Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Notices 45729 

Y. Law 341/95 Interest Contributions on 

Debt Consolidation Loans (Formerly 

Debt Consolidation Law 341/95) 

Z. Interest Grants Financed by IRI Bonds 

AA. Article 44 of Law 448/01 

IV. Programs for Which More 

Information is Required 

A. Social Security Reductions and 

Exemptions – Sgravi 

1) Legislative Decree (‘‘L.D.’’) 276/03 

De Matteis, Garofalo, and De Cecco 

have reported receiving benefits under 

L.D. 276/03. L.D. 276/03 is aimed at 

making the labor market more flexible 

by providing incentives for apprentice 

contracts. See GOI’s April 1, 2008, SQR. 

Companies receive benefits for hiring 

workers under mixed contracts 

possessing a work component and a 

training component. See GOI 

Verification Report, at 14–15. 

Specifically, three categories of 

employee contracts recognized under 

this decree are: (1) working toward 

completion of compulsory schooling, (2) 

working toward completion of trade 

schooling, and (3) high–level training of 

special skills for a worker. Id. 

Except for a weekly flat fee paid by 

the employer on behalf of the employee, 

the employer receives a total exemption 

from its social security contribution. See 

GOI Verification Report, at 14–15. The 

contributions are applied in equal 

measure across Italy and the decree may 

be used in all sectors of activity. See 

GOI’s May 19, 2008, SQR and Exhibit 1; 

see also GOI Verification Report, at 14–

15. 

Based on our review of the record of 

this administrative review and our 

verification, we find no basis for de jure 

specificity. Additionally, based on 

record evidence and our verification, 

the law does not appear to be regionally 

specific under section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of 

the Act. However, at this time, we do 

not have sufficient information to 

determine whether this program is de 

facto specific under section 

771(5A)(D)(iii) of the Act. Therefore, we 

intend to seek further information 

regarding specificity of this program 

from the GOI and we will provide 

parties an opportunity to comment on 

this information before the final results. 

Verification 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.222(f)(2)(ii) and 351.307(b)(1)(v), we 

verified information submitted by the 

GOI for De Matteis in Rome, Italy on 

May 26–28, 2008. See GOI Verification 

Report. We verified information 

submitted by De Matteis in Flumeri, 

Italy on May 29–30, 2008. See De 

Matteis Verification Report. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated 

individual subsidy rates for De Matteis, 

Garofalo, and De Cecco. Felicetti had no 

countervailable subsidies. 

For the period January 1, 2006, 

through December 31, 2006, we 

preliminarily determine the net subsidy 

rates for the producers/exporters under 

review to be those specified in the chart 

shown below: 

Producer/Exporter Net Subsidy 

Rate 

De Matteis Agroalimentare 

S.p.A. ................................ 2.65% 

Pastificio Lucio Garofalo 

S.p.A. ................................ 1.60% 

F.lli De Cecco di Filippo Fara 

San Martino S.p.A. ............ 0.83% 

Pastificio Felicetti SrL ........... 0.00% 

All–Others Rate .................... 3.85% 

Consequently, if these preliminary 

results are adopted in our final results 

of this review, the Department will 

instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess 

countervailing duties at these net 

subsidy rates. The Department will 

issue appropriate instructions directly 

to CBP 15 days after publication of the 

final results of this review. 

For all other companies that were not 

reviewed (except Barilla G. e R. F.lli 

S.p.A. and Gruppo Agricoltura Sana 

S.r.l., which are excluded from the 

order, and Pasta Lensi S.r.l. which was 

revoked from the order), the Department 

has directed CBP to assess 

countervailing duties on all entries 

between January 1, 2006, and December 

31, 2006, at the rates in effect at the time 

of entry. 

The Department also intends to 

instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of 

estimated countervailing duties in the 

amounts shown above. No cash deposits 

of estimated duties will be required for 

Felicetti. For all non–reviewed firms 

(except Barilla G. e R. F.lli S.p.A. and 

Gruppo Agricoltura Sana S.r.l., which 

are excluded from the order, and Pasta 

Lensi S.r.l. which was revoked from the 

order), we will instruct CBP to collect 

cash deposits of estimated 

countervailing duties at the most recent 

company–specific or all–others rate 

applicable to the company. These rates 

shall apply to all non–reviewed 

companies until a review of a company 

assigned these rates is requested. 

Public Comment 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the 

Department will disclose to parties to 

the proceeding any calculations 

performed in connection with these 

preliminary results within five days 

after the date of the public 

announcement of this notice. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii), 

interested parties may submit written 

arguments in case briefs within 30 days 

of the date of publication of this notice. 

Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised 

in case briefs, may be filed no later than 

five days after the date of filing the case 

briefs, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.309(d). Parties who submit briefs in 

this proceeding should provide a 

summary of the arguments not to exceed 

five pages and a table of statutes, 

regulations, and cases cited. Copies of 

case briefs and rebuttal briefs must be 

served on interested parties in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). 

Interested parties may request a 

hearing within 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice, pursuant to 

19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if 

requested, will be held two days after 

the scheduled date for submission of 

rebuttal briefs. 

The Department will publish a notice 

of the final results of this administrative 

review within 120 days from the 

publication of these preliminary results, 

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

the Act. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

results in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: July 30, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–18030 Filed 8–5–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–928] 

Uncovered Innerspring Units from the 

People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 6, 2008. 

SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine 

that uncovered innerspring units 

(‘‘innersprings’’) from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) are being, or 

are likely to be, sold in the United States 

at less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’), as 

provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act 

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

estimated margins of sales at LTFV are 

shown in the ‘‘Preliminary 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

45730 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Notices 

1Section A of the questionnaire requests general 

information concerning a company’s corporate 

structure and business practices, the merchandise 

under investigation 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 factors of 

production, and Section E requests information on 

further manufacturing. 

Determination’’ section of this notice. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on this preliminary 

determination. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin 

Begnal or Susan Pulongbarit, 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 or 482–4031, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Initiation 

On December 31, 2007, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) received petitions on 

imports of innersprings from the PRC, 

South Africa, and the Socialist Republic 

of Vietnam (‘‘Vietnam’’) filed in proper 

form by Leggett & Platt Incorporated 

(‘‘Petitioner’’). See Antidumping Duty 

Petition: Uncovered Innerspring Units 

from China, South Africa, and Vietnam 

(December 31, 2007) (‘‘petition’’). These 

investigations were initiated on January 

22, 2008. See Uncovered Innerspring 

Units From the People’s Republic of 

China, South Africa, and the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Investigations, 73 FR 

4817 (January 28, 2008) (‘‘Initiation 

Notice’’). 

On February 14, 2008, the United 

States International Trade Commission 

(‘‘ITC’’) issued its affirmative 

preliminary determination that there is 

a reasonable indication that an industry 

in the United States is materially 

injured or threatened with material 

injury by reason of imports from the 

PRC, South Africa, and Vietnam of 

innersprings. The ITC’s determination 

was published in the Federal Register 

on November 30, 2007. See Uncovered 

Innerspring Units From China, South 

Africa, and Vietnam, 73 FR 13567 

(March 13, 2008); see also Uncovered 

Innerspring Units from China, South 

Africa, and Vietnam: Investigation Nos. 

731–TA–1140–1142 (Preliminary), 

USITC Publication 3983 (February 

2008). 

Scope Comments 

In accordance with the preamble to 

our regulations, we set aside a period of 

time for parties to raise issues regarding 

product coverage and encouraged all 

parties to submit comments within 20 

calendar days of publication of the 

Initiation Notice. See Antidumping 

Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final 

Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 

1997). See also Initiation Notice, 73 FR 

at 4818. We received no comments from 

interested parties on issues related to 

the scope. 

Respondent Selection 

In the Initiation Notice, the 

Department stated that it intended to 

select respondents based on U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 

data of U.S. imports of innersprings. See 

Initiation Notice, 73 FR at 4822. On 

January 28, 2008, the Department placed 

the CBP information on the record of the 

investigation, and set aside a period for 

interested parties to submit comments 

on the CBP information. On February 4, 

2008, the Department received 

comments on respondent selection from 

Petitioner. After receiving comments 

from interested parties, the Department 

determined to seek quantity and value 

(‘‘Q&V’’) data from all known 

producers/exporters of the subject 

merchandise from the PRC. On February 

22, 2008, the Department requested 

Q&V information from 17 companies 

that petitioner identified with sufficient 

address information as potential 

exporters or producers of innersprings 

from the PRC. See Petition at Exhibit I–

8. Additionally, on February 25, 2008, 

the Department posted the 

questionnaire requesting Q&V 

information from potential producers/ 

exporters of innersprings on its website 

at www.trade.gov/ia. For a complete list 

of all parties from which the 

Department requested Q&V information, 

see Memorandum to the File, from 

Blaine Wiltse, International Trade 

Compliance Analyst, regarding 

‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Uncovered Innerspring Units from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’): 

Delivery of Quantity and Value 

Questionnaires,’’ dated March 10, 2008 

(‘‘Q&V Delivery Memo’’). The 

Department received timely Q&V 

responses from twelve interested 

parties. One of the Q&V responses that 

the Department received on March 14, 

2008, was from High Hope Int’l Group 

Jiangsu Native Produce Imp. & Exp. 

Corp. Ltd. (‘‘High Hope’’). On March 27, 

2008, High Hope submitted a letter to 

the Department withdrawing its Q&V 

submission, stating that it would no 

longer be participating in the 

investigation. 

On April 3, 2008, the Department 

selected Jiangsu Soho International 

Group Holding Co., Ltd. (‘‘Jiangsu 

Soho’’) and Nanhai Animal By–Products 

I&E Co. Ltd. Guangdong (‘‘Nanhai 

Animal’’) as mandatory respondents in 

this investigation. See Memorandum to 

Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, 

through James C. Doyle, Director, Office 

9, AD/CVD Operations, and Scot T. 

Fullerton, Program Manager, Office 9, 

AD/CVD Operations, from Erin Begnal, 

Senior International Trade Analyst, 

‘‘Selection of Respondents for the 

Antidumping Investigation of 

Uncovered Innerspring Units from the 

People’s Republic of China,’’ dated 

April 3, 2008. 

Separate Rates Applications 

Between March 24, 2008, and March 

31, 2008, we received timely separate–

rate applications from eight non–

mandatory respondent companies: Zibo 

Senbao Furniture Co., Ltd. (‘‘Senbao’’), 

Hebei Yililan Furniture Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Yililan’’), Anshan Yuhua Industrial 

Trade Co., Ltd. (‘‘Yuhua’’), Xilinmen 

Group Co., Ltd. (‘‘Xilinmen’’), East 

Grace Corporation (‘‘East Grace’’), 

Jiangsu Soho Technology Trading Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘Soho Tech’’), Nanjing Meihua I&E 

Trade Co., Ltd. (‘‘Meihua’’), and 

Zhejiang Sanmen Herod Mattress Co., 

Ltd. ( ‘‘Sanmen’’). 

Product Characteristics & 

Questionnaires 

In the Initiation Notice, the 

Department asked all parties in this 

investigation and in the concurrent 

antidumping duty investigations of 

innersprings from South Africa and 

Vietnam, for comments on the 

appropriate product characteristics for 

defining individual products. We 

received comments from Petitioner on 

February 15, 2008, with recommended 

appropriate product characteristics and 

proposed model matching criteria and 

hierarchy. 

On April 7, 2008, the Department 

issued to Jiangsu Soho and Nanhai 

Animal its sections A, C, D, and E 

questionnaire,1 which included product 

characteristics used in the designation 

of CONNUMs and assigned to the 

merchandise under consideration. 

Between April 29, 2008, and May 29, 

2008, the Department received section 

A, C, and D questionnaire responses 

from Jiangsu Soho and Nanhai Animal. 

Jiangsu Soho and Nanhai Animal were 

not required by the Department to 

submit a Section E response, because 

the Department determined that neither 

company had further manufacturing in 

the United States. Petitioner submitted 

deficiency comments on the Section A 

questionnaire responses of both 

respondents on May 22, 2008, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Notices 45731 

2See Policy Bulletin 04.1: Non-Market Economy 

Surrogate Country Selection Process, (March 1, 

2004), (‘‘Policy Bulletin 04.1’’) at Attachment II of 

the Department’s Surrogate Country Letter, also 

available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull04- 

1.html. 

deficiency comments on the 

questionnaire responses to Sections C & 

D of both respondents on June 27, 2008, 

and deficiency comments on Nanhai 

Animal’s response to the supplemental 

Section A questionnaire on July 10, 

2008. The Department issued 

supplemental questionnaires to Jiangsu 

Soho and Nanhai Animal and received 

responses between June 13, 2008, and 

July 15, 2008. 

Surrogate Country 

On April 11, 2008, the Department 

determined that India, Indonesia, the 

Philippines, Colombia, and Thailand are 

countries comparable to the PRC in 

terms of economic development. See 

Letter to All Interested Parties, from 

Scot T. Fullerton, Program Manager, 

Office 9, AD/CVD Operations, regarding 

‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Uncovered Innerspring Units from the 

People’s Republic of China,’’ dated 

April 14, 2008 (‘‘Surrogate Country 

Letter’’), attaching Memorandum to Scot 

T. Fullerton, Program Manager, Office 9, 

AD/CVD Operations, from Carole 

Showers, Acting Director, Office of 

Policy, regarding ‘‘Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Uncovered Innerspring 

Units from the People’s Republic of 

China (PRC): Request for List of 

Surrogate Countries,’’ dated March 25, 

2008. 

On April 11, 2008, the Department 

requested comments on surrogate 

country selection from the interested 

parties in this investigation. On June 2, 

2008, the Department extended the 

deadline for interested parties to submit 

comments on surrogate country 

selection. Petitioner submitted surrogate 

country comments on June 16, 2008. No 

other interested parties commented on 

the selection of a surrogate country. For 

a detailed discussion of the selection of 

the surrogate country, see ‘‘Surrogate 

Country’’ section below. 

Surrogate Value Comments 

On June 27, 2008, the Department 

extended the deadline for interested 

parties to submit surrogate information 

with which to value the factors of 

production in this proceeding. On July 

7, 2008, Petitioner submitted surrogate 

value comments. 

Postponement of Preliminary 

Determination 

On May 20, 2008, Petitioner made a 

request, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.205(b)(2) and (e), for a 50-day 

postponement of the preliminary 

determinations with respect to China, 

South Africa, and Vietnam. The 

Department published a postponement 

of the preliminary determination on 

May 28, 2008. See Postponement of 

Preliminary Determinations of 

Antidumping Duty Investigations; 

Uncovered Innerspring Units from the 

People’s Republic of China, South 

Africa, and the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam, 73 FR 30604 (May 28, 2008). 

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is 

April 1, 2007, through September 30, 

2007. This period corresponds to the 

two most recent fiscal quarters prior to 

the month of the filing of the petition, 

December, 2007. See 19 CFR 

351.204(b)(1). 

Scope of Investigation 

The merchandise covered by this 

investigation is uncovered innerspring 

units composed of a series of individual 

metal springs joined together in sizes 

corresponding to the sizes of adult 

mattresses (e.g., twin, twin long, full, 

full long, queen, California king, and 

king) and units used in smaller 

constructions, such as crib and youth 

mattresses. All uncovered innerspring 

units are included in this scope 

regardless of width and length. Included 

within this definition are innersprings 

typically ranging from 30.5 inches to 76 

inches in width and 68 inches to 84 

inches in length. Innersprings for crib 

mattresses typically range from 25 

inches to 27 inches in width and 50 

inches to 52 inches in length. 

Uncovered innerspring units are 

suitable for use as the innerspring 

component in the manufacture of 

innerspring mattresses, including 

mattresses that incorporate a foam 

encasement around the innerspring. 

Pocketed and non–pocketed 

innerspring units are included in this 

definition. Non–pocketed innersprings 

are typically joined together with helical 

wire and border rods. Non–pocketed 

innersprings are included in this 

definition regardless of whether they 

have border rods attached to the 

perimeter of the innerspring. Pocketed 

innersprings are individual coils 

covered by a ‘‘pocket’’ or ‘‘sock’’ of a 

nonwoven synthetic material or woven 

material and then glued together in a 

linear fashion. 

Uncovered innersprings are classified 

under subheading 9404.29.9010 and 

have also been classified under 

subheadings 9404.10.0000, 

7326.20.00.70, 7320.20.5010, or 

7320.90.5010 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’). The HTSUS subheadings 

are provided for convenience and 

customs purposes only; the written 

description of the scope of these 

investigations is dispositive. 

Non–Market-Economy Country 

For purposes of initiation, Petitioner 

submitted LTFV analyses for the PRC as 

a non–market economy (‘‘NME’’). See 

Initiation Notice, 73 FR at 4819. The 

Department considers the PRC to be a 

NME country. See, e.g., Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination: Coated Free Sheet Paper 

from the People’s Republic of China, 72 

FR 30758, 30760 (June 4, 2007), 

unchanged in Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated 

Free Sheet Paper from the People’s 

Republic of China, 72 FR 60632 

(October 25, 2007). In accordance with 

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. No party has challenged the 

designation of the PRC as an NME 

country in this investigation. Therefore, 

we continue to treat the PRC as an NME 

country for purposes of this preliminary 

determination. 

Surrogate Country 

When the Department is investigating 

imports from an NME, section 773(c)(1) 

of the Act directs it to base normal 

value, in most circumstances, on the 

NME producer’s factors of production 

(‘‘FOP’’) valued in a surrogate market–

economy country or countries 

considered to be appropriate by the 

Department. In accordance with section 

773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the 

factors of production, the Department 

shall utilize, to the extent possible, the 

prices or costs of factors of production 

in one or more market–economy 

countries that are at a level of economic 

development comparable to that of the 

NME country and are significant 

producers of comparable merchandise. 

The sources of the surrogate values we 

have used in this investigation are 

discussed under the ‘‘Normal Value’’

section below. 

The Department’s practice with 

respect to determining economic 

comparability is explained in Policy 

Bulletin 04.1,2 which states that ‘‘OP 

{Office of Policy} determines per capita 

economic comparability on the basis of 

per capita gross national income, as 

reported in the most current annual 

issue of the World Development Report 

(The World Bank).’’ The Department 

considers the five countries identified in 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

45732 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Notices 

3See section ‘‘Determination of Seller’’ regarding 

the Department’s determination to treat Foshan 

Jingxin, Nanhai Animal’s unaffiliated producer, as 

the mandatory respondent. 

4 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the 

final determination of this investigation, interested 

parties may submit factual information to rebut, 

clarify, or correct factual information submitted by 

an interested party less than ten days before, on, or 

after, the applicable deadline for submission of 

such factual information. However, the Department 

notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1) permits new 

information only insofar as it rebuts, clarifies, or 

corrects information recently placed on the record. 

The Department generally will not accept the 

submission of additional, previously absent-fromthe-record alternative surrogate value information 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). See Glycine from 

the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 

Final Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809 (October 17, 

2007) and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 2. 

5The Policy Bulletin 05.1, states: ‘‘{w}hile 

continuing the practice of assigning separate rates 

only to exporters, all separate rates that the 

Department will now assign in its NME 

its Surrogate Country List as ‘‘equally 

comparable in terms of economic 

development.’’ See Policy Bulletin 04.1 

at 2. Thus, we find that India, Indonesia, 

the Philippines, Colombia, and 

Thailand are all at an economic level of 

development equally comparable to that 

of the PRC. 

Second, Policy Bulletin 04.1 provides 

some guidance on identifying 

comparable merchandise and selecting a 

producer of comparable merchandise. 

Based on the data provided by 

Petitioner, we find that India is a 

producer of identical merchandise. See 

Petition at 5–6 and Exhibit PRC–6. 

Additionally, Petitioner submitted 

information for Indian companies that 

produce comparable merchandise, such 

as comparable spring products, and 

noted that the Department has found 

India to be a significant producer of 

related steel wire products. Id. See also 

Certain Steel Nails from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Partial Affirmative Determination of 

Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 33977 

(June 16, 2008). Because the Department 

was unable to find production data, we 

are relying on export data as a substitute 

for overall production data in this case. 

The Department first attempted to 

obtain export data for innersprings from 

the World Trade Atlas (‘‘WTA’’) and 

was unable to find data for any of the 

countries on the Surrogate Country List. 

Thus, the Department obtained 

worldwide export data for steel wire 

products, which Petitioner also stated 

were comparable to innersprings. 

Specifically, we reviewed export data 

from the WTA for the HTS heading 

7326.20, ‘‘Other Articles of Iron/Steel 

Wire,’’ for 2007. The Department found 

that, of the countries provided in the 

Surrogate Country List, all five countries 

were exporters of comparable 

merchandise: steel wire products. Thus, 

all countries on the Surrogate Country 

List are considered as appropriate 

surrogates because each exported 

comparable merchandise. 

The Policy Bulletin 04.1 also provides 

some guidance on identifying 

significant producers of comparable 

merchandise and selecting a producer of 

comparable merchandise. Further 

analysis was required to determine 

whether any of the countries which 

produce comparable merchandise are 

significant producers of that comparable 

merchandise. The data we obtained 

show that, in 2007, worldwide exports 

for HTS 7326.20 from: India were 

approximately 7,375,861 kg; Indonesia 

were approximately 431,376 kg; 

Colombia were approximately 9,309,295 

units; the Philippines were 

approximately 271,308 kg; and Thailand 

were approximately 8,193,889 kg. 

Although India, Colombia, and Thailand 

appear to be significant producers of 

comparable merchandise, no party in 

this proceeding requested that Colombia 

or Thailand be selected as the surrogate 

country. 

With respect to data considerations in 

selecting a surrogate country, it is the 

Department’s practice that, ’’. . . if more 

than one country has survived the 

selection process to this point, the 

country with the best factors data is 

selected as the primary surrogate 

country.’’ See Policy Bulletin 04.1 at 4. 

Currently, the record contains surrogate 

value information, including possible 

surrogate financial statements, only 

from India. 

Thus, the Department is preliminarily 

selecting India as the surrogate country 

on the basis that: (1) it is at a similar 

level of economic development to the 

PRC, pursuant to 773(c)(4) of the Act; (2) 

it is a significant producer of 

comparable merchandise; and (3) we 

have reliable data from India that we 

can use to value the factors of 

production. Thus, we have calculated 

normal value using Indian prices when 

available and appropriate to value 

Foshan Jingxin Steel Wire & Spring Co., 

Ltd.’s (‘‘Foshan Jingxin’’)3 factors of 

production. See Memorandum to the 

File through Scot T. Fullerton, Program 

Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 

from Susan Pulongbarit, International 

Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 9, regarding ‘‘Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Uncovered Innerspring 

Units from the People’s Republic of 

China: Selection of Factor Values,’’

dated July 30, 2008 (‘‘Surrogate Value 

Memorandum’’). 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3)(i), for the final 

determination in an antidumping 

investigation, interested parties may 

submit publicly available information to 

value the factors of production within 

40 days after the date of publication of 

the preliminary determination.4

Determination of Seller 

For purposes of the preliminary 

determination, we find that Nanhai 

Animal should not be considered the 

mandatory respondent for purposes of 

calculating a dumping margin because 

we determine that Nanhai Animal did 

not make any sales of innersprings to 

the United States during the POI. In its 

questionnaire responses, Nanhai Animal 

stated that all of the sales negotiations 

for exports of innersprings to the United 

States take place directly between its 

producer, Foshan Jingxin, and the U.S. 

customer. In addition, Nanhai Animal 

stated that it is solely responsible for 

PRC customs declaration and receipt of 

payment from the U.S. customer, which 

is sent directly to Foshan Jingxin minus 

a commission. Nanhai Animal also 

stated in its questionnaire responses 

that it does not take title to the 

merchandise, and the merchandise is 

shipped directly from the producer’s 

location to the U.S. customer. Therefore, 

we find that Nanhai Animal acts as an 

export agent for Foshan Jingxin and that 

all essential terms of sale are negotiated 

and executed between Foshan Jingxin 

and its U.S. customer. Thus, we find 

that Foshan Jingxin should be 

considered the seller for purposes of 

calculating a dumping margin. See, e.g., 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Final Partial 

Affirmative Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades 

and Parts Thereof from the People’s 

Republic of China, 71 FR 29303 (May 

22, 2006) and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 17. 

Separate Rates 

Additionally, in the Initiation Notice, 

the Department notified parties of the 

application process by which exporters 

and producers may obtain separate–rate 

status in NME investigations. See 

Initiation Notice, 73 FR at 4822. The 

process requires exporters and 

producers to submit a separate–rate 

status application. The Department’s 

practice is discussed further in Policy 

Bulletin 05.1: Separate–Rates Practice 

and Application of Combination Rates 

in Antidumping Investigations involving 

Non–Market Economy Countries, (April 

5, 2005), (‘‘Policy Bulletin 05.1’’) 

available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/ 

bull05–1.pdf.5 However, the standard 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Notices 45733 

investigations will be specific to those producers 

that supplied the exporter during the period of 

investigation. Note, however, that one rate is 

calculated for the exporter and all of the producers 

which supplied subject merchandise to it during 

the period of investigation. This practice applies 

both to mandatory respondents receiving an 

individually calculated separate rate as well as the 

pool of non-investigated firms receiving the 

weighted-average of the individually calculated 

rates. This practice is referred to as the application 

of ‘‘combination rates’’ because such rates apply to 

specific combinations of exporters and one or more 

producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to an 

exporter will apply only to merchandise both 

exported by the firm in question and produced by 

a firm that supplied the exporter during the period 

of investigation.’’ See Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6. 

for eligibility for a separate rate (which 

is whether a firm can demonstrate an 

absence of both de jure and de facto 

governmental control over its export 

activities) has not changed. 

In proceedings involving NME 

countries, the Department has a 

rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within the country are 

subject to government control and thus 

should be assessed a single antidumping 

duty 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. Senbao, 

Yililan, Yuhua, Xilinmen, East Grace, 

Meihua, and Sanmen, (hereinafter 

referred to as ‘‘Separate Rate 

Companies’’) have provided company–

specific information to demonstrate that 

they operate independently of de jure 

and de facto government control, and 

therefore satisfy the standards for the 

assignment of a separate rate. 

We have considered whether each 

PRC company that submitted a complete 

application is eligible for a separate rate. 

The Department’s separate–rate test is 

not concerned, in general, with 

macroeconomic/border–type controls, 

e.g., export licenses, quotas, and 

minimum export prices, particularly if 

these controls are imposed to prevent 

dumping. See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Preserved 

Mushrooms from the People’s Republic 

of China, 63 FR 72255, 72256 

(December 31, 1998). The test focuses, 

rather, on controls over the investment, 

pricing, and output decision–making 

process at the individual firm level. See 

Certain Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel 

Plate from Ukraine: Final Determination 

of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 62 FR 

61754, 61758 (November 19, 1997), and 

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from 

the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 62 FR 61276, 

61279 (November 17, 1997). 

To establish whether a firm is 

sufficiently independent from 

government control of its export 

activities to be entitled to a separate 

rate, the Department analyzes each 

entity exporting the subject 

merchandise under a test arising from 

the Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers 

from the People’s Republic of China, 56 

FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’), 

as further developed in Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the 

People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 

(May 2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon Carbide’’). In 

accordance with the separate–rates 

criteria, the Department assigns separate 

rates in NME cases only if respondents 

can demonstrate the absence of both de 

jure and de facto governmental control 

over export activities. 

1. Absence of De Jure Control 

The Department considers the 

following de jure criteria in determining 

whether an individual company may be 

granted a separate rate: (1) an absence of 

restrictive stipulations associated with 

an individual exporter’s business and 

export licenses; (2) any legislative 

enactments decentralizing control of 

companies; and (3) other formal 

measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies. See 

Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. 

The evidence provided by the 

Separate Rate Companies supports a 

preliminary finding of de jure absence 

of governmental control based on the 

following: 1) an absence of restrictive 

stipulations associated with the 

individual exporter’s business and 

export licenses; 2) the applicable 

legislative enactments decentralizing 

control of the companies; and 3) any 

other formal measures by the 

government decentralizing control of 

companies. See, e.g., Yililan’s March 28, 

2008, Separate Rate Application 

(‘‘SRA’’) at 6–9; East Grace’s March 28, 

2008, SRA at 5–9; and Yuhua’s March 

28, 2008, SRA at 6–9. 

2. Absence of De Facto Control 

Typically the Department considers 

four factors in evaluating whether each 

respondent is subject to de facto 

governmental control of its export 

functions: (1) whether the export prices 

are set by or are subject to the approval 

of a governmental agency; (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 

disposition of profits or financing of 

losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 

22586–87; see also Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the 

People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 

22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995). The 

Department has determined that an 

analysis of de facto control is critical in 

determining whether respondents are, 

in fact, subject to a degree of 

governmental control which would 

preclude the Department from assigning 

separate rates. 

We determine that, for the Separate 

Rate Companies, the evidence on the 

record supports a preliminary finding of 

de facto absence of governmental 

control based on record statements and 

supporting documentation showing the 

following: 1) each exporter sets its own 

export prices independent of the 

government and without the approval of 

a government authority; 2) each exporter 

retains the proceeds from its sales and 

makes independent decisions regarding 

disposition of profits or financing of 

losses; 3) each exporter has the 

authority to negotiate and sign contracts 

and other agreements; and 4) each 

exporter has autonomy from the 

government regarding the selection of 

management. See, e.g., Meihua’s March 

28, 2008, SRA at Exhibit 7; Xilinmen’s 

March 28, 2008, SRA at Exhibit 8; 

Sanmen’s March 31, 2008, SRA at 

Exhibit 7; and Senbao’s March 24, 2008, 

SRA at Exhibit 5. 

As the Department has preliminarily 

determined that Foshan Jingxin is 

properly considered the seller of the 

subject merchandise for purposes of 

calculating a dumping margin, and 

because we have changed the 

designation of the appropriate party to 

serve as the mandatory respondent, we 

are preliminarily granting Foshan 

Jingxin a separate rate. Although the 

information on the record 

demonstrating Foshan Jingxin’s 

eligibility for a separate rate is not 

complete, as information regarding 

separate rate status was submitted by its 

exporting agent, Nanhai Animal, the 

Department finds that it cannot 

preliminarily deny Foshan Jingxin a 

separate rate because the Department 

did not specifically ask for additional 

information to determine Foshan 

Jingxin’s separate rate eligibility. Thus, 

we intend to request additional 

information from Foshan Jingxin 

subsequent to the preliminary 

determination in order to determine 

Foshan Jingxin’s separate rate status for 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

45734 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Notices 

6We note that Jiangsu Soho made an additional 

submission on July 25, 2008. Because this 

submission was received so close to the due date 

for this preliminary determination, the Department 

did not have sufficient time to analyze its contents 

and incorporate any findings into this preliminary 

determination. Thus, we will consider the 

submission in its entirety for purposes of the final 

determination. 

the final determination. Moreover, as 

mentioned above, because we have 

determined that Nanhai Animal had no 

sales of subject merchandise during the 

POI, we preliminarily determine that 

Nanhai Animal is not eligible to receive 

a separate rate. 

With respect to Soho Tech, we 

determine that it failed to provide 

evidence regarding its affiliations, 

specifically whether any of its affiliates 

were involved in the export or 

production of the subject merchandise. 

The separate rate application requires 

that the applicant provide specific 

documentation regarding its affiliation 

with any entities that exported 

merchandise to the United States that 

would fall under the description of the 

merchandise covered by the scope of the 

proceeding. Although Soho Tech stated 

that it was not affiliated with any 

entities involved in the production or 

export of the subject merchandise, 

information submitted on the record by 

Jiangsu Soho proves otherwise. 

Specifically, Jiangsu Soho stated that 

Soho Tech is a subsidiary of Jiangsu 

Soho, and that Soho Tech is responsible 

for exporting Jiangsu Soho’s sales of 

innersprings to the United States as well 

as its own exports of innersprings. See 

Jiangsu Soho’s July 2, 2008, 

Supplemental Section A response at 13. 

Therefore, we determine that Soho Tech 

has failed to provide accurate 

information with respect to its affiliates 

and therefore has failed to establish its 

eligibility for a separate rate. As a result, 

Soho Tech will be considered a part of 

the PRC–wide Entity. 

The evidence placed on the record of 

this investigation by the Separate Rate 

Companies demonstrates an absence of 

de jure and de facto government control 

with respect to each of the exporter’s 

exports of the merchandise under 

investigation, in accordance with the 

criteria identified in Sparklers and 

Silicon Carbide. As a result, we have 

granted the Separate Rate Companies a 

weighted–average margin based on the 

experience of mandatory respondents 

and excluding any de minimis or zero 

rates or rates based on total AFA for the 

purposes of this preliminary 

determination. In addition, for the 

reasons outlined above, we have 

preliminarily granted Foshan Jingxin 

separate rate status and assigned Foshan 

Jingxin a rate based on the data 

submitted by Nanhai Animal. 

Use of Total Adverse Facts Available 

The PRC–Wide Entity PRC–Wide Rate 

The Department has data that indicate 

there were more exporters of 

innersprings from the PRC than those 

indicated in the response to our request 

for Q&V information during the POI. See 

Respondent Selection Memorandum. 

We issued our request for Q&V 

information to 17 potential Chinese 

exporters of the subject merchandise, in 

addition to posting the Q&V 

questionnaire on the Department’s 

website. See Q&V Delivery Memo. While 

information on the record of this 

investigation indicates that there are 

numerous producers/exporters of 

innersprings in the PRC, we received 

only twelve timely filed Q&V responses. 

Although all exporters were given an 

opportunity to provide Q&V 

information, not all exporters provided 

a response to the Department’s Q&V 

letter. Further, we received a Q&V 

response from High Hope, who 

subsequently withdrew it and informed 

the Department that it was not going to 

participate further in the investigation. 

Additionally, Jiangsu Soho, the 

mandatory respondent, did not 

cooperate to the best of its ability in 

responding to the Department’s requests 

for information. Therefore, the 

Department has preliminarily 

determined that there were exporters/ 

producers of the subject merchandise 

during the POI from the PRC that did 

not respond to the Department’s request 

for information. We have treated these 

PRC producers/exporters as part of the 

PRC–wide entity because they did not 

qualify for a separate rate. 

Jiangsu Soho 

Jiangsu Soho withheld or failed to 

provide information specifically 

requested by the Department during the 

course of this investigation. First, in its 

response to Sections C and D of the 

Department’s questionnaire, Jiangsu 

Soho did not submit a sales or cost 

reconciliation, as required in the 

Department’s questionnaire. The 

company offered no explanation as to 

why, but simply stated that it did not 

complete them. We gave Jiangsu Soho 

additional time to submit the 

reconciliations, but the information that 

Jiangsu Soho submitted was incomplete, 

and unusable for purposes of 

reconciling Jiangsu Soho’s reported 

sales and FOP information to its 

financial statements. 

Next, Jiangsu Soho withheld 

information requested by the 

Department and provided information 

that cannot be verified. In its 

questionnaire responses, Jiangsu Soho 

reported that its POI sales were sourced 

from four producers. Of the four 

producers, only one producer has 

provided factors of production data. The 

remaining three producers have been 

uncooperative and have not responded 

to the Department’s requests for 

information. Therefore, the Department 

has incomplete information with respect 

to the factors of production for all of 

Jiangsu Soho’s sales during the POI. 

Additionally, Jiangsu Soho has provided 

very limited information with regard to 

its accounting system and that of the 

one cooperative producer. Moreover, 

there are a number of data issues that 

have prevented the Department from 

being able to calculate a dumping 

margin.6 Due to the proprietary nature 

of these issues, see the Memorandum to 

James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 9, through Scot T. 

Fullerton, Program Manager, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 9, from Erin Begnal, 

Senior International Trade Analyst, 

‘‘Uncovered Innerspring Units from the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary 

Application of Adverse Facts Available 

to Jiangsu Soho International Group 

Holding Co., Ltd.,’’ dated July 30, 2008. 

Finally, as mentioned above, Jiangsu 

Soho did not cooperate to the best of its 

ability to provide the Department with 

timely information regarding its 

affiliations with other exporters/ 

producers of the subject merchandise. 

Jiangsu Soho initially stated that it was 

not affiliated with any other exporters/ 

producers of the subject merchandise 

during the POI, but the Department, 

through deficiency questionnaires, 

learned that Jiangsu Soho is affiliated 

with Soho Tech, another exporter of 

innersprings to the United States during 

the POI. Because the Department was 

given this information only a few weeks 

prior to the preliminary determination, 

we were unable to sufficiently 

investigate this matter over the course of 

the investigation, as the information was 

initially withheld by Jiangsu Soho. 

Therefore, because of the number of 

deficiencies with respect to Jiangsu 

Soho’s questionnaire responses and the 

amount of misleading and inadequate 

information, we find that the 

information provided by Jiangsu Soho to 

be so deficient that there is insufficient 

information to analyze and verify. Thus, 

we find that Jiangsu Soho does not merit 

a separate rate, and will be subject to the 

PRC–wide rate. See Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the 

People’s Republic of China, 69 FR 67313 

(November 17, 2004) and accompanying 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Notices 45735 

7See the ‘‘Corroboration’’ section below. 

8See SAA at 870. 

9See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 

Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered 

Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside 

Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of 

Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 

(November 6, 1996), unchanged in Tapered Roller 

Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 

Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller 

Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, 

and Components Thereof, From Japan: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Termination in Part:, 62 FR 11825 

(March 13, 1997). 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 4. 

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 

subsections 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 subsection 

782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise 

available in reaching the applicable 

determination. 

Information on the record of this 

investigation indicates that the PRC–

wide entity was non–responsive. 

Certain companies did not respond to 

our request for Q&V information and 

did not respond to the Department’s 

questionnaire. In addition, Jiangsu Soho 

withheld information requested by the 

Department and provided insufficient 

information to analyze and verify. As a 

result, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) 

of the Act, we find that the use of facts 

available is appropriate to determine the 

PRC–wide rate. See Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, Affirmative Preliminary 

Determination of Critical Circumstances 

and Postponement of Final 

Determination: Certain Frozen Fish 

Fillets from the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam, 68 FR 4986 (January 31, 2003), 

unchanged in Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Affirmative Critical Circumstances: 

Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 

37116 (June 23, 2003). 

Section 776(b) of the Act provides 

that, in selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available, the Department 

may employ an adverse inference if an 

interested party fails to cooperate by not 

acting to the best of its ability to comply 

with requests for information. See 

Statement of Administrative Action, 

accompanying the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’), H.R. Rep. 

No. 103–316, 870 (1994) (‘‘SAA’’); see 

also Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Cold–Rolled 

Flat–Rolled Carbon–Quality Steel 

Products from the Russian Federation, 

65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000). We 

find that, because the PRC–wide entity 

did not respond to our requests for 

information, it has failed to cooperate to 

the best of its ability. Therefore, the 

Department preliminarily finds that, in 

selecting from among the facts available, 

an adverse inference is appropriate. 

When employing an adverse 

inference, the statute indicates that the 

Department may rely upon information 

derived from the petition, the final 

determination from the LTFV 

investigation, a previous administrative 

review, or any other information placed 

on the record. In selecting a rate for 

adverse facts available (‘‘AFA’’), the 

Department selects a rate that is 

sufficiently adverse to ensure that the 

uncooperative party does not obtain a 

more favorable result by failing to 

cooperate than if it had fully 

cooperated. See SAA at 870. It is the 

Department’s practice to select, as AFA, 

the higher of the (a) highest margin 

alleged in the petition, or (b) the highest 

calculated rate of any respondent in the 

investigation. See Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Certain Cold–Rolled Carbon Quality 

Steel Products from the People’s 

Republic of China, 65 FR 34660 (May 

21, 2000) and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum, at ‘‘Facts 

Available.’’ As AFA, we have 

preliminarily assigned to the PRC–wide 

entity a rate of 234.51 percent, the 

highest calculated rate from the petition. 

The Department preliminarily 

determines that this information is the 

most appropriate from the available 

sources to effectuate the purposes of 

AFA. The Department’s reliance on the 

petition rate to determine an AFA rate 

is subject to the requirement to 

corroborate secondary information.7

Corroboration 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides 

that, when the Department relies on 

secondary information rather than on 

information obtained in the course of an 

investigation as facts available, it must, 

to the extent practicable, corroborate 

that information from independent 

sources reasonably at its disposal. 

Secondary information is described in 

the SAA as ‘‘information derived from 

the petition that gave rise to the 

investigation or review, the final 

determination concerning subject 

merchandise, or any previous review 

under section 751 concerning the 

subject merchandise.’’8 The SAA 

explains that to ‘‘corroborate’’ means 

simply that the Department will satisfy 

itself that the secondary information to 

be used has probative value. Id. The 

SAA also explains that independent 

sources used to corroborate may 

include, for example, published price 

lists, official import statistics and 

customs data, and information obtained 

from interested parties during the 

particular investigation. Id. To 

corroborate secondary information, the 

Department will, to the extent 

practicable, examine the reliability and 

relevance of the information used.9

We corroborated the U.S. price used 

to calculate the highest calculated rate 

from the petition listed in the Initiation 

Notice by comparing it to the U.S. prices 

calculated for Foshan Jingxin. We found 

that the U.S. price used to calculate the 

highest petition margin was within the 

range of net U.S. prices in our margin 

calculations for Foshan Jingxin in this 

investigation. See Memorandum to the 

File, through Scot T. Fullerton, Program 

Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 

from Susan Pulongbarit, International 

Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 9, regarding ‘‘Program Analysis 

for the Preliminary Determination of 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Uncovered Innerspring Units from the 

People’s Republic of China,’’ dated July 

30, 2008 (‘‘Foshan Jingxin Analysis 

Memorandum’’). 

We then corroborated the normal 

value used to calculate the highest 

calculated rate from the petition listed 

in the Initiation Notice with the normal 

values calculated for Foshan Jingxin 

based on its reported factors of 

production. We found that the normal 

value used to calculate the highest 

petition margin was within the range of 

normal values in our margin 

calculations for Foshan Jingxin in this 

investigation. See Foshan Jingxin 

Analysis Memorandum. 

Consequently, we are applying the 

234.51 percent rate from the petition as 

the AFA antidumping rate to the PRC–

wide entity, which includes Jiangsu 

Soho. The PRC–wide rate applies to all 

entries of the merchandise under 

investigation except for entries from 

Foshan Jingxin, and the Separate Rate 

Companies. 

Margin for the Separate Rate Companies 

The Department received timely and 

complete separate rate applications from 

the Separate Rate Companies, who are 

all exporters of innersprings from the 

PRC, which were not selected as 

mandatory respondents in this 

investigation. Through the evidence in 

their applications, these companies 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

45736 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Notices 

10See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative 

Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain 

Polyester Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic of 

China, 71 FR 77373, 77377 (December 26, 2006), 

unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative 

Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain 

Polyester Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic of 

China, 72 FR 19690 (April 19, 2007). 

have demonstrated their eligibility for a 

separate rate, as discussed above. 

Consistent with the Department’s 

practice, as the separate rate, we have 

established a margin for the Separate 

Rate Companies based on the rate we 

calculated for the cooperating 

mandatory respondent, Foshan 

Jingxin.10 Companies receiving this rate 

are identified by name in the 

‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section of 

this notice. 

Date of Sale 

Section 351.401(i) of the Department’s 

regulations states that, ‘‘{i}n identifying 

the date of sale of the subject 

merchandise or foreign like product, the 

Secretary normally will use the date of 

invoice, as recorded in the exporter or 

producer’s records kept in the ordinary 

course of business.’’ However, the 

Secretary may use a date other than the 

date of invoice if the Secretary is 

satisfied that a different date better 

reflects the date on which the exporter 

or producer establishes the material 

terms of sale. See 19 CFR 351.401(i); see 

also Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v. 

United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 

1090–1093 (CIT 2001) (‘‘Allied Tube’’). 

The date of sale is generally the date on 

which the parties agree upon all 

substantive terms of the sale. This 

normally includes the price, quantity, 

delivery terms and payment terms. In 

Allied Tube, the Court of International 

Trade (‘‘CIT’’) noted that a ‘‘party 

seeking to establish a date of sale other 

than invoice date bears the burden of 

producing sufficient evidence to 

satisf{y}’ the Department that a different 

date better reflects the date on which 

the exporter or producer establishes the 

material terms of sale.’’’ Allied Tube 132 

F. Supp. 2d at 1090 (quoting 19 CFR 

351.401(i)). In order to simplify the 

determination of date of sale for both 

the respondent and the Department and 

in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(i), 

the date of sale will normally be the 

date of the invoice, as recorded in the 

exporter’s or producer’s records kept in 

the ordinary course of business, unless 

satisfactory evidence is presented that 

the exporter or producer establishes the 

material terms of sale on some other 

date. In other words, the date of the 

invoice is the presumptive date of sale, 

although this presumption may be 

overcome. For instance, in Notice of 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, Intent to 

Rescind and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India, 

72 FR 10151 (March 7, 2007), 

unchanged in Notice of Final Results 

and Final Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India, 

72 FR 51595 (September 10, 2007), the 

Department used the date of the 

purchase order as the date of sale 

because the terms of sale were 

established at that point. 

We note that Nanhai Animal reported 

that Foshan Jingxin did not issue any 

commercial invoices because the U.S. 

customer did not require Foshan Jingxin 

to do so. However, after examining the 

questionnaire responses and the sales 

documentation that Foshan Jingxin 

placed on the record, we preliminarily 

determine that the factory delivery note 

date, otherwise known as the date of 

loading and date of exit of factory, is the 

most appropriate date of sale for all EP 

sales made by Foshan Jingxin, as it is 

the date on which the seller’s obligation 

of delivery has been fulfilled and the 

exact sales quantity and unit price are 

confirmed and finalized. See Nanhai 

Animal May 29, 2008, Section C 

questionnaire response at C–13 and July 

8, 2008, supplemental response at A–13. 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of 

innersprings to the United States by 

Foshan Jingxin were made at less than 

fair value, we compared EP to NV, as 

described in the ‘‘U.S. Price’’ and 

‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice. 

U.S. Price 

For Foshan Jingxin, we based U.S. 

price on EP in accordance with section 

772(a) of the Act, because the first sale 

to an unaffiliated purchaser was made 

prior to importation, and CEP was not 

otherwise warranted by the facts on the 

record. We calculated EP based on the 

packed price from Foshan Jingxin to the 

first unaffiliated customer in the United 

States. Where applicable, we deducted a 

commission from the starting price 

(gross unit price), in accordance with 

section 772(c) of the Act. 

For a complete discussion of the 

calculation of the U.S. price for Foshan 

Jingxin, see Foshan Jingxin Analysis 

Memorandum. 

Normal Value 

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

that the Department shall determine the 

NV using a FOP methodology if the 

merchandise is exported from an NME 

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 bases NV on 

the FOP because the presence of 

government controls on various aspects 

of non–market economies renders price 

comparisons and the calculation of 

production costs invalid under the 

Department’s normal methodologies. 

Factor Valuation Methodology 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, we calculated NV based on FOP 

data reported by Foshan Jingxin. To 

calculate NV, we multiplied the 

reported per–unit factor–consumption 

rates by publicly available surrogate 

values (except as discussed below). In 

selecting the surrogate values, we 

considered the quality, specificity, and 

contemporaneity of the data. A detailed 

description of all surrogate values used 

for Foshan Jingxin can be found in the 

Surrogate Value Memorandum and 

Foshan Jingxin Analysis Memorandum. 

For this preliminary determination, in 

accordance with the Department’s 

practice, we used data from the Indian 

Import Statistics and other publicly 

available Indian sources in order to 

calculate surrogate values for Foshan 

Jingxin FOPs (direct materials, energy, 

and packing materials) and certain 

movement expenses. In selecting the 

best available information for valuing 

FOPs in accordance with section 

773(c)(1) of the Act, the Department’s 

practice is to select, to the extent 

practicable, surrogate values which are 

non–export average values, most 

contemporaneous with the POI, 

product–specific, and tax–exclusive. 

See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, Negative Preliminary 

Determination of Critical Circumstances 

and Postponement of Final 

Determination: Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 

42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged 

in Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 

71005 (December 8, 2004). The record 

shows that data in the Indian Import 

Statistics, as well as those from the 

other Indian sources, are 

contemporaneous with the POI, 

product–specific, and tax–exclusive. In 

those instances where we could not 

obtain publicly available information 

contemporaneous to the POI with which 

to value factors, we adjusted the 

surrogate values using, where 

appropriate, the Indian Wholesale Price 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Notices 45737 

Index (‘‘WPI’’) as published in the 

International Financial Statistics of the 

International Monetary Fund. 

Furthermore, with regard to the 

Indian import–based surrogate values, 

we have disregarded import prices that 

we have reason to believe or suspect 

may be subsidized. We have reason to 

believe or suspect that prices of inputs 

from Indonesia, South Korea, and 

Thailand may have been subsidized. We 

have found in other proceedings that 

these countries maintain broadly 

available, non–industry-specific export 

subsidies and, therefore, it is reasonable 

to infer that all exports to all markets 

from these countries may be subsidized. 

See Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Negative Final Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Color Television 

Receivers From the People’s Republic of 

China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 7 (‘‘CTVs 

from the PRC’’). Further, guided by the 

legislative history, it is the Department’s 

practice not to conduct a formal 

investigation to ensure that such prices 

are not subsidized. See H.R. Rep. 100–

576 at 590 (1988). Rather, the 

Department bases its decision on 

information that is available to it at the 

time it makes its determination. 

Therefore, we have not used prices from 

these countries in calculating the Indian 

import–based surrogate values. 

Additionally, we disregarded prices 

from NME countries. Finally, imports 

that were labeled as originating from an 

‘‘unspecified’’ country were excluded 

from the average value, because the 

Department could not be certain that 

they were not from either an NME 

country or a country with general export 

subsidies. 

The Department used the Indian 

Import Statistics to value the raw 

material and packing material inputs 

that Foshan Jingxin used to produce the 

subject merchandise during the POI, 

except where listed below. 

For direct, indirect, 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 home page, 

Import Library, Expected Wages of 

Selected NME Countries, revised in May 

2008, see Corrected 2007 Calculation of 

Expected Non–Market Economy Wages, 

73 FR 27795 (May 14, 2008), and http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html. The 

source of these wage–rate data on the 

Import Administration’s web site is the 

Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2005, ILO 

(Geneva: 2007), Chapter 5B: Wages in 

Manufacturing. Because this regression–

based 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 respondent. See 

Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

We used Indian transport information 

in order to value the freight–in cost of 

the raw materials. Due to the proprietary 

nature of this information, see Surrogate 

Value Memorandum. 

To value electricity, the Department 

used rates from Key World Energy 

Statistics 2003, published by the 

International Energy Agency (‘‘IEA’’). 

Because the data were not 

contemporaneous to the POI, we 

adjusted for inflation using WPI. See 

Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

To value factory overhead, selling, 

general, and administrative expenses, 

and profit, we used the audited 2006–

2007 financial statements from Lakshmi 

Precision Screws Limited, a producer of 

merchandise comparable to 

innersprings in India. 

For a detailed discussion of all 

surrogate values used for this 

preliminary determination, see 

Surrogate Values Memorandum. 

Currency Conversion 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 

773A(a) of the Act, based on the 

exchange rates in effect on the dates of 

the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal 

Reserve Bank. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the 

Act, we intend to verify the information 

upon which we will rely in making our 

final determination. 

Combination Rates 

In the Initiation Notice, the 

Department stated that it would 

calculate combination rates for certain 

respondents that are eligible for a 

separate rate in this investigation. See 

Initiation Notice, 72 FR at 60806. This 

practice is described in Policy Bulletin 

05.1, available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/. 

Preliminary Determination 

The weighted–average dumping 

margins are as follows: 

UNCOVERED INNERSPRING UNITS FROM THE PRC 

Exporter Producer Weighted–Average Margin 

Foshan Jingxin Steel Wire & Spring Co., Ltd. .................................................... Foshan Jingxin Steel Wire & 

Spring Co., Ltd. 

118.17% 

Anshan Yuhua Industrial Trade Co., Ltd. ............................................................ Anshan Yuhua Industrial Trade 

Co., Ltd. 

118.17% 

East Grace Corporation ....................................................................................... Wuxi Xihuisheng Commercial 

Co., Ltd. 

118.17% 

Hebei Yililan Furniture Co., Ltd. .......................................................................... Hebei Yililan Furniture Co., 

Ltd. 

118.17% 

Nanjing Meihua Import & Export Trade Co., Ltd. ................................................ Nanjing Dongdai Furniture Co., 

Ltd. 

118.17% 

Xilinmen Group Co., Ltd. ..................................................................................... Xilinmen Furniture Co., Ltd. 118.17% 

Zhejiang Sanmen Herod Mattress Co., Ltd. ........................................................ Zhejiang Sanmen Herod 

Mattress Co., Ltd. 

118.17% 

Zibo Senbao Furniture Co., Ltd. .......................................................................... Zibo Senbao Furniture Co., 

Ltd. 

118.17% 

PRC–wide (including Jiangsu Soho International Group Holding Co., Ltd.) ...... .................................................. 234.51% 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations 

performed within five days of the date 

of publication of this notice to parties in 

this proceeding in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.224(b). 

Suspension of Liquidation 

In accordance with section 733(d) of 

the Act, we will instruct CBP to suspend 

liquidation of all entries of innersprings 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

45738 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Notices 

1See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice 

and Application of Combination Rates in 

Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market 

Economy Countries (April 5, 2005), available at 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf. 

from the PRC as described in the ‘‘Scope 

of Investigation’’ section, entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption from Foshan Jingxin, 

Senbao, Yililan, Yuhua, Xilinmen, East 

Grace, Meihua, and Sanmen, and the 

PRC–wide entity on or after the date of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. We will instruct CBP to 

require a cash deposit or the posting of 

a bond equal to the weighted–average 

amount by which the normal value 

exceeds U.S. price, as indicated above. 

International Trade Commission 

Notification 

In accordance with section 733(f) of 

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our 

preliminary affirmative determination of 

sales at less than fair value. Section 

735(b)(2) of the Act requires the ITC to 

make its final determination as to 

whether the domestic industry in the 

United States is materially injured, or 

threatened with material injury, by 

reason of imports of innersprings, or 

sales (or the likelihood of sales) for 

importation, of the subject merchandise 

within 45 days of our final 

determination. 

Public Comment 

Case briefs or other written comments 

may be submitted to the Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration no 

later than seven days after the date of 

the final verification report is issued in 

this proceeding and rebuttal briefs 

limited to issues raised in case briefs no 

later than five days after the deadline 

date for case briefs (see 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(i) and (d)). A list of 

authorities used and an executive 

summary of issues should accompany 

any briefs submitted to the Department. 

This summary should be limited to five 

pages total, including footnotes. 

In accordance with section 774 of the 

Act, and if requested, we will hold a 

public hearing, to afford interested 

parties an opportunity to comment on 

arguments raised in case or rebuttal 

briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, 

we intend to hold the hearing shortly 

after the deadline of submission of 

rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20230, at a 

time and location to be determined. 

Parties should confirm by telephone the 

date, time, and location of the hearing 

two days before the scheduled date. 

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, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests 

should contain the party’s name, 

address, and telephone number, the 

number of participants, and a list of the 

issues to be discussed. At the hearing, 

each party may make an affirmative 

presentation only on issues raised in 

that party’s case brief and may make 

rebuttal presentations only on 

arguments included in that party’s 

rebuttal brief. 

Unless the deadline is extended 

pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act, 

the Department will make its final 

determination within 75 days after the 

date of this preliminary determination, 

pursuant to section 735(a)(1) of the Act. 

This determination is issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: July 30, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–18031 Filed 8–5–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–522–803] 

Uncovered Innerspring Units from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice 

of Preliminary Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 6, 2008. 

SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine 

that uncovered innerspring units 

(‘‘innersprings’’) from the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam (‘‘Vietnam’’) are 

being, or are likely to be, sold in the 

United States at less than fair value 

(‘‘LTFV’’), as provided in section 733 of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’). The estimated margins of sales at 

LTFV are shown in the ‘‘Preliminary 

Determination’’ section of this notice. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on this preliminary 

determination. We intend to make our 

final determination within 75 days after 

the date of this preliminary 

determination pursuant to section 735 

of the Act. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Eugene Degnan or Robert Bolling, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 8, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0414 or 482–3434, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case History 

On December 31, 2007, Leggett and 

Platt, Incorporated (‘‘Petitioner’’), filed 

petitions in proper form on behalf of the 

domestic industry, concerning imports 

of innersprings from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘the PRC’’), South 

Africa, and Vietnam (collectively, the 

Petitions). On January 28, 2008, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) published in the Federal 

Register the initiation of a antidumping 

investigations on innersprings from the 

PRC, South Africa, and Vietnam. See 

Uncovered Innerspring Units From the 

People’s Republic of China, South 

Africa, and the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam: Initiation of Antidumping 

Duty Investigations, 73 FR 4817 (January 

28, 2008) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). The 

Department set aside a period for all 

interested parties to raise issues 

regarding product coverage. See 

Initiation Notice, 73 FR at 4818. We did 

not receive comments regarding product 

coverage from any interested party. 

Additionally, in the Initiation Notice, 

the Department applied a process by 

which exporters and producers may 

obtain separate–rate status in non–

market economy (‘‘NME’’) 

investigations. The process requires 

exporters and producers to submit a 

separate–rate status application 

(‘‘SRA’’),1 rather than a full response to 

Section A of the Department’s 

Questionnaire. The standard for 

eligibility for a separate rate (which is 

whether a firm can demonstrate an 

absence of both de jure and de facto 

government control over its export 

activities), however, has not changed. 

The SRA for this investigation was 

posted on the Department’s website at 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia–highlights-and–

news.html on January 28, 2008. The due 

date for filing an SRA was March 28, 

2008. No party filed an SRA in this 

investigation. 

In our Initiation Notice, we requested 

parties to provide comments regarding 

the physical characteristics of subject 

merchandise by February 11, 2008, and 

rebuttal comments by February 21, 

2008. On February 8, 2008, we extended 

the deadline for submission of 

comments regarding physical 

characteristics to February 15, 2008, and 

the deadline for rebuttal comments to 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES