10492 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 45 / Thursday, March 8, 2007 / Notices 

351.213(d)(1) of the Department’s 

regulations, we are rescinding this 

review with respect to Jinan Yipin, 

Linshu Dading, Qingdao Titan, 

Shandong Wonderland, Shenzhen 

Xinboda, Taian Fook Huat, Weifang 

Hongqiao, Xuzhou Simple, and Omni 

Decor. 

Assessment Rates 

The Department will instruct U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 

to assess antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. For those 

companies for which this review has 

been rescinded and which have a 

separate rate, antidumping duties shall 

be assessed at rates equal to the cash 

deposit of estimated antidumping duties 

required at the time of entry, or 

withdrawal from warehouse, for 

consumption, in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.212(c)(2). The Department will 

issue appropriate assessment 

instructions directly to CBP within 15 

days of publication of this notice. For 

those companies for which this review 

has been rescinded but do not have a 

separate rate at this time (and thus 

remain part of the PRC–wide entity), the 

Department will issue assessment 

instructions upon the completion of this 

administrative review. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a final reminder 

to importers for whom this review is 

being rescinded, as of the publication 

date of this notice, 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 the antidumping 

duties occurred and the subsequent 

assessment of double antidumping 

duties. 

Notification Regarding APOs 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective orders (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the return or 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues 

to govern business proprietary 

information in this segment of the 

proceeding. Timely written notification 

of the return/destruction of APO 

materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and terms of an APO is a violation 

which is subject to sanction. 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). 

Dated: February 27, 2007. 

Stephen J. Claeys 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration 

[FR Doc. E7–4165 Filed 3–7–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–803] 

Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or 

Unfinished, With or Without Handles, 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results and Partial 

Rescission of the 2005–2006 

Administrative Reviews 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is currently 

conducting the 2005–2006 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on heavy forged 

hand tools, finished or unfinished, with 

or without handles, (heavy forged hand 

tools) from the People’s Republic of 

China (PRC). We preliminarily 

determined to apply adverse facts 

available (AFA) with respect to four 

companies which failed to cooperate to 

the best of their ability and failed to 

demonstrate their eligibility for a 

separate rate, as follows: (a) Hammers/ 

Sledges and Bars/Wedges exported by 

Shandong Machinery Import & Export 

Company (SMC); (b) Axes/Adzes, Bars/ 

Wedges, Hammers/Sledges, and Picks/ 

Mattocks (‘‘all four classes or kinds’’) 

exported by Jafsam Metal Products 

(Jafsam); (c) Picks/Mattocks exported by 

Tianjin Machinery Import and Export 

Corporation (TMC); and (d) Picks/ 

Mattocks and Hammers/Sledges 

exported by Shandong Huarong 

Machinery Co. (Huarong). 

We are also preliminarily rescinding 

the following 2005–2006 administrative 

reviews: (a) Axes/Adzes and Picks/ 

Mattocks, with regard to SMC; (b) Axes/ 

Adzes, Hammers/Sledges, and Picks/ 

Mattocks, with regard to Iron Bull 

Industrial Co., Ltd. (Iron Bull); and (c) 

all four classes or kinds with regard to 

Shanghai Xinike Trading Company 

(Xinike). 

If these preliminary results are 

adopted in our final results of these 

reviews, we will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) to assess 

antidumping duties on entries of subject 

merchandise during the period of 

review (POR) for which the importerspecific assessment rates are above de 

minimis. 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: March 8, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark Flessner or Robert James, AD/CVD 

Enforcement Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–6312 or (202) 482–

0649, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On February 19, 1991, the Department 

published in the Federal Register four 

antidumping duty orders on heavy 

forged hand tools from the PRC. See 

Antidumping Duty Orders: Heavy 

Forged Hand Tools, Finished or 

Unfinished, With or Without Handles 

From the People’s Republic of China, 56 

FR 6622 (February 19, 1991). Imports 

covered by these orders comprise the 

following classes or kinds of 

merchandise: (1) Hammers and sledges 

with heads over 1.5 kg (3.33 pounds) 

(Hammers/Sledges); (2) bars over 18 

inches in length, track tools, and wedges 

(Bars/Wedges); (3) Picks/Mattocks; and 

(4) Axes/Adzes. See ‘‘Scope of the 

Antidumping Duty Orders’’ section 

below for the complete description of 

subject merchandise. 

On February 1, 2006, the Department 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice of ‘‘Opportunity to Request an 

Administrative Review’’ of the 

antidumping duty order on heavy forged 

hand tools from the PRC for the POR 

covering February 1, 2005, through 

January 31, 2006. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Review, 71 

FR 5239 (February 1, 2006). On 

February 24, 2006, respondents SMC 

and TMC requested administrative 

reviews. On February 27, 2006, 

respondents Shanghai Machinery 

Import & Export Corp. (Shanghai 

Machinery), Huarong, and Shandong 

Jinma Industrial Group Co., Ltd. (Jinma), 

requested administrative reviews. On 

February 28, 2006, petitioner Council 

Tool Company requested administrative 

reviews of Huarong, SMC, TMC, Xinike, 

Iron Bull, and Jafsam. Also on February 

28, 2006, another petitioner, Ames True 

Temper, requested administrative 

reviews of Huarong, SMC, TMC, Iron 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 45 / Thursday, March 8, 2007 / Notices 10493 

Bull, and Truper Herramientas S.A. de 

C.V. (Truper). 

On April 5, 2006, the Department 

initiated an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty orders listed below 

covering the POR, February 1, 2005, 

through January 31, 2006, with respect 

to the listed companies: 

Axes/Adzes A–570–803 

Iron Bull Industrial Co., Ltd. 

Jafsam Metal Products 

Shanghai Machinery Import & Export 

Corp. 

Shanghai Xinike Trading Company 

Shandong Huarong Machinery Co., Ltd. 

Shandong Jinma Industrial Group Co., 

Ltd. 

Shandong Machinery Import and Export 

Corporation 

Tianjin Machinery Import and Export 

Corporation 

Truper Herramientas S.A. de C.V. 

Bars/Wedges A–570–803 

Iron Bull Industrial Co., Ltd. 

Jafsam Metal Products 

Shanghai Machinery Import & Export 

Corp. 

Shanghai Xinike Trading Company 

Shandong Huarong Machinery Co., Ltd. 

Shandong Jinma Industrial Group Co., 

Ltd. 

Shandong Machinery Import and Export 

Corporation 

Tianjin Machinery Import and Export 

Corporation 

Truper Herramientas S.A. de C.V. 

Hammers/Sledges A–570–803 

Iron Bull Industrial Co., Ltd. 

Jafsam Metal Products 

Shanghai Machinery Import & Export 

Corp. 

Shanghai Xinike Trading Company 

Shandong Huarong Machinery Co., Ltd. 

Shandong Jinma Industrial Group Co., 

Ltd. 

Shandong Machinery Import and Export 

Corporation 

Tianjin Machinery Import and Export 

Corporation 

Picks/Mattocks A–570–803 

Iron Bull Industrial Co., Ltd. 

Jafsam Metal Products 

Shanghai Machinery Import & Export 

Corp. 

Shanghai Xinike Trading Company 

Shandong Huarong Machinery Co., Ltd. 

Shandong Jinma Industrial Group Co., 

Ltd. 

Shandong Machinery Import and Export 

Corporation 

See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Deferral of Administrative 

Reviews, 71 FR 17077 (April 5, 2006) 

(Initiation Notice). 

Partial Rescission of Review 

During the period specified in the 

Department’s regulations, we received 

multiple withdrawals of requests for 

review by petitioners and respondents. 

See Memorandum from Mark Flessner 

to the Record entitled ‘‘Administrative 

Review (02/01/2005–01/31/2006) of 

Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or 

Unfinished, With or Without Handles, 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Adverse Facts Available and 

Corroboration,’’ (AFA and 

Corroboration Memo), dated February 

28, 2007. On September 11, 2006, we 

published a notice rescinding the 

administrative review, in accordance 

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

to Jinma (all four classes or kinds); 

Shanghai Machinery (all four classes or 

kinds); Truper (all four classes or kinds); 

TMC (Axes/Adzes, Hammers/Sledges, 

and Bars/Wedges); Huarong (Axes/ 

Adzes and Bars/Wedges); and Iron Bull 

(Bars/Wedges). See Administrative 

Review (02/01/2005–01/31/2006) of 

Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or 

Unfinished, With or Without Handles, 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Notice of Rescission of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Reviews, 71 FR 

53403 (September 11, 2006) (Rescission 

Notice). 

Preliminary Partial Rescission of 2005– 

2006 Administrative Review 

We are preliminarily rescinding the 

review with respect to SMC for Axes/ 

Adzes and Picks/Mattocks. SMC 

reported that it made no shipments of 

subject Axes/Adzes or Picks/Mattocks 

during the POR and the Department was 

able to review CBP data which support 

the claim that SMC did not export Axes/ 

Adzes and/or Picks/Mattocks during the 

POR. Furthermore, no party has placed 

evidence on the record demonstrating 

that SMC exported the merchandise 

identified above during the POR. 

Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(d)(3) and consistent with the 

Department’s practice, we are 

preliminarily rescinding the 

administrative reviews on Axes/Adzes 

and Picks/Mattocks with respect to 

SMC. 

In addition, we are preliminarily 

rescinding the review with respect to 

Iron Bull for Axes/Adzes, Hammers/ 

Sledges, and Picks/Mattocks for the 

same reason described above. 

The questionnaires sent to Xinike 

were returned to the Department as 

undeliverable. Given that petitioners 

had requested this review, we requested 

that they provide an alternate address 

for this company, but they were unable 

to do so. See Memorandum to the File 

from Mark Flessner entitled, 

‘‘Administrative Review (02/01/2005–

01/31/2006) of Heavy Forged Hand 

Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or 

Without Handles, from the People’s 

Republic of China: Attempts to Contact 

Party Shanghai Xinike Trading 

Company,’’ dated May 22, 2006. 

Because the Department was unable to 

locate Xinike, we are also preliminarily 

rescinding the administrative review 

with respect to this company in all four 

classes or kinds. 

Scope of Orders 

The products covered by these orders 

are heavy forged hand tools from the 

PRC, comprising the following classes 

or kinds of merchandise: (1) Hammers 

and sledges with heads over 1.5 kg (3.33 

pounds); (2) bars over 18 inches in 

length, track tools and wedges; (3) picks 

and mattocks; and (4) axes, adzes and 

similar hewing tools. Heavy forged hand 

tools include heads for drilling 

hammers, sledges, axes, mauls, picks 

and mattocks, which may or may not be 

painted, which may or may not be 

finished, or which may or may not be 

imported with handles; assorted bar 

products and track tools including 

wrecking bars, digging bars and 

tampers; and steel wood splitting 

wedges. Heavy forged hand tools are 

manufactured through a hot forge 

operation in which steel is sheared to 

required length, heated to forging 

temperature, and formed to final shape 

on forging equipment using dies specific 

to the desired product shape and size. 

Depending on the product, finishing 

operations may include shot blasting, 

grinding, polishing and painting, and 

the insertion of handles for handled 

products. Heavy forged hand tools are 

currently provided for under the 

following Harmonized Tariff System of 

the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 

8205.20.60, 8205.59.30, 8201.30.00 and 

8201.40.60. Specifically excluded from 

these orders are hammers and sledges 

with heads 1.5 kg. (3.33 pounds) in 

weight and under, hoes and rakes, and 

bars 18 inches in length and under. The 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and Customs purposes. 

The written description remains 

dispositive. 

The Department has issued eight 

conclusive scope rulings regarding the 

merchandise covered by these orders: 

(1) On August 16, 1993, the Department 

found the ‘‘Max Multi-Purpose Axe,’’

imported by the Forrest Tool Company, 

to be within the scope of the Axes/ 

Adzes order; (2) on March 8, 2001, the 

Department found ‘‘18-inch’’ and ‘‘24- 

inch’’ pry bars, produced without dies, 

imported by Olympia Industrial, Inc. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
10494 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 45 / Thursday, March 8, 2007 / Notices 

1Section A of the questionnaire requests general 

information concerning a company’s corporate 

structure and business practices, the merchandise 

under review that it sells, and the manner in which 

it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. 

Section C requests a complete listing of U.S. sales. 

Section D requests information on the cost of 

production of the foreign like product and the 

constructed value of the merchandise under review. 

and SMC Pacific Tools, Inc., to be 

within the scope of the Bars/Wedges 

order; (3) on March 8, 2001, the 

Department found the ‘‘Pulaski’’ tool, 

produced without dies by TMC, to be 

within the scope of the Axes/Adzes 

order; (4) on March 8, 2001, the 

Department found the ‘‘skinning axe,’’

imported by Import Traders, Inc., to be 

within the scope of the Axes/Adzes 

order; (5) on December 9, 2004, the 

Department found the ‘‘MUTT,’’

imported by Olympia Industrial, Inc., 

under HTSUS 8205.59.5510, to be 

within the scope of the Axes/Adzes 

order; (6) on May 23, 2005, the 

Department found 8-inch by 8-inch and 

10-inch by 10-inch cast tampers, 

imported by Olympia Industrial, Inc. to 

be outside the scope of the orders; (7) on 

September 22, 2005, following remand, 

the U.S. Court of International Trade 

affirmed the Department’s 

determination that cast picks are outside 

the scope of the order; and (8) on 

October 14, 2005, the Department found 

the Mean Green Splitting Machine, 

imported by Avalanche Industries, 

under HTSUS 8201.40.60, to be within 

the scope of the Bars/Wedges order. 

TMC, Jafsam, and Huarong 

We issued our request for quantity 

and value data (Q&V), and sections A, 

C, and D antidumping questionnaire 1 to 

all respondents for which an 

administrative review had been 

requested. Although the Department 

confirmed delivery of the questionnaires 

and extended to each company another 

opportunity to respond, Jafsam did not 

submit a response. See Letter from 

Robert James, Program Manager, entitled 

‘‘Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or 

Unfinished, With or Without Handles, 

from the People’s Republic of China: 02/ 

01/2005–01/31/2006 Administrative 

Review,’’ dated May 23, 2006. 

As noted above, the administrative 

review with regard to TMC was 

rescinded for Axes/Adzes, Hammers/ 

Sledges, and Bars/Wedges, leaving TMC 

subject to review for Picks/Mattocks. 

Nevertheless, TMC failed to submit a 

questionnaire response with respect to 

its exports of Picks/Mattocks. See 

Rescission Notice. Likewise, the 

administrative review with regard to 

Huarong was rescinded only for Axes/ 

Adzes and Bars/Wedges, leaving 

Huarong subject to review for Hammers/ 

Sledges and Picks/Mattocks. However, 

Huarong failed to submit a response 

with respect to the two remaining 

classes or kinds of merchandise. See 

Rescission Notice. 

SMC 

With respect to SMC, from April 2006 

through January 2007, the Department 

issued its initial and supplemental 

questionnaires. Responses were 

received over the course of this period. 

In addition, parties were invited to 

submit comments on surrogate country 

selection and factors of production 

information. Parties submitted 

information with respect to these issues 

as well. 

Non-Market Economy Country 

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 

a NME country shall remain in effect 

until revoked by the administering 

authority. See, e.g., Heavy Forged Hand 

Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or 

Without Handles, From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Final Rescission and 

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews, 71 FR 54269 

(September 14, 2006) (Final Results of 

14th Review). None of the parties to this 

proceeding has contested such 

treatment. 

Separate Rates 

As discussed below, SMC (with 

respect to Hammers/Sledges and Bars/ 

Wedges) failed to adequately respond to 

the Department’s requests for 

information. TMC (with respect to the 

class or kind of merchandise Picks/ 

Mattocks), Huarong (with respect to 

Hammers/Sledges and Picks/Mattocks), 

and Jafsam (with respect to all four 

classes or kinds) failed to respond to the 

Department’s requests for information. 

See AFA and Corroboration Memo; see 

also Facts Available section below. 

To establish whether a company 

operating in a NME is sufficiently 

independent to be entitled to a separate 

rate, the Department analyzes each 

exporting entity under the test 

established in the Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Sparklers from the People’s Republic of 

China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as 

amplified by 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). 

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 governmental control over 

export activities. 

In the Initiation Notice, the 

Department stated, ‘‘If one of the abovenamed companies does not qualify for a 

separate rate, all other exporters of 

Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the 

People’s Republic of China who have 

not qualified for a separate rate are 

deemed to be covered by this review as 

part of the single PRC entity of which 

the named exporters are a part.’’ See 

Initiation Notice, n.6. 

By failing to adequately respond to 

the Department’s requests for 

information, SMC, TMC, Huarong, and 

Jafsam (pertaining to the classes or 

kinds identified above) have not 

demonstrated they are free of 

government control, are therefore not 

eligible to receive a separate rate, and 

are accordingly being treated as part of 

the PRC-wide entity. See AFA and 

Corroboration Memo. 

The PRC-wide entity including SMC, 

TMC, Huarong, and Jafsam (pertaining 

to the classes or kinds identified above) 

failed to adequately respond to the 

Department’s requests for information. 

Because the PRC-wide entity did not 

cooperate to the best of its ability in the 

proceeding, the Department finds it 

appropriate, pursuant to sections 

776(a)(2) and 776(b) of the Act, to use 

AFA as the basis for these preliminary 

results of review for the PRC-wide 

entity. 

Adverse Facts Available 

1. Application of Adverse Facts 

Available 

For the reasons outlined below, we 

have applied total adverse facts 

available to the PRC-wide entity, which 

includes SMC (with respect to 

Hammers/Sledges and Bars/Wedges), 

TMC (with respect to Picks/Mattocks), 

Huarong (with respect to Hammers/ 

Sledges and Picks/Mattocks), and Jafsam 

(with respect to all four classes or 

kinds). Section 776(a)(2) of the Act 

provides that, if an interested party: (A) 

Withholds information that has been 

requested by the Department; (B) fails to 

provide such information in a timely 

manner or in the form or manner 

requested subject to sections 782(c)(1) 

and (e) of the Act; (C) significantly 

impedes a proceeding under the 

antidumping statute; or (D) provides 

such information but the information 

cannot be verified, the Department 

shall, subject to section 782(d) of the 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 45 / Thursday, March 8, 2007 / Notices 10495 

Act, use facts otherwise available in 

reaching the applicable determination. 

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 also Notice of Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Stainless Steel 

Bar from India, 70 FR 54023, 54025–26 

(September 13, 2005); and 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 (August 

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 SAA at 870. 

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, 

1382–83 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Nippon). 

We preliminarily find that SMC (with 

respect to Hammers/Sledges and Bars/ 

Wedges), TMC (with respect to Picks/ 

Mattocks), Huarong (with respect to 

Hammers/Sledges and Picks/Mattocks), 

and Jafsam (with respect to all four 

classes or kinds) did not act to the best 

of their abilities in this proceeding, 

within the meaning of section 776(b) of 

the Act, because they failed to respond 

to the Department’s requests for 

information. Therefore, an adverse 

inference is warranted in selecting from 

the facts otherwise available with 

respect to these companies. See Nippon, 

337 F.3d at 1382–83. 

SMC 

From the start of this review, SMC has 

significantly impeded the Department’s 

proceeding. SMC repeatedly either 

failed to answer, or provided 

contradictory answers to, many of the 

questions asked by the Department, 

calling into question the usability and 

reliability of the responses as a whole. 

For example, the May 11, 23, and 30, 

2006, section A, C, and D responses 

were significantly deficient (with regard 

to all three sections), requiring the 

Department to issue an extensive first 

supplemental questionnaire. Likewise, 

SMC’s September 15, 2006, responses 

were also deficient with regard to all 

three sections (A, C, and D), requiring 

the Department to issue another 

extensive supplemental questionnaire. 

SMC’s January 22 and 24, 2007, 

responses also failed to provide 

adequate answers which would enable 

the Department (a) to understand the 

company’s structure and ownership, (b) 

to compare the prices at which SMC’s 

subject merchandise was sold in or to 

the United States with a constructed 

value, and (c) to value the factors of 

production necessary to calculate export 

price, constructed export price, or 

normal value. See AFA and 

Corroboration Memo. 

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 assigned a single 

antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the 

Department’s policy to assign all 

exporters of merchandise subject to 

investigation in an NME country this 

single rate unless an exporter can 

demonstrate that it is sufficiently 

independent so as to be entitled to a 

separate rate. SMC did not adequately 

answer the questions posed by the 

Department regarding its eligibility for 

receiving a separate rate in this 

proceeding. Under the heading of 

‘‘Separate Rates’’ in the original 

questionnaire, the Department asked 

SMC, among other things, three 

questions which are crucial to the 

separate rates determination. SMC was 

asked to describe and explain: (i) Who 

owns your company, (ii) who controls 

your company, and (iii) your company’s 

relationship with the national, 

provincial, and local governments. 

Throughout three separate sets of 

responses, SMC never clearly answered 

these questions. See AFA and 

Corroboration Memo. 

SMC’s section D response also had 

multiple deficiencies which prevented 

the Department from being able to 

calculate a surrogate normal value. For 

example, in the original section D 

questionnaire response, the entirety of 

SMC’s section D data was based on 

activity prior to the beginning of the 

instant POR. See SMC’s section D 

response dated May 30, 2006. In the first 

supplemental questionnaire, SMC was 

asked to provide a detailed text 

explanation. SMC stated that all its sales 

to the United States during this POR 

were filled from stock from production 

for the previous POR (2004–2005). See 

SMC’s 1st supplemental questionnaire 

responses dated September 15, 2006. 

The Department, in its second 

supplemental questionnaire, asked SMC 

to provide source documents which 

would show that the entirety of the 

stocks of subject merchandise SMC sold 

during the POR was acquired by SMC 

during the previous POR. SMC did not 

provide the requested documentation, 

rendering its entire section D database 

unreliable and unusable. See SMC’s 

Second Supplemental Questionnaire 

response, dated January 24, 2007; see 

also AFA and Corroboration Memo. 

SMC’s section C database is also 

rendered unusable as a result of SMC’s 

continued and repeated failure to 

provide data on U.S. sales. For example, 

SMC failed to report any expenses paid 

in market economy currencies. SMC 

reported in the original section C 

questionnaire response that it had 

incurred some, but not all, of its freight 

expenses in market economy currencies 

but failed to provide any details or 

documentation. See SMC’s Section C 

Questionnaire Response, dated May 23, 

2006. In its first supplemental 

questionnaire response, SMC stated it 

had no market economy expenses on 

U.S. sales. See SMC’s Section C 

Questionnaire Response, dated May 23, 

2006. In its second supplemental 

questionnaire response, SMC stated that 

it incurred some freight expenses in 

market economy currencies, but 

continued to fail to provide any details 

or documentation. See SMC’s 2nd 

supplemental A and C questionnaire 

responses dated January 22, 2007; see 

also AFA and Corroboration Memo. The 

Deaprtment was unable to evaluate any 

of the market economy inputs which are 

a critical portion of the NME section C 

questionnaire. 

As demonstrated above, SMC 

withheld requested information, failed 

to provide reliable and usable responses 

to the Department’s questionnaires, and 

significantly impeded this proceeding, 

warranting the use of facts available 

under sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) 

of the Act. Given that its own records 

(which, for example, would at a 

minimum have reflected any remaining 

stocks from the previous POR) were 

reasonably available to SMC, we 

preliminarily find that SMC has failed 

to cooperate by not acting to the best of 

its ability to comply with the 

Department’s requests for information. 

Accordingly, we have preliminarily 

applied adverse facts available. See 

Section 776(b) of the Act. 

Jafsam, TMC, and Huarong 

Although the Department confirmed 

delivery of the questionnaires and 

extended another opportunity to 

respond, Jafsam did not submit a 

response to any section of the 

Department’s questionnaires. See Letter 

from Robert James, Program Manager, 

entitled ‘‘Heavy Forged Hand Tools, 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
10496 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 45 / Thursday, March 8, 2007 / Notices 

Finished or Unfinished, With or 

Without Handles, from the People’s 

Republic of China: 02/01/2005–01/31/ 

2006 Administrative Review,’’ dated 

May 23, 2006. The administrative 

review with regard to TMC was 

rescinded only in Axes/Adzes, 

Hammers/Sledges, and Bars/Wedges. 

See Rescission Notice. 

The administrative review with regard 

to Huarong was rescinded only with 

respect to Axes/Adzes and Bars/ 

Wedges. See Rescission Notice. Despite 

having requested these reviews, TMC 

and Huarong did not submit responses 

to the Department’s Q&V or section A, 

C, and D questionnaires in their 

respective classes or kinds. 

By not responding to the 

Department’s request for information, 

Jafsam, TMC, and Huarong each 

withheld information that had been 

requested by the administering 

authority (i.e., the Department), failed to 

provide such information by the 

deadline for submission of the 

information and in the form and manner 

requested, and significantly impeded 

the review. 

Therefore, pursuant to sections 

776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the Tariff 

Act, the Department shall apply facts 

available to all three of these companies. 

Further, as the information was 

reasonably available to Jafsam, TMC, 

and Huarong, we preliminarily find that 

Jafsam, TMC, and Huarong have failed 

to cooperate by not acting to the best of 

their ability to comply with the 

Department’s requests for information. 

Accordingly, we have preliminarily 

applied adverse facts available to these 

three companies. See section 776(b) of 

the Act. 

2. Selection of AFA Rate 

Section 776(b) of the Act provides 

that the Department may use as AFA, 

information derived from: (1) The 

petition; (2) the final determination in 

the investigation; (3) any previous 

review; or (4) any other information 

placed on the record. 

In administrative 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 

(April 21, 2003); see also Stainless Steel 

Plate in Coils from Taiwan: Preliminary 

Results and Rescission in part of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 67 FR 5789 (February 7, 2002). 

The U.S. Court of International Trade 

(CIT) and the Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit have consistently 

upheld the Department’s practice in 

several cases. See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. 

United States, 899 F. 2d 1185, 1190 

(Fed. Cir. 1990) (Rhone Poulenc); see 

also 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 

LTFV investigation); see also 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); 

see also Shanghai Taoen International 

Trading Co., Ltd. v. United States, Slip 

Op. 05–22, at 16 (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 adverse rate from among 

the possible sources of information is to 

ensure that the margin is sufficiently 

adverse so ‘‘as to effectuate the purpose 

of the facts available role to induce 

respondents to provide the Department 

with complete and accurate information 

in a timely manner.’’ See Static Random 

Access Memory Semiconductors from 

Taiwan; Final Determination of Sales at 

Less than Fair Value, 63 FR 8909, 8932 

(February 23, 1998); see also Certain 

Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from 

Turkey; Final Results and Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review in Part, 71 FR 65082, 65084 

(November 7, 2006). The Department’s 

practice is to ensure ‘‘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 D&L Supply Co. v. United States, 

113 F. 3d 1220, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 

(D&L Supply); see also Final 

Determination of Sales at Less than Fair 

Value: Certain Frozen and Canned 

Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, 69 FR 

76910 (December 23, 2004). 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.’’ Rhone Poulenc, 899 F. 2d at 1190. 

As AFA, we are preliminarily 

assigning to the PRC-wide entity’s sales 

of Axes/Adzes, Bars/Wedges, Hammers/ 

Sledges, and Picks/Mattocks the rates of 

189.37, 139.31, 45.42, and 98.77 

percent, respectively. See AFA and 

Corroboration Memo. 

3. Corroboration 

Section 776(c) of the Act requires that 

the Department corroborate, to the 

extent practicable, secondary 

information used as facts available. 

Secondary information is defined as 

‘‘information derived from the petition 

that gave rise to the investigation or 

review, the final determination 

concerning the subject merchandise, or 

any previous review under section 751 

concerning the subject merchandise.’’

See SAA at 870; 19 CFR 351.308(d). 

Under section 776(c) of the Act, the 

Department is granted a wide discretion 

in its selection of secondary 

information, i.e., the AFA rate, as long 

as the Department can determine, to the 

extent practicable, that the AFA rate has 

probative value. See SAA at 870. 

The SAA further provides that the 

term ‘‘corroborate’’ means that the 

Department will satisfy itself that the 

secondary information to be used has 

probative value. See SAA at 870. Thus, 

to corroborate secondary information, 

the Department will, to the extent 

practicable, examine the reliability and 

relevance of the information used. 

However, unlike other types of 

information, such as input costs or 

selling expenses, there are no 

independent sources for calculated 

dumping margins. The only sources for 

calculated margins are administrative 

determinations. The rate selected as 

AFA for the PRC-wide entity’s sales of 

Axes/Adzes is the highest calculated 

rate of any segment in this proceeding, 

which was calculated in the 14th 

administrative review. See Final Results 

of 14th Review. The rate selected as 

AFA for Bars/Wedges was calculated 

during the 1998–1999 administrative 

review, and was corroborated and used 

as the PRC-wide and AFA rate in the 

most recently completed administrative 

review. See Final Results of 14th 

Review. The AFA rate we are applying 

for the order on Hammers/Sledges was 

applied as ‘‘best information available’’

(the predecessor to AFA) during the 

LTFV investigation for the sole 

respondent China National Machinery 

Import & Export Corporation, and was 

again corroborated and used as the PRCwide and AFA rate in the 14th review. 

Id. The AFA rate we are applying for the 

order on Picks/Mattocks was calculated 

in the fifth review, became the PRCwide and AFA rate in the seventh 

review, and has been used since. Id. 

These rates are applied to the PRC-wide 

entity, i.e., those companies not eligible 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 45 / Thursday, March 8, 2007 / Notices 10497 

for a separate rate with regard to the 

individual class or kind of merchandise. 

No information has been presented in 

the current review that calls into 

question the reliability of the 

information used for these AFA rates. 

Thus, the Department finds that the 

information 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. 

See Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: 

Final Results of Antidumping 

Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812 

(February 22, 1996) (where 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, 113 F.3d 

at 1221 (the Department will not use a 

margin that has been judicially 

invalidated). None of these unusual 

circumstances are present with respect 

to the rates being used here. 

The 139.31 percent rate for Bars/ 

Wedges calculated in the eighth review 

was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for 

Federal Circuit, and is therefore a final 

margin. See Shandong Huarong General 

Corp v. United States, 159 F.Supp.2d 

714 (CIT 2001) (remanding final results); 

see also Shandong Huarong General 

Corp v. United States, 177 F.Supp.2d 

1304 (CIT 2001) (sustaining remand), 

aff’d 60 Fed. Appx. 797 (Fed. Cir. 2003). 

This rate is also the PRC-wide rate for 

Bars/Wedges published in the most 

recently completed administrative 

review of this antidumping order. See 

Final Results of 14th Review. Thus, this 

rate is the highest rate in the proceeding 

and was calculated using verified 

information provided by TMC during 

the 8th administrative review of the 

Bars/Wedges order. Accordingly, we 

continue to find that this rate, instead of 

other recently calculated rates, is an 

appropriate AFA rate for the PRC-wide 

entity because it offers a more adequate 

incentive to induce the PRC-wide entity, 

including SMC, Jafsam, and Huarong, to 

cooperate in this proceeding. We note 

that this rate has been applied in the 

11th, 12th, 13th, and 14th reviews as an 

AFA rate. See Heavy Forged Hand 

Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or 

Without Handles, From the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of the Order on Bars and 

Wedges, 68 FR 10690 (March 6, 2003); 

see also Heavy Forged Hand Tools, 

Finished or Unfinished, With or Without 

Handles, From the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Reviews, Final 

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews, and 

Determination Not To Revoke in Part, 69 

FR 55581 (September 15, 2004); see also 

Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or 

Unfinished, With or Without Handles, 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Notice of Amended Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews, 69 FR 69892 (December 1, 

2004); see also Heavy Forged Hand 

Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or 

Without Handles, From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Final Rescission and 

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews, 70 FR 54897 

(September 19, 2005); see also Final 

Results of 14th Review. 

As stated above, the rates selected for 

Axes/Adzes, Bars/Wedges, Hammers/ 

Sledges, and Picks/Mattocks are the 

rates currently applicable to the PRCwide entity and they are not being 

applied to companies which have 

demonstrated their eligibility for a 

separate rate. The Department assumes 

that if an uncooperative respondent 

could have demonstrated a lower rate, it 

would have cooperated. See Rhone 

Poulenc, 899 F. 2d at 1190; cf. Ta Chen 

Stainless Steel Pipe, Inc. v. United 

States, 24 CIT 841 (2000) (respondents 

should not benefit from failure to 

cooperate). 

The information used in calculating 

these margins was based on sales and 

production data of respondents in a 

prior review, together with the most 

appropriate surrogate value information 

available to the Department, chosen 

from submissions by the parties in that 

review, as well as gathered by the 

Department itself, or on ‘‘best 

information available’’ from the LTFV 

investigation. Furthermore, the 

calculations were subject to comment 

from interested parties in the 

proceeding. See Final Results of 14th 

Review at page 54270. Moreover, as 

there is no information on the record of 

this review that demonstrates that these 

rates are not appropriate to use as AFA, 

we determine that these rates have 

relevance. As these rates are both 

reliable and relevant, we determine that 

they have probative value. Accordingly, 

the selected rates of 189.37 percent for 

Axes/Adzes, 139.31 percent for Bars/ 

Wedges, 45.42 percent for Hammers/ 

Sledges, and 98.77 percent for Picks/ 

Mattocks, the highest rates from any 

segment of this administrative 

proceeding (i.e., the calculated and 

current PRC-wide rate for each order) 

have been corroborated, to the extent 

practicable and as necessary, in 

accordance with section 776(c) of the 

Act. 

Preliminary Results of the Review 

As a result of our reviews, we 

preliminarily find that the following 

margins exist for the period February 1, 

2005, through January 31, 2006: 

Manufacturer/exporter 

(percent) 

Weighted-average 

margin 

Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the PRC: Axes/Adzes 

PRC-Wide Rate ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2 189.37 

Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the PRC: Bars/Wedges 

PRC-Wide Rate ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3 139.31 

Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the PRC: Hammers/Sledges 

PRC-Wide Rate ......................................................................................................................................................................... 4 45.42 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
10498 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 45 / Thursday, March 8, 2007 / Notices 

2The PRC-wide entity for Axes/Adzes includes 

Jafsam. 

3The PRC-wide entity for Bars/Wedges includes 

SMC and Jafsam. 

4The PRC-wide entity for Hammers/Sledges 

includes SMC, Jafsam, and Huarong. 

5The PRC-wide entity for Picks/Mattocks 

includes Jafsam, TMC, and Huarong. 

Manufacturer/exporter 

(percent) 

Weighted-average 

margin 

Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the PRC: Picks/Mattocks 

PRC-Wide Rate ......................................................................................................................................................................... 5 98.77 

Case briefs from interested parties 

may be submitted not later than 30 days 

of the date of publication of this notice, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal 

briefs, limited to issues raised in the 

case briefs, will be due five days later, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties 

who submit case or rebuttal briefs in 

this proceeding are requested to submit 

with each argument (1) a statement of 

the issue and (2) a brief summary of the 

argument not to exceed five pages. 

Parties are also encouraged to provide a 

table of statutes, regulations, and cases 

cited, and a diskette containing the 

electronic version. 

Any interested party may request a 

hearing within 30 days of publication of 

this notice. Interested parties who wish 

to request a hearing or to participate if 

one is requested, must submit a written 

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration within 30 days 

of the date of publication of this notice. 

Requests should contain: (1) The party’s 

name, address, and telephone number; 

(2) the number of participants; and (3) 

a list of issues to be discussed. See 19 

CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in the 

hearing will be limited to those raised 

in the briefs. Any hearing will normally 

be held 37 days after the publication of 

this notice, or the first business day 

thereafter, unless the Department alters 

the date per 19 CFR 351.310(d). 

The Department will issue the final 

results of these reviews, including the 

results of its analysis of issues raised in 

any such written briefs or at the hearing, 

if held, not later than 120 days after the 

date of publication of this notice. 

Assessment Rates 

The Department shall determine, and 

CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries. The Department 

intends to issue appropriate 

appraisement instructions for the 

companies subject to these reviews 

directly to CBP within 15 days of 

publication of the final results of these 

reviews. However, 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 cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of these 

reviews for all shipments of the subject 

merchandise entered, or withdrawn 

from warehouse, for consumption on or 

after the publication date, as provided 

for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) 

For the exporters listed above, the cash 

deposit rate will be that established in 

the final results of this review (except, 

if the rate is zero or de minimis, no cash 

deposit will be required); (2) for 

previously investigated or reviewed PRC 

and non-PRC exporters not listed above 

that have separate rates, the cash 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

exporter-specific rate published for the 

most recently completed review; (3) for 

all PRC exporters of subject 

merchandise which have not been 

found to be entitled to a separate rate, 

the cash deposit rate will be the PRCwide rate for each class or kind of 

merchandise as follows: (a) Axes/Adzes, 

189.37 percent; (b) Hammers/Sledges, 

45.42 percent; (c) Picks/Mattocks, 98.77 

percent; and (d) Bars/Wedges, 139.31 

percent; and (4) for all non-PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise which 

have not received their own rate, the 

cash deposit rate will be the rate 

applicable to the PRC exporters that 

supplied that non-PRC exporter. These 

deposit requirements, when imposed, 

shall remain in effect until further 

notice. 

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 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: February 28, 2007. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–4166 Filed 3–7–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–588–857, A–201–828] 

Certain Welded Large Diameter Line 

Pipe from Japan and Mexico; Notice of 

Final Results of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Reviews of Antidumping Duty Orders 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On November 1, 2006, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) initiated the first sunset 

reviews of the antidumping duty orders 

on certain welded large diameter line 

pipe (‘‘welded large diameter pipe’’) 

from Japan and Mexico, pursuant to 

section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended, (‘‘the Act’’). On the basis of 

notices of intent to participate and 

adequate substantive responses filed on 

behalf of the domestic interested parties 

and no response from respondent 

interested parties, the Department has 

conducted expedited sunset reviews of 

these antidumping duty orders. As a 

result of these sunset reviews, the 

Department finds that revocation of the 

antidumping duty orders would likely 

lead to continuation or recurrence of 

dumping at the level indicated in the 

‘‘Final Results of Reviews’’ section of 

this notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 8, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dena Crossland or Dana Mermelstein, 

AD/CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–3362 or (202) 482–

1391, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES