[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 198 (Thursday, October 14, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60980-60985]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E4-2608]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-891]


Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of 
China

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 14, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel J. Alexy, Stephen Cho, or 
Audrey Twyman, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1540, (202) 482-3798, or (202) 482-3534, respectively

Final Determination

    We determine that hand trucks and certain parts thereof (``hand 
trucks'') 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 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the ``Act''). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown 
in the ``Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this 
notice.

Case History

    The preliminary determination in this investigation was issued on 
May 17, 2004. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Hand Trucks 
and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 
29509 (May 24, 2004) (``Preliminary Determination'').
    Since the Preliminary Determination, the following events have 
occurred. In May of 2004, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') sent out supplemental questionnaires to Qingdao Huatian 
Hand Truck Co., Ltd. (``Huatian''), Qingdao Taifa Group Co., Ltd. 
(``Taifa''), Qingdao Xinghua Group Co., Ltd. (``Xinghua''), and True 
Potential Company (``True Potential''). In June of 2004, the Department 
received responses from these four mandatory respondents participating 
in this investigation. From July 8 through 15, 2004, we conducted 
verification of the questionnaire responses of Huatian. On July 16 and 
19, 2004, we conducted True Potential's verification. From July 19 
through 23, 2004, we conducted Taifa's verification, and from July 26 
through 30, 2004, we conducted Xinghua's verification.
    On July 30, 2004, Huatian and Taifa submitted revised U.S. sales 
and factors of production (``FOP'') databases incorporating minor error 
corrections reported to the Department at the opening of each company's 
verification. Taifa's July 30, 2004, submission contained corrections 
related to the so-called ``allocated inputs'' in addition to its minor 
error corrections. On September 3, 2004, the Department rejected 
Taifa's July 30, 2004, submission, on the grounds that the additional 
corrections were unsolicited new factual information. See the 
Department's September 3, 2004, Letter to Taifa. The Department 
requested that Taifa remove the additional corrections, and resubmit 
its FOP database without the new factual information.
    In a September 8, 2004, meeting with Department officials, Taifa's 
counsel argued that Taifa's July 30, 2004, submission did not contain 
any new factual information. See Memorandum to File; Re: Ex-parte 
Meeting-Qingdao Taifa Group Co. Ltd, September 8, 2004. On September 9, 
2004, the Department requested Taifa to resubmit its July 30, 2004, 
submission, and further invited all parties to comment on whether the 
additional corrections contained in Taifa's July 30, 2004, submission 
should be considered new factual information. See Memorandum to File; 
Re: Briefing Schedule-Rejection of Taifa's July 30, 2004 Submission, 
September 9, 2004. On September 13, 2004, we received comments from 
Taifa. On September 15, 2004, the petitioners (Gleason Industrial 
Products, Inc. and Precision Products,

[[Page 60981]]

Inc. (collectively the ``petitioners'')) submitted their reply 
comments.
    On September 10, 2004, the petitioners and their counsel submitted 
on the record affidavits pertaining to ``certain information revealed 
in and corroborated by'' the Department's verification of Taifa. On 
September 16, 2004, the Department rejected that submission as 
untimely, unsolicited new factual information.
    We received comments from interested parties on the Preliminary 
Determination. On September 10, 2004, we received case briefs from the 
petitioners, Huatian, Taifa, True Potential, and Zhenhua Industrial 
Group Co., Ltd. (``Zhenhua''), and on September 15, 2004, rebuttal 
briefs from the petitioners, Huatian, Qingdao Future Tool Inc. 
(``Future Tool''), Taifa, and True Potential. On September 17, 2004, 
the Department identified certain information in the petitioners' 
September 10, 2004, case brief as untimely, unsolicited new factual 
information. As a result, the Department rejected the petitioners' 
September 10, 2004, case brief in its entirety, and requested the 
petitioners to revise and resubmit their case brief without the new 
factual content. The petitioners resubmitted their case brief on 
September 21, 2004. The Department held a public hearing on September 
17, 2004, at the request of the petitioners, Huatian, Taifa, True 
Potential, Xinghua, and Zhenhua.

Scope of the Investigation

    For the purpose of this investigation, the product covered consists 
of hand trucks manufactured from any material, whether assembled or 
unassembled, complete or incomplete, suitable for any use, and certain 
parts thereof, namely the vertical frame, the handling area and the 
projecting edges or toe plate, and any combination thereof.
    A complete or fully assembled hand truck is a hand-propelled barrow 
consisting of a vertically disposed frame having a handle or more than 
one handle at or near the upper section of the vertical frame; at least 
two wheels at or near the lower section of the vertical frame; and a 
horizontal projecting edge or edges, or toe plate, perpendicular or 
angled to the vertical frame, at or near the lower section of the 
vertical frame. The projecting edge or edges, or toe plate, slides 
under a load for purposes of lifting and/or moving the load.
    That the vertical frame can be converted from a vertical setting to 
a horizontal setting, then operated in that horizontal setting as a 
platform, is not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck from the scope 
of this petition. That the vertical frame, handling area, wheels, 
projecting edges or other parts of the hand truck can be collapsed or 
folded is not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck from the scope of 
the petition. That other wheels may be connected to the vertical frame, 
handling area, projecting edges, or other parts of the hand truck, in 
addition to the two or more wheels located at or near the lower section 
of the vertical frame, is not a basis for exclusion of the hand truck 
from the scope of the petition. Finally, that the hand truck may 
exhibit physical characteristics in addition to the vertical frame, the 
handling area, the projecting edges or toe plate, and the two wheels at 
or near the lower section of the vertical frame, is not a basis for 
exclusion of the hand truck from the scope of the petition.
    Examples of names commonly used to reference hand trucks are hand 
truck, convertible hand truck, appliance hand truck, cylinder hand 
truck, bag truck, dolly, or hand trolley. They are typically imported 
under heading 8716.80.50.10 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (``HTSUS''), although they may also be imported under 
heading 8716.80.50.90. Specific parts of a hand truck, namely the 
vertical frame, the handling area and the projecting edges or toe 
plate, or any combination thereof, are typically imported under heading 
8716.90.50.60 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided 
for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written 
description of the scope is dispositive.
    Excluded from the scope are small two-wheel or four-wheel utility 
carts specifically designed for carrying loads like personal bags or 
luggage in which the frame is made from telescoping tubular material 
measuring less than \5/8\ inch in diameter; hand trucks that use 
motorized operations either to move the hand truck from one location to 
the next or to assist in the lifting of items placed on the hand truck; 
vertical carriers designed specifically to transport golf bags; and 
wheels and tires used in the manufacture of hand trucks.

Scope Comments

    The Department received scope exclusion/clarification comments from 
ten parties requesting that the Department determine whether certain 
products produced by these parties are covered by the scope of the 
investigation. The Department has addressed these requests in the 
following memoranda: ``Scope Exclusion/Clarification Requests: Angelus 
Manufacturing; Custom Carts LLC; Illinois Tool Works, Inc.; Qingdao 
Huatian Hand Truck Co., Ltd; WelCom Products Inc.; and LL King 
Corporation'' from Susan Kuhbach to Jeffrey May (September 3, 2004) and 
``Scope Exclusion/Clarification Requests: Alton Industries, Inc.; Safco 
Products Company; A. J. Wholesale Distributors, Inc.; and Wilmar 
Corporation'' from Susan Kuhbach to Jeffrey May (October 6, 2004). On 
September 27, 2004, Total Trolley, LLC requested that its horizontal 
trolley be excluded from the scope of this investigation. We did not 
receive this request in time for the final determination. Therefore, we 
will address this scope request after the final determination.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (``POI'') is April 1, 2003, through 
September 30, 2003, which corresponds to the two most recent fiscal 
quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition (i.e., 
November 2003).

Nonmarket Economy Status for the PRC

    The Department has treated the PRC as a nonmarket economy (``NME'') 
country in all past antidumping investigations. See, e.g., Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Critical 
Circumstances: Certain Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From the People's 
Republic of China, 68 FR 61395, 61396 (Oct. 28, 2003). A designation as 
an NME remains in effect until it is revoked by the Department. See 
section 771(18)(C) of the Act. No party in this investigation has 
requested a revocation of the PRC's NME status. Therefore, we have 
continued to treat the PRC as an NME in this investigation. For further 
details, see Preliminary Determination, 69 FR at 29511.

Separate Rates

    In our Preliminary Determination, we found that Huatian, Taifa, 
True Potential, Xinghua, Future Tool and Shandong Machinery Import & 
Export Group Corp. (``Shandong'') met the criteria for receiving 
separate antidumping rates. See Preliminary Determination, 69 FR at 
29511-29512. The petitioners have requested that the Department deny 
separate rates to these companies and apply the PRC-wide rate to all 
exporters of the subject merchandise. As explained in Comments 13 
through 16 of the October 6, 2004, Issues and Decision Memorandum for 
the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Hand Trucks and Certain Parts 
Thereof from the People's Republic of China; Final Determination 
(``Decision Memorandum''), we continue to find that each of these 
exporters should be assigned an individual dumping margin because the

[[Page 60982]]

evidence on the record indicates an absence of government control, both 
in law and in fact, over the export activities of Huatian, Taifa, True 
Potential, Xinghua, Future Tool, and Shandong. For a complete 
discussion of the Department's determination that the respondents are 
entitled to separate rates, see Preliminary Determination, 69 FR at 
29511.

Margins for Cooperative Exporters Not Selected

    For our final determination, consistent with our Preliminary 
Determination, we have calculated a weighted-average margin for Future 
Tool and Shandong based on the rates calculated for those exporters 
that were selected to respond in this investigation, excluding any 
rates that are zero, de minimis or based entirely on adverse facts 
available. See Preliminary Determination, 69 FR at 29512. Companies 
receiving this rate are identified by name in the ``Continuation of 
Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice.

Surrogate Country

    For purposes of the final determination, we continue to find that 
India is the appropriate primary surrogate country for the PRC. For 
further discussion and analysis regarding the surrogate country 
selection for the PRC, see Preliminary Determination, 69 FR at 29515.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

    Sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), and (D) of the Act provide that 
the Department shall use facts available when a party withholds 
information that has been requested by the administering authority 
under this subtitle; does not provide the Department with information 
by the established deadline or in the form and manner requested by the 
Department; significantly impedes a proceeding; or provides such 
information but the information cannot be verified. In addition, 
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 in selecting from among the facts 
available. Such adverse inference may include reliance on information 
derived from: (1) The petition; (2) a final determination in the 
investigation under this title; (3) any previous review under section 
751 or determination under 753; or (4) any other information placed on 
the record. See 19 CFR 351.308(c).
    On the basis of our findings in this investigation, which are 
detailed below, we have determined that the use of facts otherwise 
available is appropriate for the PRC-wide entity, Taifa and Xinghua 
because they have not provided certain information in the form or 
manner requested.

The PRC-Wide Rate

    As explained in the Department's Preliminary Determination, there 
are numerous producers/exporters of the subject merchandise in the PRC. 
See Preliminary Determination, 69 FR at 29513. As noted in the 
Preliminary Determination, all exporters were given the opportunity to 
respond to the Department's questionnaire. Based upon our knowledge of 
the PRC and the fact that U.S. import statistics show that the 
responding companies did not account for all imports into the United 
States from the PRC, we have determined that certain PRC exporters of 
hand trucks failed to respond to our questionnaire. Because we did not 
receive data needed to calculate a margin for those companies, which we 
are treating as the PRC-wide entity, we are continuing to use facts 
available pursuant to Section 776(a) of the Act for our final 
determination.
    Moreover, we continue to find that because the exporters comprising 
the PRC-wide entity failed to respond to our requests for information, 
they have failed to cooperate to the best of their ability. See 
Preliminary Determination, 69 FR at 29515. Accordingly, the Department 
will apply an adverse inference in selecting among the facts available. 
See Section 776(b) of the Act.
    As adverse facts available, we are assigning as the PRC-wide rate 
the higher of: (1) The highest margin listed in the notice of 
initiation; or (2) the margin calculated for any respondent in this 
investigation. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel 
Products From The People's Republic of China, 65 FR 34660 (May 31, 
2000), and accompanying Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. For purposes 
of the final determination of this investigation, we have further 
updated information used to corroborate the margin stated in the 
petition. The corroborated margin from the petition is now 386.75 
percent. See Memorandum from John Brinkmann to the File dated October 
6, 2004, regarding calculation of the adverse facts available margin.

Taifa

    In the Preliminary Determination, we calculated a margin for Taifa 
in which we applied partial facts available in our calculation of 
normal value because of inconsistencies between the reported weights 
for completed hand trucks and parts, and the reported inputs used to 
produce the hand trucks and parts. See Preliminary Determination, 69 FR 
at 29514. Subsequent to the Preliminary Determination, we conducted 
verification of Taifa's questionnaire responses. On the last day of 
verification, Taifa reported an error in its allocation formula for 
certain inputs, which had not been included in Taifa's list of minor 
error corrections presented at the beginning of the verification. 
Because of problems with its allocation formula, Taifa was unable to 
present the Department with final input amounts for the FOP data fields 
affected by the allocation formula. See Qingdao Taifa Group Co. Ltd. 
Verification Report, September 3, 2004 (``Taifa Verification Report'') 
at 17.
    On July 30, 2004, Taifa submitted its revised U.S. sales and FOP 
response which included updated data reflecting its minor corrections 
and revised data for the allocated inputs, which Taifa claimed was 
based on the corrected allocation formula. As explained above in the 
``Case History'' section, the Department solicited comments from the 
parties on whether the revised data for allocated inputs should be 
considered unsolicited, new factual information.
    Upon review of Taifa's July 30, 2004, submission and the parties' 
comments, we have determined that the revised values for the allocated 
inputs constitute unsolicited, new factual information. Although Taifa 
informed the Department at verification that the per-unit amounts of 
the reported allocated inputs had been miscalculated due to an error in 
the allocation formula, Taifa was not able to provide corrected data at 
the time of verification. As the Department stated in the verification 
report: ``* * *because of inaccuracies in the data for the allocated 
inputs in the electronic spreadsheets provided by Taifa, we were unable 
to verify the allocation of these inputs into the second and third 
level spreadsheets, and the reported per-unit consumption of these 
inputs for any of the selected models.'' See Taifa Verification Report 
at 18. Because the Department did not verify this correction, it did 
not request that Taifa provide the corrected allocated input data after 
verification.
    Taifa has argued that it is incumbent upon the Department to accept 
the

[[Page 60983]]

corrected information regarding the allocated inputs as a clerical 
error, as required by NTN Bearings. NTN Bearing Corporation v. United 
States, 74 F.3d 1204, 1208 (Fed. Cir.1995) (``NTN Bearings''). 
Following NTN Bearings, the Department established a six-part test, 
indicating that it will accept corrections of clerical errors when the 
following conditions are met:
    (1) The error in question must be demonstrated to be a clerical 
error, not a methodological error, an error in judgement, or a 
substantive error; (2) the Department must be satisfied that the 
corrective documentation provided in support of the clerical error 
allegation is reliable; (3) the respondent must have availed itself of 
the earliest reasonable opportunity to correct the error; (4) the 
clerical error allegation, and any corrective documentation, must be 
submitted to the Department no later than the due date for the 
respondent's administrative case brief; (5) the clerical error must not 
entail a substantial revision of the response; and (6) the respondent's 
corrective documentation must not contradict information previously 
determined to be accurate at verification. See Certain Fresh Cut 
Flowers from Colombia; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Reviews, 61 FR 42833, 42834 (August 19, 1996).
    In order for the Department to accept a clerical error late in the 
proceeding, all of the six conditions must be met. We determine that 
Taifa's allocation error does not meet two of the six conditions.
    Under this test, the Department must be satisfied that the 
corrective documentation provided in support of the clerical error 
allegation is reliable. As the Department noted in Taifa's verification 
report, the Department was unable to verify the reliability of the 
error with source documentation. Specifically, the Department stated in 
the verification report that ``* * *because of inaccuracies in the data 
for the allocated inputs in the electronic spreadsheets provided by 
Taifa, we were unable to verify the allocation of these inputs into the 
second and third level spreadsheets, and the reported per-unit 
consumption of these inputs for any of the selected models.'' See Taifa 
Verification Report at 18. Thus, as a result of the error, the 
Department could not verify (1) whether the correction submitted to the 
Department was accurate; or (2) any of Taifa's allocated inputs because 
the allocation formula given at verification was incorrect. Because the 
Department could not verify the corrected error, it cannot be satisfied 
that the corrected error is reliable, and therefore, the second prong 
of the Department test is not met.
    In addition, the error submitted by Taifa fails the fifth prong of 
the Department's test, i.e., correction of this clerical error must not 
entail a substantial revision of the response. Specifically, the error 
affected the usage rates of a significant number of inputs for every 
model sold in the United States. Given that Taifa produced hand trucks 
or inputs to hand trucks in many workshops, that monthly data was 
compiled for each workshop over the six-month POI, and that Taifa 
reported FOP for a large number of hand truck models or parts, the 
error in Taifa's allocation formula affected thousands of pieces of 
information that went into the calculation of normal value. Although we 
cannot know the correct amount that these allocated inputs account for 
relative to the total normal value (because we do not know the correct 
amount of the allocated inputs), based on the amounts used in Taifa's 
July 2, 2004, submission, these inputs account for approximately 25 
percent of the total value of the hand truck or hand truck part. Based 
on this, we determine that the correction proffered by Taifa would be a 
substantial revision of the company's response.
    Therefore, we have not accepted this correction as a clerical error 
or minor correction, nor have we relied on this data contained in the 
July 30, 2004, submission.
    The allocated input data submitted in Taifa's July 2, 2004, 
response is the data that the Department sought to verify. As explained 
by Taifa at verification, the allocated input amounts in that response 
were incorrect. Because Taifa failed to provide the Department with 
information in the form or manner requested, and the July 2, 2004, data 
could not be verified, we determine that the usage rates for the 
allocated inputs must be based on facts otherwise available, in 
accordance with section 776(a)(2).
    We further determine that Taifa failed to cooperate by not acting 
to the best of its ability. Specifically, Taifa was not fully prepared 
for the verification of its FOP database as was evidenced by the fact 
that Taifa did not discover the error in its allocation formula until 
the last day of its verification. Moreover, Taifa did not present the 
Department with documentation for verification of this error. If Taifa 
had been fully prepared, it would have detected the allocation error 
during the preparation for verification, rather than the last day of 
verification. Thus, in accordance with section 776(b), we have applied 
an adverse inference in selecting the usage information for the 
allocated inputs.
    Because we could not verify the reported amounts of allocated 
inputs by model in Taifa's July 2, 2004, submission, we have selected 
the highest amount of the allocated inputs, as follows. In our 
questionnaire in this investigation, we requested Taifa to assign each 
hand truck model/part into one of 12 designated weight range categories 
based on the shipping weight of the hand truck/part. As adverse facts 
available, we have selected the highest reported amount for each 
allocated input for hand trucks/parts within a given weight range 
reported in Taifa's July 2, 2004, response and assigned that value to 
all hand trucks/parts in that weight range.

Xinghua

    In the Preliminary Determination, we calculated a margin for 
Xinghua in which we applied partial facts available in our calculation 
of normal value because of inconsistencies between the reported weights 
for completed hand trucks and parts, and the reported inputs used to 
produce the hand trucks and parts. See Preliminary Determination, 69 FR 
at 29514. Subsequent to the Preliminary Determination, we conducted 
verification of Xinghua's questionnaire responses from July 26 to July 
30, 2004. See Qingdao Xinghua Group Co., Ltd. Verification Report, 
September 3, 2004 (``Xinghua Verification Report'').
    The Department submitted its verification outline to Xinghua on 
June 24, 2004, approximately one month prior to the commencement of 
verification, thereby giving Xinghua sufficient time to prepare for 
verification. See Xinghua's Verification Outline, dated June 24, 2004 
(``Xinghua Verification Outline''). The purpose of submitting a 
verification outline in advance of verification is to give respondents 
sufficient notice about the types of source documents that the 
Department will seek to examine during verification, and to afford 
respondents sufficient time to compile source documents requested in 
the verification outline. As noted below, Xinghua failed to follow the 
instructions detailed in the Department's verification outline and 
failed to present source documents in a timely manner for verification. 
At no time prior to verification did Xinghua contact the Department 
with questions about verification procedures, documents to prepare for 
verification, or the verification outline.
    Xinghua was unprepared for verification and its unpreparedness 
significantly impeded the verification

[[Page 60984]]

process. On the first day of Xinghua's FOP verification, the Department 
found that, despite the specific instructions given in the verification 
outline, Xinghua had few source documents prepared in advance for 
review and those that were prepared were inadequate to support the data 
submitted to the Department by Xinghua. See Xinghua Verification Report 
at 14 and 15. Department officials reiterated to Xinghua the need to 
provide the information requested in the outline but throughout the 
remaining time allocated for the full verification, Xinghua was unable 
to provide the required information in the form requested by the 
Department. See Xinghua Verification Report at 14. Because Xinghua was 
unprepared for verification, and was unable to provide the source 
documentation required, the Department was not able to verify Xinghua's 
factors of production. Specifically, Xinghua was not able to provide 
source documentation supporting its reported consumption of raw 
materials, energy and labor for the production of hand trucks, or 
otherwise explain how it derived the factor inputs it reported to the 
Department. Thus, the Department was unable to verify the factors of 
production Xinghua reported for its production of hand trucks.
    Furthermore, numerous discrepancies were found in verifying 
Xinghua's reported U.S. sales data. See Xinghua Verification Report at 
7. Because of these discrepancies, we were not able to verify Xinghua's 
reported quantity and value of sales to the United States.
    Pursuant to section 776(a)(2) of the Act, the Department must use 
facts otherwise available because Xinghua withheld certain information 
that had been requested by the Department, failed to provide certain 
information by the Department's statutory deadlines and in the form and 
manner requested, and failed to provide certain information that could 
be verified. We further determine that an adverse inference is 
warranted in selecting from among the facts available because Xinghua 
failed to cooperate to the best of its ability at verification. 
Specifically, Xinghua was not able to explain discrepancies in its 
reported sales data nor to provide source documentation for or explain 
the reported FOP for its hand trucks.
    Because the Department was unable to verify Xinghua's FOP and sales 
data, we have no reliable data to calculate a margin for the final 
determination. In accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), and 
(D), as well as section 776(b) of the Act, we are applying total 
adverse facts available to Xinghua. As adverse facts available, we are 
assigning Xinghua the rate of 386.75 percent which is also the PRC-wide 
rate, and the highest margin listed in the notice of initiation, as 
corroborated by the Department.

New Factual Information

    As stated above in the ``Case History'' section, both Huatian and 
Taifa submitted revised U.S. sales and FOP databases on July 30, 2004. 
Taifa's July 30, 2004, submission included minor error corrections 
presented to the Department at the beginning of verification, revised 
usage data for allocated inputs (discussed above in the ``Use of Facts 
Otherwise Available'' section), and other changes unrelated to the 
minor error corrections or allocated inputs. Huatian's July 30, 2004, 
submission included minor error corrections presented to the Department 
at the beginning of verification and certain other changes unrelated to 
the minor error corrections.
    For both companies, we are treating these other changes as untimely 
filed, unsolicited factual information.
    Under 19 CFR 351.302(d), the Department normally would reject 
Huatian's and Taifa's July 30, 2004, submissions in their entirety and 
request the companies resubmit their revised FOP responses without the 
new information. However, due to time constraints and the pending final 
determination in this investigation, it was not feasible for the 
Department to reject and return Huatian's and Taifa's July 30, 2004, 
submissions, request revised submissions, and still be able to issue a 
final determination by the statutory deadline of October 6, 2004. As 
such, the Department has retained Huatian's and Taifa's July 30, 2004, 
submissions in their entirety. Although we have retained these 
responses, we have not considered the untimely filed, unsolicited 
information in making our final determination. See Comments 1 and 7 of 
the Decision Memorandum.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this proceeding 
and to which we have responded are listed in the Appendix to this 
notice and addressed in the Decision Memorandum, which is adopted by 
this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues 
raised in this investigation and the corresponding recommendations in 
this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, 
room B-099, of the main Department building. In addition, a complete 
version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web 
at http://ia.ita.doc.gov or http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html. The 
paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are 
identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made certain 
changes to the margin calculations. For a discussion of these changes, 
see the ``Margin Calculations'' section of the Decision Memorandum.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the 
information submitted by the respondents for use in our final 
determination. We used standard verification procedures including an 
examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original 
source documents provided by the respondents.

Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct 
Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to continue to suspend 
liquidation of all imports of subject merchandise from the PRC entered, 
or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after May 24, 2004, 
the date of publication of our Preliminary Determination. CBP shall 
continue to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to 
the estimated amount by which the normal value exceeds the U.S. price 
as shown below. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain 
in effect until further notice.
    The dumping margins are provided below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Weighted-average
                Manufacturer/Exporter                  margin  (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huatian..............................................              45.04
Taifa................................................              27.00
True Potential.......................................              24.90
Xinghua..............................................             386.75
Future Tool..........................................              30.56
Shandong.............................................              30.56
PRC-wide Rate........................................             386.75
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of the subject merchandise 
except for entries from exporters/producers that are identified 
individually above.

Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

[[Page 60985]]

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the 
International Trade Commission (ITC) of our determination. As our final 
determination is affirmative, the ITC will, within 45 days, determine 
whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material 
injury to, the U.S. industry. If the ITC determines that material 
injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will 
be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. 
If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will 
issue an antidumping duty order directing the CBP to assess antidumping 
duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the 
suspension of liquidation.

Notification Regarding APO

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return/
destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order 
is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the 
terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 
735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: October 6, 2004.
James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix--Issues in the Decision Memorandum

Comments

Company Specific Issues

    Comment 1: The Department Should Apply Facts Available to 
Huatian, Taifa, True Potential, and Xinghua.

Huatian

    Comment 2: The Department Should Revise Huatian's FOP Data to 
Account for Purchased Bearings.
    Comment 3: The Department Should Assign an Appropriate Surrogate 
Value for Axle Rods for Huatian.
    Comment 4: The Department Should Apply Facts Available to Value 
Steel Plate for Huatian.
    Comment 5: The Department Should Treat Huatian's Hand Truck 
Samples as a Quantity Discount.
    Comment 6: The Department Should Not Adjust Huatian's Sales 
Transactions with a Negative Net United States Price.

Taifa

    Comment 7: The Department Should Accept Taifa's July 30, 2004, 
Submission.
    Comment 8: The Department Should Disregard Taifa's Market 
Economy Purchases.
    Comment 9: The Department Should Consider the Role Played by 
Taifa Import & Export Company in Calculating the SG&A Expenses for 
Taifa.
    Comment 10: The Department Should Adjust Taifa's Sales Database 
to Reflect Customer Discounts.
    Comment 11: The Department Should Revise Taifa's FOP Database to 
Account for Packing Materials.

True Potential

    Comment 12: The Department Should Add Trading Company Factors 
for SG&A and Profit in Calculating True Potential's Normal Value.

Separate Rates

    Comment 13: The Department Should Deny Separate-Rates Treatment 
for All Respondents.
    Comment 14: The Department Should Not Calculate a Separate Rate 
for True Potential.
    Comment 15: The Department Should Calculate a Separate Rate for 
Zhenhua.
    Comment 16: The Department Should Not Calculate Separate Rates 
for Future Tool and Shangdong.

General Issues

    Comment 17: The Department Should Not Use the Indian Electricity 
Tariff Because it is Aberrational.
    Comment 18: The Department Miscalculated SG&A and Profit 
Amounts.
    Comment 19: The Department Should Not Use Aberrational Financial 
Data to Value Factory Overhead, SG&A Expenses, and Profit.
    Comment 20: The Department Should Include the Cost of Packing 
Materials and Labor in Calculating Factory Overhead and SG&A.
    Comment 21: The Department Should Include Financial Data from an 
Indian Hand Truck Producer in Calculating Financial Ratios.
    Comment 22: The Department Should Revise the Profit Rate for the 
Final Calculation.

 [FR Doc. E4-2608 Filed 10-13-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P