[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 12, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53655-53661]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-15089]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

A-570-888


Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts 
Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the 
Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting the first 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on floor-standing, 
metal-top ironing tables and certain parts thereof from the People's 
Republic of China (PRC). The period of review (POR) is February 3, 
2004, through July 31, 2005. We have preliminarily determined that two 
of the three respondents 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).

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 12, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristina Boughton or Bobby Wong, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
8173 or (202) 482-0409, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On August 6, 2004, the Department published in the Federal Register 
an antidumping duty order regarding floor standing, metal-top ironing 
tables and parts thereof (ironing tables) from the PRC. See Notice of 
Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Antidumping Duty Order: Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and 
Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 47868 
(August 6, 2004) (Amended Final FR).
    On August 1, 2005, the Department published a notice of opportunity 
to request an administrative review of the ironing tables antidumping 
order. See Notice of Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review of 
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended 
Investigation, 70 FR 44085 (August 1, 2005). On August 12, 2005, Since 
Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. (Since Hardware) requested, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), an administrative review of its 
exports of subject merchandise during the POR. On August 25, 2005, Home 
Products International Inc. (petitioner) requested an administrative 
review of the ironing tables produced or exported by Since Hardware 
during the POR, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1). On August 26, 
2005, Shunde Yongjian Housewares Co., Ltd. (Shunde Yongjian) requested 
a review of its exports of subject merchandise during the POR, and on 
August 29, 2005, Forever Holdings Ltd. (Forever Holdings) requested a 
review of its exports of subject merchandise during the POR, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2). On August 31, 2005, Shunde 
Yongjian sent a letter to the Department stating that it wanted to 
clarify that its request for an administrative review should also 
include a variation of the name that may have been used to export 
subject merchandise during the POR. Shunde Yongjian stated that the 
name variation is as follows: Foshan Shunde Yongjian Houseware & 
Hardware Co., Ltd. (Foshan Shunde).
    On September 28, 2005, the Department initiated a review with 
respect to Since Hardware, Shunde Yongjian (aka Foshan Shunde), and 
Forever Holdings (collectively, respondents). See Initiation of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request 
for Revocation in Part, 70 FR 56631 (September 28, 2005). On October 
19, 2005, the Department issued antidumping duty questionnaires to the 
three PRC producers/exporters of the subject merchandise covered by 
this administrative review.
    On January 11, 2006, we invited interested parties to comment on 
the Department's surrogate country selection and/or significant 
production in the other potential surrogate countries and to submit 
publicly available information to value the

[[Page 53656]]

factors of production. On March 1, 2006, we extended the time limit for 
submitting surrogate country and surrogate value comments. On April 3, 
2006, we received comments from Since Hardware and Forever Holdings. 
Petitioner commented on surrogate values on April 13, 2006.
    On April 19, 2006, in accordance with 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff 
Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), the 
Department extended the deadline for the preliminary results of review 
until August 4, 2006. See Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and 
Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time 
Limit for Preliminary Results of the First Administrative Review, 71 FR 
20076 (April 19, 2006).
    On July 27, 2006, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 
Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), the Department further extended the 
deadline for the preliminary results of review until August 31, 2006. 
See Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Parts Thereof from the 
People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 
Results of the First Administrative Review, 71 FR 42627 (July 27, 
2006).
    The Department received timely filed original and supplemental 
questionnaire responses from Since Hardware, Foshan Shunde, and Forever 
Holdings.

Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order

    For purposes of this order, 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 review.
    Furthermore, this order specifically covers imports of ironing 
tables, assembled or unassembled, complete or incomplete, and certain 
parts thereof. For purposes of this order, the term ``unassembled'' 
ironing table means a product requiring the attachment of the leg 
assembly to the top or the attachment of an included feature such as an 
iron rest or linen rack. The term ``complete'' ironing table means 
product sold as a ready-to-use ensemble consisting of the metal-top 
table and a pad and cover, with or without additional features, e.g. 
iron rest or linen rack. The term ``incomplete'' ironing table means 
product shipped or sold as a ``bare board'' - i.e., a metal-top table 
only, without the pad and cover with or without additional features, 
e.g. iron rest or linen rack. The major parts or components of ironing 
tables that are intended to be covered by this order under the term 
``certain parts thereof'' consist of the metal top component (with or 
without assembled supports and slides) and/or the leg components, 
whether or not attached together as a leg assembly. The order covers 
separately shipped metal top components and leg components, without 
regard to whether the respective quantities would yield an exact 
quantity of assembled ironing tables.
    Ironing tables without legs (such as models that mount on walls or 
over doors) are not floor-standing and are specifically excluded. 
Additionally, tabletop or countertop models with short legs that do not 
exceed 12 inches in length (and which may or may not collapse or 
retract) are specifically excluded.
    The subject ironing tables were previously classified under 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 
9403.20.0010. Effective July 1, 2003, the subject ironing tables are 
classified under new HTSUS subheading 9403.20.0011. The subject metal 
top and leg components are classified under HTSUS subheading 
9403.90.8040. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and for Customs and Border Protection (CBP) purposes, the 
Department's written description of the scope remains dispositive.

Shunde Yongjian (aka Foshan Shunde)

    As indicated above, the Department initiated a review on Shunde 
Yongjian, a respondent in the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) 
investigation, and Foshan Shunde. Foshan Shunde (aka Shunde Yongjian) 
filed a November 23, 2005, Section A response, where the company 
indicated that it would be answering the Department's questionnaires as 
Foshan Shunde because Foshan Shunde produced and sold subject 
merchandise to the United States during the POR. It also stated that 
Foshan Shunde's owners controlled Shunde Yongjian, which had in July 
2004 ceased all production activities and retained only its sales 
department to dispose of the company's remaining inventory. Foshan 
Shunde (aka Shunde Yongjian) further stated that Shunde Yongjian did 
not sell any subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. 
Foshan Shunde (aka Shunde Yongjian) reiterated the statement that 
Shunde Yongjian had no POR shipments of subject merchandise in its 
February 28, 2006, supplemental questionnaire in response to the 
Department's request for clarification of Foshan Shunde (aka Shunde 
Yongjian)'s responses and the relationship between Foshan Shunde and 
Shunde Yongjian. In their July 13, 2006, supplemental response, Foshan 
Shunde (aka Shunde Yongjian) confirmed that during the POR Shunde 
Yongjian did not produce the same model types or control numbers that 
Foshan Shunde produced and sold to the United States during the POR. 
The Department has issued an additional questionnaire related to the 
affiliation between Shunde Yongjian and Foshan Shunde to obtain more 
information on whether the two entities should be collapsed or whether 
Foshan Shunde is the successor in interest to Shunde Yongjian. If the 
Department determines not to collapse the two entities and that Foshan 
Shunde is not the successor in interest, we intend to rescind the 
review of Shunde Yongjian based on no shipments.

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. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 
(May 6, 1991) (Sparklers). In this review Since Hardware, Foshan 
Shunde, and Forever Holdings submitted information in support of their 
claims for company-specific rates.
    Accordingly, we have considered whether each of the companies is 
independent from government control, and therefore eligible for a 
separate rate. The Department's separate-rate test to determine whether 
the exporters are independent from government control does not 
consider, in general, macroeconomic/border-type controls, e.g., export 
licenses, quotas, and minimum export prices, particularly if these 
controls are imposed to prevent dumping. The test focuses, rather, on 
controls over the investment, pricing,

[[Page 53657]]

and output decision-making process 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), and Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 
Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 61276, 61279 
(November 17, 1997).
    To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from 
government control of its export activities to be entitled to a 
separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the 
subject merchandise under a test arising from Sparklers, 56 FR 20588 at 
Comment 1, as amplified by Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of 
China, 59 FR 22585, 22586-87 (May 2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide). In 
accordance with the separate-rates criteria, the Department assigns 
separate rates in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the 
absence of both de jure and de facto government control over export 
activities. See Sparklers, 56 FR 20588 at Comment 1 and Silicon 
Carbide, 59 FR 22586-87.
    Since Hardware, Foshan Shunde, and Forever Holdings provided 
complete separate-rate information in their responses to our original 
and supplemental questionnaires. Accordingly, we performed a separate-
rates analysis to determine whether these exporters are independent 
from government control.

Absence of De Jure Control

    The Department considers the following de jure criteria in 
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate 
rate: (1) an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an 
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative 
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal 
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See 
Sparklers, 56 FR 20588 at Comment 1. As discussed below, our analysis 
shows that the evidence on the record supports a preliminary finding of 
de jure absence of government control for the three fully responsive 
companies based on each of these factors.

Since Hardware:

    Since Hardware has placed on the record a number of documents to 
demonstrate absence of de jure control, including documentation 
substantiating its claims that it is a wholly foreign-owned enterprise 
registered in China, the ``Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic 
of China'' (May 12, 1994) (Foreign Trade Law), and ``Administrative 
Regulations of the People's Republic of China Governing the 
Registration of Legal Corporations'' (June 3, 1988) (Legal Corporations 
Regulations). See Since Hardware's November 22, 2005, submission (Since 
Hardware Section A) at Exhibits 2, 4, and 6. Since Hardware also 
submitted a copy of its business license, which was issued by the 
Guangzhou Municipal Industrial and Commercial Administration. See Since 
Hardware Section A at Exhibit 5. Since Hardware explains that its 
business license ensures that Since Hardware maintains sufficient 
capital and operating capacity to engage in normal business operations 
and that only Since Hardware may use its business license. See Since 
Hardware Section A at pages 5-6. Since Hardware affirms that its 
business license does not impose limitations on the company or grant 
any entitlements to Since Hardware beyond the company's basic right to 
operate within the parameters outlined in the business license. See id. 
The license may be revoked, according to Since Hardware, if a situation 
arises consistent with those outlined in Articles 20 and 22 of the 
Legal Corporations Regulations. See id. Further, Since Hardware states 
that to obtain a renewal, it must submit relevant documents, such as 
financial statements, to the issuing authority. See id.

Foshan Shunde:

    Foshan Shunde has placed on the record a number of documents to 
demonstrate absence of de jure control, including documentation 
substantiating its claims that it is a wholly foreign-owned enterprise 
registered in China, the Foreign Trade Law, and the Legal Corporations 
Regulations. See Foshan Shunde's November 25, 2005, submission (Foshan 
Shunde Section A) at Exhibit 2, 3, and 5. Foshan Shunde also submitted 
a copy of its business license, which was issued by Foshan City Shunde 
District Municipal Industrial and Commercial Administration. See Foshan 
Shunde Section A at Exhibit 4. Foshan Shunde explains that its business 
license ensures that Foshan Shunde maintains the necessary capital and 
functional capacity to engage in business operations and that only 
Foshan Shunde may use its business license. See Foshan Shunde Section A 
at pages 4-5. Foshan Shunde affirms that its business license does not 
impose limitations on the company or create any entitlements to Foshan 
Shunde beyond the right of the Administration to revoke a business 
license if the enterprise engages in activities prohibited by Article 
30 of the Legal Corporations Regulations. See id. The license may be 
revoked, according to Foshan Shunde, if a situation arises as provided 
for in Articles 20 and 22 of the Legal Corporations Regulations. See 
id. Further, Foshan Shunde states that to obtain a renewal, it must 
submit relevant documents, such as financial statements, to the issuing 
authority. See id.

Forever Holdings:

    Forever Holdings has placed on the record a number of documents to 
demonstrate absence of de jure control, including documentation 
substantiating its claims that it is a foreign-invested joint-venture, 
the ``Company Law of the People's Republic of China'' (December 29, 
1993) (Company Law), the Foreign Trade Law, and the Legal Corporations 
Regulations. See Forever Holdings' November 9, 2005, submission 
(Forever Holdings Section A) at Exhibits 2 and 3. Forever Holdings also 
submitted a copy of its business license, which was issued by Foshan 
Shunde Industrial and Commercial Administration Bureau. See Forever 
Holdings Section A at Exhibit 3. Forever Holdings explains that its 
business license is for registration purposes, defines the scope of the 
company's business activities, and that only Forever Holdings may use 
its business license. See Forever Holdings Section A at pages 6-7. 
Forever Holdings affirms that its business license entitles it to 
conduct business and imposes no limitations on the operation of Forever 
Holdings, defines the types of business activities the licensee can 
engage in, and can be amended if the licensee wishes to expand its 
business scope. See id., at page 8. Forever Holdings states that the 
license may be revoked if the company has insufficient capital, engages 
in illegal activities, or is bankrupt. See id., at pages 8-9. Further, 
Forever Holdings states that to obtain a renewal, it must apply for a 
renewal and provide a copy of its most recent financial statements to 
the issuing authority. See id., at page 9.
    We note that Forever Holdings states that it is governed by the 
Company Law, which it claims governs the establishment of limited 
liability companies and provides that such a company shall operate 
independently and be responsible for its own profits and losses. See 
id., at page 5. Since Hardware, Foshan Shunde, and Forever Holdings 
have all placed on the record the Foreign Trade Law and state that

[[Page 53658]]

this law allows them full autonomy from the central authority in 
governing their business operations. See Since Hardware Section A at 
page 4; Foshan Shunde Section A at page 3; and Forever Holdings Section 
A at page 5. We have reviewed Article 11 of Chapter II of the Foreign 
Trade Law, which states, ``foreign trade dealers shall enjoy full 
autonomy in their business operation and be responsible for their own 
profits and losses in accordance with the law.'' As in prior cases, we 
have analyzed such PRC laws and found that they establish an absence of 
de jure control. See, e.g., Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review: 
Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 
30695, 30696 (June 7, 2001), unchanged in Final Results of New Shipper 
Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of 
China, 66 FR 45006 (August 27, 2001). Therefore, we preliminarily 
determine that there is an absence of de jure control over the export 
activities of Since Hardware, Foshan Shunde, and Forever Holdings.

Absence of De Facto Control

    Typically, the Department considers four factors in evaluating 
whether a respondent is subject to de facto government control of its 
export functions: (1) whether the export prices are set by, or subject 
to, the approval of a government authority; (2) whether the respondent 
has authority to negotiate and sign contracts, and other agreements; 
(3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government in making 
decisions regarding the selection of its management; and (4) whether 
the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes 
independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of 
losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22587.
    As stated in previous cases, there is some evidence that certain 
enactments of the PRC central government have not been implemented 
uniformly among different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. See 
id. Therefore, the Department has determined that an analysis of de 
facto control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in 
fact, subject to a degree of government control, which would preclude 
the Department from assigning separate rates. See id.
    Since Hardware has asserted the following: (1) it is a wholly 
foreign- and privately owned company; (2) there is no government 
participation in its setting of export prices; (3) its general manager 
has the authority to bind sales contracts; (4) the company's general 
manager appoints the company's management and it does not have to 
notify government authorities of its management selection; (5) there 
are no restrictions on the use of its export revenue; and (6) its board 
of directors decides how profits will be used. See Since Hardware 
Section A at pages 4, 6-9. We have examined the documentation provided 
and note that it does not suggest that pricing is coordinated among 
exporters of PRC ironing tables.
    Foshan Shunde has asserted the following: (1) it is a wholly 
foreign- and privately owned company; (2) there is no government 
participation in its setting of export prices; (3) the general manager 
has the authority to bind sales contracts; (4) the general manager 
selects management and the company does not have to notify government 
authorities of its management selection; (5) there are no restrictions 
on the use of its export revenue; and (6) its board of directors 
decides how profits will be used. See Foshan Shunde Section A at pages 
2, 6-8. We have examined the documentation provided and note that it 
does not suggest that pricing is coordinated among exporters of PRC 
ironing tables.
    Forever Holdings has asserted the following: (1) it is a privately 
owned company; (2) there is no government participation in its setting 
of export prices; (3) its owners have the authority to bind sales 
contracts; (4) the board of directors appoints the company's management 
and it does not have to notify government authorities of its management 
selection; (5) there are no restrictions on the use of its export 
revenue; and (6) the owners and board of directors decide how profits 
will be used. See Forever Holdings Section A at pages 2, 10-13. We have 
examined the documentation provided and note that it does not suggest 
that pricing is coordinated among exporters of PRC ironing tables.
    Consequently, because evidence on the record indicates an absence 
of government control, both in law and in fact, over each respondent's 
export activities, we preliminarily determine that Since Hardware, 
Foshan Shunde, and Forever Holdings have each met the criteria for the 
application of a separate rate.

Normal Value Comparisons

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

U.S. Price

Export Price

    For Since Hardware, Foshan Shunde, and Forever Holdings, we based 
U.S. 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 price from the exporter to the first unaffiliated 
customer in the United States. Where applicable, we deducted foreign 
inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, and U.S. 
import duties and brokerage and handling from the starting price (gross 
unit price), in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act.
    Specifically, for Since Hardware we deducted foreign inland 
freight, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, and other discounts, 
where applicable, from the starting price (gross unit price) in 
accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. Also, we added to the gross 
unit price billing adjustments for origin receiving charges and freight 
revenue, where applicable. We have preliminarily determined to accept 
these billing adjustments on the basis of the statements and 
documentation provided by Since Hardware indicating that these charges 
were separately listed on the sales invoice and paid for by the 
customer. For Foshan Shunde, we deducted foreign inland freight and 
foreign brokerage and handling expenses from the starting price (gross 
unit price) in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. For Forever 
Holdings, we deducted foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and 
handling expenses and U.S. import duties and brokerage and handling 
from the starting price (gross unit price), where applicable, in 
accordance with section 772(c) of the Act.
    Where foreign inland freight or foreign brokerage and handling were 
provided by PRC service providers or paid for in renminbi, we valued 
these services using Indian surrogate values (see ``Factors of 
Production'' section below for further discussion). For those expenses 
that were provided by a market-economy provider and paid for in market-
economy currency, we used the reported expense, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.408(c)(1).

[[Page 53659]]

Normal Value

Non-Market-Economy Status

    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. In every case conducted by the 
Department involving the PRC, the PRC has been treated as a NME 
country. See, e.g., Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished 
and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary 
Results 2001-2002 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of 
Review, 68 FR 7500 (February 14, 2003), unchanged in Tapered Roller 
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results of 2001-2002 Administrative Review and 
Partial Rescission of Review, 68 FR 70488 (December 18, 2003). None of 
the parties to these reviews has contested such treatment. Accordingly, 
we calculated normal value (NV) in accordance with section 773(c) of 
the Act, which applies to NME countries.

Surrogate Country

    Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires the Department to value an 
NME producer's factors of production, to the extent possible, in one or 
more market-economy countries that: (1) are at a level of economic 
development comparable to that of the NME country, and (2) are 
significant producers of comparable merchandise. India is among the 
countries comparable to the PRC in terms of overall economic 
development, as identified in the ``Memorandum from the Office of 
Policy to James C. Doyle,'' issued on January 9, 2006.\1\ In addition, 
based on information from the investigation of ironing tables, India is 
a significant producer of comparable merchandise. See Notice of 
Initiation of Antidumping Investigation: Floor-Standing, Metal-Top 
Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of 
China, 68 FR 44040, 44042 (July 25, 2003), unchanged in 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, 69 FR 5127 (February 3, 2004) and Amended 
Final FR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This memorandum (which was mistakenly dated January 9, 2005, 
instead of January 9, 2006) is attached to the letters, dated 
January 11, 2006, sent to interested parties to this proceeding 
requesting comments on surrogate country and surrogate value 
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, we considered India the surrogate country for purposes 
of valuing the factors of production because it meets the Department's 
criteria for surrogate-country selection. See ``Memorandum to the File: 
Selection of a Surrogate Country,'' dated August 31, 2006 (Surrogate 
Country Memo).

Factors of Production

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on the factors of production which included, but were not limited 
to: (A) hours of labor required; (B) quantities of raw materials 
employed; (C) amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; and (D) 
representative capital costs, including depreciation. We used the 
factors of production reported by the producer for materials, energy, 
labor, and packing. To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported unit 
factor quantities by publicly available Indian values.
    Certain of Since Hardware's and Foshan Shunde's inputs into the 
production of the merchandise under review were purchased from market 
economy suppliers and paid for in market economy currencies. We used 
the weight-averaged market economy prices paid by Since Hardware and 
Foshan Shunde when the inputs were obtained from a market economy, paid 
for in a market economy currency, and were a significant portion of the 
total purchases of that input. For purposes of the preliminary results 
we have determined that all of Since Hardware's and Foshan Shunde's 
market economy purchases were a significant portion of total purchases 
of that input and have used the reported prices in our calculations.
    Since Hardware, Foshan Shunde, and Forever Holdings all reported 
by-product sales. With respect to the application of the by-product 
offset to normal value, consistent with the Department's determination 
in diamond sawblades from the PRC, because our surrogate financial 
statements contain no references to the treatment of by-products and 
because all three companies reported that they sold their by-products, 
we will deduct the surrogate value of the by-product from normal value. 
This is consistent with accounting principles based on a reasonable 
assumption that if a company sells a by-product, the by-product 
necessarily incurs expenses for overhead, SG&A, and profit. See Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Partial 
Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades 
and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 29303 (May 
22, 2006), unchanged in Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the 
People's Republic of China, 71 FR 35864 (June 22, 2006).
    In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, 
specificity, and contemporaneity of the data, in accordance with our 
practice. See, e.g., Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 67 FR 72139 
(December 4, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 6; and Final Results of First New Shipper Review and First 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms 
From the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 31204 (June 11, 2001), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5. When we used 
publicly available import data from the Ministry of Commerce of India 
(Indian Import Statistics) for February 2004 through July 2005 to value 
inputs\2\ sourced domestically by PRC suppliers, we added to the Indian 
surrogate values a surrogate freight cost calculated using the shorter 
of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or 
the distance from the closest seaport to the factory. This adjustment 
is in accordance with the CAFC's decision in Sigma Corp. v. United 
States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). When we used non-import 
surrogate values for factors sourced domestically by PRC suppliers, we 
based freight for inputs on the actual distance from the input supplier 
to the site at which the input was used. In instances where we relied 
on Indian import data to value inputs, in accordance with the 
Department's practice, we excluded imports from both NME countries and 
countries deemed to maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific 
subsidies which may benefit all exporters to all export markets (i.e., 
Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand) from our surrogate value 
calculations. See, e.g., Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 
Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China; Final 
Results of 1999-2000 Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of 
Review, and Determination Not to Revoke Order in Part, 66 FR 57420 
(November 15, 2001) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 1. See ``Memorandum to the File: Factors of

[[Page 53660]]

Production Valuation Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Floor-standing, Metal-top 
Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof (Ironing Tables) from the 
People's Republic of China (PRC),'' dated August 31, 2006 (Factor 
Valuation Memo), for a complete discussion of the import data that we 
excluded from our calculation of surrogate values. This memorandum is 
on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For PE Foam and Titanium Hypochlorite Anhydride 4, data from 
Indian Import Statistics was not available for the POR, therefore we 
used import data for January 2003 through December 2003 to value 
these inputs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where we could not obtain publicly available information 
contemporaneous with the POR to value factors, we adjusted the 
surrogate values using the Indian Wholesale Price Index (WPI) as 
published in the International Financial Statistics of the 
International Monetary Fund, for those surrogate values in Indian 
rupees. We made currency conversions, where necessary, pursuant to 19 
CFR 351.415, to U.S. dollars using the daily exchange rate 
corresponding to the reported date of each sale. We relied on the daily 
exchanges rates posted on the Import Administration website (http://www.trade.gov/ia/). See Factor Valuation Memo.
    We valued the factors of production as follows:
    The Department used the Indian Import Statistics to value the raw 
material and packing material inputs that Since Hardware, Foshan 
Shunde, and Forever Holdings used to produce the merchandise under 
review during the POR, except where listed below. For a detailed 
description of all surrogate values used for respondents, see Factor 
Valuation Memo.
    To value water, we calculated the average rate of inside and 
outside industrial water rates from various regions as reported by the 
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, http://midcindia.org, 
dated June 1, 2003. We inflated the value for water using the POR 
average WPI rate. See Factor Valuation Memo.
    We valued electricity using the 2000 electricity price in India 
reported by the International Energy Agency statistics for Energy 
Prices & Taxes, Second Quarter 2003. We inflated the value for 
electricity using the POR average WPI rate. See Factor Valuation Memo.
    We valued diesel using the rates provided by the OECD's 
International Energy Agency's publication: Key World Energy Statistics 
from 2004 and 2005. The prices are based on 2004 and 2005 first quarter 
prices of automotive diesel fuel retail prices. See Factor Valuation 
Memo.
    Consistent with the determination in the LTFV investigation, to 
value the surrogate financial ratios of factory overhead, selling, 
general & administrative expenses, and profit, the Department relied on 
the publicly available information in the annual report and accounts 
for Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited (Godrej), submitted by 
Since Hardware on April 3, 2006, at Exhibit 3. The annual report covers 
the period April 1, 2004, to March 31, 2005, covering 12 months of the 
POR. We determine that Godrej is an appropriate surrogate producer 
because it is a producer of comparable merchandise and the financial 
data is contemporaneous with the POR. See Factor Valuation Memo.
    Because of the variability of wage rates in countries with similar 
levels of per capita gross domestic product, 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3) 
requires the use of a regression-based wage rate. Therefore, to value 
the labor input, we used the PRC's regression-based wage rate published 
by Import Administration on its website, http://www.trade.gov/ia/. See 
Factor Valuation Memo.
    To value truck freight, we calculated a weighted-average freight 
cost based on publicly available data from www.infreight.com, an Indian 
inland freight logistics resource website. See Factor Valuation Memo.
    To value brokerage and handling, we used a simple average of the 
publicly summarized version of the average value for brokerage and 
handling expenses reported in the U.S. sales listings in Essar Steel 
Ltd.'s (Essar) February 28, 2005, Section C submission in the 
antidumping duty review of certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat 
products from India, and information from Agro Dutch Industries Ltd.'s 
(Agro Dutch) May 25, 2005, Section C submission, taken from the 
administrative review of preserved mushrooms from India, for which the 
POR was February 1, 2004, through January 31, 2005. Both sets of data 
are contemporaneous to the POR and the Department's preference is to 
average these two values because they represent values for numerous 
transactions that are available for a range of products and minimize 
the potential distortions that might arise from a single price source. 
One value, taken in isolation, could differ significantly when compared 
across a range of products, values, and special circumstances of a 
single transaction. See Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Final Results of New Shipper Reviews, 71 FR 
26329 (May 4, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision memo at 
Comment 6; and Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 10646 (March 2, 2006). 
See Factor Valuation Memo.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results 
of this administrative review, interested parties may submit publicly 
available information to value the factors of production until 20 days 
following the date of publication of these preliminary results.

Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following antidumping duty 
margins exist:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                          Exporter                             (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd.........................  0.21[percn
                                                                      t]
Foshan Shunde Yongjian Houseware & Hardware Co., Ltd........  0.59[percn
                                                                      t]
Forever Holdings Ltd........................................  9.00[percn
                                                                      t]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For details on the calculation of the antidumping duty weighted-
average margin for each company, see the respective company's analysis 
memorandum for the preliminary results of the first administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on ironing tables from the PRC, 
dated August 31, 2006. Public versions of these memoranda are on file 
in the CRU.

Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and 
CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The 
Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to 
CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of this review. 
For assessment purposes, where possible, we calculated importer-
specific assessment rates for ironing tables from the PRC via ad 
valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of 
the dumping margins calculated for the examined sales to the total 
entered value of those same sales. We will instruct CBP to assess 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if 
any assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is 
above de minimis. The final results of this review shall be the basis 
for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise 
covered by the final results of these reviews and for future deposits 
of estimated duties, where applicable.

[[Page 53661]]

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for the exporters 
listed above, the cash deposit rate will be established in the final 
results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, 
i.e., less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit will be required for that 
company); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC 
exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit 
rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the 
most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise 
which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash 
deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 157.68 percent; and (4) for 
all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received 
their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to 
the PRC exporters that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit 
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of 
the final results of the next administrative review.

Schedule for Final Results of Review

    The Department will disclose calculations performed in connection 
with the preliminary results of this review within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.224(b). Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days 
of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any 
hearing would normally be held 37 days after the publication of this 
notice, or the first workday thereafter, at the U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14\th\ 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, 14\th\ Street and Constitution 
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. Requests for a public hearing should 
contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the 
number of participants; and (3) to the extent practicable, an 
identification of the arguments to be raised at the hearing.
    Unless otherwise notified by the Department, interested parties may 
submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this 
notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). As part of the case 
brief, parties are encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not 
to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases 
cited in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, 
which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, must be 
filed within five days after the case brief is filed in accordance with 
19 CFR 351.309(d). If a hearing is held, an interested party may make 
an affirmative presentation only on arguments included in that party's 
case brief and may make a rebuttal presentation only on arguments 
included in that party's rebuttal brief in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.310(c). Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and 
place of the hearing within 48 hours before the scheduled time. The 
Department will issue the final results of this review, which will 
include the results of its analysis of issues raised in the briefs, not 
later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice in 
accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.213(h)(1).

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during these review periods. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This administrative review and this notice are published in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: August 31, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-15089 Filed 9-11-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S