[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 22 (Tuesday, February 3, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5127-5132]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-2168]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-888]


Notice of Preliminary 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

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 3, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paige Rivas or Sam Zengotitabengoa, 
AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 4, Group II, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-0651 or (202) 482-4195, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Preliminary Determination

    We preliminarily determine that floor-standing, metal-top ironing 
tables and certain parts thereof (ironing tables) from the People's 
Republic of China (PRC) are being sold, or are likely to be sold, in 
the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in 
section 773 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The 
estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the ``Suspension of 
Liquidation'' section of this notice.

Case History

    This investigation was initiated on July 21, 2003. See Notice of 
Initiation of Antidumping Investigation: Floor-Standing, Metal-Top 
Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of 
China, 68 FR 44040 (July 25, 2003) (Initiation Notice).\1\ Since the 
initiation of the investigation, the following events have occurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioner in this investigation is Home Products 
International, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 14, 2003, the United States International Trade 
Commission (ITC) preliminarily determined that there is a reasonable 
indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured 
by reason of imports of ironing tables from the PRC. See Ironing Tables 
and Certain Parts Thereof From China, 68 FR 50190 (August 20, 2003).
    On July 31, 2003, the Department issued Section A of its non-market 
economy (NME) antidumping questionnaire\2\ to all known companies\3\

[[Page 5128]]

that allegedly produced and/or exported ironing tables from the PRC. In 
the questionnaire, the Department requested the companies to provide 
quantity and value information of subject merchandise exports to the 
United States during the period of investigation (POI). On July 30, 
2003, and July 31, 2003, respectively, the Department issued the 
antidumping questionnaire to the Embassy of the PRC in Washington, 
D.C., and to the PRC Ministry of Commerce, Fair Trade Bureau (MOC) in 
Beijing. The Department requested that MOC send the questionnaire to 
the companies who manufacture and export ironing tables to the United 
States, as well as to manufacturers who produce ironing tables for 
companies who were engaged in exporting subject merchandise to the 
United States during the POI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Section A of the NME questionnaire requests general 
information concerning a company's corporate structure and business 
practices, the merchandise under investigation that it sells, and 
the manner in which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. 
Section C requests a complete listing of U.S. sales. Section D 
requests information on the factors of production of the merchandise 
sold in or to the United States. Section E requests information on 
further manufacturing.
    \3\ The Department gathered the following PRC company names from 
the June 30, 2003, petition and the country desk in Beijing. See 
Memorandum from Sam Zengotitabengoa, International Trade Compliance 
Analyst, to the File, ``Listing of Chinese Ironing Board Producers & 
Exporters,'' dated August 4, 2003. These companies include: Eagle 
Metal Furniture Manufacturer Co., Ltd.; Fuyali Houseware Co., Ltd.; 
Gaoming Lihe Daily Necessities Co., Ltd.; Guangdong Ironing Board 
Factory; Hongfong Hardware Manufactory Co., Ltd.; Jiangmen Silk 
Import and Export Corporation of Guangdong; Shunde Wireking Group 
Wanrong Hardware Co., Ltd.; Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd.; 
Wireking Group; Lerado Industrial (Zhongshan) Co.; New Tech 
Integrated; He Bei Orient Hardware and Mesh Products Co., Ltd.; 
Guang Dong General Industry Development Co. Ltd.; Nan Hai Yan Bu 
Zhua Hai Hardware and Furniture Factory; Hai Tong Industrial Co. 
Ltd.; Hui Hui Tools Co., Ltd.; Jia Jun Ironing Board Factory; Jia 
Shan Ji Ji Ironing Board Factory; Guang Zhou Quanyong Novwoven Co., 
Ltd.; Shun De Yong Jian Housewares Co., Ltd.; Fu Gang Trade Co., 
Ltd.; and, Guang Dong Xin Hui Arts and Crafts Import and Export Co, 
Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of our analysis of the quantity and value responses to 
the questionnaire, the Department selected two mandatory respondents, 
Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. (Since Hardware) and Shunde 
Yongjian Housewares Co., Ltd. (Yongjian). On September 10, 2003, the 
Department issued Section C and D questionnaires to Since Hardware and 
Yongjian. In September 2003, Forever Holdings Ltd. (Forever Holdings), 
Harvest International Housewares Ltd. (Harvest), Lerado (Zhoong Shan) 
Industrial Co., Ltd. (Lerado), and Gaoming Lihe Daily Necessities Co., 
Ltd. (Lihe), responded to Section A of the Department's questionnaire, 
as non-mandatory respondents, for purposes of obtaining separate rates. 
By October 15, 2003, Since Hardware and Yongjian responded to Sections 
C and D of the Department's questionnaire. The Department issued 
supplemental questionnaires where appropriate.
    On November 21, 2003, pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, 
the Department postponed the preliminary determination of this 
investigation until January 26, 2004. See Floor-Standing, Metal-Top 
Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of 
China: Postponement of Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty 
Investigation, 68 FR 66816 (November 28, 2003).

Selection of Respondents

    Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to calculate 
individual dumping margins for each known exporter and producer of the 
subject merchandise. Where it is not practicable to examine all known 
producers/exporters of subject merchandise, section 777A(c)(2) of the 
Act permits the Department to investigate either: (1) a sample of 
exporters, producers, or types of products that is statistically valid, 
based on the information available at the time of selection; or (2) 
exporters and producers accounting for the largest volume of the 
subject merchandise that can reasonably be examined. We received 
quantity and value information from six known producers of the subject 
merchandise in the PRC. Since Hardware and Yongjian were the producers 
of subject merchandise accounting for the largest volume of exports to 
the United States during the POI. Therefore, we selected Since Hardware 
and Yongjian as mandatory respondents in this investigation. See 
Memorandum from Thomas F. Futtner, Acting Office Director, Office 4, to 
Holly A. Kuga, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Group II, 
``Respondent Selection Memorandum,'' dated September 10, 2003, on file 
in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the Main Commerce Building 
(CRU).

Period of Investigation

    The POI is October 1, 2002, through March 31, 2003. This period 
corresponds to the two most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month 
of the filing of the petition (i.e., June 2003). See 19 CFR 
351.204(b)(1).

Scope of Investigation

    For purposes of this investigation, the product covered consists of 
floor-standing, 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 full-
height 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 investigation.
    Furthermore, this investigation specifically covers imports of 
ironing tables, assembled or unassembled, complete or incomplete, and 
certain parts thereof. For purposes of this investigation, 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 a product sold as a ready-to-use ensemble consisting of the 
metal-top table and a pad and cover, with or without additional 
features, e.g. iron rest or linen rack. The term ``incomplete'' ironing 
table means a 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 
investigation 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 investigation 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 counter top 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 the 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 customs purposes, the written description of the scope 
remains dispositive.

[[Page 5129]]

Product Coverage

    In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations 
(see Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 
27295, 27323 (May 19, 1997)) (Regulations Preamble), in our notice of 
initiation we set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues 
regarding product coverage and encouraged all parties to submit 
comments within 20 days from the publication of the Initiation Notice. 
See Initiation Notice, 68 FR at 44041. No parties submitted comments.

Non-Market Economy Country Status

    The Department has treated the PRC as an NME country in all its 
past antidumping investigations. See Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Circular Welded Carbon-Quality 
Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 36570, 36571 (May 
24, 2002); and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Structured Steel Beams from the People's Republic of China, 67 
FR 35479, 35480 (May 20, 2000); and Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value Certain: Folding Metal Tables and Chairs 
from the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 20090 (April 24, 2002). In 
accordance with section 771(18)(C) of the Act, any determination that a 
foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked. 
No party to this investigation has sought revocation of the NME status 
of the PRC. Therefore, pursuant to section 771(18)(C) of the Act, the 
Department will continue to treat the PRC as an NME country.
    When the Department is investigating imports from an NME country, 
section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to base normal 
value (NV) on the NME producer's factors of production, valued in a 
comparable market economy that is a significant producer of comparable 
merchandise. The sources of individual factor prices are discussed 
under the ``Normal Value'' section, below.

Separate Rates

    In an NME proceeding, the Department presumes that all companies 
within the country are subject to governmental control and should be 
assigned a single antidumping duty rate unless the respondent 
demonstrates the absence of both de jure and de facto governmental 
control over its export activities. See Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles From the People's Republic 
of China, 61 FR 19026, 19027 (April 30, 1996) (Bicycles from the PRC). 
Since Hardware, Yongjian, Forever Holdings, Lerado, Harvest, and Lihe 
have provided the requested company-specific separate rates information 
and have indicated that there is no element of government ownership or 
control over their operations. We have considered whether these 
companies are eligible for a separate rate, as discussed below.
    The Department's separate-rates test is not concerned, in general, 
with macroeconomic border-type controls (e.g., export licenses, quotas, 
and minimum export prices), particularly if these controls are imposed 
to prevent dumping. Rather, the test focuses on controls over the 
decision-making process on export-related investment, pricing, and 
output at the individual firm level. See Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel 
Plate From Ukraine, 62 FR 61754, 61757 (November 19, 1997); 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); and 
Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Honey From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 14725, 14727 (March 
20, 1995).
    To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from 
government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department 
analyzes each exporting entity under a test arising out of the Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the 
People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as modified in 
the 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). Under this test, the Department assigns 
separate rates in NME cases only if an exporter can demonstrate the 
absence of both de jure and de facto governmental control over its 
export activities. See Silicon Carbide and the 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).
    In order for the Department to determine whether a company is 
sufficiently independent to be entitled to a separate rate, the 
companies must establish that they exported the subject merchandise to 
the United States during the POI. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(i), 
the Department will normally use the date of invoice to identify the 
date of sale of the subject merchandise. However, the Department may 
use a date other than the date of invoice if it is satisfied that a 
different date better reflects the date on which the exporter 
establishes the material terms of sale. In this instance, the 
Department found all but one of the companies to have exported subject 
merchandise to the United States during the POI. The Department cannot 
consider Lerado an exporter who made subject merchandise sales to the 
United States during the POI because Lerado did not present 
satisfactory evidence establishing that it had sold subject merchandise 
to the United States during the POI. See 19 CFR 351.401(i); see 
Regulations Preamble, at 27349; see Memorandum from Sam 
Zengotitabengoa, International Trade Compliance Analyst, Office IV, to 
Thomas F. Futtner, Acting Office Director, Office IV, ``Separate Rates 
Analysis for the Preliminary Determination in the Antidumping Duty 
Investigation of Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain 
Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China,'' dated concurrently 
with this notice (Separate Rates Memo), on file in the CRU.
    Because we preliminarily find that Lerado did not export subject 
merchandise to the United States during the POI, we are not able to 
evaluate whether Lerado qualifies for a separate rate. See Titanium 
Sponge From the Russian Federation: Notice of Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 58525, 58528 (November 
15, 1996), (where the Department states that ``{A{time} lthough AVISMA 
made a separate rate claim, because there are no sales to the United 
States by AVISMA, we are not able to evaluate the company's 
separateness request.'')

1. Absence of De Jure Control

    The Department considers the following de jure criteria in 
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate 
rate: (1) an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an 
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative 
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any other 
formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies.
    Since Hardware, Yongjian, Forever Holdings, Harvest, and Lihe have 
placed on the record a number of documents to demonstrate the absence 
of de jure control, including their business licenses and the ``Company 
Law of the People's Republic of China.'' Other than limiting these 
companies' operations to

[[Page 5130]]

the activities referenced in the license, we noted no restrictive 
stipulations associated with the license. In addition, in previous 
cases, the Department has analyzed the ``Company Law of the People's 
Republic of China'' and found that it establishes an absence of de jure 
control. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Certain Partial-Extension Steel Drawer Slides with Rollers 
from the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 54472, 54474 (October 24, 
1995). We have no information in this proceeding which would cause us 
to reconsider this determination. Therefore, based on the foregoing, we 
have preliminarily found an absence of de jure control for these 
companies.

2. Absence of De Facto Control

    The Department typically considers four factors in evaluating 
whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of 
its export functions: (1) whether the export prices are set by, or 
subject to, the approval of a governmental 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.
    With regard to the issue of de facto control, Since Hardware, 
Yongjian, Forever Holdings, Harvest, and Lihe have reported the 
following: (1) there is no government participation in setting export 
prices; (2) their managers have authority to bind sales contracts; (3) 
they do not have to notify any government authorities of their 
management selection, and (4) there are no restrictions on the use of 
their export revenue and they are responsible for financing their own 
losses. Furthermore, our analysis of these companies' questionnaire 
responses reveals no other information indicating governmental control 
of export activities. Therefore, based on the information provided, we 
preliminarily determine that there is an absence of de facto government 
control. Consequently, we preliminarily determine that Since Hardware, 
Yongjian, Forever Holdings, Harvest, and Lihe have met the criteria for 
the application of separate rates. For a more detailed discussion of 
this issue, see Separate Rates Memo.

Margins for Cooperative Exporters Not Selected

    To those exporters: (1) who submitted a timely response to section 
A of the Department's questionnaire, but were not selected as mandatory 
respondents, and (2) for whom the section A response indicates that the 
exporter is eligible for a separate rate, we assigned a weighted-
average of the rates of the fully analyzed companies, excluding any 
rates that were zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available. 
See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the People's 
Republic of China, 67 FR 36570, 36571 (May 24, 2002) (Welded Steel 
Pipe). Companies receiving this rate are identified by name in the 
``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice.

The PRC-Wide Rate

    In all NME cases, the Department makes a rebuttable presumption 
that all exporters located in the NME country comprise a single 
exporter under common government control, the ``NME entity.'' See 
Bicycles From the PRC. Although the Department provided all known PRC 
exporters of the subject merchandise with the opportunity to respond to 
our initial questionnaire, only Since Hardware, Yongjian, Forever, 
Harvest, Lerado, and Lihe responded. However, because other PRC 
companies did not submit a response to the Department's Section A 
quantity and value question, as discussed above in the ``Case History'' 
section of this notice, and thus did not demonstrate their entitlement 
to a separate rate, we have implemented the Department's rebuttable 
presumption that these exporters constitute a single enterprise under 
common control by the PRC government, and we are applying adverse facts 
available to determine the single antidumping duty rate, the PRC-wide 
rate, applicable to all other PRC exporters comprising this single 
enterprise. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Synthetic Indigo from the People's Republic of China, 65 FR 
25706, 25707 (May 3, 2000).

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party 
withholds information that has been requested by the Department, fails 
to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner 
requested, significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping 
statute, or provides information which cannot be verified, the 
Department shall use, subject to sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act, 
facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. As 
explained above, some exporters of the subject merchandise failed to 
respond to the Department's request for information. The failure of 
these exporters to respond significantly impedes this proceeding. Thus, 
pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act, in reaching our preliminary 
determination, we have based the PRC-wide rate on total facts 
available.
    In applying facts otherwise available, section 776(b) of the Act 
provides that, if the Department finds that an interested party ``has 
failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply 
with a request for information,'' the Department may use information 
that is adverse to the interests of that party as facts otherwise 
available. Adverse inferences are appropriate ``to ensure that the 
party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate 
than if it had cooperated fully.'' See Statement of Administrative 
Action SAA accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. No. 
316, 103d Cong., 2d Session at 870 (1994).Furthermore, ``affirmative 
evidence of bad faith on the part of the respondent is not required 
before the Department may make an adverse inference.'' See Antidumping 
Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997). 
In this case, the complete failure of these exporters to respond to the 
Department's requests for information constitutes a failure to 
cooperate to the best of their ability.
    For our preliminary determination, as adverse facts available, we 
have used the highest rate calculated for a respondent, i.e., the rate 
calculated for Yongjian. See Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe, Inc. v. 
United States, 298 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (affirming Commerce's 
application of adverse facts available and use of an adverse inference, 
resulting in the application of the highest available dumping margin to 
an uncooperative respondent). In an investigation, if the Department 
chooses as facts available a calculated dumping margin of another 
respondent, the Department will consider information reasonably at its 
disposal as to whether there are circumstances that would indicate that 
using that rate is inappropriate. In this investigation, there is no 
indication that Yongjian's calculated margin is inappropriate to use as 
adverse facts available.
    Accordingly, for the preliminary determination, the PRC-wide rate 
is 153.76 percent. Because this is a preliminary margin, the Department

[[Page 5131]]

will consider all margins on the record at the time of the final 
determination for the purpose of determining the most appropriate final 
PRC-wide margin.

Fair Value Comparison

    To determine whether Since Hardware's and Yongjian's sales of 
ironing tables to customers in the United States were made at LTFV, we 
compared Export Price (EP) to NV, using our NME methodology, as 
described in the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this 
notice below. In accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, 
we calculated weighted-average EPs.

Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, EP is the price at 
which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold), 
before the date of importation, by the producer or exporter of the 
subject merchandise to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States 
or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States, 
as adjusted under subsection (c).
    We used an EP methodology in accordance with section 772(a) of the 
Act because Since Hardware and Yongjian sold subject merchandise to 
unaffiliated U.S. customers prior to importation and because a 
constructed export price methodology was not otherwise warranted. We 
calculated EP based on the packed, freight-on-board port-of-export 
price charged to the first unaffiliated customer for exportation to the 
United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting 
price (gross unit price) for foreign inland freight and brokerage and 
handling. Where foreign inland freight and brokerage and handling were 
provided by NME companies, we used surrogate values from India to value 
these expenses. See Memorandum from Sam Zengotitabengoa, International 
Trade Compliance Analyst, to the File, ``Surrogate Country Factors of 
Production Values in the Preliminary Determination of the Antidumping 
Duty Investigation on Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and 
Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China, dated 
concurrently with this notice (FOP Valuation Memo), on file in the CRU.

Normal Value

1. Surrogate Country

    Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires that the Department value the 
NME producer's factors of production, to the extent possible, based on 
the prices or costs of factors of production 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 Department's Office of Policy initially 
identified five countries that are at a level of economic development 
comparable to the PRC in terms of per-capita gross national product and 
the national distribution of labor. Those countries are India, 
Pakistan, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and the Philippines. See Memorandum 
from Ron Lorentzen, Acting Director, Office of Policy, to Thomas F. 
Futtner, Acting Office Director, Office 4, ``Request for a List of 
Surrogate Countries,'' dated September 4, 2003, on file in the CRU. 
Among these countries, India is the most significant producer of 
comparable merchandise. Therefore, we have preliminarily calculated NV 
by applying Indian values to Since Hardware's and Yongjian's factors of 
production.

2. Factors of Production

    In their questionnaire responses, Since Hardware and Yongjian 
reported factors of production for the manufacture of the subject 
merchandise during the POI. The factors of production 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. See Section 773(c)(3) of the Act. To calculate NV, we 
multiplied the reported per-unit quantities by publicly available 
surrogate values from India.
    Generally, the surrogate values employed in the valuation of the 
factors of production were selected because of their quality, 
specificity, and contemporaneity. We modified those values not 
contemporaneous with the POI using wholesale price indices (WPI) 
published by the Office of the Economic Adviser to the Government of 
India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, to account for inflation or 
deflation between the effective period and the POI. As appropriate, we 
included freight costs in input prices to make them delivered prices. 
Specifically, we added to the surrogate values a surrogate freight cost 
calculated using the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic 
input supplier to the factory processing subject merchandise or the 
distance from the nearest seaport to the relevant factory. This 
adjustment is in accordance with the Court of Appeals for the Federal 
Circuit's decision in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 
1407-1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
    To value inputs and packing materials that derived from market 
economy countries, we used the reported prices. We valued all other 
material inputs and packing materials using publicly available Indian 
import statistics from the appropriate Indian Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule classification, obtained from the Government of India, 
Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Director General, Commercial 
Intelligence and Statistics, as published in the World Trade Atlas 
(WTA). See FOP Valuation Memo. Because the Department has determined 
that Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand maintain broadly available, 
non-industry specific export subsidies which may benefit all exporters 
to all export markets, we eliminated the quantities and values of 
imports from these countries from the import statistics used to 
calculate the surrogate values. See Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields 
From the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 6482 (February 12, 2002). In 
addition, the Department eliminated Indian imports of non-market 
economy countries from the import statistics used to calculate the 
surrogate values.
    One of the respondents purchased cold-rolled steel inputs from a 
market economy supplier in a market economy currency. At this time, the 
Department has generally available information indicating that the PRC 
government imposed an antidumping order on imports of cold-rolled steel 
products from various countries, including the country in question. See 
Memorandum from Sam Zengotitabengoa, International Trade Compliance 
Analyst, to the File, ``PRC AD Final Determination,'' dated 
concurrently with this notice, on file in the CRU. Because the 
Department has reason to believe or suspect that cold-rolled steel from 
the country in question is being dumped, we have disregarded prices for 
cold-rolled steel from this country, and instead used the Indian 
surrogate value for both respondents.
    For energy, we valued argon gas using a 1997 price quote from an 
Indian producer of argon; diesel oil and electricity using the 2003 
International Energy Agency's Key World Energy Statistics; and water 
using four price quotes reported by the Asian Development Bank on 
October 1997.
    We valued labor using the latest regression-based wage rate for 
China found on Import Administration's Web page (http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/), as described in 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3).
    To value foreign inland truck freight costs, we relied upon 17 
price quotes used by the Department in the Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less

[[Page 5132]]

Than Fair Value: Bulk Aspirin From the People's Republic of China, 65 
FR 33805 (May 25, 2000). We valued brokerage and handling using the 
average of the foreign brokerage and handling expenses in Certain 
Stainless Steel Wire Rod From India: Final Results of Administrative 
and New Shipper Review, 64 FR 856 (January 6, 1999).
    Because the Department did not find industry specific data on the 
record to calculate the surrogate ratios for selling, general and 
administrative (SG&A) expenses, factory overhead, and profit, the 
Department used the ``2001-2002 combined income, value of production, 
expenditure and appropriation accounts'' for a sample of 2,024 public 
companies in India that were reported in the October 2003 Reserve Bank 
of India Bulletin.
    For a complete analysis of surrogate values used in the preliminary 
determination, see FOP Valuation Memo.

Verification

    In accordance with section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify 
all information relied upon in making our final determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

    We are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to 
suspend liquidation of all entries of ironing tables from the PRC 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the 
date on which this notice is published in the Federal Register. In 
addition, we are instructing CBP to require a cash deposit or the 
posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV 
exceeds the EP, as indicated in the chart below. These instructions 
suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.
    We preliminarily determine that the following percentage weighted-
average margins exist for the POI:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Manufacturer/exporter                              Weighted-Average Margin (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd...................                                                      7.66
Shunde Yongjian Housewares Co., Ltd...................                                                    153.76
Forever Holdings Ltd..................................                                                     69.59
Harvest International Housewares Ltd..................                                                     69.59
Gaoming Lihe Daily Necessities Co., Ltd...............                                                     69.59
PRC-Wide Rate.........................................                                                    153.76
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of the subject merchandise 
except for entries from Since Hardware, Yongjian, Forever Holdings, 
Harvest, and Lihe.

Disclosure

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose 
the calculations performed in the preliminary determination to 
interested parties within five days of the date of publication of this 
notice.

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of the Department's preliminary affirmative determination. If the 
final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, the ITC will 
determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this 
preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination 
whether imports of ironing tables from the PRC are materially injuring, 
or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.

Public Comment

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), interested parties may 
submit publicly available information to value the factors of 
production for purposes of the final determination within 40 days after 
the date of publication of this preliminary determination. Case briefs 
or other written comments must be submitted to the Assistant Secretary 
for Import Administration no later than one week after issuance of the 
verification reports. Rebuttal briefs, the content of which is limited 
to the issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within five days 
after the deadline for the submission of case briefs. A list of 
authorities used, a table of contents, and an executive summary of 
issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. 
Executive summaries should be limited to five pages total, including 
footnotes. Further, we request that parties submitting briefs and 
rebuttal briefs provide the Department with a copy of the public 
version of such briefs on diskette.
    In accordance with section 774 of the Act, we will hold a public 
hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to 
comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. If a request 
for a hearing is made, we will tentatively hold the hearing two days 
after the deadline for submission of rebuttal briefs at the U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, DC 20230, at a time and in a room to be determined. Parties 
should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing 
48 hours before the scheduled date.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate 
in a hearing if one is requested, must submit a written request to the 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 days of the date of publication of this 
notice. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and 
telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the 
issues to be discussed. At the hearing, oral presentations will be 
limited to issues raised in the briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). The 
Department will make its final determination no later than 75 days 
after the preliminary determination.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: January 26, 2004.
James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 04-2168 Filed 2-2-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S