U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4177 August 2010

Washington, DC 20436

Woven Electric Blankets from China

Investigation No. 731-TA-1163 (Final)
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS 

 

Deanna Tanner Okun, Chairman 

Charlotte R. Lane 

Daniel R. Pearson 

Shara L. Aranoff 

Irving A. Williamson 

Dean A. Pinkert

Robert B. Koopman

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Acting Director of Operations

Joshua Kaplan, Investigator 

Shannon Gaffney, Industry Analyst 

Joshua Levy, Economist 

David Boyland, Accountant 

Karl von Schriltz, Attorney 

Lita David-Harris, Statistician 

George Deyman, Supervisory Investigator
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4177 August 2010

Woven Electric Blankets from China

Investigation No. 731-TA-1163 (Final)

CONTENTS

Page

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

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

Part I: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

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

Statutory criteria and organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Statutory criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

U.S. market summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

Summary data and data sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

Previous and related investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

Nature and extent of sales at LTFV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

The subject merchandise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Commerce’s scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

The product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

Description and applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

Manufacturing process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

Domestic like product issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

Knit electric blankets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

Woven shells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

Electric mattress pads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

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

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

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

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

Supply and demand considerations ................................................ II-2

Supply ................................................................... II-2

Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-4

Substitutability issues .......................................................... II-8

Factors affecting purchasing decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-8

Comparison of the U.S.-produced and imported WEBs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-12

Elasticity estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-15

U.S. supply elasticity ........................................................ II-15

U.S. demand elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-15

Substitution elasticity ....................................................... II-16

Part III: U.S. producer’s production, shipments, and employment ...................... III-1

U.S. producer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1

U.S. capacity, production, and capacity utilization ................................... III-1

U.S. producer’s shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-2

U.S. producer’s inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-2

U.S. producer’s imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-2

U.S. employment, wages, and productivity ......................................... III-2

i
CONTENTS

Page

Part IV: U.S. imports, apparent consumption, and market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1

U.S. importers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1

U.S. imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-2

Negligibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-3

Apparent U.S. consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-3

U.S. market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-4

Ratio of imports to U.S. production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-5

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

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

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

U.S. inland transportation costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Pricing practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Pricing methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Sales terms and discounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2

Price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2

Price trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-2

Price comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-4

Lost sales and lost revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-5

Part VI: Financial experience of the U.S. producer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1

Operations on woven electric blankets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1

Revenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1

Cost of goods sold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-2

Financial results on WEBs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-2

Capital expenditures, research and development expenses, assets, and return on investment . . . VI-3

Capital and investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-3

Part VII: Threat considerations and information on nonsubject countries ............... VII-1

The industry in China .......................................................... VII-1

U.S. inventories of WEBs from China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-2

U.S. importers’ current orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-3

Antidumping investigations in third-country markets ................................. VII-3

Information on nonsubject countries .............................................. VII-3

Appendixes

A. Federal Register notices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

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

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

ii
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation No. 731-TA-1163 (Final)

WOVEN ELECTRIC BLANKETS FROM CHINA

DETERMINATION

On the basis of the record1

 developed in the subject investigation, the United States International

Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 735(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19

U.S.C. § 1673d(b)) (the Act), that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of

imports from China of woven electric blankets, provided for in subheading 6301.10.00 of the Harmonized

Tariff Schedule of the United States, that have been found by the Department of Commerce (Commerce)

to be sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV).

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted this investigation effective June 30, 2009, following receipt of a

petition filed with the Commission and Commerce by Sunbeam Products, Inc., doing business as Jarden

Consumer Solutions, Boca Raton, FL. The final phase of the investigation was scheduled by the

Commission following notification of a preliminary determination by Commerce that imports of woven

electric blankets from China were being sold at LTFV within the meaning of section 733(b) of the Act (19

U.S.C. § 1673b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of the final phase of the Commission’s investigation and of

a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office

of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in

the Federal Register of March 11, 2010 (75 FR 11557). The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on

June 29, 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 the final phase of this investigation, we find that an industry in the United

States is materially injured by reason of imports of woven electric blankets (“WEBs”) from the People’s

Republic of China that the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) has found to be sold in the

United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”).

I. BACKGROUND

The antidumping duty petition in this investigation was filed on June 30, 2009 by Sunbeam

Products, Inc. (“Sunbeam”), doing business as Jarden Consumer Solutions (“Jarden”), the sole domestic

producer of WEBs.1

 Jarden filed briefs and participated in the Commission’s hearing.2 No respondent

participated as a party in the final phase of the investigation.3

 

II. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT

A. In General

In determining whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with

material injury by reason of imports of the subject merchandise, the Commission first defines the

“domestic like product” and the “industry.”4

 Section 771(4)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended

(“the Tariff Act”), defines the relevant domestic industry as the “producers as a whole of a domestic like

product, or those producers whose collective output of a domestic like product constitutes a major

proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”5

 In turn, the Tariff 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.”6

The decision regarding the appropriate domestic like product(s) in an investigation is a factual

determination, and the Commission has applied the statutory standard of “like” or “most similar in

characteristics and uses” on a case-by-case basis.7

 No single factor is dispositive, and the Commission

 1 Confidential Staff Report (“CR”) at I-1, 3; Public Staff Report (“PR”) at I-1, 3. 

 2 Milliken & Company (“Milliken”), *** domestic producer of the fabric shells used by Jarden in the production

of WEBs, filed a post-conference brief in support of the petition in the preliminary phase of the investigation, but has

not filed a brief in the final phase of the investigation. 

 3

 In the preliminary phase of this investigation, respondents that participated in the staff conference and filed a

post-conference brief were foreign producer Hung Kuo Electronic (Shenzhen) Company Limited (“Hung Kuo”),

importer Biddeford Blankets, LLC (“Biddeford”), and the Ad Hoc Coalition of Blanket Importers (the “Coalition”),

which includes importer and purchaser J.C. Penney. Woven Electric Blankets from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1163

(Preliminary), USITC Pub. 4097 (August 2009) (“Preliminary Determination”), at 1 (Leslie Hearn, Senior Buyer,

J.C. Penney Purchasing Corporation, appeared on behalf of the Coalition at the conference). Importer Perfect Fit

Industries (“Perfect Fit”) participated in the staff conference but did not submit a post-conference brief. Id. 

 4

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 5

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 6

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10).

 7

 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); Torrington Co. v. United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 749 n.3 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1990), aff’d, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed.

Cir. 1991) (“every like product determination ‘must be made on the particular record at issue’ and the ‘unique facts

(continued...)

3
may consider other factors it deems relevant based on the facts of a particular investigation.8

 The

Commission looks for clear dividing lines among possible like products and disregards minor variations.9

Although the Commission must accept Commerce’s determination as to the scope of the imported

merchandise that is subsidized or sold at less than fair value,10 the Commission determines what domestic

product is like the imported articles Commerce has identified.11

B. Product Description

Commerce has defined the imported merchandise within the scope of the investigation as follows:

The scope of this investigation covers finished, semi-finished, and unassembled woven

electric blankets, including woven electric blankets commonly referred to as throws, of

all sizes and fabric types, whether made of man-made fiber, natural fiber or a blend of

both. Semi-finished woven electric blankets and throws consist of shells of woven fabric

containing wire. Unassembled woven electric blankets and throws consist of a shell of

woven fabric and one or more of the following components when packaged together or in

a kit: (1) Wire; (2) controller(s). The shell of woven fabric consists of two sheets of

fabric joined together forming a “shell.” The shell of woven fabric is manufactured to

accommodate either the electric blanket's wiring or a subassembly containing the electric

blanket's wiring (e.g., wiring mounted on a substrate). 

A shell of woven fabric that is not packaged together, or in a kit, with either wire,

controller(s), or both, is not covered by this investigation even though the shell of woven

fabric may be dedicated solely for use as a material in the production of woven electric

blankets.12

 7 (...continued)

of each case’”). The Commission generally considers a number of factors, including the following: (1) physical

characteristics and uses; (2) interchangeability; (3) channels of distribution; (4) customer and producer perceptions

of the products; (5) common manufacturing facilities, production processes, and production employees; and, where

appropriate, (6) price. See Nippon, 19 CIT at 455 n.4; Timken Co. v. United States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l

Trade 1996).

 8

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

 9

 Nippon, 19 CIT at 455; Torrington, 747 F. Supp. at 748-49; see also S. Rep. No. 96-249 at 90-91 (1979)

(Congress has indicated that the like product standard should not be interpreted in “such a narrow fashion as to

permit minor differences in physical characteristics or uses to lead to the conclusion that the product and article are

not ‘like’ each other, nor should the definition of ‘like product’ be interpreted in such a fashion as to prevent

consideration of an industry adversely affected by the imports under consideration.”).

 10 See, e.g., USEC, Inc. v. United States, 34 Fed. Appx. 725, 730 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“The ITC may not modify the

class or kind of imported merchandise examined by Commerce.”); Algoma Steel Corp. v. United States, 688 F.

Supp. 639, 644 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1988), aff’d, 865 F.3d 240 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 919 (1989).

 11 Hosiden Corp. v. Advanced Display Mfrs., 85 F.3d 1561, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (the Commission may find a

single like product corresponding to several different classes or kinds defined by Commerce); Cleo, 501 F.3d at 1298

n.1 (“Commerce’s {scope} finding does not control the Commission’s [like product] determination.”); Torrington,

747 F. Supp. at 748-52 (affirming the Commission’s determination defining six like products in investigations in

which Commerce found five classes or kinds). The finished, semi-finished, and unassembled woven electric

blankets and throws subject to this investigation are currently classifiable under subheading 6301.10.00 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). CR at I-5; PR at I-4; CR/PR at Table I-2.

 12 CR at I-5; PR at I-4.

4
WEBs consist of a woven fabric shell, made of synthetic fibers, natural fibers, or a blend of the

two, containing a heat-producing wire whose temperature is controlled by means of one or more

thermostats or controllers.13 They are produced in standard bedding sizes, including twin, full, queen, and

king, and also as electric throws in smaller sizes.14 WEBs are generally used as bedding articles, to keep

sleeping individuals warm, but can also be used anywhere near an electric outlet, as by individuals resting

in a couch or chair.15 The scope includes “semi-finished” WEBs, comprised of a fabric shell containing

wire, and “unassembled” WEBs, comprised of a fabric shell packaged with either wire or controllers, or

both wire and controllers, but not fabric shells alone. 

 

C. Like Product Analysis

In the preliminary phase of this investigation, Jarden argued that the Commission should define a

single domestic like product that is coextensive with the scope of the investigation. Respondents

countered that the Commission should expand the domestic like product definition to encompass electric

mattress pads and knitted electric blankets from outside the scope. The Commission did not expand the

domestic like product definition to include knit electric blankets and certain other types of heated bedding

products because it found that such products were not produced in the United States.16 It also did not

expand the domestic like product definition to include electric mattress pads, which were produced in the

United States, because it found a clear dividing line separating WEBs from electric mattress pads.17

Finally, it determined that the evidence on the record of the preliminary phase investigation did not

support expansion of the domestic like product to include fabric shells pursuant to a semi-finished

products analysis.18 Consequently, for purposes of the preliminary phase investigation, the Commission

defined a single domestic like product coextensive with the scope of investigation. 

In the final phase of this investigation, Jarden argues that the Commission should again define the

domestic like product as coextensive with the scope of the investigation.19 It also argues that an

examination of the Commission’s semi-finished product factors does not support expansion of the

domestic like product to include fabric shells.20

We define a single domestic like product that is coextensive with the scope of the investigation

for purposes of this final phase, as further explained below.

 13 CR at I-6; PR at I-5.

 14 CR at I-6; PR at I-5.

 15 CR at I-6; PR at I-5.

 16 Preliminary Determination at 7.

 17 The Commission found that although electric mattress pads and WEBs shared broad physical characteristics

and uses and channels of distribution, they differed in ways that limited their interchangeability and corresponded

with differing customer and producer perceptions of the products. See Preliminary Determination at 5-7. It also

found that WEBs and electric mattress pads are produced in different facilities with different production processes

and employees. See Preliminary Determination at 6. 

 18 See Preliminary Determination at 8-10.

 19 Jarden argues that there is no new evidence on the record that would warrant the Commission’s reconsideration

of its determination in the preliminary phase of the investigation not to expand the domestic like product to include

electric mattress pads. Jarden’s Prehearing Br. at 5-6. It also argues that the Commission should not expand the

domestic like product to include knit electric blankets, though it began domestic production of such blankets in ***,

because such blankets were not produced in the United States during *** and knit electric blankets differ from

WEBs in terms of the Commission’s domestic like product factors. See Jarden’s Prehearing Br. at 2-3; Hearing Tr.

at 13 (Powers). 

 20 See Jarden’s Prehearing Br. at 4-5. 

5
1. Whether the Commission Should Define a Domestic Like Product

Encompassing Products Outside the Scope of the Investigation

In this final phase, the record contains no new information or arguments from the parties that

would warrant reconsideration of the Commission’s determination from the preliminary phase not to

expand the domestic like product definition to include electric mattress pads or knit electric blankets. 

Rather, the record supports the Commission’s finding from the preliminary phase that a clear dividing line

separates WEBs from electric mattress pads.21 With respect to knit electric blankets, Jarden began ***

domestic production in ***.22 Therefore, the record contains no data on domestically produced knit

electric blankets. 

We therefore do not expand the domestic like product definition to include either knit electric

blankets or electric mattress pads. 

2. Whether the Commission Should Define the Domestic Like Product to

Include Fabric Shells Pursuant to a Semi-Finished Products Analysis

In a semi-finished product analysis, the Commission examines the following factors: (1) whether

the upstream article is dedicated to the production of the downstream article or has independent uses;

(2) whether there are perceived to be separate markets for the upstream and downstream articles;

(3) differences in the physical characteristics and functions of the upstream and downstream articles;

(4) differences in the costs or value of the vertically differentiated articles; and (5) significance and extent

of the processes used to transform the upstream articles into the downstream articles.23

Based on the following analysis of our semi-finished product factors, we determine that the

record does not support the inclusion of fabric shells within the definition of the domestic like product.24

Dedicated production

Fabric shells are an intermediate product dedicated to the production of WEBs, with no other

current uses.25

Separate markets

There is no known separate market for fabric shells.26 *** for use in the production of WEBs.27

 21 See CR at I-13-14; PR at I-8-9.

 22 CR at I-10; PR at I-7.

 23 See, e.g., Glycine from India, Japan, and Korea, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1111-1113 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3921

(May 2007) at 7.

 24 We note that inclusion of fabric shells in the domestic like product would result in the inclusion of Milliken,

*** domestic producer of fabric shells, in the domestic industry. CR at I-13; PR at I-8.

 25 CR at I-13; PR at I-8.

 26 CR at I-13; PR at I-8

 27 CR at I-7 n.14; PR at I-6 n.14; see also Milliken’s Postconference Br. at 1; Jarden’s Postconference Br., Exhibit

1 at 2.

6
Differences in characteristics and functions

There are more differences than similarities in the characteristics and functions of fabric shells

and WEBs. Fabric shells are a semi-finished product consisting of two layers of smooth woven fabric

with integral channels for the insertion of heating wire, wound into large rolls for delivery to WEB

producers.28 WEBs are a consumer electronic product consisting of a blanket made from a fabric shell

that has been napped and chemically treated, assembled with a wire, a controller module, and a power

cord, and packaged for shipment to retailers and ultimate sale to consumers.29 Fabric shells have no use

other than as an input in the production of WEBs, whereas WEBs are used to keep sitting or resting

individuals warm.30 Nevertheless, the function of a fabric shell is integral to the function of a WEB in

contributing to the WEB’s ability to keep a user warm. 

 

Differences in costs or value 

Jarden reports that fabric shells represent *** percent or less of the cost of producing WEBs and

*** percent of their retail value.31

Significance of transformation 

The transformation of fabric shells into WEBs entails five production steps. First, the fabric shell

is napped by ***.32 Second, the napped fabric shell is chemically treated to set the fibers and improve the

blanket’s appearance.33 Third, a heating wire is *** inserted into the blanket using ***.34 Jarden

produces its own heating wire using a proprietary process.35 Fourth, the WEB is assembled with a

regulatory label, controller, and trim, and then tested.36 Finally, the WEB is packaged and placed in

inventory.37

Conclusion

There is no new evidence on the record of the final phase of the investigation that would warrant

changing our determination in the preliminary phase of the investigation. Although the evidence remains

mixed, the record does not, on balance, support expansion of the domestic like product definition beyond

the scope to include fabric shells. We therefore do not include fabric shells within the domestic like

product definition.

 28 CR at I-6-7; PR at I-5-6; Conference Tr. at 21 (Sullivan).

 29 CR at I-7-8; PR at I-6.

 30 CR at I-6; PR at I-5; Jarden’s Prehearing Br. at 4.

 31 CR at I-12; PR at I-8; Jarden’s Prehearing Br. at 5; see also Jarden’s Postconference Br. at 3. Based on

information submitted by Jarden, fabric shells accounted for *** of Jarden’s total cost of goods sold in 2009. CR at

VI-8; PR at VI-2.

 32 CR at I-7; PR at I-6.

 33 CR at I-7; PR at I-6; Conference Tr. at 21 (Sullivan). 

 34 CR at I-7; PR at I-6.

 35 CR at I-7-8; PR at I-6; Conference Tr. at 23 (Sullivan).

 36 CR at I-8; PR at I-6.

 37 CR at I-9; PR at I-6.

7
In sum, we define a single domestic like product that is coextensive with the scope of the

investigation defined by Commerce, comprised of WEBs as well as semi-finished and unassembled

WEBs.38

III. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY

The domestic industry is defined 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.”39 In defining the domestic industry, the

Commission’s general practice has been to include in the industry producers of all domestic production of

the like product, whether toll-produced, captively consumed, or sold in the domestic merchant market. 

Based on our definition of the domestic like product, we define the domestic industry to include the only

known domestic producer, Jarden.40

A. Related Parties

We must determine whether any producer of the domestic like product should be excluded from

the domestic industry as a related party pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B). Subsection 1677(4)(B)

allows the Commission, if appropriate circumstances exist, to exclude from the domestic industry

producers that are related to an exporter or importer of subject merchandise or which are themselves

importers.41 Exclusion of such a producer is within the Commission’s discretion based upon the facts

presented in each investigation.42 

 38 We note that further references to “WEBs” include semi-finished and unassembled WEBs within the scope,

although there were no reported U.S. shipments of semi-finished or unassembled WEBs. 

 39 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 40 CR/PR at Table III-1. We note that the Commission has collected data from Jarden that cover all products

within the domestic like product definition, since Jarden is the only domestic producer of WEBs, semi-finished

WEBs, and unassembled WEBs (in the sense that it processes the components defined as unassembled WEBs).

 41 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B). 

 42 The primary factors the Commission has examined in deciding whether appropriate circumstances exist to

exclude a related party include the following: (1) the percentage of domestic production attributable to the importing

producer; (2) the reason the U.S. producer has decided to import the product subject to investigation, i.e., whether

the firm benefits from the LTFV sales or subsidies or whether the firm must import in order to enable it to continue

production and compete in the U.S. market, and (3) the position of the related producer vis-a-vis the rest of the

industry, i.e., whether inclusion or exclusion of the related party will skew the data for the rest of the industry. See,

e.g., Torrington Co. v. United States, 790 F. Supp. 1161 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1992), aff’d without opinion, 991 F.2d 809

(Fed. Cir. 1993). The Commission has also considered the ratio of import shipments to U.S. production for related

producers and whether the primary interest of the related producer lies in domestic production or importation. These

latter two considerations were cited as appropriate factors in Allied Mineral Products, Inc. v. United States, 28 CIT

1861, 1865 (2004) (“The most significant factor considered by the Commission in making the ‘appropriate

circumstances’ determination is whether the domestic producer accrued a substantial benefit from its importation of

the subject merchandise.”); USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 12 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2001) (“the

provision’s purpose is to exclude from the industry headcount domestic producers substantially benefitting from

their relationships with foreign exporters.”), aff’d, 34 Fed. Appx. 725 (Fed. Cir. 2002); S. Rep. No. 249, 96th Cong.

1st Sess. at 83 (1979) (“where a U.S. producer is related to a foreign exporter and the foreign exporter directs his

exports to the United States so as not to compete with his related U.S. producer, this should be a case where the ITC

would not consider the related U.S. producer to be a part of the domestic industry”).

8
Jarden is a related party because it was an importer of subject merchandise from China during the

period examined.43 We find that appropriate circumstances do not exist to exclude Jarden from the

domestic industry as a related party. Jarden is the petitioner and the sole U.S. producer of WEBs,44 and

its interests primarily lie in domestic production rather than importation. Jarden’s imports of WEBs from

China were *** units in 2007, equivalent to only *** percent of its domestic production, *** units in

2008, equivalent to only *** percent of its domestic production, and *** units in 2009, equivalent to only

*** percent of its domestic production.45 ***.46 Accordingly, we define the domestic industry as Jarden,

the only domestic producer of the domestic like product.

IV. MATERIAL INJURY BY REASON OF IMPORTS OF SUBJECT MERCHANDISE

FROM CHINA47

A. Legal Standards

In the final phase of antidumping and countervailing duty investigations, the Commission

determines whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material

injury by reason of the imports under investigation.48 In making this determination, the Commission must

consider the volume of subject imports, their effect on prices for the domestic like product, and their

impact on domestic producers of the domestic like product, but only in the context of U.S. production

operations.49 The statute defines “material injury” as “harm which is not inconsequential, immaterial, or

unimportant.”50 In assessing whether the domestic industry is materially injured by reason of subject

imports, we consider all relevant economic factors that bear on the state of the industry in the United

States.51 No single factor is dispositive, and all relevant factors are considered “within the context of the

business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”52

Although the statute requires the Commission to determine whether the domestic industry is

“materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of” unfairly traded imports,53 it does not

define the phrase “by reason of,” indicating that this aspect of the injury analysis is left to the

 43 See CR/PR at Table III-4; 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B). 

 44 See, e.g., 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid (HEDP) from China and India, Inv. Nos. 731-TA1146-1147 (Final), USITC Pub. 4072 (April 2009) at 6.

 45 CR/PR at Table III-4. 

 46 CR/PR at Table III-4 n.1. 

 47 Based on questionnaire responses, subject imports from China accounted for essentially 100 percent of all

known imports of WEBs during the most recent 12-month period preceding the filing of the petition for which data

are available. CR at IV-5; PR at IV-3. Because subject imports were well above the statutory negligibility

threshold, we find that subject imports are not negligible under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24).

 48 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(b), 1673d(b).

 49 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)( i). The Commission “may consider such other economic factors as are relevant to the

determination” but shall “identify each {such} factor ... and explain in full its relevance to the determination.” 

19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B).

 50 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(A).

 51 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

 52 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

 53 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671d(a), 1673d(a).

9
Commission’s reasonable exercise of its discretion.54 In identifying a causal link, if any, between subject

imports and material injury to the domestic industry, the Commission examines the facts of record that

relate to the significance of the volume and price effects of the subject imports and any impact of those

imports on the condition of the domestic industry. This evaluation under the “by reason of” standard

must ensure that subject imports are more than a minimal or tangential cause of injury and that there is a

sufficient causal, not merely a temporal, nexus between subject imports and material injury.55

In many investigations, there are other economic factors at work, some or all of which may also

be having adverse effects on the domestic industry. Such economic factors might include nonsubject

imports; changes in technology, demand, or consumer tastes; competition among domestic producers; or

management decisions by domestic producers. The legislative history explains that the Commission must

examine factors other than subject imports to ensure that it is not attributing injury from other factors to

the subject imports, thereby inflating an otherwise tangential cause of injury into one that satisfies the

statutory material injury threshold.56 In performing its examination, however, the Commission need not

isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by unfairly traded imports.57 Nor does the

“by reason of” standard require that unfairly traded imports be the “principal” cause of injury or

 54 Angus Chemical Co. v. United States, 140 F.3d 1478, 1484-85 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“{T}he statute does not

‘compel the commissioners’ to employ {a particular methodology}.”), aff’d, 944 F. Supp. 943, 951 (Ct. Int’l Trade

1996).

 55 The Federal Circuit, in addressing the causation standard of the statute, observed that “{a}s long as its effects

are not merely incidental, tangential, or trivial, the foreign product sold at less than fair value meets the causation

requirement.” Nippon Steel Corp. v. USITC, 345 F.3d 1379, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2003). This was further ratified in

Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States, 542 F.3d 867, 873 (Fed. Cir. 2008), where the Federal Circuit, quoting

Gerald Metals, Inc. v. United States, 132 F.3d 716, 722 (Fed. Cir. 1997), stated that “this court requires evidence in

the record ‘to show that the harm occurred “by reason of” the LTFV imports, not by reason of a minimal or

tangential contribution to material harm caused by LTFV goods.’” See also Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States,

458 F.3d 1345, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Ass’n v. USITC, 266 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed.

Cir. 2001).

 56 SAA at 851-52 (“{T}he Commission must examine other factors to ensure that it is not attributing injury from

other sources to the subject imports.”); S. Rep. 96-249 at 75 (1979) (the Commission “will consider information

which indicates that harm is caused by factors other than less-than-fair-value imports.”); H.R. Rep. 96-317 at 47

(1979) (“in examining the overall injury being experienced by a domestic industry, the ITC will take into account

evidence presented to it which demonstrates that the harm attributed by the petitioner to the subsidized or dumped

imports is attributable to such other factors;” those factors include “the volume and prices of nonsubsidized imports

or imports sold at fair value, contraction in demand or changes in patterns of consumption, trade restrictive practices

of and competition between the foreign and domestic producers, developments in technology and the export

performance and productivity of the domestic industry”); accord Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 877

 57 SAA at 851-52 (“{T}he Commission need not isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by

unfair imports.”); Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Ass’n v. USITC, 266 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“{T}he

Commission need not isolate the injury caused by other factors from injury caused by unfair imports ... . Rather, the

Commission must examine other factors to ensure that it is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject

imports.” (emphasis in original)); Asociacion de Productores de Salmon y Trucha de Chile AG v. United States, 180

F. Supp. 2d 1360, 1375 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002) (“{t}he Commission is not required to isolate the effects of subject

imports from other factors contributing to injury” or make “bright-line distinctions” between the effects of subject

imports and other causes.); see also Softwood Lumber from Canada, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-414 and 731-TA-928

(Remand), USITC Pub. 3658 at 100-01 (Dec. 2003) (Commission recognized that “{i}f an alleged other factor is

found not to have or threaten to have injurious effects to the domestic industry, i.e., it is not an ‘other causal factor,’

then there is nothing to further examine regarding attribution to injury”), citing Gerald Metals, Inc. v. United States,

132 F.3d 716, 722 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the statute “does not suggest that an importer of LTFV goods can escape

countervailing duties by finding some tangential or minor cause unrelated to the LTFV goods that contributed to the

harmful effects on domestic market prices.”).

10
contemplate that injury from unfairly traded imports be weighed against other factors, such as nonsubject

imports, which may be contributing to overall injury to an industry.58 It is clear that the existence of

injury caused by other factors does not compel a negative determination.59

Assessment of whether material injury to the domestic industry is “by reason of” subject imports

“does not require the Commission to address the causation issue in any particular way” as long as “the

injury to the domestic industry can reasonably be attributed to the subject imports” and the Commission

“ensure{s} that it is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject imports.”60 61 Indeed, the

Federal Circuit has examined and affirmed various Commission methodologies and has disavowed “rigid

adherence to a specific formula.”62

The Federal Circuit’s decisions in Gerald Metals, Bratsk, and Mittal Steel all involved cases

where the relevant “other factor” was the presence in the market of significant volumes of pricecompetitive nonsubject imports. The Commission interpreted the Federal Circuit’s guidance in Bratsk as

requiring it to apply a particular additional methodology following its finding of material injury in cases

involving commodity products and a significant market presence of price-competitive nonsubject

imports.63 The additional “replacement/benefit” test looked at whether nonsubject imports might have

replaced subject imports without any benefit to the U.S. industry. The Commission applied that specific

additional test in subsequent cases, including the Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad

and Tobago determination that underlies the Mittal Steel litigation.

Mittal Steel clarifies that the Commission’s interpretation of Bratsk was too rigid and makes clear

that the Federal Circuit does not require the Commission to apply an additional test nor any one specific

methodology; instead, the court requires the Commission to have “evidence in the record” to “show that

the harm occurred ‘by reason of’ the LTFV imports,” and requires that the Commission not attribute

 58 S. Rep. 96-249 at 74-75; H.R. Rep. 96-317 at 47.

 59 See Nippon Steel Corp., 345 F.3d at 1381 (“an affirmative material-injury determination under the statute

requires no more than a substantial-factor showing. That is, the ‘dumping’ need not be the sole or principal cause of

injury.”).

 60 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 877-78; see also id. at 873 (“While the Commission may not enter an affirmative

determination unless it finds that a domestic industry is materially injured ‘by reason of’ subject imports, the

Commission is not required to follow a single methodology for making that determination ... {and has} broad

discretion with respect to its choice of methodology.”) citing United States Steel Group v. United States, 96 F.3d

1352, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1996) and S. Rep. 96-249 at 75.

 61 Commissioner Pinkert does not join this paragraph or the following four paragraphs. He points out that the

Federal Circuit, in Bratsk, 444 F.3d 1369, and Mittal, held that the Commission is required, in certain circumstances

when considering present material injury, to undertake a particular kind of analysis of nonsubject imports, albeit

without reliance upon presumptions or rigid formulas. Mittal explains as follows:

What Bratsk held is that “where commodity products are at issue and fairly traded, price-competitive,

nonsubject imports are in the market,” the Commission would not fulfill its obligation to consider an

important aspect of the problem if it failed to consider whether nonsubject or non-LTFV imports would

have replaced LTFV subject imports during the period of investigation without a continuing benefit to the

domestic industry. 444 F.3d at 1369. Under those circumstances, Bratsk requires the Commission to

consider whether replacement of the LTFV subject imports might have occurred during the period of

investigation, and it requires the Commission to provide an explanation of its conclusion with respect to

that factor.

542 F.3d at 878.

 62 Nucor Corp. v. United States, 414 F.3d 1331, 1336, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at

879 (“Bratsk did not read into the antidumping statute a Procrustean formula for determining whether a domestic

injury was ‘by reason’ of subject imports.”).

 63 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 875-79.

11
injury from nonsubject imports or other factors to subject imports.64 Accordingly, we do not consider

ourselves required to apply the replacement/benefit test that was included in Commission opinions

subsequent to Bratsk.

The progression of Gerald Metals, Bratsk, and Mittal Steel clarifies that, in cases involving

commodity products where price-competitive nonsubject imports are a significant factor in the U.S.

market, the Court will require the Commission to give full consideration, with adequate explanation, to

non-attribution issues when it performs its causation analysis.65 66

The question of whether the material injury threshold for subject imports is satisfied

notwithstanding any injury from other factors is factual, subject to review under the substantial evidence

standard.67 Congress has delegated this factual finding to the Commission because of the agency’s

institutional expertise in resolving injury issues.68

B. Conditions of Competition

The following conditions of competition inform our analysis in the final phase of this

investigation.

1. Demand Conditions

 

WEB demand is highly seasonal, with sales concentrated in the third and fourth quarters of every

year, and particularly during the winter holidays.69 WEB production, however, takes place year round,

with producers building inventories during the first half of each year according to projections of demand

in the second half of the year.70 Major shipments to customers begin in the third quarter.71 

Jarden conducts a line review process beginning in the fourth quarter of each year to formulate

annual demand forecasts that determine WEB production during the upcoming year.72 Pursuant to this

process, Jarden meets with all potential customers and establishes each customer’s anticipated needs for

 64 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 873 (quoting from Gerald Metals, 132 F.3d at 722), 875-79 & n.2 (recognizing the

Commission’s alternative interpretation of Bratsk as a reminder to conduct a non-attribution analysis).

 65 Commissioner Lane also refers to her dissenting views in Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip

from Brazil, China, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates, Invs. Nos. 731-TA-1131 to 1134 (Final), USITC Pub.

4040 (Oct. 2008), for further discussion of Mittal Steel.

 66 To that end, after the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Bratsk, the Commission began to present published

information or send out information requests in final phase investigations to producers in nonsubject countries that

accounted for substantial shares of U.S. imports of subject merchandise (if, in fact, there were large nonsubject

import suppliers). In order to provide a more complete record for the Commission’s causation analysis, these

requests typically seek information on capacity, production, and shipments of the product under investigation in the

major source countries that export to the United States. The Commission plans to continue utilizing published or

requested information in final phase investigations in which there are substantial levels of nonsubject imports.

 67 We provide in our respective discussions of volume, price effects, and impact a full analysis of other factors

alleged to have caused any material injury experienced by the domestic industry.

 68 Mittal Steel, 542 F.3d at 873; Nippon Steel Corp., 458 F.3d at 1350, citing U.S. Steel Group, 96 F.3d at 1357;

S. Rep. 96-249 at 75 (“The determination of the ITC with respect to causation is ... complex and difficult, and is a

matter for the judgment of the ITC.”).

 69 CR at II-1, 10-11; PR at II-1, 5; CR/PR at Tables V-1-3; Jarden’s Prehearing Br. at 8.

 70 CR at II-1; PR at II-1; Jarden’s Prehearing Br. at 8; Hearing Tr. at 32 (Kaplan).

 71 Hearing Tr. at 32 (Kaplan).

 72 CR at V-2; PR at V-1; Jarden’s Prehearing Br. at 8; Hearing Tr. at 22 (Fretwell).

12
the upcoming season, in terms of quantities, assortments, and prices.73 Retailers finalize their selections

by the end of January or early February and provide Jarden with a demand forecast for the second half of

the year at that time, which Jarden uses to plan its WEB production and build inventories as necessary to

satisfy projected demand.74 Binding purchase orders are received shortly before shipment, but typically

conform closely to the forecast in terms of volume, price, and assortment.75 In the preliminary phase of

this investigation, importer Biddeford reported that ***.76

Jarden views the negotiation of incentive programs, including *** as an important part of the line

review process.77 Four of six responding importers, including Biddeford, reported offering similar

incentive programs to their customers.78 Jarden indicated that its customers have increasingly leveraged

low-priced subject imports to demand more generous incentives, and particularly more generous markdown dollars (which enable retailers to mark down and move end-of-season inventory) and more

generous guaranteed returns (through which Jarden agrees to buy back unsold merchandise).79 We

consider incentive programs to be an integral part of WEB pricing, and analyze WEB sales and prices net

of all costs associated with incentive programs.80

 Apparent U.S. consumption of WEBs increased from *** units in 2007 to *** units in 2008

before declining to *** units in 2009, a level *** percent lower than in 2007.81 When asked how demand

for WEBs in the U.S. market has changed since 2007, *** 5 of 16 responding importers reported that it

had fluctuated, 4 importers reported that demand had increased, 1 importer reported that demand had

decreased, and 6 importers reported that demand was unchanged.82 Reasons given by *** responding

importers for declining or fluctuating WEB demand included changes in the weather and heating oil

costs, competition from substitute products, retail distributors closing or consolidating outlets, and the

maturity of the WEB market.83 The increasing popularity of knit electric blankets also contributed to the

decline in apparent U.S. consumption of WEBs during the period examined.84 Jarden projected that U.S.

WEB demand in 2010 will be lower than in 2009.85 

 73 Jarden’s Prehearing Br. at 8; Jarden’s Responses to Commissioner Questions, at 8; Hearing Tr. at 22 (Fretwell).

 74 Jarden’s Prehearing Br. at 8; Hearing Tr. at 22 (Fretwell).

 75 Hearing Tr. at 23 (Fretwell).

 76 CR at V-2; PR at V-1; Conference Tr. at 168 (Porter).

 77 CR at V-3; PR at V-2; Jarden’s Prehearing Br. at 7; Hearing Tr. at 23-24 (Fretwell); Jarden’s Responses to

Commissioner Questions at 7-9. We note that 5 of 18 responding purchasers reported that “incentive programs” are

a “very important” purchasing factor, 6 reported that this factor is “somewhat important,” and 7 reported that this

factor is “not important.” CR/PR at Table II-3.

 78 CR at V-3-4; PR at V-2.

 79 Hearing Tr. at 24-25 (Fretwell); Jarden’s Responses to Commissioner Questions at 8. Jarden reported that the

value of the sales incentives it provided to its customers increased as a share of gross sales from *** percent in 2007

to *** percent in 2008 and *** percent in 2009. Id.

 80 See CR at V-4, VI-2; PR at V-2, VI-1. 

 81 CR/PR at Table IV-3.

 82 CR at II-13; PR at II-7.

 83 CR at II-13; PR at II-7. Jarden also indicated that the recession reduced WEB demand in the U.S. market “a

bit” in 2009 because the recession was “particularly significant” for the demographic that purchases WEBs. Hearing

Tr. at 43-44 (Kaplan). 

 84 CR at II-15; PR at II-7-8; CR/PR at Figure II-4.

 85 Hearing Tr. at 43-44 (Kaplan); Jarden’s Responses to Commissioner Questions, at 5.

13
The U.S. market for WEBs is characterized by a small number of large retail customers, making

the loss of even a single customer potentially significant in terms of lost sales.86 According to Jarden,

purchasers generally source WEBs from a single supplier, making the line review process an “all or

nothing” proposition.87 Losing a customer during the line review process has an immediate negative

impact on the following year’s production, with no opportunity to regain the customer until the

subsequent line review process.88

2. Supply Conditions

Jarden was the only domestic producer of WEBs during the period examined, and its capacity

increased by *** percent between 2007 and 2009 due to continuous production efficiency improvements

and the reduction of production bottlenecks.89 As noted above, Jarden produces WEBs year-round but

sells WEBs primarily in the second half of the year. 

The only other substantial source of WEBs in the U.S. market during the period examined was

China, as there were virtually no imports from nonsubject countries during the period.90 

During the period of investigation, there was a substantial shift in the channels of distribution for

subject imports. In 2007 and 2008, the majority of subject imports were for sale to retailers (76.4 percent

and 83.5 percent, respectively).91 However, in 2009, only 45.1 percent of subject imports were for sale to

retailers and the majority had shifted to direct imports by retailers (54.9 percent).92

3. Substitutability

The record indicates that there is a moderate to high degree of substitutability between domestic

and subject imported WEBs.93 ***, 8 of 10 responding importers, and 10 of 12 responding purchasers

reported that subject imports are “always” interchangeable with the domestic like product.94 A majority

of the 12 responding purchasers reported that subject imports are comparable to the domestic like product

with respect to 14 of 18 attributes, including “quality meets industry standards” and “return rates,” while

half reported that subject imports are comparable to the domestic like product with respect to delivery

 86 CR at II-1-2; PR at II-1. The five largest reporting purchasers of WEBs, ***. Id.

 87 Hearing Tr. at 53 (Fretwell).

 88 Jarden’s Prehearing Br. at 8.

 89 CR/PR at Table III-1; CR at III-2; PR at III-1; Hearing Tr. at 36 (Kaplan).

 90 CR at IV-3-4; PR at IV-2; CR/PR at Table IV-2. A small quantity of WEBs, 1,008 units, was imported from

Hong Kong in 2008. Id. *** report that they have switched their sourcing of WEBs from China to the Philippines to

avoid potential antidumping duty liability, CR at IV-1 n.5; PR at IV-1 n.5, and Jarden has heard that ***. Jarden’s

Responses to Commissioner Questions, at 10. However, there were no reported imports of WEBs from the

Philippines during the period examined. CR/PR at Table IV-2. 

 91 CR/PR at Table II-1.

 92 CR/PR at Table II-1.

 93 See CR at II-17; PR at II-8; CR/PR at Tables II-4-5.

 94 Jarden’s Prehearing Br. at 6-7; CR at Table II-5.

14
terms and delivery time.95 A majority of responding purchasers reported that both domestically produced

and subject imported WEBs always or usually meet minimum quality specifications.96

The record also indicates that price is an important consideration in purchasing decisions. When

asked to identify the top three factors considered in selecting among different suppliers of WEBs, all 18

responding purchasers reported that price was among their top three factors, though quality was most

frequently cited as the most important factor.97 When asked to rate the importance of 18 factors relevant

to selecting among different suppliers of WEBs, 13 of 18 responding purchasers reported that “lowest

price” was a “very important” factor and 9 responding purchasers reported that “discounts offered” was a

“very important” factor.98 When asked how often they purchase the lowest priced WEBs, 3 purchasers

responded “always,” 4 responded “usually,” 8 responded “sometimes,” and three responded “never.”99

When asked whether differences other than price are ever significant to purchasers, Jarden responded

“***,” but a majority of responding importers and purchasers reported “always” or “frequently.”100 Thus,

although the record indicates that non-price factors are important to purchasing decisions, it also indicates

that price is an important factor, if not the most important factor, consistent with evidence that the vast

majority of purchasers found subject imports to be “always” interchangeable with the domestic like

product.101

Ten responding purchasers and six importers reported that knit electric blankets are a substitute

for WEBs.102 The record of the final phase of this investigation indicates that sales of knit electric

blankets increased significantly over the period examined, largely at the expense of sales of WEBs.103

 95 CR at II-24; PR at II-13; CR/PR at Table II-6. Most responding purchasers reported that the domestic like

product is inferior to subject imports in terms of “lowest price” (i.e., domestic like product prices are higher). Id.

With respect to “branding,” five purchasers reported that the domestic like product is superior to subject imports,

five reported that the domestic like product is comparable, and two reported that the domestic like product is inferior. 

Id.

 96 CR at II-26; PR at II-13; CR/PR at Table II-7. Specifically, 9 of 15 responding purchasers reported that

domestically produced WEBs always or usually meet minimum quality specifications, while 15 of 17 responding

purchasers reported that subject imported WEBs always or usually meet minimum quality specifications. Id.

 97 CR at II-18; PR at II-9; CR/PR at Table II-2.

 98 CR/PR at Table II-3. A greater number of purchasers reported that availability, delivery time, product

consistency, quality meets industry standards, and reliability of supply were “very important” factors. Id.

 99 CR at II-21; PR at II-11.

 100 CR/PR at Table II-4.

 101 CR/PR at Table II-5.

 102 CR at II-14; PR at II-7.

 103 CR at II-14-15; PR at II-7-8; CR/PR at Figure II-4.

15
C. Volume of Subject Imports104

Section 771(7)(C)(i) of the Act provides that the “Commission shall consider whether the volume

of imports of the merchandise, or any increase in that volume, either in absolute terms or relative to

production or consumption in the United States, is significant.”105

Subject import volume increased 27.9 percent over the period examined, from 915,471 units in

2007 to 920,949 units in 2008 and 1,171,145 units in 2009.106 U.S. shipments of subject imports

increased 31.0 percent over the period, from 859,540 units in 2007 to 956,103 units in 2008 and

1,125,759 units in 2009.107 It is noteworthy that subject import volume and U.S. shipments increased

significantly in absolute terms despite the *** percent decline in apparent U.S. consumption during the

period.108 

U.S. shipments of subject imports as a share of apparent U.S. consumption increased from ***

percent in 2007 to *** percent in 2008 and *** percent in 2009.109 Because there were virtually no

nonsubject imports in the U.S. market, the *** percentage point increase in subject import market share

between 2007 and 2009 came entirely at the expense of the domestic industry, which lost *** percentage

points of market share during the period.110 As subject imports increasingly displaced domestic shipments

from the U.S. market, the ratio of subject imports to domestic production increased from *** percent in

2007 to *** percent in 2008 and *** percent in 2009.111

We conclude that subject import volume is significant, both in absolute terms and relative to

consumption and production in the United States, and that the increase in subject import volume and

market share over the period examined also is significant.

D. Price Effects of the Subject Imports

Section 771(C)(ii) of the Act provides that, in evaluating the price effects of subject imports, 

the Commission shall consider whether – (I) there has been significant price underselling

by the imported merchandise as compared with the price of domestic like products of the

United States, and (II) the effect of imports of such merchandise otherwise depresses

prices to a significant degree or prevents price increases, which otherwise would have

occurred, to a significant degree.112

 104 We base our analysis of subject import volume on importers’ questionnaire responses, which were received

from all firms believed to be large importers of WEBs. CR at IV-3; PR at IV-1. We do not rely on the volume of

imports reported under HTSUS subheading 6301.10.00 because those data are known to include a substantial

proportion of knit and non-woven electric blankets, which are outside the scope of this investigation. CR at IV-3;

PR at IV-1-2. 

 105 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(i).

 106 CR/PR at Table IV-2.

 107 CR/PR at Table IV-3.

 108 CR/PR at Table IV-3.

 109 CR/PR at Table IV-4.

 110 CR/PR at Table IV-4.

 111 CR/PR at Table IV-5. 

 112 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(ii).

16
As addressed in section IV.B.3. above, the record indicates that there is a moderate to high degree

of substitutability between subject imports and the domestic like product and that price is an important

consideration in purchasing decisions.113 

Jarden and two importer/distributors provided usable quarterly net U.S. f.o.b. selling price data,

and eight importer/retailers provided usable quarterly purchase price data, although not all firms reported

pricing for all products for all quarters.114 Pricing data reported by these firms accounted for *** percent

of the domestic industry’s U.S. shipments and *** percent of subject import shipments in 2009.115 

Sales price data indicate that subject imports predominately undersold the domestic like product

during the period examined. Subject imports undersold the domestic like product in 17 of 24 quarterly

comparisons, or 70.8 percent of the time, at margins ranging from 2.5 to 17.0 percent.116 As the vast

majority of reported pricing product sales, *** percent, were made in the third and fourth quarters of

every year,117 we find price comparisons for these quarters to be particularly probative.118 For these

quarters, subject imports undersold the domestic like product in 9 of 12 comparisons, or 75.0 percent of

the time, at margins ranging from 2.5 to 16.9 percent.119 

We also have considered the purchase price data reported by large importer/retailers that directly

imported WEBs from China for their own use. Subject import purchase price data cover a substantial

proportion of subject import volume, *** percent in 2009.120 These purchase price data accounted for ***

percent of subject import shipments for which pricing data were reported in 2009.121 Although subject

import purchase prices are at a different level of trade than domestic like product sales prices, and thus

 113 See CR at II-17-20; PR at II-8-10; CR/PR at Tables II-2-3.

 114 CR at V-5; PR at V-2. No sales price data were reported for subject imported products 3 and 4. CR/PR at

Table V-3.

 115 CR at V-5; PR at V-2-3. Importer/distributor sales price data accounted for *** percent and importer/retailer

purchase price data accounted for *** percent of total reported subject imports in 2009. CR at V-5 n.12; PR at V-2

n.12.

 116 CR/PR at Table V-5.

 117 CR at V-13 n.15; PR at V-4 n.15

 118 Jarden maintained that pricing data from the third and fourth quarters of each year are most probative for the

Commission’s pricing analysis, and the Coalition seemingly acknowledged as much in the preliminary phase

investigation. See Hearing Tr. at 35 (Kaplan); Coalition’s Postconference Br. at 13. Although our analysis of

subject import volume and impact is predicated on data collected on an annual basis, not on a quarterly basis, we

note that in this investigation these data would largely reflect subject import volume and impact in the third and

fourth quarters of each year of the period examined, when the vast majority of WEB sales were made. See CR at

V-13 n.15; PR at V-4 n.15. 

 119 CR at V-13 & n.15; PR at V-4 & n.15; CR/PR at Tables V-1-2. Subject imports oversold the domestic like

product in only *** quarters, at overselling margins ranging from 1.7 to 3.5 percent. Id.

 120 CR at V-5 n.12; PR at V-2 n.12; CR/PR at Tables V-1-2 (sales price data accounted for *** percent and

purchase price data accounted for *** percent of total subject import volume in 2009). 

 121 CR at V-5 n.12; PR at V-2 n.12; CR/PR at Tables V-1-2. We also note that the volume of reported direct

purchases by importer/retailers increased relative to the volume of reported sales by importer/distributors over the

period examined, suggesting that retailers found direct imports to be economically advantageous. With respect to

product 1, the volume of subject import purchases as a share of the total volume of subject import purchases and

sales increased from *** percent in 2007 to *** percent in 2009. CR/PR at Table V-1. With respect to product 2,

the volume of subject import purchases as a share of the total volume of subject import purchases and sales increased

from *** percent in 2007 to *** percent in 2009. Id. at Table V-2. There were no reported subject import sales of

products 3 and 4, but *** reported direct subject import purchases of *** units of product 3 and *** units of product

4 in the second half of 2009. Compare CR/PR at Table V-3 with Importers’ Questionnaire of *** at Question III-2b. 

17
cannot be directly compared to domestic sales prices,122 the fact that subject import purchase prices were

almost always lower than domestic sales prices lends some additional support to our underselling analysis

above.123 For all the foregoing reasons, we find subject import price underselling of the domestic like

product to be significant. 

We also find that subject import underselling and the competitive purchase prices reported by

importer/retailers depressed prices for the domestic like product to a significant degree. A linear trend

line analysis taking into account sales price data over the entire period examined indicates that sales

prices for domestically produced products 1 and 2 (the only pricing products facing substantial subject

import competition) declined over the period, notwithstanding price fluctuations related to the seasonality

of the WEB market.124 Moreover, because most WEB sales occur in the third and fourth quarters, we

examined price trends between the third quarter of 2007 and the fourth quarter of 2009. Between these

quarters, domestic prices for product 1 declined by *** percent, from $*** per unit to $*** per unit, and

domestic prices for product 2 declined by *** percent, from $*** per unit to $*** per unit.125 By

contrast, domestic prices for products 3 and 4, which did not face substantial subject import competition,

either increased or declined *** between the third quarter of 2007 and the fourth quarter of 2009.126

We find further support for our pricing analysis in record evidence indicating that *** of Jarden’s

major customers switched to subject imports due in part to their lower prices.127 ***, 128 a J.C. Penney

buyer testified at the conference that price was a consideration in J.C. Penney’s decision to switch to

 122 Domestic producers were asked to reported their net sales values (i.e., gross sales values less all discounts,

allowances, rebates, prepaid freight, and the value of returned goods), f.o.b. their U.S. point of shipment. CR at V-4;

PR at V-2. Retailers that imported WEBs directly were asked to reported net values, landed duty-paid. Id.

 123 Subject import purchase prices were lower than domestic sales prices in 21 quarterly comparisons and higher

than domestic sales prices in 3 quarterly comparisons. CR/PR at Tables V-1-2; Importers’ Questionnaire Response

of *** at Question III-2b.

 124 CR at V-5, 12 & n.13; PR at V-2-3 & n.13. In conducting the linear trend line analysis, Commission staff fit

linear trend lines to the domestic and subject imported prices for products 1 and 2 over the period examined (i.e.,

straight lines that most closely fit the data points), see CR/PR at Figure V-1, indicating the general trends of the data

points.

 125 CR/PR at Tables V-1-2. 

 126 Domestic prices for product 3 increased by *** percent and domestic prices for product 4 declined only ***

percent between the third quarter of 2007 and the fourth quarter of 2009, in the absence of any reported subject

import sales of the products. CR/PR at Tables V-3-4. Although *** reported direct subject import purchases of

products 3 and 4 in the third and fourth quarters of 2009, the reported volume of these purchases, at *** units, was

equivalent to only *** percent of the total reported volume of subject import sales and purchases of products 1 and 2

(*** units). See CR at V-5 n.11; PR at V-2 n.11; CR/PR at Tables V-1-2. 

We also note that as the average unit value of Jarden’s net sales declined *** percent over the period

examined, while its unit cost of goods sold fluctuated within a narrow range, resulting in a significant increase in the

ratio of Jarden’s total cost of goods sold to net sales from *** percent in 2007 to *** percent in 2009. CR/PR at

Tables VI-1-2. We recognize that the decline in the average unit value of Jarden’s net sales resulted in part from a

change in product mix over the period examined, as the share of Jarden’s gross sales comprised of *** increased at

the expense of ***. See id. at Table VI-3. Nevertheless, the decline in the average unit value of Jarden’s net sales

also reflects a decline in the average unit value of Jarden’s gross sales of ***. See CR at V-5 n.11; PR at V-2 n.11;

CR/PR at Tables V-1-3; see also Jarden’s Responses to Commissioner Questions, at 2 (***). Moreover, Jarden’s

***. Jarden’s Responses to Commissioner Questions at 1-2; CR at Table VI-3.

 127 Jarden made a total of *** lost sales allegations, totaling $***, and *** lost revenue allegations, totaling $***. 

CR at V-15; PR at V-5.

 128 See ***.

18
subject imports, although not the most important consideration.129 In e-mail correspondence between

Jarden and ***.130 ***, but acknowledged in an e-mail to Jarden that Jarden lost business to subject

imports in part because it ***.131 ***,132 ***.133 However, *** indicated in an e-mail to Jarden that

***.134 ***.135 *** subsequently switched to subject imports following the 2009 line review, after

indicating in an e-mail to Jarden that ***.136 

In sum, we conclude that subject import price underselling was significant and that subject

imports depressed prices for the domestic like product to a significant degree.

E. Impact of the Subject Imports137

Section 771(7)(C)(iii) of the Act provides that the Commission, in examining the impact of the

subject imports on the domestic industry, “shall evaluate all relevant economic factors which have a

bearing on the state of the industry.”138 These factors include output, sales, inventories, capacity

utilization, market share, employment, wages, productivity, profits, cash flow, return on investment,

ability to raise capital, research and development, and factors affecting domestic prices. No single factor

is dispositive and all relevant factors are considered “within the context of the business cycle and

conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”139

The domestic industry’s performance declined significantly over the period examined according

to most measures. Domestic industry production declined by *** percent, from *** units in 2007 to ***

units in 2008 and *** units in 2009.140 Domestic industry capacity, however, increased by *** percent,

from *** units in 2007 to *** units in 2008 and 2009, due to efficiency gains and the reduction of

 129 CR at V-18; PR at V-6. 

 130 Jarden’s Prehearing Br. at 21, Exhibit 1.

 131 Jarden’s Prehearing Br. at 21; CR at V-18; PR at V-6.

 132 This was Jarden’s largest lost sales allegation. CR/PR at Table V-7.

 133 CR at V-19; PR at V-6.

 134 Jarden’s Prehearing Br. at 21, Exhibit 2.

 135 CR at V-18; PR at V-6.

 136 Jarden’s Prehearing Br. at 21-22, Exhibit 3. *** appears to have been satisfied with Jarden’s performance in

all other respects, ***. Id.

 137 In its final determination of sales at LTFV, Commerce found the following weighted-average dumping

margins: 77.75 percent for Hung Kuo Electronic (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., aka Ongain Electronic (Shenzhen), Ningbo

V.K. Industry and Trading Co., Ltd., and Ningbo Jifa Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd. or Ningbo Jinchun Electric

Appliances Co., Ltd., and 174.85 percent for all others. CR/PR at Table I-1. Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. §

1677(35)(C)(ii), we consider the dumping margins most recently published by Commerce prior to the closing of the

record in this investigation.

 138 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii); see also SAA at 851 and 885 (“In material injury determinations, the Commission

considers, in addition to imports, other factors that may be contributing to overall injury. While these factors, in

some cases, may account for the injury to the domestic industry, they also may demonstrate that an industry is facing

difficulties from a variety of sources and is vulnerable to dumped or subsidized imports.”)

 139 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii); see also SAA at 851, 885; Live Cattle from Canada and Mexico, Inv. Nos. 701-

TA-386, 731-TA-812-813 (Prelim.), USITC Pub. 3155 at 25 n.148 (Feb. 1999).

 140 CR/PR at Tables III-1, C-1. 

19
production bottlenecks.141 The domestic industry’s declining production drove down its rate of capacity

utilization from *** percent in 2007 to *** percent in 2008 and *** percent in 2009.142

The domestic industry’s declining production took a significant toll on employment, hours

worked, and wages. Between 2007 and 2009, domestic industry employment declined by *** percent,

from *** production related workers (“PRWs”) in 2007 to *** PRWs in 2008 and *** PRWs in 2009,

while hours worked declined by *** percent and wages paid declined by *** percent.143 At the hearing, a

witness for Jarden testified that Jarden was forced to lay off another 60 employees in early 2010.144 

The domestic industry’s U.S. shipments increased from *** units in 2007 to *** units in 2008

before declining to *** units in 2009, a level *** percent below that in 2007.145 The domestic industry’s

share of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity declined from *** percent in 2007 to *** percent in 2008

and *** percent in 2009.146

The domestic industry’s net sales volume declined by *** percent over the period examined,

increasing *** from *** units in 2007 to *** units in 2008 before declining to *** units in 2009.147 Due

to the *** percent decline in the average unit value of Jarden’s net shipments over the period examined,

the *** percent decline in the domestic industry’s net sales volume (i.e., gross sales less non-defective

returns and buybacks) was exceeded by the *** percent decline in the domestic industry’s net sales value,

from $*** in 2007 to $*** in 2008 and $*** in 2009.148 The domestic industry’s operating income

declined from $*** in 2007 to $*** in 2008 to *** $*** in 2009, while its operating profit margin

declined from *** percent in 2007 to *** percent in 2008 and *** percent in 2009.149 Its return on

investment declined ***, from *** percent in 2007 to *** percent in 2008 and *** percent in 2009.150

Based on the foregoing trends, we find a causal nexus between the domestic industry’s

deteriorating condition and subject imports. In a declining U.S. market, subject imports increased their

market share by *** percentage points between 2007 and 2009 at the direct expense of the domestic

industry, since there were virtually no nonsubject imports in the U.S. market during the period.151 Given

the importance of price to purchasing decisions, and evidence that a succession of Jarden’s major

customers switched to subject imports due in large part to their lower price, the significant subject import

price underselling we have found contributed significantly to the shift in market share from the domestic

industry to subject imports. We have also found that subject imports depressed domestic like product

prices for those sales retained by the domestic industry to a significant degree.152 By capturing significant

 141 CR/PR at Tables III-1, C-1; CR at III-2; PR at III-1.

 142 CR/PR at Table III-1. 

 143 CR/PR at Tables III-5, C-1. 

 144 Hearing Tr. at 20 (Sullivan).

 145 CR/PR at Tables IV-3, C-1.

 146 CR/PR at Table IV-4. 

 147 CR/PR at Table VI-1, C-1. 

 148 CR/PR at Tables VI-1, C-1. 

 149 CR/PR at Table VI-1. 

 150 CR/PR at Table VI-4. Capital expenditures and research and development expenditures also declined ***

between 2007 and 2009, by *** percent and *** percent, respectively. CR/PR at Table VI-5. Domestic industry

capital expenditures declined from $*** in 2007 to $*** in 2008 and $*** in 2009, while domestic industry R&D

expenses declined from $*** in 2007 to $*** in 2008 and $*** in 2009. Id.

 151 CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 152 The structure of the U.S. WEB market, characterized by a relatively small number of large retail purchasers,

amplified the price-depressing effect of subject imports. CR at II-1; PR at II-1. As Jarden lost one *** customer

after another during the period examined, it came under increasing pressure to reduce its prices and offer more

(continued...)

20
market share from the domestic industry and significantly depressing domestic like product prices, subject

imports had a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry over the period examined.

We have considered whether there are other factors that adversely impacted the domestic

industry.153 We recognize that the *** percent decline in apparent U.S. consumption between 2007 and

2009 has contributed to the domestic industry’s deteriorating performance during that period.154 In the

preliminary phase of this investigation, respondents argued that WEB demand declined in part as

increased sales of knit electric blankets cannibalized WEB sales, though Jarden disputed this claim.155

The record of the final phase of the investigation shows that WEB demand declined as sales of knit

electric blankets increased at the expense of sales of WEBs over the period examined, with WEBs’ share

of commercial U.S. shipments of WEBs and knit electric blankets combined declining from *** percent

in 2007 to *** percent in 2009.156 Notwithstanding the *** percent decline in apparent U.S. consumption

of WEBs between 2007 and 2009, however, U.S. shipments of subject imports increased *** percent over

the period, as subject imports captured *** percentage points of market share from the domestic

industry.157 Thus, most of the decline in Jarden’s U.S. WEB shipments resulted from its loss of market

share to subject imports and not the decline in WEB demand.158 

In the preliminary phase of this investigation, respondents also identified several non-price

factors that in their view accounted for Jarden’s declining performance over the period examined, arguing

that subject imports offered superior quality and greater flexibility in terms of branding, for instance.159

 152 (...continued)

generous pricing incentive programs in a bid to retain its remaining customers. See Hearing Tr. at 25 (Fretwell)

(“[W]e have either [had] to lower our base prices even more or offer more extensive pricing incentive programs”),

26 (“The loss of even one customer has the additional negative effect of increased product cost, the loss of

production volume and the inability to absorb overhead income and further depress sales.”); Jarden Consumer

Solutions Product Overview, Hearing Materials, June 29, 2010, at 2.

 153 We note that there were virtually no nonsubject imports in the U.S. market during the period examined. See

CR/PR at Tables IV-2-3.

 154 See, e.g., Hearing Tr. at 43-44 (Kaplan) (testifying that “the recession was significant and particularly

significant in the demographics that buy these products as discussed earlier, so I think in this case the recession had

an effect that was larger than the increase in energy prices and you saw a modest decline in total consumption or

maybe more than modest decline in total consumption in 2009”); Conference Tr. at 54 (S. Kaplan) (testifying that

the increase in WEB demand from consumers seeking to reduce energy costs has been “swamped” by the reduction

in WEB demand resulting from the recession), 60 (Pacheco) (testifying that WEB demand declined “somewhat” due

to the recession, but “it hasn’t fallen as greatly as you would have expected, given the retail price points of these

products . . . .”).

 155 See Biddeford’s Postconference Br. at 9; Coalition’s Postconference Br. at 9; Conference Tr. at 171 (Porter);

but see Jarden’s Prehearing Br. at 22-23; Conference Tr. at 53 (Pacheco). 

 156 CR at II-15; PR at II-7-8; CR/PR at Figure II-4.

 157 CR/PR at Table IV-3.

 158 Had Jarden maintained the *** percent market share that it held in 2007 in 2009, its U.S. shipments would

have been *** units in 2009, down from *** units in 2007, indicating that the decline in apparent U.S. consumption

alone would have reduced Jarden’s U.S. shipments by *** units. CR/PR at Tables IV-3-4. Jarden’s loss of ***

percentage points of market share to subject imports between 2007 and 2009 reduced its U.S. shipments to *** units

in 2009, or *** units less than the *** units that Jarden would have shipped in 2009 had it not lost market share to

subject imports. See id.

 159 See Preliminary Determination at 16-17; see also CR at II-17-18; PR at II-8-9; Conference Tr. at 138-142

(Hearn); Coalition’s Postconference Br. at 8 n.33; Biddeford’s Postconference Br. at 17-21, Exhibit 10. 

Respondents also argued that Jarden’s focus on Walmart and its insistence that all retailers carry the same range of

Sunbeam-branded WEBs has undermined Jarden’s ability to sell WEBs to other retailers, which have no desire to

(continued...)

21
Jarden countered that the quality of its WEBs is comparable or superior to that of subject imports and that

it has offered similar branding opportunities to its customers, including co-branding and private label

brands.160 In the final phase of this investigation, we have collected additional information on the nonprice differences between subject imports and the domestic like product.161 As addressed in section

IV.B.3. above, the vast majority of importers and purchasers reported that subject imports and the

domestic like product are “always” interchangeable, and most purchasers reported that subject imports

and the domestic like product are comparable in terms of packaging, product range, product consistency,

quality, and return rates.162 With respect to “branding,” five purchasers reported that the domestic like

product is superior to subject imports, five reported that the domestic like product is comparable, and only

two reported that the domestic like product is inferior.163 Other record evidence, however, indicates that

most purchasers found non-price factors to be “always” or “frequently” significant to their purchasing

decisions.164 On balance, the record indicates that there is a moderate to high degree of substitutability

between subject imports and the domestic like product notwithstanding the non-price factors cited by

respondents in the preliminary phase of the investigation, and these factors do not detract from our

conclusion that there is a causal nexus between subject imports and the material injury sustained by the

domestic industry, particularly in light of the customer-specific evidence cited above showing price was

the key factor in Jarden’s loss of several major accounts.165 

In sum, the record in the final phase of this investigation indicates that there was a causal nexus

between subject imports and the deteriorating condition of the domestic industry over the period

examined sufficient to establish that the domestic industry is materially injured by reason of subject

imports.

 159 (...continued)

compete head-to-head with Walmart on price. Biddeford’s Postconference Br. at 21-22; Conference Tr. at 134-35

(Porter). 

 160 See Preliminary Determination at 17; see also CR at II-18; PR at II-9; Jarden’s Postconference Br. at 9-11,

Exhibit 2; Conference Tr. at 50-51 (Pacheco), 50-51 (Sullivan); Milliken’s Postconference Br. at 3-5; Jarden’s

Prehearing Br. at 23-24; Hearing Tr. at 11 (Powers), 24 (Fretwell), 33-34 (Kaplan), 64 (Fretwell), 83-84 (Sullivan),

85 (Powers).

 161 Respondents have not participated as parties and therefore provided no further arguments or evidence

addressing the issue.

 162 See CR/PR at Tables II-5-6.

 163 CR/PR at Table II-6. At the hearing, a witness for Jarden testified that “Sunbeam is a brand with over 97

percent consumer awareness.” Hearing Tr. at 24 (Fretwell). This evidence comports with evidence from the

preliminary phase of the investigation that ***, and that Biddeford’s efforts to sell subject imported WEBs to

Walmart failed in part because of Walmart’s preference for the Sunbeam brand. See Jarden’s Postconference Br.,

Exhibit 1-F, at 2; Conference Tr. at 158 (Porter). 

 164 CR/PR at Table II-4; see also id. at Table II-3 (thirteen purchasers reported that “lowest price” was an

important purchasing factor, but a greater number of purchasers reported that availability, delivery time, product

consistency, quality meets industry standards, and reliability of supply were “very important” factors). 

 165 Commissioner Pinkert finds that the second triggering factor required under Bratsk and Mittal -- that pricecompetitive, nonsubject imports are a significant factor in the U.S. market -- is not satisfied in this case because

nonsubject imports are virtually absent from the U.S. market (the data on the record indicate a market share of no

more than *** percent for such imports). CR/PR at Table IV-2. Consequently, he does not undertake to analyze

how they would have responded had the subject imports exited the U.S. market during the period under examination. 

22
CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, and based on the record in the final phase of this investigation, we find

that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of subject imports of WEBs from

China sold in the United States at LTFV.

23

PART I: INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

This investigation results from a petition filed with the U.S. Department of Commerce

(“Commerce”) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (“USITC” or “Commission”) by Sunbeam

Products, Inc., doing business as Jarden Consumer Solutions (“Jarden”), Boca Raton, FL, on June 30,

2009, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured and threatened with material

injury by reason of less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) imports of woven electric blankets (“WEBs”)1

 from

China. Information relating to the background of the investigation is provided below.2

Effective date Action

June 30, 2009 Petition filed with Commerce and the Commission; institution of the

Commission’s investigation (74 FR 32192, July 7, 2009)

July 27, 2009 Commerce’s notice of initiation (74 FR 37001)

August 14, 2009 Commission’s preliminary determination (74 FR 42323, August 21, 2009)

February 3, 2010 Commerce’s preliminary determination (75 FR 5567); scheduling of final

phase of Commission investigation (75 FR 11557, March 11, 2010)

June 29, 2010 Commission’s hearing1

July 2, 2010 Commerce’s final determination (75 FR 38459)

July 28, 2010 Date of the Commission’s vote

August 10, 2010 Commission’s determination transmitted to Commerce

 1 A list of witnesses that appeared at the hearing may be found at App. B.

STATUTORY CRITERIA AND ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

Statutory Criteria

Section 771(7)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the “Act”) (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)) provides that in

making its determinations of injury to an industry in the United States, the Commission--

shall consider (I) the volume of imports of the subject merchandise, (II)

the effect of imports of that merchandise on prices in the United States

for domestic like products, and (III) the impact of imports of such

merchandise on domestic producers of domestic like products, but only

in the context of production operations within the United States; and . . .

may consider such other economic factors as are relevant to the

determination regarding whether there is material injury by reason of

imports.

 1 See the section entitled “The Subject Merchandise” in Part I of this report for a complete description of the

merchandise subject to this investigation.

 2 Federal Register notices since March 11, 2010 cited in the tabulation are presented in app. A.

I-1
Section 771(7)(C) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)) further provides that--

In evaluating the volume of imports of merchandise, the Commission

shall consider whether the volume of imports of the merchandise, or any

increase in that volume, either in absolute terms or relative to production

or consumption in the United States is significant.

. . .

In evaluating the effect of imports of such merchandise on prices, the

Commission shall consider whether . . . (I) there has been significant

price underselling by the imported merchandise as compared with the

price of domestic like products of the United States, and (II) the effect of

imports of such merchandise otherwise depresses prices to a significant

degree or prevents price increases, which otherwise would have

occurred, to a significant degree.

. . .

In examining the impact required to be considered under subparagraph

(B)(i)(III), the Commission shall evaluate (within the context of the

business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the

affected industry) all relevant economic factors which have a bearing on

the state of the industry in the United States, including, but not limited to

. . . 

(I) actual and potential declines in output, sales, market share, profits,

productivity, return on investments, and utilization of capacity, (II)

factors affecting domestic prices, (III) actual and potential negative

effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to

raise capital, and investment, (IV) actual and potential negative effects

on the existing development and production efforts of the domestic

industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced

version of the domestic like product, and (V) in {an antidumping

investigation}, the magnitude of the margin of dumping.

Organization of the Report

Part I of this report presents information on the subject merchandise, dumping margins, and

domestic like product. Part II of this report presents information on conditions of competition and other

relevant economic factors. Part III presents information on the condition of the U.S. industry, including

data on capacity, production, shipments, inventories, and employment. Parts IV and V present the

volume of subject imports and pricing of domestic and imported products, respectively. Part VI presents

information on the financial experience of U.S. producers. Part VII presents the statutory requirements 

and information obtained for use in the Commission’s consideration of the question of threat of material

injury as well as information regarding nonsubject countries.

U.S. MARKET SUMMARY

WEBs consist of a shell of woven fabric made of synthetic or natural fiber, or a blend of synthetic

and natural fiber, which contains heat-producing wire whose temperature is controlled by one or more

thermostats or controllers. Such blankets are used mostly as bedding articles to keep sleeping or resting

I-2
individuals warm.3

 The sole known U.S. producer of WEBs is Jarden, while a leading producer of WEBs

outside the United States is Hung Kuo Electronic (Shenzhen) Company Limited (“Hung Kuo”) of China. 

The leading U.S. importers of WEBs from China are ***. One company *** is known to have imported

small quantities of WEBs into the United States from a source other than China (Hong Kong), but only in

2008. The single-largest purchaser of WEBs is Walmart.4

Apparent U.S. consumption of WEBs totaled approximately *** in 2009. Jarden’s U.S.

shipments of WEBs totaled *** in 2009, and accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption by

quantity and *** percent by value. U.S. shipments of imports from China totaled 1.1 million units

($37.5 million) in 2009 and accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption by quantity and

*** percent by value. There were no reported imports of WEBs from nonsubject sources in 2009.

SUMMARY DATA AND DATA SOURCES

A summary of data collected in the investigation is presented in appendix C, table C-1. Except as

noted, U.S. industry data are based on the questionnaire response of Jarden, which accounted for all 

known U.S. production of WEBs during the period for which data were collected (calendar years 2007-

09). U.S. imports are based on importer questionnaire responses.5

PREVIOUS AND RELATED INVESTIGATIONS

WEBs have not been the subject of prior countervailing or antidumping duty investigations in the

United States. 

NATURE AND EXTENT OF SALES AT LTFV

On July 2, 2010, Commerce published a notice in the Federal Register of its final determination

of sales at LTFV with respect to imports from China.6

 Table I-1 presents Commerce’s final dumping

margins with respect to imports of WEBs from China.

 3 Petition, p. 4.

 4

 Conference transcript, p. 134 (Porter).

 5

 The HTS subheading under which WEBs are classified, 6301.10.00, is a “basket” category and contains certain

products, such as knit and any other non-woven electric blankets, that are not within the scope of this investigation. 

As such, the use of official import statistics based upon this subheading would overstate imports of the subject

merchandise. 

 6 Certain Woven Electric Blankets From the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value, 75 FR 38459, July 2, 2010.

I-3
Table I-1

WEBs: Commerce’s final weighted-average LTFV margins with respect to imports from China

Exporter/Producer

Final

dumping margin

(ad valorem)

Hung Kuo Electronic (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., aka Ongain Electronic (Shenzhen)

Co., Ltd. 77.75%

Ningbo V.K. Industry and Trading Co., Ltd. 77.75%

Ningbo Jifa Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd. or Ningbo Jinchun Electric

Appliances Co., Ltd. 77.75%

All others 174.85%

Source: 75 FR 38459, July 2, 2010.

THE SUBJECT MERCHANDISE

Commerce’s Scope

Commerce has defined the scope of this investigation as follows:

The scope of this investigation covers finished, semi-finished, and unassembled

woven electric blankets, including woven electric blankets commonly referred to as

throws, of all sizes and fabric types, whether made of man-made fiber, natural fiber or a

blend of both. Semi-finished woven electric blankets and throws consist of shells of

woven fabric containing wire. Unassembled woven electric blankets and throws consist

of a shell of woven fabric and one or more of the following components when packaged

together or in a kit: (1) wire; (2) controller(s). The shell of woven fabric consists of two

sheets of fabric joined together forming a “shell.” The shell of woven fabric is

manufactured to accommodate either the electric blanket’s wiring or a subassembly

containing the electric blanket’s wiring (e.g., wiring mounted on a substrate).

A shell of woven fabric that is not packaged together, or in a kit, with either wire,

controller(s), or both, is not covered by this investigation even though the shell of woven

fabric may be dedicated solely for use as a material in the production of woven electric

blankets.7

Tariff Treatment

WEBs are classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”) under

subheading 6301.10.00. Table I-2 presents current tariff rates for WEBs.

 7 Ibid.

I-4
Table I-2

WEBs: Tariff rates, 2010

HTS provision Article description

General1 Special Column 22

Rates (ad valorem)

6301

6301.10.00

Blankets and traveling rugs:

 Electric blankets.............................................

 

11.4% Free (BH,

CA, CL,

E*, IL, JO,

MX, P, PE,

SG)

1.1% (MA)

3% (AU)

6.8% (OM)

(

3

)

77.5%

 1 Normal trade relations duty rate, formerly known as the most-favored-nation duty rate, applicable to imports from China. 

 2

 Applies to imports from a small number of countries that do not enjoy normal trade relations duty status.

 3

 General note 3(c)(i) defines the special duty program symbols enumerated for this provision. 

Source: Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2010).

THE PRODUCT

Description and Applications

A WEB8

 is a heat-generating blanket designed to be used as a bedding article. WEBs are madeup textile articles constructed of electrically powered, heat-producing wire inserted into a fabric shell.9

Each WEB is paired with an external, electronic control device, through which users control the WEB’s

temperature; controller types available include standard dial, dual-control, digital, and wireless models. 

The subject product is an electric blanket constructed with woven fabric (as opposed to knit or nonwoven

fabric).10 The woven fabric used to produce WEBs may be constructed from a variety of fibers, including

manmade fibers or varying blends of manmade and natural fibers.11 Commonly used fibers include

polyester, acrylic, polyester/acrylic blends, and polyester/cotton blends; price points and to a lesser extent

consumer preferences influence the choice of fiber. WEBs are produced and sold in various sizes,

including standard bedding sizes such as twin, full, queen, and king, as well as smaller throws.12 

Users control WEB temperature through the use of an external, electronic temperature control

device. WEBs may also be used in other situations to keep resting or sitting individuals warm, as in the

case of a throw, as long as the article is meant to be pulled over, as opposed to situated under, the

individual.13

 8 “Woven automatic blankets,” “woven warming blankets,” and “woven heated blankets” may be used as

synonyms for woven electric blankets. Petition, p. 3.

 9

 Made-up textile articles are articles made of textile materials in the finished state, ready for use without sewing

or other working. 

 10 Electric blankets may also be knitted; however, knitted blankets are not subject to this investigation.

 11 Electric blankets are not produced with fabric wholly formed from natural fibers out of concerns about

flammability. The petitioner stated that ***. ***. 

 12 Petition, p. 3. 

 13 Staff telephone interview with ***.

I-5
Manufacturing Process

The manufacturing process for WEBs can be divided into five distinct stages. The first stage of

production involves weaving the blanket shell.14 The next stage involves napping the fabric to give it a

soft texture. The third stage involves chemical treatment of the blanket shell to improve the appearance

of the blanket’s surface. The fourth stage involves insertion of the wire into the blanket shell. The final

stage consists of blanket assembly and trim.

To construct the blanket shell, fibers such as polyester or acrylic are first dyed and spun into yarn. 

The yarn is then woven on a loom specifically designed to produce WEB shells. The yarn is woven in a

circular manner to form a plain weave, double cloth fabric, into which channels have been created for the

insertion of the wire. The sides of the fabric are woven on the loom, eliminating the need for stitching at

a later production stage. Additionally, the loom weaves in a cut line at the top and bottom of the piece,

which aids the WEB manufacturer in the cutting and wire insertion process. In contrast to other broad

woven fabric, which is sold by the yard, WEB fabric shells are sold in units (i.e., in units of throw, twin,

full, queen, and king-sized shells). WEB fabric shells are shipped in large continuous rolls, ready for

napping and chemical treatment. 

***15 ***.16 ***.

***.17

***.18 ***.

After the wire is inserted into the WEB, the product goes through a process of final assembly and

finishing. The wire is split, stripped, and attached to a module board control panel. A plastic housing is

placed around the module board, and trim is then sewn on the top and bottom of the blanket. Each WEB

is tested for wattage and performance. The WEB is then finished by sewing the edge and trim. Finally, 

the WEB is packaged in a bag and vacuum-packed for inventory. ***.

DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT ISSUES

The Commission’s decision regarding the appropriate domestic product(s) that are “like” the

subject imported product is based on a number of factors including: (1) physical characteristics and uses;

(2) common manufacturing facilities and production employees; (3) interchangeability; (4) customer and

producer perceptions; (5) channels of distribution; and (6) price. 

In the preliminary phase of this investigation, the Commission defined a single domestic like

product, comprised of WEBs as well as semi-finished and unassembled WEBs, coextensive with the

scope of the investigation.19 The petitioner had argued for a coextensive domestic like product, whereas

Chinese producer Hung Kuo Electronic (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (“Hung Kuo”), importer Biddeford

Blankets, LLC (“Biddeford”), and the Ad Hoc Coalition of Blanket Importers (“the Coalition”) contended

that the domestic like product definition should be expanded beyond the scope of the investigation to

include U.S.-produced electric mattress pads as well as knit electric blankets and other heated bedding

products, on the basis that all heated bedding products have an identical use, have similar features, are

made of the same basic materials, are interchangeable, are distributed through the same channels of

 14 ***.

 15 ***.

 16 The fabric is not treated with flame retardant chemicals.

 17 ***, interview by Commission staff, July 9, 2009.

 18 ***. 

 19 Woven Electric Blankets from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1163 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 4097,

August 2009, p. 10.

I-6
distribution, are perceived as similar by customers and producers, and are priced “very similarly.”20 After

conducting its six domestic like product factors analysis, the Commission determined not to expand the

domestic like product to include electric mattress pads because “a clear dividing line can be drawn

separating WEBs from electric mattress pads.”21 The Commission also declined to include knit electric

blankets and other heated bedding products in the domestic like product because, at least in the period 

covered by the preliminary phase of the investigation, there was no known U.S. production of such

products.22 The Commission also applied a semi-finished product analysis to the question of whether

fabric shells should be included in the domestic like product; it found that the evidence in the preliminary

phase of the investigation did not support the inclusion of fabric shells within the domestic like product

definition, but stated that it intended to revisit the issue in any final phase of the investigation.23

Knit Electric Blankets 

Respondents and several large importers, including ***, stated in questionnaire responses that

knit electric blankets are substitutable for WEBs. Respondents have asserted that knit electric blankets

compete directly with WEBs and that the trend in the domestic consumer market is moving toward knit

electric blankets, estimating that the volume of knit electric blanket imports increased by *** percent

during 2006-08.24 Although during the preliminary phase of this investigation there was no known U.S.

production of knit electric blankets, ***.25 ***. ***.26

*** contends that the production process for knit fabric for use in electric blankets is *** than

that for WEBs.27 ***. 

In addition, ***.28 ***.29

During the preliminary phase investigation, the Commission did not expand the domestic like

product to include knit electric blankets and other heated bedding products that are not produced in the

United States.30 During the hearing for the final phase of the investigation, the Commission revisited the

issue of whether to include knit electric blankets in the scope of the investigation.31 Representatives from 

Jarden reaffirmed that the products are made on different machines and have distinct production processes

and therefore should not be considered like products.32

 20 E.g., Hung Kuo/Biddeford’s postconference brief, pp. 4-8 and the Coalition’s postconference brief, p. 4.

 21 Woven Electric Blankets from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1163 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 4097,

August 2009, pp. 5-7.

 22 Ibid., pp. 5, I-6.

 23 Ibid., pp. 8-10.

 24 Respondent Biddeford’s postconference brief, p. 1.

 25 Hearing transcript, p. 20 (Sullivan) and ***. An e-mail from *** further explained ***, May 5, 2010.

 26 Hearing transcript, p. 20 (Sullivan).

 27 *** written submission to the USITC, July 27, 2009, p. 3. ***.

 28 *** written submission to the USITC, July 27, 2009, p. 2.

 29 Filament yarn is spun using filament fibers. Filament fibers are fibers of an indefinite length, such as silk. 

 30 Woven Electric Blankets from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1163 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 4097, August

2009, p. 5. 

 31 Hearing transcript, p. 40 (Pinkert).

 32 Hearing transcript, pp. 42-43 (Powers) and (Sullivan).

I-7
Woven Shells 

In addition to the information collected by Commission staff on knit electric blankets during the

conference, staff also requested that counsel to Jarden comment on the possible inclusion of woven fabric

shells in the definition of the domestic like product. In reply, counsel stated that Jarden was not

requesting that such fabric shells be included in the definition.33 

In its postconference brief, Jarden elaborated on its position. First, with respect to uses, Jarden

asserted that the shell can be used for purposes other than producing WEBs, including regular blankets. 

Second, with respect to markets, Jarden stated that fabric shells are only sold to blanket manufacturers,

whereas WEBs are sold to retailers and ultimately consumers. Third, with respect to characteristics and

functions, Jarden asserted that fabric shells lack many of the physical characteristics of WEBs, including

value-added components such as heat-producing wire and controllers, and also lack the same feel and

chemical treatment of WEBs. Jarden also claimed that the heat-generating function of WEBs

differentiates them from fabric shells, which do not perform this function. Fourth, with respect to value,

Jarden maintained that fabric shells constitute only about *** percent of the total cost of WEBs and about

*** percent of the average price of WEBs. Finally, Jarden described the transformation that is performed

on the fabric shells in order to turn them into WEBs as “substantial.”34

During the preliminary phase of the investigation, the Commission found that while all fabric

shells are used in the production of WEBs, have no separate market, and represent a large portion of the

cost of WEBs, there are differences in the characteristics and functions of the two products, and woven

shells undergo a significant transformation to become WEBs. On balance, the Commission found that the

evidence in the preliminary phase investigation did not support the inclusion of fabric shells within the

domestic like product definition, but expressed an intention to revisit this issue during the final phase of

the investigation.35

In the final phase, *** woven fabric shells undergo significant transformation to become WEBs,

there are no other markets for woven shells aside from use as a material in the production of WEBs, and

that woven shells do not have independent uses aside from WEB production.36

Electric Mattress Pads

Respondents argued during the preliminary phase of this investigation that electric mattress pads

and WEBs have similar physical characteristics and uses; are made in common manufacturing facilities

with common production processes; are interchangeable; are perceived by customers and producers to be

comparable; share channels of distribution; and are priced similarly by producers, importers, and

retailers.37

The petitioner emphasized that while electric mattress pads and WEBs share channels of

distribution, the two products differ in each of the other five of the Commission’s domestic like product

factors. Jarden asserted that electric mattress pads have a different look and feel than WEBs, leading to

distinct consumer and producer perceptions of the two products, and that prices are higher for electric

 33 Conference transcript, p. 58 (von Schriltz) and (Altschuler).

 34 Petitioner’s postconference brief, exh. 1, pp. 1-4.

 35 Woven Electric Blankets from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1163 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 4097,

August 2009, p. 10. 

 36 ***.

 37 Woven Electric Blankets from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-1163 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 4097,

August 2009, pp. I-6-9. 

I-8
mattress pads.38 In addition, while there is domestic production of both electric mattress pads and WEBs,

Jarden and *** make the products with different equipment, different employees, and in separate

locations.39 Jarden contended that for locations other than a bed, the two products are not

interchangeable; while WEBs can be used anywhere near an electrical outlet, electric mattress pads are

solely designed for warming while affixed to a mattress.40

During the preliminary phase of the investigation, the Commission found that while electric

mattress pads and WEBs appear to share some physical characteristics and uses, there are more

differences than similarities between the two products, constituting a “clear dividing line” between

them.41 Therefore, the Commission did not expand the domestic like product definition beyond the scope

of the investigation to encompass electric mattress pads.42

 38 Ibid., p. I-4.

 39 Ibid., p. I-7.

 40 Ibid., p. I-6.

 41 Ibid., p. 7.

 42 Ibid., p. 7. 

I-9

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

U.S. MARKET CHARACTERISTICS

WEBs are consumer products that are differentiated by type and weave of fabric, size (e.g.,

throw, twin, full, queen, or king), color, type of wiring, type of control, and other factors.1

 U.S. demand

for WEBs is highly seasonal, with almost all purchases occurring during the second half of the year,

peaking during the winter holidays.2

 Inventory levels vary substantially over the year as WEBs are

manufactured year-round for sale in the fall and winter.3

 The U.S. market for WEBs is characterized by a

relatively small number of large retail customers.4

CHANNELS OF DISTRIBUTION

Jarden reported that it sells virtually all of its WEBs directly to retailers.5

 U.S. importers of

Chinese WEBs either sell imported Chinese WEBs to retailers or are retailers that import Chinese WEBs

directly (table II-1). Imports for sale to retailers accounted for the vast majority of imported Chinese

WEBs during 2007-08, but were overtaken by direct imports by retailers in 2009, as direct imports by

retailers increased by more than 80 percent in 2009.6

 Four responding importers sold only to distributors,

four sold only to end users, and one sold through both channels of distribution.

Table II-1

WEBs: U.S. importers’ U.S. shipments of WEBs from China, by channels of distribution, 2007-09

Item

Period

2007 2008 2009

Share of reported U.S. shipments (percent)

Imports for sale to retailers 76.4 83.5 45.1

Direct imports by retailers 23.6 16.6 54.9

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

 1 Conference transcript, pp. 50-51 (Pacheco, S. Kaplan, and Sullivan), pp. 106-107 (Pacheco), and pp. 128-131

(Porter).

 2

 Jarden’s prehearing brief, p. 8.

 3

 Ibid., p. 8.

 4

 Jarden’s prehearing brief, pp. 7-8. Biddeford’s postconference brief, p. 22. Hearing transcript, p. 21 (Fretwell)

and pp. 30 and 32 (Kaplan).

 5

 Hearing transcript, p. 21 (Fretwell).

 6

 The substantial increase in direct imports by retailers was largely the result of ***.

II-1
U.S. PURCHASERS

Eighteen purchasers reported usable WEB questionnaire information to the Commission.7

Seventeen of the 18 responding firms reported that they were retailers.8

 Reported purchase and direct

import quantities of the responding firms accounted for 93.6 percent of apparent U.S. consumption in

2009. The five largest responding purchasers in 2009 were ***.9

Figure II-1

WEBs: Top five responding U.S. purchasers’ reported yearly purchases of WEBs, by purchaser,

by source, 2007-09

* * * * * * *

SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS

Supply

U.S. Supply

Based on available information, Jarden (the sole U.S. producer of WEBs) has the ability to

respond to changes in demand with *** in the quantity of shipments of U.S.-produced WEBs to the U.S.

market. The main contributing factors to the *** of supply responsiveness are ***.

Industry capacity

Jarden’s capacity increased from *** units in 2007 to *** units in 2009.10 At the same time,

Jarden’s capacity utilization decreased steadily from *** percent in 2007 to *** percent in 2009, as

Jarden’s production fell by *** percent from *** units in 2007 to *** units in 2009. Jarden’s high level

of *** in 2009 indicates that it *** in response to changes in U.S. demand.

Alternative markets

Between 2007 and 2009, Jarden’s exports of WEBs increased from *** percent of its shipments

in 2007 to *** percent in 2009. At these levels, Jarden ***. Jarden exported WEBs to ***.

Inventory levels

Inventory levels vary dramatically over the year as WEBs are manufactured year-round for sale in

the fall and winter. Jarden’s end-of-period inventories as a ratio to its total shipments fluctuated,

 7 *** reported that it did not purchase WEBs. *** reported that it purchased knit electric blankets, but no WEBs

during 2007-09.

 8

 ***.

 9

 Mark Sullivan of Jarden testified that it is unlikely that the number of retail purchasers will increase in the near

future. However, he has seen other general merchandise channels, such as drug and grocery stores, offering more

general merchandise product categories, so there may be more outlets for products such as WEBs in the future. Mr.

Sullivan also noted that online outlets are small, but fast-growing outlets for WEBs. Hearing transcript, p. 82.

 10 Jarden maintains that the increase in its capacity was due to de-bottlenecking and equipment reworking. 

Hearing transcript, p. 36 (Kaplan).

II-2
decreasing from *** percent of total shipments in 2007 to *** percent in 2008, then increasing to ***

percent in 2009. These levels of inventories suggest that Jarden *** in response to changes in demand.

Production alternatives

Jarden reported that ***.11

Supply constraints

Jarden reported that ***.12 At the Commission hearing, Jarden testified that it has no knowledge

of any instance when it was unable to ship a major customer order, although Jarden acknowledged that

there have been instances when a shipment was late or missing product.13

Subject Imports from China

Based on available information, Chinese producers have the ability to respond to changes in

demand with moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of WEBs to the U.S. market. Chinese

producers have demonstrated the ability to rapidly increase WEB production capacity and production in

the short run. Available information also indicates that Chinese producers have the ability to switch

between production of WEBs and production of other products. However, Chinese producers’ supply

response is limited by their ***.

Industry capacity

 Two Chinese producers (Hung Kuo and Pace), representing an estimated *** percent of Chinese

WEB production and *** percent of Chinese WEB exports to the United States in 2009, provided useable

data in their foreign producer questionnaire responses.14 Reported Chinese capacity increased from ***

units in 2007 to *** units in 2009. Chinese capacity utilization also increased, from *** percent in 2007

to *** percent in 2009, as Chinese production increased by *** percent over the period. Available data

indicate that Chinese producers have the ability to *** increase WEB production capacity in the short run

(a *** percent increase in 2009). However, Chinese producers’ supply response is limited by their ***.

 11 ***. Mark Sullivan of Jarden testified that most of Jarden’s equipment is specifically designed for and

dedicated to producing WEBs. Hearing transcript, p. 20 (Sullivan).

 12 J.C. Penney reported that it has missed sales when business was better than expected because of problems

replenishing stock from Sunbeam (Jarden). Conference transcript, p. 166 (Hearn). 

 13 Hearing transcript, pp. 89-90 (Fretwell).

 14 In the preliminary phase of the investigations, one Chinese firm certified that it had not produced or exported

WEBs since January 1, 2006; it did not respond in the final phase. The Commission did not receive information

from the only other known Chinese suppliers of WEBs to the United States, ***. For more information concerning

the WEB industry in China, see Part VII of this report.

II-3
Alternative markets

The responding Chinese producers’ WEB exports to the United States increased by *** percent

during 2007-09, ***. ***, as Chinese exports to the United States accounted for ***.15

Inventory levels

Reported Chinese end-of-period WEB inventory levels *** during the period. Year-end Chinese

inventories were equivalent to *** percent of Chinese total shipments during 2007-09.

Production alternatives

Chinese producer Hung Kuo reports that ***. Hung Kuo reported that ***. Hung Kuo also

reported that ***. Pace reported that ***.

Supply constraints

U.S. importers of Chinese WEBs were asked if they have ever refused, declined, or been unable

to supply WEBs since January 1, 2007. Thirteen of fourteen responding importers answered “no.” The

one importer that answered “yes” (***) reported that it “declines to accept the risk of potential increased

AD duties and is moving to a substitutable product.”

Nonsubject Imports

There is no publicly available information regarding nonsubject-country production or exports of

WEBs during the period for which data were collected. There is limited aggregate information available,

however, on electric blankets (woven, knit, and other non-woven blankets combined). According to

Global Trade Atlas statistics, the largest global exporters of electric blankets in 2009 were China (69

percent of total exports by value), the Czech Republic (13 percent), the United States (5 percent), and

Indonesia (4 percent).

In addition, five purchasers reported some production of WEBs in the Philippines (the only

nonsubject source reported by purchasers). For example, *** reported that it was planning to purchase

WEBs from the Philippines in 2010, “in order to avoid potential risk of retroactive application of high AD

duties.” For more information concerning nonsubject-country production and exports of WEBs, see Part

VII of this report.

Demand

Based on available information, the overall demand for WEBs is likely to change moderately in 

response to changes in price. The primary factor influencing the elasticity of demand for WEBs is the

availability of substitute products, particularly knitted and any other non-woven electric blankets and

electric mattress pads.

 15 Jarden reports that, based on market studies obtained by Jarden, Chinese production and exports of electric

blankets (WEBs and non-woven electric blankets) increased in every year over the last few years. A study by the

China Bejing Mai Luo International Economic Information Center shows that the Chinese industry exported more

than 8.6 million units in 2008, which is almost *** of the U.S. market in 2008. Jarden’s prehearing brief, pp. 26-27

and exhibit 8.

II-4
Demand Characteristics

WEBs are used either to warm a bed or, in the case of throws, to warm people who are sitting or

lounging. Demand is therefore influenced by the weather and by the price of home heating oil.16 As a

result, demand for WEBs is highly seasonal. Most WEBs are sold and used during the colder months of

the year, with sales occurring almost exclusively during the fall and winter months, particularly during the

winter holidays.17

 As shown in figure II-2, monthly prices of residential home heating oil increased during the

winter heating seasons in 2007 and the first quarter of 2008, fell during the last quarter of 2008 and the

first quarter of 2009, then increased during the fourth quarter of 2009 and the first quarter of 2010. As

shown in figure II-3, average temperatures during December 2009-February 2010 were below normal or

much below normal for much of the country, particularly the Southeast, Southwest, and Midwest. At the

same time, average temperatures were above normal in some Northeast and Northwestern states. ***.

18

Business Cycles

Jarden maintains that the income effect of the recession (declining income) has been greater than

the substitution effect of consumers trying to reduce their energy costs by using more electric blankets,

which has led to an overall decline in U.S. demand.19 Jarden also maintains that the recession has

exacerbated retailers’ shift to lower-priced imports.20 In the preliminary phase of the investigation,

respondents reported that the economic downturn had reduced demand both because it reduced

consumers’ demand and because retailers were maintaining lower inventories, which also led to some loss

of sales.21

Jarden reported that WEBs were subject to distinctive conditions of competition including ***. 

Eleven of 15 responding importers reported that WEBs were subject to distinctive conditions of

competition, including seasonal demand and the impact of heating costs on demand. Six of 12

responding importers reported that conditions of competition had changed since 2007, citing changes in

weather; entry of new manufacturers; increased competition from knit electric blankets and electric

mattress pads; and retail stores closing outlets, which reduced available shelf space. Eight of 18

responding purchasers reported that WEBs were subject to distinctive conditions of competition such as

seasonal and weather-related demand.

Apparent Consumption

Available data indicate that apparent U.S. consumption of WEBs fell over the period. Apparent

U.S. consumption of WEBs increased ***, by *** percent, from *** units in 2007 to *** units in 2008,

before falling by *** percent to *** units in 2009. Overall, apparent U.S. consumption of WEBs was ***

percent lower in 2009 than it was in 2007.

 16 Hearing transcript, pp. 12 and 61-62 (Powers and Kaplan).

 17 Hearing transcript, pp. 21-22 (Fretwell) and p. 31 (Kaplan).

 18 Petitioner’s postconference brief, exhibit 1-F.

 19 Hearing transcript, pp. 43-44 (Kaplan).

 20 Hearing transcript, p. 72 (Powers).

 21 Conference transcript, p. 176 (Layton).

II-5
Figure II-2

WEBs: U.S. No. 2 heating oil residential prices, by month, January 2007-March 2010

Note: The U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, collects and publishes data concerning

heating oil prices during the winter heating season, which extends from October through March of each year. Data for

residential prices for heating oil are only collected during the winter heating season.

Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration.

Figure II-3

WEBs: Average temperatures, by state, December 2009-February 2010

S

ource: U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2007 2008 2009 2010

(cents per gallon)

II-6
Demand Trends

*** 5 of the 16 responding importers reported that demand for WEBs had fluctuated since 2007,

4 importers reported that demand had increased, 1 importer reported that demand had decreased, and 6

importers reported that demand was unchanged. Most firms reporting that demand had increased reported

that consumers had bought WEBs to save money on heating costs. Firms reporting fluctuating or

declining demand cited changes in the weather and heating oil costs, competition from substitute

products, retail distributors consolidating or closing store outlets, and the fact that the market for WEBs

was a mature market.22

When asked how purchasing patterns had changed between the second half of 2008 and the

second half of 2009, *** 8 of the 13 responding purchasers reported no change.23 Three purchasers

reported that purchases increased due to colder weather and an increased number of stores, and two

reported that purchases decreased due to the popularity of knit electric blankets and the recession.

When asked how demand outside the United States had changed since 2007, four importers

reported that it was unchanged, two reported that it had decreased, and one reported that it had

increased.24 A reason cited for decreased demand was the increased use of substitute products. 

Substitute Products

Jarden, 6 of 15 responding importers, and 11 of 18 responding purchasers reported substitutes for

WEBs. Jarden reported that ***. Ten purchasers and six importers listed knitted electric blankets as

substitutes. Other substitutes listed were thermal weave and fleece electric blankets, electric mattress

pads, and non-electric blankets and throws. One of seven responding importers reported that the price of

substitute products affects the price of WEBs. Three purchasers reported that changes in the prices of knit

electric blankets affected the prices of WEBs. *** reported that increased production has reduced the

prices for knit electric blankets, and in turn exerted downward price pressure on WEBs. *** switching

from WEBs to knit electric blankets due to cost and retail considerations.

Respondents reported that more expensive, knit electric blankets have become increasingly

popular and increasingly compete with WEBs. Respondents also maintain that the price of knit electric

blankets has fallen, which in turn has reduced demand for and increased the price pressure on WEBs.25

When asked how demand had been affected by the availability of knit electric blankets, ***, 6 of

13 responding importers, and 11 of 14 responding purchasers reported that demand was unchanged. 

Three purchasers and five importers reported that demand for WEBs had decreased as a result of the

availability of knit electric blankets.26

Figure II-4 shows commercial U.S. shipments of domestic and imported Chinese WEBs, and

imported knit electric blankets (quantity basis) during 2007-09. WEBs’ share of commercial U.S.

shipments of WEBs and knit electric blankets combined fell from *** percent in 2007 to *** percent in

2009. Correspondingly, knit electric blankets’ share increased from *** percent in 2007 to *** percent in

2009. These data indicate that sales of knit electric blankets have taken market share from sales of

 22 ***. Petitioner’s postconference brief, exhibit 1-F.

 23 Importers were not asked this question.

 24 Neither Jarden nor any of the purchasers answered this question.

 25 Conference transcript, pp. 171, 175-176 (Porter). Biddeford’s postconference brief, p. 14.

 26 In addition, one importer reported that demand fluctuated and one importer reported that demand increased due

to the availability of knit electric blankets.

II-7
WEBs during 2007-09.27 However, the data also indicate that sales of imported Chinese WEBs took

market share from sales of domestic WEBs.

Cost Share

WEBs are final consumer products that are not used in the production of other products.

Figure II-4

WEBs: Commercial U.S. shipments of U.S.-produced and imported Chinese WEBs and imported

knit electric blankets, 2007-09

* * * * * * *

SUBSTITUTABILITY ISSUES

The degree of substitution between domestic and imported WEBs depends upon such factors as

relative prices, quality (e.g., fabric size, weight, blend, and thread count; wiring controls; and return

rates), and conditions of sale (e.g., price discounts/rebates, co-op advertising, buyback agreements,

agreements on markdown dollars, lead times between order and delivery dates, reliability of supply,

payment terms, and product service). Based on available information, staff believes that there is a

moderate-to-high degree of substitution between domestic and imported Chinese WEBs.

Factors Affecting Purchasing Decisions

Jarden maintains that price is the key factor driving WEB purchasing decisions.28 Jarden

acknowledges that price is not the sole factor considered by purchasers, but maintains that price is now

the most important factor.29 Respondents maintain that a number of important factors, besides price, drive

WEB purchasing decisions. Respondents argue that Jarden has been very effective in selling WEBs to

Walmart, but insists that all retailers carry the same range of Sunbeam-branded WEBs. As a result, other

retailers such as J.C. Penney and Target would have to compete with Walmart almost exclusively on the

basis of price if they wanted to carry Jarden’s WEBs.30 Respondents maintain that imported Chinese

WEBs allow retailers to differentiate their WEB products from Walmart’s WEB products by offering

different brand names and higher quality products. Biddeford offers its retail customers three brand

options: the Sealy brand, the Biddeford brands, and private labels.31 32 J.C. Penney maintains that

Biddeford offers higher quality WEBs than Jarden, higher thread counts, different fiber contents offering

 27 ***.

 28 Jarden’s prehearing brief, pp. 6-7.

 29 Conference transcript, p. 34 (S. Kaplan).

 30 Conference transcript, pp. 134-135 and 159-160 (Porter).

 31 Conference transcript, p. 135 (Porter).

 32 Jarden acknowledges that, traditionally, the brand of a product has been a key factor in almost any consumer

purchase because it reinforces the performance and safety of the product. Jarden noted that, at the beginning of the

investigation period, Jarden was still able to command a premium because of its brand name. However, Jarden

maintains that, now, the low price of the imported Chinese WEBs has made brand name recognition of little

importance. Hearing transcript, pp. 24 and 50-51 (Fretwell). Alternatively, later in the hearing Jarden stated that

“...brand is an important part of the consumer purchase.” Hearing transcript, p. 122 (Fretwell).

II-8
a better feel, and larger blankets, and that Biddeford’s product has lower return rates.33 Other differences

reported by respondents include longer warranties, a greater number of settings on the controller, longer

electric cords, larger bindings, sewing around three edges, thinner wires, and the availability of jacquard

weaving.34 35

Jarden *** contest respondents’ arguments concerning the importance of non-price factors. 

Jarden reports that it has offered co-branding and private brands to retailers who request different

branding. For example, Jarden has offered ***.36 Jarden reported that it offers WEBs in 15 different

colors, with four different fabric choices, five different edge treatments, and eight different controller

choices.37 Jarden also maintains that, because its WEBs are produced using its patented auto wire

machines, its WEBs have fewer manufacturing defects and wider, more consistent heating areas.38 ***.

Table II-2 summarizes purchasers’ responses concerning the top three factors in their purchase 

decisions. Quality was most frequently listed as the most important factor. Price was reported to be one

of the top three factors by all 18 responding purchasers, and was most frequently listed as the second most

important factor.

Table II-2

WEBs: 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

Quality 12 2 2

Price/cost 3 11 4

Reliability of supply 2 2 0

Delivery 1 0 1

Brand 0 3 2

Vendor partnership 0 0 2

Other1 006

 1 Other factors include availability, incentives, channel of distribution, negotiated agreements, service/execution,

and meets/exceeds customer expectations.

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

Purchasers listed the following factors when determining the quality of WEBs: fabric, softness,

blends, weaving quality, weight and size of blanket, consistent heating, durability, washability, safety,

packaging, wiring, controls, return rates, and customer satisfaction.

 33 Conference transcript, pp. 137-141 (Hearn).

 34 Conference transcript, pp. 130-131 (Porter).

 35 Biddeford reported that it offers a full range of different fabric blends and weaves. Biddeford offers several

fabric blends including 100 percent acrylic, 75/25 acrylic-polyester, 50/50 acrylic-polyester, and 100 percent

polyester. Biddeford’s weaves range from knitted fleece electric blankets to a woven jacquard electric blanket. 

Conference transcript, p. 145 (Porter). Jarden reported that it offers two fabric blends–100 percent synthetic

(polyester) fiber and a synthetic-cotton blend. Conference transcript, pp. 49 (Sullivan) and 69-70 (Pacheco).

 36 Jarden’s prehearing brief, pp. 23-24. Hearing transcript, p. 27 (Fretwell).

 37 Hearing transcript, pp. 27, 63-64, and 99 (Fretwell).

 38 Ibid., pp. 28 and 62 (Fretwell).

II-9
Purchasers were asked to rate the importance of 18 factors in their purchasing decisions (table

II-3). All responding purchasers reported that “reliability of supply” was very important. Other factors

reported by most purchasers to be very important were availability, product consistency, and quality

meets industry standards (17 firms); delivery time (14); lowest price (13); return rates (11); and delivery

terms, discounts offered, and quality exceeds industry standards (9).

Table II-3

WEBs: Importance of purchasing factors, as reported by U.S. purchasers

Factor

Number of firms reporting

Very important Somewhat important Not important

Availability 17 0 1

Branding 7 5 6

Delivery terms 9 9 0

Delivery time 14 4 0

Discounts offered 9 6 3

Extension of credit 2 5 11

Incentive programs 5 6 7

Minimum quantity requirements 3 4 11

Packaging 9 8 1

Lowest price 13 5 0

Product range 6 10 2

Product consistency 17 1 0

Quality meets industry standards 17 1 0

Quality exceeds industry standards 9 6 2

Reliability of supply 18 0 0

Return rates 11 7 0

Technical support/service 4 13 1

U.S. transportation costs 4 8 6

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

Eleven of 18 responding purchasers reported that they required suppliers to be or to become

qualified or certified to sell to their firm. Most firms that reported a time period for qualification reported

that it took 30 days, although one firm reported that it could take as little as 3 days, one firm reported that

it could take as long as 60 days, and two firms reported that qualification is “ongoing.” Purchasers’

qualification procedure may include an assessment of suppliers’ ability to meet quality standards,

specifications, and UL certification; ability to supply needed volume and meet delivery requirements; and

an evaluation of the supplier’s financial history. 

Purchasers’ responses concerning how often they or their customers make purchasing decisions

for WEBs based on the country of origin and producer are shown in the following tabulation.

II-10
Purchaser/customer decision Always Usually Sometimes Never

Purchaser makes decision based on country of origin 5 2 0 1

Purchaser makes decision based on producer 4 2 2 0

Purchaser’s customers make decision based on country of

origin 5 7 4 5

Purchaser’s customers makes decision based on producer 2 9 12 11

Purchasers were also asked if they or their customers ever specifically order WEBs from one

country in particular over other possible sources of supply. Three of 18 responding purchasers responded

affirmatively. One of these, ***, reported that it prefers U.S.-produced product; one, ***, reported

shifting to Philippine suppliers; and one, ***, reported that Chinese product was its only option.39

Asked if certain grades, forms, or types of WEBs were available only from a single source, 16 

purchasers reported “no” and 2 reported “yes.” Reported product differences include size, construction,

technology of electric components, quality, brand names, and range of color and pattern. 

When asked how often they purchase the lowest priced WEBs, three purchasers responded

“always,” four responded “usually,” eight responded “sometimes,” and three responded “never.” Ten

purchasers reported buying WEBs from one source although a comparable product was available at a

lower price from another source. Specifically, ***, and other firms reported purchasing higher priced

WEBs because of branding, private labels, quality, availability, and reliability.

Jarden reported that *** of its sales were ***, with lead times of *** days.40 Eight of 13

responding importers reported selling all of their WEBs from inventories, while 5 reported selling all of

their WEBs produced to order. Importers’ reported lead times from inventories ranged from 2 to 45 days,

while reported lead times for made-to-order products ranged from 60 to 180 days.41

Producers, importers, and purchasers were requested to provide information regarding the

significance of differences other than price for domestic, subject, and nonsubject WEBs (table II-4). ***

reported that there were never differences other than price for all country pairs. Most responding

importers and purchasers reported that there were always or frequently differences other than price

between U.S. and Chinese product and U.S. and nonsubject-country product. Most importers reported

that there were sometimes or never differences other than price between Chinese and nonsubject-country

product, while one purchaser reported there were never differences other than price between Chinese and

nonsubject-country product and one reported frequent differences. Reported differences include that

China and the Philippines have advantages in product range, features, and the ability to respond quickly

to trends in WEBs product design; the U.S. manufacturer base is very small and is reluctant to innovate

and offer broader product lines with advanced features and benefits; quality and ability to meet mandatory

specifications and delivery requirements; the U.S. manufacturer offers the Sunbeam brand, but Biddeford

offers both the Biddeford brand or private label; Sunbeam could not provide the higher picks (tighter

 39 Jarden maintained that purchasers can reduce costs (e.g., logistical, multiple points of contact, and negotiation

process costs) by sole-sourcing WEBs. Jarden stated that there aren’t any disadvantages to maintaining a single

source, as long as the purchaser monitors the marketplace. Hearing transcript, p. 92 (Powers).

 40 ***.

 41 Biddeford reported that its turnaround time for replenishment of an order from inventory in its warehouse in

Mundelein, IL was 24 hours. Conference transcript, pp. 182-183 (Porter). Jarden reported that it normally has

inventory readily available for shipment within ***. If the items are not in inventory and/or the retailer has a special

request, Jarden can produce and ship the product within *** days of receiving the order. Petitioner’s postconference

brief, exh. 1, p. 15.

II-11
weave) or range of fabrics requested; Biddeford has the license to use the Sealy trademark; differences in

hand (feel), thread count, size, satin binding, and wire thickness; differences in customer return rates;

differences in packaging; and differences in purchasing flexibility.

Table II-4

WEBs: Perceived frequency of differences other than price between WEBs 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

AFSNAFSNA F S N

U.S. vs. China *** *** *** *** 3 3 2 2 5 3 2 3

U.S. vs. nonsubject

countries *** *** *** *** 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0

China vs. nonsubject

countries *** *** *** *** 1 1 1 2 0 1 0 1

Note.--A = Always, F = Frequently, S = Sometimes, N = Never.

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

Comparison of the U.S.-Produced and Imported WEBs

Producers, importers, and purchasers were requested to provide information regarding the

interchangeability of domestic, Chinese, and nonsubject-country WEBs and to discuss why any products

may not be interchangeable (table II-5). *** most importers and purchasers responded that WEBs from

each of the different country sources were always interchangeable. Specifically, 8 of 10 responding

importers and 10 of 12 responding purchasers reported that U.S. product and that from China could

always be used interchangeably. Differences reported by importers include that *** blankets have

enhanced safety features and correspondingly higher prices that limit interchangeability with the domestic

product; China provides a broader range of products, with frequently updated features at a lower cost; and

China is more flexible and quickly responds to customer needs. One importer reported that the WEBs

from the United States, China, and nonsubject countries sometimes can be used interchangeably, but

different product ranges, more frequently updated features, and limits on flexibility and quick response

reduced interchangeability.

*** WEBs had been subject to a recall notice or other safety issue since January 1, 2007.42

However, Chinese WEBs imported by Bilt-Safe Technologies were subject to a recall notice on

December 29, 2008.43 In addition, Classic Beautyrest electric throws imported by International Home

Fashions and Bilt-Safe and produced by the Chinese manufacturer Veken were subject to a recall notice

on August 15, 2007.44

 42 On October 5, 2001, the U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) announced that Biddeford had

voluntarily recalled about 394,000 WEBs. CPSC, “CPSC, Biddeford Textile Corp. Announce Recall of Electric

Blankets,” October 5, 2001.

 43 Bilt-Safe Technologies is no longer in business. CPSC, “CPSC, Bilt-Safe Technologies Announce Recall of

Electric Blankets,” December 29, 2008.

 44 CPSC, “International Home Fashions and Bilt-Safe Technologies Recall “Classic Beautyrest” Electric Throws

Due to Fire Hazard,” August 15, 2007.

II-12
Table II-5

WEBs: Perceived interchangeability between product 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

AFSNAFSNA F S N

 U.S. vs. China *** *** *** *** 8 1 1 0 10 1 0 1

 U.S. vs. nonsubject

 countries *** *** *** *** 3 1 1 0 5 1 0 0

 China vs. nonsubject

 countries *** *** *** *** 3 1 1 0 5 1 0 0

Note.--A = Always, F = Frequently, S = Sometimes, N = Never.

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

Purchasers were asked to compare U.S.-produced WEBs, those produced in China, and those

produced in nonsubject countries with respect to 18 different attributes (table II-6). Of the 12 firms that

compared U.S. and Chinese product, a majority reported that the products were comparable for all factors

except for delivery terms and delivery time (half the purchasers reported that U.S. and Chinese WEBs

were comparable), branding (five purchasers reported that U.S. product was superior and five reported

that U.S. and Chinese product were comparable), and lowest price (most responding purchasers reported

that the U.S. product was inferior (i.e., higher in price)).

Two purchasers compared U.S. and nonsubject-country WEBs. One of the responding firms

reported that the U.S.-produced and nonsubject WEBs were comparable for all factors except delivery

time and lowest price, while the other reported that U.S. and nonsubject WEBs were comparable in terms

of availability, product range, and quality meets industry standards; superior in terms of technical

support/service; and inferior with respect to all other factors. Two firms compared Chinese and

nonsubject product with respect to the 18 factors, reporting that they were comparable in all factors.

When asked how often U.S.-produced WEBs meet their firm’s minimum quality specifications,

five purchasers reported “always,” four reported “usually,” two reported “sometimes,” and four reported

“never” (table II-7). Fifteen of 17 responding purchasers reported that the Chinese product “always” or

“usually” meets their minimum quality specifications.

II-13
Table II-6

WEBs: Comparisons between U.S.-produced, subject Chinese, and nonsubject-country products,

as reported by U.S. purchasers

Factor

Number of firms reporting1

U.S. vs. China

U.S. vs.

nonsubject

China vs.

nonsubject

S C I SC I SC I

Availability 2 9 1 020020

Branding 5 5 2 011020

Delivery terms 4 6 2 0 0 2 0 2 0

Delivery time 4 6 2 0 1 1 0 2 0

Discounts offered 0 9 2 011020

Extension of credit 0 9 1 0 1 0 0 1 0

Incentive programs 0 7 3 0 1 0 0 1 0

Minimum quantity requirements 0 10 0 010010

Packaging 2 7 3 0 1 1 0 2 0

Lowest price2

 0 5 6 002020

Product range 1 9 2 020020

Product consistency 2 8 2 011020

Quality meets industry standards 1 8 3 020020

Quality exceeds industry standards 2 7 3 011010

Reliability of supply 1 8 2 011020

Return rates 1 8 2 0 1 1 0 2 0

Technical support/service 3 8 0 110020

U.S. transportation costs2 3 6 1 010010

 1

 Not all purchasers responded for all factors.

 2

 A rating of superior means that the price or U.S. transportation costs are generally lower. For example, if a

firm reports “U.S. superior,” this means that it rates the U.S. price and/or U.S. transportation costs as generally

lower than the other country’s price and/or U.S. transportation costs.

Note.–S = Superior, C = Comparable, I = Inferior.

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

II-14
Table II-7

WEBs: Ability to meet minimum quality specifications, by source

Country

Number of firms reporting1

Always Usually Sometimes Never

 United States 5 4 2 4

 China 9 6 1 1

 Philippines 1 2 0 0

 1 Purchasers were asked how often domestically produced or imported WEBs meet their firm’s minimum quality

specifications.

Source: Compiled from responses to Commission questionnaires.

ELASTICITY ESTIMATES

This section discusses elasticity estimates. Party comments on these estimates and staff responses

to these comments are included in this section.

U.S. Supply Elasticity45

The domestic supply elasticity for WEBs measures the sensitivity of the quantity supplied by

U.S. producers to changes in the U.S. market price of WEBs. 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 WEBs. Analysis of these factors earlier indicates that the U.S.

industry is likely to be able to *** increase or decrease shipments to the U.S. market in response to a

change in market demand; an estimate in the range of 5 to 10 is suggested. 

U.S. Demand Elasticity

The U.S. demand elasticity for WEBs measures the sensitivity of the overall quantity demanded

to a change in the U.S. market price of WEBs. This estimate depends on factors discussed earlier such as

the existence, availability, and commercial viability of substitute products. The availability of substitute

products and evidence that sales of knit electric blankets have taken market share from WEBs suggests a

more elastic demand elasticity. However, purchaser responses generally indicated that demand for WEBs

was not affected by the availability of knit electric blankets. In addition, most purchasers indicated that

WEB prices were not affected by prices for substitute products. On balance, it is likely that the aggregate

demand for WEBs is moderately inelastic, with values ranging from -0.5 to -1.0.

Jarden did not comment specifically on staff’s demand elasticity estimate range, but characterized

demand as being “relatively inelastic.”46

 45 A supply function is not defined in the case of a non-competitive market.

 46 Hearing transcript, p. 38 (Kaplan).

II-15
Substitution Elasticity

The elasticity of substitution depends upon the extent of product differentiation between the

domestic and imported products.47 Product differentiation, in turn, depends upon such factors as quality

(e.g., fabric size, weight, blend, and thread count; wiring controls; and return rates) and conditions of sale

(e.g., price discounts/rebates, co-op advertising, buyback agreements, agreements on markdown dollars,

lead times between order and delivery dates, reliability of supply, payment terms, and product services). 

Based on available information, staff believes that there is a moderate to high degree of substitution

between domestic and imported Chinese WEBs; an estimate in the range of 2 to 5 is suggested.

Jarden contends that the importance of price is further evidenced by the effect of *** on market

share in 2009. Jarden maintains that this is consistent with a high degree of substitutability between

domestic and subject WEBs. Because of this evidence, Jarden believes the estimated range of the

substitution elasticity between domestic and subject WEBs should be increased from 3 {sic} to 5 to a

higher range of 4 to 7.48

The information indicating that Jarden also offers co-branding and private labels to retailers

suggests that branding is not as differentiating a factor as initially believed. However, domestic and

imported Chinese WEBs are still often differentiated by the particular brand names offered (e.g.,

Sunbeam vs. Sealy). Additionally, available evidence indicates that domestic and imported Chinese

WEBs are still differentiated, to some extent, by differences in fabric blends and weights, wiring,

controls, return rates, customer service, product range, and delivery times. Based on these factors, staff

has increased the lower bound estimate to 3, and believes that an elasticity of substitution estimate range

of 3 to 5 is appropriate.

 47 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.

 48 Jarden’s prehearing brief, p. 7.

II-16
PART III: U.S. PRODUCER’S PRODUCTION, SHIPMENTS, AND

EMPLOYMENT

The Commission analyzes a number of factors in making injury determinations (see 19 U.S.C. §§

1677(7)(B) and 1677(7)(C)). Information on the margin of dumping was presented earlier in this report

and information on the volume of imports of the subject merchandise is presented in Part IV. Information

on the pricing of domestic and imported subject products is presented in Part V. Information on the other

factors specified is presented in this section and/or Part VI and (except as noted) is based on the

questionnaire response of one firm, Jarden, that accounted for all known U.S. production of WEBs during

the period for which data were collected.

U.S. PRODUCER

The Commission sent producer questionnaires to 6 U.S. companies identified in the petition and

through independent research.1

 Out of these companies, Jarden provided useable data and *** certified

that they had not produced WEBs since January 1, 2007.2

 

The petitioner and only known U.S. producer, Jarden, has corporate origins dating back to the

production of the first warming electric blanket by ***, which eventually became a part of the Jarden

Corporation. Jarden’s plant in Waynesboro, MS, the ***, was established in 1959 and was until recently

dedicated exclusively to the production of electrical heated bedding.3

 

U.S. CAPACITY, PRODUCTION, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION

Production of WEBs and capacity utilization both decreased during the period for which data

were collected, while capacity increased. The decrease in production in 2009 can be attributed to

Jarden’s facility ***. The capacity increases during the period for which data were collected can be

attributed to continuous production efficiency improvements and debottlenecking.4

 Jarden’s reported

capacity was *** the level of apparent U.S. consumption of WEBs in *** and *** the level of apparent

consumption in ***. 

Jarden identified *** as constraints that limit the company’s production capacity and ability to

switch between products. ***.5

 Examples of differences in the production process of WEBs and knit

electric blankets include napping, wiring, and finishing processes.6

 Jarden’s capacity, production, and

capacity utilization data for WEBs are presented in table III-1. 

 1 The six U.S. companies to whom producer questionnaires were sent were E&E Co. Ltd. (“E&E”), Jarden,

Milliken and Company (“Milliken”) Perfect Fit Industries (“Perfect Fit”), Sealy Corporation (“Sealy”), and

Westpoint Home, Inc. (“Westpoint”). 

 2

 *** reported production of fabric shells used in the production of WEBs. ***.

 3

 Presentation from Jarden plant visits, July 9, 2009 and April 29, 2010. Jarden has recently begun producing knit

electric blankets and fans at its Waynesboro facility in addition to the company’s WEB production. Hearing

transcript, p. 13 (Powers).

 4

 Conference transcript, p. 41 (S. Kaplan), and Jarden’s postconference brief, p. 18, fn. 6.

 5

 Jarden’s producer questionnaire response, sections II-2 through II-5. E-mail from ***, May 12, 2010.

 6

 Hearing transcript, pp. 42-43 (Sullivan).

III-1
Table III-1

WEBs: Jarden’s capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2007-09

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCER’S SHIPMENTS

Data on Jarden’s shipments of WEBs are presented in table III-2. Jarden’s commercial shipments

to both the domestic market and the export market decreased during the period for which data were

collected. Average unit values of commercial shipments also decreased during this period. Jarden

reported *** internal consumption or transfers to related firms located in the United States.

Table III-2

WEBs: Jarden’s shipments, by types, 2007-09

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCER’S INVENTORIES

End-of-period inventories for WEBs decreased in absolute terms during the period for which data

were collected, but increased as a share of production and shipments. The *** decrease in U.S.

production and shipments resulted in an increase in the ratios of inventories to production and shipments. 

Data on end-of-period inventories of WEBs during the period for which data were collected are presented

in table III-3. 

Table III-3

WEBs: Jarden’s end-of-period inventories, 2007-09

* * * * * * *

U.S. PRODUCER’S IMPORTS

Jarden’s imports of WEBs are presented in table III-4. 

Table III-4

WEBs: Jarden’s imports, 2007-09

* * * * * * *

U.S. EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, AND PRODUCTIVITY

Jarden’s employment-related data showed a decrease in all indicators from 2007 to 2009 with the

exception of unit labor costs, which increased during this period. The most recent decrease in production

and related workers (PRWs), hours worked, and wages paid reflects Jarden’s decision to ***. Jarden’s

aggregate employment data for WEBs are presented in table III-5. 

Table III-5

WEBs: Jarden’s employment-related data, 2007-09

* * * * * * *

III-2
PART IV: U.S. IMPORTS, APPARENT CONSUMPTION, AND

MARKET SHARES

U.S. IMPORTERS

Importer questionnaires were sent to 98 possible importers of subject WEBs, as well as to all

potential U.S. producers of WEBs.1

 Usable questionnaire responses were received from 18 companies

reporting WEB imports, representing 34.6 percent of total imports from China in 2009 under HTS

subheading 6301.10.00, a “basket” category.2

 There is no information available regarding exactly what

share of this basket category consists of WEBs, but witness testimony at the staff conference presented an

estimate that 60 percent of the category in 2008 consisted of WEBs and that the remainder consisted of

knit or other non-woven electric blankets.3

 By combining reported WEB imports in 2009 with reported

knit electric blanket imports in 2009, approximately 15 percent of imports under this basket category

remain unaccounted for in questionnaire data.4

Of the 18 firms that imported WEBs during the 2007-2009 period, five stated that they had

changed, or plan to change, the amount of WEBs imported from China as a result of the filing of the

petition in this investigation and/or Commerce’s determination of sales at less than fair value.5

 When

asked to provide reasons for changes in U.S. imports of WEBs from China since January 1, 2007, the four

largest importers of WEBs in 2009 listed the following: Decreased demand for WEBs accompanied by 

an increased demand for knit electric blankets; quality of products, cost, vendor partnership, product

assortment, and brand flexibility; and responses to requests for product differentiation as reasons for

changes in imports.6

 Table IV-1 lists all responding U.S. importers of WEBs from China and other

sources, their locations, and their shares of U.S. imports, in 2009.

Table IV-1

WEBs: U.S. importers, U.S. headquarters, source of imports, and shares of imports in 2009

* * * * * * *

 1 The Commission sent questionnaires to those firms identified in the petition, along with firms that, based on a

review of data provided by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”), may have imported greater than one

percent of total imports under HTS subheading 6301.10.00 in any one year since 2007. Usable responses were

received from each of these companies with one percent or more of imports with the exception of ***, both of which

are no longer in business. One other importer, ***, imported greater than one percent of imports and was unable to

provide useable data, but according to its questionnaire response has imported knit blankets only since January 1,

2007.

 2

 Percentage obtained by dividing reported 2009 WEB imports from China of 1,171,145 units by imports from

China under HTS subheading 6301.10.00 of 3,384,534 units.

 3

 Conference transcript, p. 52 (Pacheco).

 4

 Reported WEB and knit electric blanket imports combined totaled 2,860,882 units in 2009.

 5

 These firms were ***. The *** WEB importers in this group, ***, have switched WEB sources from China to

the Philippines. Questionnaire responses, sections II-7 and II-8.

 6

 The four largest importers of WEBs in 2009 were ***. Questionnaire response, section II-9.

IV-1
U.S. IMPORTS

Table IV-2 presents data for U.S. imports of WEBs from China and all other sources. 

Commission staff elected to use questionnaire responses to develop the import data presented in table

IV-2. The principal reason for electing to use questionnaire responses is that usable responses were

received from all of the firms believed to be large importers of WEBs. Although WEB data from

questionnaire responses accounted for only 34.6 percent of the quantity of imports from China under HTS

subheading 6301.10.00 during the period for which data were collected, there are known to be substantial

imports of knit electric blankets and other non-woven electric blankets under that subheading.7

 

On both a quantity and value basis, WEB imports from China increased during the period for

which data were collected. Unit values of WEB imports also increased during this period. All reported 

WEB imports were from China, with the exception of a small quantity from Hong Kong imported in

2008.8

Table IV-2

WEBs: U.S. imports, by sources, 2007-09

Source

Calendar year

2007 2008 2009

Quantity (units)

China 915,471 920,949 1,171,145

Nonsubject 0 1,008 0

 Total 915,471 921,957 1,171,145

Value (1,000 dollars)

1

China 24,530 24,863 34,650

Nonsubject 0 8 0

 Total 24,530 24,872 34,650

Unit value (dollars per unit)

1

China 26.79 27.00 29.59

Nonsubject (2

) 8.25 (2)

 Average 26.79 26.98 29.59

Table continued on following page.

 7 In addition to collecting data on imports of WEBs, staff also collected data on imports of knit electric blankets. 

In 2009, the quantity of knit electric blanket imports from China was reported to be approximately 1.7 million units,

up from 1.1 million units in 2007. These imports, when combined with WEB imports of 1.2 million units from

China in 2009, accounted for approximately 85 percent of total imports from China reported under HTS subheading

6301.10.00.

 8

 Import data reported by the following firms were used to create this dataset: ***. One company, ***, provided

WEB import data that were not included in the dataset because another company, ***, was the importer of record for

these WEBs. E-mail from ***, May 12, 2010.

IV-2
Table IV-2--Continued

WEBs: U.S. imports, by sources, 2007-09

Source

Calendar year

2007 2008 2009

Share of quantity (percent)

China 100.0 99.9 100.0

Nonsubject 0.0 0.1 0.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of value (percent)

China 100.0 100.0 100.0

Nonsubject 0.0 (3

) 0.0

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1 Landed, U.S. port of entry, duty-paid. 

 2

 Not applicable.

 3

 Less than 0.05 percent.

Note–A small percentage of imports by *** and *** was ultimately exported. Such imports accounted for less than 10 percent of

total subject imports in 2009. These imports are included for the purposes of this table but are not included in U.S. commercial

shipment data shown in later tables.

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

NEGLIGIBILITY

The statute requires that an investigation be terminated without an injury determination if imports

of the subject merchandise are found to be negligible.9

 Negligible imports are generally defined in the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, as imports from a country of merchandise corresponding to a domestic

like product where such imports account for less than 3 percent of the volume of all such merchandise

imported into the United States in the most recent 12-month period for which data are available that

precedes the filing of the petition or the initiation of the investigation. Imports from China accounted for

essentially 100 percent of total imports of WEBs by both quantity and value during the twelve-month

period ending March 2009.10

APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION

Data concerning apparent U.S. consumption of WEBs during the period for which data were

collected are shown in table IV-3 and figure IV-1. Apparent U.S. consumption decreased during the

period for which data were collected, ***. 

In the preliminary phase of the investigation, respondents contended that knit fleece electric

blankets and throws, which were introduced into the U.S. marketplace around 2004 or 2005, have forced

WEB prices downward and have taken substantial market share from both domestically-produced and

 9 Sections 703(a)(1), 705(b)(1), 733(a)(1), and 735(b)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. §§ 1671b(a)(1), 1671d(b)(1),

1673b(a)(1), and 1673d(b)(1)).

 10 Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. *** reported minimal imports from

a source other than China during the period for which data were collected.

IV-3
imported WEBs.11 Respondents further maintained that in addition to the market share captured by knit

electric blankets, electric mattress pads have also taken market share from WEBs.12

Table IV-3

WEBs: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. shipments of imports, and apparent U.S.

consumption, 2007-09

Item

Calendar year

2007 2008 2009

Quantity (units)

U.S. producer’s U.S. shipments *** *** ***

U.S. shipments of imports from–

China 859,540 956,103 1,125,759

Nonsubject countries 0 1,008 0

Total U.S. imports 859,540 957,111 1,125,759

Apparent U.S. consumption *** *** ***

Value (1,000 dollars)

U.S. producer’s U.S. shipments *** *** ***

U.S. shipments of imports from--

China 28,981 29,514 37,535

Nonsubject countries 0 11 0

Total U.S. imports 28,981 29,525 37,535

Apparent U.S. consumption *** *** ***

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

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

Figure IV-1

WEBs: Apparent U.S. consumption, by sources, 2007-09

* * * * * * *

U.S. MARKET SHARES

U.S. market share data are presented in table IV-4. The data reflect an increase in the market

share of imported WEBs as a result of decreased U.S. producer shipments combined with increased

shipments of imports from China. 

 11 In the final phase of the investigation, data received from responding purchasers also indicate a shift from

purchases of WEBs to purchases of knit electric blankets during 2007-09. Additional information on this issue is

found in the section entitled “Demand” (Substitute Products) in Part II of this report.

 12 Hung Kuo/Biddeford’s postconference brief, pp. 8, 14. 

IV-4
Table IV-4

WEBs: U.S. consumption and market shares, 2007-09

* * * * * * *

RATIO OF IMPORTS TO U.S. PRODUCTION

Information concerning the ratio of imports to U.S. production of WEBs is presented in table

IV-5. The combination of a decrease in U.S. production during the period for which data were collected

and an increase in imports during this same period resulted in an increase in the ratio of imports to

production. 

Table IV-5

WEBs: U.S. production, U.S. imports, and ratios of imports to U.S. production, 2007-09

Item

Calendar year

2007 2008 2009

Quantity (units)

U.S. production *** *** ***

Imports from:

China 915,471 920,949 1,171,145

Nonsubject countries 0 1,008 0

Total imports 915,471 921,957 1,171,145

Ratio of U.S. imports to production (percent)

Imports from:

China *** *** ***

Nonsubject countries *** *** ***

Total imports *** *** ***

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

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

IV-5

PART V: PRICING AND RELATED INFORMATION

FACTORS AFFECTING PRICES

Raw Material Costs

Jarden reported that the cost of the WEB shells, controls, and wires accounted for *** percent,

*** percent, and *** percent, respectively, of the total cost of production of WEBs in 2009. Jarden

reported that the cost share of shells ***.1

U.S. Inland Transportation Costs

Jarden *** purchase WEBs f.o.b. from/at its plant in Waynesboro, MS. Biddeford, ***

importer/distributor, reported that U.S. inland transportation costs averaged *** percent, while the other

five responding importer/distributors reported that average transportation costs ranged from 1 to 20

percent. *** five of six responding importer/distributors reported selling on an f.o.b. basis, and *** two

of six responding importer/distributors reported that their customers arranged transportation. Jarden

reported that *** percent of its WEB sales were to customers located 1,000 miles or farther from its

production facilities, and *** percent were within 101 to 1,000 miles. Biddeford reported that *** of its

WEBs are sold within 100 miles of its U.S. storage facilities; ***, four of the other five responding

importer/distributors reported that most of their sales were to customers located 100 miles or farther from

their U.S. storage facilities. Jarden and the four responding importers/distributors ***.

PRICING PRACTICES

Pricing Methods

Jarden reported that its customers typically ***,2

 ***.3 4

Biddeford reported that ***.

Two importer/distributors (***) *** reported that prices are negotiated, two (***) use price lists

to determine prices, and one (***) uses a cost-plus markup to determine prices.

 1 For more information concerning raw material costs, see Part VI of this report.

 2

 Paul Powers of Jarden testified that these demand forecasts are an “imperfect science.” Mr. Powers reported

that Jarden considers the WEB demand history, but also subscribes to weather prediction services to try to predict

next year’s weather. Based on these factors, Jarden and its retailer customers try to create a demand forecast to

match Jarden’s supply forecast. Hearing transcript, p. 98 (Powers).

 3

 Mike Fretwell of Jarden testified that “Most importantly, once the retailer awards the business through the

forecast the decision is final for the entire season. This means if we lose an account in a line review we’ve lost a

customer for the entire year. We won’t be able to get that customer back until the line review of the following

season for the next year.” Hearing transcript, p. 23 (Fretwell).

 4

 Jarden maintains that the imported Chinese WEBs have caused other uncertainties in the market by extending

the line review process. Jarden states that retailers have learned that the importers will continue to offer better

incentive programs, so they now delay making their decisions. Delays in forecasts mean that Jarden must delay its

production planning, which further adds to its operational and manufacturing challenges. Hearing transcript, pp. 26

and 51-52 (Fretwell).

V-1
Sales Terms and Discounts

Jarden offers a number of incentive programs, including ***.5

 ***.6

Biddeford also offers a number of incentive programs, including ***.7 ***.8

Three of the other five responding importers/distributors reported offering discount programs,

including quantity discounts, annual volume discounts, and specific discount promotions.9

***.

PRICE DATA

The Commission requested U.S. producers and importers that are distributors of WEBs to provide

quarterly data for the total quantity and value of WEBs shipped to unrelated customers in the U.S. market

during January 2007-December 2009. Retailers that imported WEBs directly from China were asked to

provide purchase price data. U.S. producers and importers that are distributors were asked to report net

values (i.e., gross sales values less all discounts, allowances, rebates, prepaid freight, and the value of

returned goods), f.o.b. their U.S. point of shipment. Retailers that imported WEBs directly were asked to

report net values, landed duty-paid. The products for which pricing data were requested are as follows:

Product 1.--100% synthetic woven electric blanket, twin size

Product 2.--100% synthetic woven electric blanket, queen size

Product 3.--Blend of synthetic and natural fibers woven electric blanket, twin size

Product 4.--Blend of synthetic and natural fibers woven electric blanket, queen size10

Jarden and two importer/distributors provided usable pricing data for sales of the requested

products, and eight importer/retailers provided usable purchase price data, although not all firms reported

pricing for all products for all quarters.11 Pricing data reported by these firms accounted for *** percent

of the U.S. producer’s U.S. shipments of WEBs and *** percent of subject imports from China in 2009.12

Price Trends

Price and quantity data for products 1-4 are presented in tables V-1 to V-3 and figure V-1. A

summary of price trends is presented in table V-4. As shown in table V-4, prices for U.S.-produced

product 1 and imported Chinese products 1 and 2 were lower at the end of the period than at the

 5 Jarden projects that the cost of its *** program is approximately $*** per unit. ***.

 6

 Jarden estimates that its *** was approximately *** in 2009.

 7

 ***.

 8

 ***. 

 9

 *** offers specific discount promotions, *** offers quantity discounts and annual volume discounts, and ***

offers annual volume discounts.

 10 Biddeford offers several fabric blends including 100-percent acrylic, 75/25 acrylic-polyester, 50/50 acrylicpolyester, and 100-percent polyester. Conference transcript, p. 145 (Porter). Biddeford reported that ***. Jarden

reported that its WEB product mix ***. Petitioner’s postconference brief, exh. 1-I.

 11 *** provided usable sales price data for imports of products 1 and 2 from China. The following retailers

provided purchase price data for their imports of products 1 and 2 from China: ***.

 12 Importer/distributor sales price data accounted for *** percent and importer/retailer purchase price data

accounted for *** percent of total subject imports in 2009.

V-2
beginning of the period, prices for U.S.-produced product 2 were higher at the end of the period, and

prices for U.S.-produced products 3 and 4 were *** higher at the end of the period. However, since WEB

sales are highly seasonal, comparing WEB prices in the first quarter of 2007 to WEB prices in the fourth

quarter of 2009 may be misleading. Setting linear trend lines to the price series may compensate for some

of the seasonality issues by smoothing the quarterly fluctuations. This analysis indicates that sales prices

for U.S.-produced and imported Chinese products 1 and 2 and purchase prices for imported Chinese

products 1 and 2 all declined over the period, with sales prices for imported Chinese products 1 and 2

showing the greatest declines.13 This analysis also indicates that prices for U.S.-produced products 3 and

4 increased *** during 2007-09.14

Table V-1

WEBs: Weighted-average prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 1 and margins

of underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2007-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-2

WEBs: Weighted-average prices and quantities of domestic and imported product 2 and margins of

underselling/(overselling), by quarters, January 2007-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-3

WEBs: Weighted-average sales prices and quantities of domestic products 3 and 4, by quarters,

January 2007-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Figure V-1

WEBs: Weighted-average prices and quantities of domestic and imported products, by quarters,

January 2007-December 2009

* * * * * * *

Table V-4

WEBs: Summary of weighted-average prices for products 1-4 from the United States and China

* * * * * * *

 13 The slopes of the fitted linear trend lines were *** for sales prices of U.S.-produced product 1, *** for sales

prices of imported Chinese product 1, and -0.0254 for purchase prices of imported Chinese product 1. The slopes of

the fitted linear trend lines were *** for sales prices of U.S.-produced product 2, *** for sales prices of imported

Chinese product 2, and -0.2235 for purchase prices of imported Chinese product 2. The slopes of the trend lines

indicate the rate of change of the trend lines. Negative slopes indicate declines, whereas positive slopes indicate

increases.

 14 The slopes of the fitted linear trend lines were *** for sales prices of U.S.-produced product 3 and *** for sales

prices of U.S.-produced product 4.

V-3
Price Comparisons

Margins of underselling and overselling comparing sales prices of U.S.-produced and imported

Chinese products 1 and 2 are presented in table V-5. As can be seen from the table, sales prices for

WEBs imported from China were below those for U.S.-produced WEBs in 17 of 24 instances; margins of 

underselling ranged from 2.5 to 17.0 percent. In the remaining 7 instances, sales prices for WEBs from

China were between 0.4 and 3.5 percent above prices for the domestic product. Underselling tended to be 

more prevalent in sales of product 2--imported Chinese product 2 was priced below U.S.-produced 

product 2 in 10 of 12 instances, compared to 7 of 12 instances for product 1. This tendency also holds for 

the peak quantity quarters. Comparing WEB sales made in the third and fourth quarters (the quarters

during which the vast majority of WEBs are sold)15 shows that imported Chinese WEBs undersold U.S.-

produced WEBs in 9 of 12 instances (4 of 6 instances for product 1 and 5 of 6 instances for product 2)

during 2007-09.

Table V-5

WEBs: Instances of underselling/overselling and the range and average of margins, by product,

January 2007-December 2009

Source

Underselling Overselling

Number of

instances

Range

(percent)

Average

margin

(percent)

Number of

instances

Range

(percent)

Average

margin

(percent)

Product 1

China-sales 7 2.5 to 17.0 *** 5 0.4 to 3.5 ***

Product 2

China-sales 10 3.5 to 16.9 *** 2 0.7 to 1.7 ***

Total

China-sales 17 2.5 to 17.0 *** 7 0.4 to 3.5 ***

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

Petitioner argues that, in this case, the Commission should compare the U.S. producer’s sales

prices with retailers’ direct import purchase prices. Petitioner notes that the great majority (70 percent) of

Chinese WEBs are imported directly by retailers and, therefore, price comparisons based on retailers’

direct import purchase prices would be more representative than price comparisons based on importers’

sales prices to retailers. Petitioner further maintains that there is no a priori reason that a direct importer

will carry higher marginal logistical costs associated with importing than a purchase from a domestic

distributor.16

 15 Based on reported pricing data, sales of products 1-4 in the third and fourth quarters during 2007-09 accounted

for *** percent of total sales of products 1-4 during 2007-09.

 16 Petitioner argues that the large global retailers that make up the “lion’s share” of customers in this investigation

already have major logistical operations in place in China. For this reason, petitioner contends that the logistical

support costs of these retailers are already sunk, and no marginal logistical costs are likely associated with importing

WEBs. Furthermore, petitioner argues that, to the extent that WEBs fill out the retailers’ shipping containers,

increase their control of inventories and just-in-time delivery, and increase scale, direct importation will lower

retailer costs compared to the alternative of purchasing from an unrelated distributor such as Biddeford. Petitioner’s

(continued...)

V-4
Respondents maintain that retailers incur additional costs when importing directly from China,

and, therefore, the U.S. producer’s sales prices to retailers should not be compared to retailers’ direct

import purchase prices since they represent different levels of distribution.17

Importers were asked if they incur additional transaction costs when they import Chinese WEBs

directly compared to when they purchase imported Chinese WEBs from a U.S. importer. Nine of ten

responding importers reported incurring additional transaction costs. Reported additional transaction

costs are presented in table V-6.

Table V-6

WEBs: Additional transaction costs incurred by retailers importing Chinese WEBs directly, as a

share of the landed-duty paid cost of imports

Additional transaction cost factor

Reported cost

range

(percent)

Logistical support and coordination for the shipment of WEBs for imports on the Chinese side 0.0 to 3.2

Logistical support and coordination for the shipment of WEBs for imports on the U.S. side 0.0 to 17.01

Additional inventory carrying costs for WEB imports 0.0 to 3.0

Cost of quality control monitoring for WEB imports 0.0 to 1.0

Hedging of exchange rate risk for WEB imports -

 1 ***.

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

LOST SALES AND LOST REVENUES

In the petition, Jarden reported instances of lost sales and revenues it experienced due to

competition from imports of WEBs from China since January 2006. The *** lost sales allegations totaled

$*** million and involved *** WEBs (table V-7) and the *** lost revenues allegations totaled $***

million and involved *** WEBs (table V-8). During the final phase of these investigations, Jarden

reported an additional *** lost sales allegations totaling $*** million involving *** WEBs. Staff

contacted all *** purchasers named in the allegations and a summary of the information obtained follows.

***.

Table V-7

WEBs: U.S. producer’s lost sales allegations

* * * * * * *

 16 (...continued)

postconference brief, p. 15 and submission in response to staff questions, July 31, 2009. Hearing transcript, pp. 43-

47 (Kaplan).

 17 For example, respondents note that retailers that import directly incur all of the ocean and inland U.S. freight

expenses. In addition, respondents note that retailers that import directly are responsible for the duties assessed on

imported WEBs from China. Biddeford’s postconference brief, exh. 16, p. 3. However, as noted above, the

purchase values reported by retailers that import WEBs directly are landed duty-paid, and, therefore, should include

any associated ocean freight costs and customs duties.

V-5
Table V-8

WEBs: U.S. producer’s lost revenue allegations

* * * * * * *

***.18

***.19

***.

***.

***.

***.20

***.

***.

***.21

 18 ***.

 19 ***.

 20 Jarden’s prehearing brief, exhibit 3.

 21 Jarden’s prehearing brief, exhibit 2.

V-6
PART VI: FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE OF THE U.S. PRODUCER

BACKGROUND

The sole U.S. producer, Jarden, reported its WEBs financial results on the basis of U.S. generally

accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) for calendar-year periods.1

 *** of Jarden’s WEBs revenue

reflects U.S. commercial shipments to retailers, while a *** share of WEBs revenue represents exports to

***.2

 The financial results of Milliken, which are also presented in this section of the report, represent

that company’s operations on woven shells. As noted in Part I of this report, the woven shell is a primary

input in the production of WEBs.

Jarden’s U.S. producer questionnaire response was verified by staff on May 25-26, 2010. 

Revisions pursuant to verification are reflected in this and other sections of the report.3

OPERATIONS ON WOVEN ELECTRIC BLANKETS

Income-and-loss data for Jarden’s operations on WEBs are presented in table VI-1, with

corresponding WEBs average per-unit information presented in table VI-2. Because WEBs financial

results in part reflect changes in product mix, a variance analysis is not presented.4

 Table VI-3 presents

selected financial information related to WEBs product mix. Milliken’s financial results on woven shells

(through operating income or (loss)) are presented in table VI-4. 

Revenue

As shown in table VI-1, there are two primary adjustments to WEBs gross sales revenue: 1) other

program costs and sales allowances, ***; and 2) provision and adjustments for non-defective returns. The

amount of other program costs and sales allowances assigned to WEBs ranged from ***. In contrast, the

net deduction for non-defective returns went from *** of gross sales in 2007 to *** of gross sales in

2008. While the absolute value of the net deduction for non-defective returns declined ***, it *** of

gross sales in 2009. According to company officials, the ***.5

Table VI-1

Results of operations on WEBs, 2007-09

* * * * * * *

 1 WEB operations are a subset of the Consumer Solutions segment which is in turn one of three primary business

segments recognized by the parent company (Jarden Corporation). Outdoor Solutions and Branded Consumables are

Jarden Corporation’s other two segments. Jarden Corp. 2009 10-K, p. 1. ***. Verification report, p. 1. 

 2 ***. Verification report, p. 7. 

 3 Verification report, p. 2. ***. 

 4 While fluctuations in product mix are inherent in most financial results reported to the Commission, more

substantial changes in product mix negatively impact the utility of the Commission’s variance analysis. 

 5 ***. Verification report, pp. 7-8. 

VI-1
Table VI-2 shows that average gross sales value declined throughout the period. In conjunction

with the product mix information presented in table VI-3, the overall pattern of lower average gross sales

value can be attributed in large part to ***.6 7

Table VI-2

Results of operations on WEBs (per unit), 2007-09

* * * * * * *

Cost of Goods Sold

Raw material costs made up *** of total WEBs cost of good sold (COGS) (declining from *** in

2007 to *** in 2009), while other factory costs, *** component, increased from *** in 2007 to *** in

2009. Direct labor, ***, increased ***, as a share of total COGS, from *** in 2007 to *** in 2009. 

Based on information submitted by Jarden, the woven shell and controller component in 2009 accounted

for *** and *** of total COGS, respectively.8

While overall average COGS remained within a relatively narrow range throughout the period

examined (see table VI-2), the increase in other factory costs, particularly as a ratio to net sales, was

notable (see table VI-1). ***.9

Table VI-3

WEBs product mix, 2007-09

* * * * * * *

Table VI-4

Results of operations on WEB shells, 2007-09

* * * * * * *

Financial Results on WEBs

As shown in table VI-1, Jarden began the period with *** operating income margin as well as its

highest level of net sales revenue. Because SG&A expense ratios remained at about the same level

(ranging from ***), the subsequent decline *** in 2009 can be attributed almost exclusively to a

deterioration in the WEBs gross profit margin, which in turn reflects changes in both revenue and

corresponding COGS. All things being equal, the shift in product mix noted previously would have

resulted in at least some decline in relative WEBs profitability; i.e., ***.

 

 6 In order to clarify hearing testimony regarding WEBs product mix, Jarden stated in its postconference brief that

“. . . while its basic product offerings have not changed, there were some changes to the mix of product sizes during

the POI . . . generally characterized by ***, which is in line with the percentages in the previous years.” Petitioner’s

postconference brief, Exhibit A, p. 1. 

 7 ***. Jarden’s U.S. producer questionnaire, III-15.

 8 The shell and controller component represented ***, respectively, of total COGS in 2007 and ***, respectively,

in 2008. Auditor notes (final phase). 

 9 Verification report, p. 8. ***. Verification report, p. 4.

VI-2
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES, 

ASSETS, AND RETURN ON INVESTMENT

Data on capital expenditures, research and development (“R&D”) expenses, assets, and return on

investment related to Jarden’s WEB’s operations are presented in table VI-5. 

The nature of the projects reflected in the reported capital expenditures and R&D expenses are

described in footnote 10. Corresponding descriptions of suspended projects, generally attributed by

Jarden to reduced WEBs sales volume, are consistent with the decline of reported capital expenditures

and R&D expenses during the period.10

Table VI-5

Operations on WEBs: Capital expenditures, R&D expenses, assets, and return on investment,

2007-09

* * * * * * *

CAPITAL AND INVESTMENT

The Commission requested U.S. producers to describe any actual or anticipated negative effects

of imports of WEBs from China on their firms’ growth, investment, ability to raise capital, existing

development and production efforts (including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version

of the product), or the scale of capital investments. 

Actual Negative Effects

Jarden ***.

Milliken ***.

Anticipated Negative Effects

Jarden ***.

Milliken ***. 

 10 ***. Petitioner’s postconference brief, pp. 10-13. 

 With regard to R&D expenses, ***. Ibid.

VI-3

PART VII: THREAT CONSIDERATIONS AND INFORMATION ON

NONSUBJECT COUNTRIES

The Commission analyzes a number of factors in making threat determinations (see 19 U.S.C. §

1677(7)(F)(i)). Information on the volume and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise is presented

in Parts IV and V, and information on the effects of imports of the subject merchandise on U.S.

producers’ existing development and production efforts is presented in Part VI. Information on

inventories of the subject merchandise; foreign producers’ operations, including the potential for

“product-shifting;” any other threat indicators, if applicable; and any dumping in third-country markets,

follows. Also presented in this section of the report is information obtained for consideration by the

Commission on nonsubject countries and the global market.

THE INDUSTRY IN CHINA

The Commission requested data from 141 firms in China believed to be possible producers of

WEBs. Of these firms, two producers, Hung Kuo and Pace Electric Co., Ltd. (“Pace China”) provided

questionnaire responses containing useable data and 139 did not provide responses.1

 Hung Kuo estimated

that in 2009 it accounted for *** percent of production of WEBs in China and *** percent of exports of

WEBs from China to the United States. Pace China estimated that it accounted for *** percent of

production of WEBs in China and *** percent of exports of WEBs from China to the United States in

2009.2

 Reported exports of WEBs to the United States by Hung Kuo and Pace in 2009 were

approximately *** percent *** reported WEB imports in that year.3

 Capacity, production, and shipments

all increased from 2007 to 2009. *** projections for 2010 reflect ***.4

 Hung Kuo reported that in 2009

***. Hung Kuo reported *** as constraints on production capacity.5

 The other Chinese producer, Pace

China, stated in its questionnaire response that ***, but that the company could ***.6

 For 2009, Pace

China reported that ***. Pace China reported *** as constraints on production capacity.7

 Table VII-1

presents data for reported production and shipments of WEBs in China.

 1 The only other known Chinese suppliers of WEBs to the United States, ***, did not provide the Commission

with information. *** is a supplier to *** and *** is a supplier to ***.

 2

 Data provided by the petitioner during the preliminary phase of this investigation estimated 2008 Chinese total

electric blanket production (both WEBs and other types) as 40.25 million units and 2008 Chinese electric blanket

exports as 8.66 million units. Petitioner’s postconference brief, exhibit 9. 

 3

 Reported U.S. WEB imports from China were approximately 1.2 million units and reported WEB exports from

China to the United States were approximately *** units. *** Chinese exporter Hung Kuo has confirmed with staff

that no nonsubject merchandise has been included with the company’s reported WEB exports. E-mail from ***,

June 3, 2010. Staff has also compared reported 2009 U.S. electric blanket imports of 2.86 million units with

proprietary Customs data showing 3.38 million units imported and has found the two import data sources to be

within 15 percent of each other.

 4

 ***.

 5

 Hung Kuo’s foreign producer questionnaire response, section ***.

 6

 Pace China’s foreign producer questionnaire response, sections ***.

 7

 Pace China’s foreign producer questionnaire response, section ***.

VII-1
Table VII-1

WEBs: China's reported production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2007-09,

and projections for 2010 and 2011

* * * * * * *

U.S. INVENTORIES OF WEBS FROM CHINA

Reported inventories held by U.S. importers of subject merchandise from China are shown in

table VII-2. Inventories of WEB imports from China decreased between 2007 and 2009 on a quantity

basis and also relative to imports and shipments of imports.

Table VII-2

WEBs: U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of imports, by source, 2007-09

Source

Calendar year

2007 2008 2009

Imports from China:

 Inventories (units) 243,496 192,655 218,188

 Ratio to imports (percent) 26.6 20.9 18.6

 Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports (percent) 26.9 20.2 19.4

Imports from all other sources:

 Inventories (units) 000

 Ratio to imports (percent) (1

) (1) (1)

 Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports (percent) (1

) (1) (1)

Imports from all sources:

 Inventories (units) 243,496 192,655 218,188

 Ratio to imports (percent) 26.6 20.9 18.6

 Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports (percent) 26.9 20.1 19.4

 1 Not applicable.

Note.– Ratios were calculated using data from firms that provided data on inventories and also on imports and U.S.

shipments of imports.

Note. – Importers’ imports, shipments, and inventories do not reconcile. Importers *** reported that they were

unable to separate inventories of imported WEBs from inventories of domestically-produced WEBs.

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

VII-2
U.S. IMPORTERS’ CURRENT ORDERS

The Commission requested importers to indicate whether they imported or arranged for the

importation of WEBs from China after December 31, 2009. Three firms reported having made such

arrangements, and only *** reported orders for imports in excess of *** units in 2010. Reported current

orders by importers of WEBs are shown in table VII-3.

Table VII-3

WEBs: U.S importers' current orders, by quarter, 2010

* * * * * * *

ANTIDUMPING INVESTIGATIONS IN THIRD-COUNTRY MARKETS

There are no known antidumping (or countervailing duty) investigations or orders on WEBs from

China reported in third-country markets. 

INFORMATION ON NONSUBJECT COUNTRIES

In assessing whether the domestic industry is materially injured or threatened with material injury

“by reason of subject imports,” the legislative history states “that the Commission must examine all

relevant evidence, including any known factors, other than the dumped or subsidized imports, that may be

injuring the domestic industry, and that the Commission must examine those other factors (including nonsubject imports) ‘to ensure that it is not attributing injury from other sources to the subject imports.’”8

There is no publicly available information regarding international production or exports of WEBs

during the period for which data were collected. There is some limited information available, however,

on electric blankets (woven, knit, and other non-woven blankets combined), but there is no information 

on the share of these exports that consists of WEBs as opposed to knit and other non-woven blankets, as

the tariff classification includes all three products. According to Global Trade Atlas statistics, the largest

exporters of electric blankets in the world in 2009 were China, the Czech Republic, the United States, and

Indonesia. On a value basis China was by far the largest exporter, accounting for approximately 69

percent of total exports during 2009. That year, the Czech Republic, the United States, and Indonesia

exported approximately 13 percent, 5 percent, and 4 percent, respectively of global electric blanket

exports by value. China represents nearly all electric blanket imports into the United States and there

were no imports from either the Czech Republic or Indonesia during the period for which data were

collected. The United States does import some electric blankets from Korea, Spain, and Denmark, 

although these countries are not large exporters globally.9

 The absence of countries other than China

producing WEBs was noted during the staff conference related to this investigation, when respondent

parties stated that they were unaware of any WEB production outside of China.10

 8 Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 2007-1552 at 17 (Fed. Cir., Sept. 18, 2008), quoting from

Statement of Administrative Action on Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. 103-316, Vol. I at 851-52; see

also Bratsk Aluminum Smelter v. United States, 444 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

 9

 Imports from these countries collectively accounted for less than one percent of the value of electric blanket

imports (woven, knit, and other nonwoven) into the United States in 2009. Data compiled using USITC Dataweb

statistics showing U.S. imports by value under HTS subheading 6301.10.00, accessed May 27, 2010. 

 10 Conference transcript, pp. 150 (Hearn) and 151 (Porter).

VII-3

A-1

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 47 / Thursday, March 11, 2010 / Notices 11557 

1For purposes of this investigation, the 

Department of Commerce has defined the subject 

merchandise as finished, semi-finished, and 

unassembled woven electric blankets, including 

woven electric blankets commonly referred to as 

throws, of all sizes and fabric types, whether made 

of man-made fiber, natural fiber or a blend of both. 

Semi-finished woven electric blankets and throws 

consist of shells of woven fabric containing wire. 

Unassembled woven electric blankets and throws 

consist of a shell of woven fabric and one or more 

of the following components when packaged 

together or in a kit: (1) Wire; (2) controller(s). The 

shell of woven fabric consists of two sheets of fabric 

joined together forming a ‘‘shell.’’ The shell of 

woven fabric is manufactured to accommodate 

either the electric blanket’s wiring or a subassembly 

containing the electric blanket’s wiring (e.g., wiring 

mounted on a substrate). A shell of woven fabric 

that is not packaged together, or in a kit, with either 

wire, controller(s), or both, is not covered by this 

investigation even though the shell of woven fabric 

may be dedicated solely for use as a material in the 

production of woven electric blankets. Although the 

HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience 

and customs purposes, only the written description 

of the scope is dispositive. 

consideration at CoP15. In our third 

Federal Register notice, published on 

November 4, 2009 (74 FR 57190), we 

announced the provisional agenda for 

CoP15, solicited public comments on 

items on the provisional agenda, and 

announced a public meeting to discuss 

the agenda items. That public meeting 

was held on December 2, 2009. 

You may obtain information on the 

above Federal Register notices from the 

following sources. For information on 

draft resolutions and decisions, and 

agenda items, contact the Division of 

Management Authority (see 

‘‘ADDRESSES,’’ above); and for 

information on species proposals, 

contact the Division of Scientific 

Authority (see ‘‘ADDRESSES,’’ above). Our 

regulations governing this public 

process are found in 50 CFR 23.87. 

Pursuant to 50 CFR 23.87(a)(3)(iii), with 

this notice we are posting on our 

website (http://www.fws.gov/ 

international/newspubs/ 

fedregnot_list.html) a summary of our 

proposed negotiating positions on the 

items included in the CoP15 agenda and 

proposed amendments to the 

Appendices, and the reasons for our 

proposed positions. 

Tentative Negotiating Positions 

On our website (http://www.fws.gov/ 

international/newspubs/ 

fedregnot_list.html), we summarize the 

tentative U.S. negotiating positions on 

proposals to amend the Appendices 

(species proposals), draft resolutions 

and decisions, and agenda items that 

have been submitted by other countries 

and the CITES Secretariat. Documents 

submitted by the United States either 

alone or as a co-proponent for 

consideration by the Parties at CoP15 

can be found on the Secretariat’s 

website at: http://www.cites.org/eng/ 

cop/index.shtml. Those documents are: 

CoP15 Docs. 36, 41.3, 41.4, 41.5, 48, 54, 

and 67. The United States, either alone 

or as a co-proponent, submitted the 

following proposals to amend 

Appendices I and II: CoP15 Props. 2, 3, 

15, 16, 21, 25, 28, and 31. We will not 

provide any additional explanation of 

the U.S. negotiating position for 

documents and proposals that the 

United States submitted. The 

introduction in the text of each of the 

documents the United States submitted 

contains a discussion of the background 

of the issue and the rationale for 

submitting the document. 

AUTHOR: This notice was prepared 

by Clifton A. Horton, Division of 

Management Authority; under the 

authority of the U.S. Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Dated: March 5, 2010 

Daniel M. Ashe 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FR Doc. 2010–5458 Filed 3–9–10; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[LLCAD01000 L12200000.AL 0000] 

Meeting of the California Desert 

District Advisory Council 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given, in 

accordance with Public Laws 92–463 

and 94–579, that the California Desert 

District Advisory Council to the Bureau 

of Land Management, U.S. Department 

of the Interior, will participate in a field 

tour of BLM-administered public lands 

on Friday, March 26, 2010, from 8 a.m. 

to 4:30 p.m. and will meet in formal 

session on Saturday, March 27, 2010, 

from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. at Cal Works 

Building, 2895 S. 4th St., El Centro, CA 

92243. Agenda topics will include 

updates by Council members and 

reports from the BLM District Manager 

and five field office managers. 

Additional agenda topics may include 

updates on legislation, the Wild Horse 

and Burro program, and renewable 

energy. Final agenda items, including 

details of the field tour, will be posted 

on the BLM California state Web site at 

http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/info/rac/ 

dac.html. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: All 

California Desert District Advisory 

Council meetings are open to the public. 

Public comment for items not on the 

agenda will be scheduled at the 

beginning of the meeting Saturday 

morning. Time for public comment may 

be made available by the Council 

Chairman during the presentation of 

various agenda items, and is scheduled 

at the end of the meeting for topics not 

on the agenda. 

While the meeting is tentatively 

scheduled to conclude at 4:30 p.m. on 

Saturday, it could conclude earlier 

should the Council conclude its 

presentations and discussions. 

Therefore, members of the public 

interested in a particular agenda item or 

discussion should schedule their arrival 

accordingly. 

Written comments may be filed in 

advance of the meeting for the 

California Desert District Advisory 

Council, c/o Bureau of Land 

Management, External Affairs, 22835 

Calle San Juan de Los Lagos, Moreno 

Valley, CA 92553. Written comments 

also are accepted at the time of the 

meeting and, if copies are provided to 

the recorder, will be incorporated into 

the minutes. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Briery, BLM California Desert 

District External Affairs, (951) 697– 

5220. 

Dated: March 3, 2010. 

Jack L. Hamby, 

Acting District Manager. 

[FR Doc. 2010–5365 Filed 3–10–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–40–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–1163 (Final)] 

Woven Electric Blankets From China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Scheduling of the final phase of 

an antidumping investigation. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of the final 

phase of antidumping investigation No. 

731–TA–1163 (Final) under section 

735(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 

U.S.C. 1673d(b)) (the Act) to determine 

whether an industry in the United 

States is materially injured or 

threatened with material injury, or the 

establishment of an industry in the 

United States is materially retarded, by 

reason of less-than-fair-value imports 

from China of woven electric blankets, 

provided for in subheading 6301.10.00 

of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 

the United States (HTSUS).1


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
11558 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 47 / Thursday, March 11, 2010 / Notices 

For further information concerning 

the conduct of this phase of the 

investigation, hearing procedures, and 

rules of general application, consult the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207). 

DATES: Effective Date: February 3, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joshua Kaplan (202–205–3184), 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 investigation may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—The final phase of this 

investigation is being scheduled as a 

result of an affirmative preliminary 

determination by the Department of 

Commerce that imports of woven 

electric blankets from the People’s 

Republic of China are being sold in the 

United States at less than fair value 

within the meaning of section 733 of the 

Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b). The investigation 

was requested in a petition filed on June 

30, 2009, by Sunbeam Products, Inc. d/ 

b/a Jarden Consumer Solutions, Boca 

Raton, FL. 

Participation in the investigation and 

public service list.—Persons, including 

industrial users of the subject 

merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in the final phase of this 

investigation as parties must file an 

entry of appearance with the Secretary 

to the Commission, as provided in 

section 201.11 of the Commission’s 

rules, no later than 21 days prior to the 

hearing date specified in this notice. A 

party that filed a notice of appearance 

during the preliminary phase of the 

investigation need not file an additional 

notice of appearance during this final 

phase. The Secretary will maintain a 

public service list containing the names 

and addresses of all persons, or their 

representatives, who are parties to the 

investigation. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and BPI service list.—Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

gathered in the final phase of this 

investigation available to authorized 

applicants under the APO issued in the 

investigation, provided that the 

application is made no later than 21 

days prior to the hearing date specified 

in this notice. Authorized applicants 

must represent interested parties, as 

defined by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are 

parties to the investigation. A party 

granted access to BPI in the preliminary 

phase of the investigation need not 

reapply for such access. A separate 

service list will be maintained by the 

Secretary for those parties authorized to 

receive BPI under the APO. 

Staff report.—The prehearing staff 

report in the final phase of this 

investigation will be placed in the 

nonpublic record on June 15, 2010, and 

a public version will be issued 

thereafter, pursuant to section 207.22 of 

the Commission’s rules. 

Hearing.—The Commission will hold 

a hearing in connection with the final 

phase of this investigation beginning at 

9:30 a.m. on June 29, 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 June 22, 2010. A nonparty who 

has testimony that may aid the 

Commission’s deliberations may request 

permission to present a short statement 

at the hearing. All parties and 

nonparties desiring to appear at the 

hearing and make oral presentations 

should attend a prehearing conference 

to be held at 9:30 a.m. on June 24, 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), and 

207.24 of the Commission’s rules. 

Parties must submit any request to 

present a portion of their hearing 

testimony in camera no later than 7 

business days prior to the date of the 

hearing. 

Written submissions.—Each party 

who is an interested party shall submit 

a prehearing brief to the Commission. 

Prehearing briefs must conform with the 

provisions of section 207.23 of the 

Commission’s rules; the deadline for 

filing is June 22, 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 207.25 of the 

Commission’s rules. The deadline for 

filing posthearing briefs is July 6, 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 

investigation may submit a written 

statement of information pertinent to 

the subject of the investigation, 

including statements of support or 

opposition to the petition, on or before 

July 6, 2010. On July 21, 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 July 23, 2010, but such final 

comments must not contain new factual 

information and must otherwise comply 

with section 207.30 of the Commission’s 

rules. All written submissions must 

conform with the provisions of section 

201.8 of the Commission’s rules; any 

submissions that contain BPI must also 

conform with the requirements of 

sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the 

Commission’s 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 

investigation must be served on all other 

parties to the investigation (as identified 

by either the public or BPI service list), 

and a certificate of service must be 

timely filed. The Secretary will not 

accept a document for filing without a 

certificate of service. 

Authority: This investigation is being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.21 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 47 / Thursday, March 11, 2010 / Notices 11559 

Issued: March 8, 2010. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–5234 Filed 3–10–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

SUMMARY: Following receipt of a request 

on February 12, 2010, from the U.S. 

Trade Representative (USTR) under 

authority delegated by the President and 

pursuant to section 104 of the United 

States-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement 

(FTA) Implementation Act (19 U.S.C. 

3805 note), the Commission instituted 

investigation No. Bahrain FTA–103– 

025, Certain Combed Cotton Yarns: 

Effect of Modification of U.S.-Bahrain 

FTA Rules Of Origin. 

DATES: April 29, 2010: Deadline for 

filing all written submissions. 

On or before July 12, 2010: 

Transmittal of report to the USTR. 

ADDRESSES: All Commission offices, 

including the Commission’s hearing 

rooms, are located in the United States 

International Trade Commission 

Building, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC. All written 

submissions should be addressed to the 

Secretary, United States International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. The public 

record for this investigation may be 

viewed on the Commission’s electronic 

docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov/ 

edis3-internal/app. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Coproject Leaders Heidi Colby-Oizumi 

(202–205–3391 or 

heidi.colby@usitc.gov) or Kimberlie 

Freund (202–708–5402 or 

kimberlie.freund@usitc.gov) for 

information specific to this 

investigation. For information on the 

legal aspects of this investigation, 

contact William Gearhart of the 

Commission’s Office of the General 

Counsel (202–205–3091 or or 

william.gearhart@usitc.gov). The media 

should contact Margaret O’Laughlin, 

Office of External Relations (202–205– 

1819 or margaret.olaughlin@usitc.gov). 

Hearing-impaired individuals may 

obtain information on this matter by 

contacting the Commission’s TDD 

terminal at 202–205–1810. General 

information concerning the Commission 

may also be obtained by accessing its 

Internet (http://www.usitc.gov). 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. 

Background: Chapter 3, Annex 3–A 

and Chapter 4 of the FTA contain the 

rules of origin for textiles and apparel 

for application of the tariff provisions of 

the FTA. These rules are reflected in 

General Note 30 of the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(HTS). According to the USTR’s request 

letter, U.S. negotiators have recently 

reached agreement in principle with 

representatives of the government of 

Bahrain on certain modifications to the 

rules of origin to the FTA for certain 

combed cotton yarns used in the 

production of certain home furnishings, 

as described in the attachment to the 

letter (for the text of the letter and 

attachment, see the Commission’s Web 

site for this investigation at http:// 

www.usitc.gov/research_and_analysis/ 

What_We_Are_Working_On.htm). 

Section 202(j) of the United StatesBahrain Free Trade Agreement 

Implementation Act (the Act) authorizes 

the President, subject to the 

consultation and layover requirements 

of section 104 of the Act, to proclaim 

such modifications to the rules of origin 

as are necessary to implement an 

agreement pursuant to Article 3.2.5 of 

the FTA. One of the requirements set 

out in section 104 of the Act is that the 

President obtain advice from the United 

States International Trade Commission. 

The request letter asks that the 

Commission provide advice on the 

probable effect of the proposed 

modifications on U.S. trade under the 

U.S.-Bahrain FTA, total U.S. trade, and 

on domestic producers of the affected 

articles. The USTR asked that the 

Commission provide its report 

containing its advice by July 12, 2010, 

and that the Commission shortly 

thereafter issue a public version of the 

report with any confidential business 

information deleted. Additional 

information concerning the articles and 

the proposed modifications, including a 

copy of the USTR’s request letter, can be 

obtained by accessing the Commission’s 

Web site at http://www.usitc.gov. The 

current U.S.-Bahrain FTA rules of origin 

applicable to U.S. imports can be found 

in general note 30 of the HTS (see 

‘‘General Notes’’ link at http:// 

www.usitc.gov/tata/hts/bychapter/ 

index.htm). 

Written Submissions: No public 

hearing is planned. However, interested 

parties are invited to file written 

submissions and other information 

concerning the matters to be addressed 

in this investigation. All written 

submissions should be addressed to the 

Secretary. To be assured of 

consideration by the Commission, 

written submissions relating to the 

Commission’s advice should be 

submitted at the earliest possible date, 

and should be received not later than 

5:15 p.m., April 29, 2010. All written 

submissions must conform to the 

provisions of section 201.8 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (19 CFR 201.8). Section 201.8 

requires that a signed original (or a copy 

so designated) and fourteen (14) copies 

of each document be filed. In the event 

that confidential treatment of a 

document is requested, at least four (4) 

additional copies must be filed, in 

which the confidential information 

must be deleted (see the following 

paragraph for further information 

regarding confidential business 

information). The Commission’s rules 

authorize the filing submissions with 

the Secretary by facsimile or electronic 

means only to the extent permitted by 

section 201.8 of the rules (see Handbook 

on Electronic Filing Procedures, http:// 

www.usitc.gov/docket_services/ 

documents/ 

handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf). 

Persons with questions regarding 

electronic filing should contact the 

Secretary (202–205–2000). 

Any submissions that contain 

confidential business information must 

also conform with the requirements of 

section 201.6 of the Commission’s Rules 

of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 

201.6). Section 201.6 of the rules 

requires that the cover of the document 

and the individual pages be clearly 

marked as to whether they are the 

Aconfidential@ or Anon-confidential@ 

version, and that the confidential 

business information be clearly 

identified by means of brackets. All 

written submissions, except for 

confidential business information, will 

be made available for inspection by 

interested parties. 

The Commission may include some or 

all of the confidential business 

information submitted in the course of 

this investigation in the report it sends 

to the USTR and the President. As 

requested by the USTR, the Commission 

will publish a public version of the 

report. However, in the public version, 

the Commission will not publish 

confidential business information in a 

manner that would reveal the operations 

of the firm supplying the information. 

Issued: March 4, 2010. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Notices 38459 

1See Certain Woven Electric Blankets From the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Postponement of Final Determination, 75 FR 5567 

(February 3, 2010) (‘‘Preliminary Determination’’). 

2See Memorandum to John M. Andersen, Acting 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Operations, from Abdelali 

Elouaradia, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, 

concerning ‘‘Request to Modify Customs 

Instructions, dated March 30, 2010. 

3See Memorandum to the File, through Howard 

Smith, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 4, concerning, ‘‘Export Data,’’ dated June 9, 

2010. 

4See Memorandum to the File, through Howard 

Smith, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 4, concerning, ‘‘Export Data,’’ dated June 11, 

2010. 

5See Memorandum to the File, through Howard 

Smith, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 4, concerning, ‘‘Wage Data,’’ dated June 11, 

2010. 

6See Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 13. 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–951] 

Certain Woven Electric Blankets From 

the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: July 2, 2010. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘the Department’’) has determined that 

certain woven electric blankets (‘‘woven 

electric blankets’’) from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) are being, or 

are likely to be, sold in the United States 

at less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) as 

provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). The 

final dumping margins for this 

investigation are listed in the ‘‘Final 

Determination Margins’’ section below. 

The period covered by the investigation 

is October 1, 2008 through March 31, 

2009 (the ‘‘POI’’). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Howard Smith or Drew Jackson, 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) 482–5193 and 482– 

4406, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department published its 

preliminary determination of sales at 

LTFV on February 3, 2010.1 Between 

February 1, 2010 and February 12, 2010, 

the Department conducted a verification 

of the sole respondent in this 

investigation, Hung Kuo Electronics 

(Shenzhen) Company Limited (‘‘Hung 

Kuo’’) and its U.S. affiliate, Biddeford 

Blankets LLC (‘‘Biddeford Blankets’’). 

See the ‘‘Verification’’ section below for 

additional information. 

On March 5, 2010, Hung Kuo 

submitted a written request that the 

Department issue revised cash deposit 

instructions to U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (‘‘CBP’’) indicating that Hung 

Kuo Electronics (Shenzhen) Company 

Limited can also be translated as Ongain 

Electronics (Shenzhen) Company 

Limited. On March 30, 2010, the 

Department granted Hung Kuo’s request 

and subsequently issued revised cash 

deposit instructions to CBP.2

In response to the Department’s 

invitation to comment on the 

Preliminary Determination, on April 1, 

2010, Jarden Consumer Solutions 

(hereinafter, ‘‘Petitioner’’) and Hung Kuo 

filed case briefs. Petitioner and Hung 

Kuo filed rebuttal briefs on April 6, 

2010. On April 20, 2010, the 

Department rejected rebuttal surrogate 

value information, case briefs, and 

rebuttal briefs filed by Hung Kuo 

because they contained untimely filed 

new factual information, including the 

2008–2009 financial statement of Bawa 

Woollen and Spinning Mills Limited 

(‘‘Bawa’’), an Indian producer of nonelectric blankets, which Hung Kuo 

proposed as a surrogate value source for 

manufacturing overhead, selling, 

general, and administrative expenses, 

and profit. Hung Kuo refiled versions of 

these submissions without the new 

factual information on April 22, 2010. 

On May 7, 2010, Hung Kuo submitted 

a written request that the Department 

reconsider its decision to reject the 

2008–2009 Bawa financial statement. 

On May 26, 2010, the Department 

notified Hung Kuo that it would not 

accept the untimely filed 2008–2009 

Bawa statement. 

On June 9, 2010, the Department 

notified interested parties that it would 

be reconsidering its valuation of the 

labor wage rate in this investigation, as 

a result of the recent decision in Dorbest 

Limited et al. v. United States, 2009– 

1257, –1266, issued by the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

(‘‘CAFC’’) on May 14, 2010. On June 9, 

2010,3 and June 11, 2010,4 the 

Department placed export data, which 

the Department was considering in 

connection with the valuation of the 

labor wage rate, on the record of this 

investigation and invited interested 

parties to comment on the narrow issue 

of the labor wage value in light of the 

CAFC’s decision. On June 16, 2010, 

Hung Kuo and Petitioner submitted 

comments on the export data. On June 

21, 2010, the Department released 

additional information to interested 

parties.5

Analysis of Comments Received 

All of the issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs submitted in this 

investigation are addressed in the 

‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for 

the Final Determination’’ dated June 25, 

2010, which is hereby adopted by this 

notice (‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum’’). Appendix I to this 

notice contains a list of the issues 

addressed in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum. The Issues and Decision 

Memorandum, which is a public 

document, is on file in the Central 

Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’) at the Main 

Commerce Building, Room 1117, and is 

accessible on the Web at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the memorandum 

are identical in content. 

Changes Since the Preliminary 

Determination 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received, we have made the 

following changes to our preliminary 

determination: 

1. We have based Hung Kuo’s final 

margin on partial adverse facts available 

(‘‘AFA’’). 

2. Pursuant to a recent decision by the 

CAFC, we have calculated a revised 

hourly wage rate to use in valuing Hung 

Kuo’s reported labor input by averaging 

earnings and/or wages in countries that 

are economically comparable to the PRC 

and that are significant producers of 

comparable merchandise.6

3. In our final margin calculation we 

have revised the unit of measure 

conversion for certain inputs reported 

by Hung Kuo and limited the deduction 

of ocean freight expenses to the 

appropriate sales. 

Scope of Investigation 

The scope of this investigation covers 

finished, semi-finished, and 

unassembled woven electric blankets, 

including woven electric blankets 

commonly referred to as throws, of all 

sizes and fabric types, whether made of 

man-made fiber, natural fiber or a blend 

of both. Semi-finished woven electric 

blankets and throws consist of shells of 

woven fabric containing wire. 

Unassembled woven electric blankets 

and throws consist of a shell of woven 

fabric and one or more of the following 

components when packaged together or 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
38460 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Notices 

7See Perfect Fit’s August 3, 2010 submission 

(citing the ITC’s preliminary conference transcript 

at 16 and 111.) 

8See the Department’s verification reports for the 

Hung Kuo, including the verification of its U.S. 

sales affiliate, Biddeford Blankets, on file in the 

CRU. 

9The Department has used these data to adjust 

Hung Kuo’s reported per-unit consumption for all 

controller parts. 10 In valuing Hung Kuo’s heating wire and 

integrated circuit inputs, the Department has 

selected the highest value on the record (i.e, an 

Indian surrogate value, or the reported market 

economy purchase price). 

11The Department has adjusted Hung Kuo’s 

ocean freight using information contained in ocean 

freight invoices submitted by Hung Kuo. 

in a kit: (1) wire; (2) controller(s). The 

shell of woven fabric consists of two 

sheets of fabric joined together forming 

a ‘‘shell.’’ The shell of woven fabric is 

manufactured to accommodate either 

the electric blanket’s wiring or a 

subassembly containing the electric 

blanket’s wiring (e.g., wiring mounted 

on a substrate). 

A shell of woven fabric that is not 

packaged together, or in a kit, with 

either wire, controller(s), or both, is not 

covered by this investigation even 

though the shell of woven fabric may be 

dedicated solely for use as a material in 

the production of woven electric 

blankets. 

The finished, semi-finished and 

unassembled woven electric blankets 

and throws subject to this investigation 

are currently classifiable under 

subheading 6301.10.0000 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the 

HTSUS subheading is provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, 

only the written description of the scope 

is dispositive. 

Scope Comments 

On August 3, 2009, Perfect Fit 

Industries (‘‘Perfect Fit’’), a U.S. importer 

of knitted electric blankets, submitted 

comments on the scope of this 

investigation. Perfect Fit requested that 

the Department amend the scope of this 

investigation to include the following 

two statements: (1) ‘‘knitted electric 

blankets in any form, whether finished, 

semi-finished, or assembled, are not 

within the scope of this investigation;’’ 

and (2) electric mattress pads in any 

form, whether finished, semi-finished, 

or assembled, are not within the scope 

of this investigation.’’ Perfect Fit argued 

that this exclusionary language was 

warranted because Petitioner’s counsel 

acknowledged that knitted electric 

blankets and electric mattress pads are 

not within the scope of the U.S. 

International Trade Commission’s 

(‘‘ITC’’) investigation of woven electric 

blankets from the PRC.7 No other parties 

commented on this issue. 

The Department finds that Perfect 

Fit’s suggested scope amendment is 

unnecessary and has made no revision 

to the scope of this investigation for the 

final determination. We note that the 

scope of this investigation explicitly 

covers woven electric blankets, and find 

that the addition of Perfect Fit’s 

proposed exclusionary language to be 

superfluous and unwarranted. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, we conducted verifications of Hung 

Kuo’s information.8 In conducting the 

verifications, we used standard 

verification procedures, including 

examination of relevant accounting and 

production records, as well as original 

source documents provided by Hung 

Kuo and Biddeford Blankets. 

Adverse Facts Available 

Section 776(a) of the Act provides that 

subject to section 782(d) of the Act, the 

Department may base its determinations 

on facts otherwise available if: (1) 

necessary information is not available 

on the record of a proceeding; or (2) an 

interested party (A) Withholds 

information requested by the 

Department, (B) fails to provide such 

information by the deadline, or in the 

form or manner requested, (C) 

significantly impedes a proceeding, or 

(D) provides information that cannot be 

verified as provided in section 782(i) of 

the Act. Section 782(d) of the Act allows 

the Department, subject to section 

782(e) of the Act, to disregard all or part 

of a deficient or untimely response from 

a respondent. 

Pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act, 

the Department shall not decline to 

consider submitted information if all of 

the following requirements are met: (1) 

The information is submitted by the 

established deadline; (2) the information 

can be verified; (3) the information is 

not so incomplete that it cannot serve as 

a reliable basis for reaching the 

applicable determination; (4) the 

interested party has demonstrated that it 

acted to the best of its ability; and (5) 

the information can be used by the 

Department without undue difficulties. 

Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes 

the Department to apply an adverse 

inference to the facts otherwise 

available with respect to an interested 

party if the Department finds that the 

party failed to cooperate by not acting 

to the best of its ability to comply with 

a request for information. 

We find that Hung Kuo: (1) withheld 

actual consumption quantities for all 

electronic controller parts which had 

been requested by the Department; and 

(2) reported factors of production 

(‘‘FOP’’) data for all electronic controller 

parts, certain market economy expenses 

relating to ocean freight, and certain 

market economy purchase quantity data 

that could not be verified. Therefore, 

pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and 

(D) of the Act, we find that the use of 

facts otherwise available for these items 

is warranted. 

Furthermore, in selecting from among 

the facts otherwise available, we have 

determined, pursuant to section 

776(b)(2) of the Act, that it is 

appropriate to apply an adverse 

inference because Hung Kuo failed to 

cooperate by not acting to the best of its 

ability to comply with a request for 

information. Specifically, Hung Kuo 

made misstatements to the Department 

regarding its methodology for reporting 

FOP data for electronic controller parts 

and Hung Kuo failed to provide 

verifiable information concerning 

certain ocean freight expenses, and the 

quantity of heating wire and integrated 

circuits purchased from its market 

economy suppliers. The information 

sought by the Department regarding 

Hung Kuo’s ocean freight expenses and 

market economy purchases was within 

Hung Kuo’s control and could have 

been reported to the Department. 

Accordingly, we have determined that 

Hung Kuo failed to cooperate by putting 

forth its maximum effort to obtain the 

data and, hence, has not acted to the 

best of its ability to comply with a 

request for information. Therefore, we 

have determined that it is appropriate to 

use adverse inferences in selecting the 

facts otherwise available on which to 

base Hung Kuo’s dumping margin. 

Accordingly, we applied adverse facts 

available to the aforementioned data. 

Specifically, as adverse facts available 

we selected: (1) Electronic controller 

part consumption data obtained at 

verification; 9 (2) the highest appropriate 

per-unit value on the record of this 

proceeding to value Hung Kuo’s inputs 

which were sourced, in part, from 

market economy suppliers,10 and (3) 

record evidence of ocean-freight 

expenses incurred by Hung Kuo.11 For 

further discussion concerning the 

Department’s analysis, see Comment 1 

of the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum accompanying this 

notice. 

Surrogate Country 

In the Preliminary Determination, 

pursuant to section 773(c) of the Act, we 

selected India as the appropriate 

surrogate country noting that it was on 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Notices 38461 

12See Preliminary Determination, 75 FR at 5569. 

13See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Sparklers From the People’s 

Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as 

amplified by Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide From the 

People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 

1994); see also 19 C.F.R. § 351.107(d). 

14See Preliminary Determination, 75 FR at 5569– 

71. 

15See id., 75 FR at 5571. 

16See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled FlatRolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products From the 

Russian Federation, 65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 

2000) (where the Department applied an adverse 

inference in determining the Russia-wide rate); 

Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value: Certain Artists Canvas from the People’s 

Republic of China, 71 FR 16116, 16118–19 (March 

30, 2006) (where the Department applied an adverse 

inference in determining the PRC-wide rate). 

17See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled 

Carbon Quality Steel Products From the People’s 

Republic of China, 65 FR 34660 (May 31, 2000), and 

accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum 

at ‘‘Facts Available.’’ 

18See, e.g., Synthetic Indigo From the People’s 

Republic of China; Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 65 FR 25706 (May 

3, 2000) (applying the PRC-wide rate to all 

exporters of subject merchandise in the PRC based 

on the presumption that the export activities of the 

companies that failed to respond to the 

Department’s questionnaire were controlled by the 

PRC government). 

19See SAA, accompanying the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. 103–316, Vol. 1 at 870. 

20See id. 

21See id. 

22See, e.g., Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and 

Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in 

Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From 

Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of 

Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 

(November 6, 1996), unchanged in Tapered Roller 

Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 

Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller 

Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, 

and Components Thereof, From Japan; Final Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and 

Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825 (March 13, 1997). 

the Department’s list of countries that 

are at a level of economic development 

comparable to the PRC and that India is 

a significant producer of merchandise 

comparable to subject merchandise; 

additionally, we determined that 

reliable Indian data for valuing FOPs are 

readily available.12 No party has 

commented on our selection of India as 

the appropriate surrogate country. Thus, 

we continue to find India to be the 

appropriate surrogate country in this 

investigation. 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving non-marketeconomy (‘‘NME’’) countries, the 

Department begins with a rebuttable 

presumption that all companies within 

the country are subject to government 

control and, thus, should be assigned a 

single antidumping duty deposit rate. It 

is the Department’s policy to assign all 

exporters of merchandise subject to an 

investigation in an NME country this 

single rate unless an exporter can 

demonstrate that it is sufficiently 

independent so as to be entitled to a 

separate rate.13

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

found that Hung Kuo, and separate rate 

applicants, Ningbo V.K. Industry & 

Trading Co., Ltd., and Ningbo Jifa 

Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd./Ningbo 

Jinchun Electric Appliances Co., Ltd. 

demonstrated their eligibility for, and 

were hence assigned, separate rate 

status. No party has commented on the 

eligibility of these companies for 

separate rate status. Therefore, for the 

final determination, we continue to find 

that the evidence placed on the record 

of this investigation by these companies 

demonstrates both a de jure and de facto 

absence of government control with 

respect to their exports of the 

merchandise under investigation and 

that these companies are thus eligible 

for separate rate status.14

The PRC-Wide Rate 

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department considered certain nonresponsive PRC producers/exporters to 

be part of the PRC-wide entity because 

they did not respond to our requests for 

information and did not demonstrate 

that they operated free of government 

control over their export activities.15 No 

additional information regarding these 

entities has been placed on the record 

since the publication of the Preliminary 

Determination. Since the PRC-wide 

entity did not provide the Department 

with requested information, pursuant to 

section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we 

continue to find it appropriate to base 

the PRC-wide rate on facts otherwise 

available. Moreover, given that the PRCwide entity did not respond to our 

request for information, we continue to 

find that it failed to cooperate to the best 

of its ability to comply with a request 

for information. Thus, pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act, and consistent 

with the Department’s practice, we have 

continued to use an adverse inference in 

selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available.16

Pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, 

the Department may select, as AFA, 

information derived from: (1) The 

petition; (2) the final determination 

from the LTFV investigation; (3) a 

previous administrative review; or (4) 

any other information placed on the 

record. To induce respondents to 

provide the Department with complete 

and accurate information in a timely 

manner, the Department’s practice is to 

select, as AFA, the higher of: (a) the 

highest margin alleged in the petition; 

or (b) the highest calculated rate for any 

respondent in the investigation.17

Since we begin with the presumption 

that all companies within an NME 

country are subject to government 

control and only the exporters listed 

under the ‘‘Final Determination 

Margins’’ section below have overcome 

that presumption, consistent with the 

Department’s practice, we are applying 

a single antidumping rate (i.e., the PRCwide rate) to all exporters of subject 

merchandise from the PRC, other than 

the exporters listed in the ‘‘Final 

Determination Margins’’ section of this 

notice.18

Corroboration 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides 

that, when the Department relies on 

secondary information, rather than on 

information obtained in the course of an 

investigation as facts available, it must, 

to the extent practicable, corroborate 

that information from independent 

sources reasonably at its disposal. 

Secondary information is described in 

the Statement of Administrative Action 

(‘‘SAA’’) as ‘‘information derived from 

the petition that gave rise to the 

investigation or review, the final 

determination concerning subject 

merchandise, or any previous review 

under section 751 of the Act concerning 

the subject merchandise.’’ 19 The SAA 

provides that to ‘‘corroborate’’ means 

simply that the Department will satisfy 

itself that the secondary information to 

be used has probative value.20 The SAA 

also states that independent sources 

used to corroborate may include, for 

example, published price lists, official 

import statistics and customs data, and 

information obtained from interested 

parties during the particular 

investigation.21 To corroborate 

secondary information, the Department 

will, to the extent practicable, examine 

the reliability and relevance of the 

information used.22

As total AFA the Department 

preliminarily selected the rate of 174.85 

percent from the Petition. In the 

Preliminary Determination, we 

preliminarily found the rate of 174.85 

percent to be the highest Petition margin 

that could be corroborated within the 

meaning of section 776(c) of the Act. For 

the final determination, we find that the 

rate is within the range of the margins 

calculated on individual sales by Hung 

Kuo, the cooperative respondent. 

Therefore, we continue to find that the 

margin of 174.85 percent has probative 

value. Accordingly, we find that the rate 

of 174.85 percent is corroborated within 

the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
38462 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Notices 

23See Certain Woven Electric Blankets From the 

People’s Republic of China: Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Investigation, 74 FR 37001 (July 

27, 2009) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). 

24Policy Bulletin 05.1 can be found on the Import 

Administration website at the following address: 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05–1.pdf. 

Combination Rates 

In the Initiation Notice, the 

Department stated that it would 

calculate combination rates for 

respondents that are eligible for a 

separate rate in this investigation.23 This 

practice is described in Department 

Policy Bulletin 05.1, ‘‘Separate-Rates 

Practice and Application of 

Combination Rates in Antidumping 

Investigations involving Non-Market 

Economy Countries,’’ which states: 

[w]hile continuing the practice of assigning 

separate rates only to exporters, all separate 

rates that the Department will now assign in 

its [non-market economy] investigations will 

be specific to those producers that supplied 

the exporter during the period of 

investigation. Note, however, that one rate is 

calculated for the exporter and all of the 

producers which supplied subject 

merchandise to it during the period of 

investigation. This practice applies both to 

mandatory respondents receiving an 

individually calculated separate rate as well 

as the pool of non-investigated firms 

receiving the weighted-average of the 

individually calculated rates. This practice is 

referred to as the application of ‘‘combination 

rates’’ because such rates apply to specific 

combinations of exporters and one or more 

producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to 

an exporter will apply only to merchandise 

both exported by the firm in question and 

produced by a firm that supplied the exporter 

during the period of investigation.24

Final Determination Margins 

We determine that the following 

weighted-average dumping margins 

exist for the period October 1, 2008, 

through March 31, 2009: 

Exporter and producer Weighted-average margin 

Hung Kuo Electronics (Shenzhen) Company Limited ..................................................................................................................... 77.75% 

Produced by: Hung Kuo Electronics (Shenzhen) Company Limited.

Ningbo V.K. Industry & Trading Co., Ltd. ........................................................................................................................................ 77.75% 

Produced by: Ningbo V.K. Industry & Trading Co., Ltd..

Ningbo Jifa Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd. or ................................................................................................................................. 77.75% 

Ningbo Jinchun Electric Appliances Co., Ltd..

Produced by: Ningbo Jifa Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd. or Ningbo Jinchun Electric Appliances Co., Ltd..

PRC–Wide Rate .............................................................................................................................................................................. 174.85% 

Disclosure 

We will disclose to parties the 

calculations performed within five days 

of the date of public announcement of 

this determination in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.224(b). 

Continuation of Suspension of 

Liquidation 

In accordance with section 

735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department 

will instruct CBP to continue to suspend 

liquidation of all entries of woven 

electric blankets from the PRC, as 

described in the ‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ 

section, entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after, 

February 3, 2010, the date of publication 

of the Preliminary Determination in the 

Federal Register. The Department will 

instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or 

the posting of a bond equal to the 

weighted-average dumping margin 

amount by which the normal value 

exceeds U.S. price, as follows: (1) The 

rate for the exporter/producer 

combinations listed in the chart above 

will be the rate the Department has 

determined in this final determination; 

(2) for all PRC exporters of subject 

merchandise which have not received 

their own rate, the cash-deposit rate will 

be the PRC-wide entity rate; and (3) for 

all non-PRC exporters of subject 

merchandise which have not received 

their own rate, the cash-deposit rate will 

be the rate applicable to the PRC 

exporter/producer combination that 

supplied that non-PRC exporter. These 

suspension-of-liquidation instructions 

will remain in effect until further notice. 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 735(d) of 

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our 

final determination of sales at LTFV. As 

our final determination is affirmative, in 

accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the 

Act, the ITC will determine whether the 

domestic industry in the United States 

is materially injured, or threatened with 

material injury, by reason of imports or 

sales (or the likelihood of sales) for 

importation of the subject merchandise 

within 45 days of this final 

determination. If the ITC determines 

that material injury or threat of material 

injury does not exist, the proceeding 

will be terminated and all securities 

posted will be refunded or canceled. If 

the ITC determines that such injury 

does exist, the Department will issue an 

antidumping duty order directing CBP 

to assess, upon further instruction by 

the Department, antidumping duties on 

all imports of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the effective 

date of the suspension of liquidation. 

Notification Regarding APO 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to the parties subject to administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely 

notification of return or destruction of 

APO materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and the terms of an APO is a 

sanctionable violation. This 

determination and notice are issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: June 25, 2010. 

Paul Piquado, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I 

Comment 1: Application of Partial Adverse 

Facts Available—Hung Kuo 

Comment 2: Financial Statements Used to 

Derive Manufacturing Overhead, Selling, 

General and Administrative Expenses, and 

Profit 

Comment 3: The Classification of Certain 

Expenses Contained in the Bawa Financial 

Statement Used to Derive Manufacturing 

Overhead, Selling, General and 

Administrative Expenses, and Profit 

Comment 4: The Treatment of Certain 

Movement Expenses Contained in the 

Prakash Surrogate Financial Statement 

Comment 5: Surrogate Value for 

Alphanumeric LEDs 

Comment 6: International Movement 

Expenses 

Comment 7: Calculation of Normal Value 

Using FOP Data That Reflect both SemiFinished and Finished Goods 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2010 / Notices 38463 

1 In the scope from the original investigation, the 

Department defined the subject merchandise by 

chief value (i.e., the subject merchandise was of 

chief value cotton). In later reviews of this Order, 

the Department has incorporated the U.S Customs 

Service’s conversion to chief weight (i.e., the subject 

merchandise is of chief weight cotton). See 

Continuation of the Antidumping Duty Order; 

Greige Polyester Cotton Printcloth from the People’s 

Republic of China, 70 FR 36927 (June 27, 2005). 

2Under the English system, this average yarn 

number count translates to 26 to 40. The average 

yarn number counts reported in previous scope 

descriptions by the Department are based on the 

English system of yarn number counts. Per phone 

conversations with U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (‘‘CBP’’) officials, CBP now relies on the 

metric system to establish average yarn number 

counts. Thus, the 26 to 40 average yarn number 

count under the English system translates to a 43 

to 68 average yarn number count under the metric 

system. See Continuation of the Antidumping Duty 

Order; Greige Polyester Cotton Printcloth from the 

People’s Republic of China, 70 FR 36927 (June 27, 

2005). 

Comment 8: Unit of Measure Conversion for 

Certain Inputs 

Comment 9: Surrogate Value for Acrylic/ 

Polyester Blend Woven Textile 

Comment 10: Calculation of Indirect Selling 

Expenses Applied to Hung Kuo’s CEP Sales 

Comment 11: Surrogate Value for Power 

Cords 

Comment 12: Hung Kuo’s Reported FOP for 

Woven Textile Used to Produce King Size 

Electric Blankets 

Comment 13: Valuation of Labor 

[FR Doc. 2010–16198 Filed 7–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–101] 

Greige Polyester Cotton Printcloth 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Results of Sunset Review and 

Revocation of Order 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On May 3, 2010, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) initiated the sunset review 

of the antidumping duty order on greige 

polyester cotton printcloth from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). 

Because the domestic interested parties 

did not participate in this sunset review, 

the Department is revoking this 

antidumping duty order. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennifer Moats, AD/CVD Operations, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–5047. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

September 16, 1983, the Department 

issued an antidumping duty order on 

greige polyester cotton printcloth from 

the PRC. See Greige Polyester Printcloth 

From the People’s Republic of China— 

Antidumping Duty Order, 48 FR 41614 

(September 16, 1983). On June 27, 2005, 

the Department published its most 

recent continuation of the order. See 

Continuation of the Antidumping Duty 

Order; Greige Polyester Cotton 

Printcloth from the People’s Republic of 

China, 70 FR 36927 (June 27, 2005). On 

May 3, 2010, the Department initiated a 

sunset review of this order. See 

Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Review, 75 FR 23240 (May 3, 2010). 

We did not receive a notice of intent 

to participate from domestic interested 

parties in this sunset review by the 

deadline date. As a result, in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii)(A), the 

Department determined that no 

domestic interested party intends to 

participate in the sunset review, and on 

May 24, 2010, we notified the 

International Trade Commission, in 

writing, that we intended to issue a final 

determination revoking this 

antidumping duty order. See 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(1)(iii)(B)(2). 

Scope of the Order: The merchandise 

subject to this antidumping order is 

greige polyester cotton printcloth, other 

than 80 x 80 type. Greige polyester 

cotton printcloth is of chief weight 

cotton,1 unbleached and uncolored 

printcloth. The term ‘‘printcloth’’ refers 

to plain woven fabric, not napped, not 

fancy or figured, of singles yarn, not 

combed, of average yarn number 43 to 

68,2 weighing not more than 6 ounces 

per square yard, of a total count of more 

than 85 yarns per square inch, of which 

the total count of the warp yarns per 

inch and the total count of the filling 

yarns per inch are each less than 62 

percent of the total count of the warp 

and filling yarns per square inch. This 

merchandise is currently classifiable 

under Harmonized Tariff Schedule 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) item 5210.11.6060. The 

HTSUS item number is provided for 

convenience and customs purposes; 

however, the written description 

remains dispositive. 

Determination to Revoke: Pursuant to 

section 751(c)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’) and 19 

CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii)(B)(3), if no 

domestic interested party files a notice 

of intent to participate, the Department 

shall, within 90 days after the initiation 

of the review, issue a final 

determination revoking the order. 

Because the domestic interested parties 

did not file a notice of intent to 

participate in this sunset review, the 

Department finds that no domestic 

interested party is participating in this 

sunset review. Therefore, consistent 

with 19 CFR 351.222(i)(1)(i) and section 

751(c)(3)(A) of the Act, we are revoking 

this antidumping duty order. The 

effective date of revocation is June 27, 

2010, the fifth anniversary of the date of 

publication in the Federal Register of 

the most recent notice of continuation of 

this antidumping duty order. 

Effective Date of Revocation: Pursuant 

to section 751(c)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i), the Department 

intends to issue instructions to U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection, 15 days 

after publication of this notice, to 

terminate the suspension of liquidation 

of the merchandise subject to this order 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

on or after June 27, 2010. Entries of 

subject merchandise prior to the 

effective date of revocation will 

continue to be subject to suspension of 

liquidation and antidumping duty 

deposit requirements. The Department 

will complete any pending 

administrative reviews of this order and 

will conduct administrative reviews of 

subject merchandise entered prior to the 

effective date of revocation in response 

to appropriately filed requests of review. 

This five-year (sunset) review and 

notice are published in accordance with 

sections 751(c) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: June 25, 2010. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2010–16205 Filed 7–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 
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: Woven Electric Blankets from China

Inv. No.: 731-TA-1163 (Final)

Date and Time: June 29, 2010 - 9:30 a.m.

A session was held in connection with this investigation in the Main Hearing Room

(room 101), 500 E Street, S.W., Washington, DC.

CONGRESSIONAL WITNESSES:

The Honorable Roger F. Wicker, United States Senator, Mississippi

OPENING REMARKS:

Petitioner (Philippe M. Bruno, Greenberg Traurig LLP)

In Support of the Imposition of Antidumping Duty Order:

Greenberg Traurig LLP

Washington, DC

on behalf of

Jarden Consumer Solutions (“Jarden”)

Paul Powers, Senior Vice President and General Manager, 

Personal Comfort and Wellness, Jarden

Mike Fretwell, Vice President, Marketing, Jarden

Mark Sullivan, Plant Manager, Jarden

Regina Madigan, Director, Finance, Jarden

Dr. Seth Kaplan, Economist, The Brattle Group

Irwin P. Altschuler )

Philippe M. Bruno ) – OF COUNSEL

Rosa S. Jeong )

CLOSING REMARKS:

Petitioner (Irwin P. Altschuler, Greenberg Traurig LLP)

C-1

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA

Table C-1

WEBs: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2007-09

(Quantity=units, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per unit;

period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

Item 2007 2008 2009 2007-09 2007-08 2008-09

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producer's share (1) . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Producer's share (1) . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Importers' share (1):

 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

U.S. shipments of imports from:

 China:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 859,540 956,103 1,125,759 31.0 11.2 17.7

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28,981 29,514 37,535 29.5 1.8 27.2

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $33.72 $30.87 $33.34 -1.1 -8.4 8.0

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . 243,496 192,655 218,188 -10.4 -20.9 13.3

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1,008 0 (2) (2) -100.0

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 11 0 (2) (2) -100.0

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) $10.91 (2) (2) (2) (2)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . 0 0 0 (2) (2) (2)

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 859,540 957,111 1,125,759 31.0 11.4 17.6

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28,981 29,525 37,535 29.5 1.9 27.1

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $33.72 $30.85 $33.34 -1.1 -8.5 8.1

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . 243,496 192,655 218,188 -10.4 -20.9 13.3

U.S. producer's:

 Average capacity quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Inventories/total shipments (1) . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hours worked (1,000) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Wages paid ($1,000) . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Productivity (units/1,000 hours) . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Sales:

 Gross quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Net value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss) . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit operating income or (loss) . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** ***

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

 (2) Not applicable.

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

C-3