In 2009, Chinese producers

reported the capacity to produce 6 million17 pieces of other wooden furniture, and exported 1.9 million

pieces of other wooden furniture to the United States.

Top Chinese Exporters and Applicable Antidumping Duty (Cash Deposit) Rates

Table IV-6 presents the largest Chinese exporters to the United States from 2004-09 and the

antidumping duty rates applicable to each exporter.

Table IV-6

Wooden bedroom furniture: Largest Chinese exporters and applicable duty rates, 2004-09 

* * * * * * *

CHINA’S WOODEN FURNITURE INDUSTRY

Most of the public-source information acquired by Commission staff about China’s furniture

industry encompasses all types of wooden furniture and is not specific to the wooden bedroom furniture

industry.18 According to the *** report,19 ***.20 Exports are forecast to account for *** percent of

industry revenue in 2010, ***. The strong export performance is mainly the result of ***; the top five

producers21 hold a combined market share of *** percent of total industry revenue in 2010. It estimates

that there are expected to be over *** enterprises operating in the wooden furniture industry in 2010. 

THE INDUSTRY IN VIETNAM

There are about 1,500 medium to large furniture manufacturers in Vietnam, with about 250 of

them being foreign direct investments.22 The Vietnam furniture industry is export-oriented, with 65

percent of total production being exported.23 U.S. imports of wooden bedroom furniture from Vietnam

rose from $190 million to $839 million during 2004-09, surpassing U.S. imports from China, which fell

from $1.5 billion to $754 million. By contrast, in the EU market, China became the top non-EU supplier,

passing Brazil, as EU imports from China more than tripled during 2004-09, from $103 million to $374

million. Meanwhile, EU imports from Vietnam grew from $31 million to $68 million, with Vietnam

 17 Total capacity to produce other wooden furniture differs from the other wooden furniture capacity reported in

table IV-5 because this figure includes reported capacity for all other wooden furniture, regardless of whether it can

be produced on the same equipment as wooden bedroom furniture.

 18 China exported $6.5 billion of all types of wooden furniture in 2009 (IBISWorld Wood Furniture

Manufacturing in China report summary, http://www.ibisworld.com.cn/industry/default.aspx?indid=230, retrieved

on August 31, 2010) and $2.1 billion of wooden bedroom furniture (Global Trade Atlas, HS subheading 9403.50).

 19 ***.

 20 Wood furniture manufacturing is makes up *** of the Chinese furniture sector at *** percent.

 21 ***.

 22 George Tsai, Chairman of Fairmont Designs, estimated that there are 180 factories in Vietnam, and identified

ten factories that were producing wooden bedroom furniture in China in 2004 that have since moved to Vietnam to

set up factories. He stated that the Vietnamese government does not allow companies to ship old equipment from

China to Vietnam, so the firms must build new facilities. Hearing transcript, p. 235 (Tsai).

 23 “Vietnam. The Furniture Industry”, found at

http://www.worldfurnitureonline.com/showPage.php?template=reports&id=2676, retrieved on October 18, 2010.

IV-9
ranking as the fourth-leading non-EU supplier to the EU market in 2009, trailing China, Brazil, and

Malaysia.

The top exporters of wooden bedroom furniture from Vietnam to the United States are listed in

the following tabulation: 

* * * * * * *

*** is headquartered in Malaysia ***.24 *** Malaysian ***.25 *** Chinese producers/exporters

headquartered in Taiwan26 ***. ***, a Taiwanese company, ***.27 ***.28 ***.29 ***.

GLOBAL MARKET

Production Capacity and Import Competition

Chinese producers were asked to describe their home market. Many described a competitive

market with thousands of producers (although some are small and only sell “down the street”30). For

example, *** stated that there are over 50,000 furniture producers in China, with about 60 percent

producing wooden furniture and 40 percent producing non-wooden furniture. It added that no one

producer accounted for more than one percent of total Chinese sales. *** stated that there are over 3,000

“American style” furniture producers in China. It described smaller factories as having invested less in

machinery and equipment, allowing lower prices than the larger producers, but also producing lowerquality product. Twenty-five Chinese producers stated that they do not face import competition in the

Chinese market (with four explaining that they do not sell in the Chinese market) while four stated they

did, citing imports from the United States, Indonesia, Italy, Germany, Malaysia, and Vietnam. *** added

that the Chinese market does have some imported European brands. 

Chinese producers were also asked about the effect of Vietnamese product on world markets. 

Multiple Chinese producers described Vietnamese product as being lower-priced and sometimes lower

quality, but a challenge to Chinese product due to lower Vietnamese labor costs. *** stated that

Vietnamese producers generally produce lower quality product than it produces. Eleven Chinese

producers attributed Vietnamese product being sold at lower prices than Chinese product in world

markets to lower material and labor costs in Vietnam. *** described Vietnamese product prices as lower

than prices for product from China, Indonesia, and Malaysia. However, three Chinese producers stated

that their firms were not affected by exports of wooden bedroom furniture from Vietnam, and ***

described Vietnamese product as not having a presence internationally except in the U.S. market.

Regarding competition with product from other countries, *** described European firms

including IKEA as major competitors to Chinese producers in the area of panel-based contemporary

furniture. It elaborated that IKEA produces such product in both Asia and Europe, and exports product to

the East Coast of the United States from Europe, from where it does not face any duty order. It added that

it expected increased demand for Chinese-produced panel-based wooden bedroom furniture in the

Chinese home market for cost and service reasons (with the concept of self-assembly still not commonly

 24 ***.

 25 ***.

 26 ***.

 27 ***.

 28 ***.

 29 ***.

 30 See questionnaire response of ***.

IV-10
accepted in China). It stated that the VDMA (German Woodworking Machinery Association) has

reported a continued increase in exports to China of furniture-making machines, despite the economic

downturn since 2008. It added that while European producers continue to be strong in the area of panel

furniture production, in areas requiring more manual work (e.g., flat panels with veneer overlays), Asian

manufacturers are making inroads into European markets. 

Consumption

Importers City Furniture and Fairmont described the Chinese furniture market as consisting of a

large segment that buys flat-pack, ready-to-assemble furniture and a growing upper-middle-class market

that buy American-style furniture at much higher (than U.S.) retail prices (due to high retail mark-ups).31

More broadly, U.S. producers, importers, and purchasers were asked how demand outside the

United States had changed since January 1, 2004. While most producers did not follow demand trends

outside the United States, three firms stated that it had decreased, one stated that it had increased (due to

economic growth in the developing world), ten stated that it had fluctuated (due to macroeconomic

trends), and six stated that it had stayed the same. *** said that while it had heard that Chinese demand

had risen, Chinese production had risen even faster.

Eight U.S. producers anticipated that foreign demand would increase, six anticipated no change

in foreign demand, and nine anticipated fluctuating foreign demand. Factors cited included worldwide

economic conditions (with producers having different predictions of future growth) and the expansion of

the middle class in developing countries.

Although many importers expressed a lack of information about markets outside the United

States, seven saw foreign demand as having increased, 16 saw foreign demand as having fluctuated, 10

saw foreign demand as having decreased, and 14 saw no change. These importers generally saw

international conditions as similar to U.S. economic conditions, though *** saw foreign fluctuations as

less severe than U.S. fluctuations. 

Eighteen importers anticipated that foreign demand would fluctuate, 16 saw it increasing, and 19

predicted no change. Importers offered different predictions for European recovery with *** anticipating

growth while *** expecting little European growth. *** anticipated more demand growth in the

developing world than in the developed world, and *** foresaw increased demand from China.

Twenty-two Chinese producers stated that demand for wooden bedroom furniture in the Chinese

market had increased since 2004, and 24 Chinese producers anticipated a continued increase, citing rising

wages and standards of living. Three Chinese producers stated that Chinese demand had fluctuated, and

one of those three focuses on the hospitality market. Three Chinese producers reported no change in

Chinese demand, and three did not anticipate any change in Chinese demand. 

Chinese producers’ responses diverged more over third-country markets (beyond the United

States and China), with 8 stating that third-country demand had increased, 10 stating that it had

fluctuated, 1 stating that it had decreased, and 11 stating that it had not changed since 2004. Ten Chinese

producers anticipated that third-country demand would increase, 10 anticipated that it would fluctuate,

and 10 anticipated no change.

U.S. purchasers generally expressed little knowledge of foreign demand changes since 2004. 

Among those that did, seven reported fluctuating foreign demand, five reported no change, three reported

an increase, and one reported a decrease. Some purchasers stated their belief that foreign demand follows

the same global economic trends as does U.S. demand. *** indicated that domestic Chinese consumption

has risen. *** stated that for hospitality furniture, demand rose faster, fell faster, and is recovering faster

in the Asia Pacific region and the Middle East than in the United States. 

 31 Hearing transcript, pp. 217-218, 263-264 (K. Koenig and Tsai).

IV-11
Nine purchasers anticipated an increase in foreign demand for wooden bedroom furniture, nine

anticipated no change, and six anticipated fluctuating foreign demand. Purchasers often expected foreign

demand to follow international economic trends, and several expected more growth in Chinese

consumption.

Exports

Table IV-7 presents world exports of wooden bedroom furniture from 2004 to 2009.32 Global

exports of wooden bedroom furniture grew by 29 percent during 2004-09, from $3.5 billion to $4.5

billion. China was the leading world supplier of wooden bedroom furniture in each year during 2004-09. 

China’s exports rose by 82 percent during the period, from $1.2 billion to $2.1 billion. Its share of total

world exports increased from 33 percent to 47 percent. Exports from Malaysia, the third-leading supplier

after the EU, more than doubled, increasing from $170 million to $386 million. Its share of total exports

expanded from 5 percent to 9 percent. Countries with the sharpest declines in world market share during

2004-09 were Canada (from 11 percent to 2 percent) and Brazil (from 9 percent to 5 percent).

Table IV-7

Wooden bedroom furniture: World exports, 2004-09

Source

Calendar year

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Value (million dollars)

China 1,152 1,423 1,835 2,121 2,185 2,098

EU 27 (external trade) 738 691 747 929 1,075 830

Malaysia 170 210 269 278 396 386

Brazil 307 311 288 288 290 234

United States 105 126 128 148 188 172

Indonesia 135 162 191 184 195 160

Turkey 35 45 59 85 125 143

Canada 395 363 295 225 156 111

All other 454 539 523 740 534 367

 Total exports 3,492 3,870 4,335 4,999 5,143 4,501

Source: Compiled from Global Trade Atlas, HS 9403.50 “Bedroom Furniture, Wooden, Nes.” Retrieved

September 10, 2010.

 32 Vietnam does not report its exports to the United Nations or to the Global Trade Atlas and therefore is not

listed as a leading exporter of wooden bedroom furniture in table IV-7. However, in examining imports reported by

the United States and the EU, it is evident that Vietnam is likely the world’s second-leading exporter of wooden

bedroom furniture. 

IV-12
The AFMC’s prehearing brief (p. 51 and exh. 33) indicates that the Chinese Government

increased the value added tax (“VAT”) export rebate on most furniture, including wooden bedroom

furniture, from 9 percent to 11 percent effective November 1, 2008; to 13 percent effective December 1,

2008; and to 15 percent effective June 1, 2009.33

Imports

Table IV-8 presents world imports of wooden bedroom furniture from 2004 to 2009. Global

imports of wooden bedroom furniture increased by 10 percent during 2004-09, from $4.5 billion to $5.0

billion. The United States was the leading importing nation each year during 2004-09. Despite peaking

at $3.2 billion in 2006, U.S. imports declined by 14 percent during 2004-09, from $2.7 billion to $2.3

billion. By contrast, imports of wooden bedroom furniture by the rest of the world grew by 47 percent

during 2004-09, from $1.8 billion to $2.7 billion. The U.S. share of total imports declined from 60

percent in 2004 to 47 percent. EU imports more than doubled during 2004-90, from $450 million to $908

million, with the EU increasing its share of world imports from 10 percent to 18 percent during the

period.

Table IV-8

Wooden bedroom furniture: World imports, 2004-09

Source

Calendar year

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Value (million dollars)

United States 2,723 3,162 3,213 3,071 2,707 2,329

EU 27 (external trade) 450 523 640 871 1,007 908

Canada 188 228 284 304 327 287

Switzerland 189 196 208 251 256 232

Australia 91 116 145 183 206 189

Japan 142 153 162 160 171 164

Russia 53 58 81 104 133 107

Hong Kong 89 90 79 78 75 74

Korea 30 46 71 89 90 65

China 11 14 17 41 56 48

Norway 30 33 37 50 55 48

Table continued on next page. 

 33 Circular of the MOF and the SAT Regarding Increasing Export Rebates on Certain Commodities, CaiShui

{2008} No. 138 (October 21, 2008); Circular of the MOF and the SAT Regarding Increasing Export Rebates on

Labor-Intensive Products, CaiShui {2008} No. 144 (November 7, 2008); and Circular of the MOF and the SAT

Regarding Further Increasing Export Rebates on Certain Commodities, CaiShui {2009} No. 88 (June 3, 2009), p.

51 and exh. 33 of the AFMC’s prehearing brief.

IV-13
Table IV-8--Continued

Wooden bedroom furniture: World imports, 2004-09

Source

Calendar year

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Value (million dollars)

Kazakhstan 17 21 37 58 54 46

All other 514 645 705 969 923 487

 Total imports 4,528 5,287 5,680 6,227 6,060 4,983

Source: Compiled from Global Trade Atlas, HS 9403.50 “Bedroom Furniture, Wooden, Nes.” Retrieved

September 10, 2010.

Prices

Producers and importers were asked to compare market prices of wooden bedroom furniture in

the United States and in non-U.S. markets. Most producers had no knowledge of pricing in other

countries. *** reported that prices in the United States and other developed countries were similar. 

However, *** reported that a solid pine loft or bunk bed cost $999 in Canada but $799 in the United

States. Similarly, only 17 importers had any knowledge of U.S. and foreign market pricing. ***

described Asian product (especially Chinese, Malaysian, and Vietnamese product) as less expensive than

U.S. product. However, *** described prices in U.S. and non-U.S. markets as similar. *** stated that

non-U.S. prices, especially in the Middle East, are generally higher than U.S. prices, in part because order

sizes are smaller. *** distinguished high-end product, which it said was usually higher-priced in the

United States, and low-end product, which it said was usually lower-priced in the United States because

of imports from Italy, Brazil, Malaysia, and Vietnam. However, *** stated that high-end hotel wooden

bedroom furniture is higher-priced outside the United States than in the United States. Additionally, ***

stated that Canadian prices are 20 percent higher than U.S. prices due to currency issues.

Among Chinese producers, three stated that wooden bedroom furniture prices for product sold in

China are lower than the prices of product sold in the United States, with one stating that transportation

costs explained the difference. Four Chinese producers described prices in China as higher than U.S.

prices. *** stated that its f.o.b. China prices are the same for product sold anywhere in the world. Many

other Chinese producers stated that comparisons were difficult either because they had no Chinese sales

or because the products sold in different national markets were not comparable. Seven Chinese producers

stated that their prices were the same for U.S. and other non-Chinese markets.

IV-14
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

January 2004 = 100

PART V: PRICING AND RELATED INFORMATION

FACTORS AFFECTING PRICES

Raw Material Costs

Raw materials accounted for between 45.6 and 50.6 percent of U.S. producers’ costs of goods

sold during 2004-09, and thus are an important consideration in the price of wooden bedroom furniture. 

*** described hardwood solids and veneers as accounting for 90 percent of its total material costs,

hardware and mirrors accounting for 10 percent, and finishing materials for 1 percent. The producer price

index for hardwood lumber is provided in figure V-1. Hardwood lumber prices were stable from 2004 to

early 2008, fell about 14 percent from 2004 levels in 2009, and have since returned to 2004 levels.

Figure V-1

Producer price index for hardwood lumber

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.

When asked to assess the effect of changes in the prices of raw materials on their prices of

wooden bedroom furniture, U.S. producers1

 gave a wide variety of answers. Some2 reported that raw

material costs had been relatively constant (or fluctuated mildly), others reported that raw material costs

had risen somewhat (with varied opinions over whether costs could be passed on to consumers or whether

import pricing prevented such pass-throughs),3

 and others reported that foreign (especially Chinese)

demand for wood had placed pressure on raw material prices.4

 Several companies (including ***) stated

 1 Numerous firms submitted a combination of producers’, importers’, purchasers’, and/or foreign producers’

questionnaires, or submitted questionnaires for firms that were related to each other. These overlaps are summarized

in appendix G. Staff has included all questionnaire responses.

 2

 For example, ***.

 3

 Examples include ***.

 4

 Examples include ***.

V-1
that lumber prices had recently begun to rise, sometimes also noting after a fall in 2008 or 2009. 

Additionally, some companies (including ***) pointed out that finish prices had risen due to the price of

petroleum while lumber prices had remained more stable.5

Among importers, 52 reported that raw material prices had increased (or would increase) from a

little to a significant amount, with *** reporting that it discontinued selling wooden bedroom furniture in

2008 due to increased raw material costs and the antidumping duty order. Most who reported the timing

of the increases described the increases as concentrated in more recent years, i.e., after 2007. Twelve

importers reported no change in raw material costs, though two of those (***) stated that while lumber

prices had not increased, prices of other inputs had increased. On the other hand, the importers that did

report increased lumber costs attributed the increased costs to insufficient supply and U.S. regulations

(such as the Lacey Act). Some importers reported that they had passed on increased raw materials costs

to customers while others reported having absorbed the costs.6

At least 26 Chinese producers reported increased raw materials prices affecting their selling

prices or sales volumes of wooden bedroom furniture, generally citing upward price pressure from

increased raw material prices. For example, *** reported that they had raised their selling prices (for

***) due to raw material price increases in 2008 and 2009. *** had also raised selling prices, but added

that because raw materials are imported, and that price increases were uniform internationally, the

increases had no effect on its competitiveness. *** stated that their quoted prices for wooden bedroom

furniture usually depend on the price of raw material at the time, but added that increased raw material

prices would decrease profits. However, seven Chinese producers reported that the prices of raw

materials had not affected their firm’s selling prices of wooden bedroom furniture much since 2004. 

Reasons cited included little change in wood prices, improvements in material use counteracting wood

price increases, and the inability to pass along price increases. 

Transportation Costs to the U.S. Market

Transportation costs for wooden bedroom furniture from China to the U.S. market fell from 20.3

percent of customs value in 2006 to 14.4 percent in 2009, while falling from 24.8 percent to 17.2 percent

for product from Vietnam over the same period.7

As discussed in Part II, importers and foreign producers reported increasing difficulty in securing

container space on U.S.-bound vessels. Additionally, difficulty in securing container space (for all 

 5 Among companies listing specific increase amounts, *** said that it had passed on two price increases since

2004, one of 3 percent and one of 5 percent. *** said that, because raw material costs had increased by 25 percent

since 2004, it had increased prices by 20 percent. *** described anticipating raw material price increases of 20

percent that would lead to increased product costs of 7.5 percent. *** described a 10-percent change in lumber

prices as leading to a one percent change in wooden bedroom furniture pricing. *** stated that it had seen raw

material prices increase *** percent over the last two years, but had not increased prices between ***, when it

planned a 5-percent increase that would not cover its cost increases. 

 6

 Among companies listing specific increase amounts, *** reported cost increases of 22 percent, *** reported

increases of 15 percent, *** stated that increased raw material costs had increased its sales prices by about 3 percent,

*** reported cost increases of 2 to 10 percent leading to sales price increases of 5 percent, *** reported raw

materials price increases of 20 percent leading to sales price increases of 15 percent, *** reported a raw material

price increase of 10 percent that had not yet led to sales price increases, and *** reported a 20-percent raw materials

price increase.

 7

 Staff compared customs and c.i.f. values for HTS statistical reporting numbers 9403.50.9040 and 9403.50.9080. 

V-2
products) has been reported recently in the media.8

 It is possible that the difficulty in securing container

space was primarily in 2010, and after what the New York Times describes as shipping prices moving

from “a five-year low” for Hong Kong-to-Los Angeles shipping rates in July 2009 to a “five-year high”

in July 2010.

U.S. Inland Transportation Costs

U.S. producers reported that U.S. inland transportation costs generally ranged from 4 to 16

percent of the cost of wooden bedroom furniture, while importers reported that transportation costs

generally ranged from 3 to 20 percent. Thirty-nine U.S. producers and 56 responding importers also

reported arranging transportation to their customers’ locations (while 12 producers and 41 importers

reported that the purchaser arranges transportation).9

Exchange Rates

China’s currency appreciated 21 percent against the dollar over January 2004-December 2009,

with most of the appreciation occurring in 2007 and 2008; the yuan-dollar rate was unchanged before

mid-2005 and after 2008. The nominal values of China’s and Vietnam’s currency are presented in

appendix I.

PRICING PRACTICES

Pricing Methods

Forty-six producers and 59 importers reported that they determined prices using set price lists,

while 5 producers and 14 importers reported using transaction-by-transaction negotiations (sometimes

based on price lists). Eleven importers reported using multiple methods, and importers that were also

large retailers (such as ***) reported using ***.

Producers sold mostly using spot sales, with 47 producers selling at least 90 percent of their

wooden bedroom furniture as spot sales.10 Similarly, 67 importers sold at least 85 percent of their product

as spot sales. However, 20 importers had at least 70 percent of their sales as short-term contracts, and 5

had at least 75 percent of their sales as long-term contracts. Importers reported a wide variety of shortand long-term contracts, including contracts that fixed price, quantity, or both price and quantity, and of

different durations from several weeks to two years.

Twenty-six Chinese producers reported that at least 90 percent of their sales were spot sales,

while four reported that all of their sales were under short-term contracts. These short-term contracts

 8 See, for example, “Retailers Pay More to Get Cargo (No Guarantee),” New York Times, July 25, 2010.

 9

 Two producers and four importers answered that both they and their purchasers arrange transportation. Thirtyfour importers reported arranging sales from their storage facility, while 54 reported arranging sales from their point

of importation.

 10 Additionally, three producers sold 30 to 50 percent spot and the rest under contracts. *** reported that all of

their sales were under short-term (three to six month) contracts that fixed price and quantity. *** had *** percent of

its sales under long-term contracts that fixed price. “Short-term” contracts are contracts of up to and including 12

months; “long-term” contracts are contracts of more than 12 months.

V-3
were generally for two to three months, did not allow renegotiation, did not have a meet-or-release

provision, and fixed price but not quantity (except for one firm).11

For 44 purchasers, purchases involve negotiations with the supplier, but for 17, they do not. 

Negotiations cover price, quality, availability, shipping costs, features, and payment terms. Sometimes

competing prices may be quoted, or relative positions compared to other suppliers’ prices. However,

several purchasers also indicated that they do not quote competing prices. 

Thirty purchasers reported contacting between two and three suppliers before making a purchase,

with 5 contacting only one and 14 contacting more than three, even up to as many as 50 to 100.

Seven purchasers reported competing with their suppliers for sales, while 31 stated that they did not. Of

the seven that did, most reported that their customer base was either hotels or that the supplier that they

competed with was retailer ***. *** stated that U.S. producers from which it has purchased in the past

increasingly act as retailers.

Forty-one purchasers stated that they do not vary their purchases from a given supplier due to

price. *** elaborated that it requires all suppliers to fix prices, and then discontinues any merchandise

with raised prices. However, 19 purchasers stated that they did vary purchases based on price. *** stated

that its purchase agreements fix price, but that a variance of more than five percent in raw material costs

will lead to negotiation of a new purchase agreement. *** stated that it varies purchases all the time, but

*** responded that they vary purchases only during seasonal marketing periods. *** stated that

purchases vary by price, but typically not within a year of the initial receipt. 

Eleven purchasers purchase monthly or quarterly, 23 purchase weekly, 19 purchase daily, and 8

purchase as needed. Fifty-nine purchasers do not expect their pattern to change in the next two years,

while *** did, anticipating more business as the economy improves.

Pieces and Suites

When U.S. producers and importers were asked if they generally sell wooden bedroom furniture

as suites or as pieces, 16 producers and 42 importers indicated that they generally sold wooden bedroom

furniture as pieces. Twelve producers and 29 importers generally sold wooden bedroom furniture as

suites. Five producers and 14 importers generally sold both suites and pieces. Several producers and

importers noted that even if they sell their product in suites to retailers and distributors, consumers may

buy as pieces.

Producers and importers were asked to estimate the percentage of their firm’s sales of wooden

bedroom furniture in 2009 that was made as separate pieces or as suites. Eighteen producers and 59

importers reported that 70 percent or more of their sales were made as pieces, while 22 producers and 38

importers responded that 65 percent or more of their sales were made as suites. Another three producers

and three importers split their sales evenly between pieces and suites. Producer *** reported that the

piece sale has slowly eclipsed the suite sale over the last six to eight years as the consumer is purchasing

only necessities. Importer *** stated that it was probably selling more headboards and nightstands now

than in 2004. No other producers or importers reported any changes since 2004, although several noted

that retailers may sell pieces to their customers, but tend to buy suites.

Producers and importers were asked whether, if they sell wooden bedroom furniture as a suite, all

the pieces of their suites are produced in the same country. Thirty-three producers answered Yes, and

eleven answered No. Those that answered No imported different pieces, including smaller dressers, beds,

and mirrors. Sixty-eight importers answered Yes, while 21 answered No, with some stating that they

imported beds, mirrors, and/or baby bedrooms from China to supplement domestic products.

 11 Additionally, *** reported long-term contracts that fixed price, allowed renegotiation, and had one-year

durations, and *** reported long-term contracts that fixed price and quantity, allowed renegotiation, and had oneyear durations.

V-4
Purchasers were also asked whether, if they purchase wooden bedroom furniture as a suite, all the

pieces of their suites are produced in the same country. Twenty-five purchasers answered Yes, and 20

answered No. Some of those that answered No did so because they purchase by piece. *** reported that

their only purchases of blended (imported and domestic) suites occur when they purchase from U.S.

manufacturers that import beds and/or mirrors to combine with domestically-produced pieces. ***

reported that their purchases of blended suites were 16 percent or less of their total purchases.

Producers were asked what percentage of bedrooms that their firms sold was produced in the

United States in 2004 and 2009, and on a piece or suite basis. Four producers (***) showed a reduced

share of U.S. production in their 2009 sales from their 2004 sales. Twelve producers reported that an

unchanged majority (usually 100 percent) of their sales were on a piece basis in 2004 and in 2009. Three

reported a 50-percent piece basis and 50-percent suite basis in 2004 and 2009. Nine answered that an

unchanged majority of their sales was negotiated on a suite basis in 2004 and 2009. Additionally, ***

increased its share of sales on a suite basis. 

Twenty-two purchasers reported generally purchasing wooden bedroom furniture as pieces, and

31 reported generally purchasing as suites. Whether generally purchasing as pieces or suites, most

purchasers reported making at least 90 percent of their purchases in only one way (rather than both) in

2009. Similarly, 22 purchasers reported selling their wooden bedroom furniture as pieces, 31 reported

selling their product as suites, and two reported selling an equal percentage of product as suites and as

pieces. Most firms that reported selling as suites or pieces reported selling at least 70 percent in that way.

Producers and importers were asked if the prices that they charged for wooden bedroom furniture 

were generally negotiated on a piece-by-piece or suite basis. In comments on the question, multiple

producers and importers expressed some confusion with the question, pointing out that negotiations might

take place on a piece basis but that total suite cost was also a factor. In their direct answers, 24 producers

and 63 importers stated that their prices were negotiated on a piece-by-piece basis while 8 producers and

11 importers stated that prices were negotiated on a suite basis. Six producers and 14 importers stated

that prices were negotiated both on a piece-by-piece and suite basis. Importer ***, which supplies hotels,

stated that it negotiates for an entire hotel project. 

Among purchasers, 28 reported negotiating their purchase prices piece-by-piece, 19 reported

negotiating by suite, and 8 reported negotiating both piece-by-piece and by suite. Two purchasers in the

hospitality segment reported negotiating on a project basis, e.g., furnishing an entire hotel. For their

selling prices, 26 reported negotiating prices piece-by-piece, 17 reported negotiating prices by suite, and 6

reported negotiating prices both piece-by-piece and by suite. *** commented that the price of the bed is

the most important part of pricing wooden bedroom furniture in attracting a customer’s attention.

Producers and importers were also asked to estimate the percentage of the value of their firm’s

sales of wooden bedroom furniture in 2009 that was based on prices that were negotiated on a piece basis

and those that were based on a suite basis. Twenty-six producers and 63 importers answered that 70

percent or more were negotiated on a piece basis, while 16 producers and 25 importers answered that 70

percent or more were negotiated on a suite basis. Additionally, two producers and six importers had a 50-

50 split between negotiating on piece and suite bases.

Sales Terms and Discounts

Forty-three producers and 63 importers reported that typical sales terms for wooden bedroom

furniture were net 30, with a few producers reporting slightly different time frames (e.g., net 15, net 60). 

Forty-three producers reported that prices were generally quoted on an f.o.b. factory or warehouse basis

(although seven producers reported quoting on a delivered basis). All but three importers reported

quoting on a f.o.b. warehouse or point-of-entry basis, while those three reported quoting on a delivered

basis. Fifteen producers and 35 importers reported no discount policy, but 34 producers did offer

discounts, usually based on quantity. Forty-four importers offered quantity discounts, and other importers

offered promotional, seasonal, specific customer, on-time payment, floor space, and other discounts.

V-5
Price Leaders

Purchasers were asked to identify industry price leaders and how they exhibited price leadership. 

The most frequently named price leaders were Ashley (named by 11 purchasers) and Lifestyle (named by

13 purchasers).12 Lifestyle was generally described as leading prices down, and Ashley was described as

leading through its large market share. However, two different purchasers described Ashley leading

prices upward on different occasions in 2008 and 2010. Other price leaders mentioned included

Trademaster, Stanley, Progressive, Thomasville, Legacy, Broyhill, Liberty, and Elements. *** described

Rooms to Go as the price leader in the “good” tier, Macy’s as the price leader in the “better” tier, and

Thomasville as the price leader in the “best” tier. In the hospitality segment, several purchasers named

Kimball as the price leader. ***. Thirteen purchasers answered that there was no price leader or that they

did not know. 

U.S. Prices 

Purchasers were asked if the price of U.S.-produced wooden bedroom furniture had changed

since 2004, and if so, how it had changed relative to the price of imports from China of wooden bedroom

furniture. Four purchasers reported no change. Twenty-one purchasers reported that U.S. and Chinese

prices had changed by the same amount. Sixteen reported that Chinese prices had risen more than U.S.

prices, and five reported the opposite, i.e., that U.S. prices had risen more than Chinese prices. One

reported that the answer varies depending on the Chinese producer.

PRICE DATA

The Commission requested U.S. producers and importers13 of wooden bedroom furniture to

provide quarterly data for the total net quantity and value of wooden bedroom furniture that was shipped

to unrelated customers in the U.S. market (sales data, f.o.b. U.S. point of shipment) and for imports of

wooden bedroom furniture that were sold to final customers (direct import data, delivered basis). Data

were requested for the period January 2004 to December 2009. The products for which pricing data were

requested are presented in appendix J.

Twenty-five U.S. producers and 60 importers provided pricing data for sales of the requested

products, although not all firms reported pricing for all products for all quarters. Pricing data reported by

these firms accounted for approximately 5.3 percent of U.S. producers’ U.S. commercial shipments of

wooden bedroom furniture in 2009, 5.6 percent of U.S. sales of subject imports from China in 2009, and

0.1 percent of U.S. direct imports from China in 2009.

Pricing data are presented in tables V-1 through V-26 and figure V-2. Table V-27 presents a

summary of price movements during the period for which data were collected. In general, pricing data 

 12 Some purchasers named more than one price leader. 

 13 Importers were asked to provide data for products sold to retailers and wholesalers (sales data) and for products

that the importer itself planned to sell directly to consumers (direct import data).

V-6
contained a wide range of prices based on the supplying firm. For example, for producer data for product

1-A, ***.

Since the prehearing report, staff made several changes to the pricing data. Data from producers

***, not available at the writing of the prehearing report, were added. Data from importers *** were

removed because ***.14 Data for product *** were removed because ***. Data for product *** were

removed because ***. Data for product *** were removed because ***.15

Additionally, in the U.S. producers’ questionnaire (question II-9) and the importers’

questionnaire (question II-13), producers and importers were asked what percent of the product they

produced or imported was solid wood or solid wood veneer as opposed to being non-solid wood or nonsolid wood veneer. The AFMC and respondents disagree over whether certain of the pricing product

definitions would exclude a firm from providing any pricing data for these products if it had indicated that

it produced or imported only non-solid wood or non-solid wood veneer wooden bedroom furniture.16

Specifically, the AFMC stated that firms producing or importing only wooden bedroom furniture made

with printed paper laminate over particle board (and thus producing or importing only nonsolid wood or

nonsolid wood veneer) should not provide any pricing data for most of the pricing data. Staff solicited

comments on the issue in the parties’ briefs. The AFMC responded on pages 6-7 of section A of its

prehearing brief, expressing that pricing data for firms producing or importing only non-solid wood or

non-solid wood veneer wooden bedroom furniture should be excluded.

For purposes of the staff report, staff has excluded most pricing data (except for products 1-E, 2-

E, 3-E, 4-D, and 4-E, the definitions of which make no reference to solid wood or solid wood veneers) for

all producers and importers that indicated that they produced or imported 100 percent non-solid wood or

non-solid wood veneer wooden bedroom furniture in 2009.17 These firms are U.S. producers *** and

importers ***.18 Staff has also placed a different set of pricing data that include all these firms’ data on

the confidential record.

Table V-1

Wooden bedroom furniture: Weighted-average f.o.b. sales and delivered direct import prices and

quantities of domestic and imported product 1-A and margins of underselling/(overselling), by

quarters, January 2004-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-2

Wooden bedroom furniture: Weighted-average f.o.b. sales and delivered direct import prices and

quantities of domestic and imported product 1-B and margins of underselling/(overselling), by

quarters, January 2004-December 2009

* * * * * * *

 14 See importer questionnaires of *** and ***.

 15 ***. Pricing data that include these producers’ data are available in the prehearing staff report.

 16 See staff conversations with ***.

 17 Counsel for AFMC alleged that some U.S. producers’ data (including those of ***) was for product made with

printed paper, not a wood veneer, over particle board, and thus did not meet the pricing product definitions. See

staff telephone conversations with ***. 

 18 Products *** are unaffected by the exclusion of these firms’ data.

V-7
Table V-3

Wooden bedroom furniture: Weighted-average f.o.b. sales and delivered direct import prices and

quantities of domestic and imported product 1-C and margins of underselling/(overselling), by

quarters, January 2004-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-4

Wooden bedroom furniture: Weighted-average f.o.b. sales and delivered direct import prices and

quantities of domestic and imported product 1-D and margins of underselling/(overselling), by

quarters, January 2004-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-5

Wooden bedroom furniture: Weighted-average f.o.b. sales and delivered direct import prices and

quantities of domestic and imported product 1-E and margins of underselling/(overselling), by

quarters, January 2004-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-6

Wooden bedroom furniture: Weighted-average f.o.b. sales and delivered direct import prices and

quantities of domestic and imported product 1-F and margins of underselling/(overselling), by

quarters, January 2004-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-7

Wooden bedroom furniture: Weighted-average f.o.b. sales and delivered direct import prices and

quantities of domestic and imported product 1-G and margins of underselling/(overselling), by

quarters, January 2004-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-8

Wooden bedroom furniture: Weighted-average f.o.b. sales and delivered direct import prices and

quantities of domestic and imported product 2-A and margins of underselling/(overselling), by

quarters, January 2004-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-9

Wooden bedroom furniture: Weighted-average f.o.b. sales and delivered direct import prices and

quantities of domestic and imported product 2-B and margins of underselling/(overselling), by

quarters, January 2004-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-10

Wooden bedroom furniture: Weighted-average f.o.b. sales and delivered direct import prices and

quantities of domestic and imported product 2-C and margins of underselling/(overselling), by

quarters, January 2004-December 2009

* * * * * * *

V-8
Table V-11

Wooden bedroom furniture: Weighted-average f.o.b. sales and delivered direct import prices and

quantities of domestic and imported product 2-D and margins of underselling/(overselling), by

quarters, January 2004-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-12

Wooden bedroom furniture: Weighted-average f.o.b. sales and delivered direct import prices and

quantities of domestic and imported product 2-E and margins of underselling/(overselling), by

quarters, January 2004-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-13

Wooden bedroom furniture: Weighted-average f.o.b. sales and delivered direct import prices and

quantities of domestic and imported product 2-F and margins of underselling/(overselling), by

quarters, January 2004-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-14

Wooden bedroom furniture: Weighted-average f.o.b. sales and delivered direct import prices and

quantities of domestic and imported product 2-G and margins of underselling/(overselling), by

quarters, January 2004-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-15

Wooden bedroom furniture: Weighted-average f.o.b. sales and delivered direct import prices and

quantities of domestic and imported product 3-A and margins of underselling/(overselling), by

quarters, January 2004-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-16

Wooden bedroom furniture: Weighted-average f.o.b. sales and delivered direct import prices and

quantities of domestic and imported product 3-B and margins of underselling/(overselling), by

quarters, January 2004-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-17

Wooden bedroom furniture: Weighted-average f.o.b. sales and delivered direct import prices and

quantities of domestic and imported product 3-C and margins of underselling/(overselling), by

quarters, January 2004-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-18

Wooden bedroom furniture: Weighted-average f.o.b. sales and delivered direct import prices and

quantities of domestic and imported product 3-D and margins of underselling/(overselling), by

quarters, January 2004-December 2009

* * * * * * *

V-9
Table V-19

Wooden bedroom furniture: Weighted-average f.o.b. sales and delivered direct import prices and

quantities of domestic and imported product 3-E and margins of underselling/(overselling), by

quarters, January 2004-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-20

Wooden bedroom furniture: Weighted-average f.o.b. sales and delivered direct import prices and

quantities of domestic and imported product 3-F and margins of underselling/(overselling), by

quarters, January 2004-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-21

Wooden bedroom furniture: Weighted-average f.o.b. sales and delivered direct import prices and

quantities of domestic and imported product 3-G and margins of underselling/(overselling), by

quarters, January 2004-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-22

Wooden bedroom furniture: Weighted-average f.o.b. sales and delivered direct import prices and

quantities of domestic and imported product 4-A and margins of underselling/(overselling), by

quarters, January 2004-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-23

Wooden bedroom furniture: Weighted-average f.o.b. sales and delivered direct import prices and

quantities of domestic and imported product 4-B and margins of underselling/(overselling), by

quarters, January 2004-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-24

Wooden bedroom furniture: Weighted-average f.o.b. sales and delivered direct import prices and

quantities of domestic and imported product 4-C and margins of underselling/(overselling), by

quarters, January 2004-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-25

Wooden bedroom furniture: Weighted-average f.o.b. sales and delivered direct import prices and

quantities of domestic and imported product 4-D and margins of underselling/(overselling), by

quarters, January 2004-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-26

Wooden bedroom furniture: Weighted-average f.o.b. sales and delivered direct import prices and

quantities of domestic and imported product 4-E and margins of underselling/(overselling), by

quarters, January 2004-December 2009

* * * * * * *

V-10
Figure V-2

Wooden bedroom furniture: Weighted-average f.o.b. prices and quantities of products 1-4, by

country, January 2004-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-27

Wooden bedroom furniture: Summary of weighted-average f.o.b. sales and delivered direct import

prices for products 1-4 from the United States and China

* * * * * * *

Price Comparisons

Table V-28 presents margins of underselling and overselling for 2004-09, and table V-29 presents

margins of underselling and overselling for 2001-2004 (the original investigation).

Table V-28

Wooden bedroom furniture: Instances of underselling/overselling, January 2004-December 2009

Underselling Overselling

Number of instances Number of instances

China 496 121

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

Table V-29

Wooden bedroom furniture: Instances of underselling/overselling, January 2001-June 2004

Underselling Overselling

Number of instances Number of instances

China 112 0

Source: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1058 (Final), USITC Publication 3743, December

2004, p. V-14.

V-11

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES AND THE COMMISSION'S 

STATEMENT ON ADEQUACY 

A-1

62748 Federal Register / Vol. 229, No. 74 / Tuesday, December 1, 2009 / Notices 

1 In comments made on the interim final sunset 

regulations, a number of parties stated that the 

proposed five-day period for rebuttals to 

substantive responses to a notice of initiation was 

insufficient. This requirement was retained in the 

final sunset regulations at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(4). As 

provided in 19 CFR 351.302(b), however, the 

Department will consider individual requests to 

extend that five-day deadline based upon a showing 

of good cause. 

—Products for export; and 

—Products eligible for entry under 

HTSUS # 9808.00.30 and # 9808.00.40 

(U.S. Government purchases). 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 13th day of 

November 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for 

Import Administration, Alternate Chairman, 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board. 

Attest: 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–28765 Filed 11–30–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 

751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’), the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is 

automatically initiating a five-year 

review (‘‘Sunset Review’’) of the 

antidumping duty orders listed below. 

The International Trade Commission 

(‘‘the Commission’’) is publishing 

concurrently with this notice its notice 

of Institution of Five-Year Review which 

covers the same orders. 

DATES: Effective Date: December 1, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Department official identified in the 

Initiation of Review section below at 

AD/CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

For information from the Commission 

contact Mary Messer, Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission at (202) 205–3193. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department’s procedures for the 

conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth 

in its Procedures for Conducting Fiveyear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Orders, 63 FR 13516 (March 20, 1998) 

and 70 FR 62061 (October 28, 2005). 

Guidance on methodological or 

analytical issues relevant to the 

Department’s conduct of Sunset 

Reviews is set forth in the Department’s 

Policy Bulletin 98.3—Policies Regarding 

the Conduct of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Reviews of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Orders: Policy 

Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998). 

Initiation of Review 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.218(c), we are initiating the Sunset 

Review of the following antidumping 

duty orders: 

DOC case No. ITC case No. Country Product Department contact 

A–570–895 .............. 731–TA–1070A ...... PRC ........... Certain Crepe Paper Products ............... Jennifer Moats (202) 482–5047

A–570–890 .............. 731–TA–1058 ......... PRC ........... Wooden Bedroom Furniture ................... Jennifer Moats (202) 482–5047 

Filing Information 

As a courtesy, we are making 

information related to Sunset 

proceedings, including copies of the 

pertinent statute and Department’s 

regulations, the Department schedule 

for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past 

revocations and continuations, and 

current service lists, available to the 

public on the Department’s Internet 

Web site at the following address: 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/sunset/. All 

submissions in these Sunset Reviews 

must be filed in accordance with the 

Department’s regulations regarding 

format, translation, service, and 

certification of documents. These rules 

can be found at 19 CFR 351.303. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(c), the 

Department will maintain and make 

available a service list for these 

proceedings. To facilitate the timely 

preparation of the service list(s), it is 

requested that those seeking recognition 

as interested parties to a proceeding 

contact the Department in writing 

within 10 days of the publication of the 

Notice of Initiation. 

Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews 

can be very short, we urge interested 

parties to apply for access to proprietary 

information under administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) immediately 

following publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation by 

filing a notice of intent to participate. 

The Department’s regulations on 

submission of proprietary information 

and eligibility to receive access to 

business proprietary information under 

APO can be found at 19 CFR 351.304– 

306. 

Information Required From Interested 

Parties 

Domestic interested parties defined in 

section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b)) wishing 

to participate in a Sunset Review must 

respond not later than 15 days after the 

date of publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation by 

filing a notice of intent to participate. 

The required contents of the notice of 

intent to participate are set forth at 19 

CFR 351.218(d)(1)(ii). In accordance 

with the Department’s regulations, if we 

do not receive a notice of intent to 

participate from at least one domestic 

interested party by the 15-day deadline, 

the Department will automatically 

revoke the order without further review. 

See 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii). 

If we receive an order-specific notice 

of intent to participate from a domestic 

interested party, the Department’s 

regulations provide that all parties 

wishing to participate in the Sunset 

Review must file complete substantive 

responses not later than 30 days after 

the date of publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation. The 

required contents of a substantive 

response, on an order-specific basis, are 

set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3). Note 

that certain information requirements 

differ for respondent and domestic 

parties. Also, note that the Department’s 

information requirements are distinct 

from the Commission’s information 

requirements. Please consult the 

Department’s regulations for 

information regarding the Department’s 

conduct of Sunset Reviews.1 Please 

consult the Department’s regulations at 

19 CFR Part 351 for definitions of terms 

and for other general information 

concerning antidumping and 

countervailing duty proceedings at the 

Department. 

This notice of initiation is being 

published in accordance with section 

751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c). 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 229, No. 74 / Tuesday, December 1, 2009 / Notices 62749 

Dated: November 24, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–28775 Filed 11–30–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology 

National Fire Protection Association 

(NFPA): Request for Comments on 

NFPA’s Codes and Standards 

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards 

and Technology, Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Since 1896, the National Fire 

Protection Association (NFPA) has 

accomplished its mission by advocating 

scientifically based consensus codes 

and standards, research, and education 

for safety related issues. NFPA’s 

National Fire Codes®, which holds over 

270 documents, are administered by 

more than 225 Technical Committees 

comprised of approximately 7,000 

volunteers and are adopted and used 

throughout the world. NFPA is a 

nonprofit membership organization 

with approximately 80,000 members 

from over 70 nations, all working 

together to fulfill the Association’s 

mission. 

The NFPA process provides ample 

opportunity for public participation in 

the development of its codes and 

standards. All NFPA codes and 

standards are revised and updated every 

three to five years in Revision Cycles 

that begin twice each year and takes 

approximately two years to complete. 

Each Revision Cycle proceeds according 

to a published schedule that includes 

final dates for all major events in the 

process. The process contains five basic 

steps that are followed both for 

developing new documents as well as 

revising existing documents. These 

steps are: Calling for Proposals; 

Publishing the Proposals in the Report 

on Proposals (ROP); Calling for 

Comments on the Committee’s 

disposition of the Proposals and these 

Comments are published in the Report 

on Comments (ROC); having a Technical 

Report Session at the NFPA Annual 

Meeting; and finally, the Standards 

Council Consideration and Issuance of 

documents. 

Note: Under new rules effective Fall 2005, 

anyone wishing to make Amending Motions 

on the Technical Committee Reports (ROP 

and ROC) must signal their intention by 

submitting a Notice of Intent to Make a 

Motion by the Deadline of October 22, 2010. 

Certified motions will be posted by 

November 19, 2010. Documents that receive 

notice of proper Amending Motions 

(Certified Amending Motions) will be 

presented for action at the annual June 2011 

Association Technical Meeting. Documents 

that receive no motions will be forwarded 

directly to the Standards Council for action 

on issuance. 

For more information on these new 

rules and for up-to-date information on 

schedules and deadlines for processing 

NFPA Documents, check the NFPA Web 

site at http://www.nfpa.org or contact 

NFPA Codes and Standards 

Administration. 

The purpose of this notice is to 

request comments on the technical 

reports that will be published in the 

NFPA’s 2010 Fall Revision Cycle. The 

publication of this notice by the 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST) on behalf of NFPA is 

being undertaken as a public service; 

NIST does not necessarily endorse, 

approve, or recommend any of the 

standards referenced in the notice. 

DATES: Thirty-two reports are published 

in the 2010 Fall Revision Cycle Report 

on Proposals and will be available on 

December 28, 2009. Comments received 

on or before March 5, 2010, will be 

considered by the respective NFPA 

Committees before final action is taken 

on the proposals. 

ADDRESSES: The 2010 Fall Revision 

Cycle Report on Proposals is available 

and downloadable from NFPA’s Web 

site at http://www/nfpa.org or by 

requesting a copy from the NFPA, 

Fulfillment Center, 11 Tracy Drive, 

Avon, Massachusetts 02322. Comments 

on the report should be submitted to 

Secretary, Standards Council, NFPA, 1 

Batterymarch Park, Quincy, 

Massachusetts 02169–7471. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amy Beasley Cronin, Secretary, 

Standards Council, NFPA, 1 

Batterymarch Park, Quincy, 

Massachusetts 02169–7471, (617) 770– 

3000. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The National Fire Protection 

Association (NFPA) develops building, 

fire, and electrical safety codes and 

standards. Federal agencies frequently 

use these codes and standards as the 

basis for developing Federal regulations 

concerning safety. Often, the Office of 

the Federal Register approves the 

incorporation by reference of these 

standards under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 

CFR part 51. 

Request for Comments 

Interested persons may participate in 

these revisions by submitting written 

data, views, or arguments to Amy 

Beasley Cronin, Secretary, Standards 

Council, NFPA, 1 Batterymarch Park, 

Quincy, Massachusetts 02169–7471. 

Commenters may use the forms 

provided for comments in the Reports 

on Proposals. Each person submitting a 

comment should include his or her 

name and address, identify the notice, 

and give reasons for any 

recommendations. Comments received 

on or before March 5, 2010 for the 2010 

Fall Revision Cycle Report on Proposals 

will be considered by the NFPA before 

final action is taken on the proposals. 

Copies of all written comments 

received and the disposition of those 

comments by the NFPA committees will 

be published as the 2010 Fall Revision 

Cycle Report on Comments by August 

27, 2010. A copy of the Report on 

Comments will be sent automatically to 

each commenter. 

2010 FALL REVISION CYCLE REPORT ON PROPOSALS

[P=Partial Revision; W=Withdrawal; R=Reconfirmation; N=New; C=Complete Revision]

NFPA 2 ................. Hydrogen Technologies Code ............................................................................................................................................. N 

NFPA 3 ................. Standard for the Commissioning and Integrated Testing of Fire Protection and Life Safety Systems .............................. N 

NFPA 12 ............... Standard on Carbon Dioxide Extinguishing Systems .......................................................................................................... P 

NFPA 16 ............... Standard for the Installation of Foam-Water Sprinkler and Foam-Water Spray Systems .................................................. P 

NFPA 18A ............. Standard on Water Additives for Fire Control and Vapor Mitigation ................................................................................... P 

NFPA 31 ............... Standard for the Installation of Oil-Burning Equipment ....................................................................................................... P 

NFPA 32 ............... Standard for Drycleaning Plants .......................................................................................................................................... P 

NFPA 35 ............... Standard for the Manufacture of Organic Coatings ............................................................................................................ P 

NFPA 51A ............. Standard for Acetylene Cylinder Charging Plants ............................................................................................................... P 

NFPA 79 ............... Electrical Standard for Industrial Machinery ........................................................................................................................ P 

NFPA 85 ............... Boiler and Combustion Systems Hazards Code ................................................................................................................. P

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 229, No. 74 / Tuesday, December 1, 2009 / Notices 62817 

1No response to this request for information is 

required if a currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the 

OMB number is 3117–0016/USITC No. 10–5–208, 

expiration date June 30, 2011. Public reporting 

burden for the request is estimated to average 15 

hours per response. Please send comments 

regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to 

the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20436. 

Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) 

imports; 

(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. commercial shipments of Subject 

Merchandise imported from the Subject 

Country; and 

(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. internal consumption/company 

transfers of Subject Merchandise 

imported from the Subject Country. 

(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, 

or a trade/business association of 

producers or exporters of the Subject 

Merchandise in the Subject Country, 

provide the following information on 

your firm’s(s’) operations on that 

product during calendar year 2008 

(report quantity data in square meters 

and value data in U.S. dollars, landed 

and duty-paid at the U.S. port but not 

including antidumping duties). If you 

are a trade/business association, provide 

the information, on an aggregate basis, 

for the firms which are members of your 

association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total production of Subject Merchandise 

in the Subject Country accounted for by 

your firm’s(s’) production; 

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to 

produce the Subject Merchandise in the 

Subject Country (i.e., the level of 

production that your establishment(s) 

could reasonably have expected to 

attain during the year, assuming normal 

operating conditions (using equipment 

and machinery in place and ready to 

operate), normal operating levels (hours 

per week/weeks per year), time for 

downtime, maintenance, repair, and 

cleanup, and a typical or representative 

product mix); and 

(c) the quantity and value of your 

firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of 

Subject Merchandise and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total 

exports to the United States of Subject 

Merchandise from the Subject Country 

accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. 

(12) Identify significant changes, if 

any, in the supply and demand 

conditions or business cycle for the 

Domestic Like Product that have 

occurred in the United States or in the 

market for the Subject Merchandise in 

the Subject Country since the Order 

Date, and significant changes, if any, 

that are likely to occur within a 

reasonably foreseeable time. Supply 

conditions to consider include 

technology; production methods; 

development efforts; ability to increase 

production (including the shift of 

production facilities used for other 

products and the use, cost, or 

availability of major inputs into 

production); and factors related to the 

ability to shift supply among different 

national markets (including barriers to 

importation in foreign markets or 

changes in market demand abroad). 

Demand conditions to consider include 

end uses and applications; the existence 

and availability of substitute products; 

and the level of competition among the 

Domestic Like Product produced in the 

United States, Subject Merchandise 

produced in the Subject Country, and 

such merchandise from other countries. 

(13) (Optional) A statement of 

whether you agree with the above 

definitions of the Domestic Like Product 

and Domestic Industry; if you disagree 

with either or both of these definitions, 

please explain why and provide 

alternative definitions. 

Authority: This review is being conducted 

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.61 of the Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: November 24, 2009. 

William R. Bishop, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–28643 Filed 11–30–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–1058 (Review)] 

Wooden Bedroom Furniture From 

China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of a five-year review 

concerning the antidumping duty order 

on wooden bedroom furniture from 

China. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it has instituted a review 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) 

to determine whether revocation of the 

antidumping duty order on wooden 

bedroom furniture from China would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of material injury. Pursuant 

to section 751(c)(2) of the Act, interested 

parties are requested to respond to this 

notice by submitting the information 

specified below to the Commission; 1 to 

be assured of consideration, the 

deadline for responses is December 31, 

2009. Comments on the adequacy of 

responses may be filed with the 

Commission by February 16, 2010. For 

further information concerning the 

conduct of this review 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, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207), as most recently amended at 74 FR 

2847 (January 16, 2009). 

DATES: Effective Date: December 1, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired 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 review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background. On January 4, 2005, the 

Department of Commerce issued an 

antidumping duty order on imports of 

wooden bedroom furniture from China 

(70 FR 329). The Commission is 

conducting a review to determine 

whether revocation of the order would 

be likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of material injury to the 

domestic industry within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. It will assess the 

adequacy of interested party responses 

to this notice of institution to determine 

whether to conduct a full review or an 

expedited review. The Commission’s 

determination in any expedited review 

will be based on the facts available, 

which may include information 

provided in response to this notice. 

Definitions. The following definitions 

apply to this review: 

(1) Subject Merchandise is the class or 

kind of merchandise that is within the 

scope of the five-year review, as defined 

by the Department of Commerce. 

(2) The Subject Country in this review 

is China. 

(3) The Domestic Like Product is the 

domestically produced product or 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

62818 Federal Register / Vol. 229, No. 74 / Tuesday, December 1, 2009 / Notices 

2Note that a bed, which is defined as a 

headboard, with or without any combination of 

related pieces such as a footboard, side rails, and 

canopy, is considered a single piece whether it 

contains one or more separate pieces. Bunk beds are 

considered two beds and therefore are considered 

two pieces. 

products which are like, or in the 

absence of like, most similar in 

characteristics and uses with, the 

Subject Merchandise. In its original 

determination, the Commission found 

one Domestic Like Product consisting of 

all wooden bedroom furniture, 

including both joinery and non-joinery 

forms. Wooden bedroom furniture is 

wooden furniture designed and 

manufactured for use in the bedroom. It 

includes such items of wooden furniture 

as beds, nightstands, chests, armoires, 

and dressers with mirrors. 

(4) The Domestic Industry is the U.S. 

producers as a whole of the Domestic 

Like Product, or those producers whose 

collective output of the Domestic Like 

Product constitutes a major proportion 

of the total domestic production of the 

product. In its original determination, 

the Commission defined the Domestic 

Industry as all domestic producers of 

wooden bedroom furniture. 

(5) The Order Date is the date that the 

antidumping duty order under review 

became effective. In this review, the 

Order Date is January 4, 2005. 

(6) An Importer is any person or firm 

engaged, either directly or through a 

parent company or subsidiary, in 

importing the Subject Merchandise into 

the United States from a foreign 

manufacturer or through its selling 

agent. 

Participation in the review 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 review as parties must 

file an entry of appearance with the 

Secretary to the Commission, as 

provided in section 201.11(b)(4) of the 

Commission’s rules, no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. The Secretary will 

maintain a public service list containing 

the names and addresses of all persons, 

or their representatives, who are parties 

to the review. 

Former Commission employees who 

are seeking to appear in Commission 

five-year reviews are advised that they 

may appear in a review even if they 

participated personally and 

substantially in the corresponding 

underlying original investigation. The 

Commission’s designated agency ethics 

official has advised that a five-year 

review is not considered the ‘‘same 

particular matter’’ as the corresponding 

underlying original investigation for 

purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post 

employment statute for Federal 

employees, and Commission rule 

201.15(b)(19 CFR 201.15(b)), 73 FR 

24609 (May 5, 2008). This advice was 

developed in consultation with the 

Office of Government Ethics. 

Consequently, former employees are not 

required to seek Commission approval 

to appear in a review under Commission 

rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the 

corresponding underlying original 

investigation was pending when they 

were Commission employees. For 

further ethics advice on this matter, 

contact Carol McCue Verratti, Deputy 

Agency Ethics Official, at 202–205– 

3088. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and APO service list. Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

submitted in this review available to 

authorized applicants under the APO 

issued in the review, provided that the 

application is made no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. Authorized 

applicants must represent interested 

parties, as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), 

who are parties to the review. A 

separate service list will be maintained 

by the Secretary for those parties 

authorized to receive BPI under the 

APO. 

Certification. Pursuant to section 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules, any 

person submitting information to the 

Commission in connection with this 

review must certify that the information 

is accurate and complete to the best of 

the submitter’s knowledge. In making 

the certification, the submitter will be 

deemed to consent, unless otherwise 

specified, for the Commission, its 

employees, and contract personnel to 

use the information provided in any 

other reviews or investigations of the 

same or comparable products which the 

Commission conducts under Title VII of 

the Act, or in internal audits and 

investigations relating to the programs 

and operations of the Commission 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3. 

Written submissions. Pursuant to 

section 207.61 of the Commission’s 

rules, each interested party response to 

this notice must provide the information 

specified below. The deadline for filing 

such responses is December 31, 2009. 

Pursuant to section 207.62(b) of the 

Commission’s rules, eligible parties (as 

specified in Commission rule 

207.62(b)(1)) may also file comments 

concerning the adequacy of responses to 

the notice of institution and whether the 

Commission should conduct an 

expedited or full review. The deadline 

for filing such comments is February 16, 

2010. All written submissions must 

conform with the provisions of sections 

201.8 and 207.3 of the Commission’s 

rules and any submissions that contain 

BPI must also conform with the 

requirements of sections 201.6 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). Also, 

in accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, 

each document filed by a party to the 

review must be served on all other 

parties to the review (as identified by 

either the public or APO service list as 

appropriate), and a certificate of service 

must accompany the document (if you 

are not a party to the review you do not 

need to serve your response). 

Inability to provide requested 

information. Pursuant to section 

207.61(c) of the Commission’s rules, any 

interested party that cannot furnish the 

information requested by this notice in 

the requested form and manner shall 

notify the Commission at the earliest 

possible time, provide a full explanation 

of why it cannot provide the requested 

information, and indicate alternative 

forms in which it can provide 

equivalent information. If an interested 

party does not provide this notification 

(or the Commission finds the 

explanation provided in the notification 

inadequate) and fails to provide a 

complete response to this notice, the 

Commission may take an adverse 

inference against the party pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act in making its 

determination in the review. 

Information To Be Provided in 

Response to this Notice of Institution: 

As used below, the term ‘‘firm’’ includes 

any related firms. Quantity data 

requested in this notice of institution 

are in terms of both pieces 2 and pounds 

and value data are in terms of U.S. 

dollars. 

(1) The name and address of your firm 

or entity (including World Wide Web 

address) and name, telephone number, 

fax number, and E-mail address of the 

certifying official. 

(2) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of 

the Domestic Like Product, a U.S. union 

or worker group, a U.S. importer of the 

Subject Merchandise, a foreign producer 

or exporter of the Subject Merchandise, 

a U.S. or foreign trade or business 

association, or another interested party 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 229, No. 74 / Tuesday, December 1, 2009 / Notices 62819 

(including an explanation). If you are a 

union/worker group or trade/business 

association, identify the firms in which 

your workers are employed or which are 

members of your association. 

(3) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is willing to participate 

in this review by providing information 

requested by the Commission. 

(4) A statement of the likely effects of 

the revocation of the antidumping duty 

order on the Domestic Industry in 

general and/or your firm/entity 

specifically. In your response, please 

discuss the various factors specified in 

section 752(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

§ 1675a(a)) including the likely volume 

of subject imports, likely price effects of 

subject imports, and likely impact of 

imports of Subject Merchandise on the 

Domestic Industry. 

(5) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. producers of the 

Domestic Like Product. Identify any 

known related parties and the nature of 

the relationship as defined in section 

771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1677(4)(B)). 

(6) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. importers of the Subject 

Merchandise and producers of the 

Subject Merchandise in the Subject 

Country that currently export or have 

exported Subject Merchandise to the 

United States or other countries since 

the Order Date. 

(7) A list of 3–5 leading purchasers in 

the U.S. market for the Domestic Like 

Product and the Subject Merchandise 

(including street address, World Wide 

Web address, and the name, telephone 

number, fax number, and E-mail address 

of a responsible official at each firm). 

(8) A list of known sources of 

information on national or regional 

prices for the Domestic Like Product or 

the Subject Merchandise in the U.S. or 

other markets. 

(9) If you are a U.S. producer of the 

Domestic Like Product, provide the 

following information on your firm’s 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2008, except as noted 

(report quantity data in terms of both 

pieces and pounds and report value data 

in U.S. dollars, f.o.b. plant). If you are 

a union/worker group or trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms in 

which your workers are employed/ 

which are members of your association. 

(a) Production (quantity in terms of 

both pieces and pounds) and, if known, 

an estimate of the percentage of total 

U.S. production of the Domestic Like 

Product accounted for by your firm’s(s’) 

production (on the basis of both pieces 

and pounds); 

(b) Capacity (quantity in terms of both 

pieces and pounds) of your firm to 

produce the Domestic Like Product (i.e., 

the level of production that your 

establishment(s) could reasonably have 

expected to attain during the year, 

assuming normal operating conditions 

(using equipment and machinery in 

place and ready to operate), normal 

operating levels (hours per week/weeks 

per year), time for downtime, 

maintenance, repair, and cleanup, and a 

typical or representative product mix); 

(c) the quantity (in terms of both 

pieces and pounds) and value of U.S. 

commercial shipments of the Domestic 

Like Product produced in your U.S. 

plant(s) and, if known, an estimate of 

the percentage of total U.S. commercial 

shipments of the Domestic Like Product 

accounted for by your firm’s(s’) U.S. 

commercial shipments (on the basis of 

pieces, pounds, and value); 

(d) the quantity (in terms of both 

pieces and pounds) and value of U.S. 

internal consumption/company 

transfers of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s); and 

(e) the value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost 

of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, 

(iv) selling, general and administrative 

(SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating 

income of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s) (include 

both U.S. and export commercial sales, 

internal consumption, and company 

transfers) for your most recently 

completed fiscal year (identify the date 

on which your fiscal year ends). 

(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a 

trade/business association of U.S. 

importers of the Subject Merchandise 

from the Subject Country, provide the 

following information on your firm’s(s’) 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2008 (report quantity data 

in terms of both pieces and pounds and 

report value data in U.S. dollars). If you 

are a trade/business association, provide 

the information, on an aggregate basis, 

for the firms which are members of your 

association. 

(a) The quantity (in terms of both 

pieces and pounds) and value (landed, 

duty-paid but not including 

antidumping duties) of U.S. imports 

and, if known, an estimate of the 

percentage of total U.S. imports of 

Subject Merchandise from the Subject 

Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) 

imports (on the basis of pieces, pounds, 

and value); 

(b) the quantity (in terms of both 

pieces and pounds) and value (f.o.b. 

U.S. port, including antidumping 

duties) of U.S. commercial shipments of 

Subject Merchandise imported from the 

Subject Country; and 

(c) the quantity (in terms of both 

pieces and pounds) and value (f.o.b. 

U.S. port, including antidumping 

duties) of U.S. internal consumption/ 

company transfers of Subject 

Merchandise imported from the Subject 

Country. 

(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, 

or a trade/business association of 

producers or exporters of the Subject 

Merchandise in the Subject Country, 

provide the following information on 

your firm’s(s’) operations on that 

product during calendar year 2008 

(report quantity data in terms of both 

pieces and pounds and report value data 

in U.S. dollars, landed and duty-paid at 

the U.S. port but not including 

antidumping duties). If you are a trade/ 

business association, provide the 

information, on an aggregate basis, for 

the firms which are members of your 

association. 

(a) Production (quantity in terms of 

both pieces and pounds) and, if known, 

an estimate of the percentage of total 

production of Subject Merchandise in 

the Subject Country accounted for by 

your firm’s(s’) production (on the basis 

of both pieces and pounds); 

(b) Capacity (quantity in terms of both 

pieces and pounds) of your firm to 

produce the Subject Merchandise in the 

Subject Country (i.e., the level of 

production that your establishment(s) 

could reasonably have expected to 

attain during the year, assuming normal 

operating conditions (using equipment 

and machinery in place and ready to 

operate), normal operating levels (hours 

per week/weeks per year), time for 

downtime, maintenance, repair, and 

cleanup, and a typical or representative 

product mix); and 

(c) the quantity (in terms of both 

pieces and pounds) and value of your 

firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of 

Subject Merchandise and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total 

exports to the United States of Subject 

Merchandise from the Subject Country 

accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports 

(on the basis of pieces, pounds, and 

value). 

(12) Identify significant changes, if 

any, in the supply and demand 

conditions or business cycle for the 

Domestic Like Product that have 

occurred in the United States or in the 

market for the Subject Merchandise in 

the Subject Country since the Order 

Date, and significant changes, if any, 

that are likely to occur within a 

reasonably foreseeable time. Supply 

conditions to consider include 

technology; production methods; 

development efforts; ability to increase 

production (including the shift of 

production facilities used for other 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

62820 Federal Register / Vol. 229, No. 74 / Tuesday, December 1, 2009 / Notices 

1The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 

CFR 207.2(f)).

products and the use, cost, or 

availability of major inputs into 

production); and factors related to the 

ability to shift supply among different 

national markets (including barriers to 

importation in foreign markets or 

changes in market demand abroad). 

Demand conditions to consider include 

end uses and applications; the existence 

and availability of substitute products; 

and the level of competition among the 

Domestic Like Product produced in the 

United States, Subject Merchandise 

produced in the Subject Country, and 

such merchandise from other countries. 

(13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of 

whether you agree with the above 

definitions of the Domestic Like Product 

and Domestic Industry; if you disagree 

with either or both of these definitions, 

please explain why and provide 

alternative definitions. 

Authority: This review is being conducted 

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.61 of the Commission’s rules. 

Issued: November 24, 2009. 

By order of the Commission. 

William R. Bishop, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–28641 Filed 11–30–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 701–TA–432 and 731– 

TA–1024–1028 (Review) and AA1921–188 

(Third Review)] 

Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire 

Strand From Brazil, India, Japan, 

Korea, Mexico, and Thailand 

Determinations 

On the basis of the record 1 developed 

in the subject five-year reviews, the 

United States International Trade 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) 

determines, pursuant to section 751(c) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

§ 1675(c)), that revocation of the 

countervailing duty order on prestressed 

concrete steel wire strand (‘‘PC strand’’) 

from India and antidumping duty orders 

on PC strand from Brazil, India, Korea, 

Mexico, and Thailand, as well as the 

antidumping duty finding on PC strand 

from Japan, would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury to an industry in the United 

States within a reasonably foreseeable 

time. 

Background 

The Commission instituted these 

reviews on December 1, 2008 (73 FR 

72834) and determined on March 6, 

2009 that it would conduct full reviews 

(74 FR 11967, March 20, 2009). Notice 

of the scheduling of the Commission’s 

reviews 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 on April 

2, 2009 (74 FR 15000). The hearing was 

held in Washington, DC, on September 

30, 2009, and all persons who requested 

the opportunity were permitted to 

appear in person or by counsel. 

The Commission transmitted its 

determinations in these reviews to the 

Secretary of Commerce on November 

25, 2009. The views of the Commission 

are contained in USITC Publication 

4114 (November 2009), entitled 

Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand 

from Brazil, India, Japan, Korea, 

Mexico, and Thailand: Investigation 

Nos. 701–TA–432 and 731–TA–1024– 

1028 (Review) and AA1921–188 (Third 

Review). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: November 25, 2009. 

William R. Bishop, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–28668 Filed 11–30–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE 

UNITED STATES 

Meeting of the Judicial Conference 

Advisory Committee on Rules of 

Criminal Procedure 

AGENCY: Judicial Conference of the 

United States Advisory Committee on 

Rules of Criminal Procedure. 

ACTION: Notice of open meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee on 

Rules of Criminal Procedure will hold a 

two-day meeting. The meeting will be 

open to public observation but not 

participation. 

DATES: April 15–16, 2010. 

Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: Northwestern University 

School of Law, 375 East Chicago 

Avenue, Chicago, IL 60611. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

K. Rabiej, Chief, Rules Committee 

Support Office, Administrative Office of 

the United States Courts, Washington, 

DC 20544, telephone (202) 502–1820. 

Dated: November 23, 2009. 

John K. Rabiej, 

Chief, Rules Committee Support Office. 

[FR Doc. E9–28521 Filed 11–30–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 2210–55–M 

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE 

UNITED STATES 

Meeting of the Judicial Conference 

Committee on Rules of Practice and 

Procedure 

AGENCY: Judicial Conference of the 

United States Committee on Rules of 

Practice and Procedure. 

ACTION: Notice of open meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Committee on Rules of 

Practice and Procedure will hold a twoday meeting. The meeting will be open 

to public observation but not 

participation. 

DATES: January 7–8, 2010. 

Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: Royal Palms Hotel, 5200 

East Camelback Road, Phoenix, AZ 

85018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

K. Rabiej, Chief, Rules Committee 

Support Office, Administrative Office of 

the United States Courts, Washington, 

DC 20544, telephone (202) 502–1820. 

Dated: November 23, 2009. 

John K. Rabiej, 

Chief, Rules Committee Support Office. 

[FR Doc. E9–28498 Filed 11–30–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 2210–55–M 

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE 

UNITED STATES 

Meeting of the Judicial Conference 

Advisory Committee on Rules of Civil 

Procedure 

AGENCY: Judicial Conference of the 

United States Advisory Committee on 

Rules of Civil Procedure. 

ACTION: Notice of open meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee on 

Rules of Civil Procedure will hold a 

two-day conference. The conference 

will be open to public observation but 

not participation. 

DATES: May 10–11, 2010. 

Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: Duke Law School, Science 

Drive & Towerview Road, Durham, NC 

27708. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

K. Rabiej, Chief, Rules Committee 

Support Office, Administrative Office of 

the United States Courts, Washington, 

DC 20544, telephone (202) 502–1820.

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 57 / Thursday, March 25, 2010 / Notices 14469 

1A record of the Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, and any 

individual Commissioner’s statements will be 

available from the Office of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site. 

2The Commission has found the responses 

submitted by Nation Ford Chemical Co. and Sun 

Chemical Corp. to be individually adequate. 

Comments from other interested parties will not be 

accepted (see 19 CFR 207.62(d)(2)).

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, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207). 

DATES: Effective Date: February 5, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cynthia Trainor (202–205–3354), Office 

of Investigations, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired 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 

these reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background. On February 5, 2010, the 

Commission determined that the 

domestic interested party group 

response to its notice of institution (74 

FR 56663 November 2, 2009) of the 

subject five-year reviews was adequate 

and that the respondent interested party 

group response was inadequate. The 

Commission did not find any other 

circumstances that would warrant 

conducting full reviews.1 Accordingly, 

the Commission determined that it 

would conduct expedited reviews 

pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act. 

Staff report. A staff report containing 

information concerning the subject 

matter of the reviews will be placed in 

the nonpublic record on April 8, 2010, 

and made available to persons on the 

Administrative Protective Order service 

list for these reviews. A public version 

will be issued thereafter, pursuant to 

section 207.62(d)(4) of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Written submissions. As provided in 

section 207.62(d) of the Commission’s 

rules, interested parties that are parties 

to the reviews and that have provided 

individually adequate responses to the 

notice of institution,2 and any party 

other than an interested party to the 

reviews may file written comments with 

the Secretary on what determinations 

the Commission should reach in the 

reviews. Comments are due on or before 

April 13, 2010 and may not contain new 

factual information. Any person that is 

neither a party to the five-year reviews 

nor an interested party may submit a 

brief written statement (which shall not 

contain any new factual information) 

pertinent to the reviews by April 13, 

2010. However, should the Department 

of Commerce extend the time limit for 

its completion of the final results of its 

reviews, the deadline for comments 

(which may not contain new factual 

information) on Commerce’s final 

results is three business days after the 

issuance of Commerce’s results. If 

comments contain business proprietary 

information (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). Even where electronic filing of a 

document is permitted, certain 

documents must also be filed in paper 

form, as specified in II (C) of the 

Commission’s Handbook on Electronic 

Filing Procedures, 67 FR 68168, 68173 

(November 8, 2002). 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the rules, each document 

filed by a party to the reviews must be 

served on all other parties to the reviews 

(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. 

Determination. The Commission has 

determined to exercise its authority to 

extend the review period by up to 90 

days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(5)(B). 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.62 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Issued: March 18, 2010. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–6618 Filed 3–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–1058 (Review)] 

Wooden Bedroom Furniture From 

China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of Commission 

determination to conduct a full five-year 

review concerning the antidumping 

duty order on wooden bedroom 

furniture from China. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it will proceed with a full 

review pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(5)) to determine whether 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

order on wooden bedroom furniture 

from China would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury within a reasonably foreseeable 

time. A schedule for the review will be 

established and announced at a later 

date. For further information concerning 

the conduct of this review 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, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207). 

DATES: Effective Date: March 8, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired 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 review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 

8, 2010, the Commission determined 

that it should proceed to a full review 

in the subject five-year review pursuant 

to section 751(c)(5) of the Act. The 

Commission found that the domestic 

interested party group response to its 

notice of institution (74 FR 62817, 

December 1, 2009) was adequate and the 

respondent interested party group 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

14470 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 57 / Thursday, March 25, 2010 / Notices 

1Commissioner Daniel R. Pearson and 

Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane found that the 

respondent interested party group response was 

adequate. 

response was inadequate.1 The 

Commission also found that other 

circumstances warranted conducting a 

full review. A record of the 

Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, 

and any individual Commissioner’s 

statements will be available from the 

Office of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site. 

Authority: This review is being conducted 

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules. 

Issued: March 19, 2010. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–6622 Filed 3–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–631] 

Enforcement Proceeding; In the Matter 

of Certain Liquid Crystal Display 

Devices and Products Containing the 

Same; Notice of a Commission 

Determination Not To Review an Initial 

Determination Terminating the 

Enforcement Proceeding; Termination 

of the Enforcement Proceeding 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined not to 

review an initial determination (‘‘ID’’) 

(Order No. 29) of the presiding 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) 

terminating the above-captioned 

enforcement proceeding based on a 

settlement agreement. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Clint Gerdine, Esq., Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

708–5468. Copies of non-confidential 

documents filed in connection with this 

enforcement proceeding are or will be 

available for inspection during official 

business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) 

in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, 

telephone (202) 205–2000. General 

information concerning the Commission 

may also be obtained by accessing its 

Internet server at http://www.usitc.gov. 

The public record for this enforcement 

proceeding may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. Hearingimpaired persons are advised that 

information on this matter can be 

obtained by contacting the 

Commission’s TDD terminal on (202) 

205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission instituted this enforcement 

proceeding on December 18, 2009, 

based on a complaint filed by Samsung 

Electronics Co., Ltd. (‘‘Samsung’’) of 

Korea. 74 FR 67248. The complaint 

alleges violations of the limited 

exclusion order and cease and desist 

orders issued at the conclusion of the 

underlying investigation, where the 

Commission found a violation of section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended, 19 U.S.C. **1337, in the 

importation into the United States, the 

sale for importation, and the sale within 

the United States after importation of 

certain liquid crystal display devices 

and products containing the same by 

reason of infringement of certain claims 

of U.S. Patent No. 6,771,344. The 

Commission’s notice of enforcement 

proceeding named the following 

respondents: Sharp Corporation of 

Japan; Sharp Electronics Corporation of 

Mahwah, New Jersey; and Sharp 

Electronics Manufacturing, Company of 

America, Inc. of San Diego, California 

(collectively, ‘‘Sharp’’). 

On February 12, 2010, Samsung and 

Sharp jointly moved to terminate the 

enforcement proceeding on the basis of 

a settlement agreement. No party 

opposed the motion. 

The ALJ issued the subject ID on 

March 5, 2010, granting the motion for 

termination. He found that the motion 

for termination satisfies Commission 

rule 210.21(b). He further found, 

pursuant to Commission rule 

210.50(b)(2), that termination of this 

enforcement proceeding by settlement 

agreement is in the public interest. No 

party petitioned for review of the ID. 

The Commission has determined not to 

review the ID, and the enforcement 

proceeding is terminated. 

The authority for the Commission’s 

determination is contained in section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in 

sections 210.21 and 210.42(h) of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (19 CFR 210.21, 210.42(h). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: March 19, 2010. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–6620 Filed 3–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–702] 

In the Matter of: Certain Liquid Crystal 

Display Modules and Products 

Containing the Same, and Methods for 

Making the Same; Notice of a 

Commission Determination Not To 

Review an Initial Determination 

Terminating the Investigation; 

Termination of the Investigation 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined not to 

review an initial determination (‘‘ID’’) 

(Order No. 3) of the presiding 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) 

terminating the above-captioned 

investigation based on a settlement 

agreement. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Clint Gerdine, Esq., Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

708–2310. Copies of non-confidential 

documents filed in connection with this 

investigation are or will be available for 

inspection during official business 

hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the 

Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, 

telephone (202) 205–2000. General 

information concerning the Commission 

may also be obtained by accessing its 

Internet server at 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. Hearing-impaired 

persons are advised that information on 

this matter can be obtained by 

contacting the Commission’s TDD 

terminal on (202) 205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission instituted this investigation 

on February 10, 2010, based on a 

complaint filed by Sharp Corporation 

(‘‘Sharp’’) of Japan. 75 FR 6705–06 (Feb. 

10, 2010). The complaint, as amended 

and supplemented, alleges violations of 

section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended, 19 U.S.C. **1337, in the 

importation into the United States, the

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

19364 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Notices 

brevirostrum) for purposes of scientific 

research. 

ADDRESSES: The permit and related 

documents are available for review 

upon written request or by appointment 

in the following office(s): 

• Permits, Conservation and 

Education Division, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West 

Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, 

MD 20910; phone (301) 713–2289; fax 

(301) 713–0376; and 

• Northeast Region, NMFS, Protected 

Resources Division, 55 Great Republic 

Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930; phone 

(978) 281–9328; fax (978) 281–9394. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Malcolm Mohead or Jennifer Skidmore, 

(301) 713–2289. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

February 8, 2010, notice was published 

in the Federal Register (75 FR 6184) 

that a request for a scientific research 

permit to take shortnose sturgeon had 

been submitted by the above-named 

organization. The requested permit has 

been issued under the authority of the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) 

and the regulations governing the 

taking, importing, and exporting of 

endangered and threatened species (50 

CFR parts 222–226). 

The applicant is authorized to 

conduct research on shortnose sturgeon 

to determine if early life-stages of 

shortnose sturgeon are sensitive to PCB 

and TCDD mixtures potentially affecting 

recruitment success in environments 

such as in the Hudson River. This 

permit allows the importation of up to 

25,000 fertilized shortnose sturgeon eggs 

of Saint John River ancestry from 

Acadian Sturgeon and Caviar Inc., Saint 

John, NB, Canada. The initial proposed 

research will take place during two 

sampling seasons beginning in the 

spring of 2010 and ending in the spring 

of 2011. In subsequent years of the 

permit, as amended, studies would take 

place evaluating the toxic effects of 

other contaminants. The permit would 

not authorize any takes from the wild, 

nor would it authorize any release of 

captive sturgeon into the wild. 

Issuance of this permit, as required by 

the ESA, was based on a finding that 

such permit (1) was applied for in good 

faith, (2) will not operate to the 

disadvantage of such endangered or 

threatened species, and (3) is consistent 

with the purposes and policies set forth 

in section 2 of the ESA. 

Dated: April 7, 2010. 

Jolie Harrison, 

Acting Chief, Permits, Conservation and 

Education Division, Office of Protected 

Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–8549 Filed 4–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–831] 

Fresh Garlic from the People’s 

Republic of China: Extension of Time 

Limits for Final Results of the 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 14, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Scott Lindsay or Thomas Gilgunn, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 6, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0780 and (202) 

482–4236, respectively. 

Background 

On December 24, 2008, the 

Department of Commerce (Department) 

published the initiation of an 

administrative review of fresh garlic 

from the People’s Republic of China. 

See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Request for Revocation in 

Part, 73 FR 79055 (December 24, 2008). 

On December 8, 2009, the Department 

published the preliminary results of this 

antidumping duty administrative 

review. See Fresh Garlic From the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary 

Results of, and Intent To Rescind, in 

Part, the Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 64677 

(December 8, 2009) (Preliminary 

Results). The period of review for this 

administrative review is November 1, 

2007 through October 31, 2008. The 

final results are currently due on April 

14, 2010. 

Extension of Time Limits for Final 

Results 

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (the Act), provides 

that the Department will issue the final 

results in an administrative review of an 

antidumping duty order within 120 

days after the date on which the 

preliminary results are published. 

However, the Department may extend 

the deadline for completion of the final 

results of an administrative review to 

180 days if it determines it is not 

practicable to complete the review 

within the foregoing time period. See 

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.213(h)(2). 

The Department determines that it is 

not practicable to complete the final 

results of this administrative review by 

the current deadline of April 14, 2010. 

Specifically, the Department requires 

additional time to analyze issues raised 

by interested parties. Thus, we are 

extending the time for completion of the 

final results of this administrative 

review by 30 days, as permitted by 

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. The final 

results are now due no later than May 

17, 2010. 

This notice is published in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 

777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: April 8, 2010. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2010–8561 Filed 4–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–890] 

Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of Expedited Sunset Review of 

Antidumping Duty Order 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 14, 2010. 

SUMMARY: On December 1, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) initiated a sunset review 

of the antidumping duty order on 

wooden bedroom furniture from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). On 

the basis of a notice of intent to 

participate and an adequate substantive 

response from domestic interested 

parties, as well as a lack of response 

from respondent interested parties, the 

Department conducted an expedited 

(120-day) sunset review. As a result of 

the sunset review, the Department finds 

that revocation of the antidumping duty 

order would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of dumping. 

The dumping margins likely to prevail 

if the order were revoked are included 

in the Final Results of Review section of 

this notice. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Notices 19365 

1A chest-on-chest is typically a tall chest-ofdrawers in two or more sections (or appearing to be 

in two or more sections), with one or two sections 

mounted (or appearing to be mounted) on a slightly 

larger chest; also known as a tallboy. 

2A highboy is typically a tall chest of drawers 

usually composed of a base and a top section with 

drawers, and supported on four legs or a small chest 

(often 15 inches or more in height). 

3A lowboy is typically a short chest of drawers, 

not more than four feet high, normally set on short 

legs. 

4A chest of drawers is typically a case containing 

drawers for storing clothing. 

5A chest is typically a case piece taller than it 

is wide featuring a series of drawers and with or 

without one or more doors for storing clothing. The 

piece can either include drawers or be designed as 

a large box incorporating a lid. 

6A door chest is typically a chest with hinged 

doors to store clothing, whether or not containing 

drawers. The piece may also include shelves for 

televisions and other entertainment electronics. 

7A chiffonier is typically a tall and narrow chest 

of drawers normally used for storing undergarments 

and lingerie, often with mirror(s) attached. 

8A hutch is typically an open case of furniture 

with shelves that typically sits on another piece of 

furniture and provides storage for clothes. 

9An armoire is typically a tall cabinet or 

wardrobe (typically 50 inches or taller), with doors, 

and with one or more drawers (either exterior below 

or above the doors or interior behind the doors), 

shelves, and/or garment rods or other apparatus for 

storing clothes. Bedroom armoires may also be used 

to hold television receivers and/or other audiovisual entertainment systems. 

10As used herein, bentwood means solid wood 

made pliable. Bentwood is wood that is brought to 

a curved shape by bending it while made pliable 

with moist heat or other agency and then set by 

cooling or drying. See Customs’ Headquarters’ 

Ruling Letter 043859, dated May 17, 1976. 

11Any armoire, cabinet or other accent item for 

the purpose of storing jewelry, not to exceed 24 in 

width, 18 in depth, and 49 in height, including a 

minimum of 5 lined drawers lined with felt or feltlike material, at least one side door (whether or not 

the door is lined with felt or felt-like material), with 

necklace hangers, and a flip-top lid with inset 

mirror. See Issues and Decision Memorandum from 

Laurel LaCivita to Laurie Parkhill, Office Director, 

Concerning Jewelry Armoires and Cheval Mirrors in 

the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Wooden 

Bedroom Furniture from the People’s Republic of 

China, dated August 31, 2004. See also Wooden 

Bedroom Furniture From the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Changed Circumstances Review, and 

Determination To Revoke Order in Part, 71 FR 

38621 (July 7, 2006). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rebecca Pandolph or Howard Smith, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

Telephone: (202) 482–3627 or (202) 

482–5193, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 1, 2009, the Department 

published the notice of initiation of the 

sunset review of the antidumping duty 

order on wooden bedroom furniture 

from the PRC pursuant to section 751(c) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(‘‘the Act’’). See Initiation of Five-Year 

(‘‘Sunset’’) Review, 74 FR 62748 

(December 1, 2009). On December 11, 

2009, the Department received a notice 

of intent to participate from American 

Furniture Manufacturers Committee for 

Legal Trade (the ‘‘AFM Committee’’); 

Vaughan-Bassett Furniture Company, 

Inc. (‘‘Vaughan-Bassett’’); Dubois Woods 

Products Inc. (‘‘Dubois’’); The Jasper 

Group d/b/a Klem Hospitality (‘‘Klem’’); 

Solid Comfort, Inc. (‘‘Solid Comfort’’); 

Cabinet Makers, Millmen and Industrial 

Carpenters Local 721 (‘‘Local 721’’); UBC 

Southern Council of Industrial Workers 

Local 2305 (‘‘Local 2305’’); and 

Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen 

and Helpers Local 991 (‘‘Local 991’’) 

within the deadline specified in section 

351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Department’s 

regulations. The AFM Committee, 

which includes Vaughan-Bassett, 

claimed interested party status under 

section 771(9)(E) of the Act as a trade or 

business association a majority of whose 

members manufacture, produce or 

wholesale a domestic like product. 

Dubois, Klem and Solid Comfort 

claimed interested party status under 

section 771(9)(C) of the Act as producers 

of the domestic like product. Local 721, 

Local 2305, and Local 991 claimed 

interested party status under section 

771(9)(D) of the Act as a certified union 

or recognized union or group of workers 

which is representative of an industry 

engaged in the manufacture, production, 

or wholesale in the United States of a 

domestic like product. 

On December 30, 2009, the 

Department received a substantive 

response from the AFM Committee, 

Vaughan-Bassett, Dubois, Klem, Solid 

Comfort, Local 721, Local 2305, and 

Local 991 within the deadline specified 

in section 351.218(d)(3)(i) of the 

Department’s regulations. The 

Department did not receive a response 

from any respondent interested party to 

this proceeding. As a result, pursuant to 

section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 

section 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2) of the 

Department’s regulations, the 

Department determined to conduct an 

expedited review of the order. 

Scope of the Order 

The product covered by the order is 

wooden bedroom furniture. Wooden 

bedroom furniture is generally, but not 

exclusively, designed, manufactured, 

and offered for sale in coordinated 

groups, or bedrooms, in which all of the 

individual pieces are of approximately 

the same style and approximately the 

same material and/or finish. The subject 

merchandise is made substantially of 

wood products, including both solid 

wood and also engineered wood 

products made from wood particles, 

fibers, or other wooden materials such 

as plywood, strand board, particle 

board, and fiberboard, with or without 

wood veneers, wood overlays, or 

laminates, with or without non-wood 

components or trim such as metal, 

marble, leather, glass, plastic, or other 

resins, and whether or not assembled, 

completed, or finished. 

The subject merchandise includes the 

following items: (1) Wooden beds such 

as loft beds, bunk beds, and other beds; 

(2) wooden headboards for beds 

(whether stand-alone or attached to side 

rails), wooden footboards for beds, 

wooden side rails for beds, and wooden 

canopies for beds; (3) night tables, night 

stands, dressers, commodes, bureaus, 

mule chests, gentlemen’s chests, 

bachelor’s chests, lingerie chests, 

wardrobes, vanities, chessers, 

chifforobes, and wardrobe-type cabinets; 

(4) dressers with framed glass mirrors 

that are attached to, incorporated in, sit 

on, or hang over the dresser; (5) chestson-chests,1 highboys,2 lowboys,3 chests 

of drawers,4 chests,5 door chests,6

chiffoniers,7 hutches,8 and armoires; 9

(6) desks, computer stands, filing 

cabinets, book cases, or writing tables 

that are attached to or incorporated in 

the subject merchandise; and (7) other 

bedroom furniture consistent with the 

above list. 

The scope of the order excludes the 

following items: (1) Seats, chairs, 

benches, couches, sofas, sofa beds, 

stools, and other seating furniture; (2) 

mattresses, mattress supports (including 

box springs), infant cribs, water beds, 

and futon frames; (3) office furniture, 

such as desks, stand-up desks, computer 

cabinets, filing cabinets, credenzas, and 

bookcases; (4) dining room or kitchen 

furniture such as dining tables, chairs, 

servers, sideboards, buffets, corner 

cabinets, china cabinets, and china 

hutches; (5) other non-bedroom 

furniture, such as television cabinets, 

cocktail tables, end tables, occasional 

tables, wall systems, book cases, and 

entertainment systems; (6) bedroom 

furniture made primarily of wicker, 

cane, osier, bamboo or rattan; (7) side 

rails for beds made of metal if sold 

separately from the headboard and 

footboard; (8) bedroom furniture in 

which bentwood parts predominate; 10

(9) jewelry armories; 11 (10) cheval 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
19366 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Notices 

12Cheval mirrors are any framed, tiltable mirror 

with a height in excess of 50 inches that is mounted 

on a floor-standing, hinged base. Additionally, the 

scope of the order excludes combination cheval 

mirror/jewelry cabinets. The excluded merchandise 

is an integrated piece consisting of a cheval mirror, 

i.e., a framed tiltable mirror with a height in excess 

of 50 inches, mounted on a floor-standing, hinged 

base, the cheval mirror serving as a door to a 

cabinet back that is integral to the structure of the 

mirror and which constitutes a jewelry cabinet line 

with fabric, having necklace and bracelet hooks, 

mountings for rings and shelves, with or without a 

working lock and key to secure the contents of the 

jewelry cabinet back to the cheval mirror, and no 

drawers anywhere on the integrated piece. The fully 

assembled piece must be at least 50 inches in 

height, 14.5 inches in width, and 3 inches in depth. 

See Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Changed Circumstances 

Review and Determination To Revoke Order in Part, 

72 FR 948 (January 9, 2007). 

13Metal furniture parts and unfinished furniture 

parts made of wood products (as defined above) 

that are not otherwise specifically named in this 

scope (i.e., wooden headboards for beds, wooden 

footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and 

wooden canopies for beds) and that do not possess 

the essential character of wooden bedroom 

furniture in an unassembled, incomplete, or 

unfinished form. Such parts are usually classified 

under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) subheading 9403.90.7000. 

14Upholstered beds that are completely 

upholstered, i.e., containing filling material and 

completely covered in sewn genuine leather, 

synthetic leather, or natural or synthetic decorative 

fabric. To be excluded, the entire bed (headboards, 

footboards, and side rails) must be upholstered 

except for bed feet, which may be of wood, metal, 

or any other material and which are no more than 

nine inches in height from the floor. See Wooden 

Bedroom Furniture from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results of Changed Circumstances 

Review and Determination to Revoke Order in Part, 

72 FR 7013 (February 14, 2007). 

15To be excluded the toy box must: (1) Be wider 

than it is tall; (2) have dimensions within 16 inches 

to 27 inches in height, 15 inches to 18 inches in 

depth, and 21 inches to 30 inches in width; (3) have 

a hinged lid that encompasses the entire top of the 

box; (4) not incorporate any doors or drawers; (5) 

have slow-closing safety hinges; (6) have air vents; 

(7) have no locking mechanism; and (8) comply 

with American Society for Testing and Materials 

(‘‘ASTM’’) standard F963–03. Toy boxes are boxes 

generally designed for the purpose of storing 

children’s items such as toys, books, and 

playthings. See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from 

the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of 

Changed Circumstances Review and Determination 

to Revoke Order in Part, 74 FR 8506 (February 25, 

2009). Further, as determined in the scope ruling 

memorandum ‘‘Wooden Bedroom Furniture from 

the People’s Republic of China: Scope Ruling on a 

White Toy Box,’’ dated July 6, 2009, the 

dimensional ranges used to identify the toy boxes 

that are excluded from the wooden bedroom 

furniture order apply to the box itself rather than 

the lid. 

mirrors; 12 (11) certain metal parts; 13

(12) mirrors that do not attach to, 

incorporate in, sit on, or hang over a 

dresser if they are not designed and 

marketed to be sold in conjunction with 

a dresser as part of a dresser-mirror set; 

(13) upholstered beds 14 and (14) toy 

boxes.15

Imports of subject merchandise are 

classified under subheading 

9403.50.9040 of the HTSUS as ‘‘wooden 

* * * beds’’ and under subheading 

9403.50.9080 of the HTSUS as ‘‘other 

* * * wooden furniture of a kind used 

in the bedroom.’’ In addition, wooden 

headboards for beds, wooden footboards 

for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and 

wooden canopies for beds may also be 

entered under subheading 9403.50.9040 

of the HTSUS as ‘‘parts of wood’’ and 

framed glass mirrors may also be 

entered under subheading 7009.92.5000 

of the HTSUS as ‘‘glass mirrors * * * 

framed.’’ This order covers all wooden 

bedroom furniture meeting the above 

description, regardless of tariff 

classification. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, our 

written description of the scope of this 

proceeding is dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in this review are 

addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum’’ (‘‘Decision 

Memorandum’’) from John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, which is dated 

concurrently with this notice, and 

hereby adopted by this notice. The 

issues discussed in the Decision 

Memorandum include the likelihood of 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

and the magnitude of the margins likely 

to prevail if the order were revoked. 

Parties can find a complete discussion 

of all issues raised in this review and 

the corresponding recommendations in 

this public memorandum, which is on 

file in the Central Records Unit in room 

1117 of the main Commerce building. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly on the web at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Final Results of Review 

Pursuant to section 752(c) of the Act, 

we determine that revocation of the 

antidumping duty order on wooden 

bedroom furniture from the PRC would 

be likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of dumping at the following 

weighted-average percentage margins: 

Exporter/manufacturer Margin 

(percent) 

Dongguan Lung Dong Furniture Co., Ltd., or Dongguan Dong He Furniture Co., Ltd. ..................................................................... 2.32 

Rui Feng Woodwork Co., Ltd., or Rui Feng Lumber Development Co., Ltd. or Dorbest Limited ...................................................... 7.87 

Lacquer Craft Mfg. Co., Ltd ................................................................................................................................................................. (1) 

Markor International Furniture (Tianjin) Manufacturing Company, Ltd. .............................................................................................. 0.83 

Shing Mark Enterprise Co., Ltd., or Carven Industries Limited (BVI), or Carven I Industries Limited (HK), or Dongguan Zhenxin 

Furniture Co., Ltd., or Dongguan Yongpeng Furniture Co., Ltd ...................................................................................................... 4.96 

Starcorp Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., or Orin Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., or Shanghai Starcorp Furniture Co., Ltd ............. 15.78 

Alexandre International Corp., or Southern Art Development Ltd., or Alexandre Furniture (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., or Southern Art 

Furniture Factory .............................................................................................................................................................................. 7.24 

Art Heritage International, Ltd., or Super Art Furniture Co., Ltd., or Artwork Metal & Plastic Co., Ltd., or Jibson Industries Ltd., or 

Always Loyal International ............................................................................................................................................................... 7.24 

Billy Wood Industrial (Dong Guan) Co., Ltd., or Great Union Industrial (Dongguan) Co., Ltd., or Time Faith Ltd ............................ 7.24 

Changshu HTC Import & Export Co., Ltd ........................................................................................................................................... 7.24 

Cheng Meng Furniture (PTE) Ltd., or China Cheng Meng Decoration & Furniture (Suzhou) Co., Ltd ............................................. 7.24 

Chuan Fa Furniture Factory ................................................................................................................................................................ 7.24 

Classic Furniture Global Co., Ltd ........................................................................................................................................................ 7.24 

Clearwise Co., Ltd ............................................................................................................................................................................... 7.24 

COE Ltd ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 7.24 

Dalian Guangming Furniture Co., Ltd ................................................................................................................................................. 7.24 

Dalian Huafeng Furniture Co., Ltd ...................................................................................................................................................... 7.24 

Decca Furniture Limited ...................................................................................................................................................................... 7.24 

Dongguan Cambridge Furniture Co., or Glory Oceanic Co., Ltd ........................................................................................................ 7.24 

Dongguan Chunsan Wood Products Co., Ltd., or Trendex Industries Ltd ......................................................................................... 7.24 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Notices 19367 

Exporter/manufacturer Margin 

(percent) 

Dongguan Creation Furniture Co., Ltd., or Creation Industries Co., Ltd ............................................................................................ 7.24 

Dongguan Grand Style Furniture, or Hong Kong Da Zhi Furniture Co., Ltd ...................................................................................... 7.24 

Dongguan Great Reputation Furniture Co., Ltd .................................................................................................................................. 7.24 

Dongguan Hero Way Woodwork Co., Ltd., or Dongguan Da Zhong Woodwork Co., Ltd., or Hero Way Enterprises Ltd., or Well 

Earth International Ltd. ..................................................................................................................................................................... 7.24 

Dongguan Hung Sheng Artware Products Co., Ltd., or Coronal Enterprise Co., Ltd. ....................................................................... 7.24 

Dongguan Kin Feng Furniture Co., Ltd ............................................................................................................................................... 7.24 

Dongguan Kingstone Furniture Co., Ltd., or Kingstone Furniture Co., Ltd ........................................................................................ 7.24 

Dongguan Liaobushangdun Huada Furniture Factory, or Great Rich (HK) Enterprise Co. Ltd ......................................................... 7.24 

Dongguan Qingxi Xinyi Craft Furniture Factory (Joyce Art Factory) .................................................................................................. 7.24 

Dongguan Singways Furniture Co., Ltd .............................................................................................................................................. 7.24 

Dongguan Sunrise Furniture Co., or Taicang Sunrise Wood Industry Co., Ltd., or Shanghai Sunrise Furniture Co., Ltd., or Fairmont Designs ................................................................................................................................................................................... 7.24 

Dongying Huanghekou Furniture Industry Co., Ltd ............................................................................................................................. 7.24 

Dream Rooms Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd ..................................................................................................................................... 7.24 

Eurosa (Kunshan) Co., Ltd., or Eurosa Furniture Co., (PTE) Ltd ....................................................................................................... 7.24 

Ever Spring Furniture Co. Ltd., or S.Y.C. Family Enterprise Co., Ltd ................................................................................................ 7.24 

Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Ltd ............................................................................................................................................................. 7.24 

Foshan Guanqiu Furniture Co., Ltd ..................................................................................................................................................... 7.24 

Fujian Lianfu Forestry Co., Ltd., or Fujian Wonder Pacific Inc ........................................................................................................... 7.24 

Gaomi Yatai Wooden Ware Co., Ltd., or Team Prospect International Ltd., or Money Gain International Co ................................. 7.24 

Garri Furniture (Dong Guan) Co., Ltd., or Molabile International, Inc., or Weei Geo Enterprise Co., Ltd ......................................... 7.24 

Green River Wood (Dongguan) Ltd .................................................................................................................................................... 7.24 

Guangming Group Wumahe Furniture Co., Ltd .................................................................................................................................. 7.24 

Guangzhou Maria Yee Furnishings Ltd., Pyla HK, Ltd., and Maria Yee, Inc ..................................................................................... 7.24 

Hainan Jong Bao Lumber Co., Ltd., or Jibbon Enterprise Co., Ltd .................................................................................................... 7.24 

Hamilton & Spill Ltd ............................................................................................................................................................................. 7.24 

Hang Hai Woodcraft’s Art Factory ....................................................................................................................................................... 7.24 

Hualing Furniture (China) Co., Ltd., or Tony House Manufacture (China) Co., Ltd., or Buysell Investments Ltd., or Tony House 

Industries Co., Ltd ............................................................................................................................................................................ 7.24 

Jardine Enterprise, Ltd ........................................................................................................................................................................ 7.24 

Jiangmen Kinwai Furniture Decoration Co., Ltd ................................................................................................................................. 7.24 

Jiangmen Kinwai International Furniture Co., Ltd ............................................................................................................................... 7.24 

Jiangsu Weifu Group Fullhouse Furniture Manufacturing. Corp. ........................................................................................................ 7.24 

Jiangsu Yuexing Furniture Group Co., Ltd .......................................................................................................................................... 7.24 

Jiedong Lehouse Furniture Co., Ltd .................................................................................................................................................... 7.24 

King’s Way Furniture Industries Co., Ltd., or Kingsyear Ltd ............................................................................................................... 7.24 

Kuan Lin Furniture (Dong Guan) Co., Ltd., or Kuan Lin Furniture Factory, or Kuan Lin Furniture Co., Ltd ..................................... 7.24 

Kunshan Lee Wood Product Co., Ltd ................................................................................................................................................. 7.24 

Kunshan Summit Furniture Co., Ltd .................................................................................................................................................... 7.24 

Langfang Tiancheng Furniture Co., Ltd .............................................................................................................................................. 7.24 

Leefu Wood (Dongguan) Co., Ltd., or King Rich International, Ltd .................................................................................................... 7.24 

Link Silver Ltd. (V.I.B.), or Forward Win Enterprises Co. Ltd., or Dongguan Haoshun Furniture Ltd ............................................... 7.24 

Locke Furniture Factory, or Kai Chan Furniture Co., Ltd., or Kai Chan (Hong Kong) Enterprise Ltd., or Taiwan Kai Chan Co., 

Ltd .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7.24 

Longrange Furniture Co., Ltd .............................................................................................................................................................. 7.24 

Nanhai Baiyi Woodwork Co., Ltd ........................................................................................................................................................ 7.24 

Nanhai Jiantai Woodwork Co., Ltd., or Fortune Glory Industrial Ltd. (H.K. Ltd) ................................................................................ 7.24 

Nantong Dongfang Orient Furniture Co., Ltd ...................................................................................................................................... 7.24 

Nantong Yushi Furniture Co., Ltd ........................................................................................................................................................ 7.24 

Nathan International Ltd., or Nathan Rattan Factory .......................................................................................................................... 7.24 

Orient International Holding Shanghai Foreign Trade Co., Ltd .......................................................................................................... 7.24 

Passwell Corporation, or Pleasant Wave Ltd ...................................................................................................................................... 7.24 

Perfect Line Furniture Co., Ltd ............................................................................................................................................................ 7.24 

Prime Wood International Co., Ltd., or Prime Best International Co., Ltd., or Prime Best Factory, or Liang Huang (Jiaxing) Enterprise Co., Ltd ............................................................................................................................................................................... 7.24 

PuTian JingGong Furniture Co., Ltd ................................................................................................................................................... 7.24 

Qingdao Liangmu Co., Ltd .................................................................................................................................................................. 7.24 

Restonic (Dongguan) Furniture Ltd., or Restonic Far East (Samoa) Ltd ........................................................................................... 7.24 

RiZhao SanMu Woodworking Co., Ltd ................................................................................................................................................ 7.24 

Season Furniture Manufacturing Co., or Season Industrial Development Co .................................................................................... 7.24 

Sen Yeong International Co., Ltd., or Sheh Hau International Trading Ltd ........................................................................................ 7.24 

Shanghai Jian Pu Export & Import Co., Ltd ........................................................................................................................................ 7.24 

Shanghai Maoji Imp and Exp Co., Ltd ................................................................................................................................................ 7.24 

Sheng Jing Wood Products (Beijing) Co., Ltd., or Telstar Enterprises Ltd ........................................................................................ 7.24 

Shenyang Shining Dongxing Furniture Co., Ltd .................................................................................................................................. 7.24 

Shenzhen Forest Furniture Co., Ltd .................................................................................................................................................... 7.24 

Shenzhen Jiafa High Grade Furniture Co., Ltd., or Golden Lion International Trading Ltd ............................................................... 7.24 

Shenzhen New Fudu Furniture Co., Ltd ............................................................................................................................................. 7.24 

Shenzhen Wonderful Furniture Co., Ltd .............................................................................................................................................. 7.24 

Shenzhen Xiande Furniture Factory .................................................................................................................................................... 7.24 

Shenzhen Xingli Furniture Co., Ltd ..................................................................................................................................................... 7.24 

Shun Feng Furniture Co., Ltd .............................................................................................................................................................. 7.24 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
19368 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Notices 

Exporter/manufacturer Margin 

(percent) 

Songgang Jasonwood Furniture Factory, or Jasonwood Industrial Co., Ltd. S.A. ............................................................................. 7.24 

Starwood Furniture Manufacturing Co. Ltd ......................................................................................................................................... 7.24 

Starwood Industries Ltd ....................................................................................................................................................................... 7.24 

Strongson Furniture (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., or Strongson Furniture Co., Ltd., or Strongson (HK) Co ............................................... 7.24 

Sunforce Furniture (Hui-Yang) Co., Ltd., or Sun Fung Wooden Factory, or Sun Fung Co., or Shin Feng Furniture Co., Ltd., or 

Stupendous International Co., Ltd ................................................................................................................................................... 7.24 

Superwood Co., Ltd., or Lianjiang Zongyu Art Products Co., Ltd ...................................................................................................... 7.24 

Tarzan Furniture Industries Ltd., or Samso Industries Ltd ................................................................................................................. 7.24 

Teamway Furniture (Dong Guan) Ltd., or Brittomart Inc .................................................................................................................... 7.24 

Techniwood Industries Ltd., or Ningbo Furniture Industries Limited, or Ningbo Hengrun Furniture Co., Ltd .................................... 7.24 

Tianjin Fortune Furniture Co., Ltd ....................................................................................................................................................... 7.24 

Tianjin Master Home Furniture ............................................................................................................................................................ 7.24 

Tianjin Phu Shing Woodwork Enterprise Co., Ltd ............................................................................................................................... 7.24 

Tianjin Sande Fairwood Furniture Co., Ltd ......................................................................................................................................... 7.24 

Tube-Smith Enterprise (ZhangZhou) Co., Ltd., or Tube-Smith Enterprise (Haimen) Co., Ltd., or Billonworth Enterprises Ltd ........ 7.24 

Union Friend International Trade Co., Ltd ........................................................................................................................................... 7.24 

U-Rich Furniture (Zhangzhou) Co., Ltd., or U-Rich Furniture Ltd ...................................................................................................... 7.24 

Wanhengtong Nueevder (Furniture) Manufacture Co., Ltd., or Dongguan Wanengtong Industry Co., Ltd ....................................... 7.24 

Woodworth Wooden Industries (Dong Guan) Co., Ltd ....................................................................................................................... 7.24 

Xiamen Yongquan Sci-Tech Development Co., Ltd ........................................................................................................................... 7.24 

Jiangsu XiangSheng Bedtime Furniture Co., Ltd ................................................................................................................................ 7.24 

Xingli Arts & Crafts Factory of Yangchun ........................................................................................................................................... 7.24 

Yangchun Hengli Co. Ltd .................................................................................................................................................................... 7.24 

Yeh Brothers World Trade, Inc ............................................................................................................................................................ 7.24 

Yichun Guangming Furniture Co., Ltd ................................................................................................................................................. 7.24 

Yida Co., Ltd., or Yitai Worldwide, Ltd., or Yili Co., Ltd., or Yetbuild Co., Ltd ................................................................................... 7.24 

Yihua Timber Industry Co., Ltd ........................................................................................................................................................... 7.24 

Zhang Zhou Sanlong Wood Product Co., Ltd ..................................................................................................................................... 7.24 

Zhangjiagang Zheng Yan Decoration Co., Ltd .................................................................................................................................... 7.24 

Zhangjiagang Daye Hotel Furniture Co., Ltd ...................................................................................................................................... 7.24 

Zhangzhou Guohui Industrial & Trade Co. Ltd ................................................................................................................................... 7.24 

Zhanjiang Sunwin Arts & Crafts Co., Ltd ............................................................................................................................................ 7.24 

Zhong Shan Fullwin Furniture Co., Ltd ............................................................................................................................................... 7.24 

Zhongshan Fookyik Furniture Co., Ltd ................................................................................................................................................ 7.24 

Zhongshan Golden King Furniture Industrial Co., Ltd ........................................................................................................................ 7.24 

Zhoushan For-Strong Wood Co., Ltd .................................................................................................................................................. 7.24 

PRC-Wide Rate ................................................................................................................................................................................... 198.08 

1Excluded. 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective orders (‘‘APO’’) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with section 351.305 of the 

Department’s regulations. Timely 

notification of the return or 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. 

We are issuing and publishing the 

results and notice in accordance with 

sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of 

the Act. 

Dated: April 7, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–8565 Filed 4–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board 

Foreign-Trade Zone 126—Reno, NV; 

Site Renumbering Notice 

Foreign-Trade Zone 126 was 

approved by the Foreign-Trade Zones 

Board on April 4, 1986 (Board Order 

328, 51 FR 12904, 4/16/86), and 

expanded on February 25, 1997 (Board 

Order 872, 62 FR 10520, 3/7/97), on 

December 15, 1999 (Board Order 1066, 

64 FR 72642, 12/28/99), and on March 

12, 2007 (Board Order 1506, 72 FR 

13080, 3/20/2007). 

FTZ 126 currently consists of 13 

‘‘Sites’’ totaling some 1,296 acres in the 

Reno, Nevada area. The current update 

does not alter either the physical 

boundaries or the time limits that have 

previously been approved, but instead 

involves an administrative renumbering 

of the existing sites 1, 3 and 6 to 

separate unrelated, non-contiguous sites 

for record-keeping purposes. 

Under this revision, the site list for 

FTZ 126 will be as follows: Site 1 (13.9 

acres)—located at 728 Spice Island 

Drive, Sparks; Site 2 (9 acres)—located 

at 450–475 Lillard Drive, Sparks; Site 3 

(26 acres)—3 parcels located at 205 Parr 

Boulevard (10 acres), 365 Parr Circle (9 

acres), and 345 Parr Circle (7 acres); Site 

4 (200 acres, sunset 3/31/2012)—within 

the 5,000-acre Crossroads Commerce 

Center, Nevada Pacific Parkway and 

East Newlands Drive, Fernley (Lyon 

County); Site 5 (20 acres, sunset 3/31/ 

2012)—within the 110-acre Fernley 

Industrial Park, located at Lyon Drive 

and Industrial Drive, Fernley; Site 6 

(622 acres, 2 parcels, sunset 3/31/ 

2012)—located at the Tahoe Reno 

Industrial Center southwest of Denmark 

and USA Parkway, Patrick (Storey 

County); Site 7 (38 acres, 2 parcels, 

sunset 3/31/2012)—at the Reno-Stead 

Airport located at 14551 Industry Circle 

(33 acres) and 4895 Texas Avenue (5 

acres) in Reno (Washoe County); Site 8 

(53 acres, 4 parcels, sunset 3/31/2012)— 

Sage Point Business Park located on or 

near Lear Boulevard at Military Road, 

Reno; Site 9 (25 acres, sunset 3/31/ 

2012)—consists of three parcels within 

the Dermody Business Park located at 

5360 Capital Court and 1312 and 1316


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
 
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 79 / Monday, April 26, 2010 / Notices 21657 

11 Vice Chairman Daniel R. Pearson and 

Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane found that the 

respondent party group response was adequate. 

commercial wind facility will not be 

considered as valid indications of 

interest. In addition, MMS will not 

consider any areas outside of the RFI 

area in this process; 

(2) A description of your objectives 

and the facilities that you would use to 

achieve those objectives; 

(3) A schedule of proposed activities, 

including those leading to commercial 

operations; 

(4) Available and pertinent data and 

information concerning renewable 

energy and environmental conditions in 

the area of interest, including energy 

and resource data and information used 

to evaluate the area of interest; 

(5) Documentation demonstrating that 

you are qualified to hold a lease as set 

forth in 30 CFR 285.107, including 

documentation demonstrating that you 

are technically and financially capable 

of constructing, operating, maintaining, 

and decommissioning the facilities 

described in (2) above. Documentation 

of financial qualification may include 

information establishing access to 

sufficient capital to carry out 

development. Examples of 

documentation of technical 

qualification may include evidence of 

international or domestic experience 

with renewable energy projects or other 

types of electric-energy-related projects. 

Protection of Privileged or Confidential 

Information 

The MMS will protect privileged or 

confidential information that you 

submit as required by the Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA). Exemption 4 of 

FOIA applies to trade secrets and 

commercial or financial information 

that you submit that is privileged or 

confidential. If you wish to protect the 

confidentiality of such information, 

clearly mark it and request that the 

MMS treat it as confidential. The MMS 

will not disclose such information, 

subject to the requirements of FOIA. 

However, the MMS will not treat as 

confidential any aggregate summaries of 

such information or comments not 

containing such information. Please 

label privileged or confidential 

information ‘‘Contains Confidential 

Information’’ and consider submitting 

such information as a separate 

attachment. 

Dated: March 31, 2010. 

S. Elizabeth Birnbaum, 

Director, Minerals Management Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–9610 Filed 4–23–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–1058 (Review)] 

Wooden Bedroom Furniture From 

China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Scheduling of a full five-year 

review concerning the antidumping 

duty order on wooden bedroom 

furniture from China. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of a full review 

pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)) 

(the Act) to determine whether 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

order on wooden bedroom furniture 

from China would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury within a reasonably foreseeable 

time. The Commission has determined 

to exercise its authority to extend the 

review period by up to 90 days pursuant 

to 19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)(B). For further 

information concerning the conduct of 

this review 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, D, E, and 

F (19 CFR part 207). 

DATES: Effective Date: April 19, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amy Sherman (202–205–3289), Office 

of Investigations, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired 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 review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—On March 8, 2010, the 

Commission determined that it should 

proceed to a full review in the subject 

five-year review pursuant to section 

751(c)(5) of the Act (75 FR 14469, March 

25, 2010). The Commission found that 

the domestic interested party group 

response to its notice of institution (74 

FR 62817, December 1, 2009) was 

adequate and that the respondent 

interested party group response was 

inadequate.11 The Commission also 

found that other circumstances 

warranted conducting a full review. A 

record of the Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, 

and any individual Commissioner’s 

statements are available from the Office 

of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site. 

Participation in the review 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 this review 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, by 45 days after 

publication of this notice. A party that 

filed a notice of appearance following 

publication of the Commission’s notice 

of institution of the review need not file 

an additional notice of appearance. The 

Secretary will maintain a public service 

list containing the names and addresses 

of all persons, or their representatives, 

who are parties to the review. 

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 this review available to 

authorized applicants under the APO 

issued in the review, provided that the 

application is made by 45 days after 

publication of this notice. Authorized 

applicants must represent interested 

parties, as defined by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), 

who are parties to the review. A party 

granted access to BPI following 

publication of the Commission’s notice 

of institution of the review 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 review will be placed in 

the nonpublic record on September 15, 

2010, and a public version will be 

issued thereafter, pursuant to section 

207.64 of the Commission’s rules. 

Hearing.—The Commission will hold 

a hearing in connection with the review 

beginning at 9:30 a.m. on October 5, 

2010, 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 September 28, 

2010. A nonparty who has testimony 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
21658 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 79 / Monday, April 26, 2010 / Notices 

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 September 28, 2010, 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), 207.24, and 

207.66 of the Commission’s rules. 

Parties must submit any request to 

present a portion of their hearing 

testimony in camera no later than 7 

business days prior to the date of the 

hearing. 

Written submissions.—Each party to 

the review may submit a prehearing 

brief to the Commission. Prehearing 

briefs must conform with the provisions 

of section 207.65 of the Commission’s 

rules; the deadline for filing is 

September 24, 2010. 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 207.67 of the 

Commission’s rules. The deadline for 

filing posthearing briefs is October 15, 

2010; 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 review may submit a written 

statement of information pertinent to 

the subject of the review on or before 

October 15, 2010. On November 10, 

2010, 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 November 16, 2010, but such 

final comments must not contain new 

factual information and must otherwise 

comply with section 207.68 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 

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). Even where electronic filing of a 

document is permitted, certain 

documents must also be filed in paper 

form, as specified in II(C) of the 

Commission’s Handbook on Electronic 

Filing Procedures, 67 FR 68168, 68173 

(November 8, 2002). 

Additional written submissions to the 

Commission, including requests 

pursuant to section 201.12 of the 

Commission’s rules, shall not be 

accepted unless good cause is shown for 

accepting such submissions, or unless 

the submission is pursuant to a specific 

request by a Commissioner or 

Commission staff. 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, 

each document filed by a party to the 

review must be served on all other 

parties to the review (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 review is being conducted 

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules. 

Issued: April 20, 2010. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–9537 Filed 4–23–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

SUMMARY: The U.S. International Trade 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) hereby 

gives notice of the court-ordered second 

remand of its final determination in the 

antidumping duty Investigation No. 

731–TA–961 concerning carbon and 

certain alloy steel wire rod (‘‘wire rod’’) 

from Trinidad and Tobago. For further 

information concerning the conduct of 

this proceeding 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, subpart A (19 CFR 

part 207). 

DATES: Effective Date: April 20, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Messer, Office of Investigations, 

telephone 202–205–3193, or Marc A. 

Bernstein, Office of General Counsel, 

telephone 202–205–3087, 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 of 

Investigation No. 731–TA–961 may be 

viewed on the Commission’s electronic 

docket (‘‘EDIS’’) at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—In October 2002, the 

Commission determined that a domestic 

industry was materially injured by 

reason of imports of wire rod from 

Trinidad and Tobago that were sold in 

the United States at less than fair value. 

Caribbean Ispat Ltd., a Trinidadian 

producer and exporter of wire rod now 

known as Mittal Steel Point Lisas, Ltd., 

initiated a judicial action to review the 

Commission’s determination. The Court 

of International Trade affirmed the 

Commission’s determination. Caribbean 

Ispat Ltd. v. United States, 366 F. Supp. 

1300 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2005). The United 

States Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit vacated and remanded. 

Caribbean Ispat Ltd. v. United States, 

450 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006). It ruled: 

(1) That the Commission acted contrary 

to law by failing to consider in its 

causation analysis concerning subject 

imports from Trinidad and Tobago the 

impact of imports from other subject 

countries which the Commission was 

statutorily precluded from cumulating 

with the Trinidadian imports; and (2) 

that the Commission’s causation 

analysis did not satisfy the requirements 

the Federal Circuit previously 

articulated in Bratsk Aluminum Smelter 

v. United States, 444 F.3d 1369 (Fed. 

Cir. 2006). The Federal Circuit 

remanded the matter for further 

consideration in light of its opinion. 

Accordingly, the Court of International 

Trade remanded the matter to the 

Commission. 

In January 2007, the Commission 

reached a negative determination on 

remand. The Court of International 

Trade affirmed the remand 

determination. Mittal Steel Point Lisas, 

Ltd. v. United States, 495 F. Supp.2d 

1374 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2007). The Federal 

Circuit vacated and remanded in a 

decision issued in September 2008. 

Mittal Steel Point Lisas, Ltd. v. United 

States, 542 F.3d 867 (Fed. Cir. 2008). It 

found three deficiencies in the 

Commission opinion on remand. These 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
1

 Vice Chairman Daniel R. Pearson and Commissioner Charlotte R. Lane determined that the

respondent interested party group response was adequate.

EXPLANATION OF COMMISSION DETERMINATION ON ADEQUACY

in

Wooden Bedroom Furniture from China

Inv. No. 731-TA-1058 (Review)

On March 8, 2010, the Commission determined that it should proceed to a full review in

the subject five-year review pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended,

19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(5).

The Commission received a response to the notice of institution from a group of U.S.

producers of wooden bedroom furniture and three labor unions. This response was filed by the

American Furniture Manufacturers Committee for Legal Trade (“AFMC”), an ad hoc association

of 21 U.S. manufacturers of wooden bedroom furniture; Vaughan-Bassett Furniture Company,

Inc.; Dubois Wood Products Inc.; The Jasper Group d/b/a Klem Hospitality; Solid Comfort, Inc.;

and the following three unions: United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America

Cabinet Makers, Millmen, and Industrial Carpenters Local 721; United Brotherhood of

Carpenters and Joiners of America Carpenters Industrial Council Local Union 2305; and

Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Union Local 991 (collectively the

“Domestic Producers”). The Commission also received individual responses from Ashley

Furniture Industries, Inc. and Furniture Traditions, domestic producers of wooden bedroom

furniture. Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. opposes the continuation of the order. The

Commission determined that the individual responses of the entities named above (i.e., AFMC,

the three labor unions, and the individually-named producers) were adequate. Because the

domestic interested parties that filed responses to the notice of institution collectively account for

a substantial proportion of domestic production of wooden bedroom furniture, the Commission

also determined that the domestic interested party group response was adequate. 

The Commission received eight substantive responses from the following 16 respondent

interested parties: Dalian Huafeng Furniture Group Co, Ltd.; Guangdong Yihua Timber Industry

Co., Ltd. and New Classic Home Furnishings, Inc.; Kunshan Lee Wood Product Co., Ltd. and

Kunshan Summit Furniture Co.; Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. (Ashley is both a domestic

producer and an importer); A-America, Inc.; Vineyard Furniture International; Home Meridian

International; Up Country, Inc.; and the following six members of the Furniture Retailers of

America (an ad hoc association of retailers and importers of wooden bedroom furniture):

AICO/Amini Innovation, Corp., City Furniture, El Dorado Furniture Corporation, Haverty

Furniture Companies, Inc., RC Willey Home Furnishings, and Rooms to Go. The Commission

determined that the individual response of each respondent interested party was adequate. 

Because the respondent interested parties that responded to the notice of institution did not

account for a substantial proportion of either imports or exports of the subject merchandise, the

Commission determined that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate.1
2

 Commissioner Pinkert finds the aggregate respondent group response to be inadequate. He

determines, however, that a full review should proceed due to information on conditions of competition

suggesting substantially increasing reliance on imports at the expense of U.S. production by a significant

portion of the domestic industry.

The Commission nonetheless voted to conduct a full review due to (1) changes in the conditions

of competition, including substantial increases in the ratio of imports to domestic production for

several domestic producers, and (2) the fact that, in this fragmented industry, there is an

indication that there will be participation in a full review by a not insignificant number of foreign

producers and importers that are not also domestic producers.2

A record of the Commissioners’ votes is available from the Office of the Secretary and

the Commission’s web site (http://www.usitc.gov).
B-1

APPENDIX B

HEARING WITNESSES

B-3

CALENDAR OF PUBLIC HEARING

Those listed below appeared as witnesses at the United States International Trade Commission’s

hearing:

Subject: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from China

Inv. No.: 731-TA-1058 (Review)

Date and Time: October 5, 2010 - 9:30 a.m.

Sessions were held in connection with this investigation in the Main Hearing Room (room 101), 500

E Street, SW, Washington, DC.

CONGRESSIONAL WITNESSES:

The Honorable John D. Dingell, U.S. Representative, 15th District, Michigan

The Honorable Rick Boucher, U.S. Representative, 9th District, Virginia

OPENING REMARKS:

Petitioners (Joseph W. Dorn, King & Spalding LLP)

Respondents (William Silverman, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP)

In Support of the Continuation of the Antidumping Duty Order:

King & Spalding LLP

Washington, DC

on behalf of

American Furniture Manufacturers Committee for Legal Trade

Vaughan-Bassett Furniture Co., Inc.

John D. Bassett, III, Chairman, American Furniture Manufacturers Committee

 for Legal Trade and Chairman, Vaughan-Bassett Furniture Co., Inc.

Wyatt Bassett, Chief Executive Officer, Vaughan-Bassett Furniture Co., Inc.

Glenn Prillaman, President and CEO, Stanley Furniture Co., Inc.

Reau Berry, President, Johnston/TomBigbee Furniture Mfg. Co.

John A. Sandberg, President and CEO, Sandberg Furniture Manufacturing Co., Inc.

Tim Copeland, President and Co-Owner, T. Copeland and Sons, Inc.

William G. Caperton, IV, President, Tom Seely Furniture Co. (Caperton Furniture

 Works, LLC)

Rosie Silvers, Employee, Johnston/TomBigbee Furniture Mfg. Co. and Vice President,

 Carpenters Industrial Council Local 2305

Dr. Kenneth Button, Consultant, Economic Consulting Services LLC

Jennifer Lutz, Consultant, Economic Consulting Services LLC

Michael G. Szustakowski, Consultant, King & Spalding

Joseph W. Dorn )

J. Michael Taylor ) – OF COUNSEL

Brian E. McGill )
B-4

In Opposition to the Continuation of the Antidumping Duty Order:

Squire, Sanders & Dempsey L.L.P.

Washington, DC

on behalf of

GuangDong Furniture Association, Trade Committee

George Tsai, Chairman, Fairmont Designs

Leslie Thompson, Co-Owner, Up Country, Inc.

Dr. Peter Koenig – OF COUNSEL

WilmerHale

Washington, DC

on behalf of

Guangdong Yihua Timber Industry Co., Ltd.

New Classic Home Furnishings, Inc.

John D. Greenwald )

 – OF COUNSEL Patrick J. McLain )

Mowry & Grimson, PLLC

Washington, DC

on behalf of

Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc.

American Signature, Inc.

Fine Furniture Design, LLC

Hillsdale Furniture, LLC

Home Meridian International

Lifestyle Enterprise, Inc.

RiversEdge Furniture Company

TM International, LLC

Kristin H. Mowry )

Jeffrey S. Grimson ) – OF COUNSEL

Jill A. Cramer )

Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Washington, DC

on behalf of

The Furniture Retailers of America (“FRA”)

Keith Koenig, President, City Furniture and Chairman, FRA

William Silverman )

 – OF COUNSEL Richard P. Ferrin )
B-5

In Opposition to the Continuation of the Antidumping Duty Order:–Continued

Perkins Coie

Washington, DC

on behalf of

Dalian Huafeng Furniture Group Co., Ltd.

Michael P. House )

 – OF COUNSEL Sabahat Chaudhary )

REBUTTAL/CLOSING REMARKS

Petitioners (Joseph W. Dorn, King & Spalding LLP)

Respondents (John D. Greenwald, WilmerHale)

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA

C-1

Table C-1 

Wooden bedroom furniture: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2004-09

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

Reported data Period changes

Item 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2004-09 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,676,283 5,180,403 5,039,035 4,663,962 4,093,725 3,403,639 -27.2 10.8 -2.7 -7.4 -12.2 -16.9

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . 31.9 27.3 24.7 22.5 21.9 22.0 -9.9 -4.6 -2.6 -2.2 -0.6 0.0

 Importers' share (1):

 China (subject) . . . . . . . . . . . 

 China (nonsubject) . . . . . . . . 

 Vietnam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 8.9 11.7 17.5 23.3 24.7 20.6 4.9 2.7 5.8 5.8 1.4

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . 31.8 30.7 27.6 25.9 26.7 31.2 -0.6 -1.1 -3.1 -1.7 0.8 4.5

 Subtotal, nonsubject. . . . . . .

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . 68.1 72.7 75.3 77.5 78.1 78.0 9.9 4.6 2.6 2.2 0.6 0.0

U.S. imports from:

 China (subject):

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 1,341,429 1,529,915 1,675,197 1,474,293 1,323,861 1,100,214 -18.0 14.1 9.5 -12.0 -10.2 -16.9

 China (nonsubject):

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 

 Vietnam:

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190,393 462,805 587,387 813,931 952,537 839,136 340.7 143.1 26.9 38.6 17.0 -11.9

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 247,868 378,427 676,594 848,123 1,037,252 1,004,780 305.4 52.7 78.8 25.4 22.3 -3.1

 All other sources:

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,489,002 1,592,766 1,391,358 1,208,461 1,094,591 1,062,414 -28.6 7.0 -12.6 -13.1 -9.4 -2.9

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 382,596 499,680 567,622 649,936 649,613 599,360 56.7 30.6 13.6 14.5 0.0 -7.7

 Subtotal, nonsubject:

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 

 All sources:

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,185,475 3,764,811 3,794,948 3,613,016 3,196,269 2,655,854 -16.6 18.2 0.8 -4.8 -11.5 -16.9

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 2,128,540 2,589,899 3,165,785 3,159,227 3,181,817 2,845,065 33.7 21.7 22.2 -0.2 0.7 -10.6

U.S. producers':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . 14,018,999 14,050,004 13,640,803 12,918,768 11,894,272 11,079,849 -21.0 0.2 -2.9 -5.3 -7.9 -6.8

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . 10,248,027 10,100,968 9,746,303 8,417,946 7,491,611 6,467,592 -36.9 -1.4 -3.5 -13.6 -11.0 -13.7

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . 73.1 71.9 71.4 65.2 63.0 58.4 -14.7 -1.2 -0.4 -6.3 -2.2 -4.6

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,058,985 9,954,129 9,530,197 8,260,411 7,236,525 6,342,624 -36.9 -1.0 -4.3 -13.3 -12.4 -12.4

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,490,808 1,415,592 1,244,087 1,050,946 897,456 747,785 -49.8 -5.0 -12.1 -15.5 -14.6 -16.7

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $148.21 $142.21 $130.54 $127.23 $124.02 $117.90 -20.5 -4.0 -8.2 -2.5 -2.5 -4.9

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195,765 193,452 248,418 268,402 306,634 244,217 24.8 -1.2 28.4 8.0 14.2 -20.4

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24,636 26,898 28,361 33,507 36,109 27,076 9.9 9.2 5.4 18.1 7.8 -25.0

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $125.84 $139.04 $114.17 $124.84 $117.76 $110.87 -11.9 10.5 -17.9 9.3 -5.7 -5.9

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . 1,522,078 1,474,669 1,607,029 1,494,364 1,498,950 1,387,600 -8.8 -3.1 9.0 -7.0 0.3 -7.4

 Inventories/total shipments (1) 14.8 14.5 16.4 17.5 19.9 21.1 6.2 -0.3 1.9 1.1 2.4 1.2

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . 20,155 18,741 15,669 13,342 11,062 9,063 -55.0 -7.0 -16.4 -14.9 -17.1 -18.1

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . 39,882 36,015 30,565 26,624 22,684 18,617 -53.3 -9.7 -15.1 -12.9 -14.8 -17.9

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . 486,788 442,471 384,867 342,588 299,002 235,871 -51.5 -9.1 -13.0 -11.0 -12.7 -21.1

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $12.21 $12.29 $12.59 $12.87 $13.18 $12.67 3.8 0.7 2.5 2.2 2.4 -3.9

 Productivity (pieces/1,000 hour 257.0 280.5 318.9 316.0 330.3 347.4 35.2 9.1 13.7 -0.9 4.5 5.2

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . $47.50 $43.80 $39.47 $40.72 $39.91 $36.47 -23.2 -7.8 -9.9 3.2 -2.0 -8.6

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,342,272 10,229,348 9,786,782 8,560,684 7,507,918 6,498,395 -37.2 -1.1 -4.3 -12.5 -12.3 -13.4

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,526,945 1,455,871 1,274,309 1,097,469 940,985 774,626 -49.3 -4.7 -12.5 -13.9 -14.3 -17.7

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $147.64 $142.32 $130.21 $128.20 $125.33 $119.20 -19.3 -3.6 -8.5 -1.5 -2.2 -4.9

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . 1,224,373 1,150,836 1,030,197 922,101 799,947 665,675 -45.6 -6.0 -10.5 -10.5 -13.2 -16.8

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . 302,572 305,035 244,112 175,368 141,038 108,951 -64.0 0.8 -20.0 -28.2 -19.6 -22.8

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . 238,645 220,142 198,507 199,865 157,187 132,605 -44.4 -7.8 -9.8 0.7 -21.4 -15.6

 Operating income or (loss) . . . 63,927 84,893 45,605 -24,497 -16,149 -23,654 (2) 32.8 -46.3 (2) 34.1 -46.5

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . 23,045 22,538 34,251 18,462 15,579 9,581 -58.4 -2.2 52.0 -46.1 -15.6 -38.5

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $118.39 $112.50 $105.26 $107.71 $106.55 $102.44 -13.5 -5.0 -6.4 2.3 -1.1 -3.9

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . $23.07 $21.52 $20.28 $23.35 $20.94 $20.41 -11.6 -6.7 -5.8 15.1 -10.3 -2.5

 Unit operating income or (loss) $6.18 $8.30 $4.66 -$2.86 -$2.15 -$3.64 (2) 34.3 -43.9 (2) 24.8 -69.2

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . 80.2 79.0 80.8 84.0 85.0 85.9 5.8 -1.1 1.8 3.2 1.0 0.9

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 5.8 3.6 -2.2 -1.7 -3.1 -7.2 1.6 -2.3 -5.8 0.5 -1.3

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

 (2) Undefined.

Note.--Financial data were reported by some firms on a fiscal year basis and thus are not 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 and from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

C-3

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

APPENDIX D

RESPONSES OF U.S. PRODUCERS, U.S. IMPORTERS, U.S. PURCHASERS,

AND CHINESE PRODUCERS CONCERNING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE

ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDER AND THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF

REVOCATION

D-1

U.S. PRODUCERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE

ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDER AND THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

The Commission requested U.S. producers to describe any changes in the character of their

operations or organizations relating to the production of wooden bedroom furniture in the future if

the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from China were to be revoked. 

(Question II-6.) The following are quotations from the responses of producers. (The top 10 U.S.

producers in 2009 by total U.S. shipment value are represented in bold.)

* * * * * * *

The Commission requested U.S. producers to describe the significance of the existing antidumping 

order covering imports of wooden bedroom furniture from China in terms of its effect on their

firm’s production capacity, production, U.S. shipments, inventories, purchases, employment,

revenues, costs, profits, cash flow, capital expenditures, research and development expenditures,

and asset values. (Question II-21.) The following are quotations from the responses of producers. 

(The top 10 U.S. producers in 2009 by total U.S. shipment value are represented in bold.)

* * * * * * *

The Commission requested U.S. producers to describe any anticipated changes in their production

capacity, production, U.S. shipments, inventories, purchases, employment, revenues, costs, profits,

cash flow, capital expenditures, research and development expenditures, and asset values relating

to the production of wooden bedroom furniture in the future if the antidumping duty order on

wooden bedroom furniture were revoked. (Question II-22.) The following are quotations from the

responses of producers. (The top 10 U.S. producers in 2009 by total U.S. shipment value are

represented in bold.)

* * * * * * *

D-3
U.S. IMPORTERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE

ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDER AND THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

The Commission requested U.S. importers to describe any anticipated changes to the character of

their operations or organizations relating to the importation of wooden bedroom furniture in the

future. (Question II-3.) The following are quotations from the responses of U.S. importers. (The

top 10 U.S. importers in 2009 by total U.S. import value from all sources are represented in bold.)

* * * * * * *

The Commission requested U.S. importers to describe any anticipated changes to the character of

their operations or organizations relating to the importation of wooden bedroom furniture in the

future if the antidumping duty order were to be revoked. (Question II-4.) The following are

quotations from the responses of U.S. importers. (The top 10 U.S. importers in 2009 by total U.S.

import value from all sources are represented in bold.)

* * * * * * *

The Commission requested U.S. importers to describe the significance of the existing antidumping

duty order covering imports of wooden bedroom furniture from China in terms of its effect on their

imports, U.S. shipments of imports, and inventories. (Question II-14.) The following are

quotations from the responses of importers. (The top 10 U.S. importers in 2009 by total U.S. import

value from all sources are represented in bold.)

* * * * * * *

The Commission requested U.S. importers to describe any anticipated changes in their imports,

U.S. shipments of imports, or inventories of wooden bedroom furniture in the future if the existing

antidumping duty order was revoked. (Question II-15.) The following are quotations from the

responses of importers. (The top 10 U.S. importers in 2009 by total U.S. import value from all sources

are represented in bold.)

* * * * * * *

D-4
U.S. PURCHASERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE

ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDER AND THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

The Commission asked U. S. purchasers to comment on the likely effect of any revocation of the

antidumping duty order covering wooden bedroom furniture from China. They were asked to

discuss the potential effects of revocation of the antidumping duty order in terms of (1) the future

activities of their firm and (2) the U.S. market as a whole. (Question III-30.) Their responses are as

follows. (The top 10 purchasers are represented in bold.)

* * * * * * *

The Commission requested that purchasers identify and discuss any improvements/changes in the

U.S. wooden bedroom furniture industry since January 1, 2004. (Question III-29 (a).) Their

responses are as follows. (The top 10 purchasers are represented in bold.)

* * * * * * *

The Commission requested that purchasers identify and discuss any improvements/changes they

anticipate in the future U.S. wooden bedroom furniture industry. (Question III-29 (b).) Their

responses are as follows. (The top 10 purchasers are represented in bold.)

* * * * * * *

D-5
CHINESE PRODUCERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE

ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDER AND THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

The Commission requested foreign producers to describe any changes in the character of their

operations or organizations relating to the production of wooden bedroom furniture in the future if

the antidumping duty finding on wooden bedroom furniture from China were to be revoked. 

(Question II-4.) The following are quotations from the responses of foreign producers. (The top 5

responding Chinese producers in 2009 by quantity produced are represented in bold.)

* * * * * * *

The Commission requested foreign producers to a) state the antidumping duty rate to which their

exports have been subject since the order was imposed; and b) if the antidumping duty rate

changed, explain how the change in rate affected their volume of imports to the United States. 

(Question II-14.) The following are quotations from the responses of foreign producers. (The top 5

responding Chinese producers in 2009 by quantity produced are represented in bold.)

* * * * * * *

The Commission requested foreign producers to describe any anticipated changes in their

production capacity, production, home market shipments, exports to the United States and other

markets, or inventories relating to the production of wooden bedroom furniture in the future if the

antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture were revoked. (Question II-15.) The

following are quotations from the responses of foreign producers. (The top 5 responding Chinese

producers in 2009 by quantity produced are represented in bold.)

* * * * * * *

D-6
APPENDIX E

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW TABLES

E-1

Table E-1

Wooden bedroom furniture: Results of the first administrative review (06/24/2004 - 12/31/2005) of

the antidumping duty order for China

Producer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Ace Furniture & Crafts Ltd. (a.k.a. Deqing Ace Furniture and Crafts Limited) 35.78

Baigou Crafts Factory of Fengkai 35.78

Best King International Ltd. 35.78

Dailan Pretty Home Furniture 35.78

Decca Furniture Limited 35.78

Der Cheng Wooden Works of Factory 35.78

Dongguan Dihao Funiture Co., Ltd. 35.78

Dongguan Hua Ban Furniture Co., Ltd. 35.78

Dongguan Mingsheng Furniture Co., Ltd. 35.78

Dongguan New Technology Import & Export Co., Ltd. 35.78

Dongguan Sunpower Enterprise Co., Ltd. 35.78

Dongguan Yihaiwei Furniture Limited 35.78

Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited 1.97

Foshan Guanqiu Furniture Co., Ltd. 11.72

Fujian Lianfu Forestry Co., Ltd./ Fujian Wonder Pacific Inc. (Dare Group) 49.60

Furnmart Ltd. 35.78

Fuzhou Huan Mei Furniture Co., Ltd. (Dare Group) 49.60

Guangdong New Four Seas Furniture Manufacturing Ltd. 35.78

Guangzhou Lucky Furniture Co., Ltd. 35.78

Hong Yu Furniture (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. 35.78

Hung Fai Wood Products Factory, Ltd. 35.78

Hwang Ho International Holdings Limited 35.78

Jiangsu Dare Furniture Co., Ltd. (Dare Group) 49.60

Kalanter (Hong Kong) Furniture Co. Limited 35.78

King Kei Furniture Factory, King Kei Trading Co., Ltd. and Jiu Ching Trading Co., Ltd. 35.78

King Wood Furniture Co., Ltd. 35.78

Kunwa Enterprise Co. 35.78

Table continued on next page. 

E-3
Table E-1--Continued

Wooden bedroom furniture: Results of the first administrative review (06/24/2004 - 12/31/2005)

of the antidumping duty order for China

Macau Youcheng Trading Co./Zhongshan Youcheng Wooden Arts & Crafts Co., Ltd. 35.78

Meikangchi Nantong Furniture Company Ltd. 35.78

Nantong Yangzi Furniture Co., Ltd. 35.78

Po Ying Industrial Co. 35.78

Profit Force Ltd. 35.78

Qingdao Beiyuan-Shengli Furniture Co., Ltd. 35.78

Qingdao Shenchang Wooden Co., Ltd. 35.78

Red Apple Trading Co., Ltd. 35.78

Shanghai Aosen Furniture Co., Ltd. 0.4

Shenyang Kunyu Wood Industry Co., Ltd. 35.78

Shenzhen Dafuhao Industrial Development Co., Ltd. 35.78

Shenzhen Shen Long Hang Industry Co., Ltd. 35.78

Sino Concord International Co., Ltd. 35.78

Starcorp Furniture Co., Ltd, or Starcorp Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., or Orin

Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., or Shanghai Starcorp Furniture Co., Ltd., and Shanghai

Xing Ding Furniture Industrial Co., Ltd.1 216.01

T.J. Maxx International Co., Ltd. 35.78

Tianjin First Wood Co., Ltd. 216.01

Top Art Furniture Factory/Sanxing Top Art Furniture/Ngai Kun Trading 35.78

Top Goal Development Co. 35.78

Transworld (Zhangzhou) Furniture Co., Ltd. 35.78

Wan Bao Chen Group Hong Kong Co., Ltd. 35.78

Winmost Enterprises Limited 35.78

Xilinmen Group Co., Ltd. 35.78

Yongxin Industrial (Holdings) Limited 35.78

Zhongshan Gainwell Furniture Co., Ltd. 35.78

PRC-Wide Rate 216.01

 1 Starcorp is not subject to the PRC-wide rate.

Source: 72 FR 46957, 72 FR 62834, 72 FR 72674, and 74 FR 2055.

E-4
Table E-2

Wooden bedroom furniture: Results of the second administrative review (01/01/2006 - 12/31/2006)

of the antidumping duty order for China

Producer/exporter Margin

(percent)

BNBM Co., Ltd. (aka Beijing New Material Co., Ltd.) 32.23

Classic Furniture Global Co., Ltd. 32.23

Dalian Guangming Furniture Co., Ltd. 32.23

Decca Furniture Ltd., aka Decca 32.23

Dong Guan Golden Fortune Houseware Co., Ltd. 32.23

Dongguan Mingsheng Furniture Co., Ltd. 32.23

Dongguan Yihaiwei Furniture Limited 32.23

Fortune Furniture Ltd. and its affiliate, Dongguan Fortune Furniture Ltd. 32.23

Fujian Lianfu Forestry Co., Ltd. aka Fujian Wonder Pacific Inc. (Dare Group) 39.46

Fuzhou Huan Mei Furniture Co., Ltd. (Dare Group) 39.46

Gaomi Yatai Wooden Ware Co., Ltd., Team Prospect International Ltd., Money Gain

International Co. 32.23

Guangming Group Wumahe Furniture Co., Ltd. 32.23

Inni Furniture 32.23

Jiangsu Dare Furniture Co., Ltd. (Dare Group) 39.46

Meikangchi (Nantong) Furniture Company Ltd. 32.23

Nanjing Nanmu Furniture Co., Ltd. 32.23

Po Ying Industrial Co. 32.23

Qingdao Beiyuan-Shengli Furniture Co., Ltd, Qingdao Beiyuan Industry Trading Co.,

Ltd. 32.23

Shenyang Kunyu Wood Industry Co., Ltd. 32.23

Shenzhen Tiancheng Furniture Co., Ltd., Winbuild Industrial Ltd., Red Apple Furniture

Co., Ltd., and Red Apple Trading Co., Ltd. 32.23

Shenzhen Xingli Furniture Co., Ltd. 32.23

Teamway Furniture (Dong Guan) Co., Ltd., Brittomart Inc. 22.29

Tianjin First Wood Co., Ltd. 32.23

Union Friend International Trade Co., Ltd. 32.23

Winmost Enterprises Limited 32.23

Table continued on next page. 

E-5
Table E-2--Continued

Wooden bedroom furniture: Results of the second administrative review (01/01/2006 -

12/31/2006) of the antidumping duty order for China

Winny Overseas, Ltd. 32.23

Yangchen Hengli Co., Ltd. 32.23

Yichun Guangming Furniture Co., Ltd. 32.23

Zhong Cheng Furniture Co., Ltd. 32.23

PRC-Wide Rate 216.01

Source: 73 FR 49162, 74 FR 4916, and 74 FR 13417.

E-6
Table E-3

Wooden bedroom furniture: Results of the third administrative review (01/01/2007 - 12/31/2007) of

the antidumping duty order for China

Producer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Brother Furniture Manufacture Co., Ltd. 29.89

COE, Ltd. 29.89

Decca Furniture Limited 29.89

Dongguan Landmark Furniture Products, Ltd. 29.89

Dongguan Mingsheng Furniture Co., Ltd. 29.89

Dongguan Yihaiwei Furniture Limited 29.89

Fujian Lianfu Forestry Co., Ltd. aka Fujian Wonder Pacific Inc. (Dare Group) 29.89

Fuzhou Huan Mei Furniture Co., Ltd. (Dare Group) 29.89

Guangdong Yihua Timber Industry Co., Ltd. (a.k.a. Yihua Timber Industry Co., Ltd.) 29.89

Hwang Ho International Holdings Limited 29.89

Jiangsu Dare Furniture Co., Ltd. (Dare Group) 29.89

Meikangchi (Nantong) Furniture Co. Ltd. 29.89

Orient International Holding Shanghai Foreign Trading Co., Ltd. 216.01

Qingdao Shenchang Wooden Co., Ltd. 29.89

Shenzhen Shen Long Hang Industry Co., Ltd. 29.89

Transworld (Zhangzhou) Furniture Co., Ltd. 29.89

Winny Unversal, Ltd., Zhongshan Winny Furniture Ltd., Winny Overseas, Ltd. 29.89

Xingli Arts & Crafts Factory of Yangchun 29.89

Zhongshan Gainwell Furniture Co., Ltd. 29.89

PRC-Wide Entity 216.01

Source: 74 FR 41374 and 74 FR 55810.

E-7
Table E-4

Wooden bedroom furniture: Results of the fourth administrative review (01/01/2008 - 12/31/2008) of

the antidumping duty order for China

Producer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Baigou Crafts Factory of Fengkai 43.23

COE Ltd. 43.23

Decca Furniture Ltd., aka Decca 43.23

Dongguan Landmark Furniture Products Ltd. 43.23

Dongguan Sunrise Furniture Co., Ltd., Taicang Sunrise Wood Industry Co., Ltd.,

Taicang Fairmount Designs Furniture Co., Ltd., and Meizhou Sunrise Furniture Co.,

Ltd.

43.23

Dongguan Yihaiwei Furniture Limited 43.23

Langfang Tiancheng Furniture Co., Ltd. 43.23

Longrange Furniture Co., Ltd. 43.23

Shun Feng Furniture Co., Ltd. 43.23

Tianjin Fortune Furniture Co., Ltd. 43.23

Transworld (Zhangzhou) Furniture Co. Ltd. 43.23

Winny Overseas, Ltd. 43.23

Zhongshan Gainwell Furniture Co. Ltd. 43.23

PRC–Wide Entity 216.01

Source: 75 FR 50992.

E-8
APPENDIX F

SELECTED U.S. PRODUCER DATA

F-1

Table F-1

Wooden bedroom furniture: U.S. producers’ production, total shipments and shares of production

and shipments, by firm and by position taken with respect to continuation of the antidumping duty

order, 2004-09

* * * * * * *

Table F-2

Wooden bedroom furniture: U.S. producers’ production, capacity and capacity utilization, by firm,

2004-09

* * * * * * *

F-3

APPENDIX G

OVERLAPS AMONG QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONDENTS

G-1

Numerous firms submitted a combination of producers’, importers’, purchasers’, and/or foreign

producers’ questionnaires, or submitted questionnaires for firms that were related to each other. For

purposes of the report in Parts II, IV, and V, staff has included all questionnaire responses, which may

result in an overlap of answers by firms that completed more than one type of questionnaire response. 

Overlaps identified among questionnaire respondents are summarized in table G-1.

Table G-1

Wooden bedroom furniture: Overlaps among questionnaire respondents

* * * * * * *

G-3

APPENDIX H

HOUSING STARTS, NEW HOMES SOLD, AND CONSUMER SENTIMENT

INDICES 

H-1

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

January 2004= 100

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

January 2004 = 100

Figure H-1

Wooden bedroom furniture demand component: Housing starts index, seasonally adjusted,

monthly, January 2004-August 2010

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/const/starts_cust.xls) and staff calculations.

Figure H-2

Wooden bedroom furniture demand component: New homes sold index, monthly, January 2004-

August 2010

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/const/www/newressalesindex_excel.html) and staff

calculations.

H-3
0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

100

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

January 2004=100

Figure H-3

Wooden bedroom furniture demand component: Consumer sentiment index, not seasonally

adjusted, monthly, January 2004-September 2010

Source: University of Michigan via St. Louis Federal Reserve (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2) and

staff calculations.

H-4
APPENDIX I

EXCHANGE RATES

I-1

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

January-March 2004=100

Yuan (China) 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

January-March 2004=100

Dong (Vietnam )

Table I-1

Exchange rates: Indices of the nominal exchange rates between the currencies of China and

Vietnam and the U.S. dollar, by quarters, January 2004-March 2010

Source: International Financial Statistics.

I-3

APPENDIX J

PRICING PRODUCT DEFINITIONS

J-1

Pricing products were requested for the following products:

PRODUCT 1: LOUIS PHILIPPE STYLE WOODEN BEDROOM FURNITURE SUITE

Product 1-A.–Queen-size Louis Philippe Style Sleigh Bed (Wooden Side Rails; no all solid hardwood

Headboards or Footboards):

 1

(1) Panel sleigh headboard and panel sleigh footboard, made with either flat or curved panels, and

wooden side rails; 

(2) Constructed of hardwood solids and veneers over particle board or fiber board, with or without

plywood, no all solid hardwood headboards or footboards, side rails may be made of plywood; 

(3) Made for use with queen-size (5 feet) bedding, but including headboards and footboards designed

to accommodate full-size (4 feet-six inches) and/or queen-size (5 feet) bedding, but not just full

size (4 feet-six inches) only; and 

(4) Combined weight of headboard, footboard, and side rails not to exceed 175 pounds total

(uncartoned and unpacked). 

Product 1-B.–Queen-size Louis Philippe Style Sleigh Bed (Wooden Side Rails; all solid hardwood

Headboards and Footboards):

 2

(1) Panel sleigh headboard and panel sleigh footboard, made with either flat or curved panels, and

wooden side rails; 

(2) Constructed of all hardwood solids, side rails may be made of plywood; 

(3) Made for use with queen-size (5 feet) bedding, but including headboards and footboards designed

to accommodate full-size (4 feet-six inches) and/or queen-size (5 feet) bedding, but not just full

size (4 feet-six inches) only; and 

(4) Combined weight of headboard, footboard, and side rails not to exceed 175 pounds total

(uncartoned and unpacked). 

Product 1-C.–Louis Philippe Style Dresser (6-9 drawers; no all solid hardwood Dressers): 

(1) Constructed of predominantly hardwood solids and veneers over particle board or fiber board, no

all solid hardwood dressers; 

(2) Height ranging from 35.0-42.0 inches and width ranging from 60.0-69.0 inches.

Product 1-D.–Louis Philippe Style Dresser (6-9 drawers; all solid hardwood Dressers): 

(1) Constructed of all hardwood solids (although interior drawer parts and back panels need not be

hardwood solids); 

(2) Height ranging from 35.0-42.0 inches and width ranging from 60.0-69.0 inches.

Product 1-E.–Mirrors Sold with above Louis Philippe Style Dressers:

(1) Include all mirrors sold with above Louis Phillipe Style dressers. 

 1 Report quantities and values of complete beds, including headboard, footboard, and side rails. For example, if

you shipped 100 headboards, 90 footboards, and 80 pairs of side rails, then report quantities and values for 80

complete beds, using average unit values for all 100 headboards and all 90 footboards to calculate the total value of

80 headboards and 80 footboards to add to the value of the 80 pairs of side rails.

 2 Report quantities and values of complete beds, including headboard, footboard, and side rails. For example, if

you shipped 100 headboards, 90 footboards, and 80 pairs of side rails, then report quantities and values for 80

complete beds, using average unit values for all 100 headboards and all 90 footboards to calculate the total value of

80 headboards and 80 footboards to add to the value of the 80 pairs of side rails.

J-3
Product 1-F.-Louis Philippe Style Two and Three Drawer Nightstands (no Doors; no all solid

hardwood Nightstands): 

(l) Constructed of predominantly hardwood solids and veneers over particle board or fiber 

board, no all solid hardwood nightstands; 

(2) Height ranging from 23.0-30.0 inches and width ranging from 24.0-32.0 inches. 

Product 1-G.-Louis Philippe Style Two and Three Drawer Nightstands (no Doors; all solid hardwood

Nightstands): 

(l) Constructed of all hardwood solids (although interior drawer parts and back panels need not be

hardwood solids); 

(2) Height ranging from 23.0-29.0 inches and width ranging from 24.0-32.0 inches. 

PRODUCT 2: MISSION STYLE WOODEN BEDROOM FURNITURE SUITE

Product 2-A.-Queen-size Mission Style Slat Bed (with Wooden Side Rails; no all solid hardwood

Headboards or Footboards):

3

(1) Slat headboard, slat footboard, and wooden side rails; 

(2) Constructed of predominantly hardwood solids or hardwood solids and veneers over particle

board or fiber board, no all solid hardwood headboards or footboards, side rails may be made of

plywood; 

(3) Made for use with queen-size (5 feet) bedding, including headboards and footboards designed to

accommodate full-size (4 feet-six inches) and/or queen-size (5 feet) bedding, but not just full size

(4 feet-six inches) only; and 

(4) Combined weight of headboard, footboard, and side rails not to exceed 175 pounds total

(uncartoned and unpacked). 

Product 2-B.-Queen-size Mission Style Slat Bed (with Wooden Side Rails; all solid hardwood

Headboards and Footboards):

4

(1) Slat headboard, slat footboard, and wooden side rails; 

(2) Constructed of all hardwood solids, side rails may be made of plywood; 

(3) Made for use with queen-size (5 feet) bedding, including headboards and footboards designed to

accommodate full-size (4 feet-six inches) and/or queen-size (5 feet) bedding, but not just full size

(4 feet-six inches) only; and 

(4) Combined weight of headboard, footboard, and side rails not to exceed 175 pounds total

(uncartoned and unpacked).

 3 Report quantities and values of complete beds, including headboard, footboard, and side rails. For example, if

you shipped 100 headboards, 90 footboards, and 80 pairs of side rails, then report quantities and values for 80

complete beds, using average unit values for all 100 headboards and all 90 footboards to calculate the total value of

80 headboards and 80 footboards to add to the value of the 80 pairs of side rails.

 4 Report quantities and values of complete beds, including headboard, footboard, and side rails. For example, if

you shipped 100 headboards, 90 footboards, and 80 pairs of side rails, then report quantities and values for 80

complete beds, using average unit values for all 100 headboards and all 90 footboards to calculate the total value of

80 headboards and 80 footboards to add to the value of the 80 pairs of side rails.

J-4
Product 2-C.-Mission Style Dresser (8-10 drawers-no doors OR 6-8 drawers and 1 or 2 doors; no all

solid hardwood Dressers): 

(1) Constructed of predominantly hardwood solids and veneers over particle board or fiber board, no

all solid hardwood dressers; 

(2) Height ranging from 36-47 inches and width ranging from 62-72 inches. 

Product 2-D.-Mission Style Dresser (8-10 drawers-no doors OR 6-8 drawers and 1 or 2 doors; all solid

hardwood Dressers): 

(1) Constructed of all hardwood solids (although interior drawer parts and back panels need not be

hardwood solids); 

(2) Height ranging from 36-47 inches and width ranging from 62-72 inches. 

Product 2-E.-Mirrors Sold with Above Mission Style Dresser: 

(1) Include all mirrors sold with the above Mission Style dressers. 

Product 2-F.-Mission Style Two and Three Drawer Nightstands (no Doors; no all solid hardwood

Nightstands): 

(1) Constructed of predominantly hardwood solids and veneers over particle board or fiber board, no

all sold hardwood nightstands;

(2) Height ranging from 22.5-30.0 inches. 

Product 2-G.-Mission Style Two and Three Drawer Nightstands (no Doors; all solid hardwood

Nightstands): 

(3) Constructed of all hardwood solids (although interior drawer parts and back panels need not be

hardwood solids);

(4) Height ranging from 22.5-30.0 inches. 

PRODUCT 3: WHITE COTTAGE STYLE WOODEN BEDROOM FURNITURE SUITE

Product 3-A.–Queen-size White Cottage Style Bed (Wooden Side Rails; no all solid hardwood

Headboards or Footboards):

 5

(1) Panel headboard, panel footboard, and wooden side rails; 

(2) Constructed of hardwood solids and veneers over particle board or fiber board, with or without

plywood, no all solid hardwood headboards or footboards, side rails may be made of plywood; 

(3) Made for use with queen-size (5 feet) bedding, but including headboards and footboards designed

to accommodate full-size (4 feet-six inches) and/or queen-size (5 feet) bedding, but not just full

size (4 feet-six inches) only; and 

(4) Combined weight of headboard, footboard, and side rails not to exceed 200 pounds total

(uncartoned and unpacked). 

 5 Report quantities and values of complete beds, including headboard, footboard, and side rails. For example, if

you shipped 100 headboards, 90 footboards, and 80 pairs of side rails, then report quantities and values for 80

complete beds, using average unit values for all 100 headboards and all 90 footboards to calculate the total value of

80 headboards and 80 footboards to add to the value of the 80 pairs of side rails.

J-5
Product 3-B.–Queen-size White Cottage Style Bed (Wooden Side Rails; all solid hardwood Headboards

and Footboards):

 6

(1) Panel headboard, panel footboard, and wooden side rails; 

(2) Constructed of all hardwood solids, side rails may be made of plywood; 

(3) Made for use with queen-size (5 feet) bedding, but including headboards and footboards designed

to accommodate full-size (4 feet-six inches) and/or queen-size (5 feet) bedding, but not just full

size (4 feet-six inches) only; and 

(4) Combined weight of headboard, footboard, and side rails not to exceed 200 pounds total

(uncartoned and unpacked). 

Product 3-C.–White Cottage Style Dresser (no all solid hardwood Dressers): 

(1) Constructed of predominantly hardwood solids and veneers over particle board or fiber board, no

all solid hardwood dressers; 

(2) Height ranging from 35.0-46.0 inches and width ranging from 56.0-66.0 inches.

Product 3-D.–White Cottage Style Dresser (all solid hardwood Dressers): 

(1) Constructed of all hardwood solids (although interior drawer parts and back panels need not be

hardwood solids); 

(2) Height ranging from 35.0-46.0 inches and width ranging from 56.0-66.0 inches.

Product 3-E.–Mirrors Sold with above White Cottage Style Dressers:

(1) Include all mirrors sold with above White Cottage Style dressers. 

Product 3-F.-White Cottage Style One and Two Drawer Nightstands (no Doors; no all solid hardwood

Nightstands): 

(l) Constructed of predominantly hardwood solids and veneers over particle board or fiber 

board, no all solid hardwood nightstands; 

(2) Height ranging from 23.0-29.0 inches and width ranging from 22.0-29.0 inches. 

Product 3-G.-White Cottage Style One and Two Drawer Nightstands (no Doors; all solid hardwood

Nightstands): 

(l) Constructed of all hardwood solids (although interior drawer parts and back panels need 

not be hardwood solids); 

(2) Height ranging from 23.0-29.0 inches and width ranging from 22.0-29.0 inches. 

 6 Report quantities and values of complete beds, including headboard, footboard, and side rails. For example, if

you shipped 100 headboards, 90 footboards, and 80 pairs of side rails, then report quantities and values for 80

complete beds, using average unit values for all 100 headboards and all 90 footboards to calculate the total value of

80 headboards and 80 footboards to add to the value of the 80 pairs of side rails.

J-6
PRODUCT 4: TRADITIONAL CARVED STYLE WOODEN BEDROOM FURNITURE SUITE

Product 4-A.–Queen-size Traditional Carved Style Low Post Bed):

 7

(1) Carved post from 6 to 8 inches in diameter;

(2) Carved crown molding and carved finials made of wood solids and veneers; and

(3) Rails made of plywood and veneer made for use with queen style bedding.

Product 4-B.–Queen-size Traditional Carved Style High Post Canopy Bed:

 8

(1) Carved post from 6 to 8 inches in diameter;

(2) Carved crown molding and carved finials made of wood solids and veneers; 

(3) Canopy made of wood; and

(4) Posts from 76 to 86 inches high.

Product 4-C.– Traditional Carved Style Dresser (6-9 Drawers):

(1) 66 to 72 inches wide, 36 to 44 inches high; and

(2) With carved pilasters and shaped fronts made of veneer, particle board, and wood solids.

Product 4-D.– Mirrors sold with above Traditional Carved Style Dressers:

(1) Include all mirrors sold with above Traditional Carved Style dressers.

Product 4-E.– Traditional Carved Style Three Drawer Nightstands:

(1) Carved pilasters and shaped fronts; and

(2) 24 to 26 inches wide and 24 to 30 inches high.

 7 Report quantities and values of complete beds, including headboard, footboard, and side rails. For example, if

you shipped 100 headboards, 90 footboards, and 80 pairs of side rails, then report quantities and values for 80

complete beds, using average unit values for all 100 headboards and all 90 footboards to calculate the total value of

80 headboards and 80 footboards to add to the value of the 80 pairs of side rails.

 8 Report quantities and values of complete beds, including headboard, footboard, and side rails. For example, if

you shipped 100 headboards, 90 footboards, and 80 pairs of side rails, then report quantities and values for 80

complete beds, using average unit values for all 100 headboards and all 90 footboards to calculate the total value of

80 headboards and 80 footboards to add to the value of the 80 pairs of side rails.

J-7