Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Notices 52277 

with this requirement could result in 

the Department’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of doubled antidumping duties. 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO as explained in 

the administrative protective order 

itself. 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 the terms of an 

APO is a sanctionable violation. 

This notice of final results of this 

administrative review is issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

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

351.213, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: September 2, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I 

Comment 1: Surrogate Country 

Comment 2: Raw Shrimp Surrogate Value 

Comment 3: Surrogate Financial Ratios 

Comment 4: Wage Rate Calculation 

Comment 5: Treatment of Sales with 

Negative Margins (‘‘Zeroing’’) 

Comment 6: Separate Rate (‘‘SR’’) Calculation 

Methodology 

Comment 7: Separate-Rate Status for 

Additional Trade Names 

Comment 8: Minh Phu Group’s ImporterSpecific Assessment Clerical Error 

[FR Doc. E8–20927 Filed 9–8–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–888] 

Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing 

Tables and Certain Parts Thereof From 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to requests from 

interested parties, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is 

conducting an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on floorstanding, metal-top ironing tables and 

certain parts thereof from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). The period 

of review (‘‘POR’’) is August 1, 2006, 

through July 31, 2007. We have 

preliminarily determined that Since 

Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. (‘‘Since 

Hardware’’), has made sales to the 

United States of the subject 

merchandise at prices below normal 

value and that Forever Holdings Limited 

(‘‘Forever Holdings’’) has not sold 

merchandise to the United States at 

prices below normal value. We invite 

interested parties to comment on these 

preliminary results. Parties filing 

comments are requested to submit with 

each argument (1) a statement of the 

issue and (2) a brief summary of the 

argument(s). 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 9, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael J. Heaney or Robert James, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4475 or (202) 482–

0649, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On August 6, 2004, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order regarding floorstanding, metal-top ironing tables and 

certain parts thereof (‘‘ironing tables’’) 

from the PRC. See Notice of Amended 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty 

Order: Floor-Standing, Metal-Top 

Ironing Tables and Certain Parts 

Thereof From the People’s Republic of 

China, 69 FR 47868 (August 6, 2004) 

(Ironing Tables Order). 

On August 2, 2007, the Department 

published a notice of opportunity to 

request an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order of ironing 

tables from the People’s Republic of 

China. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Review, 72 

FR 42383 (August 2, 2007). On August 

30, 2007, Home Products International 

(the Petitioner in this proceeding) 

requested, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(b)(2), that the Department 

conduct a administrative review of this 

order for Since Hardware. On August 

31, 2007, Since Hardware and Forever 

Holdings requested administrative 

reviews of their sales under the 

antidumping duty order. On September 

25, 2007, the Department initiated an 

administrative review of Since 

Hardware and Forever Holdings. See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Requests for Revocation in 

Part, 72 FR 54428 (September 25, 2007). 

On April 21, 2008, in accordance with 

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

1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), and 19 

CFR 351.213(h)(2), the Department 

extended the deadline for the 

preliminary results of review until 

September 2, 2008. See Floor-Standing, 

Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Parts 

Thereof from the People’s Republic of 

China: Extension of the Time Limit for 

the Preliminary Results of the 2006/ 

2007 Administrative Review, 73 FR 

21317 (April 21, 2008). 

On March 3, 2008, we invited 

interested parties to comment on the 

Department’s surrogate country 

selection and to submit publicly 

available information to value the 

factors of production. On April 24, 

2008, we extended the period for filing 

surrogate value and factor of production 

comments in this review until June 6, 

2008. On June 6, 2008, Since Hardware, 

Forever Holdings, and the Petitioner 

each submitted comments concerning 

surrogate values and factors of 

production. 

The Department received timely filed 

original and supplemental questionnaire 

responses from both Since Hardware 

and Forever Holdings. 

Scope of the Order 

For purposes of this order, the 

product covered consists of floorstanding, metal-top ironing tables, 

assembled or unassembled, complete or 

incomplete, and certain parts thereof. 

The subject tables are designed and 

used principally for the hand ironing or 

pressing of garments or other articles of 

fabric. The subject tables have fullheight leg assemblies that support the 

ironing surface at an appropriate (often 

adjustable) height above the floor. The 

subject tables are produced in a variety 

of leg finishes, such as painted, plated, 

or matte, and they are available with 

various features, including iron rests, 

linen racks, and others. The subject 

ironing tables may be sold with or 

without a pad and/or cover. All types 

and configurations of floor-standing, 

metal-top ironing tables are covered by 

this review. 

Furthermore, this order specifically 

covers imports of ironing tables, 

assembled or unassembled, complete or 

incomplete, and certain parts thereof. 

For purposes of this order, the term 

‘‘unassembled’’ ironing table means a 

product requiring the attachment of the 

leg assembly to the top or the 

attachment of an included feature such 

as an iron rest or linen rack. The term 

‘‘complete’’ ironing table means product 

sold as a ready-to-use ensemble 

consisting of the metal-top table and a 

pad and cover, with or without 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
52278 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Notices 

additional features, e.g., iron rest or 

linen rack. The term ‘‘incomplete’’

ironing table means product shipped or 

sold as a ‘‘bare board’’ i.e., a metal-top 

table only, without the pad and cover 

with or without additional features, e.g., 

iron rest or linen rack. The major parts 

or components of ironing tables that are 

intended to be covered by this order 

under the term ‘‘certain parts thereof’’

consist of the metal top component 

(with or without assembled supports 

and slides) and/or the leg components, 

whether or not attached together as a leg 

assembly. The order covers separately 

shipped metal top components and leg 

components, without regard to whether 

the respective quantities would yield an 

exact quantity of assembled ironing 

tables. 

Ironing tables without legs (such as 

models that mount on walls or over 

doors) are not floor-standing and are 

specifically excluded. Additionally, 

tabletop or countertop models with 

short legs that do not exceed 12 inches 

in length (and which may or may not 

collapse or retract) are specifically 

excluded. 

The subject ironing tables were 

previously classified under Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) subheading 9403.20.0010. 

Effective July 1, 2003, the subject 

ironing tables are classified under new 

HTSUS subheading 9403.20.0011. The 

subject metal top and leg components 

are classified under HTSUS subheading 

9403.90.8040. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and for Customs and 

Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) purposes, the 

Department’s written description of the 

scope remains dispositive. 

Non-Market-Economy Status 

Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of 

the Act, any determination that a foreign 

country is a Non-Market Economy 

(‘‘NME’’) shall remain in effect until 

revoked by the administering authority. 

In every case conducted by the 

Department involving the PRC, the PRC 

has been treated as an NME. See, e.g., 

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results 2001–2002 

Administrative Review and Partial 

Rescission of Review, 68 FR 7500, 7500–

01 (February 14, 2003), unchanged in 

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from 

the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of 2001–2002 Administrative 

Review and Partial Rescission of 

Review, 68 FR 70488 (December 18, 

2003). None of the parties to these 

reviews has contested such treatment. 

Accordingly, we calculated normal 

value (‘‘NV’’) in accordance with section 

773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME 

countries. 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving NME 

countries, the Department begins with a 

rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within the country are 

subject to government control and, thus, 

should be assigned a single 

antidumping duty rate unless an 

exporter can affirmatively demonstrate 

an absence of government control, both 

in law (‘‘de jure’’) and in fact (‘‘de 

facto’’), with respect to its export 

activities. See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Sparklers from the People’s 

Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 at 

Comment 1 (May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’). 

In this review, Since Hardware and 

Forever Holdings submitted information 

in support of their respective claims for 

a company-specific rate. 

Accordingly, we have considered 

whether Since Hardware and Forever 

Holdings are independent from 

government control, and therefore 

eligible for a separate rate. The 

Department’s separate-rate test to 

determine whether the exporters are 

independent from government control 

does not consider, in general, 

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, 

e.g., Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain 

Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from 

Ukraine, 62 FR 61754, 61758 (November 

19, 1997), see also 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 

Sparklers, further discussed in Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from 

the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 

22585, 22586–87 (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 government control over 

export activities. See Sparklers, 56 FR 

20588 at Comment 1, and Silicon 

Carbide, 56 FR at 22586. 

Since Hardware and Forever Holdings 

provided complete separate-rate 

information in their respective 

responses to our original and 

supplemental questionnaires. 

Accordingly, we performed a separaterates analysis to determine whether both 

Since Hardware and Forever Holdings 

are independent from government 

control. 

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 20588 at Comment 1. 

As discussed below, our analysis shows 

that the evidence on the record supports 

a preliminary finding of an absence of 

de jure government control for both 

Since Hardware and Forever Holdings 

based on each of these factors. 

Since Hardware and Forever Holdings 

have placed on the record a number of 

documents to demonstrate absence of de 

jure control, including documentation 

substantiating their claims that both are 

wholly foreign-owned enterprises 

registered in China. This documentation 

includes the ‘‘Foreign Trade Law of the 

People’s Republic of China’’ (May 12, 

1994) (‘‘Foreign Trade Law’’), and 

‘‘Administrative Regulations of the 

People’s Republic of China Governing 

the Registration of Legal Corporations’’

(June 3, 1988) (‘‘Legal Corporations 

Regulations’’). See Since Hardware’s 

Section A questionnaire response dated 

October 25, 2007 (‘‘Since Hardware 

Section A’’) at Exhibits A–2 and A–5; 

see also Forever Holdings October 25, 

2007 questionnaire response (‘‘Forever 

Holdings Section A’’) at Exhibits A–2 

and A–5. Both Since Hardware and 

Forever Holdings also submitted copies 

of their respective business licenses. 

Since Hardware’s business license was 

issued by the Guangzhou Municipal 

Industrial and Commercial 

Administration. See Since Hardware 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Notices 52279 

Section A at Exhibit A–4. Forever 

Holdings business license was issued by 

the Foshun City Shunde District and 

Industrial and Commercial 

Administration Bureau. See Forever 

Holdings Section A at Exhibits 3 and 4. 

Since Hardware and Forever Holdings 

both indicated their respective business 

licenses require that they maintain 

sufficient capital and operating capacity 

to engage in normal business operations 

and that only the company to which the 

business license was issued may use the 

business license. See Since Hardware 

Section A at 4, and Forever Holdings 

Section A at 7. Also, Since Hardware 

and Forever Holdings both affirmed 

there are no limitations imposed on 

company operations by the business 

license. See Since Hardware Section A 

at 5, and Forever Holdings Section A at 

8. The business licenses of both Since 

Hardware and Forever Holdings may be 

revoked only if a situation arises where, 

consistent with Article 30 of the Legal 

Corporations Regulations, Since 

Hardware or Forever Holdings engage in 

prohibited activities or possess 

insufficient business capital. Further, 

both Since Hardware and Forever 

Holdings stated that to obtain a renewal 

of their respective business licenses, 

they each must submit balance sheets 

and profit and loss (‘‘P&L’’) statements 

to the issuing authority. Id. 

Forever Holdings has placed on the 

record the Foreign Trade Law. See 

Forever Holdings Section A at Exhibit 2. 

Both Since Hardware and Forever 

Holdings contend that this law allows 

them full autonomy from the central 

authority in governing their business 

operations. See Since Hardware Section 

A at 3, and Forever Holdings Section A 

at 4–6. We have reviewed Article 11 of 

Chapter II of the Foreign Trade Law, 

which states, ‘‘foreign trade dealers 

shall enjoy full autonomy in their 

business operation and be responsible 

for their own profits and losses in 

accordance with the law.’’ As in prior 

cases, we have analyzed such PRC laws 

and found they establish an absence of 

de jure control. See, e.g., Preliminary 

Results of New Shipper Review: Certain 

Preserved Mushrooms From the People’s 

Republic of China, 66 FR 30695, 30696 

(June 7, 2001), unchanged in Final 

Results of New Shipper Review: Certain 

Preserved Mushrooms From the People’s 

Republic of China, 66 FR 45006 (August 

27, 2001). Therefore, we preliminarily 

determine that there is an absence of de 

jure control over the export activities of 

both Since Hardware and Forever 

Holdings. 

Absence of De Facto Control 

As stated in previous cases, there is 

some evidence that certain enactments 

of the PRC central government have not 

been implemented uniformly among 

different sectors and/or jurisdictions in 

the PRC. See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. 

Therefore, 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 government control which 

would preclude the Department from 

assigning separate rates. See id. 

Typically, the Department considers 

four factors in evaluating whether a 

respondent is subject to de facto 

government control of its export 

functions: (1) whether the export prices 

are set by, or subject to, the approval of 

a government authority; (2) whether the 

respondent has authority to negotiate 

and sign contracts and other 

agreements; (3) whether the respondent 

has autonomy from the government in 

making decisions regarding the 

selection of its 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 id. 

Since Hardware and Forever Holdings 

have asserted the following: (1) they are 

both wholly foreign-owned companies; 

(2) there is no government participation 

in the setting of export prices; (3) 

company management has the authority 

to enter into sales contracts; (4) the 

companies’ owner appoints the 

company’s management and do not 

have to notify government authorities of 

their management selections; (5) there 

are no restrictions on the use of the 

companies’ export revenue; and (6) the 

companies’ board of directors decide 

how profits will be used. See Since 

Hardware Section A at 3–9, and Forever 

Holdings Section A at 3–11. We have 

examined the documentation provided 

by Since Hardware and Forever 

Holdings and note no discrepancies 

between the information on the record 

and the two companies’ statements on 

the record with respect to de facto 

control over its export activities. 

Consequently, because evidence on 

the record indicates an absence of 

government control, both in law and in 

fact, over the export activities of both 

Since Hardware and Forever Holdings, 

we preliminarily determine that both 

Since Hardware and Forever Holdings 

have met the criteria for the application 

of a separate rate. 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether respondents’

sales of the subject merchandise to the 

United States were made at prices below 

normal value, we compared their United 

States prices to normal values, as 

described in the ‘‘U.S. Price’’ and 

‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice. 

See section 773(a) of the Act. 

U.S. Price 

Export Price 

We based U.S. price for both Since 

Hardware and Forever Holdings on 

export price (‘‘EP’’) in accordance with 

section 772(a) of the Act, because the 

first sale to an unaffiliated purchaser 

was made prior to importation, and 

constructed export price (‘‘CEP’’) was 

not otherwise warranted by the facts on 

the record. We calculated EP based on 

the packed price from the exporter to 

the first unaffiliated customer in the 

United States. We deducted foreign 

inland freight, and foreign brokerage 

and handling expenses from the starting 

price (gross unit price), in accordance 

with section 772(c) of the Act. Also, for 

Since Hardware we added billing 

adjustments to the gross unit price, 

where applicable. 

Both Since Hardware and Forever 

Holdings incurred foreign inland freight 

and foreign brokerage and handling 

expenses from PRC service providers. 

We therefore valued these services using 

Indian surrogate values (see ‘‘Factors of 

Production’’ section below for further 

discussion). 

Normal Value 

Surrogate Country 

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

Department to base NV on the NME 

producer’s factors of production valued 

in a surrogate market economy country 

or countries if available information 

does not permit the calculation of NV 

pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act. In 

this instance such information is not 

available. Therefore, section 773(c)(4) of 

the Act requires the Department to value 

an NME producer’s factors of 

production based on the prices or costs 

of the factors of production, in one or 

more market-economy countries that to 

the extent possible are: (1) at a level of 

economic development comparable to 

that of the NME country; and (2) 

significant producers of comparable 

merchandise. India is among the 

countries comparable to the PRC in 

terms of overall economic development, 

as identified in the Memorandum from 

Carole Showers, Acting Director Office 

of Policy, to Scot Fullerton, Program 

Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
52280 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Notices 

dated February 28, 2008. See 

Memorandum to the File from Michael 

J. Heaney regarding Selection of a 

Surrogate Country in the Third 

Administrative Review of FloorStanding, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and 

Parts Thereof from the People’s 

Republic of China, dated September 2, 

2008 (‘‘Surrogate Country 

Memorandum’’). In addition, based on 

information from the investigation of 

ironing tables, India is a significant 

producer of comparable merchandise. 

See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping 

Investigation: Floor-Standing, MetalTop Ironing Tables and Certain Parts 

Thereof from the People’s Republic of 

China, 68 FR 44040, 44042 (July 25, 

2003), unchanged in Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Floor-Standing, Metal-Top 

Ironing Tables and Certain Parts 

Thereof From the People’s Republic of 

China, 69 FR 35296, 35297 (June 24, 

2004). 

Accordingly, we selected India as the 

surrogate country for purposes of 

valuing the factors of production 

because it satisfies the Department’s 

criteria for surrogate-country selection. 

See Surrogate Country Memorandum. 

Market Economy Purchases 

Since Hardware purchased certain 

inputs used in the production of the 

subject merchandise from market 

economy (‘‘ME’’) suppliers and paid for 

these inputs in ME currencies. We used 

the weight-averaged ME prices paid by 

Since Hardware when the inputs were 

obtained from a ME supplier, paid for in 

a ME currency, and were a significant 

portion of the total purchases of that 

input. See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1). 

Section IV of the Department’s 

standard Section D questionnaire 

requires respondents to report for each 

raw material the percentage purchased 

from an ME country and the percentage 

purchased from an NME. In its 

responses to the Department, Since 

Hardware reported the percentages of 

each raw material purchased from ME 

countries and paid for in a ME currency. 

For each of the ME inputs purchased by 

Since Hardware during the POR, the 

Department found that the percentage 

purchased from ME suppliers 

constituted more than a third of the 

input utilized in production of the 

merchandise. Thus, consistent with the 

policy set forth in Antidumping 

Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, 

Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, 

Duty Drawback; and Request for 

Comment, 71 FR 61716, 61718 (October 

19, 2006) (‘‘Antidumping 

Methodologies’’), we used those ME 

purchases in our calculations. Due to 

the proprietary nature of Since 

Hardware’s ME purchases and 

quantities, we are not able to discuss the 

details of these purchases here. For a 

complete discussion, see Memorandum 

from Michael J. Heaney regarding Since 

Hardware Analysis (‘‘Since Hardware 

Analysis Memorandum’’) dated 

September 2, 2008. As a result, the 

Department found that Since 

Hardware’s ME purchases of cold rolled 

steel, hot rolled steel, steel wire rod, 

powder coating, cotton fabric, springs, 

bolts, center nail and nail heads, rivets, 

cartons, corrugated paper and labels 

were a meaningful portion of total 

purchases of that input. See 

Antidumping Methodologies, 71 FR at 

61718. Therefore, in accordance with 

section 351.408(c)(1) of the 

Department’s regulations, we have 

preliminarily valued these inputs using 

the actual ME prices paid. 

Factors of Production 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, we calculated NV based on the 

factors of production which included, 

but were not limited to: (A) hours of 

labor required; (B) quantities of raw 

materials employed; (C) amounts of 

energy and other utilities consumed; 

and (D) representative capital costs, 

including depreciation. We used the 

factors of production reported by the 

producers for materials, energy, labor, 

and packing. To calculate NV, we 

multiplied the reported unit factor 

quantities by publicly available values 

in the surrogate country, India. 

Since Hardware and Forever Holdings 

both reported by-product sales. With 

respect to the application of the byproduct offset to normal value, 

consistent with the Department’s 

determination in the investigation of 

Diamond Sawblades from the PRC, we 

will deduct the surrogate value from 

normal value because the surrogate 

financial statements on the record of 

this administrative review contain no 

references to the treatment of byproducts and because Since Hardware 

and Forever Holdings reported that they 

sold their by-products. See 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) (‘‘Diamond Sawblades from 

the PRC’’), and accompanying Issues 

and Decision Memorandum at Comment 

9, unchanged in Notice of Amended 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Diamond Sawblades 

and Parts Thereof from the People’s 

Republic of China, 71 FR 35864 (June 

22, 2006). This is consistent with 

accounting principles based on a 

reasonable assumption that if a 

company sells a by-product, the byproduct necessarily incurs expenses for 

overhead, SG&A, and profit. Id. 

In selecting the surrogate Indian 

values, we considered the quality, 

specificity, and contemporaneity of the 

data, in accordance with our practice. 

See, e.g., Fresh Garlic From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 

67 FR 72139 (December 4, 2002), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum (‘‘Garlic Decision 

Memorandum’’) at Comment 6; see also 

Final Results of First New Shipper 

Review and First Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Certain 

Preserved Mushrooms From the People’s 

Republic of China, 66 FR 31204 (June 

11, 2001), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 5. 

When we used publicly available import 

data from the Ministry of Commerce of 

India (‘‘Indian Import Statistics’’) for the 

POR to value inputs sourced 

domestically from PRC suppliers, we 

added to the Indian surrogate values a 

surrogate freight cost calculated using 

the shorter of the reported distance from 

the domestic supplier to the factory or 

the distance from the closest seaport to 

the factory. This adjustment is in 

accordance with the Federal Circuit’s 

decision in Sigma Corp. v. United 

States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1408 (Fed. Cir. 

1997). When we used non-import 

surrogate values for factors sourced 

domestically by PRC suppliers, we 

based freight for inputs on the actual 

distance from the input supplier to the 

site at which the input was used. In 

addition, in instances where we relied 

on Indian import data to value inputs, 

in accordance with the Department’s 

practice, we excluded imports from both 

NME countries and countries deemed to 

maintain broadly available, nonindustry-specific subsidies which may 

benefit all exporters to all export 

markets (i.e., Indonesia, South Korea, 

and Thailand) from our surrogate value 

calculations. See, e.g., Tapered Roller 

Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished 

and Unfinished, From the People’s 

Republic of China; Final Results of 

1999–2000 Administrative Review, 

Partial Rescission of Review, and 

Determination Not to Revoke Order in 

Part, 66 FR 57420 (November 15, 2001) 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 1; see also 

Factors of Production Valuation 

Memorandum for the Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of FloorVerDate Aug<31>2005 17:08 Sep 08, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM 09SEN1

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Notices 52281 

Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and 

Certain Parts Thereof from the People’s 

Republic of China, dated September 2, 

2008 (‘‘Factor Valuation 

Memorandum’’) (for a complete 

discussion of the import data that we 

excluded from our calculation of 

surrogate values). 

Where we could not obtain publicly 

available information contemporaneous 

with the POR to value factors, we 

adjusted the surrogate values using the 

Indian Wholesale Price Index (‘‘WPI’’) 

as published in the International 

Financial Statistics of the International 

Monetary Fund, for those surrogate 

values in Indian rupees. We made 

currency conversions, where necessary, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.415, to U.S. 

dollars using the daily exchange rate 

corresponding to the reported date of 

each sale. We relied on the daily 

exchange rates posted on the Import 

Administration website (http:// 

www.trade.gov/ia/). 

We valued the factors of production 

as follows: 

The Department used the Indian 

Import Statistics to value the raw 

material and packing material inputs 

Since Hardware and Forever Holdings 

used to produce the merchandise under 

review during the POR, except where 

noted below. Detailed descriptions of all 

surrogate values are discussed in the 

Factor Valuation Memorandum. 

To value water, we calculated the 

average rate of inside and outside 

industrial water rates from various 

regions as reported by the Maharashtra 

Industrial Development Corporation, 

http://midcindia.org, dated June 1, 

2003. We inflated the value for water 

using the POR average WPI rate. See 

Factor Valuation Memorandum. 

We valued electricity using the 2000 

electricity price in India reported by the 

International Energy Agency statistics 

for Energy Prices & Taxes, Second 

Quarter 2003. We inflated the value for 

electricity using the POR average WPI 

rate. See Factor Valuation 

Memorandum. 

We valued diesel using the rates 

provided by the OECD’s International 

Energy Agency’s publication: Key World 

Energy Statistics from 2004 and 2005. 

The prices are based on 2004 and 2005 

first quarter prices of automotive diesel 

fuel retail prices. See Factor Valuation 

Memorandum. 

With respect to valuation of factory 

overhead, selling, general and 

administrative expenses, and profit, in 

the Final Results of the 2004–2005 

Administrative Review of this Order, 

the Department relied on the 2005–2006 

Infiniti Modules Pvt. Ltd. (‘‘Infiniti 

Modules’’) financial statements, because 

it provides the most contemporaneous 

and publicly available information. See 

Floor Standing, Metal-Top Ironing 

Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from 

the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results and Final Recisssion, In Part, of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 72 FR 13239, 

(March 21, 2007) and Accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 1 (‘‘AR 1 Final Results’’). 

Petitioner placed on the record Infiniti 

Modules 2005–2006 financial 

statements in its July 14, 2008 

submission at Exhibit 1. Petitioner 

included in its July 14, 2008 submission 

the profit and loss statement for Infiniti 

Modules for the 2005–2006 financial 

period. 

In valuing factors of production, 

section 773(c)(1) of the Act instructs the 

Department to use ‘‘the best available 

information’’ from the appropriate 

market economy country. As discussed 

above, in choosing the most appropriate 

surrogate value, the Department 

considers several factors, including the 

quality, specificity, and 

contemporaneity of the source 

information. See, e.g., Garlic Decision 

Memorandum, at Comment 6. For these 

preliminary results, the Department has 

determined that the 2005–2006 Infiniti 

Modules financial statements are 

complete, publicly available, and reflect 

merchandise comparable to ironing 

tables. We note the 2005–2006 Infiniti 

Modules financial statements were 

obtained from the Indian Registrar of 

Companies, and are publicly available. 

See Petitioner’s July 14, 2008 surrogate 

value submission. With respect to 

quality, we note the 2005–2006 Infiniti 

Modules financial statements are 

complete, audited financial statements 

with all auditors notes and schedules, as 

well a complete balance sheet and P&L. 

Regarding specificity, we preliminarily 

find, consistent with our determination 

in the 2004–2005 review of this 

proceeding, that Infiniti Modules 

manufactures merchandise that closely 

reflects merchandise comparable to 

ironing tables. (See AR1 Final Results.) 

Therefore, we preliminarily find that the 

2005–2006 Infinity Modules financial 

statements are publicly available, 

quality data specific to the merchandise 

under review. 

Thus, the Department preliminarily 

finds, consistent with section 773(c)(1) 

of the Act and the AR1 Final Results, 

that the 2005–2006 Infiniti Modules 

financial statements are the best 

information available on the record of 

this review, from which to value the 

surrogate financial ratios of factory 

overhead, selling, general & 

administrative expenses, and profit. See 

Factor Valuation Memorandum for 

details concerning the calculation of 

these ratios. 

Because of the variability of wage 

rates in countries with similar levels of 

per capita gross domestic product, 19 

CFR 351.408(c)(3) requires the use of a 

regression-based wage rate. Therefore, to 

value the labor input, we used the PRC’s 

regression-based wage rate published by 

Import Administration on its website, 

http://www.trade.gov/ia/. See Factor 

Valuation Memorandum. 

To value truck freight, we calculated 

a weighted-average freight cost based on 

publicly available data from 

www.infreight.com, an Indian inland 

freight logistics resource website. See 

Factor Valuation Memorandum. 

To value brokerage and handling, the 

Department used a simple average of the 

publicly summarized version of the 

average value for brokerage and 

handling expenses reported in the U.S. 

sales listings in the submission from 

Essar Steel Ltd. (‘‘Essar Steel’’), dated 

February 28, 2005, in the antidumping 

duty review of Certain Hot-Rolled 

Carbon Steel Flat Products from India; 

the submission from Agro Dutch 

Industries Limited (‘‘Agro Dutch’’), 

dated May 24, 2005, at Exhibit B-1, in 

the antidumping duty administrative 

review of Certain Preserved Mushrooms 

from India; and the submission from 

Kejriwal Paper Ltd. (‘‘Kejriwal’’), dated 

January 9, 2006, in the antidumping 

duty review of Lined Paper from India. 

(The information used to derive 

brokerage and handling surrogate values 

from Essar Steel’s February 28, 2005 

U.S. sales listing, Exhibit B–1 of Agro 

Dutch’s May 24, 2005 submission, and 

Kejriwal’s January 9, 2006 submission is 

on the record of this proceeding. See 

Factors Valuation Memorandum at 

Attachment 3.) Use of these averages is 

consistent with the Department’s 

normal practice to calculate brokerage 

and handling expenses. The 

Department’s preference is to average 

these data sources because they 

represent values for numerous 

transactions that are available for a 

range of products and minimize the 

potential distortions that might arise 

from a single price source. One value, 

taken in isolation, could differ 

significantly when compared across a 

range of products, values, and special 

circumstances of a single transaction. 

See 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), 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
52282 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 9, 2008 / Notices 

memo at Comment 5. See also Factor 

Valuation Memorandum. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results of 

this administrative review, interested 

parties may submit publicly available 

information to value the factors of 

production until 20 days following the 

date of publication of these preliminary 

results. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

We preliminarily determine that the 

following antidumping duty margins 

exist: 

Exporter Margin (percent) 

Forever Holdings .......... 0% 

Since Hardware 

(Guangzhou) Co., 

Ltd. ............................ 1.53 % 

For details on the calculation of the 

antidumping duty weighted-average 

margin for Since Hardware and Forever 

Holdings, see the respective Since 

Hardware Analysis Memorandum and 

the Forever Holdings Analysis 

Memorandum. Public versions of these 

memoranda are on file in the 

Department’s Central Records Unit, 

Room 1117 of the main commerce 

building (‘‘CRU’’). 

Assessment Rates 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. The Department 

will issue appropriate assessment 

instructions directly to CBP 15 days 

after the date of publication of the final 

results of this review. For assessment 

purposes, where possible, we calculated 

importer-specific ad valorem 

assessment rates for ironing tables from 

the PRC based on the ratio of the total 

amount of the dumping duties 

calculated for the examined sales to the 

total entered value of those same sales. 

We will instruct CBP to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries covered by this review if any 

assessment rate calculated in the final 

results of this review is above de 

minimis. The final results of this review 

shall be the basis for the assessment of 

antidumping duties on entries of 

merchandise covered by the final results 

of these reviews and for future deposits 

of estimated duties, where applicable. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

administrative review for all shipments 

of the subject merchandise entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date, as provided for by section 

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

exporters listed above, the cash deposit 

rate will be established in the final 

results of this review (except, if the rate 

is zero or de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 

percent, no cash deposit will be 

required for that company); (2) for 

previously investigated or reviewed PRC 

and non-PRC exporters not listed above 

that have separate rates, the cash 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

exporter-specific rate published for the 

most recent period; (3) for all PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise which 

have not been found to be entitled to a 

separate rate, the cash deposit rate will 

be the PRC-wide rate of 157.68 percent 

(see Ironing Tables Order); and (4) for 

all non-PRC exporters of subject 

merchandise which have not received 

their own rate, the cash deposit rate will 

be the rate applicable to the PRC 

exporters that supplied that non-PRC 

exporter. These deposit requirements, 

when imposed, shall remain in effect 

until publication of the final results of 

the next administrative review. 

Schedule for Final Results of Review 

The Department will disclose 

calculations performed in connection 

with the preliminary results of this 

review within five days of the date of 

publication of this notice in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested 

party may request a hearing within 30 

days of publication of this notice in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

Any hearing will be held 37 days after 

the publication of this notice, or the first 

workday thereafter unless the 

Department alters the date pursuant to 

19 CFR 351.310(d). Individuals who 

wish to request a hearing must submit 

a written request within 30 days of the 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Room 1870, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230. Requests for a 

public hearing should contain: (1) the 

party’s name, address, and telephone 

number; (2) the number of participants; 

and (3) to the extent practicable, an 

identification of the arguments to be 

raised at the hearing. 

Unless otherwise notified by the 

Department, interested parties may 

submit case briefs within 30 days of the 

date of publication of this notice in 

accordance with 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(1)(ii). As part of the case 

brief, parties are encouraged to provide 

a summary of the arguments not to 

exceed five pages and a table of statutes, 

regulations, and cases cited in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2). 

Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited 

to issues raised in the case briefs, must 

be filed within five days after the case 

brief is filed in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.309(d). If a hearing is held, an 

interested party may make an 

affirmative presentation only on 

arguments included in that party’s case 

brief and may make a rebuttal 

presentation only on arguments 

included in that party’s rebuttal brief in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

Parties should confirm by telephone the 

time, date, and place of the hearing 

within 48 hours before the scheduled 

time. The Department will issue the 

final results of this review, which will 

include the results of its analysis of 

issues raised in the briefs, not later than 

120 days after the date of publication of 

this notice in accordance with section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.213(h)(1). 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding 

the reimbursement of antidumping 

duties prior to liquidation of the 

relevant entries during these review 

periods. Failure to comply with this 

requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

These preliminary results of 

administrative review are issued and 

this notice is published in accordance 

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

the Act. 

Dated: September 2, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–20921 Filed 9–8–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–886] 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to requests from 

interested parties, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) is 

conducting an administrative review of 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES