[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 27 (Friday, February 9, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6201-6221]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-2130]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

A-570-890


Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
Preliminary Results of New Shipper Reviews and Notice of Partial 
Rescission

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 an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom 
furniture from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''). The period of 
review (``POR'') for this administrative review is June 24, 2004, 
through December 31, 2005. This administrative review covers multiple 
producers/exporters of the subject merchandise, five of which are being 
individually investigated as mandatory respondents. The Department is 
also conducting new shipper reviews for two exporters/producers. The 
POR for the new shipper reviews is also June 24, 2004, through December 
31, 2005.
    We preliminarily determine that all five mandatory respondents in 
the administrative review made sales in the United States at prices 
below normal value. With respect to the remaining respondents in the 
administrative review (herein after collectively referred to as the 
Separate Rate Applicants), we preliminarily determine that 39 entities 
have provided sufficient evidence that they are separate from the 
state-controlled entity, and we have established a weighted-average 
margin based on the rates we have calculated for the five mandatory 
respondents, excluding any rates that are zero, de minimis, or based 
entirely on adverse facts available to be applied to theses

[[Page 6202]]

separate rate entities. In addition, we have determined to rescind the 
review with respect to 17 entities in this administrative review. See 
Partial Rescission section below. Further, we preliminarily determine 
that the remaining separate rate applicants have not demonstrated that 
they are entitled to a separate rate, and will thus be considered part 
of the PRC entity. Finally, we preliminarily determine that the two new 
shippers made sales in the United States at prices below normal value. 
If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of 
review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') 
to assess antidumping duties on entries of subject merchandise during 
the POR for which the importer-specific assessment rates are above de 
minimis.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit comments are requested to submit with each 
argument a statement of the issue and a brief summary of the argument. 
We intend to issue the final results of this review no later than 120 
days from the date of publication of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE:  February 9, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eugene Degnan or Robert Bolling, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
0414 and (202) 482-3434, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On January 4, 2005, the Department published in the Federal 
Register the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from 
the PRC. See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Wooden Bedroom Furniture 
from the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 329 (January 4, 2005) 
(``Amended Final Determination''). On January 3, 2006, the Department 
published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review 
of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC 
for the period June 24, 2004, through December 31, 2005. See 
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended 
Investigation: Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 71 FR 89 
(January 3, 2006). On February 28, 2006, the Department issued a letter 
to all parties in its initiation notice, giving parties notice that, 
due to the large number of requests for review in this case, we were 
considering limiting the number of respondents, and in order to 
facilitate the selection process and administer this review, the 
Department was considering implementing its existing administrative 
procedures. See Letter from Wendy Frankel, Director, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 8, dated February 28, 2006. On March 7, 2006, the Department 
initiated the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order 
on wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC. See Notice of Initiation of 
Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Wooden Bedroom 
Furniture from the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 11394 (March 7, 
2006) (``Initiation Notice''). Additionally, on March 7, 2006, the 
Department initiated three new shipper reviews on wooden bedroom 
furniture from the PRC with respect to the following companies: 
Dongguan Huanghouse Furniture Co., Ltd. (``Huanghouse''), Senyuan 
Furniture Group (``Senyuan''), and Tianjin First Wood Co., Ltd. 
(``First Wood''). See Notice of Initiation of New Shipper Reviews on 
Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 
11404 (March 7, 2006) (``New Shipper Initiation Notice''). Between 
March 7, 2006, and June 5, 2006, several parties withdrew their 
requests for administrative review. On June 30, 2006, the Department 
published a notice rescinding the review with respect to the entities 
for whom all review requests had been withdrawn. See Notice of Partial 
Rescission of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Wooden 
Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 37539 
(June 30, 2006).
    On March 21, 2006, the Furniture Sub-Chamber of the China Chamber 
of Commerce for Import & Export of Light Industrial Products and Arts-
Crafts (``Furniture Subchamber of ``CCCLA'') filed a Market-Oriented 
Industry request with the Department. On April 3, 2006, the Department 
issued the Furniture Subchamber of CCCLA a letter explaining that the 
submission had not been properly served on all interested parties, and 
that for the Department to retain the submission on the record of this 
administrative review, the Furniture Subchamber of CCCLA would have to 
comply with the following requirements: serve all interested parties 
with its March 21, 2006 submission and certify to the Department that 
it had served all interested parties. We informed the Furniture 
Subchamber of CCCLA that it must comply with our instructions by no 
later than April 14, 2006. On May 16, 2006, we rejected the Furniture 
Subchamber of CCCLA's March 21, 2006, submission because it had not 
complied with the requirements stipulated above, (i.e., did not 
properly serve all interested parties by the required deadline set 
forth in the Department's April 3 letter). See Letter from Wendy 
Frankel, Director, Office 8, to Hu Weiqiao, Secretary-General, The 
Furniture Sub-Chamber of the China Chamber of Commerce for Import & 
Export of Light Industrial Products and Arts-Crafts, dated May 16, 
2006.
    On May 12, 2006, Petitioners\1\ submitted comments with respect to 
respondent selection. On June 6 and 26, 2006, Fine Furniture (Shanghai) 
Limited and its affiliates (``Fine Furniture'') submitted comments with 
respect to respondent selection. On June 14, 2006, Shanghai Starcorp 
Funiture Co., Ltd, Starcorp Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., Orin 
Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., Shanghai Star Furniture Co., Ltd., and 
Shanghai Xing Ding Furniture Industrial Co., Ltd. (collectively, 
``Starcorp''), submitted comments with respect to respondent selection. 
Also, on June 14, 2006, Maria Yee, Inc., Guangzhou Maria Yee 
Furnishings, Ltd., and Pyla HK Limited (collectively, ``Maria Yee'') 
filed comments regarding respondent selection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Petitioners in this case are the American Furniture 
Manufacturers Committee for Legal Trade and Vaughan-Bassett 
Furniture Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 8, 2006, American Signature, Inc. (``ASI'') requested that 
the Department issue instructions to CBP to refund ``excess'' 
antidumping duty deposits made by ASI due to ministerial errors from 
the original investigation pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1520. On June 16, 
2006, Pacific Marketing International (``PMI'') stated that it supports 
ASI's comments and requested that the Department direct CBP to 
liquidate all entries from the supplier identified in ASI's June 8, 
2006, submission according to ``correct'' final rates rather than the 
``incorrect'' final rates. On June 21, 2006, Petitioners submitted 
comments with respect to ASI and PMI's request and stated that their 
requests are without merit and that the Department's regulations 
provide for the automatic assessment of duties at the cash deposit rate 
``at the time of entry'' if no administrative review is requested. 
Petitioners argue that because neither party requested a review of the 
exporter, the Department should liquidate their entries at the cash 
deposit rate in effect at the time of entry, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.212(c), which stipulates that if no review is requested the 
Department is to instruct CBP to assess antidumping

[[Page 6203]]

duties at rates equal to the cash deposit or bond posted on those 
entries. Also, on June 26, 2006, RiversEdge Furniture Company 
(``RiversEdge'') requested that the Department issue instructions to 
CBP to refund excess antidumping duty deposits made by RiversEdge 
between the Preliminary Determination and the Amended Preliminary 
Determination and those posted between the Final Determination and the 
Amended Final Determination in the less than fair value investigation. 
See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Wooden Bedroom Furniture 
from the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 35312 (June 24, 2004) 
(``Preliminary Determination''); Notice of Amended Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Amendment to the 
Scope: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China, 69 
FR 54643 (September 9, 2004) (``Amended Preliminary Determination''); 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Wooden 
Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 67313 
(November 17, 2004) (``Final Determination'') and Amended Final 
Determination. On June 30, 2006, Petitioners submitted comments with 
respect to RiversEdge's request, reiterating their response to ASI and 
PMI's requests stating that the Department cannot grant the request 
because RiversEdge's entries are currently enjoined from liquidation. 
Additionally, on July 31, 2006, Dongguan Sunrise Furniture Co., Taican 
Sunrise Wood Industry Co., Ltd., Shanghai Sunrise Furniture Co., Ltd., 
and Fairmont Designs (collectively, ``Fairmont Designs'') requested the 
refund of certain antidumping duty deposits made by Fairmont Designs. 
On August 11, 2006, Petitioners submitted comments with respect to 
Fairmont Design's request and stated for the same reasons explained in 
its June 21 and June 30 submissions that Fairmont Design's request is 
without merit. The Department has determined that the requests made by 
the above parties are without merit. The Department's regulations state 
``if the Secretary does not receive a timely request for an 
administrative review, the Secretary will instruct the Customs Service 
to, . . . , assess antidumping duties, at rates equal to the cash 
deposit of, or bond for, estimated antidumping duties.'' See 19 CFR 
351.212(c). Because no review is being conducted with respect to the 
exporter for the period covered by these entries, we will instruct CBP 
to liquidate the entries at the cash deposit rate in effect at the time 
of entry, for all entries not enjoined from liquidation.
    Because of the large number of companies subject to this review, on 
July 3, 2006, the Department issued its respondent-selection 
memorandum, selecting the following five companies as mandatory 
respondents in this administrative review: Fine Furniture; Foshan 
Guanqiu Furniture Co., Ltd. (``Foshan Guanqiu''); Fujian Lianfu 
Forestry Co./Fujian Wonder Pacific Inc./Fuzhou Huan Mei Furniture Co., 
Ltd./Jiangsu Dare Furniture Co., Ltd. (``Dare Group''); Shanghai Aosen 
Furniture Co., Ltd. (``Shanghai Aosen''); and Starcorp. See Memorandum 
from Wendy J. Frankel, Director, Office 8, to Gary Taverman, Acting 
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's 
Republic of China: Selection of Respondents (``Respondent Selection 
Memo''), dated July 3, 2006.
    On July 28, 2006, the Department issued its questionnaire to Fine 
Furniture, Foshan Guanqiu, the Dare Group, Shanghai Aosen, and 
Starcorp. On August 30, 2006, all mandatory respondents requested an 
extension of time to respond to the Department's questionnaire. On 
August 30, 2006 the Department extended the deadline for submission of 
the Sections C and D questionnaire response until September 22, 2006.
    On July 26, 2006, counsel for Foshan Guanqiu met with Department 
officials to discuss modifying the requirement to report factors of 
production (``FOP'') for three of Foshan Guanqiu's suppliers of subject 
merchandise. See Memo to the File Regarding Meeting with Counsel for 
Foshan Guanqiu Furniture Co., dated July 27, 2006. On August 3, 2006, 
Foshan Guanqiu submitted comments regarding this issue. On August 14, 
2006, Petitioners submitted rebuttal comments arguing that the 
Department should require Foshan Guanqiu to submit FOP data for all of 
its suppliers. On August 24, 2006, we determined that Foshan Guanqiu 
did not have to report FOPs for two of its three suppliers of subject 
merchandise, Nanhai Baiyi Woodwork Co., Ltd (``Baiyi'') and Zhongshan 
Melux Furniture Co., Ltd. (``Melux'').
    In August 2006, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(j)(3), the two new 
shipper respondents (i.e., First Wood and Huanghouse) agreed to waive 
the time limits applicable to the new shipper reviews and to permit the 
Department to conduct the new shipper reviews concurrently with the 
administrative review. See Memorandum to the file, Wooden Bedroom 
Furniture from the People's Republic of China - Alignment of the 6/24/
04 - 12/31/05 Annual Administrative and New Shipper Reviews, dated 
August 24, 2006.
    On August 2, 2006, Huanghouse informed the Department that it would 
no longer participate in the new shipper review of Huanghouse. See 
Letter from Dongguan Huanghouse Furniture Co., Ltd., dated August 2, 
2006.
    On April 3, 2006, Senyuan withdrew its request for a new shipper 
review, within the 60-day time limit for withdrawal. No other party 
requested a review of Senyuan for this time period. Accordingly, we 
rescinded this new shipper review. See Notice of Partial Rescission of 
New Shipper Review on Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's 
Republic of China, 71 FR 52064 (September 1, 2006).
    On September 12, 2006, the Department issued a letter to interested 
parties seeking comments on surrogate country selection and surrogate 
values. On October 3, 2006, Petitioners and the Dare Group submitted 
comments regarding the selection of a surrogate country. Also, on 
October 24, 2006, the Dare Group, Fine Furniture, Foshan Guanqiu, 
Starcorp, and Petitioners submitted surrogate value information.
    On September 28, 2006, we extended the deadline for the issuance of 
the preliminary results of the administrative review and new shipper 
reviews until January 31, 2007. See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the 
People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limits for the 
Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
New Shipper Reviews, 71 FR 59088 (October 6, 2006).
    On November 3, 2006, Petitioners submitted comments responding to 
the respondent's surrogate value information. Also, on November 3, 
2006, the Dare Group, Fine Furniture, Foshan Guanqiu, Shanghai Aosen, 
and Starcorp responded to Petitioners' October 24, 2006, surrogate 
value submission. On November 13, 2006, the Dare Group provided 
additional surrogate value information and responded to Petitioners' 
November 3, 2006, submission. On November 22, 2006, Petitioners 
responded to the Dare Group's November 13, 2006, submission. On 
December 4, 2006, the Dare Group responded to Petitioners' November 22, 
2006, submission. On December 22, 2006, Petitioners responded to the 
Dare Group's December 4, 2006, submission.
    On December 11, 2006, the Department requested that Fine Furniture, 
Foshan Guanqiu, Shanghai Aosen, and Starcorp provide additional 
surrogate value information. Between

[[Page 6204]]

December 18 and 21, 2006, Starcorp, Fine Furniture, Foshan Guanqiu, and 
Shanghai Aosen each submitted responses to the Department's request.
    On January 9, 2007, First Wood withdrew its request for a new 
shipper review and requested that the review be terminated. See The 
Application of Total Adverse Facts Available, First Wood section below 
for additional discussion.

Company-Specific Chronology

    As described above, the Department issued its antidumping 
questionnaire to the five mandatory respondents. Upon receipt of the 
various responses, the Petitioners provided comments and the Department 
issued supplemental questionnaires. Because the chronology of this 
stage of the administrative review is extensive and varies by 
respondent, the Department has separated this portion of the background 
section by company.

Dare Group

    On August 7, 2006, the Dare Group requested a one-week extension 
for the submission of its Section A response. On August 25, 2006, the 
Dare Group submitted its Section A response to the Department's 
original questionnaire. On August 29, 2006, the Dare Group requested a 
24-day extension for the submission of its Sections C and D response to 
the Department's original questionnaire. On August 30, 2006, the 
Department granted the Dare Group a 17-day extension. On September 12, 
2006, the Dare Group requested an additional two-week extension for the 
submission of its Section C and D response. On September 19, 2006, the 
Department granted the Dare Group a further one-week extension. On 
September 21, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental Section A 
questionnaire to the Dare Group. On September 27, 2006, the Dare Group 
requested an additional one-day extension for the submission of its 
Sections C and D response, which the Department granted on September 
28, 2006. On October 2, 2006, the Dare Group submitted its Section C 
and D response to the Department's original questionnaire. Also, on 
October 2, 2006, the Dare Group requested a two-week extension for the 
submission of its supplemental Section A response. On October 5, 2006, 
the Dare Group requested an additional four-day extension for the 
submission of its supplemental Section A response, which the Department 
granted. On October 16, 2006, the Dare Group submitted its supplemental 
Section A response. On November 22, 2006, the Department issued a 
supplemental Sections C and D questionnaire. On November 30, 2006, the 
Dare Group requested a three-week extension for the submission of its 
supplemental Sections C and D response. On December 4, 2006, the 
Department granted the Dare Group a 12-day extension for the submission 
of its supplemental Sections C and D response. On December 18, 2006, 
the Dare Group submitted its supplemental Sections C and D response. On 
January 9, 2007, the Department issued a second supplemental Sections 
A, C and D questionnaire. On January 18, 2007, the Dare Group requested 
a one-day extension for the submission of its supplemental Sections A, 
C and D response, which the Department granted. On January 22, 2007, 
the Dare Group submitted its supplemental Sections A, C and D response. 
On September 5, October 17, November 13, and December 22, 2006, 
Petitioners submitted comments on the Dare Group's questionnaire and 
supplemental questionnaire responses.

Fine Furniture

    On August 25, 2006, Fine Furniture submitted its Section A response 
to the Department's original questionnaire. On September 15, 2006, Fine 
Furniture requested an extension of time to respond to Sections C and D 
of the Department's original questionnaire. On September 19, 2006, the 
Department extended the deadline for submission of Fine Furniture's 
Sections C and D responses until October 2, 2006. On September 21, 
2006, the Department issued a supplemental Section A questionnaire to 
Fine Furniture. On October 2, 2006, Fine Furniture requested an 
extension of time to respond to the supplemental Section A 
questionnaire. Also, on October 2, 2006, Fine Furniture submitted its 
responses to Sections C and D of the questionnaire. On October 4, 2006, 
the Department extended the deadline for submission of Fine Furniture's 
supplemental Section A response until October 16, 2006. On November 9, 
2006, the Department issued a supplemental Section D questionnaire to 
Fine Furniture. On November 15, 2006, Fine Furniture requested an 
extension of time to respond to the supplemental Section D 
questionnaire. On November 20, 2006, the Department extended the 
deadline for submission of Fine Furniture's supplemental Section D 
response until December 4, 2006. On November 28, 2006, Fine Furniture 
requested an additional extension of time to respond to the 
supplemental Section D questionnaire. On November 30, 2006, the 
Department extended the deadline for submission of Fine Furniture's 
supplemental Section D response until December 6, 2006. Also, on 
November 30, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental Section C 
questionnaire to Fine Furniture. On December 6, 2006, Fine Furniture 
submitted its supplemental Section D response. Also, on December 11, 
2006, Fine Furniture requested an additional extension of time to 
respond to the Section C supplemental questionnaire. On December 14, 
2006, the Department extended the deadline for submission of Fine 
Furniture's supplemental Section C response until December 20, 2006. On 
December 20, 2006, Fine Furniture submitted its supplemental Section C 
response. On December 27, 2006, the Department issued its second 
supplemental Section D questionnaire. On January 3, 2007, Fine 
Furniture requested an extension of time to respond to the second 
supplemental Section D questionnaire. Also, on January 3, 2007, the 
Department issued its second supplemental Section C questionnaire. On 
January 4, 2007, the Department extended the deadline for submission of 
Fine Furniture's second supplemental Section D response until January 
12, 2007. On January 12, 2007, Fine Furniture requested an extension of 
time to respond to the second supplemental Section C and D 
questionnaire. On January 16, 2007, Fine Furniture submitted its 
responses to the second supplemental Sections C and D questionnaires. 
On September 5, October 13, November 21, and December 19 and 22, 2006, 
Petitioners submitted comments on Fine Furniture's questionnaire and 
supplemental questionnaire responses.

Foshan Guanqiu

    On August 25, 2006, Foshan Guanqiu submitted its Section A response 
to the Department's original questionnaire. On October 2, 2006, Foshan 
Guanqiu submitted its Sections C and D response to the Department's 
original questionnaire. The Department issued a supplemental Section A 
questionnaire to Foshan Guanqiu on October 4, 2006, to which Foshan 
Guanqiu responded on October 25, 2006. On November 8, 2006, the 
Department issued a supplemental Sections C and D questionnaire to 
Foshan Guanqiu, to which Foshan Guanqiu responded on November 30, 2006. 
The Department issued a supplemental questionnaire on surrogate values 
submitted by Foshan Guanqiu on December 11, 2006, and received a 
response on December 21, 2006. The Department issued a second 
supplemental Section C and D questionnaire to Foshan Guanqiu on

[[Page 6205]]

December 29, 2006, and received a response on January 12, 2007. On 
September 5, October 20, November 13, and December 13, 2006, 
Petitioners submitted comments on Foshan Guanqiu's questionnaire and 
supplemental questionnaire responses.

Shanghai Aosen

    On August 28, 2006, Shanghai Aosen submitted its Section A response 
to the Department's original questionnaire. On September 15, 2006, 
Shanghai Aosen requested a two-week extension to respond to Section D 
of the Department's original questionnaire. On September 19, 2006, the 
Department granted the extension for Shanghai Aosen to file its Section 
D response by September 29, 2006. On September 25, 2006, Shanghai Aosen 
submitted its Section C response to the Department's original 
questionnaire.
    On October 2, 2006, Shanghai Aosen submitted its Section D response 
to the Department's original questionnaire. On October 3, 2006, the 
Department issued a supplemental Section A questionnaire to Shanghai 
Aosen. On October 5, 2006, Shanghai Aosen requested a one-week 
extension to respond to the supplemental Section A questionnaire. On 
October 10, 2006, the Department granted a full extension until October 
18, 2006. On October 18, 2006, Shanghai Aosen submitted its 
supplemental Section A response.
    On November 8, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental Section C 
questionnaire to Shanghai Aosen. On November 16, 2006, Shanghai Aosen 
requested a two-week extension to respond to the supplemental Section C 
questionnaire. The Department granted a partial extension on November 
21, 2006, and instructed Shanghai Aosen to respond to the supplemental 
Section C questionnaire by November 29, 2006. On November 28, 2006, the 
Department issued a supplemental Section D questionnaire to Shanghai 
Aosen. On November 30, Shanghai Aosen submitted its supplemental 
Section C response.
    On December 7, 2006, Shanghai Aosen requested a 17-day extension to 
respond to the supplemental Section D questionnaire. The Department 
granted a partial extension until December 19, 2006. On December 12, 
2006, the Department issued a supplemental Section D questionnaire 
specific to Shanghai Aosen's FOPs to be due by December 19, 2006. On 
December 18, 2006, Shanghai Aosen requested a three-day extension to 
respond to this supplemental Section D questionnaire. The Department 
granted a partial extension until December 21, 2006. On December 20, 
2006, Shanghai Aosen submitted its supplemental Section D response. On 
December 21, 2006, Shanghai Aosen submitted its response to the 
supplemental Section D questionnaire specific to its FOPs.
    On January 5, 2007, the Department issued a second supplemental 
Sections C and D questionnaire. On January 22, 2007, Shanghai Aosen 
submitted its second supplemental Sections C and D response. On 
September 6, October 23, November 13, and December 13 and 27, 2006, and 
January 18, 2007, Petitioners submitted comments on Shanghai Aosen's 
questionnaire and supplemental questionnaire responses.

Starcorp

    On August 25, 2006, Starcorp submitted its Section A questionnaire 
response. On October 2, 2006, Starcorp submitted its Sections C and D 
questionnaire responses. The Department issued a supplemental Section A 
questionnaire to Starcorp on October 3, 2006, to which Starcorp 
responded on October 27, 2006. The Department issued a supplemental 
Section D questionnaire to Starcorp on November 3, 2006, to which 
Starcorp responded on November 29, 2005. On November 21, 2006, the 
Department issued a supplemental Section C questionnaire and second 
supplemental Sections A and D questionnaires to Starcorp, to which 
Starcorp responded on December 12, 2006. On December 11, 2006, the 
Department issued a third supplemental Section D questionnaire to 
Starcorp, to which Starcorp responded on December 18, 2006. On December 
20, 2006, the Department issued a fourth supplemental Section D 
questionnaire to Starcorp, to which Starcorp responded on January 8, 
2007. On December 28, 2006, the Department issued a second supplemental 
Section C questionnaire, to which Starcorp responded on January 8, 
2007. Further, on January 12, 2007, the Department issued a third 
supplemental Section C questionnaire, to which Starcorp responded on 
January 17, 2007. On September 6, October 16, November 9, and December 
13, 19, and 21, 2006, and January 12, 2007, Petitioners submitted 
comments on Starcorp's questionnaire and supplemental questionnaire 
responses. Finally, on December 18, 2006, and January 19, 22, and 26, 
2007, Starcorp submitted responses to Petitioners' comments of December 
7 and 12, 2006, and January 12 and 23, 2007, respectively.

First Wood

    On March 14, 2006, the Department issued its standard antidumping 
questionnaire to First Wood. First Wood submitted its Section A 
response on April 19, 2006, and its Sections C and D responses on May 
11, 2006. The Department issued a supplemental Sections A, C, and D 
questionnaire to First Wood on July 14, 2006, to which First Wood 
responded on August 17, 2006. The Department issued a second 
supplemental Sections A, C, and D questionnaire to First Wood on 
December 7, 2006, to which First Wood responded on January 3, 2006. 
Petitioners provided no comments.

Period of Review

    The POR is June 24, 2004, through December 31, 2005.

Scope of the Order

    The product covered is wooden bedroom furniture. Wooden bedroom 
furniture is generally, but not exclusively, designed, manufactured, 
and offered for sale in coordinated groups, or bedrooms, in which all 
of the individual pieces are of approximately the same style and 
approximately the same material and/or finish. The subject merchandise 
is made substantially of wood products, including both solid wood and 
also engineered wood products made from wood particles, fibers, or 
other wooden materials such as plywood, oriented strand board, particle 
board, and fiberboard, with or without wood veneers, wood overlays, or 
laminates, with or without non-wood components or trim such as metal, 
marble, leather, glass, plastic, or other resins, and whether or not 
assembled, completed, or finished.
    The subject merchandise includes the following items: (1) wooden 
beds such as loft beds, bunk beds, and other beds; (2) wooden 
headboards for beds (whether stand-alone or attached to side rails), 
wooden footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and wooden 
canopies for beds; (3) night tables, night stands, dressers, commodes, 
bureaus, mule chests, gentlemen's chests, bachelor's chests, lingerie 
chests, wardrobes, vanities, chessers, chifforobes, and wardrobe-type 
cabinets; (4) dressers with framed glass mirrors that are attached to, 
incorporated in, sit on, or hang over the dresser; (5) chests-on-
chests\2\,

[[Page 6206]]

highboys\3\, lowboys\4\, chests of drawers\5\, chests\6\, door 
chests\7\, chiffoniers\8\, hutches\9\, and armoires\10\; (6) desks, 
computer stands, filing cabinets, book cases, or writing tables that 
are attached to or incorporated in the subject merchandise; and (7) 
other bedroom furniture consistent with the above list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A chest-on-chest is typically a tall chest-of-drawers in two 
or more sections (or appearing to be in two or more sections), with 
one or two sections mounted (or appearing to be mounted) on a 
slightly larger chest; also known as a tallboy.
    \3\ A highboy is typically a tall chest of drawers usually 
composed of a base and a top section with drawers, and supported on 
four legs or a small chest (often 15 inches or more in height).
    \4\ A lowboy is typically a short chest of drawers, not more 
than four feet high, normally set on short legs.
    \5\ A chest of drawers is typically a case containing drawers 
for storing clothing.
    \6\ A chest is typically a case piece taller than it is wide 
featuring a series of drawers and with or without one or more doors 
for storing clothing. The piece can either include drawers or be 
designed as a large box incorporating a lid.
    \7\ A door chest is typically a chest with hinged doors to store 
clothing, whether or not containing drawers. The piece may also 
include shelves for televisions and other entertainment electronics.
    \8\ A chiffonier is typically a tall and narrow chest of drawers 
normally used for storing undergarments and lingerie, often with 
mirror(s) attached.
    \9\ A hutch is typically an open case of furniture with shelves 
that typically sits on another piece of furniture and provides 
storage for clothes.
    \10\ An armoire is typically a tall cabinet or wardrobe 
(typically 50 inches or taller), with doors, and with one or more 
drawers (either exterior below or above the doors or interior behind 
the doors), shelves, and/or garment rods or other apparatus for 
storing clothes. Bedroom armoires may also be used to hold 
television receivers and/or other audio-visual entertainment 
systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The scope of the order excludes the following items: (1) seats, 
chairs, benches, couches, sofas, sofa beds, stools, and other seating 
furniture; (2) mattresses, mattress supports (including box springs), 
infant cribs, water beds, and futon frames; (3) office furniture, such 
as desks, stand-up desks, computer cabinets, filing cabinets, 
credenzas, and bookcases; (4) dining room or kitchen furniture such as 
dining tables, chairs, servers, sideboards, buffets, corner cabinets, 
china cabinets, and china hutches; (5) other non-bedroom furniture, 
such as television cabinets, cocktail tables, end tables, occasional 
tables, wall systems, book cases, and entertainment systems; (6) 
bedroom furniture made primarily of wicker, cane, osier, bamboo or 
rattan; (7) side rails for beds made of metal if sold separately from 
the headboard and footboard; (8) bedroom furniture in which bentwood 
parts predominate\11\; (9) jewelry armories\12\; (10) cheval 
mirrors\13\; (11) certain metal parts\14\; and (12) mirrors that do not 
attach to, incorporate in, sit on, or hang over a dresser if they are 
not designed and marketed to be sold in conjunction with a dresser as 
part of a dresser-mirror set.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ As used herein, bentwood means solid wood made pliable. 
Bentwood is wood that is brought to a curved shape by bending it 
while made pliable with moist heat or other agency and then set by 
cooling or drying. See Customs' Headquarters' Ruling Letter 043859, 
dated May 17, 1976.
    \12\ Any armoire, cabinet or other accent item for the purpose 
of storing jewelry, not to exceed 24 in width, 
18 in depth, and 49 in height, including a 
minimum of 5 lined drawers lined with felt or felt-like material, at 
least one side door (whether or not the door is lined with felt or 
felt-like material), with necklace hangers, and a flip-top lid with 
inset mirror. See Memorandum from Laurel LaCivita to Laurie 
Parkhill, Office Director, Issues and Decision Memorandum Concerning 
Jewelry Armoires and Cheval Mirrors in the Antidumping Duty 
Investigation of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic 
of China dated August 31, 2004. See also Wooden Bedroom Furniture 
from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of 
Changed Circumstances Review and Revocation in Part, (71 FR 38621) 
(July 7, 2006).
    \13\ Cheval mirrors, i.e., any framed, tiltable mirror with a 
height in excess of 50 that is mounted on a floor-
standing, hinged base. Additionally, the scope of the order excludes 
combination cheval mirror/jewelry cabinets. The excluded merchandise 
is an integrated piece consisting of a cheval mirror, i.e., a framed 
tiltable mirror with a height in excess of 50 inches, mounted on a 
floor-standing, hinged base, the cheval mirror serving as a door to 
a cabinet back that is integral to the structure of the mirror and 
which constitutes a jewelry cabinet lined with fabric, having 
necklace and bracelet hooks, mountings for rings and shelves, with 
or without a working lock and key to secure the contents of the 
jewelry cabinet back to the cheval mirror, and no drawers anywhere 
on the integrated piece. The fully assembled piece must be at least 
50 inches in height, 14.5 inches in width, and 3 inches in depth. 
See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: 
Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review and 
Determination to Revoke Order in Part, (72 FR 948) (January 9, 
2007).
    \14\ Metal furniture parts and unfinished furniture parts made 
of wood products (as defined above) that are not otherwise 
specifically named in this scope (i.e., wooden headboards for beds, 
wooden footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and wooden 
canopies for beds) and that do not possess the essential character 
of wooden bedroom furniture in an unassembled, incomplete, or 
unfinished form. Such parts are usually classified under HTSUS 
subheading 9403.90.7000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Imports of subject merchandise are classified under subheading 
9403.50.9040 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(``HTSUS'') as ``wooden...beds'' and under subheading 9403.50.9080 of 
the HTSUS as ``other...wooden furniture of a kind used in the 
bedroom.'' In addition, wooden headboards for beds, wooden footboards 
for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and wooden canopies for beds may 
also be entered under subheading 9403.50.9040 of the HTSUS as ``parts 
of wood'' and framed glass mirrors may also be entered under subheading 
7009.92.5000 of the HTSUS as ``glass mirrors...framed.'' This order 
covers all wooden bedroom furniture meeting the above description, 
regardless of tariff classification. Although the HTSUS subheadings are 
provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description 
of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Partial Rescission of Administrative Review

