Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Notices 937 

Dated: December 27, 2006. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–44 Filed 1–8–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–891] 

Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof 

From the People’s Republic of China; 

Preliminary Results and Partial 

Rescission of Administrative Review 

and Preliminary Results of New 

Shipper Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is conducting an 

administrative review and a new 

shipper review of the antidumping duty 

order on hand trucks and certain parts 

thereof (hand trucks) from the People’s 

Republic of China (PRC) covering the 

period December 1, 2004, through 

November 30, 2005. We have 

preliminarily determined that sales have 

been made below normal value (NV). If 

these preliminary results are adopted in 

the final results of these reviews, we 

will instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping 

duties on all appropriate entries. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

We will issue the final results no later 

than 120 days from the date of 

publication of this notice. 

DATES: Effective Date: January 9, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth Eastwood or Nichole Zink, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–3874 or (202) 482–

0049, respectively. 

Background 

On December 1, 2005, the Department 

published a notice of opportunity to 

request an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on hand trucks 

from the PRC. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

To Request Administrative Review, 70 

FR 72109 (Dec. 1, 2005). 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.214(c), on December 27, 2005, the 

Department received a request to 

conduct both an administrative review 

and a new shipper review of the 

antidumping duty order from Since 

Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. (Since 

Hardware), a producer/exporter of 

subject merchandise in the PRC. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(b)(1), on December 30, 2005, 

the petitioners, Gleason Industrial 

Products, Inc. and Precision Products, 

Inc., requested that the Department 

conduct an administrative review for 

the following producers and/or 

exporters of the subject merchandise: 

Qingdao Huatian Hand Truck Co., Ltd. 

(Huatian); Qingdao Future Tool, Inc. 

(Future Tool); Qingdao Taifa Group Co. 

Ltd./Qindao Yinzhu Hang Truck Factory 

(collectively, ‘‘Taifa’’); True Potential 

Co., Ltd. (True Potential); and Shandong 

Machinery I&E Group Corp. (Shandong 

Machinery). Also on December 30, 2005, 

the Department received a request to 

conduct an administrative review from 

Aulita Quindao Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 

(Aulita), a producer/exporter of the 

subject merchandise, in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2). 

On January 3, 2006, Clipper Products, 

Inc., a U.S. importer of the subject 

merchandise, requested that the 

Department conduct an administrative 

review of Forecarry Corp. (Forecarry), 

an exporter of subject merchandise 

located in a third country, and its PRC 

supplier, Formost Plastics & Metalworks 

(Jiaxing) Co., Ltd. (Formost). 

On February 1, 2006, the Department 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice of the initiation of the 

antidumping duty administrative review 

of hand trucks from the PRC for the 

period May 24, 2004, through November 

30, 2005. See Initiation of Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Request for Revocation in 

Part, 71 FR 5241 (Feb. 1, 2006). On 

February 3, 2006, the Department also 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice of the initiation of the new 

shipper review of Since Hardware. See 

Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Initiation of New Shipper Review, 71 FR 

5810 (Feb. 3, 2006). 

On February 8, 2006, we issued a new 

shipper questionnaire to Since 

Hardware. We received Since 

Hardware’s response to Section A of this 

questionnaire on February 23, 2006. 

In February 2006 we issued quantity 

and value questionnaires to Aulita, 

Forecarry, Formost, Future Tool, 

Huatian, Shandong Machinery, True 

Potential, and Taifa. We received 

responses to these questionnaires 

between February 22 and March 3, 

2006, from all companies except Aulita 

and Shandong Machinery. 

On February 13, 2006, Since 

Hardware stated that it did not object to 

a rescission of its requested 

administrative review, so long as its sale 

was examined in the context of the new 

shipper review. See the ‘‘Partial 

Rescission of Administrative Review’’

section of this notice, below, for further 

discussion. 

On February 15, 2006, we issued 

letters to all parties in both the 

administrative review and the new 

shipper review informing them of the 

correct period of review (POR). The POR 

for this segment of the proceeding is 

December 1, 2004, through November 

30, 2005. On February 24, 2006, we 

published in the Federal Register a 

correction to the POR for the 

administrative review. *See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews, 71 FR 9519 

(Feb. 24, 2006). 

On February 28, 2006, Aulita 

withdrew its request for an 

administrative review within the time 

limits specified under 19 CFR 

351.213(d)(1). See the ‘‘Partial 

Rescission of Administrative Review’’

section of this notice, below, for further 

discussion. 

On March 3, 2006, we issued a letter 

to Shandong Machinery providing a 

second opportunity to respond to the 

Department’s request for quantity and 

value information. Shandong Machinery 

did not respond to the Department’s 

March 3, 2006, letter. See the ‘‘Facts 

Available’’ section of this notice, below, 

for further discussion. 

On March 17, 2006, the Department 

determined that it was not practicable to 

examine individually all of the 

companies covered by the 2004–2005 

administrative review, and thus it 

limited its examination to the largest 

producers/exporters that could 

reasonably be reviewed, pursuant to 

section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act). Therefore, 

on this date the Department selected 

Taifa as the sole respondent required to 

submit a full questionnaire response in 

the administrative review. See the 

March 17, 2006, memorandum from 

Irene Darzenta Tzafolias, Acting Office 

Director, to Stephen Claeys, Deputy 

Assistant Secretary, entitled 

‘‘Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Hand Trucks and Certain 

Parts Thereof from the People’s 

Republic of China: Selection of 

Respondents.’’

On March 20, 2006, we issued the 

antidumping duty questionnaire to 

Taifa. Also on March 20, 2006, we 

issued a separate-rate questionnaire (i.e., 

section A of the antidumping duty 

questionnaire) to Future Tool, Huatian, 


ycherry on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
938 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Notices 

and True Potential. We did not issue 

separate-rate questionnaires to Forecarry 

or Formost, because the former 

company is a third-country reseller (and 

thus it automatically qualifies for a 

separate rate; see the ‘‘Separate Rates’’

section, below, for further discussion) 

and the latter company informed the 

Department in its response to the 

quantity and value questionnaire that it 

had no exports to the United States to 

unaffiliated customers during the POR. 

Also on March 20, 2006, we issued a 

section A supplemental questionnaire to 

Since Hardware. 

On March 31, 2006, the Department 

invited interested parties to comment on 

surrogate country selection and to 

provide publicly available information 

for valuing the factors of production 

(FOPs) in the new shipper review. Also 

on March 31, 2006, we received Since 

Hardware’s responses to sections C and 

D of the Department’s questionnaire. 

On April 10, 2006, we received 

responses to section A of the 

questionnaire from Future Tool, 

Huatian, and True Potential, as well as 

a response from Since Hardware to the 

supplemental section A questionnaire. 

On April 20, 2006, we issued a 

supplemental questionnaire regarding 

sections A, C, and D to Since Hardware. 

On May 1, 2006, Since Hardware 

agreed to waive the time limits 

applicable to the new shipper review 

and to permit the Department to 

conduct the new shipper review 

concurrently with the administrative 

review. 

On May 2, 2006, the petitioners 

withdrew their request for an 

administrative review of Taifa, the 

company chosen as the mandatory 

respondent, and Huatian. See the 

‘‘Partial Rescission of Administrative 

Review’’ section of this notice, below, 

for further discussion. 

On May 4, 2006, we received a 

response from Since Hardware to the 

April 20, 2006, supplemental 

questionnaire. 

On May 9, 2006, the Department 

reconsidered its decision to select only 

one company to provide a full 

questionnaire response in this review, 

and named the remaining three 

participating respondents as mandatory 

respondents. See the May 9, 2006, 

memorandum from Elizabeth Eastwood 

to Irene Darzenta Tzafolias entitled, 

‘‘Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Hand Trucks and Certain 

Parts Thereof from the People’s 

Republic of China: Revised Selection of 

Respondents.’’ As a result, on this date, 

we issued sections A, C, and D of the 

antidumping duty questionnaire to 

Forecarry and sections C and D of the 

questionnaire to Future Tool and True 

Potential. On May 30, 2006, we received 

Forecarry’s response to section A of the 

Department’s questionnaire. 

On May 31, 2006, the Department 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice indicating that it would conduct 

the new shipper review of Since 

Hardware concurrently with the 2004–

2005 administrative review. See Hand 

Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from 

the People’s Republic of China: Notice 

of Postponement of Time Limits for New 

Shipper Antidumping Duty Review in 

Conjunction with Administrative 

Review, 71 FR 30867 (May 31, 2006). On 

June 8 and 28, 2006, respectively, we 

received Forecarry’s responses to 

sections C and D of the Department’s 

questionnaire. 

On June 13 and June 23, 2006, we 

issued additional supplemental 

questionnaires to Since Hardware. On 

June 29, 2006, we received True 

Potential’s response to sections C and D 

of the Department’s questionnaire. 

Future Tool did not submit a response 

to sections C and D of the Department’s 

questionnaire. See the ‘‘Facts Available’’

section of this notice, below, for further 

discussion. 

On June 29, 2006, the Department 

solicited comments on surrogate 

country selection and publicly available 

information to value FOPs in the 

administrative review. 

On June 30 and July 10, 2006, 

respectively, we received responses 

from Since Hardware to the 

Department’s June 13 and 23, 2006, 

supplemental questionnaires. 

From July 17 through 21, 2006, the 

Department conducted verification of 

the responses of Since Hardware at its 

offices in the PRC. 

On August 3, 2006, the Department 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice of extension of time limits for the 

preliminary results of both the 

administrative and new shipper reviews 

until no later than January 2, 2007. See 

Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof 

From the People’s Republic of China; 

Notice of Extension of Time Limits for 

Preliminary Results in Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and New 

Shipper Review, 71 FR 44018 (Aug. 3, 

2006). 

On August 4, 2006, we issued a 

supplemental questionnaire to True 

Potential regarding its section A and C 

responses. On August 8, 2006, we 

issued a supplemental questionnaire to 

Forecarry regarding its section A 

through D responses. On August 18, 

2006, we received True Potential’s 

response to the section A and C 

supplemental questionnaire. On August 

24, 2006, we issued a supplemental 

questionnaire to True Potential 

regarding its section D response. We 

received True Potential’s response to 

this questionnaire on September 5, 

2006. On September 15, 2006, we 

received Forecarry’s response to the 

section A through D supplemental 

questionnaire. Also on September 15, 

2006, the petitioners, Since Hardware, 

and True Potential submitted publicly 

available information for valuing the 

FOPs in both the administrative and 

new shipper reviews. 

On October 19, 2006, we issued 

additional supplemental questionnaires 

regarding section D to Forecarry and 

True Potential. On October 24, 2006, we 

issued an additional supplemental 

questionnaire to Forecarry. On 

November 16, 2006, we received 

responses to these supplemental 

questionnaires from Forecarry and True 

Potential. On December 19, 2006, we 

issued a final supplemental 

questionnaire to Forecarry regarding 

outstanding deficiencies in its section D 

response. Forecarry’s response to this 

questionnaire is due to the Department 

no later than January 3, 2007. 

Period of Review 

The POR covers December 1, 2004, 

through November 30, 2005. 

Scope of Order 

The product covered by this order 

consists of hand trucks manufactured 

from any material, whether assembled 

or unassembled, complete or 

incomplete, suitable for any use, and 

certain parts thereof, namely the vertical 

frame, the handling area and the 

projecting edges or toe plate, and any 

combination thereof. 

A complete or fully assembled hand 

truck is a hand-propelled barrow 

consisting of a vertically disposed frame 

having a handle or more than one 

handle at or near the upper section of 

the vertical frame; at least two wheels at 

or near the lower section of the vertical 

frame; and a horizontal projecting edge 

or edges, or toe plate, perpendicular or 

angled to the vertical frame, at or near 

the lower section of the vertical frame. 

The projecting edge or edges, or toe 

plate, slides under a load for purposes 

of lifting and/or moving the load. 

That the vertical frame can be 

converted from a vertical setting to a 

horizontal setting, then operated in that 

horizontal setting as a platform, is not 

a basis for exclusion of the hand truck 

from the scope of this petition. That the 

vertical frame, handling area, wheels, 

projecting edges or other parts of the 

hand truck can be collapsed or folded is 

not a basis for exclusion of the hand 

truck from the scope of the petition. 


ycherry on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Notices 939 

That other wheels may be connected to 

the vertical frame, handling area, 

projecting edges, or other parts of the 

hand truck, in addition to the two or 

more wheels located at or near the lower 

section of the vertical frame, is not a 

basis for exclusion of the hand truck 

from the scope of the petition. Finally, 

that the hand truck may exhibit physical 

characteristics in addition to the vertical 

frame, the handling area, the projecting 

edges or toe plate, and the two wheels 

at or near the lower section of the 

vertical frame, is not a basis for 

exclusion of the hand truck from the 

scope of the petition. 

Examples of names commonly used to 

reference hand trucks are hand truck, 

convertible hand truck, appliance hand 

truck, cylinder hand truck, bag truck, 

dolly, or hand trolley. They are typically 

imported under heading 8716.80.50.10 

of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 

the United States (HTSUS), although 

they may also be imported under 

heading 8716.80.50.90. Specific parts of 

a hand truck, namely the vertical frame, 

the handling area and the projecting 

edges or toe plate, or any combination 

thereof, are typically imported under 

heading 8716.90.50.60 of the HTSUS. 

Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the Department’s written 

description of the scope is dispositive. 

Excluded from the scope are small 

two-wheel or four-wheel utility carts 

specifically designed for carrying loads 

like personal bags or luggage in which 

the frame is made from telescoping 

tubular material measuring less than 5⁄8

inch in diameter; hand trucks that use 

motorized operations either to move the 

hand truck from one location to the next 

or to assist in the lifting of items placed 

on the hand truck; vertical carriers 

designed specifically to transport golf 

bags; and wheels and tires used in the 

manufacture of hand trucks. 

Partial Rescission of Administrative 

Review 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the 

Secretary must rescind an 

administrative review if a party 

requesting a review withdraws the 

request within 90 days of the date of 

publication of the notice of initiation. 

As noted above, on April 28, 2006, 

Aulita timely withdrew its request for 

an administrative review, in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). In addition, 

on May 2, 2006, the petitioners 

withdrew their requests for an 

administrative review of Huatian and 

Taifa, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(d)(1). Therefore, because no 

other interested party requested a 

review of these companies, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1) 

and consistent with our practice, we are 

rescinding the administrative review of 

Aulita, Huatian, and Taifa for the POR. 

Finally, as noted in the ‘‘Background’’ 

section of this notice, above, Since 

Hardware stated on February 13, 2006, 

that it did not object to the rescission of 

its requested administrative review, so 

long as its sale was examined in the 

context of the new shipper review. 

Therefore, because we are examining 

Since Hardware’s sale in the context of 

the new shipper review, and in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), 

we are rescinding the administrative 

review for Since Hardware for the POR. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, we conducted verification of the 

sales and FOP information provided by 

Since Hardware. We used standard 

verification procedures, including onsite inspection of the manufacturer’s 

facilities, and examination of relevant 

sales and financial records. Our 

verification results are set forth in the 

Since Hardware Verification Report. See 

the October 5, 2006, memorandum from 

Elizabeth Eastwood and Nichole Zink to 

James Maeder entitled, ‘‘Verification of 

Sales and Factors Responses of Since 

Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. in the 

New Shipper Review of Hand Trucks 

and Certain Parts Thereof from the 

People’s Republic of China’’ (Since 

Hardware Verification Report) for 

further discussion. 

Bona Fide Sale Analysis—Since 

Hardware 

For the reasons stated below, we 

preliminarily find that Since Hardware’s 

reported U.S. sale during the POR is a 

bona fide sale, as required by 19 CFR 

351.214(b)(2)(iv)(c), based on the totality 

of the facts on the record. Specifically, 

we find that the price reported for Since 

Hardware’s hand truck sale was similar 

to the average unit value of U.S. imports 

of comparable hand trucks and certain 

parts thereof from the PRC during the 

POR. We also find that the quantity of 

the sale was within the range of 

shipment sizes of comparable goods 

imported from the PRC during the POR. 

Furthermore, Since Hardware provided 

documentation on a post-POR order at 

verification. The price of the post-POR 

order and the sale under review are 

identical. See the Since Hardware 

Verification Report at pages 9, 10, and 

Verification Exhibit 18. Finally, we 

looked to see whether the importer 

involved in this transaction is an actual 

commercial entity, and we found no 

reason to doubt the legitimacy of either 

the importing party or its agents 

involved in this new shipper review. 

See the December 29, 2006, 

memorandum to James Maeder from 

Elizabeth Eastwood and Nichole Zink 

entitled, ‘‘Analysis of Since Hardware 

(Guangzhou) Co., Ltd.’s Bona Fides As 

A New Shipper,’’ for further discussion 

of our price and quantity analysis. 

Therefore, for the reasons mentioned 

above, the Department preliminarily 

finds that Since Hardware’s sole U.S. 

sale during the POR was a bona fide 

commercial transaction. 

Non-Market Economy Country Status 

In every case conducted by the 

Department involving the PRC, the PRC 

has been treated as a non-market 

economy (NME) country. Pursuant to 

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

determination that a foreign country is 

an NME country shall remain in effect 

until revoked by the administering 

authority. See e.g., Fresh Garlic from the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Rescission 

in Part, 69 FR 70638 (Dec. 7, 2004). 

None of the parties to this proceeding 

has contested such treatment. 

Accordingly, we calculated NV in 

accordance with section 773(c) of the 

Act, which applies to NME countries. 

Surrogate Country 

When the Department is investigating 

imports from an NME country, section 

773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV 

on the NME producer’s FOPs, valued in 

a surrogate market-economy country or 

countries considered to be appropriate 

by the Department. Section 773(c)(4) of 

the Act requires the Department to 

utilize, to the extent possible, the prices 

or costs of FOPs in one or more marketeconomy countries that are: (1) At a 

level of economic development 

comparable to that of the NME country; 

and (2) significant producers of 

comparable merchandise. The 

Department has determined that Egypt, 

India, Indonesia, the Philippines, and 

Sri Lanka are countries comparable to 

the PRC in terms of economic 

development. See the February 9, 2006, 

memoranda from Ron Lorentzen, 

Director, Office of Policy, to Irene 

Darzenta Tzafolias, Acting Director, 

Office 2, entitled, ‘‘New Shipper Review 

of Hand Trucks from the People’s 

Republic of China (PRC); Request for a 

List of Surrogate Countries’’ and 

‘‘Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Hand Trucks from the 

People’s Republic of China (PRC); 

Request for a List of Surrogate 

Countries.’’ Customarily, we select an 

appropriate surrogate country based on 

the availability and reliability of data 


ycherry on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
940 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Notices 

from the countries that are significant 

producers of identical or comparable 

merchandise. For PRC cases, the 

primary surrogate country has often 

been India if it is a significant producer 

of identical or comparable merchandise. 

In this case, based on publicly available 

information placed on the record (e.g., 

world production data), India is a 

significant producer of the subject 

merchandise. Accordingly, we have 

considered India the surrogate country 

for purposes of valuing the FOPs 

because it meets the Department’s 

criteria for surrogate-country selection. 

See the December 12, 2006, 

memorandum from Jill Pollack to the 

file entitled, ‘‘2004–2005 Antidumping 

Duty Administrative and New Shipper 

Reviews on Hand Trucks and Certain 

Parts Thereof from the People’s 

Republic of China: Selection of a 

Surrogate Country,’’ for further 

discussion. 

Affiliation 

Section 771(33) of the Act states that 

the Department considers the following 

entities to be affiliated: (a) Members of 

a family, including brothers and sisters 

(whether by whole or half blood), 

spouse, ancestors, and lineal 

descendants; (b) any officer or director 

of an organization and such 

organization; (c) partners; (d) employer 

and employee; (e) any person directly or 

indirectly owning, controlling, or 

holding with power to vote, five percent 

or more of the outstanding voting stock 

or shares of any organization and such 

organization; (f) two or more persons 

directly or indirectly controlling, 

controlled by, or under common control 

with, any person; and (g) any person 

who controls any other person and such 

other person. 

For purposes of affiliation, section 

771(33) of the Act states that a person 

shall be considered to control another 

person if the person is legally or 

operationally in a position to exercise 

restraint or direction over the other 

person. In order to find affiliation 

between companies, the Department 

must find that at least one of the criteria 

listed above is applicable to the 

respondents. 

To the extent that the affiliation 

provisions in section 771(33) of the Act 

do not conflict with the Department’s 

application of separate rates and the 

statutory NME provisions in section 

773(c) of the Act, the Department will 

determine that exporters and/or 

producers are affiliated if the facts of the 

case support such a finding. See Certain 

Preserved Mushrooms From the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Results 

of Sixth New Shipper Review and 

Preliminary Results and Partial 

Rescission of Fourth Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 69 FR 10410, 

10413 (Mar. 5, 2004) (Mushrooms), 

unchanged in Final Results and Final 

Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review: Certain 

Preserved Mushrooms From the People’s 

Republic of China, 70 FR 54361 (Sept. 

14, 2005). 

Following these guidelines, we 

preliminarily determine that Forecarry 

and Formost are affiliated pursuant to 

section 771(33) of the Act. We also 

preliminarily determine that Forecarry 

and Formost should be assigned a single 

dumping margin for the purposes of this 

antidumping duty administrative 

review. Because the details of our 

affiliation analysis are proprietary in 

nature, we are unable to discuss them in 

this notice. Therefore, for further 

discussion of this issue, see the 

December 29, 2006, memorandum to 

James Maeder, Director, Office 2, from 

Jill Pollack, Senior Analyst, entitled, 

‘‘Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Hand Trucks and Certain 

Parts Thereof from the People’s 

Republic of China: Affiliation of 

Forecarry Corporation and Formost 

Plastics & Metalworks (Jianxing) Co., 

Ltd.’’

Facts Available 

A. Application of Facts Available 

In accordance with section 

776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we preliminarily 

determine that the use of facts available 

is appropriate as the basis for the 

dumping margins for the following 

producers/exporters: Forecarry, Future 

Tool, Shandong Machinery, and the 

PRC-wide entity. Section 776(a)(2) of 

the Act provides that, if an interested 

party: (1) Withholds information that 

has been requested by the Department; 

(2) fails to provide information in a 

timely manner or in the form and 

manner requested, subject to 

subsections 782(c) and (e) of the Act; (3) 

significantly impedes a determination 

under the antidumping statute; or (4) 

provides such information but the 

information cannot be verified, the 

Department shall, subject to subsection 

782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise 

available in reaching the applicable 

determination. 

Where the Department determines 

that a response to a request for 

information does not comply with the 

request, section 782(d) of the Act 

provides that the Department will so 

inform the party submitting the 

response and will, to the extent 

practicable, provide that party the 

opportunity to remedy or explain the 

deficiency. If the party fails to remedy 

the deficiency within the applicable 

time limits and subject to the 

requirements listed in section 782(e)(1–

5) of the Act, the Department may 

disregard all or part of the original and 

subsequent responses, as appropriate. 

Section 782(e) of the Act provides that 

the Department ‘‘shall not decline to 

consider information that is submitted 

by an interested party and is necessary 

to the determination but does not meet 

all applicable requirements established 

by the administering authority’’ if the 

information is timely, can be verified, is 

not so incomplete that it cannot be used, 

and the interested party acted to the best 

of its ability in providing the 

information. Where all of these 

conditions are met, the statute requires 

the Department to use the information if 

it can do so without undue difficulties. 

1. Forecarry/Formost 

As noted above, the Department 

selected Forecarry as a mandatory 

respondent in this administrative 

review on May 9, 2006, and at that time 

we issued the antidumping duty 

questionnaire to it. We received 

Forecarry’s responses to the 

questionnaire on May 30, June 8, and 

June 28, 2006. 

After analyzing these responses, we 

found that the company’s FOP database 

was not reliable because it was not 

based on the books and records of the 

company’s PRC supplier, Formost. 

Rather, this response was based 

primarily on estimated data and/or 

observed quantities that were 

unaccompanied by supporting 

calculation worksheets. Although we 

informed Forecarry of this deficiency 

and provided it several opportunities to 

correct it, as explained below, Forecarry 

failed to do so prior to the preliminary 

results. 

We note that, in its response to the 

second supplemental on this topic, 

Forecarry claimed that it revised its 

methodology to base its FOPs on 

Formost’s books and records. However, 

Forecarry did not provide supporting 

documentation that linked the reported 

data to the amounts recorded in 

Formost’s accounting system. Forecarry 

merely provided POR invoices for 

certain material and energy factors, as 

well as partially translated pages from 

Formost’s inventory, production, and 

labor records, but failed to explain how 

these documents support its reported 

FOPs. The deficiencies in Forecarry’s 

responses are discussed in more detail 

below. 

Throughout the course of this 

administrative review, we have 

requested that Forecarry reconcile its 


ycherry on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Notices 941 

reported FOPs to the amounts recorded 

in Formost’s normal books and records. 

The first request is contained in 

Appendix V of the May 9 questionnaire, 

where the Department requested that 

Forecarry provide: 

Worksheets that illustrate how the costs 

reported on the audited financial statements 

(or, if your company does not have audited 

financial statements, on the tax filing) 

reconcile to the general ledger or trial balance 

and to the cost accounting system (i.e., the 

source used to derive the reported input 

quantities, e.g., materials sub-ledgers, 

production records, and inventory records). 

On the worksheets, identify the source 

documents for all major items shown and 

cross-reference the worksheets where 

appropriate (i.e., link between worksheets). If 

your company does not have a cost 

accounting system, reconcile the general 

ledger or trial balance to the books and 

records normally kept by the company which 

were used to derive the reported quantity of 

each input consumed in the production of 

merchandise covered by the scope of the 

antidumping investigation/order. 

See the Antidumping Duty 

Questionnaire at Appendix V (issued to 

Forecarry on May 9, 2006). Forecarry 

did not submit the reconciliation of its 

reported FOPs in its original 

questionnaire response. 

On August 8, 2006, the Department 

issued a supplemental questionnaire to 

Forecarry that instructed Forecarry to: 

Ensure that, in this and all future 

responses, you submit all worksheets with 

narrative responses that will allow the 

Department to follow the flow of the 

worksheet and any adjustments necessary to 

calculate the submitted FOPs. Further, 

ensure that your worksheets demonstrate 

how the data recorded in Formost’s 

accounting and production records were 

adjusted in order to derive the amount 

reported. 

In its September 15, 2006, response to 

the August 8 supplemental 

questionnaire, Forecarry stated that it 

reported the weight of hand truck inputs 

based on the ‘‘actual weight of a 

production sample of each part.’’

However, Forecarry did not provide any 

worksheets demonstrating how the 

reported factors tied to the company’s 

books and records, as requested. 

On October 19, 2006, the Department 

issued a second supplemental 

questionnaire to Forecarry, instructing 

Forecarry to provide source 

documentation to support its reported 

FOPs and to provide the cost 

reconciliation requested in Appendix V 

of the Department’s original 

questionnaire. See the October 19, 2006, 

letter to Forecarry at pages 1 and 2 of 

Attachment I. In response to the 

Department’s second request for the 

FOPs reconciliation, Forecarry provided 

a worksheet that attempts to show a 

comparison between the weight of steel 

and aluminum tubing recorded as 

manufacturing costs, based on inventory 

records, to the weight recorded in the 

FOP database submitted to the 

Department, which was based on the 

actual weight of the various finished 

parts made from these materials. See 

Forecarry’s November 16, 2006, 

supplemental response at page 4 and 

Exhibit 2. Forecarry also provided 

additional worksheets in response to the 

Department’s request for a cost of 

production reconciliation. See 

Forecarry’s November 16 supplemental 

response at Exhibit 1. However, 

Forecarry did not demonstrate how any 

of the records or worksheets provided in 

its November 16 response tie to 

Formost’s normal books and records. As 

a result, the cost reconciliation was 

incomplete. Further, Forecarry did not 

explain how any of the reported FOPs 

were calculated or show how the 

reported FOPs tie to Formost’s 

inventory or production records. 

Regarding labor, we note in both its 

June 28, 2006, section D response and 

its September 15, 2006, supplemental 

response that Forecarry stated that 

Formost’s reported labor factors were 

based on manager estimates of the labor 

required to produce the subject 

merchandise. In its September 15, 2006, 

response, Forecarry stated that there 

was no source documentation to 

support these managers’ estimates. See 

Forecarry’s September 15, 2006, 

supplemental response at page 14. In 

the October 19, 2006, supplemental 

questionnaire, the Department required 

Forecarry to ‘‘provide documentation to 

support these estimates (e.g., documents 

identifying the employees that work in 

a particular workshop, documents 

showing the number of hours worked 

within a specific amount of time (e.g., 

week or month) by employees for that 

particular workshop, documents 

submitted to Chinese authorities, or 

payment documentation).’’ See the 

Department’s October 19, 2006, letter to 

Forecarry at page 5 of Attachment I. In 

response to the Department’s request, 

Forecarry provided some partially 

translated workshop records that it 

claimed supported the managers’

estimates of labor factors reported in its 

FOP database. However, because these 

documents are not fully translated, as 

required by the Department’s 

questionnaire, the Department cannot 

determine whether they in fact support 

Forecarry’s reported labor. 

As described above, Forecarry failed 

to respond to the Department’s requests 

for information in the form required. 

The absence of this information has 

significantly impeded this review 

because the Department has been unable 

to tie Forecarry’s reported FOP database 

to Formost’s books and records or any 

other appropriate source 

documentation. Forecarry failed to 

properly respond to the Department’s 

requests, pursuant to section 782(d) of 

the Act, when it refused to provide 

documentation related to its reported 

FOPs. Forecarry’s failure to provide the 

requested information prevented the 

Department from performing the 

calculations necessary to establish NV 

and determine whether Forecarry’s U.S. 

sales were made at or below that NV. 

As a threshold matter, a respondent’s 

submitted sales and cost data must 

reconcile to its audited financial 

statements or other documentation 

deemed appropriate by the Department 

(e.g., tax returns), in order for the 

Department to use that data in its 

margin calculations for that company. 

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

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review:Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars 

from Latvia, 71 FR 74900 (Dec. 13, 

2006), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. 

Because Forecarry has not demonstrated 

that its reported FOP data ties to its 

books and records or other appropriate 

source documentation, Forecarry’s 

entire FOP database is unuseable for 

purposes of these preliminary results. 

Moreover, because there is no 

acceptable FOP database to which we 

can compare Forecarry’s U.S. sales 

information, we are also unable to use 

that information. Therefore, pursuant to 

section 782(e) of the Act, the 

Department must disregard all of 

Forecarry’s U.S. sales and FOP data. 

Finally, we find that the application 

of section 782(e) of the Act does not 

overcome Forecarry’s failure to provide 

a useable response. See sections 

782(e)(1), (3), and (4) of the Act. Because 

the information that Forecarry failed to 

supply is critical for purposes of the 

preliminary dumping calculations, the 

Department must resort to total facts 

otherwise available in determining the 

margin in its preliminary results, 

pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A)–(C) of 

the Act. 

Nonetheless, the Department is 

providing Forecarry with a final 

opportunity to substantiate its reported 

FOPs by: (1) Reconciling its reported 

FOPs to Formost’s normal books and 

records; and (2) demonstrating how the 

reported FOPs were calculated. 

Documentation that would enable the 

Department to substantiate these items 

would include, but is not limited to, 

worksheets that reconcile the reported 

factors for material inputs to Formost’s 


ycherry on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
942 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Notices 

1The Department included documentation 

confirming delivery of the initial quantity and value 

questionnaire to Shandong Machinery in its March 

3, 2006, letter at Attachment II. 

books and records, records from the 

relevant workshops and worksheets that 

tie these records to Formost’s reported 

direct labor amounts, and worksheets 

that tie Formost’s reported factors for 

electricity to meter readings or other 

appropriate source documentation. We 

are allowing Forecarry to provide this 

information no later than January 3, 

2007. If we receive a timely response, 

we will consider this information for 

purposes of the final results. 

2. Future Tool 

As noted in the ‘‘Background’’

section, above, Future Tool responded 

to the Department’s request for quantity 

and value data on February 22, 2006, 

and it submitted a response to section 

A of the questionnaire on April 10, 

2006. 

On May 9, 2006, the Department 

designated Future Tool as a mandatory 

respondent in this administrative 

review, and it issued the remaining 

sections of the questionnaire to the 

company on that date. However, Future 

Tool failed to respond to this request for 

information. Thus, pursuant to sections 

776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, because 

this company did not respond to 

sections C and D of the Department’s 

questionnaire, the Department 

preliminarily finds that the use of total 

facts available is appropriate. 

Moreover, as a result of its failure to 

respond to the Department’s requests for 

information, Future Tool failed to 

establish its eligibility for a separate 

rate. Therefore, Future Tool is not 

eligible to receive a separate rate and 

will be part of the PRC-wide entity, 

subject to the PRC-wide rate. As noted 

above, this rate will be based on total 

facts available. 

3. Shandong Machinery 

As discussed in the ‘‘Background’’

section, above, on February 7, 2006, the 

Department requested that Shandong 

Machinery provide data on the quantity 

and value of its exports during the POR 

to the United States. The deadline to file 

a response was February 28, 2006. 

Because the Department did not receive 

a response from this company,1 on 

March 3, 2006, we again issued a letter 

to Shandong Machinery with a second 

opportunity to respond to the 

Department’s request for quantity and 

value information. Shandong Machinery 

also did not respond to the 

Department’s March 3, 2006, letter. 

Thus, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) 

and (C) of the Act, because this 

company did not respond to the 

Department’s questionnaire, the 

Department preliminarily finds that the 

use of total facts available is 

appropriate. Moreover, Shandong 

Machinery failed to establish its 

eligibility for a separate rate. Therefore, 

Shandong will be part of the PRC-wide 

entity, subject to the PRC-wide rate. As 

noted above, this rate will be based on 

total facts available. 

B. Adverse Facts Available (AFA) 

According to section 776(b) of the 

Act, if the Department finds that an 

interested party fails to cooperate by not 

acting to the best of its ability to comply 

with requests for information, the 

Department may use an inference that is 

adverse to the interests of that party in 

selecting from the facts otherwise 

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

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Stainless Steel 

Bar from India, 70 FR 54023, 54025–26 

(Sept. 13, 2005); see also Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Final Negative Critical 

Circumstances: Carbon and Certain 

Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, 67 FR 

55792, 55794–96 (Aug. 30, 2002). 

Adverse inferences are appropriate ‘‘to 

ensure that the party does not obtain a 

more favorable result by failing to 

cooperate than if it had cooperated 

fully.’’ See Statement of Administrative 

Action accompanying the Uruguay 

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

103–316, Vol. 1, at 870 (1994) (SAA). 

Furthermore, ‘‘affirmative evidence of 

bad faith on the part of a respondent is 

not required before the Department may 

make an adverse inference.’’ See 

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27340 

(May 19, 1997); see also Nippon Steel 

Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 

1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Nippon). 

Each of the respondents was notified 

in the Department’s questionnaires that 

failure to submit the requested 

information by the date specified might 

result in the use of facts available. 

Generally, it is reasonable to assume 

that Forecarry/Formost and the PRCwide entity (including Shandong 

Machinery and Future Tool) possessed 

the records necessary for this 

administrative review and that, by not 

supplying the information the 

Department requested, these companies 

failed to cooperate to the best of their 

ability. In addition, none of the 

companies in this review argued that 

they were incapable of providing the 

information the Department requested, 

or requested that the Department modify 

its reporting requirements in accordance 

with 782(c)(1) of the Act. Accordingly, 

because Forecarry/Formost failed to 

submit useable FOP information, which 

was not only specifically requested by 

the Department, but was also 

fundamental to the dumping analysis, 

and PRC-wide entity (including Future 

Tool and Shandong Machinery) failed to 

respond to the Department’s requests for 

information, we preliminarily find that 

these companies have not acted to the 

best of their abilities in this proceeding, 

within the meaning of section 776(b) of 

the Act. Therefore, an adverse inference 

is warranted in selecting from the facts 

otherwise available. See Nippon, 337 

F.3d at 1382–83. 

C. Selection of an AFA Rate 

In deciding which facts to use as 

AFA, section 776(b) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize the 

Department to rely on information 

derived from: (1) The petition; (2) a final 

determination in the investigation; (3) 

any previous review or determination; 

or (4) any information placed on the 

record. In reviews, the Department 

normally selects as AFA the highest rate 

determined for any respondent in any 

segment of the proceeding. See, e.g., 

Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 68 FR 19504 

(Apr. 21, 2003). The Court of 

International Trade (CIT) and the Court 

of Appeals for the Federal Circuit have 

consistently upheld the Department’s 

practice. See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. 

United States, 899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. 

Cir. 1990) (Rhone Poulenc); NSK Ltd. v. 

United States, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 

1335 (CIT 2004) (upholding a 73.55 

percent total AFA rate, the highest 

available dumping margin from a 

different respondent in a less-than-fairvalue (LTFV) investigation); 

Kompass Food Trading Int’l v. United 

States, 24 CIT 678, 689 (2000) 

(upholding a 51.16 percent total AFA 

rate, the highest available dumping 

margin from a different, fully 

cooperative respondent); and Shanghai 

Taoen International Trading Co., Ltd. v. 

United States, 360 F. Supp. 2d 1339 at 

1348 (CIT 2005) (upholding a 223.01 

percent total AFA rate, the highest 

available dumping margin from a 

different respondent in a previous 

administrative review). The 

Department’s practice, when selecting 

an AFA rate from among the possible 

sources of information, has been to 

ensure that the margin is sufficiently 

adverse ‘‘as to effectuate the statutory 

purposes of the adverse facts available 

rule to induce respondents to provide 

the Department with complete and 

accurate information in a timely 


ycherry on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Notices 943 

manner.’’ See, e.g., Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Static Random Access 

Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan, 

63 FR 8909, 8932 (Feb. 23, 1998). The 

Department’s practice also ensures ‘‘that 

the party does not obtain a more 

favorable result by failing to cooperate 

than if it had cooperated fully.’’ See 

SAA at 870; see also Final 

Determination of Sales at Less than Fair 

Value: Certain Frozen and Canned 

Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, 69 FR 

76910 (Dec. 23, 2004); and D&L Supply 

Co. v. United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 

1223 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In choosing the 

appropriate balance between providing 

respondents with an incentive to 

respond accurately and imposing a rate 

that is reasonably related to the 

respondent’s prior commercial activity, 

selecting the highest prior margin 

‘‘reflects a common sense inference that 

the highest prior margin is the most 

probative evidence of current margins, 

because, if it were not so, the importer, 

knowing of the rule, would have 

produced current information showing 

the margin to be less.’’ See Rhone 

Poulenc, 899 F.2d at 1190. Consistent 

with the statute, court precedent, and its 

normal practice, the Department has 

assigned the rate of 383.60 percent to 

the PRC-wide entity (including 

Shandong Machinery and Future Tool) 

and Forecarry/Formost as AFA. This 

rate was assigned in the investigation of 

this proceeding and is the highest rate 

determined for any party in any segment 

of this proceeding. See Amended Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Hand Trucks and Certain 

Parts Thereof From the People’s 

Republic of China, 69 FR 65410 (Nov. 

12, 2004) (Hand Trucks Amended Final 

Determination). As discussed below, 

this rate has been corroborated. 

D. Corroboration of Secondary 

Information 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides that 

when the Department relies on the facts 

otherwise available and on ‘‘secondary 

information,’’ the Department shall, to 

the extent practicable, corroborate that 

information from independent sources 

reasonably at the Department’s disposal. 

The SAA states that ‘‘corroborate’’

means to determine that the information 

used has probative value. See SAA at 

870. The Department has determined 

that to have probative value, 

information must be reliable and 

relevant. See SAA at 870; see also 

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From 

Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, 

Four Inches or Less in Outside 

Diameter, and Components Thereof, 

From Japan; Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Partial Termination of 

Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 

57392 (Nov. 6, 1996). The SAA also 

states that independent sources used to 

corroborate such evidence may include, 

for example, published price lists, 

official import statistics and customs 

data, and information obtained from 

interested parties during the particular 

investigation. See SAA at 870. See also 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value: High and UltraHigh Voltage Ceramic Station Post 

Insulators from Japan, 68 FR 35627 

(June 16, 2003), unchanged in Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: High and Ultra-High 

Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators 

from Japan, 68 FR 62560, 62561 (Nov. 

5, 2003); and Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Live 

Swine from Canada, 70 FR 12181 (Mar. 

11, 2005). 

We are applying as AFA the highest 

rate from any segment of this 

administrative proceeding, which is the 

rate currently applicable to all exporters 

subject to the PRC-wide rate. The 

information upon which the AFA rate is 

based in the current review (i.e., the 

PRC-wide rate of 383.60 percent) was 

the highest rate calculated based on 

information contained in the petition in 

the LTFV investigation. See Hand 

Trucks Amended Final Determination, 

69 FR at 65411. This AFA rate is the 

same rate that the Department assigned 

to certain hand truck companies in the 

original LTFV determination. In the 

investigation, the Department 

determined the reliability of the margin 

contained in the petition by comparing 

the U.S. prices from the price quotes in 

the petition to prices of comparable 

products sold by Huatian, a mandatory 

respondent in the LTFV investigation, 

and found them to be comparable. The 

Department also compared the surrogate 

values used in the petition to the 

surrogate values selected for the final 

determination, and then adjusted and 

replaced certain values to make them 

more accurate. *Finally, the Department 

replaced the surrogate value ratios in 

the petition with those used in the final 

investigation. Therefore, in the 

investigation, we found this margin to 

be reliable. See Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination: Hand Trucks and 

Certain Parts Thereof From the People’s 

Republic of China, 69 FR 29509 (May 

24, 2004), as amended by Hand Trucks 

Amended Final Determination, 69 FR at 

65411. Further, the application of this 

margin was subject to comment from 

interested parties in that segment of the 

proceeding. The Department has 

received no information to date that 

warrants revisiting the issue of the 

reliability of the rate and no party has 

submitted comments challenging the 

reliability of this margin. Thus, the 

Department finds that the margin 

calculated in the LTFV investigation is 

reliable. 

With respect to the relevance aspect 

of corroboration, the Department will 

consider information reasonably at its 

disposal to determine whether a margin 

continues to have relevance. Where 

circumstances indicate that the selected 

margin is not appropriate as AFA, the 

Department will disregard the margin 

and determine an appropriate margin. 

For example, in Fresh Cut Flowers from 

Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping 

Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812 

(Feb. 22, 1996), the Department 

disregarded the highest margin in that 

case as adverse best information 

available (the predecessor to facts 

available) because the margin was based 

on another company’s uncharacteristic 

business expense resulting in an 

unusually high margin. Similarly, the 

Department does not apply a margin 

that has been discredited. See D & L 

Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F.3d 

1220, 1222 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the 

Department will not use a margin that 

has been judicially invalidated). None of 

these unusual circumstances are present 

here. Further, the selected margin is 

currently the PRC-wide rate. As there is 

no information on the record of these 

reviews that indicates that this rate is 

not relevant as AFA for Forecarry/ 

Formost and the PRC-wide entity, we 

determine that this rate is relevant. 

Because the rate is both reliable and 

relevant, it has probative value. 

Accordingly, we determine that the 

highest rate determined in any segment 

of this administrative proceeding (i.e., 

383.60 percent) is corroborated (i.e., it 

has probative value). We have assigned 

this AFA rate to exports of the subject 

merchandise by Forecarry/Formost and 

the PRC-wide entity, including Future 

Tool and Shandong Machinery. 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving NME 

countries, the Department begins with a 

rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within the country are 

subject to government control and thus 

should be assessed a single antidumping 

duty deposit rate (i.e., a PRC-wide rate). 

Of the three respondents participating 

in these reviews, two of the companies 

(i.e., Forecarry and Since Hardware) are 

owned wholly by entities located in 


ycherry on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
944 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Notices 

market-economy countries. Thus, for 

these two companies, because we have 

no evidence indicating that they are 

under the control of the PRC 

government, a separate-rate analysis is 

not necessary to determine whether they 

are independent from government 

control. See Brake Rotors From the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results and Partial Rescission of Fifth 

New Shipper Review, 66 FR 44331 (Aug. 

23, 2001), citing Brake Rotors From the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary 

Results and Partial Rescission of Fifth 

New Shipper Review, 66 FR 29080 (May 

29, 2001) (where the respondent was 

wholly owned by a U.S. registered 

company); Brake Rotors From the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary 

Results and Partial Rescission of the 

Fourth New Shipper Review and 

Rescission of the Third Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 

1303, 1306 (Jan. 8, 2001) (where the 

respondent was wholly owned by a 

company located in Hong Kong); and 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Creatine 

Monohydrate from the People’s 

Republic of China, 64 FR 71104, 71105 

(Dec. 20, 1999) (where the respondent 

was wholly owned by persons located 

in Hong Kong). 

The remaining participating 

respondent, True Potential, is a 

privately owned company in the PRC. 

Thus, for True Potential, a separate-rate 

analysis is necessary to determine 

whether the export activities of this 

company is independent from 

government control. See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Bicycles From the People’s 

Republic of China, 61 FR 56570 (Apr. 

30, 1996). To establish whether a firm 

is sufficiently independent in its export 

activities from government control to be 

entitled to a separate rate, the 

Department utilizes a test arising from 

the Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the 

People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 

(May 6, 1991), and amplified in the 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from 

the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 

22585 (May 2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide). 

Under the separate-rates criteria, the 

Department assigns separate rates in 

NME cases only if the respondent can 

demonstrate the absence of both de jure 

and de facto government control over its 

export activities. 

1. De Jure Control 

Evidence supporting, though not 

requiring, a finding of de jure absence 

of government control over export 

activities includes: (1) An absence of 

restrictive stipulations associated with 

the individual exporter’s business and 

export licenses; (2) any legislative 

enactments decentralizing control of 

companies; and (3) any other formal 

measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies. 

True Potential has placed on the 

administrative record documents to 

demonstrate an absence of de jure 

control (i.e., the 1999 ‘‘Company Law of 

the People’s Republic of China’’). As in 

prior cases, we have analyzed this law 

and have found it to establish 

sufficiently an absence of de jure control 

over privately owned companies in the 

PRC. See, e.g., Final Determination of 

Sales at Less than Fair Value: Furfuryl 

Alcohol from the People’s Republic of 

China, 60 FR 22544, 22546–47 (May 8, 

1995) (Furfuryl Alcohol); and 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value: Certain PartialExtension Steel Drawer Slides with 

Rollers from the People’s Republic of 

China, 60 FR 29571, 29573 (June 5, 

1995) (unchanged in the final 

determination). We have no new 

information in this proceeding that 

would cause us to reconsider this 

determination with regard to True 

Potential. 

2. De Facto Control 

As stated in previous cases, there is 

evidence that certain enactments of the 

PRC central government have not been 

implemented uniformly among different 

sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. 

See Silicon Carbide, 60 FR at 29573; and 

Furfuryl Alcohol, 60 FR at 22546–47. 

Therefore, the Department has 

determined that an analysis of de facto 

control is critical in determining 

whether the respondents are, in fact, 

subject to a degree of government 

control that would preclude the 

Department from assigning separate 

rates. 

The Department typically considers 

four factors in evaluating whether each 

respondent is subject to de facto 

government control of its export 

functions: (1) Whether the export prices 

are set by, or subject to the approval of, 

a government authority; (2) whether the 

respondent has authority to negotiate 

and sign contracts and other 

agreements; (3) whether the respondent 

has autonomy from the government in 

making decisions regarding the 

selection of management; and (4) 

whether the respondent retains the 

proceeds of its export sales and makes 

independent decisions regarding the 

disposition of profits or financing of 

losses. See Silicon Carbide, 60 FR at 

29573; and Furfuryl Alcohol, 60 FR at 

22546–47. 

True Potential has asserted the 

following: (1) It establishes its own 

export prices; (2) it negotiates orders 

without guidance from any government 

entities or organizations; (3) it makes its 

own personnel decisions; and (4) it 

retains the proceeds of its export sales 

and uses profits according to its 

business needs. Additionally, True 

Potential’s questionnaire responses 

indicate that it did not coordinate its 

pricing during the POR with other 

exporters of the subject merchandise. 

Consequently, we have preliminarily 

determined that True Potential has met 

the criteria for the application of a 

separate rate based on the 

documentation it has submitted on the 

record of this review. 

Normal Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of the 

subject merchandise by Since Hardware 

and True Potential to the United States 

were made at prices below NV, we 

compared each company’s export prices 

(EPs) to NV, as described in the ‘‘Export 

Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of 

this notice, below. 

Export Price 

For Since Hardware and True 

Potential, we used EP methodology in 

accordance with section 772(a) of the 

Act for sales in which the subject 

merchandise was first sold prior to 

importation by the exporter outside the 

United States directly to an unaffiliated 

purchaser in the United States and for 

sales in which constructed export price 

was not otherwise indicated. 

We calculated EP based on packed, 

FOB foreign port prices to the first 

unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States. Where appropriate, we made 

deductions from the starting price (gross 

unit price) for foreign inland freight and 

foreign brokerage and handling charges 

in the PRC, in accordance with section 

772(c)(2) of the Act. Because foreign 

inland freight and foreign brokerage and 

handling fees were provided by PRC 

service providers or paid for in 

renminbi, we based those charges on 

surrogate rates from India (see the 

‘‘Surrogate Country’’ section, above, for 

further discussion of our surrogatecountry selection). 

To value foreign inland trucking 

charges, we used truck freight rates 

published in an Indian logistics Web 

site that tracks freight rates for all of 

India (i.e., http://www.infreight.com). To 

value foreign brokerage and handling 

expenses, we calculated an average rate 

based on two different sources: (1) The 

December 2003–November 2004 data 

contained in Essar Steel’s (Essar) 

February 28, 2005, public version 


ycherry on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Notices 945 

response submitted in the antidumping 

administrative review of Hot-Rolled 

Carbon Steel Flat Products from India; 

and (2) the November 2002–September 

2003 data contained in Pidilite 

Industries’ (Pidilite) March 9, 2004, 

public version response submitted in 

the antidumping duty investigation of 

Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India. 

See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel 

Flat Products From India: Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 2018 (Jan. 

12, 2006) (unchanged in the final 

results); and Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 

From India, 69 FR 67306 (Nov. 17, 

2004). Because the data from both Essar 

and Pidilite were outside of the POR, we 

applied Indian wholesale price index 

(WPI) inflators to them to make them 

contemporaneous with the POR before 

calculating an average foreign brokerage 

and handling expense rate. See the 

December 29, 2006, memorandum from 

Elizabeth Eastwood to the file entitled, 

‘‘Factors of Production Valuation 

Memorandum for the Preliminary 

Results of the First Administrative 

Review and Preliminary Results of the 

First New Shipper Review’’ (Factor 

Valuation Memorandum) for a detailed 

description of the calculation of these 

surrogate values. 

Normal Value 

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides 

that the Department shall determine NV 

using a FOP methodology if the 

merchandise is exported from an NME 

country and the information does not 

permit the calculation of NV using 

home-market prices, third-country 

prices, or constructed value under 

section 773(a) of the Act. The 

Department will base NV on the FOPs 

because the presence of government 

controls on various aspects of the PRC 

economy renders price comparisons and 

the calculation of production costs 

invalid under its normal methodologies. 

For purposes of calculating NV, we 

valued the PRC FOPs in accordance 

with section 773(c)(1) of the Act. The 

FOPs include, but are not limited to, 

hours of labor required, quantities of 

raw materials employed, amounts of 

energy and other utilities consumed, 

and representative capital costs, 

including depreciation. See section 

773(c)(3) of the Act. In examining 

surrogate values, we selected, where 

possible, the publicly available value 

which was an average non-export value, 

representative of a range of prices 

within the POR or most 

contemporaneous with the POR, 

product-specific, and tax-exclusive. See, 

e.g., Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination: Chlorinated 

Isocyanurates from the People’s 

Republic of China, 69 FR 75294, 75300 

(Dec. 16, 2004) (unchanged in the final 

results). 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, we calculated NV based on the 

FOPs reported by Since Hardware 

(adjusted as appropriate for our findings 

at verification) and True Potential for 

the POR for materials, energy, labor, byproducts, and packing. See the Factor 

Valuation Memorandum. As the basis 

for NV, Since Hardware and True 

Potential reported FOP information for 

each separate stage of production, 

including the factors used in the 

production of all self-produced material 

and energy inputs, and by-products. We 

have valued the factors reported for 

each self-produced input for purposes of 

the preliminary results, in accordance 

with our practice. See Polyvinyl Alcohol 

from the People’s Republic of China; 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 62086 

(Oct. 23, 2006). 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(1), where a producer sources 

an input from a market economy and 

pays for it in a market-economy 

currency, the Department employs the 

actual price paid to calculate the factorsbased NV. See Lasko Metal Products v. 

United States, 43 F.3d 1442, 1445–1446 

(Fed. Cir. 1994). Since Hardware 

reported that some of its inputs were 

purchased from market economies and 

paid for in market-economy currencies. 

See the ‘‘Factor Valuations’’ section of 

this notice, below, for further 

discussion. 

Factor Valuations 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, we calculated NV based on the 

FOPs reported by the respondents for 

the POR. We relied on the factor 

specification data submitted by the 

respondents for the above-mentioned 

inputs in their questionnaire and 

supplemental questionnaire responses, 

where applicable, for purposes of 

selecting surrogate values. 

To calculate NV, we multiplied the 

reported per-unit factor quantities by 

publicly available Indian surrogate 

values (except where noted below). In 

selecting the surrogate values, we 

considered the quality, specificity, and 

contemporaneity of the data. As 

appropriate, we adjusted input prices by 

including freight costs to make them 

delivered prices. Specifically, we added 

to Indian import surrogate values a 

surrogate freight cost using the shorter 

of the reported distance from the 

domestic supplier to the factory or the 

distance from the nearest seaport to the 

factory, where appropriate. This 

adjustment is in accordance with the 

Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit’s decision in Sigma Corp. v. 

United States, 117 F.3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 

1997). For a detailed description of all 

surrogate values used for the 

respondents, see the Factor Valuation 

Memorandum. 

As explained above, Since Hardware 

provided evidence that it had purchased 

certain raw material inputs from marketeconomy suppliers and paid for them in 

market-economy currencies. Therefore, 

in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(1), the Department has 

determined to use the market-economy 

prices as reported by Since Hardware in 

order to value these inputs in instances 

where the inputs were obtained from 

both market-economy and NME 

suppliers because the market-economy 

inputs represent a significant quantity of 

the inputs and they were paid for in a 

market-economy currency. 

Except where discussed below, we 

valued raw material inputs using 

December 2004–November 2005 

weighted-average Indian import values 

derived from the World Trade Atlas 

Web site (WTA) (see also the Factor 

Valuation Memorandum). The Indian 

import statistics we obtained from the 

WTA were published by the Directorate 

General of Commercial Intelligence and 

Statistics, Ministry of Commerce of 

India, and were reported in rupees. 

Indian surrogate values denominated in 

foreign currencies were converted to 

U.S. dollars using the applicable 

exchange rate for India from the 

Department’s Web site. Where we could 

not obtain publicly available 

information contemporaneous with the 

POR with which to value factors, we 

adjusted the surrogate values for 

inflation using WPIs as published in the 

International Monetary Fund’s 

International Financial Statistics. See 

the Factor Valuation Memorandum. 

It is the Department’s current practice 

that, where the facts developed in U.S. 

or third-country countervailing duty 

findings include the existence of 

subsidies that appear to be used 

generally (in particular, broadly 

available, non-industry-specific export 

subsidies), it is reasonable for the 

Department to consider that it has 

particular and objective evidence to 

support a reason to believe or suspect 

that prices of the inputs from the 

country granting the subsidies may be 

subsidized. See Tapered Roller Bearings 

and Parts Thereof, Finished and 

Unfinished, from the People’s Republic 


ycherry on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
946 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Notices 

2We note that because both Future Tool and 

Shandong Machinery are part of the PRC-wide 

entity, they are subject to the PRC-wide rate. 

of China; Final Results of the 1998–1999 

Administrative Review, Partial 

Rescission of Review, and 

Determination Not to Revoke Order in 

Part, 66 FR 1953 (Jan. 10, 2001), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 1; Tapered 

Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 

Finished and Unfinished, from the 

People’s Republic of China; Final 

Results of 1999–2000 Administrative 

Review, Partial Rescission of Review, 

and Determination Not To Revoke Order 

in Part, 66 FR 57420 (Nov. 15, 2001), 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 1; and China 

National Machinery Imp. & Exp. Corp. 

v. United States, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 

1339 (CIT 2003). Therefore, in instances 

where we relied on Indian import data 

to value inputs, in accordance with the 

Department’s practice, we excluded 

imports from NME countries, Indonesia, 

the Republic of Korea, and Thailand to 

value the FOPs. 

Finally, we excluded imports that 

were labeled as originating from an 

‘‘unspecified’’ country from the average 

value because the Department could not 

be certain that they were not from either 

an NME or a country with general 

export subsidies. 

Surrogate Valuations 

We valued the following FOPs using 

India import statistics as published by 

the WTA, contemporaneous with the 

POR: Acetylene, aluminum rivets, 

aluminum sections, argon gas, axis of 

rotation, ball bearings, barium sulfate, 

brightening agents, bungee cable, butyl 

ether, carbon dioxide, dyes, epoxy resin, 

filler, hydrochloric acid, ink, iron rings, 

lacquer, light calcium carbonate, lock 

washers, muriate of potash, nitric acid, 

nuts, oxygen, PA resin, PE resin, PP 

resin, paint powder, pigment, 

phosphate, pins, phosphoric acid, 

plating pencils, rubber part, standard 

parts (i.e., screws or bolts with nuts or 

washers), steel sand, steel rods, steel 

springs, sulfuric acid, tapping screws, 

tianna water, titanium dioxide, welded 

pipe, welding rod, zinc alloys, zinc 

chloride, and zinc ingots. We valued 

hot-rolled steel using Indian import 

statistics as published by the WTA 

covering the period December 2003 to 

November 2004. Because this data was 

from a period prior to the POR, we 

applied a WPI inflator to it to make it 

contemporaneous with the POR. We 

valued paraffin using Indian domestic 

market prices reported in Chemical 

Weekly, contemporaneous with the 

POR. See the Factor Valuation 

Memorandum. 

We valued water using data from the 

Maharashtra Industrial Development 

Corporation. We applied a WPI inflator 

to this surrogate value to make it 

contemporaneous with the POR. See id. 

We valued diesel oil and coal oil 

using data obtained from Key World 

Energy Statistics 2005, published by the 

International Energy Agency (IEA), for 

the first quarter of 2005. See id. 

We valued electricity using the 2000 

total average price per kilowatt hour for 

‘‘Electricity for Industry’’ as reported in 

Key World Energy Statistics 2003, 

published by the IEA. We applied a WPI 

inflator to this surrogate value to make 

it contemporaneous with the POR. See 

id. 

To value plastic bags, PS foam, tape, 

and instruction books (i.e., the packing 

materials reported by the respondents), 

we used Indian import statistics as 

published by the WTA, 

contemporaneous with the POR. See id. 

Regarding petrolatum, reported by 

Since Hardware, we did not value this 

factor because: (1) Surrogate value 

information was not available; and (2) 

the material was reported as being used 

in minimal amounts. In previous cases, 

where certain materials were reportedly 

consumed in very small amounts and 

the surrogate values for these materials 

were not available, the Department did 

not include surrogate values for these 

materials in its calculation of NV. See 

Polyvinyl Alcohol from the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 70 FR 67434, 67439 (Nov. 7, 

2005) (unchanged in the final results); 

Synthetic Indigo from the People’s 

Republic of China: Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, 65 FR 25706 (May 3, 2000), 

and the accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 8; 

Ferrovanadium and Nitrided Vanadium 

from the Russian Federation: Notice of 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 62 FR 65656 

(Dec. 15, 1997), and the accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 11; and Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Oscillating Fans and Ceiling Fans from 

the People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 

55273 (Oct. 25, 1991). 

For direct labor, indirect labor, and 

packing labor, consistent with 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC 

regression-based wage rate as reported 

on Import Administration’s Web site, 

Expected Wages of Selected NME 

Countries, revised in November 2005, 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/03wages/ 

110805-2003-Tables/03wages110805.html#table1. The source of these 

wage rate data on Import 

Administration’s Web site is the 

Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2002, ILO 

(Geneva: 2002), Chapter 5B: Wages in 

Manufacturing. Because this regressionbased wage rate does not separate the 

labor rates into different skill levels or 

types of labor, we have applied the same 

wage rate to all skill levels and types of 

labor reported by the respondents. See 

id. 

To determine factory overhead, 

selling, general, and administrative 

expenses, and profit for the finished 

product, we relied on rates derived from 

the financial statements of Rexello 

Castors Private Limited (Rexello), an 

Indian producer of identical 

merchandise. We applied these ratios to 

the respondents’ costs (determined as 

noted above). See id. 

Finally, the respondents reported that 

they generated certain other by-products 

as a result of the production of hand 

trucks. We valued steel scrap using 

Indian import statistics as published by 

the WTA, contemporaneous with the 

POR. We valued aluminum scrap and 

recycled paint powder using Indian 

import statistics as published by the 

WTA, covering the period December 

2002 to November 2003. Because this 

data was prior to the POR, we applied 

a WPI inflator to it to make it 

contemporaneous with the POR. 

Preliminary Results of Reviews 

We preliminarily determine that the 

following margins exist during the 

period December 1, 2004, through 

November 1, 2005: 

Exporter/manufacturer 

Weightedaverage 

margin 

percentage 

Forecarry Corp./Formost Plastics & Metalworks (Jianxing) 

Co., Ltd. ................................ 383.60 

Since Hardware (Guangzhou) 

Co., Ltd ................................. 12.22 

True Potential Co., Ltd ............. 39.54 

PRC-Wide Rate 2 ...................... 383.60 

Disclosure 

The Department will disclose 

calculations performed for these 

preliminary results to the parties within 

five days of the date of publication of 

this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.224(b). Any interested party may 

request a hearing within 30 days of 

publication of these preliminary results. 

See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if 

requested, will generally be held two 

days after the scheduled date for 

submission of rebuttal briefs. See 19 

CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may 


ycherry on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Notices 947 

submit case briefs and/or written 

comments no later than 30 days after the 

date of publication of these preliminary 

results of review. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs and 

rebuttals to written comments, limited 

to issues raised in such briefs or 

comments, may be filed no later than 

five days after the time limit for filing 

the case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). 

Further, parties submitting written 

comments should provide the 

Department with an additional copy of 

those comments on diskette. The 

Department will issue the final results 

of these administrative and new shipper 

reviews, which will include the results 

of its analysis of issues raised in any 

comments, and at a hearing, within 120 

days of publication of these preliminary 

results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) 

of the Act. 

Assessment Rates 

The Department shall determine, and 

CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries. The Department 

intends to issue assessment instructions 

to CBP 15 days after the date of 

publication of the final results of 

review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1), we will calculate 

importer- or customer-specific ad 

valorem duty assessment rates based on 

the ratio of the total amount of the 

dumping margins calculated for the 

examined sales to the total entered 

value of those same sales. For True 

Potential, we do not have the actual 

entered value because it was either not 

the importer of record for the subject 

merchandise or was unable to obtain the 

entered value data for its reported sales 

from the importer of record. For True 

Potential, we intend to calculate 

individual customer-specific assessment 

rates by aggregating the dumping 

margins calculated for all of the U.S. 

sales examined and dividing that 

amount by the total quantity of the sales 

examined. To determine whether the 

duty assessment rates are de minimis 

(i.e., less than 0.50 percent), in 

accordance with the requirement set 

forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will 

calculate customer-specific ad valorem 

ratios based on export prices. 

We will instruct CBP to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries covered by these reviews if any 

importer- or customer-specific 

assessment rate calculated in the final 

results of these reviews is above de 

minimis. 

For entries of the subject merchandise 

during the POR from companies not 

subject to these reviews, we will 

instruct CBP to liquidate them at the 

cash deposit rate in effect at the time of 

entry. The final results of this review 

shall be the basis for the assessment of 

antidumping duties on entries of 

merchandise covered by the final results 

of these reviews and for future deposits 

of estimated duties, where applicable. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following deposit requirements 

will be effective upon publication of the 

final results of these reviews for all 

shipments of hand trucks and certain 

parts thereof from the PRC entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of 

the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for all 

respondents will be the rates 

determined in the final results of review 

(except that if a rate is de minimis, i.e., 

less than 0.50 percent, no cash deposit 

will be required); (2) the cash deposit 

rate for PRC exporters who received a 

separate rate in a prior segment of the 

proceeding (which were not reviewed in 

this segment of the proceeding) will 

continue to be the rate assigned in that 

segment of the proceeding (i.e., Huatian 

and Taifa); (3) the cash deposit rate for 

the PRC-wide entity (including Future 

Tool and Shandong Machinery) will 

continue to be 383.60 percent; and (4) 

the cash deposit rate for non-PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise from 

the PRC will be the rate applicable to 

the PRC exporter that supplied that 

exporter. 

These requirements, when imposed, 

shall remain in effect until publication 

of the final results of the next 

administrative review. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a preliminary 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

These administrative and new shipper 

reviews and notice are in accordance 

with sections 751(a)(1), 751(a)(2)(B), and 

777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213 

and 351.214. 

Dated: December 29, 2006. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–45 Filed 1–8–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–863] 

Notice of Extension of the Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty New 

Shipper Review: Honey From the 

People’s Republic of China 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: January 9, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin 

Begnal or Michael Quigley; 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) 482–1442 and (202) 

482–4047, respectively. 

Background 

The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) received a timely 

request from Shanghai Bloom 

International Trading Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Shanghai Bloom’’), in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.214(c), for a new shipper 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on honey from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘PRC’’). On August 30, 2006, the 

Department found that the request for 

review with respect to Shanghai Bloom 

met all of the regulatory requirements 

set forth in 19 CFR 351.214(b) and 

initiated an antidumping duty new 

shipper review covering the period 

December 1, 2005, through June 30, 

2006. See Honey from the People’s 

Republic of China: Initiation of New 

Shipper Antidumping Duty Review, 71 

FR 52764 (September 7, 2006). The 

preliminary results are currently due no 

later than February 26, 2007. 

Extension of Time Limits for 

Preliminary Results 

Section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), 

and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(1) require the 

Department to issue the preliminary 

results of a new shipper review within 

180 days after the date on which the 

new shipper review was initiated and 

final results of a review within 90 days 

after the date on which the preliminary 

results were issued. The Department 

may, however, extend the time period 

for completion of the preliminary 

results of a new shipper review to 300 

days if it determines that the case is 

extraordinarily complicated. See 19 CFR 

351.214(i)(2). 

The Department has determined that 

the review is extraordinarily 


ycherry on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES