[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 6, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40602-40607]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-15231]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-868]


Folding Metal Tables and Chairs From the People's Republic of 
China: Preliminary Results of First Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of first antidumping duty 
administrative review.

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the 
Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting the first 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on folding metal 
tables and chairs (``tables and chairs'') from the People's Republic of 
China (``PRC''). The period of review (``POR'') is December 3, 2001 to 
May 31, 2003. See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, Requests for Revocation in 
Part and Deferral of Administrative Reviews, 68 FR 44524, July 29, 2003 
(``Initiation Notice''). We rescinded our review of two companies that 
did not properly file their request for review. We preliminarily 
determine that one company failed to cooperate by not acting to the 
best of its ability to comply with our requests for information and, as 
a result, should be assigned a rate based on adverse facts available. 
Finally, we have preliminarily determined that one cooperative company 
made sales to the United States of the subject merchandise at prices 
below normal value.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties that submit comments are requested to submit with each 
argument (1) a statement of the issue, and (2) a brief summary of the 
argument(s).

DATES: Effective July 6, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anya Naschak or Jim Nunno at (202) 
482-6375 or (202) 482-0783, respectively; Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Enforcement Group III, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On June 2, 2003, the Department published a notice of opportunity 
to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
tables and chairs from the PRC. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 
Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request 
Administrative Review, 68 FR 32727 (June 2, 2003). On June 16, 2003, 
the Department received a timely request from Wok & Pan Industry, Inc. 
(``Wok & Pan'') requesting that the Department conduct an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on tables and 
chairs for entries of subject merchandise made by Wok & Pan. On June 
26, 2003, EJ Footwear, LLC requested the Department conduct an 
administrative review of entries of subject merchandise made by 
Dongguan Shichang Metals Factory Co., Ltd. (``Shichang''). On June 30, 
2003, the Meco Corporation (``petitioner'') requested the Department 
conduct an administrative review of entries of subject merchandise 
exported by three Chinese producers/exporters: Feili Furniture 
Development Co., Ltd and Feili (Fujian) Co., Ltd (``Feili''), New-Tec 
Integration Co., Ltd. (``New-Tec''), and Shichang. On July 29, 2003, 
the Department initiated an administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on tables and chairs from the PRC, for the period of 
December 3, 2001, to May 31, 2003, in order to determine whether 
merchandise imported into the United States is being sold at less than 
fair value with respect to these companies. See Notice of Initiation of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, Requests 
for Revocation in Part and Deferral of Administrative Reviews, 68 FR 
44524, July 29, 2003 (``Initiation Notice'').
    On August 5, 2003, the Department issued antidumping duty 
questionnaires to the above-referenced four PRC companies. On September 
3, 2003, we received a response to Section A of our antidumping duty 
questionnaire from Wok & Pan. On September 11, 2003, we received 
responses to Sections C and D of our antidumping duty questionnaire 
from Wok & Pan. On September 12, 2003, we received responses to Section 
A of our antidumping duty questionnaire from Feili, New-Tec, and 
Shichang. On September 30, 2003, we received responses to Sections C 
and D of our antidumping duty questionnaire from Feili, New-Tec, and 
Shichang.
    On October 27, 2003, petitioner withdrew their request for review 
of Feili and New-Tec. On November 26, 2003, the Department rescinded, 
in part, its review of the administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order of tables and chairs with respect to Feili and New-Tec. See 
Certain Folding Metal

[[Page 40603]]

Tables and Chairs From the People's Republic of China: Notice of 
Partial Rescission of First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 
FR 66397 (November 26, 2003) and Memorandum to the File from Case 
Analysts to Joseph A. Spetrini on Rescission of 2001-2003 First 
Administrative Review of Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the 
People's Republic of China, dated November 20, 2003 (``Rescission 
Memo''). As discussed in the Rescission Memo, Feili and New-Tec did not 
properly file their request for administrative review. Therefore, 
because the only parties that requested a review of these companies 
subsequently withdrew their request, the Department determined that 
rescission was appropriate.
    On November 5, 2003, the Department rejected Wok & Pan's Section A, 
C, and D responses as improperly filed under 19 CFR 351.303, and 
requested that Wok & Pan re-file its Section A, C, and D responses and 
serve all interested parties. See Letter from Abdelali Elouaradia to 
Wok & Pan, dated November 5, 2003 (``Wok & Pan Refiling Letter''). Also 
on November 5, 2003, petitioner submitted comments on Shichang's 
questionnaire responses. Wok & Pan resubmitted its responses on 
November 14, 2003. On December 1, 2003, the Department rejected Wok & 
Pan's responses, as improperly filed (see further discussion below). On 
December 3, 2003, we invited interested parties to comment on the 
Department's surrogate country selection and/or significant production 
in the potential countries, and to submit publicly-available 
information to value the factors of production. On December 10, 2003, 
we issued a supplemental questionnaire to Shichang. On January 5, 2004, 
we received Shichang's supplemental questionnaire response. On January 
13, 2004, petitioner submitted comments on Shichang's supplemental 
questionnaire response.
    On January 15, 2004, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act 
and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2) of the Department's regulations, the 
Department determined to extend the time limits for these preliminary 
results until June 29, 2004. See Notice of Extension of Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Review: Certain Folding Metal Tables and 
Chairs From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 2329 (January 15, 
2004). On January 28, 2004, we issued an additional supplemental 
questionnaire to Shichang.
    On February 2, 2004, we received petitioner's and Shichang's 
comments on surrogate information with which to value the factors of 
production in this proceeding. None of the interested parties in this 
proceeding commented on the selection of a surrogate country. On 
February 9, 2004, we received Shichang's second supplemental 
questionnaire response.

Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order

    The merchandise subject to this review consists 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 folding metal tables are the following:
    a. Lawn furniture;
    b. Trays commonly referred to as ``TV trays'';
    c. Side tables;
    d. Child-sized tables;
    e. Portable counter sets consisting of rectangular tables 
36 high and matching stools; and
    f. 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 
folding metal chairs are the following:
    a. Folding metal chairs with a wooden back or seat, or both;
    b. Lawn furniture;
    c. Stools;
    d. Chairs with arms; and
    e. Child-sized chairs.
    The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under subheadings 
9401710010, 9401710030, 9401790045, 9401790050, 9403200010 and 
9403200030 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(``HTSUS''). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') purposes, 
the Department's written description of the merchandise is dispositive.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), and section 351.307 of the Department's regulations, 
we conducted verification of the questionnaire and supplemental 
responses of Shichang. We used standard verification procedures, 
including on-site inspection of the production facility of Shichang. 
Our verification results are outlined in the Memorandum to the File, 
through Abdelali Elouaradia, Program Manager, Verification of U.S. 
Sales and Factors of Production Information Submitted by Dongguan 
Shichang Metals Factory, Ltd. and Maxchief Investments, Ltd., dated 
April 23, 2004 (``Verification Report''). A public version of this 
report is on file in the Central Records Unit (``CRU'') located in room 
B-099 of the Main Commerce Building.

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving non-market economy (``NME'') countries, 
the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies 
within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should 
be assigned a single antidumping duty rate unless an exporter can 
affirmatively demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law 
(de jure) and in fact (de facto), with respect to its export 
activities. In this review, Shichang requested a separate company-
specific rate.
    To establish whether a company is sufficiently independent in its 
export activities from government control to be entitled to a separate, 
company-specific rate, the Department analyzes the exporting entity in 
an NME country under the test established in the Final

[[Page 40604]]

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers From the 
People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588, 20589 (May 6, 1991) 
(``Sparklers''), and amplified by the Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide From the People's Republic of 
China, 59 FR 22585, 22586-22587 (May 2, 1994) (``Silicon Carbide'').
    The Department's separate-rate test is unconcerned, 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. The test focuses, rather, on controls over the 
investment, pricing, and output decision-making process at the 
individual firm level. See, e.g., Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel 
Plate From Ukraine: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, 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 Honey From the People's 
Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, 60 FR 14725, 14726 (March 20, 1995). Shichang provided separate-
rate information in its responses to our original and supplemental 
questionnaires. Accordingly, we performed a separate-rates analysis to 
determine whether this exporter is independent from government control 
(see Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Bicycles From the People's Republic of China, 61 FR 56570 (April 30, 
1996), for a summary of the process by which the Department conducts 
this analysis).
    As stated above in the ``Background'' section, the Department 
rejected Wok & Pan's questionnaire responses as untimely and improperly 
filed. Wok & Pan filed its Sections A, C, and D responses on September 
3, 2003 and September 11, 2003. However, as noted in the Wok & Pan 
Refiling Letter, Wok & Pan failed to serve all interested parties with 
hard copies of their responses in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303. 
Specifically, the Department noted that Section 351.303 (f)(1)(i) 
requires that ``a person filing a document with the Department 
simultaneously must serve a copy of the document on all other persons 
on the service list by personal service or first class mail.'' 
Therefore, the Department returned Wok & Pan's responses and gave Wok & 
Pan an opportunity to alleviate this discrepancy by re-filing its 
responses by November 13, 2003. The Department further noted in a 
letter from Abdelali Elouaradia to Wok & Pan dated November 6, 2003, 
that if Wok & Pan did not remedy its service problems by the deadline, 
the Department ``may not be able to consider your Section A, C or D 
submissions in this administrative review.'' The Department received 
Wok & Pan's submissions past the deadline, on November 14, 2003. 
Further, Wok & Pan failed to serve these responses on interested 
parties, despite explicit instructions to do so. On November 24, 2003, 
analyst John Drury spoke with counsel for all interested parties, 
regarding Wok & Pan's November 14, 2003, submission. Interested parties 
noted that they had not received copies of Wok & Pan's November 14, 
2003, submission. See Memorandum to the File from Case Analyst John 
Drury: Telephone Conversation with Interested Parties regarding Wok & 
Pan's November 14, 2003, Submission. On December 1, 2003, the 
Department rejected Wok & Pan's questionnaire responses in accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.302(d) because they were not received in a timely 
manner, and were not properly served on interested parties pursuant to 
19 CFR 351.303(f)(1)(i) and (ii), and informed Wok & Pan that it will 
be considered an interested party rather than a respondent for the 
duration of this administrative review. See Letter from Abdelali 
Elouaradia to Wok & Pan dated December 1, 2003. Therefore, the 
Department preliminarily determines that, for the purpose of these 
preliminary results, Wok & Pan has not responded to our requests for 
information regarding separate rates and therefore separate rates 
treatment is not warranted. See, e.g., Natural Bristle Paint Brushes 
and Brush Heads From the People's Republic of China; Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 57389 
(November 6, 1996). Consequently, consistent with the statement in our 
notice of initiation, we find that, because Wok & Pan does not qualify 
for a separate rate, it is deemed to be part of the PRC-entity. See 
Administrative Review Initiation. See also ``The PRC-wide Rate and Use 
of Facts Otherwise Available'' section below.
    Based on a review of the responses we have concluded that Shichang 
is owned by a Taiwanese national and incorporated in the British Virgin 
Islands. Therefore, we determine that no separate-rate analysis is 
required for this company.

The PRC-wide Rate and Use of Facts Otherwise Available

    Shichang and Wok & Pan were given the opportunity to respond to the 
Department's questionnaire. We received questionnaire responses from 
Shichang, and we have calculated a separate rate for Shichang. The PRC-
wide rate applies to all entries of subject merchandise except for 
entries Fromaves\notices.xml PRC producers/exporters that have their 
own calculated rate.
    As discussed above, Wok & Pan is appropriately considered to be 
part of the PRC-wide entity. Therefore, we determine it is necessary to 
review the PRC-wide entity because it did not provide information 
necessary to the instant proceeding. In doing so, we note that section 
776(a)(1) of the Act mandates that the Department use the facts 
available if necessary information is not available on the record of an 
antidumping proceeding. In addition, section 776(a)(2) of the Act 
provides that if an interested party or any other person: (A) Withholds 
information that has been requested by the administering authority; (B) 
fails to provide such information by the deadlines for the submission 
of the information or in the form and manner requested, subject to 
subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782; (C) significantly impedes a 
proceeding under this title; or (D) provides such information but the 
information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i), the 
Department shall, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, use the facts 
otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination under this 
title. Where the Department determines that a response to a request for 
information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act 
provides that the Department shall promptly inform the party submitting 
the response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent 
practicable, provide that party with an opportunity to remedy or 
explain the deficiency. Section 782(e) of the Act provides that the 
Department shall not decline to consider information that is submitted 
by an interested party and is necessary to the determination but does 
not meet all the applicable requirements established by the 
administering authority. Because the PRC-wide entity provided no 
information, we determine that sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act are 
not relevant to our analysis.
    According to section 776(b) of the Act, 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,''

[[Page 40605]]

the Department may use information that is adverse to the interests of 
the 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 URAA, H. 
Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Session at 870 (1994). Furthermore, ``an 
affirmative finding of bad faith on the part of the respondent is not 
required before the Department may make an adverse inference.'' 
Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties: Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 
27340 (May 19, 1997).
    As above stated, the PRC-wide entity did not respond to our 
requests for information. Because the PRC-wide entity did not respond 
to our request for information in the form or manner requested, we find 
it necessary, under section 776(a)(2) of the Act, to use facts 
otherwise available as the basis for the preliminary results of review 
for the PRC-wide entity.
    In addition, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we find that 
the PRC-wide entity failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of 
its ability to comply with a request for information. As noted above, 
the PRC-wide entity failed to respond in the proper format or in a 
timely manner to the Department's questionnaire, despite repeated 
requests that it do so. Thus, because the PRC-wide entity refused to 
participate fully in this proceeding, we find it appropriate to use an 
inference that is adverse to the interests of the PRC-wide entity in 
selecting from among the facts otherwise available. By doing so, we 
ensure that the companies that are part of the PRC-wide entity will not 
obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than had they 
cooperated fully in this review.
    An adverse inference may include reliance on information derived 
from the petition, the final determination in the investigation, any 
previous review, or any other information placed on the record. See 
section 776(b) of the Act. It is the Department's practice to assign 
the highest rate from any segment of the proceeding as total adverse 
facts available when a respondent fails to cooperate to the best of its 
ability. See, e.g., Stainless Steel Wire Rods from India, Final Results 
and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 
29923, 29924 (May 26, 2004).
    In accordance with the Department's practice, we have preliminarily 
assigned to the PRC-wide entity (including Wok & Pan) the rate of 70.71 
percent as adverse facts available. This rate is the PRC-wide rate 
established in the LTFV investigation based on information contained in 
the petition. See Memorandum to the File from Abdelali Elouaradia to 
Richard Weible: Final Determination in the Antidumping Investigation of 
Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China: 
Total Facts Available Corroboration Memorandum, dated April 17, 2002 
(``Final AFA Memo''). In selecting a rate for adverse facts available, 
the Department selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse ``as to 
effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule to induce 
respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate 
information in a timely manner.'' See Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from 
Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998).
    We note that information from a prior segment of this proceeding 
constitutes ``secondary information,'' and section 776(c) of the Act 
provides that, when the Department relies on such secondary information 
rather than on information obtained in the course of a review, the 
Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that 
information from independent sources that are reasonably at its 
disposal. Secondary information is described in the SAA as 
``information derived from the petition that gave rise to the 
investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject 
merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the 
subject merchandise.'' See SAA at 870. The SAA states that the 
independent sources may include published price lists, official import 
statistics and customs data, and information obtained from interested 
parties during the particular investigation or review. The SAA also 
clarifies that ``corroborate'' means that the Department will satisfy 
itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. 
See SAA at 870. As noted in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 
Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four 
Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and 
Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 
(November 6, 1996) (``TRBs''), to corroborate secondary information, 
the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability 
and relevance of the information used.
    We note that in the LTFV investigation, the Department corroborated 
the information in the petition that formed the basis of the 70.71 
percent PRC-wide entity rate. See Final AFA Memo. Specifically, in the 
LTFV investigation, the Department compared the prices in the petition 
to the prices submitted by individual respondents for comparable 
merchandise. For normal value (``NV''), we compared petitioners'' 
factor-consumption data to data reported by respondents. See Final AFA 
Memo.
    In order to satisfy the corroboration requirements under section 
776(c) of the Act, in the instant review, we reviewed the Department's 
corroboration of the petition rates from the LTFV investigation. See 
Memorandum to the File from Case Analyst, through Edward C. Yang, 
Office Director, The Use of Adverse Facts Available for non-responsive 
companies (i.e., Wok & Pan Industry, Inc. (``Wok & Pan'')), and the 
PRC-wide entity; Corroboration of Secondary Information, dated June 29, 
2004 (``AFA & Corroboration Memo''). No information has been presented 
to call into question the reliability of the information from the 
investigation. Therefore, we find that the petition information is 
reliable. See AFA & Corroboration Memo at 1 and Attachment 2.
    We further note that, with respect to the relevance aspect of 
corroboration, the Department stated in TRBs that it will ``consider 
information reasonably at its disposal as to whether there are 
circumstances that would render a margin irrelevant. Where 
circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as 
adverse facts available, the Department will disregard the margin and 
determine an appropriate margin.'' See TRBs at 61 FR 57392. See also 
Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996) 
(disregarding the highest margin in the case as best information 
available because the margin was based on another company's 
uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an extremely high 
margin). The rate used is the rate currently applicable to all 
exporters subject to the PRC-wide rate. Further, as noted above, there 
is no information on the record that the application of this rate would 
be inappropriate in this administrative review or that the margin is 
not relevant. Thus, we find that the information is relevant. 
Therefore, the Department preliminarily determines that the PRC-wide 
entity rate of 70.71 is reliable and relevant, and has probative

[[Page 40606]]

value within the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act.

Normal Value Comparisons

    To determine whether Shichang's sales of the subject merchandise to 
the United States were made at prices below normal value, we compared 
their United States prices to normal values, as described in the 
``United States Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice.

United States Price

    For Shichang, we based United States price on export price (``EP'') 
in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the first sale to 
an unaffiliated purchaser was made prior to importation, and 
constructed export price (``CEP'') was not otherwise warranted by the 
facts on the record. We calculated EP based on the packed FOB price 
from the exporter to the first unaffiliated customer in the United 
States. Where applicable, we deducted foreign inland freight, and 
brokerage and handling from the starting price (gross unit price), in 
accordance with section 772(c) of the Act.

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine NV using a factors-of-production methodology if (1) the 
merchandise is exported from an NME country, and (2) available 
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.
    In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the 
PRC has been treated as an NME country. Pursuant to section 
771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is 
an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the 
administering authority. Shichang did not contest such treatment in 
this review. Accordingly, we have applied surrogate values to the 
factors of production to determine NV for Shichang. See Factors of 
Production Valuation Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the 
First Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Folding 
Metal Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China, dated June 
29, 2004 (``Factor Valuation Memo''). A public version of this 
memorandum is on file in the CRU located in room B-099 of the Main 
Commerce Building.
    We calculated NV based on factors of production and market economy 
prices paid by Shichang for certain inputs in accordance with section 
773(c)(4) of the Act and section 351.408(c) of our regulations. 
Consistent with the LTFV investigation of this order, we determine that 
India (1) is comparable to the PRC in level of economic development, 
and (2) is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. See Notice 
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Folding Metal 
Tables and Chairs from the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 20090 
(April 24, 2002) (``Final Determination''). Accordingly, we valued the 
factors of production for inputs purchased from a NME using publicly 
available information from India. In selecting the surrogate values for 
inputs where Shichang did not purchase from a market economy supplier, 
we considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the 
data, in accordance with our practice. Where appropriate, we adjusted 
Indian import prices by adding foreign inland freight expenses in order 
to derive delivered prices. When we used Indian import values to value 
inputs sourced domestically by PRC suppliers, we added to Indian 
surrogate values a surrogate freight cost calculated using the shorter 
of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or 
the distance from the nearest port of export to the 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, 
1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
    We valued raw material inputs using the weighted-average unit 
import values derived from the World Trade Atlas, which notes that its 
data was obtained from the Ministry of Commerce of India (``Indian 
Import Statistics'') for the time period corresponding to the POR (see 
Factor Valuation Memo). When we relied on Indian import values to value 
inputs, in accordance with the Department's practice, we excluded 
imports from both NMEs and countries deemed to have generally available 
export subsidies (i.e., Indonesia, Korea, and Thailand) from our 
surrogate value calculations. For those Indian rupee values not 
contemporaneous with the POR, we adjusted for inflation using wholesale 
price indices published in the International Monetary Fund's 
International Financial Statistics.
    For the inputs used in the production of subject merchandise that 
were purchased from a market economy supplier and paid for in a 
convertible currency, Sec.  351.408(c)(1) of the Department's 
regulations stipulates that ``where a factor is purchased from a market 
economy supplier and paid for in a market economy currency, the 
Secretary normally will use the price paid to the market economy 
supplier.'' For the inputs that Shichang demonstrated that it purchased 
the raw material from a market economy supplier and paid in convertible 
currency, we used the purchase price paid, as reported in Shichang's 
Second Supplemental questionnaire response dated February 9, 2004, at 
Exhibit 6, and Verification Exhibit 16. Modifications were made to 
these prices as described in the Proprietary Memorandum to the File 
from Anya Naschak through Edward C. Yang: Preliminary Results Analysis 
Memorandum for Dongguan Shichang Metals Factory Co., Ltd., and Maxchief 
Investments Ltd., dated June 29, 2004 (``Analysis Memo'').
    It is, however, the Department's practice to exclude the market 
economy purchase price if it has reason to believe or suspect these 
prices may be dumped or subsidized prices. See Final Determination for 
the 1998-99 Administrative Review of Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China, 
66 FR 1953 (January 10, 2001) (``TRBs 2001''), Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 1. Petitioners have placed on the record 
documentation indicating that the cold rolled steel purchased by 
Shichang is being sold at dumped prices (for a description of the input 
and its country of origin, see Analysis Memo). Respondents did not 
respond to this information on the record. Therefore, the Department 
has determined that for these preliminary results, Shichang's purchases 
of cold rolled steel were purchased at dumped prices. Because the 
Department's practice is to exclude prices that are dumped or 
subsidized, the Department has calculated the value for this input 
using a surrogate value derived from Indian Import Statistics, rather 
than the purchase price paid.
    In accordance with Sec.  351.301(c)(3)(ii) of the Department's 
regulations, for the final results of an antidumping administrative 
review, interested parties may submit publicly available information to 
value factors of production within 20 days after the date of 
publication of these preliminary results.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions pursuant to section 351.415 of the 
Department's regulations at the rates certified by the Federal Reserve 
Bank.

Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following antidumping duty 
margins exist:

[[Page 40607]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
             Exporter                         POR             (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dongguan Shichang Metals Factory          12/03/01-05/31/03         2.97
 Ltd..............................
PRC-wide Entity (including Wok &          12/03/01-05/31/03        70.71
 Pan).............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For details on the calculation of the antidumping duty weighted-
average margin for Shichang, see Analysis Memo. A public version of 
this memorandum is on file in the CRU.

Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to section 351.212(b), the Department calculates an 
assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise. Upon 
issuance of the final results of this review, if any importer-specific 
assessment rates calculated in the final results are above de minimis 
(i.e., at or above 0.50 percent), the Department will issue 
appraisement instructions directly to CBP to assess antidumping duties 
on appropriate entries by applying the assessment rate to the entered 
value of the merchandise. For assessment purposes, we calculated 
importer-specific assessment rates for the subject merchandise by 
aggregating the antidumping duties due for all U.S. sales to each 
importer and dividing the amount by the total quantity of the sales to 
that importer. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final 
results of review, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting rate 
against the total quantity for the subject merchandise on each of 
Shichang's importer's/customer's entries during the POR.

Cash-Deposit Requirements

    The following cash-deposit rates will be effective upon publication 
of the final results of this review for all shipments of tables and 
chairs from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after publication date, as provided for by section 
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For subject merchandise exported by 
Shichang, the cash-deposit rate will be that established in the final 
results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent 
and, therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), 
in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously 
investigated or reviewed companies not listed above that have separate 
rates, the cash-deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific 
rate published for the most recent period; (3) the cash-deposit rate 
for all other PRC exporters (including Wok & Pan) will be the ``PRC-
wide'' rate established in the final results of this review; and (4) 
the cash deposit rate for all other non-PRC exporters will be the rate 
applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that exporter.
    These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect 
until publication of the final results of the next administrative 
review.

Schedule for Final Results of Review

    The Department will disclose calculations performed in connection 
with the preliminary results of this review within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice in accordance with section 
351.224(b) of the Department's regulations. Any interested party may 
request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice in 
accordance with section 351.310(c) of the Department's regulations. Any 
hearing would normally be held 37 days after the publication of this 
notice, or the first workday thereafter, at the U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20230. Individuals who wish to request a hearing must submit a written 
request within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the Federal 
Register to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, Room 1870, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, 
NW, Washington, DC 20230. Requests for a public hearing should contain: 
(1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of 
participants; and (3) to the extent practicable, an identification of 
the arguments to be raised at the hearing.
    Unless otherwise notified by the Department, interested parties may 
submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this 
notice in accordance with section 351.309(c)(ii) of the Department's 
regulations. As part of the case brief, parties are encouraged to 
provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table 
of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. Rebuttal briefs, which must 
be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within 
five days after the case brief is filed. If a hearing is held, an 
interested party may make an affirmative presentation only on arguments 
included in that party's case brief and may make a rebuttal 
presentation only on arguments included in that party's rebuttal brief. 
Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the 
hearing within 48 hours before the scheduled time. The Department will 
issue the final results of this review, which will include the results 
of its analysis of issues raised in the briefs, not later than 120 days 
after the date of publication of this notice.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under section 351.402(f) of the Department's 
regulations to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of 
antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during 
these review periods. Failure to comply with this requirement could 
result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping 
duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping 
duties.
    This administrative review and this notice are published in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: June 29, 2004.
Jeffrey A. May,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 04-15231 Filed 7-2-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P