Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 15, 2007 / Notices 27287 

(March 9, 2007); Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp from the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Results 

and Partial Rescission of the 2004/2006 

Administrative Review and Preliminary 

Intent to Rescind 2004/2006 New 

Shipper Review, 72 FR 10645 (March 9, 

2007); Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam: Preliminary Results of the 

First Administrative Review and New 

Shipper Review, 72 FR 10689 (March 9, 

2007); and Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from Thailand: Preliminary 

Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 72 FR 10669 (March 9, 2007). 

The final results for these administrative 

and aligned new shipper reviews are 

currently due no later than July 9, 2007, 

the next business day after 120 days 

from the date of publication of the 

preliminary results of review. 

Extension of Time Limit for the Final 

Results 

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), 

requires the Department to issue the 

final results of an administrative review 

within 120 days after the date on which 

the preliminary results are published. If 

it is not practicable to complete the 

review within that time period, section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the 

Department to extend the deadline for 

the final results to a maximum of 180 

days. 

The Department requires additional 

time to complete these reviews in order 

to properly consider the numerous and 

complex issues raised by interested 

parties in their case briefs. Thus, it is 

not practicable to complete these 

reviews within the original time limit. 

Therefore, the Department is extending 

the time limit for completion of the final 

results of these reviews by 60 days, in 

accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of 

the Act. The final results are now due 

no later than September 5, 2007. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

notice in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: May 9, 2007. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–9328 Filed 5–14–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–891] 

Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Results of Administrative Review 

and Final Results of New Shipper 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 15, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Maisha Cryor or Mark Manning; AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 4, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–5831 or (202) 482–

5253, respectively. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) published its 

preliminary results of the administrative 

review and 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’’) on January 9, 2007. See 

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, 72 FR 937 (January 9, 2007) 

(‘‘Preliminary Results’’). The period of 

review (‘‘POR’’) is December 1, 2004, 

through November 30, 2005. We invited 

interested parties to comment on our 

Preliminary Results. Based on our 

analysis of the comments received, we 

have made changes to our calculations. 

The final dumping margins for this 

review are listed in the ‘‘Final Results 

of Review’’ section below. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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 (February 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 

(Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. (‘‘Since 

Hardware’’). See Hand Trucks and 

Certain Parts Thereof From the People’s 

Republic of China; Initiation of New 

Shipper Review, 71 FR 5810 (February 

3, 2006). 

The Department published the 

preliminary results of these reviews on 

January 9, 2007. See Preliminary 

Results. We invited parties to comment 

on our preliminary results of review. 

See Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 946–

947. Forecarry Corporation and Formost 

Plastics & Metalworks (Jiaxing) Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Forecarry and Formost’’) submitted 

their response to the Department’s 

December 19, 2006, supplemental 

section D questionnaire on January 18, 

2007. Forecarry and Formost submitted 

a case brief on February 14, 2007; Since 

Hardware submitted a case brief on 

February 15, 2007; and on February 16, 

2007, Gleason Industrial Products, Inc., 

and Precision Products, Inc. 

(collectively, ‘‘the petitioner’’) 

submitted a case brief. On February 20, 

2007, the petitioner filed allegations that 

the case briefs submitted by Forecarry 

and Formost, and Since Hardware 

contained new information. Forecarry 

and Formost, and True Potential Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘True Potential’’) submitted 

rebuttal briefs on February 20, 2007, 

Since Hardware submitted a rebuttal 

brief on February 21, 2007, and the 

petitioner submitted a rebuttal brief on 

February 22, 2007. On March 7, 2007, 

the Department notified Forecarry and 

Formost that their case brief contained 

new information and requested that 

Forecarry and Formost resubmit their 

case brief, redacting factual information 

submitted after the deadline for new 

factual information, and not solicited by 

the Department, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.301(b)(2). Regarding the allegation 

of new information in Since Hardware’s 

case brief, the Department has reviewed 

this allegation and examined the 

information contained in Since 

Hardware’s prior submission. Based 

upon our analysis, the Department 

disagrees with the petitioner that Since 

Hardware’s case brief contained new 

information. See Comment 18 of the 

Memorandum to David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, from Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, ‘‘Issues and Decisions 

for the Final Results of Administrative 

and New Shipper Reviews,’’ dated May 

9, 2007 (‘‘Decision Memorandum’’), for 

a complete discussion of this issue. On 

March 16, 2007, Forecarry and Formost 

resubmitted their case brief. On March 

28, 2007, the Department held a public 

hearing concerning this issues raised by 

the parties in these reviews. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
27288 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 15, 2007 / Notices 

1See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Hand 

Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof From the People’s 

Republic of China, 69 FR 70122 (December 2, 2004). 

Scope of Antidumping Duty Order1

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. 

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. 

Separate Rates 

Forecarry and Formost, Since 

Hardware, and True Potential requested 

separate, company–specific 

antidumping duty rates. In the 

Preliminary Results, we found that 

Forecarry and Formost, and Since 

Hardware are owned wholly by entities 

located in market–economy countries. 

Thus, the Department preliminarily 

granted a separate rate to these two 

exporters. See Preliminary Results, 72 

FR at 943–944. For the final results, the 

Department continues to grant Forecarry 

and Formost, and Since Hardware, 

separate rates for this review period 

because no party submitted comments 

on this issue, and no evidence was 

placed on the record that questions the 

appropriateness of this determination. 

Regarding True Potential, which is a 

privately owned company in the PRC, 

the Department conducted a separate 

rate analysis in the Preliminary Results. 

Based upon our analysis, we 

preliminarily granted True Potential a 

separate rate. See Preliminary Results, 

72 FR at 944. For the final results, the 

Department did not receive any 

comments on True Potential’s separate 

rate, and no evidence was placed on the 

record that would warrant 

reconsideration of our separate rate 

analysis for True Potential. Therefore, 

the Department continues to find that 

True Potential has met the criteria for 

the application of a separate 

antidumping duty rate for this review 

period. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the briefs and 

rebuttal briefs submitted by the parties 

in these reviews are addressed in the 

Decision Memorandum, which is hereby 

adopted by this notice. A list of the 

issues which parties raised and to 

which we responded in the Decision 

Memorandum is attached to this notice 

as an appendix. The Decision 

Memorandum is a public document 

which is on file in the Central Records 

Unit in room B–099 in the main 

Department building, and is accessible 

on the Web at http:// 

www.ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy 

and electronic version of the 

memorandum are identical in content. 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

Based on our analysis of comments 

received, we have made changes in the 

margin calculations for Since Hardware 

and True Potential. For a list of these 

changes, see Decision Memorandum, at 

the section titled ‘‘Changes Since the 

Preliminary Results.’’

Adverse Facts Available 

1. Forecarry and Formost 

Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘Act’’), 

provide that the Department shall apply 

‘‘facts otherwise available’’ if necessary 

information is not on the record or an 

interested party or any other person (A) 

withholds information that has been 

requested, (B) fails to provide 

information within the deadlines 

established, or in the form and manner 

requested by the Department, subject to 

subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782, 

(C) significantly impedes a proceeding, 

or (D) provides information that cannot 

be verified as provided by section 782(i) 

of the Act. 

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 section 782(e) 

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 if 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. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 15, 2007 / Notices 27289 

Section 776(b) of the Act further 

provides that the Department may use 

an adverse inference in applying the 

facts otherwise available when a party 

has failed to cooperate by not acting to 

the best of its ability to comply with a 

request for information. Section 776(b) 

of the Act also authorizes the 

Department to use as adverse facts 

available (‘‘AFA’’) information derived 

from the petition, the final 

determination, a previous 

administrative review, or other 

information placed on the record. 

In the Preliminary Results, the 

Department found that Forecarry and 

Formost failed to provide usable factors 

of production (‘‘FOPs’’). Further, the 

Department found that Forecarry and 

Formost (A) withheld information 

regarding Formost’s FOPs that had been 

requested, (B) failed to provide the FOP 

information in the form and manner 

requested by the Department, and (C) 

due to the absence of this information, 

Forecarry and Formost significantly 

impeded the proceeding because the 

Department could not tie the reported 

FOP database to appropriate source 

documentation. See Preliminary Results, 

72 FR at 940–941. Thus, in the absence 

of a usable FOP database, the 

Department applied total facts available, 

according to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), 

and (C) of the Act. Id. at 941. 

Nonetheless, the Department provided 

Forecarry and Formost with a final 

opportunity to substantiate their 

reported FOPs by: (1) reconciling the 

reported FOPs to Formost’s normal 

books and records; and (2) 

demonstrating how the reported FOPs 

were calculated. See Supplemental 

Section D questionnaire, dated 

December 19, 2006. 

The Department has reviewed 

Forecarry and Formost’s response to the 

December 19, 2006, supplemental 

questionnaire, and the comments 

submitted by the parties regarding this 

issue. Based upon our analysis, for the 

final results, the Department finds that 

the information necessary to calculate 

an accurate and otherwise reliable 

margin is not available on the record 

with respect to Forecarry and Formost. 

Specifically, in its January 18, 2007, 

response to the Department’s December 

19, 2006, supplemental questionnaire, 

Forecarry and Formost failed to (1) 

reconcile the reported FOPs to 

Formost’s normal books and records, 

and (2) demonstrate how the reported 

FOPs were calculated. See Comment 26 

of the Decision Memorandum for a 

complete discussion of this issue. The 

Department continues to find that 

Forecarry and Formost withheld 

information, failed to provide 

information requested by the 

Department in the form and manner 

required, and significantly impeded the 

Department’s ability to calculate an 

accurate margin. Therefore, pursuant to 

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

Act, the Department is resorting to facts 

otherwise available. 

In the Preliminary Results, the 

Department found that it is reasonable 

to assume that Forecarry and Formost 

possessed the records necessary for this 

administrative review and that, by not 

supplying the information the 

Department requested, Forecarry and 

Formost failed to cooperate to the best 

of their ability. See Preliminary Results, 

72 FR at 944. Therefore, the Department 

preliminarily applied an adverse 

inference. Id. For the final results, the 

Department continues to find that, in 

accordance with section 776(b) of the 

Act, it is appropriate to apply an 

adverse inference in selecting the facts 

available rate as it has determined that 

Forecarry and Formost did not act to the 

best of their ability to cooperate with the 

Department in this administrative 

review, because information placed on 

the record by Forecarry and Formost 

indicates that Forecarry and Formost 

reasonably could have responded to the 

Department’s requests for information. 

As a result, we are continuing to apply 

the highest rate from the history of this 

proceeding, 383.60 percent, the PRC–

wide rate from the less–than-fair–value 

(‘‘LTFV’’) amended final determination. 

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, 65411 (November 12, 2004) 

(‘‘Final Amended Determination’’). 

2. Future Tool and Shandong Machinery 

In the Preliminary Results, the 

Department determined that it was not 

appropriate to grant Qingdao Future 

Tool, Inc. (‘‘Future Tool’’), and 

Shandong Machinery Import & Export 

Group Corporation (‘‘Shandong 

Machinery’’), a separate rate because 

both of these companies failed to 

respond to the Department’s requests for 

information. See 72 FR at 942. For this 

reason, we considered Future Tool and 

Shandong Machinery as part of the 

PRC–wide entity. Moreover, since the 

PRC–wide entity did not respond to our 

requests for information, we applied 

total facts available to the PRC–wide 

entity pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) 

and (C) of the Act. Id. For the final 

results, since no new information has 

been placed on the record regarding 

Future Tool, Shandong Machinery, or 

the PRC–wide entity, we continue to 

apply total facts available. 

As we stated in the Preliminary 

Results, it is reasonable to assume that 

the PRC–wide 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. See Preliminary Results, 72 FR 

at 944. Accordingly, because the PRC–

wide entity (including Future Tool and 

Shandong Machinery) failed to respond 

to the Department’s requests for 

information, we continue to 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. As a result, we are 

continuing to apply the highest rate 

from the history of this proceeding, 

383.60 percent, the PRC–wide rate from 

the LTFV final determination, to the 

PRC–wide entity (including Future Tool 

and Shandong Machinery). See Final 

Amended Determination. 

Corroboration 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides 

that, when the Department relies on 

secondary information rather than on 

information obtained in the course of an 

investigation or review, it shall, to the 

extent practicable, corroborate that 

information from independent sources 

that are reasonably at its disposal. 

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 Statement of Administrative Action 

(‘‘SAA’’) accompanying the Uruguay 

Round Agreements Act, H. Doc. No. 

316, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. Vol. 1 at 870 

(1994). The SAA clarifies that 

‘‘corroborate’’ means that the 

Department will satisfy itself that the 

secondary information to be used has 

probative value. Id. To corroborate 

secondary information, the Department 

will, to the extent practicable, examine 

the reliability and relevance of the 

information to be used. The Department, 

however, need not prove that the 

selected facts available are the best 

alternative information. See SAA at 869; 

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 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
27290 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 15, 2007 / Notices 

2 In the final determination, the Department 

applied total AFA to Xinghua, and assigned 

Xinghua the PRC-wide rate of 386.75 percent. See 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof 

from the People’s Republic of China, 69 FR 60980, 

60984 (October 14, 2004). The Department revised 

the PRC-wide rate in the amended final 

determination from 386.75 percent to 383.60 

percent. See Final Amended Determination, 69 FR 

at 65411. 

Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 

57392 (November 6, 1996) (unchanged 

in the final results). 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 instant investigation 

or review.’’ See 19 CFR 351.308(d) and 

SAA at 870; see also Notice of 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value: High and Ultra–

High Voltage Ceramic Station Post 

Insulators from Japan, 68 FR 35627, 

35629 (June 16, 2003) (where the 

Department reviewed the adequacy and 

accuracy of the information in the 

petition) (unchanged in final 

determination); and Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Live Swine From Canada, 70 

FR 12181, 12183 (March 11, 2005) 

(where the Department compared the 

normal values and U.S. prices submitted 

by the petitioners to data submitted by 

the respondents for whom the 

Department calculated a margin). 

The reliability of the AFA rate was 

determined in the final determination of 

the investigation when the Department 

compared the U.S. prices from the price 

quotations in the petition to prices of 

comparable products sold by a 

mandatory respondent in the LTFV 

investigation, and found them to be 

comparable. See Final Amended 

Determination. The Department applied 

this rate as AFA to Qingdao Xinghua 

Group Co., Ltd. (‘‘Xinghua’’) in the Final 

Amended Determination.2 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, the Department found this 

margin to be reliable. Id. Further, the 

application of this rate was subject to 

comment from interested parties in the 

instant proceeding. The Department has 

received no information to date that 

warrants revisiting the issue of the 

reliability of the rate calculation itself. 

See, e.g., Certain Preserved Mushrooms 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Results and Partial Rescission of 

the New Shipper Review and Final 

Results and Partial Rescission of the 

Third Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 68 FR 41304, 41307–41308 (July 

11, 2003). Since no information has 

been presented in the current review 

that calls into question the reliability of 

this information, the Department finds 

the selected rate 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 

Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812 

(February 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, 1221 (Fed. 

Cir. 1997) where the Court ruled that the 

Department will not use a margin that 

has been judicially invalidated. Nothing 

on the record of this review calls into 

question the relevance of the margin 

selected as AFA. Further, the selected 

margin is currently the PRC–wide rate. 

Moreover, this rate has not been 

invalidated judicially. Thus, it is 

appropriate to use the selected rate as 

AFA in the instant review. Therefore, 

we determine that the rate from the 

Final Amended Determination 

continues to be relevant for use in this 

administrative review. 

As the recalculated Final Amended 

Determination rate is both reliable and 

relevant, we determine that it has 

probative value. As a result, the 

Department determines that the Final 

Amended Determination rate is 

corroborated for the purposes of this 

administrative review and may 

reasonably be applied to Forecarry and 

Formost, and the PRC–wide entity, as 

AFA. Accordingly, we determine that 

the Final Amended Determination rate 

of 383.60 percent, which is the highest 

rate from any segment of this 

administrative proceeding, meets the 

corroboration criteria established in 

section 776(c) of the Act that secondary 

information have probative value. 

Final Results of Review 

We determine that the following 

percentage margins exist for the period 

December 1, 2004, through November 

30, 2005: 

Exporter/manufacturer 

Weighted– 

average 

margin 

percentage 

Forecarry Corp. and Formost 

Plastics & Metalworks 

(Jianxing) Co., Ltd. .................. 383.6 

Since Hardware (Guangzhou) 

Co., Ltd ................................... 0 

True Potential Co., Ltd. .............. 17.59 

PRC–wide Rate .......................... 383.6 

Assessment Rates 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the 

Department will determine, and U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. The Department 

intends to issue assessment instructions 

to CBP within 15 days after the date of 

publication of these final results of 

review. For assessment purposes, where 

possible, we calculated importer–

specific assessment rates for hand trucks 

from the PRC via 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. However, as noted in the 

Preliminary Results, we calculated 

importer–specific per–unit assessment 

instructions because True Potential was 

unable to provide the entered value of 

its reported sales. See Preliminary 

Results at 72 FR at 947. We will instruct 

CBP to assess antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries covered by this 

review. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of this notice of final results 

of administrative review for all 

shipments of hand trucks from the PRC 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the date of 

publication, as provided by section 

751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) for Forecarry 

and Formost, Since Hardware, and True 

Potential, which each have separate 

rates, the cash deposit rate will be the 

company–specific rate shown above; (2) 

for previously reviewed or investigated 

companies not listed above that have a 

separate rate, the cash deposit rate will 

continue to be the company–specific 

rate published for the most recent 

period; (3) the cash deposit rate for all 

other PRC exporters will be 383.60 

percent, the current PRC–wide rate; and 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 15, 2007 / Notices 27291 

(4) the cash deposit rate for all non–PRC 

exporters will be the rate applicable to 

the PRC exporter that supplied that 

exporter. These cash deposit 

requirements shall remain in effect until 

further notice. 

Notification of Interested Parties 

This notice also serves as a final 

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 the antidumping 

duties occurred and the subsequent 

assessment of double antidumping 

duties. 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective orders (‘‘APOs’’) 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. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

determination and notice in accordance 

with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of 

the Act. 

Dated: May 9, 2007. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix 

I. General Issues 

Comment 1: Whether the Department 

Should Use an Electricity–Specific 

Inflation Index to Adjust the Electricity 

Surrogate Value. 

Comment 2: Whether the Department 

Should Include Packing Materials and 

Packing Labor in the Application Bases 

for Surrogate Financial Ratios. 

Comment 3: Whether the Department 

Should Correct Clerical Errors in the 

Application of the Surrogate Values for 

Inland Freight Expenses. 

Comment 4: Whether the Department 

Should Correct Clerical Errors in the 

Application of the Surrogate Values for 

Domestic Brokerage and Handling 

Expenses. 

Comment 5: Whether the Department 

Should Select Different Financial 

Statements to Value Factory Overhead, 

Selling, General & Administrative 

Expenses, and Profit. 

Comment 6: Whether the Department 

Should Use the 2004–2005 or the 2005–

2006 Financial Statements of Jay 

Equipment to Calculate Overhead, 

Selling, General & Administrative 

Expenses and Profit. 

Comment 7: Whether the Department 

Should Correct Its Calculation of the 

Surrogate Financial Ratios for Rexello 

Castors Private Ltd. 

Comment 8:Whether the Department 

Should Correct Its Application of the 

Surrogate Value for Hydrochloric Acid. 

Comment 9: Whether the Department 

Should Apply an Updated Surrogate 

Value for Brokerage and Handling 

Expenses. 

Comment 10: Whether the Department 

Should Apply the Most Recently 

Calculated Non–Market Economy Wage 

Rate for the PRC. 

II. Company–Specific Issues 

A. Since Hardware Issues 

Comment 11: Whether the Department 

Should Accept Since Hardware’s 

Reported Factors of Production 

Methodology. 

Comment 12: Whether the Department 

Should Reject Since Hardware’s Market 

Economy Purchases of Steel Inputs. 

Comment 13: Whether the Department 

Should Assign a Surrogate Value to 

Plastic Bags. 

Comment 14: Whether the Department 

Should Assign Bungee Cable a Different 

HTS Classification. 

Comment 15: Whether the Department 

Should Assign a Surrogate Value to the 

Input for Petrolatum. 

Comment 16: Whether the Inclusion of 

South Korea in the Calculation of the 

Surrogate Value for Muriate of Potash is 

Warranted. 

Comment 17:Whether the Calculation of 

the Surrogate Value for Welding Rod is 

Correct. 

Comment 18: Whether the Department 

Should Assign Bearings a Different HTS 

Classification. 

Comment 19: Whether the Inclusion of 

Packing–Related Inputs in Cost of 

Manufacturing is Valid. 

B. True Potential Issues 

Comment 20: Whether the Department 

Should Add Trading Company Factors 

for Selling, General and Administrative 

Expenses and Profit to its Calculation of 

True Potential’s Normal Value. 

Comment 21: Whether the Department 

Should Correct its Application of a 

Surrogate Value for Certain Ball 

Bearings. 

Comment 22: Whether the Department 

Should Correct Its Surrogate Value 

Calculation for Carbon Dioxide to 

Include Imports from Hong Kong. 

Comment 23: Whether the Department 

Should Correct its Surrogate Value 

Calculation for Welding Solder to 

Include Imports from Austria and the 

Netherlands. 

C. Future Tool’s Issue 

Comment 24: Whether the Department 

Should Continue to Apply Adverse 

Facts Available to Future Tool. 

D. Shangdong Machinery’s Issue 

Comment 25: Whether the Department 

Should Continue to Apply Adverse 

Facts Available to Shandong Machinery. 

E. Forecarry and Formost’s Issues 

Comment 26: Whether to Apply Facts 

Available to Forecarry and Formost. 

Comment 27: Whether to Apply 

Adverse Facts Available to Forecarry 

and Formost. 

[FR Doc. E7–9324 Filed 5–14–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[I.D. 042707A] 

Marine Mammals; File No. 486–1919 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; receipt of application. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

Brent Stewart, Ph.D, J.D, HubbsSeaWorld Research Institute, 2595 

Ingraham Street, San Diego, CA, 92109, 

has applied for a permit to conduct 

reseach on crabeater (Lobodon 

carcinophaga), Ross (Ommatophoca 

rossii), leopard (Hydruga leptonyx), and 

Weddell (Leptonychotes weddellii) seals 

in Antarctica. 

DATES: Written, telefaxed, or e-mail 

comments must be received on or before 

June 14, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: The application and related 

documents are available for review 

upon written request or by appointment 

in the following office(s): 

Permits, Conservation and Education 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 

13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone 

(301)713–2289; fax (301)427–2521; and 

Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West 

Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, 

CA 90802–4213; phone (562)980–4001; 

fax (562)980–4018. 

Written comments or requests for a 

public hearing on this application 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC62 with NOTICES