32118 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Notices 

1See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 

Request for Revocation in Part, and Deferral of 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 44220 (July 30, 2008). 

2See Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 55813 (September 26, 2008). 

of science to operations and information 

services. SAB activities and advice 

provide necessary input to ensure that 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) science 

programs are of the highest quality and 

provide optimal support to resource 

management. 

Time and Date: The meeting will be 

held Wednesday, July 22, 2009 from 

10:15 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. and Thursday, 

July 23, 2009, from 8 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. 

These times and the agenda topics 

described below are subject to change. 

Please refer to the web page http:// 

www.sab.noaa.gov/Meetings/ 

meetings.html for the most up-to-date 

meeting agenda. 

Place: The meeting will be held both 

days at the Aquarium of the Pacific, 100 

Aquarium Way, Long Beach, California 

90802. Please check the SAB Web site 

http://www.sab.noaa.gov for 

confirmation of the venue and for 

directions. 

Status: The meeting will be open to 

public participation with a 30-minute 

public comment period on July 22 at 3 

p.m. (check Web site to confirm time). 

The SAB expects that public statements 

presented at its meetings will not be 

repetitive of previously submitted 

verbal or written statements. In general, 

each individual or group making a 

verbal presentation will be limited to a 

total time of five (5) minutes. Written 

comments should be received in the 

SAB Executive Director’s Office by July 

16, 2009 to provide sufficient time for 

SAB review. Written comments received 

by the SAB Executive Director after July 

16, 2009, will be distributed to the SAB, 

but may not be reviewed prior to the 

meeting date. Seats will be available on 

a first-come, first-served basis. 

Matters to be Considered: The 

meeting will include the following 

topics: (1) NOAA Next Generation 

Strategic Plan for SAB comments; (2) 

National Weather Service Strategic Plan; 

(3) Marine Transportation in the U.S.; 

(4) NOAA’s Marine Transportation 

Programs, Commerce and 

Transportation Goal; (5) Panel 

Discussion on NOAA’s Transportation 

Services; and (6) Updates from the 

Ocean Exploration, Oceans and Health, 

and Ecosystem Sciences and 

Management Working Groups. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Cynthia Decker, Executive Director, 

Science Advisory Board, NOAA, Rm. 

11230, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver 

Spring, Maryland 20910. (Phone: 301– 

734–1156, Fax: 301–713–1459, E-mail: 

Cynthia.Decker@noaa.gov); or visit the 

NOAA SAB Web site at http:// 

www.sab.noaa.gov. 

Dated: June 29, 2009. 

Mark E. Brown, 

Chief Financial Officer, Office of Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–15851 Filed 7–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–KD–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–868] 

Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘the Department’’) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on folding 

metal tables and chairs (‘‘FMTCs’’) from 

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

covering the period June 1, 2007, 

through May 31, 2008, and one 

respondent. We have preliminarily 

determined that New–Tec Integration 

(Xiamen) Co., Ltd. (‘‘New–Tec’’), did not 

make sales in the United States at prices 

below normal value (‘‘NV’’) during the 

period of review (‘‘POR’’). If these 

preliminary results are adopted in our 

final results of this review, we will 

instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to liquidate entries 

of merchandise exported by New–Tec, 

during the POR without regard to 

antidumping duties. 

We invite interested parties to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

We intend to issue the final results no 

later than 120 days from the date of 

publication of this notice, pursuant to 

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

1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). 

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 7, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Giselle Cubillos or Charles Riggle, 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) 482–1778 and 

(202)482–0650, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On June 27, 2002, the Department 

published the antidumping duty order 

on FMTCs from the PRC. See 

Antidumping Duty Order: Folding Metal 

Tables and Chairs From the People’s 

Republic of China, 67 FR 43277 (June 

27, 2002). On June 9, 2008, the 

Department published a notice of 

opportunity to request an administrative 

review of this order. See Antidumping 

or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, 

or Suspended Investigation; 

Opportunity to Request Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 32557 (June 9, 2008). In 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), 

interested parties made the following 

requests for review: (1) on June 23, 

2008, Meco Corporation (‘‘Meco’’), a 

domestic producer of the like product, 

requested that the Department conduct 

administrative reviews of Feili Group 

(Fujian) Co., Ltd., Feili (Fujian) Co., 

Ltd., Feili Furniture Development 

Limited Quanzhou City, and Feili 

Furniture Development Co., Ltd. 

(collectively ‘‘Feili’’), New–Tec 

Integration (Xiamen) Co. Ltd. (‘‘New– 

Tec’’), and Dongguan Shichang Metals 

Factory Co., Ltd. (‘‘Shichang’’), which 

are all producers/exporters of subject 

merchandise; (2) on June 26, 2008, 

Cosco Home & Office Products 

(‘‘Cosco’’), a U.S. importer of subject 

merchandise, requested that the 

Department conduct administrative 

reviews of Feili and New–Tec; and, (3) 

on June 30, 2008, Feili and New–Tec 

requested that the Department conduct 

an administrative review of their 

respective sales. Feili, in addition, 

requested that the Department defer the 

initiation of the review for one year in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(c). 

On July 30, 2008, the Department 

published the initiation of the 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on FMTCs from 

the PRC and granted Feili’s request for 

deferral of the 2007–2008 review.1 No 

parties objected to the deferral of Feili’s 

2007–2008 review. 

On August 11, 2008, Meco withdrew 

its request that the Department conduct 

an administrative review of Shichang. 

On September 26, 2008, the Department 

published the notice of partial 

rescission of antidumping 

administrative review rescinding the 

administrative review of FMTCs with 

respect to Shichang.2

The Department issued an 

antidumping duty questionnaire to 

New–Tec on September 9, 2008. On 

October 7, 2008, New–Tec submitted a 

Section A questionnaire response 

(‘‘AQR’’), and on October 30, 2008, 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Notices 32119 

3See Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of Extension of 

Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 

9385 (March 4, 2009). 

4See Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of Extension of 

Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of the 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 

21332 (May 7, 2009). 

New–Tec submitted Section C and D 

questionnaire responses (‘‘CQR’’ and 

‘‘DQR,’’ respectively). On December 11, 

2008, the Department requested the 

Office of Policy to provide a list of 

surrogate countries for this review. See 

Memorandum to Carole Showers, 

Executive Director, Office of Policy, 

‘‘Certain Folding Metal Tables and 

Chairs from the People’s Republic of 

China: Request for Surrogate Country 

Selection’’ (December 11, 2008). On 

December 22, 2008, the Office of Policy 

issued its list of surrogate countries. See 

Memorandum from Carole Showers, 

Executive Director, Office of Policy, 

‘‘Request for a List of Surrogate 

Countries for an Administrative Review 

of the Antidumping Duty Order on 

Certain Folding Metal Tables and Chairs 

(‘‘FMTC’’) from the People’s Republic of 

China (PRC)’’ (December 22, 2008) 

(‘‘Surrogate Country Memorandum’’). 

On December 22, 2008, the 

Department requested interested parties 

to submit surrogate value information 

and to provide surrogate country 

selection comments. On December 24, 

2008, the Department issued a 

supplemental questionnaire to New– 

Tec. On January 21, 2009, Meco 

provided comments on publicly 

available information to value the 

factors of production (‘‘FOP’’). None of 

the interested parties provided 

comments on the selection of a 

surrogate country. On January 21, 2009, 

New–Tec submitted publicly available 

information to value the financial ratios 

and submitted its supplemental 

questionnaire response. On February 3, 

2009, the Department issued a 

supplemental questionnaire to New– 

Tec. On February 25, 2009, New–Tec 

submitted a supplemental questionnaire 

response. On March 4, 2009, the 

Department published a notice in the 

Federal Register extending the time 

limit for the preliminary results of 

review until no later than May 1, 2009.3

On March 20, 2009, the Department 

issued a supplemental questionnaire to 

New–Tec. On March 30, 2009, Meco 

submitted comments on the 

supplemental questionnaire response 

filed by New–Tec on February 24, 2009. 

On April 3, 2009, New–Tec submitted a 

supplemental questionnaire response. 

On April 23, 2009, the Department 

issued a supplemental questionnaire to 

New–Tec. 

On May 7, 2009 the Department 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register extending the time limit further 

for the preliminary results of review 

until June 30, 2009.4 On May 18, 2009, 

New–Tec submitted a supplemental 

questionnaire response. On May 29, 

2009, Meco provided comments on 

publicly available information to value 

additional FOPs. On June 3, 2009, Meco 

submitted comments on the May 18, 

2009, supplemental questionnaire 

response filed by New–Tec. On June 5, 

2009, the Department issued a 

supplemental questionnaire to New– 

Tec. On June 9, 2009, New–Tec 

submitted a supplemental questionnaire 

response. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

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

an antidumping administrative review, 

interested parties may submit publicly 

available information to value FOPs 

within 20 days after the date of 

publication of these preliminary results 

of review. 

Period of Review 

The POR is June 1, 2007, through May 

31, 2008. 

Scope of Order 

The products covered by this order 

consist of assembled and unassembled 

folding tables and folding chairs made 

primarily or exclusively from steel or 

other metal, as described below: 

1) Assembled and unassembled 

folding tables made primarily or 

exclusively from steel or other metal 

(folding metal tables). Folding metal 

tables include square, round, 

rectangular, and any other shapes with 

legs affixed with rivets, welds, or any 

other type of fastener, and which are 

made most commonly, but not 

exclusively, with a hardboard top 

covered with vinyl or fabric. Folding 

metal tables have legs that mechanically 

fold independently of one another, and 

not as a set. The subject merchandise is 

commonly, but not exclusively, packed 

singly, in multiple packs of the same 

item, or in five piece sets consisting of 

four chairs and one table. Specifically 

excluded from the scope of the order 

regarding folding metal tables are the 

following: 

Lawn furniture; 

Trays commonly referred to as ‘‘TV 

trays;’’ 

Side tables; 

Child–sized tables; 

Portable counter sets consisting of 

rectangular tables 36’’ high and 

matching stools; and, 

Banquet tables. 

A banquet table is a rectangular table 

with a plastic or laminated wood table 

top approximately 28’’ to 36’’ wide by 

48’’ to 96’’ long and with a set of folding 

legs at each end of the table. One set of 

legs is composed of two individual legs 

that are affixed together by one or more 

cross–braces using welds or fastening 

hardware. In contrast, folding metal 

tables have legs that mechanically fold 

independently of one another, and not 

as a set. 

2) Assembled and unassembled 

folding chairs made primarily or 

exclusively from steel or other metal 

(folding metal chairs). Folding metal 

chairs include chairs with one or more 

cross–braces, regardless of shape or size, 

affixed to the front and/or rear legs with 

rivets, welds or any other type of 

fastener. Folding metal chairs include: 

those that are made solely of steel or 

other metal; those that have a back pad, 

a seat pad, or both a back pad and a seat 

pad; and those that have seats or backs 

made of plastic or other materials. The 

subject merchandise is commonly, but 

not exclusively, packed singly, in 

multiple packs of the same item, or in 

five piece sets consisting of four chairs 

and one table. Specifically excluded 

from the scope of the order regarding 

folding metal chairs are the following: 

Folding metal chairs with a wooden 

back or seat, or both; 

Lawn furniture; 

Stools; 

Chairs with arms; and 

Child–sized chairs. 

The subject merchandise is currently 

classifiable under subheadings 

9401.71.0010, 9401.71.0030, 

9401.79.0045, 9401.79.0050, 

9403.20.015, 9403.20.0030, 

9403.70.8010, 9403.70.8020, and 

9403.70.8030 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

Department’s written description of the 

merchandise is dispositive. 

Based on a request by RPA 

International Pty., Ltd. and RPS, LLC 

(collectively, ‘‘RPA’’), the Department 

ruled on January 13, 2003, that RPA’s 

poly–fold metal folding chairs are 

within the scope of the order because 

they are identical in all material 

respects to the merchandise described 

in the petition, the initial investigation, 

and the determinations of the Secretary. 

On May 5, 2003, in response to a 

request by Staples, the Office Superstore 

Inc. (‘‘Staples’’), the Department issued 

a scope ruling that the chair component 

of Staples’ ‘‘Complete Office–To-Go,’’ a 

folding chair with a tubular steel frame 

and a seat and back of plastic, with 

32120 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Notices 

measurements of: height: 32.5 inches; 

width: 18.5 inches; and depth: 21.5 

inches, is covered by the scope of the 

order because it is identical in all 

material respects to the scope 

description in the order, but that the 

table component, with measurements of: 

width (table top): 43 inches; depth (table 

top): 27.375 inches; and height: 34.875 

inches, has legs that fold as a unit and 

meets the requirements for an 

exemption from the scope of the order. 

On September 7, 2004, the 

Department found that table styles 4600 

and 4606 produced by Lifetime Plastic 

Products Ltd. are within the scope of the 

order because these products have all of 

the components that constitute a folding 

metal table as described in the scope. 

On July 13, 2005, the Department 

issued a scope ruling determining that 

‘‘butterfly’’ chairs are not within the 

scope of the antidumping duty order 

because they do not meet the physical 

description of merchandise covered by 

the scope of the order as they do not 

have cross braces affixed to the front 

and/or rear legs, and the seat and back 

is one piece of cloth that is not affixed 

to the frame with screws, rivets, welds, 

or any other type of fastener. 

On July 13, 2005, the Department 

issued a scope ruling determining that 

folding metal chairs imported by 

Korhani of America Inc. are within the 

scope of the antidumping duty order 

because the imported chair has a 

wooden seat, which is padded with 

foam and covered with fabric or 

polyvinyl chloride, attached to the 

tubular steel seat frame with screws, 

and has cross braces affixed to its legs. 

On May 1, 2006, the Department 

issued a scope ruling determining that 

‘‘moon chairs’’ are not included within 

the scope of the antidumping duty order 

because moon chairs have different 

physical characteristics, different uses, 

and are advertised differently than 

chairs covered by the scope of the order. 

On October 4, 2007, the Department 

issued a scope ruling determining that 

International E–Z Up Inc.’s (‘‘E–Z Up’’) 

Instant Work Bench is not included 

within the scope of the antidumping 

duty order because its legs and weight 

do not match the description of the 

folding metal tables in the scope of the 

order. 

On April 18, 2008, the Department 

issued a scope ruling determining that 

the VIKA Twofold 2–in–1 Workbench/ 

Scaffold (‘‘Twofold Workbench/ 

Scaffold’’) imported by Ignite USA, LLC 

from the PRC is not included within the 

scope of the antidumping duty order 

because its rotating leg mechanism 

differs from the folding metal tables 

subject to the order, and its weight is 

twice as much as the expected 

maximum weight for folding metal 

tables within the scope of the order. 

On May 6, 2009, the Department 

issued a final determination of 

circumvention, determining that 

imports from the PRC of folding metal 

tables with legs connected by cross bars, 

so that the legs fold in sets, and 

otherwise meeting the description of in 

scope merchandise, are circumventing 

the order and are properly considered to 

be within the class or kind of 

merchandise subject to the order on 

FMTCs from the PRC. 

On May 22, 2009, the Department 

issued a scope ruling determining that 

folding metal chairs that have legs that 

are not connected with cross–bars are 

within the scope of the antidumping 

duty order on folding metal tables and 

chairs from the PRC. 

Non–Market Economy Country Status 

No party contested the Department’s 

treatment of the PRC as a non–market 

economy (‘‘NME’’) country, and the 

Department has treated the PRC as an 

NME country in all past antidumping 

duty investigations and administrative 

reviews and continues to do so in this 

case. See, e.g., Certain Cased Pencils 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 72 FR 27074, 

27075 (May 14, 2007) (‘‘Pencils’’). No 

interested party in this case has argued 

that we should do otherwise. 

Designation as an NME country remains 

in effect until it is revoked by the 

Department. See section 771(18)(C)(i) of 

the Act. 

Surrogate Country 

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

Department to base NV on the NME 

producer’s FOPs, valued in a surrogate 

market–economy country or countries 

considered to be appropriate by the 

Department. In accordance with section 

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

FOPs, the Department shall use, to the 

extent possible, the prices or costs of the 

FOPs in one or more market–economy 

countries that are: (1) at a level of 

economic development comparable to 

that of the NME country; and (2) 

significant producers of comparable 

merchandise. The sources of the 

surrogate factor values are discussed 

under the ‘‘Normal Value’’ section 

below. See Memorandum to The File, 

‘‘Preliminary Results of the 2007–2008 

Administrative Review of Folding Metal 

Tables and Chairs from the People’s 

Republic of China: Surrogate Value 

Memorandum’’ (June 30, 2009) 

(‘‘Surrogate Value Memorandum’’). 

The Department determined that 

Columbia, India, Indonesia, Peru, the 

Philippines and Thailand are countries 

comparable to the PRC in terms of 

economic development. See Surrogate 

Country Memorandum. Once we have 

identified the countries that are 

economically comparable to the PRC, 

we select an appropriate surrogate 

country by determining whether an 

economically comparable country is a 

significant producer of comparable 

merchandise and whether the data for 

valuing FOPs are both available and 

reliable. 

The Department has determined that 

India is the appropriate surrogate 

country for use in this review. The 

Department based its decision on the 

following facts: (1) India is at a level of 

economic development comparable to 

that of the PRC; (2) India is a significant 

producer of comparable merchandise; 

and (3) India provides the best 

opportunity to use quality, publicly 

available data to value the FOPs. On the 

record of this review, we have usable 

surrogate financial data from India, and 

no party has submitted surrogate 

financial data from any other potential 

surrogate country. Additionally, the 

data submitted by Meco and New–Tec 

for our consideration as potential 

surrogate values are sourced from India. 

Therefore, because India best 

represents the experience of producers 

of comparable merchandise operating in 

a surrogate country, we have selected 

India as the surrogate country and, 

accordingly, have calculated NV using 

Indian prices to value the respondent’s 

FOPs, when available and appropriate. 

See Surrogate Value Memorandum. We 

have obtained and relied upon publicly 

available information wherever 

possible. 

Separate Rates 

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. See, e.g., Pencils, 72 FR at 

27075. It is the Department’s policy to 

assign all exporters of merchandise 

subject to review 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. Id. Exporters can 

demonstrate this independence through 

the absence of both de jure and de facto 

government control over export 

activities. The Department analyzes 

each entity exporting the subject 

merchandise under a test arising from 

the Notice of Final Determination of 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Notices 32121 

5See, e.g., Certain Non-Frozen Apple Juice 

Concentrate from the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Results, Partial Rescission and Termination of 

a Partial Deferral of the 2002-2003 Administrative 

Review, 69 FR 65148, 65150 (November 10, 2004). 

6See 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). 

7See Memorandum to The File, ‘‘Analysis for the 

Preliminary Results of the 2007-2008 

Administrative Review of Folding Metal Tables and 

Chairs from the People’s Republic of China: NewTec Integration (Xiamen) Co. Ltd. (‘‘New-Tec’’)’’ 

(June 30, 2009) (‘‘New-Tec Preliminary Analysis 

Memorandum’’). 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers 

from the People’s Republic of China, 56 

FR 20588, at Comment 1 (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, 22587 (May 2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon 

Carbide’’). However, if the Department 

determines that a company is wholly 

foreign–owned or located in a market 

economy, then a separate–rate analysis 

is not necessary to determine whether it 

is independent from government 

control. 

A. 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. 

New–Tec has placed documents on 

the record to demonstrate the absence of 

de jure control including its list of 

shareholders, business license, and the 

Company Law of the PRC (‘‘Company 

Law’’). Other than limiting New–Tec to 

activities referenced in the business 

license, we found no restrictive 

stipulations associated with the license. 

In addition, in previous cases the 

Department has analyzed the Company 

Law and found that it establishes an 

absence of de jure control, lacking 

record evidence to the contrary.5 We 

have no information in this segment of 

the proceeding that would cause us to 

reconsider this determination. 

Therefore, based on the foregoing, we 

have preliminarily found an absence of 

de jure control for New–Tec. 

B. Absence of De Facto Control 

Typically the Department considers 

four factors in evaluating whether each 

respondent is subject to de facto 

government control of its export 

functions: (1) whether the export prices 

are set by or are subject to the approval 

of a government 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.6 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 that 

would preclude the Department from 

assigning separate rates. 

With regard to de facto control, New– 

Tec reported that: (1) it independently 

set prices for sales to the United States 

through negotiations with customers 

and these prices are not subject to 

review by any government organization; 

(2) it did not coordinate with other 

exporters or producers to set the price 

or to determine to which market the 

companies will sell subject 

merchandise; (3) the PRC Chamber of 

Commerce did not coordinate the export 

activities of New–Tec; (4) its general 

manager has the authority to 

contractually bind it to sell subject 

merchandise; (5) its board of directors 

appoints its general manager; (6) there is 

no restriction on its use of export 

revenues; (7) its shareholders ultimately 

determine the disposition of respective 

profits, and New–Tec has not had a loss 

in the last two years; and (8) none of 

New–Tec’s board members or managers 

is a government official. Furthermore, 

our analysis of New–Tec’s questionnaire 

responses reveals no information 

indicating government control of its 

export activities. Therefore, based on 

the information on the record, we 

preliminarily determine that there is an 

absence of de facto government control 

with respect to New–Tec’s export 

functions and that New–Tec has met the 

criteria for the application of a separate 

rate. 

The evidence placed on the record of 

this review by New–Tec demonstrates 

an absence of de jure and de facto 

government control with respect to its 

exports of subject merchandise, in 

accordance with the criteria identified 

in Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589; and 

Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22587. 

Accordingly, we have preliminarily 

granted a separate rate to New–Tec. 

Date of Sale 

19 CFR 351.401(i) states that: 

In 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 also Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. 

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

1090–1092 (CIT 2001) (upholding the 

Department’s rebuttable presumption 

that invoice date is the appropriate date 

of sale). After examining the 

questionnaire responses and the sales 

documentation placed on the record by 

New–Tec, we preliminarily determine 

that invoice date is the most appropriate 

date of sale for New–Tec. Nothing on 

the record rebuts the presumption that 

invoice date should be the date of sale. 

Normal Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of FMTCs 

to the United States by New–Tec were 

made at less than NV, we compared 

export price (‘‘EP’’) to NV, as described 

in the ‘‘Export Price,’’ and ‘‘Normal 

Value’’ sections of this notice, pursuant 

to section 771(35) of the Act. 

Export Price 

Because New–Tec sold subject 

merchandise to unaffiliated purchasers 

in the United States prior to importation 

into the United States or to unaffiliated 

resellers outside the United States with 

knowledge that the merchandise was 

destined for the United States, and use 

of a constructed export price 

methodology is not otherwise indicated, 

we have used EP in accordance with 

section 772(a) of the Act. 

We calculated EP based on the free– 

on-board or delivered price to 

unaffiliated purchasers for New–Tec. 

From this price, we deducted amounts 

for foreign inland freight, international 

movement expenses, air freight, 

brokerage and handling, and billing 

adjustments, as applicable, pursuant to 

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.7

The Department valued brokerage and 

handling using a simple average of the 

brokerage and handling costs that were 

reported in public submissions that 

were filed in three antidumping duty 

cases. Specifically, we averaged the 

public brokerage and handling expenses 

reported by Navneet Publications (India) 

Ltd. in the 2007–2008 administrative 

32122 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Notices 

8See Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the 

People’s Republic of China; Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 

2905 (January 18, 2006), and accompanying Issues 

and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4; Folding 

Metal Tables and Chairs from the People’s Republic 

of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 71509 (December 11, 

2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 4; and Folding Metal 

Tables and Chairs from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 72 FR 71355 (December 17, 

2007), and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comments 10 and 11. 

9See NSK Ltd. v. United States, 115 F.3d 965, 975 

(Fed. Cir. 1997). 10See NSK Ltd .v. United States, 217 F. Supp. 2d 

1291, 1311-1312 (CIT 2002)., 217 F. Supp. 2d 1291, 

1311-1312 (CIT 2002). 11See, e.g., Zenith Electronics Corp. v. United 

States, 988 F.2d 1573, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1993) 

(explaining that the burden of evidentiary 

production belongs ‘‘to the party in possession of 

the necessary information’’). See also Tianjin 

Machinery Import & Export Corp. v. United States, 

806 F. Supp. 1008, 1015 (CIT 1992) (‘‘The burden 

of creating an adequate record lies with respondents 

and not with {the Department}.’’) (citation omitted). 

12 See NTN Bearing Corp. of America. v. United 

States, 997 F.2d 1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1993). 

13See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1); see also Lasko Metal 

Products v. United States, 43 F.3d 1442, 1445-1446 

(Fed. Cir. 1994) (affirming the Department’s use of 

market-based prices to value certain FOPs). 14See, e.g., China National Machinery Import & 

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

1339 (CIT 2003) (aff’d, 104 Fed. Appx. 183 (Fed. 

Cir. 2004)), and see Antidumping Duties; 

Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 

27366 (May 19, 1997). 

15See, e.g., Frontseating Service Valves from the 

People’s Republic of China; Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 

Preliminary Negative Determination of Critical 

Circumstances, and Postponement of Final 

Determination, 73 FR 62952 (October 22, 2008) 

(unchanged in Frontseating Service Valves from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative 

Determination of Critical Circumstances, 74 FR 

10886 (March 13, 2009); and China National 

Machinery Import & Export Corporation v. United 

States, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (CIT 2003), affirmed 

104 Fed. Appx. 183 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 

16See Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act 

of 1988, Conference Report to Accompanying H.R. 

3, H.R. Rep. 100-576 at 590-91 (1988). 

review of certain lined paper products 

from India, Essar Steel Limited in the 

2006–2007 antidumping duty 

administrative review of hot–rolled 

carbon steel flat products from India, 

and Himalya International Ltd. in the 

2005–2006 administrative review of 

certain preserved mushrooms from 

India. The Department adjusted the 

average brokerage and handling rate for 

inflation. See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum. 

To value truck freight, we used the 

freight rates published by 

www.infobanc.com, ‘‘The Great Indian 

Bazaar, Gateway to Overseas Markets.’’ 

The logistics section of the website 

contains inland freight truck rates 

between many large Indian cities. The 

truck freight rates are for the period 

August 2008 through September 2008. 

Since these dates are not 

contemporaneous with the POR, we 

deflated the rates using Indian WPI. See 

Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

Zero–Priced Transactions 

In the final results of the 2003–2004, 

2004–2005, 2005–2006 and the 2006– 

2007 administrative reviews of FMTCs, 

we included New–Tec’s and/or other 

respondents’ zero–priced transactions in 

the margin calculation because the 

record demonstrated that respondents’ 

provided many pieces of the same 

product, indicating that these ‘‘samples’’ 

did not primarily serve for evaluation or 

testing of the merchandise. 

Additionally, respondents provided 

‘‘samples’’ to the same customers to 

whom it was selling the same products 

in commercial quantities.8 As a result, 

we concluded that these transactions 

were not what we consider to be 

samples because respondents were not 

providing product to entice its U.S. 

customers to buy the product. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit (‘‘Federal Circuit’’) has 

not required the Department to exclude 

zero–priced or de minimis sales from its 

analysis but, rather, has defined a sale 

as requiring ‘‘both a transfer of 

ownership to an unrelated party and 

consideration.’’9 The Court of 

International Trade (‘‘CIT’’) in NSK Ltd. 

v. United States stated that it saw ‘‘little 

reason in supplying and re–supplying 

and yet re–supplying the same product 

to the same customer in order to solicit 

sales if the supplies are made in 

reasonably short periods of time,’’ and 

that ‘‘it would be even less logical to 

supply a sample to a client that has 

made a recent bulk purchase of the very 

item being sampled by the client.’’10

Furthermore, the Courts have 

consistently ruled that the burden rests 

with a respondent to demonstrate that it 

received no consideration in return for 

its provision of purported samples.11

Moreover, even where the Department 

does not ask a respondent for specific 

information to demonstrate that a 

transaction is a sample, the respondent 

has the burden of presenting the 

information in the first place to 

demonstrate that its transactions qualify 

for exclusion.12

An analysis of New–Tec’s Section C 

computer sales listing reveals that it 

provided zero–priced merchandise to 

the same customer to whom it sold the 

same products in commercial quantities. 

Consequently, based on the facts cited 

above, the guidance of past court 

decisions, and our previous decisions, 

for the preliminary results of this 

review, we have not excluded these 

zero–priced transactions from the 

margin calculation for New–Tec. 

Normal Value 

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

that, in the case of an NME, the 

Department shall determine NV using 

an 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 FOPs 

because the presence of government 

controls on various aspects of these 

economies renders price comparisons 

and the calculation of production costs 

invalid under our normal 

methodologies. Therefore, we calculated 

NV based on FOPs in accordance with 

sections 773(c)(3) and (4) of the Act and 

19 CFR 351.408(c). The FOPs include: 

(1) hours of labor required; (2) quantities 

of raw materials employed; (3) amounts 

of energy and other utilities consumed; 

and (4) representative capital costs. In 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), 

the Department normally uses publicly 

available information to value the FOPs. 

However, when a producer sources a 

meaningful amount of an input from a 

market–economy country and pays for it 

in market–economy currency, the 

Department may value the factor using 

the actual price paid for the input.13

Further, the Department disregards 

prices it has reason to suspect may be 

dumped or subsidized.14

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.15 The 

legislative history explains that we need 

not conduct a formal investigation to 

ensure that such prices are not 

subsidized.16 Rather, Congress indicated 

that the Department should base 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. In instances where 

respondents source a market economy 

input solely from suppliers located in 

these countries, we used Indian import– 

based surrogate values to value the 

input. In addition, we excluded Indian 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Notices 32123 

17For a detailed description of all surrogate 

values used for each respondent, see Surrogate 

Value Memorandum. 

18See Antidumping Methodologies: Market 

Economy Inputs, Expected Non-Market Economy 

Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for Comments, 

71 FR 61716, 61717-19 (October 19, 2006) 

(‘‘Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy 

Inputs’’). 

19For a detailed description of all actual values 

used for market-economy inputs, see New-Tec 

Preliminary Analysis Memorandum dated 

concurrently with this notice. 

20See Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries 

(May 14, 2008) (available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ 

wages). The source of these wage rate data on 

Import Administration’s web site is the Yearbook of 

Labour Statistics 2005, ILO, (Geneva: 2005), Chapter 

5B: Wages in Manufacturing. The years of the 

reported wage rates range from 2004 to 2005. 21See New-Tec’s January 21, 2009, Surrogate 

Value Comments at Exhibit 1, and Meco’s January 

21, 2009, Surrogate Value Comments at Exhibit 7. 

import data from NME countries and 

unidentified countries from our 

surrogate value calculations.17

Factor Valuations 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, we calculated NV based on the 

FOPs reported by New–Tec for the POR. 

To calculate NV, we multiplied the 

reported per–unit factor quantities by 

publicly available Indian surrogate 

values (except as noted below). In 

selecting the surrogate values, we 

considered the quality, specificity, and 

contemporaneity of the data. As 

appropriate, we adjusted input prices by 

including freight costs to render them 

delivered prices. Specifically, we added 

to Indian import surrogate values a 

surrogate freight cost using the shorter 

of the reported distance from the 

domestic supplier to the factory or the 

distance from the nearest seaport to the 

factory where appropriate (i.e., where 

the sales terms for the market–economy 

inputs were not delivered to the 

factory). This adjustment is in 

accordance with the decision of the 

Federal Circuit in Sigma Corp. v. United 

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

1997). For a detailed description of all 

surrogate values used for New–Tec, see 

the Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

Except as noted below, we valued raw 

material inputs using the weighted– 

average unit import values derived from 

the Monthly Statistics of the Foreign 

Trade of India, as published by the 

Directorate General of Commercial 

Intelligence and Statistics of the 

Ministry of Commerce and Industry, 

Government of India in the World Trade 

Atlas (‘‘WTA’’), available at http:// 

www.gtis.com/wta.htm. The WTA data 

are reported in rupees and are 

contemporaneous with the POR. Where 

we could not obtain publicly available 

information contemporaneous with the 

POR with which to value FOPs, we 

adjusted the surrogate values using, 

where appropriate, the Indian 

Wholesale Price Index as published in 

the International Financial Statistics of 

the International Monetary Fund. We 

used the U.S. Consumer Price Index as 

published in the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics, to adjust the air freight and air 

fuel surcharge values as published in 

AFMS Transportation Management 

Group. See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum. 

We further adjusted material input 

values to account for freight costs 

incurred between the supplier and 

respondent. We used the freight rates 

published by www.infobanc.com, ‘‘The 

Great Indian Bazaar, Gateway to 

Overseas Markets.’’ The logistics section 

of the website contains inland freight 

truck rates between many large Indian 

cities. The truck freight rates are for the 

period August 2008 through May 2009. 

Since these dates are not 

contemporaneous with the POR, we 

deflated the rates using Indian WPI. See 

Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

New–Tec made raw materials 

purchases from market–economy 

suppliers. Therefore, in accordance with 

our practice outlined in Antidumping 

Methodologies: Market Economy 

Inputs,18 where at least 33 percent of an 

input was sourced from market– 

economy suppliers and purchased in a 

market–economy currency, the 

Department will use actual weighted– 

average purchase prices to value these 

inputs.19 Where the quantity of the 

input purchased from market–economy 

suppliers during the period was below 

33 percent of its total volume of 

purchases of the input during the 

period, the Department will weight– 

average the weighted average market– 

economy purchase price with an 

appropriate surrogate value. See 

Antidumping Methodologies: Market 

Economy Inputs. For a complete 

description of the factor values we used, 

see Surrogate Value Memorandum and 

New–Tec Preliminary Analysis 

Memorandum. 

To value liquid petroleum gas, we 

used per–kilogram values obtained from 

Bharat Petroleum, published June 4, 

2009. We made adjustments to account 

for inflation and freight costs incurred 

between the supplier and New–Tec. See 

Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

To value electricity, we used price 

data for small, medium, and large 

industries, as published by the Central 

Electricity Authority of the Government 

of India in its publication entitled 

‘‘Electricity Tariff & Duty and Average 

Rates of Electricity Supply in India,’’ 

dated July 2006. These electricity rates 

represent actual country–wide, 

publicly–available information on tax– 

exclusive electricity rates charged to 

industries in India. See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum. 

To value water, we used the revised 

Maharashtra Industrial Development 

Corporation (‘‘MIDC’’) water rates 

available at http://www.midcindia.com/ 

water–supply, which we deflated using 

Indian WPI. See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum. 

For direct labor, indirect labor and 

packing labor, consistent with 19 CFR 

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

regression–based wage rate as reported 

on Import Administration’s web site.20

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 each respondent. See 

Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

For factory overhead, selling, general, 

and administrative expenses (‘‘SG&A’’), 

and profit values, both New–Tec and 

Meco submitted identical financial 

statements to those that were submitted 

and considered by the Department for 

use as surrogate financial statements in 

the preceding administrative review; 

none of which is contemporaneous with 

the current POR.21 The Department 

examined these financial statements in 

the preceding administrative review and 

found that Maximaa Systems Limited 

(‘‘Maximaa’’) produced a greater 

proportion of comparable merchandise 

than the other companies (Infiniti 

Modules PVT Ltd., Godrej & Boyce 

Manufacturing Company Limited, and 

Tube Investments of India, Ltd.), and 

therefore best met the Department’s 

criteria for surrogate financial ratios. 

Because parties have submitted for the 

instant review the same surrogate 

financial statements as those from the 

prior review, and the record indicates 

that Maximaa produced a greater 

proportion of comparable merchandise 

than other surrogate companies whose 

financial statements were placed on the 

record, we find that Maximaa continues 

to be the best available information with 

which to determine factory overhead as 

a percentage of the total raw materials, 

labor and energy (‘‘ML&E’’) costs; SG&A 

as a percentage of ML&E plus overhead 

(i.e., cost of manufacture); and the profit 

rate as a percentage of the cost of 

manufacture plus SG&A. See Surrogate 

Value Memorandum for a full 

discussion of the calculation of these 

ratios. 

For packing materials, we used the 

per–kilogram values obtained from the 

32124 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Notices 

22See, e.g., 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. 

WTA and made adjustments to account 

for freight costs incurred between the 

PRC supplier and New–Tec’s plants. See 

Surrogate Value 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. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

We preliminarily determine that the 

following weighted–average dumping 

margin exists: 

Manufacturer/Exporter Margin (Percent) 

New–Tec ....................... 0.18* 

* de minimis 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations used 

in our analysis to parties to this 

proceeding within five days of the 

publication date of this notice. See 19 

CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties are 

invited to comment on the preliminary 

results and may submit case briefs and/ 

or written comments within 30 days of 

the date of publication of this notice. 

See 19 CFR 351.309(c). Interested 

parties may file rebuttal briefs and 

rebuttals to written comments, limited 

to issues raised in such briefs or 

comments, no later than five days after 

the date on which the case briefs are 

due. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). The 

Department requests that parties 

submitting written comments provide 

an executive summary and a table of 

authorities as well as an additional copy 

of those comments electronically. 

Any interested party may request a 

hearing within 30 days of publication of 

this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). If a 

request for a hearing is made, parties 

will be notified of the time and date for 

the hearing to be held at the U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street 

and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230. See 19 CFR 

351.310(d). The Department will issue 

the final results of this administrative 

review, which will include the results of 

its analysis of issues raised in any such 

comments, within 120 days of 

publication of these preliminary results, 

pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 

Act. 

Deadline for Submission of Publicly 

Available Surrogate Value Information 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3), the deadline for 

submission of publicly available 

information to value FOPs under 19 

CFR 351.408(c) is 20 days after the date 

of publication of the preliminary results. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(1), if an interested party 

submits factual information less than 

ten days before, on, or after (if the 

Department has extended the deadline), 

the applicable deadline for submission 

of such factual information, an 

interested party has ten days to submit 

factual information to rebut, clarify, or 

correct the factual information no later 

than ten days after such factual 

information is served on the interested 

party. However, the Department 

generally will not accept in the rebuttal 

submission additional, alternative 

surrogate value information not 

previously on the record, if the deadline 

for submission of surrogate value 

information has passed.22 Furthermore, 

the Department generally will not 

accept business proprietary information 

in either the surrogate value 

submissions or the rebuttals thereto, as 

the regulation regarding the submission 

of surrogate values allows only for the 

submission of publicly available 

information. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon issuance of the final results, the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries covered by this 

review. The Department intends to issue 

assessment instructions to CBP 15 days 

after the publication date of the final 

results of this review. In accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we 

calculated exporter/importer (or 

customer)-specific assessment rates for 

the merchandise subject to this review. 

Where the respondent reports reliable 

entered values, we calculate importer 

(or customer)-specific ad valorem rates 

by aggregating the dumping margins 

calculated for all U.S. sales to each 

importer (or customer) and dividing this 

amount by the total entered value of the 

sales to each importer (or customer). See 

19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Where an 

importer (or customer)-specific ad 

valorem rate is greater than de minimis, 

we will apply the assessment rate to the 

entered value of the importers’/ 

customers’ entries during the POR. See 

19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Where we do not 

have entered values for all U.S. sales, 

we calculate a per–unit assessment rate 

by aggregating the antidumping duties 

due for all U.S. sales to each importer 

(or customer) and dividing this amount 

by the total quantity sold to that 

importer (or customer). 

To determine whether the duty 

assessment rates are de minimis, in 

accordance with the requirement set 

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

calculated importer (or customer)- 

specific ad valorem ratios based on the 

estimated entered value. Where an 

importer (or customer)-specific ad 

valorem rate is zero or de minimis, we 

will instruct CBP to liquidate 

appropriate entries without regard to 

antidumping duties. See 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(2). 

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 New–Tec, 

the cash deposit rate will be the 

company–specific rate established in 

the final results of review (except, if the 

rate is zero or de minimis, no cash 

deposit will be required); (2) for 

previously investigated or reviewed PRC 

and non–PRC exporters not listed above 

that have separate rates, the cash 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

exporter–specific rate published for the 

most recent period; (3) for all PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise that 

have not been found to be entitled to a 

separate rate, the cash deposit rate will 

be the PRC–wide rate of 70.71 percent; 

and (4) for all non–PRC exporters of 

subject merchandise that have not 

received their own rate, the cash deposit 

rate will be the rate applicable to the 

PRC exporters that supplied that non– 

PRC exporter. These deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice 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 this review 

period. Failure to comply with this 

requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

This determination is issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

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

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Notices 32125 

1Those companies are: Far Eastern Industries, 

Ltd., (Shanghai) and Far Eastern Polychem 

Industries;Ningbo Dafa Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd.; 

Cixi Sansheng Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd.; Cixi Santai 

Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd.; Cixi Waysun Chemical 

Fiber Co., Ltd.; Hangzhou Best Chemical Fibre Co., 

Ltd.; Hangzhou Hanbang Chemical Fibre Co., Ltd.; 

Hangzhou Huachuang Co., Ltd.; Hangzhou Sanxin 

Paper Co., Ltd.; Hangzhou Taifu Textile Fiber Co., 

Ltd.; Jiaxang Fuda Chemical Fibre Factory; Nantong 

Loulai Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd.;Nanyang Textile 

Co., Ltd.; Suzhou PolyFiber Co., Ltd.; Xiamen 

Xianglu Chemical Fiber Co.; Zhaoqing Tifo New 

Fiber Co., Ltd.; Zhejiang Anshun Pettechs Fibre Co., 

Ltd.; Zhejiang Waysun Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd.; 

Dragon Max Trading Development; Xiake Color 

Spinning Co., Ltd.; Jiangyin Hailun Chemical Fiber 

Co., Ltd.; Hyosung Singapore PTE Ltd.; Jiangyin 

Changlong Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd.; Ma Ha 

Company, Ltd.; Jiangyin Huahong Chemical Fiber 

Co., Ltd.; Jiangyin Mighty Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd.; 

and Huvis Sichuan. 

2See Memorandum to James Dole, Director, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 9, from Alexis Polovina, 

International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 9; First Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Certain Polyester Staple 

Fiber from the PRC: Selection of Respondents for 

Individual Review, dated November 7, 2008 

(‘‘Respondent Selection Memo’’). 

Dated: June 30, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–15963 Filed 7–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–905] 

Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of 

Preliminary Results of the 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Extension of Time Limit for 

the Final Results 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) is conducting the first 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

polyester staple fiber (‘‘PSF’’) from the 

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

the period of review (‘‘POR’’) December 

26, 2006, through May 31, 2008. The 

Department has preliminarily 

determined that sales have been made 

below normal value (‘‘NV’’) by the 

respondents. 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 antidumping duties 

on all appropriate entries of subject 

merchandise during the POR. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

The Department intends to issue the 

final results no later than 180 days from 

the date of publication of this notice, 

pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘Act’’). 

See ‘‘Extension of the Time Limits for 

the Final Results’’ below. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 7, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Emeka Chukwudebe or Alexis Polovina 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482 0219 or (202) 482 

3927 respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On June 1, 2007, the Department 

published in the Federal Register an 

antidumping duty order on certain 

polyester staple fiber from the PRC. See 

Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: 

Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the 

People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 30545 

(June 1, 2007) (‘‘Order’’). On July 30, 

2008, the Department published a notice 

of initiation of an administrative review 

of certain PSF from the PRC covering 

the period December 26, 2006, through 

May 31, 2008 for 27 companies.1 See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews, Request for Revocation in Part, 

and Deferral of Administrative Review, 

73 FR 44220 (July 30, 2008) (‘‘Initiation 

Notice’’). On February 19, 2009, the 

Department published a notice 

extending the time period for issuing 

the preliminary results by 120 days to 

June 30, 2009. See Certain Polyester 

Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic 

of China: Extension of Time Limits for 

Preliminary Results of the Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 7660 

(February 19, 2009). 

Respondent Selection 

Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs 

the Department to calculate individual 

dumping margins for each known 

exporter or producer of the subject 

merchandise. However, section 

777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the 

Department discretion to limit its 

examination to a reasonable number of 

exporters or producers if it is not 

practicable to examine all exporters or 

producers involved in the review. 

On August 5, 2008, the Department 

released CBP data for entries of the 

subject merchandise during the POR 

under administrative protective order 

(‘‘APO’’) to all interested parties having 

an APO as of five days of publication of 

the Initiation Notice, inviting comments 

regarding the CBP data and respondent 

selection. The Department received 

comments and rebuttal comments 

between August 14, 2008, and August 

22, 2008. 

On October 1, 2008, the Department 

sent out a quantity and value (‘‘Q&V’’) 

questionnaire to all 27 companies for 

which a review was requested because 

a significant amount of the volume in 

the CBP data was unclear. In the CBP 

data, the identity of the largest exporter 

could not be publicly identified by any 

party, including the Department. 

Moreover, it was unclear if companies 

with the same CBP module suffix could 

be grouped together or whether the CBP 

module suffix was properly used by 

those companies which were assigned 

the CBP module suffix in the 

investigation. In addition, parties 

requested numerous adjustments to the 

CBP data, including but not limited to 

grouping of companies, and corrections 

to company names. The Department 

received Q&V responses between 

October 16, 2008, and October 20, 2008, 

from 19 of the 27 companies who 

received the questionnaire. 

On November 7, 2008, the Department 

issued its respondent selection 

memorandum after assessing its 

resources and determining that it could 

reasonably examine two exporters 

subject to this review. Pursuant to 

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

Department selected Ningbo Dafa 

Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd. (‘‘Ningbo 

Dafa’’) and Cixi Santai Chemical Fiber 

Co. (‘‘Santai’’) as mandatory 

respondents.2 The Department sent 

antidumping duty questionnaires to 

Ningbo Dafa and Santai on November 

14, 2008. 

Ningbo Dafa submitted the Section A 

Questionnaire Response on December 5, 

2008, the Section C Questionnaire 

Response on December 30, 2008, and 

the Section D Questionnaire Response 

on January 9, 2009. Santai submitted the 

Section A Questionnaire Response on 

December 12, 2008, and the Sections C 

and D Questionnaire Responses on 

January 9, 2009. 

Petitioners submitted deficiency 

comments regarding respondents’ 

questionnaire responses between 

December 2008 and May 2009. The 

Department issued supplemental 

questionnaires to Ningbo Dafa and 

Santai between March 2009 and May 

2009 to which both companies 

responded.