U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4207 December 2010

Washington, DC 20436

Petroleum Wax Candles from China

Investigation No. 731-TA-282 (Third Review)
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS 

 

Deanna Tanner Okun, Chairman 

Irving A. Williamson, Vice Chairman 

Charlotte R. Lane 

Daniel R. Pearson 

Shara L. Aranoff 

Dean A. Pinkert

Karen Laney

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Acting Director of Operations

Keysha Martinez, Investigator (Acting) 

Robert Randall, Industry Analyst 

Patrick Gallagher, Attorney 

Gracemary Roth-Roffy, Attorney 

Douglas Corkran, Supervisory Investigator

Special assistance from:

Steven Hudgens, Senior Statistician 

Andrew Rylyk, Chief, Statistical Services Division
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4207 December 2010

Petroleum Wax Candles from China

Investigation No. 731-TA-282 (Third Review)

CONTENTS

Page

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

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

Information obtained in the review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

The original investigation and subsequent five-year reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4

Commerce’s final result of expedited five-year review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

Commerce’s administrative reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

Distribution of Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act funds to affected domestic 

producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

Related Commission investigations and reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

The product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

Commerce's scope clarifications and anticircumvention inquiries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

U.S. tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

Domestic like product and domestic industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

Physical characteristics and uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

Manufacturing process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

Interchangeability and customer and producer perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

Channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

Pricing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-14

The industry in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-15

U.S. producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-15

U.S. producers’ trade, employment, and financial data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-15

Related party issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-18

U.S. imports and apparent U.S. consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-18

U.S. imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-18

Ratio of imports to U.S. production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-23

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-23

Antidumping actions outside the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-26

The subject industry in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-26

The global market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-28

Appendix

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

B. Commission’s statement on adequacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

Note.--Information that would reveal confidential operations of individual concerns may not be

published and therefore has been identified by the use of ***.

i

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation No. 731-TA-282 (Third Review)

PETROLEUM WAX CANDLES FROM CHINA

DETERMINATION

On the basis of the record1

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

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

1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on petroleum wax candles

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

United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted this review on July 1, 2010 (75 F.R. 38121) and determined on

October 4, 2010 that it would conduct an expedited review (75 F.R. 63200, October 14, 2010).

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

1

VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

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

of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on petroleum wax candles

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

United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Original Determination

In August 1986, the Commission determined that an industry in the United States was being

materially injured by reason of less-than-fair value imports of petroleum wax candles from China.1

 The

U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) issued an antidumping duty order on petroleum wax

candles from China on August 28, 1986.2

B. The Commission’s Five-Year Reviews

The Commission instituted the first five-year review of the order on January 4, 1999. The

Commission conducted an expedited review and determined that revocation of the antidumping duty

order on petroleum wax candles from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of

material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.3

 As a result of

affirmative determinations by Commerce and the Commission, the antidumping duty order remained in

effect.

The Commission instituted the second review on August 2, 2004. Despite an inadequate

respondent group response to the notice of initiation, the Commission determined that a full review was

warranted to permit the Commission to examine any domestic like product issues raised by the numerous

scope rulings issued by Commerce since the imposition of the antidumping duty order in 1986.4

 In July

2005, following an affirmative determination by Commerce, the Commission determined that revocation

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

United States within a reasonably foreseeable time, and the subject order remained in effect.5

 1 Petroleum Wax Candles from the People’s Republic of China, Inv. No. 731-TA-282 (Final), USITC Pub.1888

(August 1986) (“Original Investigation”). Chairman Liebeler and Vice Chairman Brunsdale dissented.

 2

 51 Fed. Reg. 30686 (August 28, 1986).

 3

 Petroleum Wax Candles from the People’s Republic of China, Inv. No. 731-TA-282 (Review), USITC Pub.

3226 (August 1999) (“First Five-Year Review”). Commissioners Crawford and Askey dissented.

 4

 Petroleum Wax Candles from the People’s Republic of China, Inv. No. 731-TA-282 (Second Review), USITC

Pub. 3790 (July 2005) (“Second Five-Year Review”) at 3.

 5

 Second Five-Year Review at 1.

3
C. The Current Review

The Commission instituted the present review on July 1, 2010. The National Candle Association

(“NCA”), a trade association a majority of whose members manufacture candles in the United States,

filed the sole domestic interested party response.6

 The Commission did not receive any responses from

producers or exporters of petroleum wax candles in China or from any U.S. importers of the subject

merchandise.

On October 4, 2010, the Commission found the domestic interested party response to the notice

of institution adequate and the respondent interested party response inadequate.7

 As the Commission did

not find any circumstances that would warrant conducting a full review, it determined to conduct an

expedited review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act.8

 

On November 15, 2010, NCA filed comments, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 207.62(d), arguing, as it

had in its response to the notice of institution, that revocation of the antidumping duty order on petroleum

wax candles from China would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic

industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.9

II. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT

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

domestic like product” and the “industry.”10 The Act defines “domestic like product” as “a product which

is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an

investigation under this subtitle.”11 The Commission’s practice in five-year reviews is to look to the like

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

record indicates any reason to revisit the prior findings.12

 6 CR/PR at I-3 and n.4; and NCA Response to the Commission’s Notice of Institution (August 2, 2010) (“NCA

Response”) at 2. The NCA is a U.S. trade association comprising of 40 domestic producers of petroleum wax

candles accounting for approximately *** percent of total U.S. production of candles in 2009. Id.

 7

 See 75 Fed. Reg. 63200 (October 14, 2010) and Explanation of Commission Determination on Adequacy.

 8

 Id.; 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3) (2006).

 9

 See generally NCA Response and NCA Final Comments (November 15, 2010) (“NCA Final Comments”).

 10 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 11 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10); see, e.g., Cleo, Inc. v. United States, 501 F.3d 1291, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2007); NEC Corp.

v. Department of Commerce, 36 F. Supp. 2d 380, 383 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 19

CIT 450, 455 (1995); Timken Co. v. United States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996); Torrington Co. v.

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

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

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

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

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

Pub. 3577 at 4 (February 2003).

4
A. Product Description

In its expedited sunset determination, Commerce defined the subject merchandise as –

. . . certain scented or unscented petroleum wax candles made from petroleum wax and

having fiber or paper-cored wicks. They are sold in the following shapes: tapers, spirals,

and straight-sided dinner candles; round, columns, pillars, votives; and various wax-filled

containers.13 14

A candle is made of solid, fusible, combustible waxes or fatty substances surrounding and

saturating a combustible wick. Candles are used to give light, heat, or scent, or for celebration or votive

purposes. As a candle burns, its flame is fed by a supply of melted wax which flows up the wick as a

result of capillary action.15

There are two broad categories of wax used for commercial purposes: natural and synthetic. 

The bulk of candle manufacturing uses various combinations of natural waxes, principally paraffins,

microcrystallines, stearic acid, and beeswax. Selection of wax for candle-making takes into consideration

a number of characteristics, such as melting point, viscosity, and burning power. In its original

determination, the Commission noted that petroleum wax candles may contain other waxes in varying

amounts, depending on the size and shape of the candle, to enhance melt-point, viscosity, and burning

power.16

In addition to wax and wick, scents, dyes, labeling, and packaging are other components in the

production of candles. Scents added to wax are created by the same companies that produce expensive

perfumes, and they are specially compounded for use in petroleum wax; scents as a share of production

costs can range from zero for unscented candles to 60 percent for scented votives. Special wax soluble

dyes are used in color formulations, which are controlled in order to produce color consistency. Labeling

and packaging may be provided at the request of purchasers (private labeling and UPC labels) or may be

required (warning labels).17

B. The Original Investigation and Prior Reviews

1. Original Investigation

In the original investigation, the Commission considered whether candles made of materials other

than petroleum wax, principally beeswax, should be considered a part of the domestic like product. The

Commission defined petroleum wax candles as those composed of more than 50 percent petroleum wax

 13 Petroleum Wax Candles from the People’s Republic of China; Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Review of

the Antidumping Duty Order, 75 Fed. Reg. 70713 (November 18, 2010).

 14 Commerce has completed 212 separate scope rulings and two circumvention inquiries since it issued the

original antidumping duty order in 1986. The scope language has remained unchanged from the original

investigation, although Commerce has noted that, “[t]here have been numerous clarifications to the scope of this

order.” Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China,

64 Fed. Reg. 32481 (June 17, 1999) and Petroleum Wax Candles From the People's Republic of China; Final Results

of the Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 69 Fed. Reg. 75303 (December 16, 2004).

 15 CR at I-13, PR at I-11.

 16 CR at I-14, PR at I-11.

 17 CR at I-14, PR at I-11.

5
and defined beeswax candles as those composed of more than 50 percent beeswax.18 Comparing beeswax

and petroleum wax candles, the Commission defined the like product as consisting “only of petroleum

wax candles.”19 In reaching this conclusion, the Commission found that beeswax candles had different

physical characteristics and uses (religious purposes), were sold mainly through different channels

(principally in religious and specialty markets), were priced considerably higher, and were produced only

in small quantities by major domestic producers of petroleum wax candles.20 Further, the Commission

found that beeswax candles are not interchangeable with petroleum wax candles because of a threefold

difference in the cost of production and because beeswax and petroleum wax candles were not perceived

as competitive products by candle producers.21

2. Prior Five-Year Reviews

In the expedited first five-year review, none of the parties that provided information objected to

the domestic like product definition determined in the original investigation. The Commission found that

none of the additional information collected in the review warranted a departure from its original

definition of the domestic like product. Accordingly, based on the facts available, the Commission again

defined the domestic like product as petroleum wax candles.

In the second five-year review, the Commission reexamined its prior domestic like product

findings to determine whether to include all blended candles within the domestic like product, regardless

of the proportions between petroleum and vegetable wax. The Commission defined “blended candles”

for purposes of its analysis as candles containing any blend of petroleum and vegetable wax.22 The

Commission found that there was no commercial production in the United States (or elsewhere) of

blended candles in 1986 when the Commission made its original determination. Blended candles were

not raised as an issue in 1999 at the time of the expedited first five-year review. Beginning in the late

1990s, however, some U.S. candle-makers began commercial production of blended candles and such

production continued over the period of the second review.23

The Commission determined, applying its six-factor like product analysis, that petroleum and

vegetable wax candles (1) had similar physical characteristics in appearance, odor, and feel; (2) were used

for the same purposes; (3) shared common manufacturing facilities, processes, and employees; (4) were

perceived to be completely interchangeable; and (5) were sold through the same channels of distribution

and were advertised and displayed in the same manner.24 With respect to the sixth factor, the Commission

found that the cost for vegetable wax was higher than the cost for petroleum wax and that this differential

was reflected in prices for the candles produced from different blends of these waxes during the period of

review.25

The Commission concluded that, with the exception of price, the evidence in the record regarding

each like product factor favored the inclusion of all blended wax candles in the domestic like product. 

The Commission noted that the record did not reflect a clear dividing line between blended wax candles

with more than 50 percent petroleum wax content and those with 50 percent or less petroleum wax

content, but rather that these types fell within a continuum. Accordingly, the Commission defined the

 18 Original Investigation at 4-5.

 19 Original Investigation at 9.

 20 Original Investigation at 5.

 21 Original Investigation at 5-6 and n.11.

 22 Second Five-Year Review at 7.

 23 Second Five-Year Review at 8.

 24 Second Five-Year Review at 8-9.

 25 Second Five-Year Review at 9.

6
domestic like product as “candles with fiber paper-cored wicks and containing any amount of petroleum,

except for candles containing more than 50 percent beeswax.”26

3. The Current Review

In this expedited review, NCA has indicated that it agrees with the definition of the domestic like

product in the Commission’s second five-year review.27 There is no new information obtained during this

review that would suggest any reason to revisit that definition. Thus, we define the domestic like product

as “candles with fiber or paper-cored wicks and containing any amount of petroleum wax, except for

candles containing more than 50 percent beeswax.”

III. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the relevant industry as the domestic “producers as a whole

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

constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”28 In defining the domestic

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

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

In its original determination and in the first five-year review, the Commission defined the

domestic industry as all domestic producers of petroleum wax candles.29 In its second five-year review,

however, the Commission defined the domestic industry as all domestic producers of candles with fiber or

paper-cored wicks and containing any amount of petroleum wax, except for candles containing more than

50 percent beeswax, consistent with the revised domestic like product definition. The NCA agrees with

the domestic industry definition determined in the second five-year review.30 Therefore, based on our

definition of the domestic like product, we define the domestic industry to include all U.S. producers of

the domestic like product.31

IV. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY IF

THE ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDER IS REVOKED

A. Legal Standard

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

antidumping or countervailing duty order unless (1) it makes a determination that dumping or

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

of the antidumping or countervailing duty order “would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of

 26 Second Five-Year Review at 9.

 27 NCA Response at 41.

 28 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). The definitions in 19 U.S.C. § 1677 are applicable to the entire subtitle containing the

antidumping and countervailing duty laws, including 19 U.S.C. §§ 1675 and 1675a. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677.

 29 See Original Investigation at 9 and First Five-Year Review at 5-6.

 30 NCA Response at 41.

 31 The related party provision, 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B), allows the Commission to exclude from the domestic

industry certain domestic producers that imported subject merchandise or have a corporate affiliation with importers

or exporters of the subject merchandise, if the Commission finds that appropriate circumstances exist. In 2009, ***

imported ***. CR at I-23, PR at I-18. Consequently, *** is a related party as defined by the statute. Individual data

for ***, however, are not available. Because we cannot determine whether circumstances are appropriate to exclude

*** from the domestic industry, we determine not to exclude ***.

7
material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.”32 The SAA states that “under the likelihood

standard, the Commission will engage in a counterfactual analysis; it must decide the likely impact in the

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

proceeding and the elimination of its restraining effects on volumes and prices of imports.”33 Thus, the

likelihood standard is prospective in nature.34 The U.S. Court of International Trade has found that

“likely,” as used in the five-year review provisions of the Act, means “probable,” and the Commission

applies that standard in five-year reviews.35 36 37

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

may not be imminent, but may manifest themselves only over a longer period of time.”38 According to

the SAA, a “‘reasonably foreseeable time’ will vary from case-to-case, but normally will exceed the

‘imminent’ timeframe applicable in a threat of injury analysis in original investigations.”39

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

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

that the Commission is to “consider the likely volume, price effect, and impact of imports of the subject

merchandise on the industry if the orders are revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated.”40 It

directs the Commission to take into account its prior injury determination, whether any improvement in

 32 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

 33 SAA at 883-84. The SAA states that “{t}he likelihood of injury standard applies regardless of the nature of the

Commission’s original determination (material injury, threat of material injury, or material retardation of an

industry). Likewise, the standard applies to suspended investigations that were never completed.” Id. at 883.

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

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

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

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

SAA at 884.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

addresses this issue.

 38 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

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

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

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

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

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

 40 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

8
the state of the industry is related to the order or the suspension agreement under review, whether the

industry is vulnerable to material injury if the orders are revoked or the suspension agreement is

terminated, and any findings by Commerce regarding duty absorption pursuant to 19 U.S.C.§

1675(a)(4).41 The statute further provides that the presence or absence of any factor that the Commission

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

determination.42

As discussed above, no foreign producer of petroleum wax candles responded to the

Commission’s notice of institution. Accordingly, when appropriate in this review, we have relied on the

facts otherwise available, which consist of information from the original investigation and the first and

second five-year reviews, as well as information submitted in this review, including information provided

by the domestic industry and information available from published sources.43 44

B. Conditions of Competition and Business Cycle

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

the Commission to consider all relevant economic factors “within the context of the business cycle and

conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”45 We find the following conditions

of competition relevant to our determination.

1. The Original Investigation

In the original investigation, the Commission found that the domestic industry consisted of a few

large producers and many small producers. The Commission identified more than 100 producers of

candles for commercial sale in the United States, in addition to many small craft producers for local,

noncommercial use. The record in the original investigation showed that department and specialty stores,

as well as mass merchandisers, were the principal outlets for candle sales.46 The record in the original

 41 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). We note that Commerce has made no duty absorption findings.

 42 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5). Although the Commission must consider all factors, no one factor is necessarily

dispositive. SAA at 886.

 43 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a) authorizes the Commission to “use the facts otherwise available” in reaching a

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

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

manner requested, significantly impedes a proceeding, or provides information that cannot be verified pursuant to 19

U.S.C. § 1677m(i). The verification requirements in 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(i) are applicable only to Commerce. See

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 45 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 46 Original Investigation Staff Report at A-17, A-41.

9
investigation also indicated that purchasers overwhelmingly viewed price as the most important factor in

purchasing decisions.47

2. The Prior Five-Year Reviews

In the first five-year review, the Commission found that demand for petroleum wax candles

surged in the mid-1990s. Apparent domestic consumption of petroleum wax candles grew substantially

between the original investigation and the first five-year review with the domestic industry, subject

imports, and nonsubject imports sharing in the growth.48 The Commission found that the large increase

since the original investigation included all candle styles, types and sizes, and was due to greater use of

petroleum wax candles for non-traditional purposes, such as aromatherapy, scenting, and home

decoration. The Commission also noted that there were over 200 domestic producers of candles. The

Commission found that price continued to be an important factor in purchasing decisions and that

department and specialty stores, as well as mass merchandisers, continued to be the principal outlets for

sales.49

In the second five-year review, the Commission found that petroleum wax candles came in

different shapes, colors, and scents that may be preferred in different market segments. The Commission

found that wax-filled containers consistently accounted for the largest share -- between 40 percent and 50

percent -- of domestic producers' domestic shipments, followed by columns and pillars. Among subject

imports, columns and pillars accounted for the largest share of U.S. shipments in 2004, followed by

“other” candles. Demand during the period of review had a seasonal component, increasing at the end of

the year during the holiday season.50

The Commission also found that overall apparent U.S. consumption remained relatively flat

during the period of review, due to a saturation of the market for non-traditional purposes noted in the

first five-year review. The Commission found that, while the volume and market share of subject imports

and the domestic product continued to grow over the period of review, nonsubject imports decreased 44

percent and had lost market share.51

The Commission also found that the number of domestic producers doubled from the first fiveyear review to over 400, although there had been some contraction among the original large producers

since the original investigation.52 As in the original investigation and the first five-year review, the

Commission found that department and specialty stores and mass merchandisers continued to be the

principal outlets for candle sales. During the period of review, the role of mass merchandisers continued

to grow, mostly at the expense of membership warehouse clubs and department and craft stores. The

Commission found that the most *** candle producers during the period of review were those who

supplied the direct sales segment of the market. This channel includes those selling directly to end-use

consumers through home parties, as well as those selling through wholly owned retail establishments. 

Finally, although purchasers continue to view price as an important factor, the Commission found that not

all purchasers reported buying the lowest-priced candles available.53

 47 Original Confidential Report at A-70; see also Original Investigation at 16-17.

 48 First Five-Year Review at 8.

 49 First Five Year Review at 9.

 50 Second Five-Year Review at 14.

 51 Second Five-Year Review at 15.

 52 Second Five-Year Review at 15-16.

 53 Second Five-Year Review at 16.

10
3. The Current Review

We find that the conditions of competition relied upon by the Commission in making its

determination in the second five-year review generally continue in the current period. The NCA reports,

however, that the most significant change in demand for candles since the full second five-year review

has been the emergence of the severe recession in late 2007. The recession has caused a marked decline

in U.S. demand, with a 39.4 percent decrease in apparent U.S. consumption since 2004.54 NCA claims

that a major incentive for purchases of candles is the sale of new and existing homes because candles are

often part of the homeowners’ efforts to decorate living spaces. Accordingly, weak home sales in 2008

and 2009 have hindered candle sales. Other factors affecting candle sales include seasonal purchases and

the use of candles as air fresheners. Candles face competition from other air fresheners, such as sprays

and plug-ins, which further affects candle sales.55

With respect to changes in supply conditions since the second five-year review, NCA reports that

subject imports have decreased dramatically because of an increase in the antidumping duty margin on

subject imports and because of more effective anticircumvention efforts by the domestic industry.56 In

addition, China is a prominent supplier of paraffin wax to the United States and, according to the NCA,

has large excess volumes of this key raw material that could be used to increase production of candles for

export to the United States.57 In this regard, the NCA argues that China has consistently been a large

exporter of candles, not just to the United States but to the rest of the world, and that recent decreases in

Chinese candle exports may be attributed to the decrease in worldwide demand.58

The price of paraffin wax, the primary raw material in the production of petroleum wax candles,

more than doubled from 2004 to 2009, in addition to increases in the cost of other raw materials, such as

linerboard used for packing boxes, which almost doubled over the same period.59

Nonsubject imports, particularly from Vietnam and India, have increased significantly since

2004, although nonsubject imports from these countries were equivalent to only one half of the decrease

 54 CR/PR at Table I-5. Apparent U.S. consumption decreased significantly, from 729.9 million pounds in 2004 to

442.1 million pounds in 2009. Id.

 55 CR at I-32, PR at I-26; NCA Response at 32.

 56 NCA Response at 29-30. In October 2006, Commerce determined in an anticircumvention inquiry that “mixed

wax candles” were later-developed products and were circumventing the antidumping duty order on petroleum wax

candles form China. Commerce defined mixed-wax candles as candles composed of petroleum wax and over 50

percent or more palm or other vegetable oil-based waxes. In this inquiry, Commerce determined that mixed-wax

candles containing any amount of petroleum were covered by the scope of the order. Later-Developed Merchandise

Anticircumvention Inquiry of the Antidumping Duty Order on Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic

of China: Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order, 71 Fed. Reg. 59075

(October 6, 2006).

In June 2007, Commerce determined in a second anticircumvention inquiry that wickless petroleum wax

forms from China were subject merchandise and were circumventing the order. The products covered by this

inquiry were certain scented or unscented petroleum wax forms that did not incorporate a wick within the wax and

were sold in a variety of shapes, including tapers, spirals, straight-sided forms, rounds, columns, pillars, and votives. 

Commerce determined that wickless wax candles required only certain minimal assembly, insertion of a wick into

the form and the attachment of a clip assembly, after importation and, therefore, were circumventing the order. 

Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China: Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of

the Antidumping Duty Order, 72 Fed. Reg. 31053 (June 5, 2007).

 57 CR at I-35, PR at I-28; NCA Response at 11-12, 31.

 58 NCA Response at 31-32.

 59 CR at I-32, PR at I-26; NCA Response at 34.

11
in subject imports between 2004 and 2009, resulting in a large decline in overall candle imports over the

period.60

Based on the record evidence, we find that the conditions of competition in the petroleum wax

candle market are not likely to change significantly in the reasonably foreseeable future. Accordingly, we

find that current conditions provide us with a reasonable basis on which to assess the likely effects of

revocation of the antidumping duty order in the reasonably foreseeable future.

C. Likely Volume of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely volume of imports of subject merchandise if the order under review were

revoked, the Commission is directed to consider whether the likely volume of imports would be

significant either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States.61 In

doing so, the Commission must consider “all relevant economic factors,” including four enumerated

factors: (1) any likely increase in production capacity or existing unused production capacity in the

exporting country; (2) existing inventories of the subject merchandise, or likely increases in inventories;

(3) the existence of barriers to the importation of the subject merchandise into countries other than the

United States; and (4) the potential for product shifting if production facilities in the foreign country,

which can be used to produce the subject merchandise, are currently being used to produce other

products.62

1. The Original Investigation

In the original investigation, the Commission found that the quantity of subject imports increased

by over 75 percent and that the value of these imports nearly doubled from 1983 to 1985. The

Commission also found that subject imports increased more than 10 percentage points in 1985 as a

percentage of the total quantity of candle imports from all countries.63

2. The Prior Five-Year Reviews

In the first five-year review, the Commission found that subject imports were likely to be

significant if the antidumping duty order were revoked. The Commission found that the record from the

original investigation indicated the Chinese petroleum wax candle industry had the ability and incentive

to establish a significant presence in each segment of the U.S. market in a short period of time and that

China was the largest exporter of petroleum wax candles to the United States. Although subject imports

declined in 1986 after the antidumping duty order was issued, China was the fastest growing candle

exporter to the United States in the 1990s. The Commission observed that this rapid increase took place

even with an antidumping duty margin of 54.21 percent in place, indicating that the increase would have

been greater absent the order. Although there were no aggregate data regarding the Chinese industry

available, the Commission found that the substantial increase in subject imports indicated that the Chinese

producers had increased their production capacity since the original investigation. The Commission

found that the Chinese producers already had manufacturing capacity and channels of distribution in

place, along with an abundant source of labor and raw materials to expand Chinese candle production and

increase exports to the U.S. market were the order to be revoked. The Commission found a significant

 60 CR/PR at Table I-4; NCA Response at 30-31.

 61 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

 62 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A) - (D).

 63 Original Investigation at 15-16.

12
potential for Chinese producers to shift from production of out-of-scope candles to subject candles if the

order was revoked. Finally, the Commission found that Mexico’s imposition in 1993 of an antidumping

duty order on candles from China with duties of 103 percent would create an incentive for Chinese

producers to ship more candles into the United States if the order were revoked.64

In the second five-year review, the Commission again found that subject import volumes were

likely to be significant if the order were revoked. The Commission found that China continued to be the

largest single source of candle imports into the United States, and the United States continued to be the

world’s largest market for subject imports even with the order in place. Although the Commission did not

have aggregate data for the Chinese producers, the Commission found that the large volumes of Chinese

exports to other markets would provide an additional source of subject imports if the order were revoked. 

In addition, the Commission found that the growing exports of Chinese candles to other countries

indicated that the expansion of Chinese production found in the original investigation and the first fiveyear review was ongoing.65

The Commission also found that total candle exports from China were at record levels during the

period of review, while unit values of candle imports from China to the United States were generally

declining despite the existence of the antidumping duty order.66 In addition, the Commission noted that

increases in market share and volume during the period of review may have been attributable to a shift by

importers from subject petroleum wax candles (more than 50 percent petroleum wax) to nonsubject

Chinese vegetable wax candles (blended, with less than 50 percent petroleum wax content).67 Chinese

producers had significantly increased their exports of these blended candles to the United States following

the imposition of the antidumping duty order on petroleum wax candles. The Commission concluded that

the Chinese producers would likely shift production from vegetable wax to petroleum wax for exports of

candles to the United States if the order were revoked.68 Finally, the Commission found that barriers to

importation of Chinese candles in other markets would create an incentive for Chinese exporters to ship

more candles to the United States if the order were revoked.69

 64 First Five-Year Review at 11.

 65 Second Five-Year Review at 18.

 66 Second Five-Year review at 18-19.

 67 The Commission found in the second five-year review that Chinese producers had been blending vegetable

waxes with petroleum wax to produce so-called “blended candles.” As discussed infra, this type of candle had not

been developed and was not commercially produced anywhere at the time of the original investigation. Beginning in

2001, the Commission found that candles produced in China from a blend of petroleum wax and vegetable wax

began to enter the U.S. market and that blended candles accounted for a majority of imported candles from China by

2004. Blended candles accounted for only a small percentage of shipments by domestic producers in 2004. Second

Five-Year Review at 6.

 68 Second Five-Year Review at 19. The Commission based its finding on several factors: there was an excess of

paraffin wax in China, which was used in the production of all Chinese-produced petroleum wax candles; the price

of vegetable wax, which is the predominant component in the blended candles, was more expensive than petroleum

wax; there were no significant benefits to the predominantly vegetable wax candles in terms of quality or how well

they burned; the nonsubject blended wax candles were indistinguishable from subject petroleum wax candles in

virtually all candle types and end uses; the fact that Chinese producers were able to produce and increase their

exports to the United States of nonsubject blended candles following Commerce's issuance of scope exclusion orders

suggested that they could easily shift to production of varying wax blends; and imports of predominantly vegetable

wax candles had increased tremendously since the imposition of the order and had overtaken subject imports. Id.

 69 Second Five-Year Review at 20.

13
3. The Current Review

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

event of revocation of the order. Again, because of the lack of participation by Chinese producers, the

Commission has limited information on the industry in China. The NCA contends that Chinese

production capacity has increased since the imposition of the order in 1985 and that the Chinese

producers retain established channels of distribution in the United States.70 There is also reportedly a

large quantity of idle candle-making equipment readily available in China. According to the NCA, many

Chinese candle producers only manufacture candles on a seasonal basis, so they have capacity available

to increase production at other times of the year.71 Finally, China has a large and growing production

capacity for paraffin wax that could be used to expand Chinese petroleum wax candle production. 

Notably, China is currently the largest supplier of paraffin wax to the U.S. market.72 We find that these

factors would allow Chinese candle producers to increase their existing capacity and production rapidly if

the antidumping duty order were revoked.

The Chinese industry remains highly export-oriented. China was the world’s largest exporter of

candles, by value, from 2005 to 2009. Chinese candle exports to the world market increased every year

from 2004 to 2008, before declining in 2009, commensurate with decreases in overall worldwide

demand.73

The United States is an attractive market for Chinese producers because of its size. The United

States was the world’s largest importer of candles, by value, from 2004 to 2007, and was the world’s

second largest in 2008 and 2009.74 The United States was also the largest export market for Chinese

candles in 2005 and was the second largest in 2009.75

Finally, the Chinese industry faces barriers to entry in other markets. In November 2008, the

European Union (“EU”) imposed provisional antidumping duty measures on Chinese candles with the

definitive order becoming effective in May 2009. EU imports of Chinese candles reportedly peaked at

199,250 tons in 2007, and import volume then decreased substantially to 67,573 tons in 2009. Notably,

three of the four largest export markets for Chinese petroleum wax candles from 2004 to 2009 are

member countries of the European Union (the United States is the other).76 In addition to the EU

measures, Mexico has maintained antidumping duty measures on Chinese candles since August 1993.77

Accordingly, based on the demonstrated ability of Chinese petroleum wax candle producers to

increase imports into the U.S. market rapidly, their ready access to significant quantities of the principal

raw material, their substantial production capacity and excess capacity, their export orientation, the

attractiveness of the U.S. market, and the antidumping measures on Chinese candles in the EU and

Mexico, we find that the likely volume of subject imports, both in absolute terms and as a share of the

U.S. market, would be significant if the order were revoked.

 70 CR at I-33, PR at I-27; NCA Response at 11.

 71 CR at I-33, PR at I-27.

 72 CR at I-35, PR at I-28; NCA Response at 11-12.

 73 CR/PR at Table I-8.

 74 CR/PR at Table I-9.

 75 CR/PR at Table I-7.

 76 CR/PR at Table I-7 (Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom).

 77 CR at I-32, PR at I-26.

14
D. Likely Price Effects of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports if the order under review were revoked,

the Commission is directed to consider whether there is likely to be significant underselling by the subject

imports in relation to the domestic like product and whether the subject imports are likely to enter the

United States at prices that otherwise would have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on the

price of the domestic like product.78

1. The Original Investigation

In the original investigation, the Commission found that candles from China were consistently

priced lower than the domestic like product. The Commission found that the pricing data for Chinese

candles indicated large margins of underselling for all candle varieties examined during the period of

investigation. The Commission also found that there was evidence of price suppression or depression for

various types of candles in sales to mass merchandisers, the marketing channel most affected by the

subject imports. The Commission found that the greater margins of underselling by subject imports to

department and specialty stores suggested that the domestic like product was priced more competitively in

mass merchandising outlets as a result of greater market penetration by the subject imports in those

outlets.79

2. The Prior Five-Year Reviews

In the first five-year review, the Commission found that the limited price information in the

record indicated that imports from China would undersell the domestic like product and have significant

adverse price effects, as they did before the imposition of the order, if the order were revoked.80 Noting

the importance of price in purchasing decisions, the Commission found that Chinese candle producers

would likely have an incentive to undersell the domestic producers in order to regain market share. As in

the original determination, the Commission found that price effects were likely to be the most adverse in

the mass merchandise portion of the market, where high volumes and intense competition among retailers

made it likely that purchasers would switch suppliers readily, based on relatively small changes in

price.81

In the second five-year review, the Commission again found that price remained a very important

factor in purchasing decisions and that purchasers, particularly high volume mass merchandisers, were

likely to switch suppliers based on small differences in price. The Commission found that mass

merchandisers continued to be the principal outlet for candle sales during the period of review and that an

increasing percentage of subject imports were being sold in the mass merchandise market.82

The Commission found that the pricing data obtained in the second five-year review were not

particularly probative because they covered small volumes and it was not possible to make some price

comparisons at equivalent levels of trade because many reporting importers sold candles directly at the

retail level. The Commission found that the limited data available confirmed that the mass merchandiser

 78 See 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(3). The SAA states that “{c}onsistent with its practice in investigations, in

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

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

SAA at 886.

 79 Original Investigation at 16-17.

 80 First Five-Year Review at 13.

 81 First Five-Year Review at 13-14.

 82 Second Five-Year Review at 21.

15
market was particularly price sensitive, as reflected in the domestic price declines in products sold to this

segment. Other information in the record indicated that Chinese candles were priced lower than the

domestic like product, even with the order in place, and the record evidence confirmed that Chinese

candles competed aggressively in the U.S. market by underselling the domestic like product.83 Moreover,

the Commission noted that out-of-scope blended Chinese candles competed directly in the United States

with subject merchandise during the period of review. The Commission determined that these low-priced

nonsubject candles would likely be replaced by low-priced subject imports in the event of revocation. 

The Commission concluded that revocation of the antidumping duty order would be likely to lead to

significant price effects, including significant underselling of the domestic like product by the subject

imports, as well as significant price depression or suppression, in the reasonably foreseeable future.84

3. The Current Review

Price remains a very important factor in purchasing decisions, particularly in the mass

merchandiser portion of the market. As noted above, subject imports and the domestic like product are

highly interchangeable.85 The mass merchandiser segment of the market is defined traditionally as large

discount retailers and chain stores and is estimated to account for approximately 60 percent of the total

U.S. market. Reportedly, these large retailers will change suppliers based on relatively small changes in

price.86 The NCA states that very high-volume sales to mass merchandisers are of particular importance

to both the Chinese and domestic producers. Despite extensive market segmentation involving

combinations of intended end uses, channels of distribution, and particular candle types, Chinese candles

can compete with every type of candle in every market segment.87

 Because no Chinese producers or U.S. importers responded to the Commission’s notice of

institution, there are no new pricing data for subject imports or the domestic like product on the record of

this review. We note that the average unit values of the subject imports were below the average unit

values for the domestic like product in 2004 and 2009.88 Notably, the average unit values of the Chinese

subject imports increased significantly from 2006 to 2009, presumably in response to the increase in

antidumping duty deposits in 2005.89

Given the likely significant volume of subject imports and the conditions of competition

discussed above, we conclude that subject imports from China likely would significantly undersell the

domestic like product to gain market share and likely would have significant depressing or suppressing

effects on the prices of the domestic like product if the antidumping duty order were revoked.

 83 Second Five-Year Review at 21.

 84 Second Five-Year Review at 22.

 85 CR at I-16, PR at I-11; NCA Final Comments at 8.

 86 NCA Response at 18.

 87 NCA Response at 17-18.

 88 CR/PR at Tables I-3 and I-4. We recognize that comparisons of average unit values normally are of limited

significance where, as here, there are likely differences in product mix between the subject imports and the domestic

like product. Although we acknowledge their limited significance, we note that these average unit value data are

consistent with the Commission’s prior underselling findings.

 89 CR/PR at Table I-4.

16
E. Likely Impact of Subject Imports90

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

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

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

(1) likely declines in output, sales, market share, profits, productivity, return on investments, and

utilization of capacity; (2) likely negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth,

ability to raise capital, and investment; and (3) likely negative effects on the existing development and

production efforts of the industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of

the domestic like product.91 All relevant economic factors are to be considered within the context of the

business cycle and the conditions of competition that are distinctive to the industry. As instructed by the

statute, we have considered the extent to which any improvement in the state of the domestic industry is

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

revoked.92

1. Original Investigation

In the original investigation, the Commission found that subject imports’ share of domestic

consumption increased over the period of investigation. The Commission found that substantially lower

prices for the subject imports in a price-sensitive market allowed subject imports to gain market share and

resulted in price suppression or depression. Therefore, the Commission concluded that the domestic

industry was materially injured by reason of imports of petroleum wax candles from China.93

 90 Section 752(a)(6) of the Tariff Act states that “the Commission may consider the magnitude of the margin of

dumping or the magnitude of the net countervailable subsidy” in making its determination in a five-year review. 19

U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(6). The statute defines the “magnitude of the margin of dumping” to be used by the Commission

in five-year reviews as “the dumping margin or margins determined by the administering authority under section

1675a(c)(3) of this title.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)(C)(iv). See also SAA at 887.

Commerce expedited its determination in its review of petroleum wax candles from China and found that

revocation of the antidumping duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the

following margin: 108.30 percent for the PRC-wide rate. 75 Fed. Reg. at 70713. This dumping margin is not the

same margin Commerce calculated in the original less-than-fair value investigation. See Antidumping Duty Order:

Petroleum Wax Candles from the People’s Republic from China, 51 Fed. Reg. 30686 (August 28, 1986). In the

original less-than-fair value investigation, Commerce calculated a 54.21 margin for the PRC-Wide Entity. In the

final results of its second sunset review, Commerce selected the country-wide dumping margin of 108.30 percent

calculated in the 2001-2002 administrative review. Commerce determined that the PRC-wide rate from the second

administrative review was appropriate because both dumping margins and subject import volumes had increased

since Commerce’s first sunset review. CR at I-5, I-6, PR at I-4, I-5, and n.16; see Petroleum Wax Candles From the

People's Republic of China; Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 69 Fed.

Reg. 75302 (December 16, 2004), and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Expedited

Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China;

Final Results (December 10, 2004) at 4-6.

 91 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

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

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

these factors, in some cases, may account for the injury to the domestic industry, they may also demonstrate that an

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

at 885.

 93 Original Investigation at 16-17.

17
2. Prior Five-Year Reviews

In the first five-year review, the Commission found that the antidumping duty order had a

significant restraining effect on subject imports. After imposition of the antidumping duty order, the

volume of subject imports sharply declined and the average unit value for the imports doubled. U.S.

producers were able to raise their prices and regain market share. Despite the initial volume declines and

price increases following imposition of the order, subject imports from China decreased in per-unit value

and regained a significant market presence during the period of review, while U.S. producers lost market

share. The Commission found it likely that the most immediate impact of revocation would be upon

prices, particularly in the mass merchandiser segment, in which producers would likely seek to protect

their high volume sales by lowering prices to compete with subject imports. The Commission concluded

that the price and volume declines would likely have a significant adverse impact on the production,

shipment, sales, and revenue levels of the domestic industry. The Commission also determined that this

reduction in the industry's production, sales, and revenue levels would have a direct adverse impact on the

industry's profitability as well as its ability to raise capital and make and maintain necessary capital

investments. In addition, the Commission found it likely that revocation of the order would result in

employment declines for domestic firms, particularly the smaller and medium-sized companies that do

not utilize heavily automated processes.94

In the second five-year review, the Commission found that the domestic industry’s condition had

improved since the imposition of the antidumping duty order. During the period of review, the industry

had operated profitably, and domestic shipments and total shipments of U.S. candles increased. Capacity

had also increased as more domestic firms entered the industry. As a result, the Commission determined

that the domestic industry was not vulnerable.95 The Commission also found, however, that the domestic

industry’s financial condition declined over the period of review. The Commission found that, as subject

imports had increased and their prices had decreased over the period of review, the domestic industry’s

operating income fell, and capacity utilization, capital expenditures, and return on investment also

declined.96 The Commission found that, if the order were revoked, prices for candles sold in the mass

merchandise and department store channels would decline in response to large volumes of subject

imports, and the consequent price depression ultimately would likely result in price reduction and lower

revenues in the direct sales channel as well. Consequently, the Commission determined that revocation of

the antidumping duty order would likely lead to significant increases in the volume of subject imports that

would undersell the domestic like product and significantly suppress or depress U.S. prices. Accordingly,

the Commission concluded that subject imports would be likely to have a significant adverse impact on

the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time if the antidumping duty order were revoked.97

3. The Current Review

Because this is an expedited review, we have only limited information with respect to the

domestic industry's financial performance indicators. We collected 2009 data for several performance

indicators, but no data from 2005 to 2008. Domestic producers' capacity was 502.4 million pounds in

2009; it was 181.7 million pounds in 1985 and 695.7 million pounds in 2004. Domestic production was

194.9 million pounds in 2009; it was 94.7 million pounds in 1985 and 361.3 million pounds in 2004. 

 94 First Five-Year Review at 15.

 95 Second Five-Year Review at 23-24.

 96 Second Five-Year Review at 24.

 97 Second Five-Year Review at 25.

18
Capacity utilization was 38.8 percent in 2009; it was 52.1 percent in 1985 and 51.9 percent in 2004.98

Domestic producers' U.S. shipments were 195.2 million pounds in 2009; they were 90.9 million pounds

in 1985 and 361.3 million pounds in 2004. Net sales were $*** in 2009; they were $*** in 1985 and

$1.4 billion in 2004. Operating income was $*** in 2009; it was $*** in 1985 and $215.0 million in

2004. Operating income as a percentage of net sales was *** percent in 2009; it was *** percent in 1985

and 15.9 percent in 2004.99 100

Based on the record of this review, we find that the likely volume and price effects of the subject

imports would likely have a significant adverse impact on the production, shipments, sales, market share,

and revenues of the domestic industry. Declines in these indicators of industry performance would have a

direct adverse impact on the industry’s profitability and employment, as well as its ability to raise capital,

to make and maintain capital investments, and to fund research and development.

We have also considered the role of factors other than the subject imports. The share of the U.S.

market held by nonsubject imports increased substantially from 2004 to 2009, particularly from India and

Vietnam.101 These increases appear to be driven, at least in part, by the effects of the increased

antidumping duty margins imposed in 2005 on subject imports and improved enforcement of the order,

which have apparently resulted in increased demand for nonsubject imports.102 In the absence of the

discipline of the antidumping duty order, we find it likely that mass market purchasers, such as large

discount retailers and chain stores, would again purchase subject imports, and any future increase in

market share by low-priced subject imports would likely come primarily at the expense of the domestic

industry. Moreover, upon revocation, price competition between the domestic like product and subject

imports would likely be intensified by the presence of the nonsubject imports which, in turn, would likely

lead to an increase in the likely price effects caused by the likely large volumes of subject imports. 

Therefore, consideration of factors other than the subject imports does not undermine our finding that the

subject imports would likely have a material adverse impact on the domestic industry if the order were

revoked.

Accordingly, we conclude that, if the antidumping duty order were revoked, subject imports from

China would likely have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry within a reasonably

foreseeable time.

 98 CR/PR at Table I-3.

 99 CR/PR at Table I-3. The limited evidence in this expedited review is insufficient for us to make a finding on

whether the domestic industry producing petroleum wax candles is vulnerable to the continuation or reoccurrence of

material injury in the event of revocation of the order.

 100 Commissioners Lane and Pinkert acknowledge that the data are mixed and somewhat incomplete, but find that

the domestic industry does not appear to be vulnerable. Although several output indicators were lower in 2009 than

in 2004, and although operating income was also lower, operating income remained viable by historical standards

pertaining to the industry at $***. CR/PR at Table I-3. Furthermore, the industry achieved an operating income

margin of *** percent in 2009, which was *** percent experienced in 2004. CR/PR at Table I-3. Finally, the NCA

reported that the domestic industry was able to “maintain sufficient price levels to improve overall profitability from

2004 to 2009, despite the recession.” NCA Final Comments at 12.

 101 Nonsubject imports’ share of the U.S. market, by quantity, was 22.0 percent in 2004 and 52.3 percent in 2009. 

CR/PR at I-5.

 102 CR at I-24 and n.62, PR at I-18 and n.62.

19
CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on petroleum

wax candles from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an

industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

 

20
INFORMATION OBTAINED IN THE REVIEW

I-1

INTRODUCTION

On July 1, 2010, in accordance with section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the

Act”),1

 the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission” or “USITC”) gave notice that it had

instituted a review to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on petroleum wax

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

within a reasonably foreseeable time.2 3

 On October 4, 2010, the Commission determined that the

domestic interested party group response to its notice of institution was adequate4

 and that the respondent

interested party group response was inadequate.5

 In the absence of respondent interested party responses

and any other circumstances that would warrant the conduct of a full review, the Commission determined

to conduct an expedited review of the antidumping duty order pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act (19

U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3)).6

 The Commission voted on this review on December 3, 2010, and notified

Commerce of its determination on December 16, 2010. The following tabulation presents selected

information relating to the schedule of this five-year review.7

Effective date Action

Federal Register

citation

July 1, 2010 Commission’s institution of five-year review

75 FR 38121

July 1, 2010

July 1, 2010 Commerce’s initiation of five-year review

75 FR 39494

July 9, 2010

October 4, 2010

Commission’s determination to conduct an expedited five-year

review

75 FR 63200

October 14, 2010

November 18, 2010 Commerce’s final determination in its expedited five-year review

75 FR 70713

November 18, 2010

December 3, 2010 Commission’s vote Not applicable

December 16, 2010 Commission’s determination transmitted to Commerce Not applicable

 1 19 U.S.C. 1675(c).

 2 Petroleum Wax Candles From China, 75 FR 38121, July 1, 2010. All interested parties were requested to

respond to this notice by submitting the information requested by the Commission. The Commission’s notice of

institution is presented in app. A.

 3

 In accordance with section 751(c) of the Act, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) published a

notice of initiation of a five-year review of the subject antidumping duty order concurrently with the Commission’s

notice of institution. Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review, 75 FR 39494, July 9, 2010.

 4

 The Commission received one submission in response to its notice of institution in the subject review. It was

filed on behalf of the National Candle Association (“NCA”) (collectively referred to herein as “domestic interested

party”), a U.S. trade association, 40 members of which are domestic producers of petroleum wax candles. The

domestic interested party reported that it accounted for approximately *** percent of total U.S. production of candles

in 2009. Response of domestic interested party, August 2, 2010, p. 2.

 5

 The Commission did not receive a response from any respondent interested parties to its notice of institution.

 6 Petroleum Wax Candles From China, 75 FR 63200, October 14, 2010. The Commission’s notice of an

expedited review appears in app. A. The Commission’s statement on adequacy is presented in app. B.

 7

 Cited Federal Register notices are presented in app. A.

I-3
The Original Investigation and Subsequent Five-Year Reviews

On September 4, 1985, the NCA filed a petition with Commerce and the Commission alleging

that an industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”)

imports of petroleum wax candles from China. On July 10, 1986, Commerce published an affirmative

final LTFV determination8

 and, on August 21, 1986, the Commission completed its original investigation,

determining that an industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of LTFV imports of

candles from China.9

 Following receipt of the Commission’s final affirmative determination, Commerce

issued an antidumping duty order on imports of petroleum wax candles from China.10

The Commission instituted the first five-year review of the subject order on January 4, 1999, and

determined on April 8, 1999, that it would conduct an expedited review.11 On June 17, 1999, Commerce

published its determination that the revocation of the antidumping duty order on petroleum wax candles

from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at a rate of 54.21 percent.12

The Commission determined that material injury would be likely to continue or recur within a reasonably

foreseeable time on September 1, 1999, and published its determination on September 8, 1999. 

Commerce published notice of the continuation of the antidumping duty order on September 23, 1999.13

The Commission instituted the second five-year review of the subject order on August 2, 2004,

and determined on November 5, 2004, that it would conduct a full review.14 On December 16, 2004,

Commerce published its determination that revocation of the antidumping duty order on petroleum wax

candles from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the China-wide

rate of 108.30 percent ad valorem, and on July 28, 2005, the Commission notified Commerce of its

determination that material injury would be likely to continue or recur within a reasonably foreseeable

 8 Petroleum Wax Candles From the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value, 51 FR 25085, July 10, 1986.

 9 Candles From the People’s Republic of China, 51 FR 30558, August 27, 1986. The Commission found that the

domestic like product consisted “only” of petroleum wax candles, and, therefore that the relevant domestic industry

consisted of the producers of petroleum wax candles. Candles from the People’s Republic of China: Investigation

No. 731-TA-282 (Final), USITC Publication 1888, August 1986, p. 9.

 10 Antidumping Duty Order: Petroleum Wax Candles From the People’s Republic of China, 51 FR 30686,

August 28, 1986.

 11 Petroleum Wax Candles From China, 64 FR 365, January 4, 1999; and Petroleum Wax Candles From China,

64 FR 19197, April 19, 1999.

 12 Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China,

64 FR 32481, June 17, 1999.

 13 Petroleum Wax Candles From China, 64 FR 48851, September 8, 1999; and Continuation of Antidumping

Duty Order: Petroleum Wax Candles From the People's Republic of China, 64 FR 51514, September 23, 1999.

 14 Petroleum Wax Candles From China, 69 FR 46182, August 2, 2004; and Petroleum Wax Candles From

China, 69 FR 68175, November 23, 2004.

I-4
time.15 16 Commerce issued the second continuation of the antidumping duty order effective August 10,

2005.17

Commerce’s Final Results of Expedited Five-Year Review

Commerce published the final results of its review based on the facts available on

November 18, 2010. Commerce concluded that revocation of the antidumping duty order on candles

from China would be likely to lead continuation or recurrence of dumping at a rate of 108.30 percent.18

Commerce’s Administrative Reviews

Commerce has completed six administrative reviews and two new shipper reviews of the

antidumping duty order on candles from China. Although there have been 212 scope rulings and two

circumvention findings concerning the antidumping duty order,19 there have been no changed

circumstances determinations and no duty absorption findings. Information on Commerce’s final

determination, antidumping duty order, administrative review determinations and final results of its

expedited five-year review is presented in table I-1.

 15 Petroleum Wax Candles From the People's Republic of China; Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Review of

the Antidumping Duty Order, 69 FR 75302, December 16, 2004; and Petroleum Wax Candles From China,

70 FR 44695, August 3, 2005.

 16 In the final results of its second five-year review, Commerce maintained the country-wide dumping margin of

108.30 percent calculated in the 2001-02 administrative review, an increase from the 54.21 percent dumping margin

reported in the original investigation and first five-year review. In a five-year review, Commerce normally prefers to

select a margin from the original investigation because it is the only calculated rate that reflects the behavior of

exporters without the discipline of an order or suspension agreement in place. However, Commerce found that it

was appropriate to provide the Commission with a more recently calculated PRC-wide rate for subject merchandise

because dumping margins had increased at the same time import volumes had increased since the first sunset review. 

Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Petroleum

Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China; Final Results, December 10, 2004, pp. 4-6.

 17 Continuation of Antidumping Duty Order: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China

(“PRC”), 70 FR 56890, September 29, 2005.

 18 Petroleum Wax Candles From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited Third Sunset

Review of Antidumping Duty Order, 75 FR 70713, November 18, 2010.

 19 See the section of this report entitled “Scope” for information concerning Commerce’s scope rulings and

circumvention findings.

I-5
Table I-1

Candles: Commerce’s final determination, antidumping duty order, administrative reviews, and

final results of expedited five-year review

Action Effective

date

Federal

Register

citation

Period of

investigation/

review

Antidumping duty margins

FirmspecificCountrywide1

Percent ad valorem

Final

determination 07/10/1986 51 FR 25085 -- -- 54.21

Antidumping duty

order 08/28/1986 51 FR 30686 -- China Native Products 54.21 54.21

Administrative

review 11/25/1988 53 FR 47742

02/19/1986-

07/31/1987 P&C Enterprises 54.21 54.21

Administrative

review 03/13/2001 66 FR 14545

08/01/1998-

07/31/1999 -- 54.21

New shipper

review 06/18/2002 67 FR 41395

08/01/2000-

01/31/2001 New Star 95.22 54.21

Administrative

review 03/19/2003 68 FR 13264

08/01/2000-

07/31/2001 Fay Candle 65.02 54.21

Administrative

review2 04/19/2004 69 FR 20858

08/01/2001-

07/31/2002

Fay Candle 108.30

Shanghai Charming 108.30

Shandong Jiaye 108.30 108.30

New shipper

review 12/29/2004 69 FR 77990

08/01/2002-

07/31/2003 Shandong Huihe 108.30 108.30

Administrative

review 10/25/2006 71 FR 62417

08/01/2004-

07/31/2005 Youngson 108.30 108.30

Administrative

review 09/13/2007 72 FR 52355

08/01/2005-

07/31/2006 Deseado 108.30 108.30

Final results of

expedited

five-year review 11/18/2010 75 FR 70713 -- -- 108.30

 1 The country-wide rate applies to all companies that otherwise have not received a “firm-specific” rate.

 2

 Commerce revised the weighted-average dumping margins following the allegation and correction of ministerial errors. 

Amended Notice of Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People’s

Republic of China, 69 FR 20858, April 19, 2004.

Note.–In the final results of its second five-year review, Commerce maintained the country-wide dumping margin of 108.30

percent calculated in the 2001-02 administrative review, an increase from the 54.21 percent dumping margin reported in the

original investigation and first five-year review. In a five-year review, Commerce normally prefers to select a margin from the

original investigation because it is the only calculated rate that reflects the behavior of exporters without the discipline of an order

or suspension agreement in place. However, Commerce found that it was appropriate to provide the Commission with a more

recently calculated PRC-wide rate for subject merchandise because dumping margins had increased at the same time import

volumes had increased since the first sunset review. Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Expedited Sunset Review of the

Antidumping Duty Order on Petroleum Wax Candles from the People’s Republic of China; Final Results, December 10, 2004,

pp. 4-6.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

I-6
Distribution of Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act Funds to Affected Domestic Producers

The Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (“CDSOA”) (also known as the Byrd

Amendment) provides that assessed duties received pursuant to antidumping or countervailing duty

orders must be distributed to affected domestic producers for certain qualifying expenditures that these

producers incur after the issuance of such orders.20 Qualified U.S. producers of candles have been

eligible to receive disbursements from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) under

CDSOA relating to the orders covering the subject merchandise beginning in Federal fiscal year 2001.21

Certifications were filed with Customs with respect to candles from China during 2001-09.22 The number

of firms that filed with Customs varied from year to year, ranging from a total of 3 to 12 companies. 

Table I-2 presents CDSOA disbursements for Federal fiscal years 2001-09.

Table I-2

Candles: CDSOA disbursements, Federal fiscal years 2001-091

Year Number of Companies Amount disbursed

2001 3 $18,317,982.28

2002 7 $69,536,243.70

2003 10 $3,953,616.29

2004 10 $51,391,919.77

2005 9 $21,523,740.60

20062 11 $1,609,740.64

20073 9 $4,191,777.99

20084 11 $13,313,089.31

20095 12 $1,474,564.58

 1 The Federal fiscal year is October 1-September 30.

 2

 Customs withheld $932,022.70 in 2006 due to pending litigation.

 3

 Customs withheld $3,591,396.14 in 2007 due to pending litigation.

 4

 Customs withheld a total of $15,081,362.46 in 2008 from three companies due to administrative actions or pending litigation.

 5

 Customs withheld a total of $1,548,161.99 in 2009 from three companies due to administrative actions or pending litigation.

Source: Customs’ CDSOA Annual Reports 2001-09, http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/priority_trade/add_cvd/cont_dump/.

Related Commission Investigations and Reviews

The Commission has conducted no other investigations or reviews concerning candles.

 20 Section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)). The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005

repealed the CDSOA with respect to duties on entries of goods made and filed on or after October 1, 2007. See Pub.

L. No. 109-171, 120 Stat. 4, 154 (2006).

 21 19 CFR 159.64 (g).

 22 Customs’ CDSOA Annual Reports 2004-2009,

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/priority_trade/add_cvd/cont_dump/.

I-7
THE PRODUCT

Scope

In its most recent Federal Register notice, Commerce defined the subject merchandise as follows:

The products covered by this order are certain scented or unscented petroleum wax

candles made from petroleum wax and having fiber or paper-cored wicks. They are sold

in the following shapes: tapers, spirals, and straight-sided dinner candles; rounds,

columns, pillars, votives; and various wax-filled containers.23 24

Commerce has completed 212 separate scope rulings and two circumvention inquiries since issuing the

original antidumping duty order. The scope remained unchanged in the subsequent five-year reviews,

although Commerce noted that, “There have been numerous clarifications to the scope of this order.”25

Commerce’s Scope Clarifications and Anticircumvention Inquiries

In July 1987, Commerce determined that

certain novelty candles, such as Christmas novelty candles, are not within the scope of

the antidumping duty order on petroleum-wax candles from the People’s Republic of

China (PRC). Christmas novelty candles are candles specially designed for use only in

connection with the Christmas holiday season. This use is clearly indicated by Christmas

scenes or symbols depicted in the candle design. Other novelty candles not within the

scope of the order include candles having scenes or symbols of other occasions (e.g.

religious holidays or special events) depicted in their designs, figurine candles, and

candles shaped in the form of identifiable objects (e.g. animals or numerals).26

On August 21, 2009, Commerce solicited comments from the general public on the best method to

consider whether novelty candles should or should not be included within the scope of the order, given

the extremely large number of scope determinations requested by outside parties. Commerce published

its preliminary results on August 13, 2010, determining that there is no basis in the record of the

antidumping duty investigation for excluding candles based upon holiday characteristics. Commerce

proposed a new interpretation, as follows:

 23 Petroleum Wax Candles From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited Third Sunset

Review of Antidumping Duty Order, 75 FR 70713, November 18, 2010.

 24 Tariff treatment of this product is presented in the next section of this report. Although the HTS subheadings

are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive.

 25 Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China,

64 FR 32481, June 17, 1999; and Petroleum Wax Candles From the People's Republic of China; Final Results of the

Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 69 FR 75303, December 16, 2004.

 26 See Russ Berrie & Co., Inc. v. United States, 57 F. Supp. 2d 1184, 1194 (CIT July 1999), citing Customs

Information Exchange, CIE N-212185, 0912 1187, AR doc. 7; and Commerce’s Final Scope Ruling of Antidumping

Duty Order on Petroleum Wax Candles from the People’s Republic of China (A-570-504); JC Penney

(November 9, 2001) citing Letter from the Director, Office of Compliance, to Burditt, Bowles & Radzius, Ltd.,

July 13, 1987.

I-8
The Department will consider all candle shapes identified in the order to be within the

scope of the order, regardless of etchings, prints, texture, moldings, or other artistic or

decorative enhancements including any holiday-related art. However, even if they are

one of the shapes listed within the scope of the order, two types of candles will be

excluded: (1) those candles variously known as “household candles,” “emergency

candles,” or “utility candles,”. . .; and (2) birthday candles. . ., and birthday numeral

candles. . . . All other candle shapes or types will be considered outside the scope of the

order.27

In addition, Commerce has preliminarily applied its new interpretation to the 388 pending scope

determinations.28

Commerce initiated an anticircumvention inquiry in March 2005, and determined in

October 2006 that “mixed wax candles”29 are later-developed merchandise and thus, are circumventing

the order.30 In addition, mixed-wax candles containing any amount of petroleum are covered by the scope

of the order.31 32

Commerce initiated a second anticircumvention inquiry in May 2006, and determined in June

2007 that exports of wickless petroleum wax forms from China imported by, or sold to, DECOR-WARE,

Inc., A&M Wholesalers, Inc., and Albert E. Price are circumventing the order. Wickless wax forms from

China subsequently undergo insertion of a wick and clip assembly in the United States.33

 27 Petroleum Wax Candles from the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Request for Comments

on the Scope of the Petroleum Wax Candles from the People’s Republic of China Antidumping Duty Order,

75 FR 49475, August 13, 2010. Household candles, emergency candles, or utility candles are typically white in

color, 5 inches long, .75 inch in diameter, and come in packs of two or more. Birthday candles are typically small,

thin, pillar-shaped candles that range in height from 2 inches to 3.5 inches, are .18 inch to .25 inch in width, and

come in packs of 10 to 24. Birthday numeral candles are candles in the shape of numbers that typically range in

height from 2 to 4 inches. Ibid.

 28 Ibid.

 29 Mixed-wax candles are candles composed of petroleum wax and over fifty percent or more palm and/or other

vegetable oil-based waxes.

 30 Although “citronella rope candles” contain petroleum, Commerce has determined that they are not standard

petroleum wax candles and are therefore outside the scope of the order because they (1) contain and advertise an

insect repellent function and (2) are intended for outdoor use. Antidumping Duty Order on Petroleum Wax Candles

from the People’s Republic of China: Final Scope Ruling; Lamplight Farms, Inc. (December 13, 2007); America’s

Gardening Resource (April 29, 2009).

 31 Later-Developed Merchandise Anticircumvention Inquiry of the Antidumping Duty Order on Petroleum Wax

Candles from the People's Republic of China: Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of the

Antidumping Duty Order, 71 FR 59075, October 6, 2006.

 32 Commerce had determined through its scope rulings over the years that, “where the petroleum-based wax

content of a candle model is less than 50 percent, the candle is outside the scope of the order.” Final Scope Ruling

of Antidumping Duty Order on Petroleum Wax Candles from the People’s Republic of China (A-570-504); Pei

Eichel (February 8, 2005); Avon Products Inc. (November 17, 2003).

 33 Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China: Affirmative Final Determination of

Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order, 72 FR 31053, June 5, 2007. The products covered by this inquiry

are certain scented or unscented petroleum wax forms that do not incorporate a wick within the wax, whether or not

having pre-drilled wick holes (wickless petroleum wax forms) that are imported into the United States and

assembled into petroleum wax candles, and are currently classifiable under HTSUS subheading 9602.00.40 as

molded or carved articles of wax. Wickless petroleum wax forms are sold in the following shapes: tapers, spirals,

straight-sided wax forms; rounds, columns, pillars, votives; and various wax-filled containers. Ibid.

I-9
U.S. Tariff Treatment

Petroleum wax candles originally were provided for in the former Tariff Schedules of the United

States under item 755.25, and currently are provided for under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (“HTS”) subheading 3406.00.00, “Candles, tapers, and the like,” which includes candles

that have been excluded from the scope of the order and nonsubject candles made from materials other

than petroleum waxes.34 A general duty rate of “free” is applicable to imports of petroleum wax candles

from China.35

Domestic Like Product and Domestic Industry

The domestic like product is the domestically produced product or products which are like, or in

the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the subject merchandise. The domestic

industry is the collection of U.S. producers, as a whole, of the domestic like product, or those producers

whose collective output of the domestic like product constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic

production of the product. In its original determination and its expedited first five-year review

determination, the Commission defined the domestic like product as petroleum wax candles and it defined

the domestic industry as producers of petroleum wax candles. In the original investigation, the

Commission considered whether candles made of materials other than petroleum wax, principally

beeswax, should be considered a part of the like product. The Commission defined petroleum wax

candles as those composed of more than 50 percent petroleum wax, and beeswax candles as those

composed of more than 50 percent beeswax. Comparing beeswax and petroleum wax candles, the

Commission defined the like product as consisting “only of petroleum wax candles.”36

In its full second five-year review determination, the Commission defined the domestic like

product as candles with fiber or paper-cored wicks and containing any amount of petroleum wax, except

for candles containing more than 50 percent beeswax, and it defined the domestic industry as consisting

of all domestic producers of the domestic like product.37

 34 The NCA has filed a petition to Customs and Border Protection, requesting the reclassification under the

HTSUS of certain wickless wax objects from China. Currently, these objects are classified as “Molded or carved

articles of wax” under subheading 9602.00.40. The NCA contends that the proper classification for these wickless

wax objects is in subheading 3406.00.00, as candles. Moreover, the NCA believes that importers of subject

merchandise are using this classification to circumvent the order. Receipt of Domestic Interested Party Petition

Concerning the Tariff Classification of Wickless Wax Objects, 75 FR 240, January 5, 2010; and Response of

domestic interested party, August 2, 2010, pp. 37-38.

 35 Some candles may also be imported free of duty under heading 9505 as “festive articles” if found by Customs

to be non-utilitarian in nature--that is, to be decorative articles intended for a festive purpose or occasion. See

heading 9505 and note 1(v) to chapter 95.

 36 Candles from the People’s Republic of China: Investigation No. 731-TA-282 (Final), USITC Publication

1888, August 1986, pp. 3-9 and n.11. The Commission found that, in comparison to petroleum wax candles,

beeswax candles have different physical characteristics and uses (religious purposes), are sold mainly through

different channels (principally in religious and specialty markets), are priced considerably higher, and are produced

only in small quantities by major domestic producers of petroleum wax. Further, the Commission found that

beeswax candles are not interchangeable with petroleum wax candles because of a threefold difference in the costs

of production and because beeswax and petroleum wax candles are perceived by producers as not competing with

each other. Ibid.

 37 Petroleum Wax Candles From China: Investigation No. 731-TA-282 (Second Review), USITC Publication

3790, July 2005, pp. 7-9. In the second five-year review, the NCA argued that the Commission should re-examine

the like product definition and determine to include all blended candles within the domestic like product, regardless

of the proportions between petroleum wax and vegetable wax. There was no commercial production in the United

I-10
The information regarding the nature of candles is unchanged since the Commission’s second

five-year review. The domestic interested party participating in this review indicated in its response to

the Commission’s notice of institution that it agrees with the Commission’s like product definition as

stated in the Commission’s second review: “candles with fiber or paper-cored wicks and containing any

amount of petroleum wax, except for candles containing more than 50 percent beeswax.”38

Physical Characteristics and Uses39

A candle is made of solid, fusible, combustible waxes or fatty substances surrounding and

saturating a combustible wick. Candles are used to give light, heat, or scent, or are used for celebration or

votive purposes. As a candle burns, its flame is fed by a supply of melted wax which flows up the wick

as a result of capillary action. Wax is melted as the flame runs down the wick, and a cup of melted wax

forms as the outside layer of the candle is cooled by the upward current of air produced from the heat of

the candle. A candle burning properly is the result of interactions among candle diameter, wax, wick, air

movements, drafts, and other factors. 

There are two broad categories of wax used for commercial purposes: natural and synthetic. The

bulk of candle manufacturing utilizes various combinations of natural waxes, principally paraffins,

microcrystallines, stearic acid, and beeswax. Selection of wax for candle-making takes into consideration

a number of characteristics of wax, such as melting point, viscosity, and burning power. Typically, U.S.

manufacturers will use higher melt-point waxes (130-160 degrees F.) for tapers, columns, and votives,

and use lower melt-point or slack waxes for wax-filled containers. U.S. manufacturers use both refined

and semi-refined waxes in candle production. In the original determination, the Commission noted that

petroleum wax candles may contain other waxes in varying amounts, depending on the size and shape of

the candle, to enhance the melt-point, viscosity, and burning power. 

There are many different sizes and types of wicking available for candle manufacturing. Wicks

may be flat braid, square braid, stranded, twisted, metal core, glass fiber, or hollow. Wick sizing depends

upon the number of threads used, such as a 30-ply wick which consists of a 3-strand braid of 10 threads

each. The size of the wick must be adjusted to the diameter of the candle for proper burn. A candle of

lower melting-point wax should have a wick of looser plait than one with a higher melting point and less

ready combustion.

In addition to wax and wick, scents, dyes, labeling, and packaging are other components in the

production of candles. Scents added to wax are created by the same companies that produce expensive

perfumes, and they are specially compounded for use in petroleum wax; scents as a share of production

costs can range from 0 for unscented candles to 60 percent for scented votives. Special wax soluble dyes

are used in color formulations, which are controlled in order to produce color consistency. Labeling and

packaging as costs of production may be provided at the request of purchasers (e.g., private labeling and

UPC labels) or may be required (e.g., warning labels).

States (or elsewhere) of blended candles in 1986, when the Commission made its original determination. The

Commission therefore did not consider in the original investigation whether to include blended candles containing

50 percent or less petroleum wax in the domestic like product. Ibid.

 38 Response of domestic interested party, p. 41.

 39 Unless indicated otherwise, the discussion in this section is based on information contained in Candles from

the People’s Republic of China: Investigation No. 731-TA-282 (Final), USITC Publication 1888, August 1986, pp.

A-3-A-12; and Petroleum Wax Candles From China: Investigation No. 731-TA-282 (Second Review), USITC

Publication 3790, July 2005, pp. I-11-I-13.

I-11
Manufacturing Process40

As reported during the original investigation, candle manufacturing has evolved over the years

from hand dipping at a few dozen candles per hour to the automatic rotary molding machines that produce

at the rate of 6,000 per hour. At one time, all candles were produced from hot liquid wax, but technology

has created a cold process that allows wax to be compressed into various candle shapes and forms. 

In the hot wax process, wax is shipped and stored in liquid form. Steam-heated storage tanks and

remote-controlled pumping systems permit custom blending of each batch of candle wax in its individual

steam kettle. Cold wax processes take hot liquid wax and freeze the liquid in towers or through rotating

drums to a powdered form, which is then supplied through tanks into compression and extrusion

machines. Manufacturing techniques currently in use by U.S. manufacturers include dipping, molding,

pouring, extrusion, and compression. A discussion of the principal manufacturing techniques is presented

below.

Pouring & Dipping

U.S. candle manufacturers employ hand-poured processes for certain types of candles, when

unusual shapes or dimensions impose physical or cost restrictions on the method of production. Dipping

is a repeated, hot process. It consists of the following procedures: free-hanging wicks are attached to

candle dipping boards or cages; dipping stations containing liquid wax are positioned along the path,

either straight line or circular; candles are cooled and cut or melted to the desired length, then tapered,

including any reverse taper at the base; two final dips in microcrystalline or high melt-point wax are

applied as a color over dip, and to harden the candle exterior for better burning; and the candles are cut

down from the dipping board, inspected, and packaged.

Molding

Machine molding techniques are also a hot process and may be semi-automated or fully

automated. The procedures for semi-automated machine molding include the following: wicks are

tended (made taut or straight, and centered); the molding machine is heated; liquid wax stored in steam

kettles is poured into the molds encased in the machine; the machine is water cooled and the candles are

ejected from the molds; wicks are cut for the removal of the set (group of candles) in the rack; and the set

of candles is removed, inspected, and packaged.

Interchangeability and Customer and Producer Perceptions41

In the second five-year review, the Commission found that the domestically-produced product

was substitutable with subject imports from China. Most U.S. producers, U.S. importers, and U.S.

purchasers reportedly perceived candles produced in the United States and in China to be “always” or

“frequently” interchangeable. Producers, importers, and purchasers who named nonsubject candles as

 40 Unless indicated otherwise, the discussion in this section is based on information contained in Candles from

the People’s Republic of China: Investigation No. 731-TA-282 (Final), USITC Publication 1888, August 1986, pp.

A-8-A-9; and Petroleum Wax Candles From China: Investigation No. 731-TA-282 (Second Review), USITC

Publication 3790, July 2005, p. I-16.

 41 Unless indicated otherwise, the discussion in this section is based on information contained in Petroleum Wax

Candles From China: Investigation No. 731-TA-282 (Second Review), USITC Publication 3790, July 2005, pp. 25

and II-15-II-16.

I-12
substitutes for petroleum wax candles generally stated that such nonsubject candles could be used in the

same forms and uses; i.e., tapers, votives, jars, etc.42

In the current review, the NCA notes the high interchangeability of U.S. and Chinese candles.43

U.S. purchasers *** focused on changes in the existence and availability of substitute products in the

candles market since 2005. In its purchaser survey response, *** reported that there has been an increase

in candles made from vegetable and natural wax since 2008. This is consistent with comments made by

purchaser ***, which states that it is currently working with suppliers to develop candles with a natural

wax blend. *** also stated that the use of outdoor candles has increased by two percent and that reed

diffusers have become “very popular.”44

Channels of Distribution45

Petroleum wax candles are sold to consumers through a variety of channels, including large retail

outlets such as mass merchandisers and department stores, discount retailers, card and gift shops, door-todoor sales, local sales, and sales to individual organizations. In the original investigation and the first and

second five-year reviews, department and specialty stores and mass merchandisers continued to be the

principal outlets for candle sales. 

During the period examined in the second review, the role of mass merchandisers continued to

grow, mostly at the expense of membership warehouse clubs and department and crafts stores. The mass

merchandise portion of the market continued to be characterized by high-volume sales and competition

among retailers. The Commission noted that mass merchandisers were most likely to base purchasing

decisions on price. During the period examined in the second review, the *** profitable candle producers

were those who supplied the direct sales segment of the market.46 This channel includes those selling

directly to end-use consumers through home parties, as well as those selling through wholly-owned retail

establishments. According to the NCA, because these producers are tied through ownership or other

contractual arrangement to the direct sales distribution system, they experience less competition from

imports.

For both U.S. producers and U.S. importers of candles from China, mass merchandisers and

department/craft stores were the primary channels of distribution for sales of candles during 1999-2004. 

U.S. producers increased their sales of product to the two channels from 65 percent of total sales in 1999

to 73 percent in 2004. U.S. importers’ sales of subject imports from China to the two channels increased

from 92 percent to 97 percent from 1999 to 2004, while sales of nonsubject imports declined slightly

from 95 percent to 92 percent.

In its response to the Commission’s notice of institution, the NCA continued to emphasize the

importance of mass merchandiser market sales. The domestic interested party estimates that this portion

of the market alone accounts for 60 percent of the total U.S. market.47

 42 Petroleum Wax Candles From China: Investigation No. 731-TA-282 (Second Review), USITC Publication

3790, July 2005, p. I-13.

 43 Response of domestic interested party, August 2, 2010, p. 17.

 44 Purchaser survey responses of *** and ***.

 45 Unless indicated otherwise, the discussion in this section is based on information contained in Petroleum Wax

Candles From China: Investigation No. 731-TA-282 (Second Review), USITC Publication 3790, July 2005, p. 16.

 46 Confidential Views of the Commission (Second Review), p. 22.

 47 Response of domestic interested party, August 2, 2010, p. 18.

I-13
Pricing

In the original investigation, the Commission found that candles imported from China undersold

all varieties of domestic candles in all portions of the market by large margins. The Commission further

found evidence of suppression or depression of prices for sales to mass merchandisers, the marketing

channel most affected by imports.48 Price was considered to be an important factor during the original

investigation,49 and (as discussed below) in subsequent reviews.50 In addition, the subsequent reviews

continued to place emphasis on the mass merchandise portion of the market, where high volumes and

intense competition among retailers made it likely that purchasers would switch suppliers readily, based

on relatively small changes in price. In the expedited first five-year review, the Commission found that

the importance of price would likely give Chinese candle producers an incentive to undersell the domestic

producers to regain market share. As noted, in the full second five-year review, purchasers considered

price as the most important purchasing factor, and virtually all responding purchasers indicated that the

U.S. and Chinese products were always or frequently interchangeable. The Commission found these data

to indicate that the market is highly price sensitive.51

In its response to the Commission’s notice of institution in the current review, the NCA continued

to emphasize the price sensitivity of the candle market, as well as the high interchangeability of U.S. and

Chinese candles.52

 48 Candles from the People’s Republic of China: Investigation No. 731-TA-282 (Final), USITC Publication

1888, August 1986, pp. 16-17.

 49 Candles from the People’s Republic of China: Investigation No. 731-TA-282 (Final), USITC Publication

1888, August 1986, p. A-47.

 50 The record in the original investigation and the first review indicated that purchasers viewed price as the most

important factor. In the second review, purchasers continued to view price as an important factor, although not all of

them always bought the lowest-priced candle available.

 51 Petroleum Wax Candles From China: Investigation No. 731-TA-282 (Review), USITC Publication 3226,

August 1999, pp. 13-14; and Petroleum Wax Candles From China: Investigation No. 731-TA-282 (Second Review),

USITC Publication 3790, July 2005, pp. 20-21.

 52 Response of domestic interested party, August 2, 2010, p. 17.

I-14
THE INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES

U.S. Producers

The original antidumping investigation resulted from a petition filed on behalf of the NCA on

September 4, 1985. In that investigation, the Commission reported that there were over 100 producers of

candles in the United States and identified 47 firms that accounted for approximately 95 percent of

domestically produced candles. The Commission received questionnaire responses from 22 firms,

accounting for approximately 75 percent of total domestic production.53

During the first review instituted in January 1999, the Commission noted that there were over 200

domestic producers of candles and the NCA reported that its 39 members that produced candles

represented about 75 percent of the total production of petroleum wax candles in the United States.54 In

its response to the Commission's notice of institution in the second five-year review, the NCA provided a

list of over 400 domestic producers of candles. The U.S. industry data presented in the Commission's

report in its full second five-year review of the order were based on the useable questionnaire responses

of 39 U.S. producers that accounted for approximately 63 percent of U.S. production in 2003.55 In this

current review, the NCA provided a listing of 58 current U.S. producers and reported that 40 of its

members are domestic producers of petroleum wax candles, accounting for approximately *** percent of

total domestic production.56

The NCA indicated in its response to the Commission's notice of institution in this third five-year

review that since the second review, at least seven U.S. candle producers, which had been members of the

NCA, have gone out of business. They also indicated that numerous other smaller U.S. candle producers,

which were not members of the NCA, have gone out of business since the last five-year review.57

U.S. Producers’ Trade, Employment, and Financial Data

Table I-3 presents data reported by U.S. producers of candles in the Commission’s original

investigation and its subsequent reviews.

 53 Candles from the People’s Republic of China: Investigation No. 731-TA-282 (Final), USITC Publication

1888, August 1986, p. A-12.

 54 Petroleum Wax Candles From China: Investigation No. 731-TA-282 (Review), USITC Publication 3226,

August 1999, p. I-6.

 55 Petroleum Wax Candles From China: Investigation No. 731-TA-282 (Second Review), USITC Publication

3790, July 2005, p. I-19.

 56 Response of domestic interested party, August 2, 2010, p. 2 and Attachments A and G.

 57 Response of domestic interested party, August 2, 2010, p. 8 and n.14.

I-15
I-16

Table I-3Candles: U.S. producers' trade, employment, and financial data, 1983-85, 1998, 1999-2004, and 20091

(Quantity=1,000 pounds; value=$1,000; unit values are per pound)

Item 1983 1984 1985 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2

Capacity 171,596 183,554 181,709 (2) 548,420 597,371 618,609 614,811 6

Production 94,427 95,769 94,708 411,872 360,164 357,383 315,577 324,359 3Capacity utilization(percent) 55.0 52.2 52.1 (2) 65.7 59.8 51.0 52.8 

U.S. shipments:3

Quantity 90,929 93,179 90,933 375,515 293,239 315,042 333,688 337,052 3Value ($1,000) 144,746 144,445 136,617 1,032,884 1,058,798 1,149,911 1,124,558 1,101,018 1,Unit value $1.59 $1.55 $1.50 $2.75 $3.61 $3.65 $3.37 $3.27 

Exports:

Quantity 3,157 2,304 1,437 (2) 13,855 14,211 11,879 11,784 

Value ($1,000) 3,528 3,207 1,807 (2) 65,427 61,680 58,534 65,878 Unit value $1.12 $1.39 $1.26 (2) $4.72 $4.34 $4.93 $5.59 

Total shipments:

Quantity 94,086 95,483 92,370 (2) 307,094 329,253 345,567 348,836 3

Value ($1,000) 148,274 147,652 138,424 (2) 1,124,225 1,211,591 1,183,092 1,166,896 1,2Unit value $1.58 $1.55 $1.50 (2) $3.66 $3.68 $3.42 $3.35 

End-of-periodinventories 20,353 20,190 20,890 (2) 223,250 197,458 164,090 138,771 

Table continued on next page.
I-17

Table I-3--ContinuedCandles: U.S. producers' trade, employment, and financial data, 1983-85, 1998, 1999-2004, and 20091

(Quantity=1,000 pounds; value=$1,000; unit values are per pound)

Item 1983 1984 1985 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2

Production and relatedworkers (number) 3,272 3,191 2,875 (2) 5,076 5,025 4,692 4,828 

Hours worked (1,000hours) 3,358 3,229 2,928 (2) 9,556 9,527 8,855 9,098 Wages paid ($1,000) 19,980 20,961 20,562 (2) 107,247 112,103 104,915 108,215 Hourly wages $5.95 $6.49 $7.02 (2) $11.20 $11.72 $11.81 $11.83 Productivity(pounds/hour) 28.1 29.7 32.3 (2) 37.6 37.4 35.6 35.6 Unit labor costs $0.21 $0.22 $0.22 (2) $0.30 $0.31 $0.33 $0.33 Net sales ($1,000) *** *** *** (2) 1,039,120 1,205,903 1,213,118 1,269,768 1,3

Cost of goods sold($1,000) *** *** *** (2) 526,148 618,764 638,424 663,534 6Gross profit or (loss)($1,000) *** *** *** (2) 512,971 587,139 574,694 606,234 6SG&A expenses($1,000) *** *** *** (2) 303,664 364,677 368,169 406,548 4Operating income or(loss) ($1,000) *** *** *** (2) 209,308 222,462 206,524 199,687 2Operating income(loss)/sales (percent) *** *** *** (2) 20.1 18.4 17.0 15.7 

1 Data presented for 2009 were provided by the National Candle Association, 40 members of which are believed to represent approximate

during 2009.

2 Not available.3 During the first five-year review, shipment data were also provided for 1996 (305 million pounds) and 1997 (335 million pounds).

Note.–Financial data for 2009 as reported by the domestic interested party do not reconcile.Source: Staff Report on Petroleum Wax Candles, Investigation No. 731-TA-282 (Second Review), June 17, 2005, INV-CC-092, table I-1; Re

party, August 2, 2010, Attachment E.
Related Party Issues

The NCA reported in its response to the Commission’s notice of institution that it is unaware of

any related parties.58 However, ***.59

U.S. IMPORTS AND APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION

U.S. Imports60

In the original investigation, the Commission identified over 175 possible importers of the subject

merchandise from China, most of which were reported to have imported only small quantities. In its

response to the Commission's notice of institution in the first review of the order, the NCA identified 96

U.S. firms that imported the subject merchandise into the United States. In its response to the

Commission's notice of institution in the second five-year review, the NCA provided a listing of over 125

U.S. importers of candles from China.

In its response to the Commission's notice of institution in this third five-year review, the NCA

listed more than 200 current importers and foreign producers of the subject merchandise in China. 

Imports from China entering the United States under the appropriate HTS subheading for petroleum wax

candles amounted to 15.7 million pounds ($33.2 million, landed duty-paid) in 2009. Since the period

examined in the original investigation, subject imports continued to increase through the first review and

into the second review. However, there was a marked decrease in imports in 2005, after Commerce’s

adjustment of the country-wide margin rate from 54.21 percent to 108.30 percent. After Commerce’s

affirmative circumvention finding in 2006, U.S. imports dropped further in that year when compared to

2005. The presence of nonsubject sources of imports, however, has increased since the last five-year

review, particularly from Vietnam and India.61 62

Data on U.S. imports of candles, by source, during 2004-09 are presented in table I-4. Figure I-1

presents the quantity of imports of candles from China and from all other countries from 1983 to 2009.

 58 Response to Commission's Letter Regarding Domestic Producers' Substantive Response, August 11, 2010,

p. 1; Response of domestic interested party, August 2, 2010, Attachment E.

 59 Response of domestic interested party, August 2, 2010, pp. 26-27.

 60 As mentioned previously, subject merchandise is currently provided for in HTS subheading 3406.00.00,

"Candles, tapers, and the like," which includes candles that have been excluded from the scope of the order and

nonsubject candles made from materials other than petroleum waxes. Chinese candle imports for which Customs

collected antidumping duties, based on quantity (in thousand pounds), from 2005 to 2009 are as follows: *** in

2005; *** in 2006; *** in 2007; *** in 2008; and *** in 2009. Compiled from proprietary Customs data.

 61 In its response to the notice of institution, the domestic interested party alleges that there have been illegal

transshipments of subject merchandise with false country of origin declarations, including transshipments from

Macau, the Netherlands, Austria, Israel, the Philippines, Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, and Thailand. The NCA states

that ***, and that Customs is currently conducting an investigation. Response of domestic interested party, August

2, 2010, pp. 39-40. See also “Transshipment, Help You Avoid Anti-Dumping Duties” (a web posting suggesting

that a freight forwarding company could route candle shipments through a third country and provide documents

certifying that the country of origin of the candles was the third country) as well as “How to Avoid the Huge Antidumping Duty” and “The China-made Candle” (similar web postings advertising candle-related transshipment

services for either the EU duties or those in effect in other countries, such as the United States).

 62 Purchaser *** believes that “global anti-dumping enforcement for candles from China caused increased

demand for candles from Vietnam and Thailand.” Purchaser survey response of ***.

I-18
Table I-4

Candles: U.S. imports, by source, 2004-09

Source 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

China 208,073 130,796 47,365 28,826 19,156 15,709

Vietnam 1,171 23,231 54,915 99,287 92,496 75,084

India 4,562 14,965 29,192 41,560 36,883 37,648

Canada 38,062 33,009 36,463 37,038 38,280 29,413

Thailand 19,182 20,330 22,460 30,145 27,287 22,778

Mexico 13,490 11,283 14,323 18,215 17,778 16,562

Dominican Republic 860 1,220 2,523 6,921 13,262 15,389

Hong Kong 22,645 19,563 23,465 20,175 9,193 7,182

All other 60,580 87,831 80,503 66,619 35,419 27,151

 Subtotal, nonsubject 160,551 211,431 263,845 319,960 270,597 231,206

 Total 368,624 342,227 311,211 348,786 289,754 246,915

Value ($1,000)

China 219,540 140,162 67,420 47,229 39,731 33,200

Vietnam 1,073 26,940 76,408 130,755 154,996 116,519

India 6,998 17,295 29,228 41,335 42,750 42,139

Canada 88,899 86,524 103,180 109,068 121,638 99,973

Thailand 22,794 24,996 28,625 36,090 35,999 28,086

Mexico 11,038 7,403 8,583 11,001 12,160 12,082

Dominican Republic 584 912 1,561 4,627 8,607 10,264

Hong Kong 26,497 25,445 31,069 29,955 17,962 13,668

All other 83,295 117,060 124,862 104,740 61,126 42,737

 Subtotal, nonsubject 241,178 306,575 403,516 467,571 455,238 365,468

 Total 460,717 446,737 470,936 514,799 494,969 398,668

Table continued on next page.

I-19
Table I-4--Continued

Candles: U.S. imports, by source, 2004-09

Source 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Unit value (per pound)

China $1.06 $1.07 $1.42 $1.64 $2.07 $2.11

Vietnam 0.92 1.16 1.39 1.32 1.68 1.55

India 1.53 1.16 1.00 0.99 1.16 1.12

Canada 2.34 2.62 2.83 2.94 3.18 3.40

Thailand 1.19 1.23 1.27 1.20 1.32 1.23

Mexico 0.82 0.66 0.60 0.60 0.68 0.73

Dominican Republic 0.68 0.75 0.62 0.67 0.65 0.67

Hong Kong 1.17 1.30 1.32 1.48 1.95 1.90

All other 1.37 1.33 1.55 1.57 1.73 1.57

 Average, nonsubject 1.50 1.45 1.53 1.46 1.68 1.58

 Average 1.25 1.31 1.51 1.48 1.71 1.61

Share of quantity (percent)

China 56.4 38.2 15.2 8.3 6.6 6.4

Vietnam 0.3 6.8 17.6 28.5 31.9 30.4

India 1.2 4.4 9.4 11.9 12.7 15.2

Canada 10.3 9.6 11.7 10.6 13.2 11.9

Thailand 5.2 5.9 7.2 8.6 9.4 9.2

Mexico 3.7 3.3 4.6 5.2 6.1 6.7

Dominican Republic 0.2 0.4 0.8 2.0 4.6 6.2

Hong Kong 6.1 5.7 7.5 5.8 3.2 2.9

All other 16.4 25.7 25.9 19.1 12.2 11.0

 Subtotal, nonsubject 43.6 61.8 84.8 91.7 93.4 93.6

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table continued on next page.

I-20
Table I-4--Continued

Candles: U.S. imports, by source, 2004-09

Source 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Share of value (percent)

China 47.7 31.4 14.3 9.2 8.0 8.3

Vietnam 0.2 6.0 16.2 25.4 31.3 29.2

India 1.5 3.9 6.2 8.0 8.6 10.6

Canada 19.3 19.4 21.9 21.2 24.6 25.1

Thailand 4.9 5.6 6.1 7.0 7.3 7.0

Mexico 2.4 1.7 1.8 2.1 2.5 3.0

Dominican Republic 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.9 1.7 2.6

Hong Kong 5.8 5.7 6.6 5.8 3.6 3.4

All other 18.1 26.2 26.5 20.3 12.3 10.7

 Subtotal, nonsubject 52.3 68.6 85.7 90.8 92.0 91.7

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Official Commerce statistics, HTS statistical reporting number 3406.00.0000.

I-21
Figure I-1

Candles: U.S. imports from China and all other sources, 1983-2009

Note.--Data for years 1986-88 are not available.

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics.

I-22
Ratio of Imports to U.S. Production

Imports of candles from China were equivalent to 8.1 percent of U.S. production in 2009,

compared to 57.6 percent in 2004, 21.1 percent in 1998, and 30.6 percent in 1985. The ratio of imports of

candles from nonsubject countries to domestic production was 118.6 percent in 2009, compared to 44.4

percent in 2004, 52.0 percent in 1998, and 35.6 percent in 1985. The ratio of total imports to U.S.

production increased throughout the period and was 126.7 percent in 2009, a substantial increase when

compared to 102.0 percent in 2004, 73.1 percent in 1998, and 66.2 percent in 1985.

Apparent U.S. Consumption and Market Shares

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares are presented in table I-5.

I-23
Table I-5

Candles: U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, U.S. imports, and apparent U.S. consumption, 1983-85,

1996-98, 1999-2004, and 2009

Item 1983 1984 1985 1996 1997 1998

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 90,929 93,179 90,933 305,125 335,395 375,515

U.S. imports from--

 China 16,539 26,705 28,949 41,108 45,939 86,597

 Other sources 29,121 34,456 33,728 86,516 117,088 214,148

 Total imports 45,660 61,161 62,677 127,624 163,027 300,745

Apparent U.S. consumption 136,589 154,340 153,610 432,749 498,422 676,260

Value (1,000 dollars)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 144,746 144,445 136,617 (1

) (1) 1,032,884

U.S. imports from--

 China 9,170 16,123 18,009 75,591 76,378 95,126

 Other sources 27,880 33,654 38,263 137,564 165,958 268,793

 Total imports 37,050 49,777 56,272 213,155 242,336 363,919

Apparent U.S. consumption 181,796 194,222 192,889 (1

) (1) 1,396,803

Share of consumption based on quantity (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 66.6 60.4 59.2 70.5 67.3 55.6

U.S. imports from--

 China 12.1 17.3 18.8 9.5 9.2 12.8

 Other sources 21.3 22.3 22.0 20.0 23.5 31.6

 Total imports 33.4 39.6 40.8 29.5 32.7 44.4

Apparent U.S. consumption 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of consumption based on value (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 79.6 74.4 70.8 (1

) (1) 73.9

U.S. imports from--

 China 5.0 8.3 9.3 (1

) (1) 6.8

 Other sources 15.3 17.3 19.8 (1

) (1) 19.2

 Total imports 20.4 25.6 29.2 (1

) (1) 26.1

Apparent U.S. consumption 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table continued on next page.

I-24
Table I-5--Continued

Candles: U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, U.S. imports, and apparent U.S. consumption, 1983-85,

1996-98, 1999-2004, and 2009

Item 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2009

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 293,239 315,042 333,688 337,052 330,304 361,272 195,175

U.S. imports from--

 China 151,908 156,765 133,553 174,165 183,644 208,073 15,709

 Other sources 284,396 288,054 233,886 201,401 179,851 160,551 231,206

 Total imports 436,304 444,819 367,439 375,566 363,495 368,624 246,915

Apparent U.S. consumption 729,543 759,862 701,128 712,618 693,799 729,896 442,090

Value (1,000 dollars)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 1,058,798 1,149,911 1,124,558 1,101,018 1,165,266 1,213,666 853,198

U.S. imports from--

 China 149,240 171,593 151,162 179,244 185,143 219,540 33,200

 Other sources 371,697 372,136 312,808 264,855 262,067 241,178 365,468

 Total imports 520,937 543,729 463,970 444,099 447,211 460,717 398,668

Apparent U.S. consumption 1,579,735 1,693,640 1,588,527 1,545,117 1,612,477 1,674,383 1,251,866

Share of consumption based on quantity (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 40.2 41.5 47.6 47.3 47.6 49.5 44.1

U.S. imports from--

 China 20.8 20.6 19.0 24.4 26.5 28.5 3.6

 Other sources 39.0 37.9 33.4 28.3 25.9 22.0 52.3

 Total imports 59.8 58.5 52.4 52.7 52.4 50.5 55.9

Apparent U.S. consumption 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of consumption based on value (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 67.0 67.9 70.8 71.3 72.3 72.5 68.2

U.S. imports from--

 China 9.4 10.1 9.5 11.6 11.5 13.1 2.7

 Other sources 23.5 22.0 19.7 17.1 16.3 14.4 29.2

 Total imports 33.0 32.1 29.2 28.7 27.7 27.5 31.8

Apparent U.S. consumption 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1 Not available.

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Staff Report on Petroleum Wax Candles, Investigation No. 731-TA-282 (Second Review), June 17, 2005, INV-CC-092,

table I-1; official Commerce statistics, HTS statistical reporting number 3406.00.0000; and Response of domestic interested

party, August 2, 2010, Attachment E.

I-25
In its response to the Commission’s notice of institution, the domestic interested party reported

that the most significant change in demand for candles since the second five-year review has been the

recession that began at the end of 2007. The recession has caused a marked decline in product demand. 

U.S. candle demand is also affected by the decline in the housing market, as the sale of homes is a major

incentive for the purchase of candles.63 This is consistent with comments made by purchaser ***, which

stated that the U.S. economic downturn has negatively affected domestic demand for candles in recent

years. *** reports that the use of candles for bedrooms and bathrooms have declined by one percent, but

it anticipates that candle demand related to sales and new home purchases will increase.64

The NCA also notes the increasing cost of inputs, such as paraffin wax and linerboard. From

2004 to 2009, the price of paraffin wax more than doubled from *** per pound, while the price of

linerboard, which is used for packing boxes, almost doubled from $350 to $675 per ton. The decline in

domestic consumption and price pressure from major retailers have made it difficult for candle producers

to pass the increased cost of inputs to candle purchasers. According to the domestic interested party,

“such increased costs contribute to the industry’s vulnerability.”65

ANTIDUMPING ACTIONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES

In November 2008, the EU implemented a provisional antidumping duty order on candles from

China. The final, definitive EU order entered into effect in May 2009. According to the response of the

domestic interested party, EU imports of candles from China peaked at 199,250 tons (398.5 million

pounds) in 2007, then volume decreased substantially to 67,573 tons (135.1 million pounds) in 2009. In

addition, Mexico has had an antidumping duty order of 103 percent on candles from China in effect since

August 1993.66

THE SUBJECT INDUSTRY IN CHINA

The staff report in the Commission's final investigation leading to the antidumping duty order

subject to this review indicated that approximately *** percent of the subject imports from China during

1985 were exported by the China Native Products Corp., an import/export entity. In that final

investigation, the NCA identified 44 factories and the China Native Products Corp. identified 11 factories

in China that produced candles for export. Many of the candle producers in China were rural enterprises

that operated largely outside centralized control.67 In its response to the Commission's notice of

institution in the first review of the order, the NCA identified 25 manufacturers/exporters of the subject

merchandise in China. In its response to the Commission's notice of institution in the second five-year

review, the NCA provided a listing of approximately 70 manufacturers/exporters of candles in China. 

Eight Chinese companies provided limited data to the Commission on their candle operations in China

during the second full five-year review. In its response to the Commission's notice of institution in the

current review, the NCA listed more than 200 current importers and foreign producers of the subject

merchandise in China.

 63 Response of domestic interested party, August 2, 2010, pp. 27-39.

 64 Purchaser survey response of ***.

 65 Response of domestic interested party, August 2, 2010, pp. 34-35 and Attachments K-L.

 66 Response of domestic interested party, August 2, 2010, pp. 33-34; and Petroleum Wax Candles From China: 

Investigation No. 731-TA-282 (Second Review), USITC Publication 3790, July 2005, p. IV-9.

 67 Petroleum Wax Candles From the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair

Value, 51 FR 25085, July 10, 1986.

I-26
The NCA states that Chinese production capacity has increased since the imposition of the order

in 1985. Since the Chinese producers have established channels of distribution, “the industry would

experience a certain immediate surge in the volume of Chinese imports similar to that experienced in

2004.” Other characterizations of the Chinese industry include: (1) a significant portion of the Chinese

production base operates under more traditional, labor-intensive production methods, (2) a large number

of preexisting candle-making equipment is readily available in China and elsewhere, (3) many Chinese

candle producers produce candles on a seasonal basis. The NCA asserts that these conditions of the

Chinese industry would allow Chinese candle producers to rapidly increase existing capacity utilization. 

Tables I-6 and I-7 present data on Chinese candle exports from 2004 to 2009.

Table I-6

Candles: Chinese exports, 2004-09

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Exports to:

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

United States 245,075 152,832 95,192 85,363 48,352 39,860

All other 656,727 797,745 825,518 890,060 700,263 548,664

Total 901,802 950,577 920,709 975,423 748,615 588,524

Source: Compiled from World Trade Atlas data, HTS statistical reporting number 3406.00.00, found in Response

of domestic interested party, August 2, 2010, Attachment F.

I-27
Table I-7

Candles: Chinese exports, by market, 2004-09

Market 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Value ($1,000)

Germany 40,408 60,854 73,866 94,828 99,986 61,573

United States 138,054 90,429 67,419 67,839 48,338 38,616

Netherlands 32,407 53,553 56,559 57,743 45,118 30,601

United Kingdom 37,650 42,256 50,249 53,464 50,457 28,258

Nigeria 12,863 9,454 13,443 19,052 23,658 24,062

Canada 17,504 19,815 23,314 27,364 23,825 20,531

Australia 12,647 14,035 13,291 14,560 20,745 17,912

France 11,827 14,060 13,029 18,440 19,239 12,965

Japan 6,236 6,959 7,725 8,179 12,059 12,265

Angola 5,254 7,478 11,388 13,833 16,246 11,655

Italy 17,801 18,371 17,392 20,685 20,454 10,147

Spain 13,970 15,607 13,600 18,117 15,347 9,838

Sweden 7,348 16,764 15,674 24,489 25,646 9,387

Hong Kong 28,264 26,871 20,232 20,140 11,054 8,734

Norway 2,384 4,795 5,247 7,461 8,741 8,502

 All other 95,675 143,988 191,648 218,473 249,234 179,696

 Total 480,294 545,289 594,076 684,666 690,149 484,744

Source: Compiled from World Trade Atlas data, HTS statistical reporting number 3406.00.00.

Another important factor is related to China’s role as global supplier of paraffin wax, the

principal raw material in candles. According to the domestic interested party, China has a large and

growing production capacity of paraffin wax, and could be used to support a “massive” expansion of

Chinese candle production. China is currently the largest supplier of paraffin wax to the U.S. market.68

THE GLOBAL MARKET

In the EU’s antidumping investigation on candles from China, the Council reported a surge of

low-priced candle imports from China were being dumped in the EU market. The Council also reported

that the subject merchandise was undercutting the Community industry’s prices at a margin of 15.7

percent during the period of investigation, while the volume of subject imports increased by 31 percent.69 

 68 Response of domestic interested party, August 2, 2010, pp. 11-12.

 69 Council Regulation (EC) No. 393/2009 of 11 May 2009, Official Journal of the European Union,

May 14, 2009.

I-28
During the investigation period (2007), total EU production was approximately 390,000 tonnes

(859.8 million pounds). The 31 domestic producers participating in the investigation accounted for

approximately 60 percent of total EU production during the period. Although domestic sales between

2004 and 2007 increased by 3 percent, Community consumption increased by 13 percent. The domestic

industry could not take advantage of this expansion of Community consumption and subsequently lost

market share, decreasing by almost 3.7 percentage points.70

Tables I-8 and I-9 present additional data on world exports and imports, by value, from 2004 to

2009.

Table I-8

Candles: World exports, by source, 2004-09

Source 20041 20052 2006 2007 2008 2009

Value ($1,000)

China 480,294 545,289 594,076 684,666 690,149 484,744

Poland 137,512 157,982 177,853 240,742 330,002 325,862

Netherlands 194,005 213,752 253,946 269,661 333,346 310,057

Germany 175,351 175,154 184,486 213,193 233,659 199,226

United States 76,213 82,217 87,860 113,197 129,760 143,155

Canada 101,982 96,221 111,165 119,661 131,743 107,645

Belgium 53,030 53,977 62,166 74,146 79,426 86,210

United Kingdom 62,755 63,934 69,822 85,023 77,821 71,078

Hong Kong 89,060 77,643 75,231 66,445 49,498 46,315

Denmark 34,369 35,328 38,262 47,983 50,801 41,538

Thailand 23,499 28,778 31,875 44,351 42,930 40,058

 All other 295,231 310,438 359,599 420,030 416,015 403,497

 Total N/A N/A 2,046,342 2,379,099 2,565,148 2,259,386

 1 2004 data not available for Bolivia, Cote d’Ivoire, Egypt, El Salvador, Kenya, Mauritius, and Senegal.

 2

 2005 data not available for Kenya.

Source: Compiled from World Trade Atlas data, HTS statistical reporting number 3406.00.00.

 70 Commission Regulation (EC) No 1130/2008 of 14 November 2008, Official Journal of the European Union,

November 15, 2008.

I-29
Table I-9

Candles: World imports, by market, 2004-09

Market 20041 20052 2006 2007 2008 2009

Value ($1,000)

Germany 326,307 308,710 316,631 410,506 480,144 426,463

United States 426,039 414,816 441,745 485,332 470,462 381,511

United Kingdom 137,171 143,556 150,556 157,715 167,892 154,426

Netherlands 91,350 105,183 140,433 154,503 164,833 138,921

France 70,162 78,575 89,824 116,289 122,171 115,677

Canada 79,316 80,639 89,739 101,644 98,577 90,324

Austria 78,860 79,078 80,969 108,755 112,679 87,600

Sweden 44,888 58,126 65,909 79,745 105,734 80,613

Norway 38,853 44,985 49,886 67,345 76,817 75,129

Denmark 57,102 67,031 70,285 80,819 92,161 72,102

Belgium 48,593 51,173 51,932 71,878 71,601 70,518

 All other 446,387 479,832 523,554 624,037 677,025 574,848

 Total N/A N/A 2,071,463 2,458,570 2,640,097 2,268,131

 1 2004 data not available for Bolivia, Cote d’Ivoire, Egypt, El Salvador, Kenya, Mauritius, and Senegal.

 2

 2005 data not available for Kenya.

Source: Compiled from World Trade Atlas data, HTS statistical reporting number 3406.00.00.

I-30
Contains Business Proprietary Information

A-1

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 2010 / Notices 38121 

1No response to this request for information is 

required if a currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the 

OMB number is 3117–0016/USITC No. 10–5–220, 

expiration date June 30, 2011. Public reporting 

burden for the request is estimated to average 15 

hours per response. Please send comments 

regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to 

the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20436. 

transfers of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s). 

(e) the value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost 

of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, 

(iv) selling, general and administrative 

(SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating 

income of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s) (include 

both U.S. and export commercial sales, 

internal consumption, and company 

transfers) for your most recently 

completed fiscal year (identify the date 

on which your fiscal year ends). 

(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a 

trade/business association of U.S. 

importers of the Subject Merchandise 

from the Subject Country, provide the 

following information on your firm’s(s’) 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2009 (report quantity data 

in pounds and value data in U.S. 

dollars). If you are a trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms which 

are members of your association. 

(a) The quantity and value (landed, 

duty-paid but not including 

antidumping duties) of U.S. imports 

and, if known, an estimate of the 

percentage of total U.S. imports of 

Subject Merchandise from the Subject 

Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) 

imports; 

(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. commercial shipments of Subject 

Merchandise imported from the Subject 

Country; and 

(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. internal consumption/company 

transfers of Subject Merchandise 

imported from the Subject Country. 

(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, 

or a trade/business association of 

producers or exporters of the Subject 

Merchandise in the Subject Country, 

provide the following information on 

your firm’s(s’) operations on that 

product during calendar year 2009 

(report quantity data in pounds and 

value data in U.S. dollars, landed and 

duty-paid at the U.S. port but not 

including antidumping duties). If you 

are a trade/business association, provide 

the information, on an aggregate basis, 

for the firms which are members of your 

association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total production of Subject Merchandise 

in the Subject Country accounted for by 

your firm’s(s’) production; and 

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to 

produce the Subject Merchandise in the 

Subject Country (i.e., the level of 

production that your establishment(s) 

could reasonably have expected to 

attain during the year, assuming normal 

operating conditions (using equipment 

and machinery in place and ready to 

operate), normal operating levels (hours 

per week/weeks per year), time for 

downtime, maintenance, repair, and 

cleanup, and a typical or representative 

product mix); and 

(c) the quantity and value of your 

firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of 

Subject Merchandise and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total 

exports to the United States of Subject 

Merchandise from the Subject Country 

accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. 

(12) Identify significant changes, if 

any, in the supply and demand 

conditions or business cycle for the 

Domestic Like Product that have 

occurred in the United States or in the 

market for the Subject Merchandise in 

the Subject Country after 2004, and 

significant changes, if any, that are 

likely to occur within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. Supply conditions to 

consider include technology; 

production methods; development 

efforts; ability to increase production 

(including the shift of production 

facilities used for other products and the 

use, cost, or availability of major inputs 

into production); and factors related to 

the ability to shift supply among 

different national markets (including 

barriers to importation in foreign 

markets or changes in market demand 

abroad). Demand conditions to consider 

include end uses and applications; the 

existence and availability of substitute 

products; and the level of competition 

among the Domestic Like Product 

produced in the United States, Subject 

Merchandise produced in the Subject 

Country, and such merchandise from 

other countries. 

(13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of 

whether you agree with the above 

definitions of the Domestic Like Product 

and Domestic Industry; if you disagree 

with either or both of these definitions, 

please explain why and provide 

alternative definitions. 

Authority: This review is being conducted 

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.61 of the Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: June 23, 2010. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–15667 Filed 6–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–282 (Third 

Review)] 

Petroleum Wax Candles From China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of a five-year review 

concerning the antidumping duty order 

on petroleum wax candles from China. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it has instituted a review 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) 

to determine whether revocation of the 

antidumping duty order on petroleum 

wax candles from China would be likely 

to lead to continuation or recurrence of 

material injury. Pursuant to section 

751(c)(2) of the Act, interested parties 

are requested to respond to this notice 

by submitting the information specified 

below to the Commission; 1 to be 

assured of consideration, the deadline 

for responses is August 2, 2010. 

Comments on the adequacy of responses 

may be filed with the Commission by 

September 14, 2010. For further 

information concerning the conduct of 

this review and rules of general 

application, consult the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 

201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 

201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and 

F (19 CFR part 207), as most recently 

amended at 74 FR 2847 (January 16, 

2009). 

DATES: Effective Date: July 1, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
38122 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 2010 / Notices 

this review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—On August 28, 1986, 

the Department of Commerce issued an 

antidumping duty order on imports of 

petroleum wax candles from China (51 

FR 30686). Following first five-year 

reviews by Commerce and the 

Commission, effective September 23, 

1999, Commerce issued a continuation 

of the antidumping duty order on 

imports of petroleum wax candles from 

China (64 FR 51514). Following second 

five-year reviews by Commerce and the 

Commission, effective August 10, 2005, 

Commerce issued a second continuation 

of the antidumping duty order on 

imports of petroleum wax candles from 

China (70 FR 56890, September 29, 

2005). The Commission is now 

conducting a third review to determine 

whether revocation of the order would 

be likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of material injury to the 

domestic industry within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. It will assess the 

adequacy of interested party responses 

to this notice of institution to determine 

whether to conduct a full review or an 

expedited review. The Commission’s 

determination in any expedited review 

will be based on the facts available, 

which may include information 

provided in response to this notice. 

Definitions.—The following 

definitions apply to this review: 

(1) Subject Merchandise is the class or 

kind of merchandise that is within the 

scope of the five-year review, as defined 

by the Department of Commerce. 

(2) The Subject Country in this review 

is China. 

(3) The Domestic Like Product is the 

domestically produced product or 

products which are like, or in the 

absence of like, most similar in 

characteristics and uses with, the 

Subject Merchandise. In its original 

determination and its expedited first 

five-year review determination, the 

Commission defined the Domestic Like 

Product as petroleum wax candles. In its 

full second five-year review 

determination, the Commission defined 

the Domestic Like Product as candles 

with fiber or paper-cored wicks and 

containing any amount of petroleum 

wax, except for candles containing more 

than 50 percent beeswax. 

(4) The Domestic Industry is the U.S. 

producers as a whole of the Domestic 

Like Product, or those producers whose 

collective output of the Domestic Like 

Product constitutes a major proportion 

of the total domestic production of the 

product. In its original determination 

and its expedited first five-year review 

determination, the Commission defined 

the Domestic Industry as producers of 

petroleum wax candles. In its full 

second five-year review determination, 

the Commission defined the Domestic 

Industry as consisting of all domestic 

producers of candles containing 

petroleum wax, except for candles that 

contain more than 50 percent beeswax. 

(5) An Importer is any person or firm 

engaged, either directly or through a 

parent company or subsidiary, in 

importing the Subject Merchandise into 

the United States from a foreign 

manufacturer or through its selling 

agent. 

Participation in the review and public 

service list.—Persons, including 

industrial users of the Subject 

Merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in the review as parties must 

file an entry of appearance with the 

Secretary to the Commission, as 

provided in section 201.11(b)(4) of the 

Commission’s rules, no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. The Secretary will 

maintain a public service list containing 

the names and addresses of all persons, 

or their representatives, who are parties 

to the review. 

Former Commission employees who 

are seeking to appear in Commission 

five-year reviews are advised that they 

may appear in a review even if they 

participated personally and 

substantially in the corresponding 

underlying original investigation. The 

Commission’s designated agency ethics 

official has advised that a five-year 

review is not considered the ‘‘same 

particular matter’’ as the corresponding 

underlying original investigation for 

purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post 

employment statute for Federal 

employees, and Commission rule 

201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 73 FR 

24609 (May 5, 2008). This advice was 

developed in consultation with the 

Office of Government Ethics. 

Consequently, former employees are not 

required to seek Commission approval 

to appear in a review under Commission 

rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the 

corresponding underlying original 

investigation was pending when they 

were Commission employees. For 

further ethics advice on this matter, 

contact Carol McCue Verratti, Deputy 

Agency Ethics Official, at 202–205– 

3088. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and APO service list.—Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

submitted in this review available to 

authorized applicants under the APO 

issued in the review, provided that the 

application is made no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. Authorized 

applicants must represent interested 

parties, as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), 

who are parties to the review. A 

separate service list will be maintained 

by the Secretary for those parties 

authorized to receive BPI under the 

APO. 

Certification.—Pursuant to section 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules, any 

person submitting information to the 

Commission in connection with this 

review must certify that the information 

is accurate and complete to the best of 

the submitter’s knowledge. In making 

the certification, the submitter will be 

deemed to consent, unless otherwise 

specified, for the Commission, its 

employees, and contract personnel to 

use the information provided in any 

other reviews or investigations of the 

same or comparable products which the 

Commission conducts under Title VII of 

the Act, or in internal audits and 

investigations relating to the programs 

and operations of the Commission 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3. 

Written submissions.—Pursuant to 

section 207.61 of the Commission’s 

rules, each interested party response to 

this notice must provide the information 

specified below. The deadline for filing 

such responses is August 2, 2010. 

Pursuant to section 207.62(b) of the 

Commission’s rules, eligible parties (as 

specified in Commission rule 

207.62(b)(1)) may also file comments 

concerning the adequacy of responses to 

the notice of institution and whether the 

Commission should conduct an 

expedited or full review. The deadline 

for filing such comments is September 

14, 2010. All written submissions must 

conform with the provisions of sections 

201.8 and 207.3 of the Commission’s 

rules and any submissions that contain 

BPI must also conform with the 

requirements of sections 201.6 and 

207.7 of the Commission’s rules. The 

Commission’s rules do not authorize 

filing of submissions with the Secretary 

by facsimile or electronic means, except 

to the extent permitted by section 201.8 

of the Commission’s rules, as amended, 

67 FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Also, 

in accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, 

each document filed by a party to the 

review must be served on all other 

parties to the review (as identified by 

either the public or APO service list as 

appropriate), and a certificate of service 

must accompany the document (if you 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 2010 / Notices 38123 

are not a party to the review you do not 

need to serve your response). 

Inability to provide requested 

information.—Pursuant to section 

207.61(c) of the Commission’s rules, any 

interested party that cannot furnish the 

information requested by this notice in 

the requested form and manner shall 

notify the Commission at the earliest 

possible time, provide a full explanation 

of why it cannot provide the requested 

information, and indicate alternative 

forms in which it can provide 

equivalent information. If an interested 

party does not provide this notification 

(or the Commission finds the 

explanation provided in the notification 

inadequate) and fails to provide a 

complete response to this notice, the 

Commission may take an adverse 

inference against the party pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act in making its 

determination in the review. 

Information to be Provided In 

Response to this Notice of Institution: 

As used below, the term ‘‘firm’’ includes 

any related firms. 

(1) The name and address of your firm 

or entity (including World Wide Web 

address) and name, telephone number, 

fax number, and E-mail address of the 

certifying official. 

(2) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of 

the Domestic Like Product, a U.S. union 

or worker group, a U.S. importer of the 

Subject Merchandise, a foreign producer 

or exporter of the Subject Merchandise, 

a U.S. or foreign trade or business 

association, or another interested party 

(including an explanation). If you are a 

union/worker group or trade/business 

association, identify the firms in which 

your workers are employed or which are 

members of your association. 

(3) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is willing to participate 

in this review by providing information 

requested by the Commission. 

(4) A statement of the likely effects of 

the revocation of the antidumping duty 

order on the Domestic Industry in 

general and/or your firm/entity 

specifically. In your response, please 

discuss the various factors specified in 

section 752(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1675a(a)) including the likely volume of 

subject imports, likely price effects of 

subject imports, and likely impact of 

imports of Subject Merchandise on the 

Domestic Industry. 

(5) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. producers of the 

Domestic Like Product. Identify any 

known related parties and the nature of 

the relationship as defined in section 

771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1677(4)(B)). 

(6) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. importers of the Subject 

Merchandise and producers of the 

Subject Merchandise in the Subject 

Country that currently export or have 

exported Subject Merchandise to the 

United States or other countries after 

2004. 

(7) A list of 3–5 leading purchasers in 

the U.S. market for the Domestic Like 

Product and the Subject Merchandise 

(including street address, World Wide 

Web address, and the name, telephone 

number, fax number, and E-mail address 

of a responsible official at each firm). 

(8) A list of known sources of 

information on national or regional 

prices for the Domestic Like Product or 

the Subject Merchandise in the U.S. or 

other markets. 

(9) If you are a U.S. producer of the 

Domestic Like Product, provide the 

following information on your firm’s 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2009, except as noted 

(report quantity data in pounds and 

value data in U.S. dollars, f.o.b. plant). 

If you are a union/worker group or 

trade/business association, provide the 

information, on an aggregate basis, for 

the firms in which your workers are 

employed/which are members of your 

association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total U.S. production of the Domestic 

Like Product accounted for by your 

firm’s(s’) production; 

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to 

produce the Domestic Like Product (i.e., 

the level of production that your 

establishment(s) could reasonably have 

expected to attain during the year, 

assuming normal operating conditions 

(using equipment and machinery in 

place and ready to operate), normal 

operating levels (hours per week/weeks 

per year), time for downtime, 

maintenance, repair, and cleanup, and a 

typical or representative product mix); 

(c) the quantity and value of U.S. 

commercial shipments of the Domestic 

Like Product produced in your U.S. 

plant(s); and 

(d) the quantity and value of U.S. 

internal consumption/company 

transfers of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s). 

(e) the value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost 

of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, 

(iv) selling, general and administrative 

(SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating 

income of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s) (include 

both U.S. and export commercial sales, 

internal consumption, and company 

transfers) for your most recently 

completed fiscal year (identify the date 

on which your fiscal year ends). 

(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a 

trade/business association of U.S. 

importers of the Subject Merchandise 

from the Subject Country, provide the 

following information on your firm’s(s’) 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2009 (report quantity data 

in pounds and value data in U.S. 

dollars). If you are a trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms which 

are members of your association. 

(a) The quantity and value (landed, 

duty-paid but not including 

antidumping duties) of U.S. imports 

and, if known, an estimate of the 

percentage of total U.S. imports of 

Subject Merchandise from the Subject 

Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) 

imports; 

(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. commercial shipments of Subject 

Merchandise imported from the Subject 

Country; and 

(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. internal consumption/company 

transfers of Subject Merchandise 

imported from the Subject Country. 

(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, 

or a trade/business association of 

producers or exporters of the Subject 

Merchandise in the Subject Country, 

provide the following information on 

your firm’s(s’) operations on that 

product during calendar year 2009 

(report quantity data in pounds and 

value data in U.S. dollars, landed and 

duty-paid at the U.S. port but not 

including antidumping duties). If you 

are a trade/business association, provide 

the information, on an aggregate basis, 

for the firms which are members of your 

association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total production of Subject Merchandise 

in the Subject Country accounted for by 

your firm’s(s’) production; and 

(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to 

produce the Subject Merchandise in the 

Subject Country (i.e., the level of 

production that your establishment(s) 

could reasonably have expected to 

attain during the year, assuming normal 

operating conditions (using equipment 

and machinery in place and ready to 

operate), normal operating levels (hours 

per week/weeks per year), time for 

downtime, maintenance, repair, and 

cleanup, and a typical or representative 

product mix); and 

(c) the quantity and value of your 

firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of 

Subject Merchandise and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total 

exports to the United States of Subject 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
38124 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 2010 / Notices 

Merchandise from the Subject Country 

accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. 

(12) Identify significant changes, if 

any, in the supply and demand 

conditions or business cycle for the 

Domestic Like Product that have 

occurred in the United States or in the 

market for the Subject Merchandise in 

the Subject Country after 2004, and 

significant changes, if any, that are 

likely to occur within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. Supply conditions to 

consider include technology; 

production methods; development 

efforts; ability to increase production 

(including the shift of production 

facilities used for other products and the 

use, cost, or availability of major inputs 

into production); and factors related to 

the ability to shift supply among 

different national markets (including 

barriers to importation in foreign 

markets or changes in market demand 

abroad). Demand conditions to consider 

include end uses and applications; the 

existence and availability of substitute 

products; and the level of competition 

among the Domestic Like Product 

produced in the United States, Subject 

Merchandise produced in the Subject 

Country, and such merchandise from 

other countries. 

(13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of 

whether you agree with the above 

definitions of the Domestic Like Product 

and Domestic Industry; if you disagree 

with either or both of these definitions, 

please explain why and provide 

alternative definitions. 

Authority: This review is being conducted 

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.61 of the Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: June 23, 2010. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–15669 Filed 6–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–693] 

In the Matter of Certain Foldable 

Stools; Notice of a Commission 

Determination Not To Review an Initial 

Determination Terminating the 

Investigation as to All Respondents 

Based on Withdrawal of the Complaint; 

Termination of the Investigation 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined not to 

review an initial determination (‘‘ID’’) 

(Order No. 18) of the presiding 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) 

terminating the above-captioned 

investigation based on withdrawal of 

the complaint. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Clint Gerdine, Esq., Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

708–2310. Copies of non-confidential 

documents filed in connection with this 

investigation are or will be available for 

inspection during official business 

hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the 

Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, 

telephone (202) 205–2000. General 

information concerning the Commission 

may also be obtained by accessing its 

Internet server at http://www.usitc.gov. 

The public record for this investigation 

may be viewed on the Commission’s 

electronic docket (EDIS) at http:// 

edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired 

persons are advised that information on 

this matter can be obtained by 

contacting the Commission’s TDD 

terminal on (202) 205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission instituted this investigation 

on December 9, 2009, based on a 

complaint filed by B&R Plastics, Inc. 

(‘‘B&R’’) of Denver, Colorado. 74 FR. 

65155–6 (Dec. 9, 2009). The complaint, 

as amended, alleges violations of section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the 

importation into the United States, the 

sale for importation, and the sale within 

the United States after importation of 

certain foldable stools by reason of 

infringement of U.S. Patent No. 

D460,566. 75 FR 6706 (Feb. 10, 2010). 

The complaint, as amended, further 

alleges the existence of a domestic 

industry. The Commission’s notice of 

investigation, as amended, named 

several respondents including the 

following: Amazon.com, Inc. of Seattle, 

Washington; Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. of 

Union, New Jersey; The Afternoon of 

Omaha, Nebraska; QVC, Inc. of West 

Chester, Pennsylvania; Kikkerland 

Design, Inc. of New York, New York; 

Buy.com of Aliso Viejo, California; LTD 

Commodities, LLC, d/b/a abc 

Distributing of Bannockburn, Illinois; 

Euromarket Designs, Inc., d/b/a Crate & 

Barrel of Northbrook, Illinois; The 

Container Store, Inc. of Coppell, Texas; 

Home Depot USA Inc. of Atlanta, 

Georgia; Ningbo ZhongTian Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Ningbo ZhongTian’’) of China; Ningbo 

Ningfeng Import and Export Co. Ltd. 

(‘‘Ningbo Ningfeng’’) of China; and 

Always Something Brilliant (‘‘ASB’’) of 

Denver, Colorado. 

On February 4, 2010, the Commission 

issued notice of its determination not to 

review the ALJ’s ID granting B&R’s 

motion to amend the complaint and 

notice of investigation to correct the 

names of certain respondents. 75 FR 

6706 (Feb. 10, 2010). On March 18, 

2010, the Commission issued notice of 

its determination not to review the ALJ’s 

ID granting B&R’s motion to terminate 

the investigation as to respondent 

Buy.com based on partial withdrawal of 

the complaint. Also, on April 15, 2010, 

the Commission issued notice of its 

determination not to review the ALJ’s ID 

granting B&R’s motion for a 

determination that respondents Ningbo 

ZhongTian, Ningbo Ningfeng, and ASB 

are in default based on their failure to 

respond to the complaint and notice of 

investigation. 

On May 13, 2010, B&R moved to 

terminate the investigation as to all 

respondents based on withdrawal of the 

complaint. 

The ALJ issued the subject ID on June 

8, 2010, granting the motion for 

termination of the investigation. No 

party petitioned for review of the ID 

pursuant to 19 CFR 210.43(a), and the 

Commission found no basis for ordering 

a review on its own initiative pursuant 

to 19 CFR 210.44. The Commission has 

determined not to review the ID, and 

has terminated the investigation. 

The authority for the Commission’s 

determination is contained in section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and in 

§§ 210.21 and 210.42(h) of the 

Commission’s of Practice and 

Procedure, 19 CFR 210.21, 210.42(h). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: June 25, 2010. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–15939 Filed 6–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Office of the Secretary 

Final Notice of Submission for OMB 

Review; Comment Request 

ACTION: Final Notice of Submission for 

OMB Review; Comment Request. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor 

(DOL) hereby announces the submission 

of the following public information 

collection request (ICR) to the Office of


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
39494 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 131 / Friday, July 9, 2010 / Notices 

DATES: Written comments are requested 

by close of business on July 26, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments should 

be sent by electronic mail message over 

the Internet addressed to 

strategicplan@uspto.gov. Comments 

may also be submitted by mail 

addressed to: The USPTO Strategic Plan 

Coordinator, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, 

VA 22313–1450, marked to the attention 

of Candice Goodman. Although 

comments may be submitted by mail, 

submission via e-mail to the above 

address is preferable. 

The written comments will be 

available for public inspection at the 

Office of Corporate Planning, Madison 

East, Room 7A15, Alexandria, VA 

22314, and will be available via the 

USPTO Internet Web site (address: 

http://www.uspto.gov). Because 

comments will be made available for 

public inspection, information that is 

not desired to be made public, such as 

an address or phone number, should not 

be included. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Candice Goodman, United States Patent 

and Trademark Office, by telephone at 

571–272–6452. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: GPRA 

requires Federal agencies to establish a 

strategic plan covering not less than a 

five-year period, and to solicit the views 

and suggestions of those entities 

potentially affected by or interested in 

the plan. This notice is to alert USPTO’s 

stakeholders and the public as to how 

they can provide input on the USPTO’s 

draft strategic plan. 

The draft strategic plan for FY 2010– 

2015 is available on the USPTO’s Web 

site at http://www.uspto.gov. The draft 

plan includes the USPTO’s mission 

statement, vision statement and a 

description of the strategic goals, 

objectives and significant actions that 

the USPTO plans to take in order to 

accomplish its mission and achieve its 

vision. Full details on how the USPTO 

plans to implement the strategic plan, 

including funding and performance 

metrics, will be included in the 

USPTO’s FY 2012 President’s Budget. 

The USPTO would like to receive 

input from a wide range of organizations 

(both national and international), public 

bodies, and other stakeholders. We 

especially encourage the views and 

suggestions of individuals and entities 

holding or dealing with intellectual 

property, and USPTO employees. 

The USPTO anticipates posting the 

final strategic plan for FY 2010–2015 on 

our Web site by the end of FY 2010. 

Date: July 1, 2010. 

David J. Kappos, 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual 

Property and Director of the United States 

Patent and Trademark Office. 

[FR Doc. 2010–16597 Filed 7–8–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce 

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 

751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’), the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is 

automatically initiating a five-year 

review (‘‘Sunset Review’’) of the 

antidumping duty orders listed below. 

The International Trade Commission 

(‘‘the Commission’’) is publishing 

concurrently with this notice its notice 

of Institution of Five-Year Review which 

covers the same orders. 

DATES: Effective Date: July 1, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Department official identified in the 

Initiation of Review section below at 

AD/CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230. For 

information from the Commission 

contact Mary Messer, Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission at (202) 205–3193. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department’s procedures for the 

conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth 

in its Procedures for Conducting FiveYear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of Antidumping 

and Countervailing. 

Duty Orders, 63 FR 13516 (March 20, 

1998) and 70 FR 62061 (October 28, 

2005). Guidance on methodological or 

analytical issues relevant to the 

Department’s conduct of Sunset 

Reviews is set forth in the Department’s 

Policy Bulletin 98.3—Policies Regarding 

the Conduct of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Reviews of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Orders: Policy 

Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998). 

Initiation of Review 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.218(c), we are initiating the Sunset 

Review of the following antidumping 

duty orders: 

DOC Case No. ITC Case No. Country Product Department contact 

A–588–046 ....... AA1921–129 ..... Japan ................ Polychloroprene Rubber (3rd Review) ................. Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391 

A–570–504 ....... 731–TA–282 ..... PRC .................. Petroleum Wax Candles (3rd Review) ................. Jennifer Moats (202) 492–5047 

A–401–8081 ...... 731–TA–1087 ... Sweden ............ Carboxymethylcellulose ........................................ Dana Mermelstein (202) 482–1391 

1 In the sunset initiation notice that published on June 2, 2010 (75 FR 30777), the case number listed for Carboxymethylcellulose from Sweden 

was incorrect. The case number listed above is the correct number for that case. This notice serves only to correct the case number. The initiation remains in effect as of June 2, 2010. 

Filing Information 

As a courtesy, we are making 

information related to Sunset 

proceedings, including copies of the 

pertinent statute and Department’s 

regulations, the Department schedule 

for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past 

revocations and continuations, and 

current service lists, available to the 

public on the Department’s Internet 

Web site at the following address: 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/sunset/. All 

submissions in these Sunset Reviews 

must be filed in accordance with the 

Department’s regulations regarding 

format, translation, service, and 

certification of documents. These rules 

can be found at 19 CFR 351.303. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103 (d), the 

Department will maintain and make 

available a service list for these 

proceedings. To facilitate the timely 

preparation of the service list(s), it is 

requested that those seeking recognition 

as interested parties to a proceeding 

contact the Department in writing 

within 10 days of the publication of the 

Notice of Initiation. 

Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews 

can be very short, we urge interested 

parties to apply for access to proprietary 

information under administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) immediately 

following publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation by 

filing a notice of intent to participate. 

The Department’s regulations on 

submission of proprietary information 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 131 / Friday, July 9, 2010 / Notices 39495 

2 In comments made on the interim final sunset 

regulations, a number of parties stated that the 

proposed five-day period for rebuttals to 

substantive responses to a notice of initiation was 

insufficient. This requirement was retained in the 

final sunset regulations at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(4). As 

provided in 19 CFR 351.302(b), however, the 

Department will consider individual requests to 

extend that five-day deadline based upon a showing 

of good cause. 

and eligibility to receive access to 

business proprietary information under 

APO can be found at 19 CFR 351.304– 

306. 

Information Required From Interested 

Parties 

Domestic interested parties defined in 

section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b)) wishing 

to participate in a Sunset Review must 

respond not later than 15 days after the 

date of publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation by 

filing a notice of intent to participate. 

See 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). The 

required contents of the notice of intent 

to participate are set forth at 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(1)(ii). In accordance with the 

Department’s regulations, if we do not 

receive a notice of intent to participate 

from at least one domestic interested 

party by the 15-day deadline, the 

Department will automatically revoke 

the order without further review. See 19 

CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii). 

If we receive an order-specific notice 

of intent to participate from a domestic 

interested party, the Department’s 

regulations provide that all parties 

wishing to participate in the Sunset 

Review must file complete substantive 

responses not later than 30 days after 

the date of publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation. The 

required contents of a substantive 

response, on an order-specific basis, are 

set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3). Note 

that certain information requirements 

differ for respondent and domestic 

parties. Also, note that the Department’s 

information requirements are distinct 

from the Commission’s information 

requirements. Please consult the 

Department’s regulations for 

information regarding the Department’s 

conduct of Sunset Reviews.2 Please 

consult the Department’s regulations at 

19 CFR Part 351 for definitions of terms 

and for other general information 

concerning antidumping and 

countervailing duty proceedings at the 

Department. 

This notice of initiation is being 

published in accordance with section 

751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218 

(c). 

Dated: June 23, 2010. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2010–16080 Filed 7–6–10; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XX42 

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management 

Council; Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery 

Management Council (Council) will 

convene its Law Enforcement Advisory 

Panel (LEAP). 

DATES: The meeting will convene at 8 

a.m. on Tuesday, July 27, 2010 and 

conclude no later than 5 p.m. on July 

28, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Courtyard Marriott, 1600 E. Beach 

Blvd, Gulfport, MS 39501. 

Council address: Gulf of Mexico 

Fishery Management Council, 2203 

North Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, 

FL 33607. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Richard Leard, Deputy Executive 

Director, Gulf of Mexico Fishery 

Management Council; telephone: (813) 

348–1630. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Council will convene its LEAP to review 

and potentially revise the Operations 

Plan for a one- or two-year period that 

ends in 2012. The LEAP will also 

discuss state and federal enforcement 

efforts with regard to the closed fishing 

areas and clean-up from the Deepwater 

Horizon oil spill. Finally, the LEAP will 

discuss topics for its October joint 

meeting with the Council’s Law 

Enforcement Committee. 

The Law Enforcement Advisory Panel 

consists of principal law enforcement 

officers in each of the Gulf States, as 

well as the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

Law Enforcement, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS), the U.S. Coast 

Guard, and the NOAA General Counsel 

for Law Enforcement. A copy of the 

agenda and related materials can be 

obtained by calling the Council office at 

(813) 348–1630. 

Although other non-emergency issues 

not on the agendas may come before the 

Law Enforcement Advisory Panel for 

discussion, in accordance with the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act), those issues 

may not be the subject of formal action 

during this meeting. Actions of the Law 

Enforcement Advisory Panel will be 

restricted to those issues specifically 

identified in the agendas and any issues 

arising after publication of this notice 

that require emergency action under 

Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act, provided the public has been 

notified of the Council’s intent to take 

action to address the emergency. 

Special Accommodations 

These meetings are physically 

accessible to people with disabilities. 

Requests for sign language 

interpretation or other auxiliary aids 

should be directed to Tina O’Hern at the 

Council (see ADDRESSES) 5 working days 

prior to the meeting. 

Dated: July 6, 2010. 

Tracey L. Thompson, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–16796 Filed 7–8–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XX44 

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management 

Council; Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Council to convene public 

meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery 

Management Council will convene a 

meeting of the Standing and Special 

Reef Fish Scientific and Statistical 

Committees. 

DATES: The meeting will convene at 9 

a.m. on Tuesday, July 27, 2010 and 

conclude by 3 p.m. on Thursday, July 

29, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management 

Council, 2203 North Lois Avenue, Suite 

1100, Tampa, FL 33607; telephone: 

(813) 348–1630. 

Council address: Gulf of Mexico 

Fishery Management Council, 2203 N.


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
63200 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Notices 

1A record of the Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, and any 

individual Commissioner’s statements will be 

available from the Office of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site. 

2The Commission has found the response 

submitted by the National Candle Association to be 

individually adequate. Comments from other 

interested parties will not be accepted (see 19 CFR 

207.62(d)(2)). 

amount of the bond that should be 

imposed. 

Written Submissions: The parties to 

the investigation are requested to file 

written submissions on the issue under 

review as set forth above. The 

submissions should be concise and 

thoroughly referenced to the record in 

this investigation. Parties to the 

investigation, interested government 

agencies, and any other interested 

parties are encouraged to file written 

submissions on the issues of remedy, 

the public interest, and bonding. Such 

submissions should address the 

recommended determination by the ALJ 

on remedy and bonding. Complainant 

and the IA are also requested to submit 

proposed remedial orders for the 

Commission’s consideration. 

Complainant is further requested to 

provide the expiration date of the ’392 

patent and state the HTSUS number 

under which the accused articles are 

imported. The written submissions and 

proposed remedial orders must be filed 

no later than the close of business on 

October 21, 2010. Reply submissions 

must be filed no later than the close of 

business on November 1, 2010. No 

further submissions on these issues will 

be permitted unless otherwise ordered 

by the Commission. 

Persons filing written submissions 

must file the original document and 12 

true copies thereof on or before the 

deadlines stated above with the Office 

of the Secretary. Any person desiring to 

submit a document (or portion thereof) 

to the Commission in confidence must 

request confidential treatment unless 

the information has already been 

granted such treatment during the 

proceedings. All such requests should 

be directed to the Secretary of the 

Commission and must include a full 

statement of the reasons why the 

Commission should grant such 

treatment. See section 201.6 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for 

which confidential treatment by the 

Commission is sought will be treated 

accordingly. All nonconfidential written 

submissions will be available for public 

inspection at the Office of the Secretary. 

The authority for the Commission’s 

determination is contained in section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in 

sections 210.42–.46 of the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 

210.42–.46). 

Issued: October 7, 2010. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–25801 Filed 10–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–282 (Third 

Review)] 

Petroleum Wax Candles From China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Scheduling of an expedited fiveyear review concerning the antidumping 

duty order on petroleum wax candles 

from China. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of an expedited 

review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(3)) (the Act) to determine 

whether revocation of the antidumping 

duty order on petroleum wax candles 

from China would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury within a reasonably foreseeable 

time. For further information 

concerning the conduct of this review 

and rules of general application, consult 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207). 

DATES: Effective Date: October 4, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Keysha Martinez (202–205–2136), Office 

of Investigations, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

this review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—On October 4, 2010, 

the Commission determined that the 

domestic interested party group 

response to its notice of institution (75 

FR 38121, July 1, 2010) of the subject 

five-year review was adequate and that 

the respondent interested party group 

response was inadequate. The 

Commission did not find any other 

circumstances that would warrant 

conducting a full review.1 Accordingly, 

the Commission determined that it 

would conduct an expedited review 

pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act. 

Staff report.—A staff report 

containing information concerning the 

subject matter of the review will be 

placed in the nonpublic record on 

November 10, 2010, and made available 

to persons on the Administrative 

Protective Order service list for this 

review. A public version will be issued 

thereafter, pursuant to section 

207.62(d)(4) of the Commission’s rules. 

Written submissions.—As provided in 

section 207.62(d) of the Commission’s 

rules, interested parties that are parties 

to the review and that have provided 

individually adequate responses to the 

notice of institution,2 and any party 

other than an interested party to the 

review may file written comments with 

the Secretary on what determination the 

Commission should reach in the review. 

Comments are due on or before 

November 15, 2010 and may not contain 

new factual information. Any person 

that is neither a party to the five-year 

review nor an interested party may 

submit a brief written statement (which 

shall not contain any new factual 

information) pertinent to the review by 

November 15, 2010. However, should 

the Department of Commerce extend the 

time limit for its completion of the final 

results of its review, the deadline for 

comments (which may not contain new 

factual information) on Commerce’s 

final results is three business days after 

the issuance of Commerce’s results. If 

comments contain business proprietary 

information (BPI), they must conform 

with the requirements of sections 201.6, 

207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s 

rules. The Commission’s rules do not 

authorize filing of submissions with the 

Secretary by facsimile or electronic 

means, except to the extent permitted by 

section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules, 

as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 

2002). Even where electronic filing of a 

document is permitted, certain 

documents must also be filed in paper 

form, as specified in II(C) of the 

Commission’s Handbook on Electronic 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Notices 63201 

Filing Procedures, 67 FR 68168, 68173 

(November 8, 2002). 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the rules, each document 

filed by a party to the review must be 

served on all other parties to the review 

(as identified by either the public or BPI 

service list), and a certificate of service 

must be timely filed. The Secretary will 

not accept a document for filing without 

a certificate of service. 

Determination.—The Commission has 

determined to exercise its authority to 

extend the review period by up to 90 

days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(5)(B). 

Authority: This review is being conducted 

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: October 8, 2010. 

William R. Bishop, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–25818 Filed 10–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[USITC SE–10–028] 

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice 

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: United 

States International Trade Commission. 

TIME AND DATE: October 15, 2010 at 11 

a.m. 

PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Telephone: 

(202) 205–2000. 

STATUS: Open to the public. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

1. Agenda for future meetings: none. 

2. Minutes. 

3. Ratification List. 

4. Inv. Nos. 701–TA–469 and 731– 

TA–1168 (Final) (Certain Seamless 

Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, 

and Pressure Pipe from China)—briefing 

and vote. (The Commission is currently 

scheduled to transmit its determinations 

and Commissioners’ opinions to the 

Secretary of Commerce on or before 

October 27, 2010.) 

5. Inv. Nos. 701–TA–249 and 731– 

TA–262, 263, and 265 (Third Review) 

(Iron Construction Castings from Brazil, 

Canada, and China)—briefing and vote. 

(The Commission is currently scheduled 

to transmit its determinations and 

Commissioners’ opinions to the 

Secretary of Commerce on or before 

October 27, 2010.) 

6. Outstanding action jackets: 

(1) Document No. GC–10–161 

concerning Inv. No. 337–TA–413 

(Certain Rare-Earth Magnets and 

Magnetic Materials and Articles 

Containing Same). 

In accordance with Commission 

policy, subject matter listed above, not 

disposed of at the scheduled meeting, 

may be carried over to the agenda of the 

following meeting. 

Issued: October 8, 2010. 

By order of the Commission. 

William R. Bishop, 

Hearings and Meetings Coordinator. 

[FR Doc. 2010–25936 Filed 10–12–10; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–691] 

In the Matter of Certain Inkjet Ink 

Supplies and Components Thereof; 

Notice of Commission Decision Not To 

Review an Initial Determination 

Terminating the Investigation as to 

Claims 7 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 

6,089,687 and Claims 2 and 3 of U.S. 

Patent No. 6,264,301 and Finding a 

Violation of Section 337; Schedule for 

Submissions on Remedy, Public 

Interest, and Bonding 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined not to 

review an initial determination (‘‘ID’’) 

(Order No. 18) issued by the presiding 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) 

terminating the investigation as to 

claims 7 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 

6,089,687 and claims 2 and 3 of U.S. 

Patent No. 6,264,301 and finding a 

violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in 

this investigation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Panyin A. Hughes, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–3042. Copies of non-confidential 

documents filed in connection with this 

investigation are or will be available for 

inspection during official business 

hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the 

Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, 

telephone (202) 205–2000. General 

information concerning the Commission 

may also be obtained by accessing its 

Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). 

The public record for this investigation 

may be viewed on the Commission’s 

electronic docket (EDIS) at http:// 

edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired 

persons are advised that information on 

this matter can be obtained by 

contacting the Commission’s TDD 

terminal on (202) 205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

investigation was instituted on October 

29, 2009, based upon a complaint filed 

by Hewlett-Packard Company of Palo 

Alto, California (‘‘HP’’) on September 23, 

2009, and supplemented on October 7, 

2009. 74 FR 55856 (Oct. 29, 2009). The 

complaint alleged violations of section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1337) in the importation into the United 

States, the sale for importation, and the 

sale within the United States after 

importation of certain inkjet ink 

supplies and components thereof that 

infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent 

Nos. 6,959,985 (‘‘the ’985 patent’’); 

7,104,630 (‘‘the ’630 patent’’); 6,089,687 

(‘‘the ’687 patent’’); and 6,264,301 (‘‘the 

’301 patent’’). The complaint named as 

respondents Zhuhai Gree MagnetoElectric Co. Ltd. of Guangdong, China 

(‘‘Zhuhai’’); InkPlusToner.com of Canoga 

Park, California (‘‘InkPlusToner’’); Mipo 

International Ltd. of Kowloon, Hong 

Kong (‘‘Mipo International’’); Mextec 

Group, Inc. 

d/b/a Mipo America Ltd. of Miami, 

Florida (‘‘Mextec’’); Shanghai Angel 

Printer Supplies Co. Ltd. of Shanghai, 

China (‘‘Shanghai Angel’’); SmartOne 

Services LLC d/b/a InkForSale.net of 

Hayward, California (‘‘SmartOne’’); 

Shenzhen Print Media Co., Ltd. of 

Shenzhen, China (‘‘Shenzhen Print 

Media’’); Comptree Ink d/b/a Meritline, 

ABCInk, EZ Label, and CDR DVDR 

Media of City of Industry, California 

(‘‘Comptree’’); Zhuhai National 

Resources & Jingjie Imaging Products 

Co., Ltd. of Guangdong, China (‘‘Zhuhai 

National’’); Tatrix International of 

Guangdong, China (‘‘Tatrix’’); and 

Ourway Image Co., of Guangdong China 

(‘‘Ourway’’). 

On February 17, 2010, the 

Commission determined not to review 

an ID (Order No. 9) finding seven 

respondents, Mipo International, 

Mextec, Shanghai Angel, Shenzhen 

Print Media, Zhuhai National, Tatrix, 

and Ourway in default pursuant to 

Commission Rule 210.16. On March 19, 

2010, the Commission determined not 

to review an ID (Order No. 11) 

terminating the investigation as to 

respondent Comptree based upon a 

settlement agreement. Also on March 

19, 2010, the Commission determined 

not to review an ID (Order No. 12) 

terminating the investigation as to 

respondent Zhuhai based upon a 

consent order. On March 31, 2010, the


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Notices 70713 

maintain and ensure industry 

involvement in Federal administration 

of matters pertaining to poultry health. 

The Committee Chairperson and the 

Vice Chairperson shall be elected by the 

Committee from among its members. 

There are seven members on the 

Committee. This committee differs 

somewhat from other advisory 

committees in the selection process and 

composition of its membership. The 

poultry industry elects the members of 

the Committee. The members represent 

six geographic areas with one memberat-large. The membership is not subject 

to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 

review. 

A formal request for nominations for 

membership is generally published in 

the Federal Register. However, the 

Committee is making no changes to its 

membership at this time. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 12th day of 

November 2010. 

Pearlie S. Reed, 

Assistant Secretary for Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29104 Filed 11–17–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–504] 

Petroleum Wax Candles From the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of Expedited Third Sunset 

Review of Antidumping Duty Order 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: November 18, 

2010. 

SUMMARY: On July 9, 2010, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) initiated the third sunset 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on petroleum wax candles from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). On 

the basis of a timely notice of intent to 

participate and an adequate substantive 

response filed on behalf of a domestic 

interested party, as well as an 

inadequate response from any 

respondent interested parties (in this 

case, no response), the Department 

conducted an expedited sunset review. 

As a result of the sunset review, the 

Department finds that revocation of the 

antidumping duty order would be likely 

to lead to continuation or recurrence of 

dumping at the margins identified in the 

Final Results of Review section of this 

notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim 

Lord, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–7425. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 9, 2010, the Department 

published the notice of initiation of the 

third sunset review of the antidumping 

duty order on petroleum wax candles 

from the PRC pursuant to section 751(c) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(‘‘the Act’’). See Initiation of Five-Year 

(‘‘Sunset’’) Review, 75 FR 39494 (July 9, 

2010). On July 16, 2010, the Department 

received a notice of intent to participate 

from a domestic interested party, the 

National Candle Association (‘‘NCA’’ or 

‘‘Petitioner’’). Submission of the notice 

of intent to participate filed by 

Petitioner was within the deadline 

specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of 

the Department’s regulations. Petitioner 

claimed interested party status under 

section 771(9)(E) of the Act, as NCA is 

a trade association, a majority of whose 

members manufacture candles in the 

United States. On August 9, 2010, the 

Department received a substantive 

response from Petitioner within the 

deadline specified in section 

351.218(d)(3)(i) of the Department’s 

regulations. We did not receive any 

adequate substantive responses from 

any respondent interested parties to this 

proceeding. As a result, pursuant to 

section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 

section 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2) of the 

Department’s regulations, the 

Department determined to conduct an 

expedited sunset review of the order. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by the order are 

certain scented or unscented petroleum 

wax candles made from petroleum wax 

and having fiber or paper-cored wicks. 

They are sold in the following shapes: 

tapers, spirals and straight-sided dinner 

candles; rounds, columns, pillars, 

votives; and various wax-filled 

containers. The products were originally 

classifiable under the Tariff Schedules 

of the United States item 755.25, 

Candles and Tapers. The products are 

currently classifiable under the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (‘‘HTS’’) 

item number 3406.00.00. The HTS item 

number is provided for convenience and 

customs purposes. The written 

description remains dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in this review are 

addressed in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum (‘‘Decision 

Memorandum’’) from Susan H. 

Kuhbach, Acting Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Operations, to 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, 

dated November 8, 2010, which is 

hereby adopted by this notice. The 

issues discussed in the Decision 

Memorandum include the likelihood of 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

and the magnitude of the margins likely 

to prevail if the order were revoked. 

Parties can find a complete discussion 

of all issues raised in this review and 

the corresponding recommendations in 

this public memorandum, which is on 

file in the Central Records Unit in room 

7046 of the main Commerce building. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly on the Internet at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Final Results of Review 

Pursuant to sections 752(c)(1) and (3) 

of the Act, we determine that revocation 

of the antidumping duty order on 

petroleum wax candles from the PRC 

would be likely to lead to continuation 

or recurrence of dumping at the 

following percentage margins: 

Manufacturers/producers/exporters Margin 

(percent) 

PRC-Wide ................................. 108.30 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with section 351.305 of the 

Department’s regulations. Timely 

notification of the return or destruction 

of APO materials or conversion to 

judicial protective order is hereby 

requested. Failure to comply with the 

regulations and terms of an APO is a 

violation which is subject to sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing the 

results and notice in accordance with 

sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of 

the Act. 

Dated: November 8, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29263 Filed 11–17–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES


Contains Business Proprietary Information

B-1

APPENDIX B

COMMISSION’S STATEMENT ON ADEQUACY

EXPLANATION OF COMMISSION DETERMINATION ON ADEQUACY

in

Petroleum Wax Candles-from China

Inv. No. 731-TA-282 (Third Review)

On October 4, 2010, the Commission determined that it should proceed to an expedited

review in the subject five-year review pursuant to section 751 (c)(3)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3)(B) . 

The Commission received a single, individually adequate response from the National Candle

Association (“NCA”), whose participating members account for the majority of production of the

domestic like product. Because the Commission received an adequate response from the NCA, the

Commission determined that the domestic interested party group response was adequate.

The Commission did not receive a response from any respondent interested party, and therefore

determined that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate. In the absence of an

adequate respondent interested party group response or any other circumstances that it deemed warranted

proceeding to a full review, the Commission determined to conduct an expedited review. A record of the

Commissioners’ votes is available from the Office of the Secretary and the Commission’s website

(http:/www.usitc.gov).