    On April 17, 2006, Dongguan Landmark Furniture Products Ltd. 
(``Dongguan Landmark'') submitted a separate rate application to the 
Department with regard to the first administrative review of wooden 
bedroom furniture from the PRC. Concurrently, Dongguan Landmark was 
participating in the first new shipper review of wooden bedroom 
furniture from the PRC covering the period June 24, 2004, through June 
30, 2005, (``04/05 NSR''). On December 6, 2006, the Department 
completed this new shipper review, and determined Dongguan Landmark to 
be eligible for a separate rate. See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the 
People's Republic of China: Final Results of the 2004-2005 Semi-Annual 
New Shipper Reviews, 71 FR 70739 (December 6, 2006) (``Final New 
Shipper Review''). On December 22, 2006, Dongguan Landmark responded to 
the Department's December 12, 2006, supplemental questionnaire with 
respect to its April 17 separate-rate application, stating that it had 
only one sale to the United States during the POR, which the Department 
reviewed and verified during the 04/05 NSR. Since the Department 
examined this sale in a previous segment of this proceeding, and it is 
not the Department's practice to examine the same sale(s) in multiple 
segments of a proceeding, the Department is rescinding this review with 
respect to Dongguan Landmark.
    On July 28, 2006, Maria Yee conditionally withdrew its request for 
review based on the premise that should the Department rescind the 
review, it would instruct CBP to liquidate Maria Yee's entries for the 
first administrative review period at the assessment rate of 6.65 
percent (and refund all excess antidumping duty deposits with interest) 
in accordance with the final court decision,\15\ pursuant to section 
516a(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). Also, 
Maria Yee requested in the alternative that, if the

[[Page 6207]]

Department does not agree to issue liquidation instructions for the 
first administrative review period in accordance with the court 
decision (see footnote 15), the Department instruct CBP to refund the 
difference in the duties deposited at the 198.08-percent rate and the 
duties that would have been deposited on those entries at the 6.65-
percent rate. Additionally, Maria Yee requested the Department to 
instruct CBP to refund the difference in antidumping duties deposited 
on Maria Yee's January 1, 2006, through June 21, 2006, entries (the 
first half of the second administrative review) to account for the 
difference between these two deposit rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ During the investigation, because the Department determined 
that Maria Yee had not demonstrated separateness from the PRC 
government, Maria Yee received the PRC-wide rate of 198.08 percent. 
As a result of Maria Yee's litigation on the investigation, the 
Department determined on remand that Maria Yee was entitled to a 
separate rate. On June 22, 2006, when Maria Yee's litigation was 
concluded, the Department issued an amended final determination, 
revising Maria Yee's cash deposit rate to 6.65 percent. See Notice 
of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value/
Pursuant to Court Decision:Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the 
People's Republic of China: 71 FR 35870 (June 22, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although Maria Yee submitted its withdrawal request after the 90-
day regulatory deadline, Maria Yee submitted the request very soon 
after the close of the appeal date (see footnote 15), which occurred 
shortly after the 90-day regulatory deadline for withdrawals of request 
for review. In order to preserve its rights with respect to the 
ultimate deposits on the entries in question, Maria Yee had to retain 
its request for review in place until the possibility of all appeals 
had been exhausted. Additionally, the Department had already completed 
its selection of mandatory respondents and Maria Yee was not selected 
as a mandatory respondent in this administrative review. Therefore, the 
Department's selection process of the mandatory respondents for this 
administrative review was not compromised by Maria Yee's request for 
withdrawal. Furthermore, the Department did not expend significant 
resources as of the date Maria Yee withdrew its request for review. 
Therefore, the Department is rescinding this review with respect to 
Maria Yee, and we will instruct to CBP to liquidate Maria Yee's entries 
for the first administrative review period (i.e., June 24, 2004, 
through December 31, 2005) at the assessment rate of 6.65 percent.
    Furthermore, the Department is rescinding this review with respect 
to the following companies (i.e.,Bao An Guan Lan Winmost Furniture 
Factory; Bouvrie International Limited; Dongguan Sea Eagle Furniture 
Company Limited; Guangdong New Four Seas Furniture Mfg.;Huizhou Jadom 
Furniture Co., Ltd.; Hwang Ho New Century Furniture (Dongguan) Corp. 
Ltd.; Inni Furniture Mfg. Ltd.; Jadom Furniture Co., Ltd.; Qingdao 
Beiyuan Industry Trading Co., Ltd.; Red Apple Furniture Co. Ltd.; 
Shenzhen Tiancheng Furniture Co. Ltd.; Sino Concord (Zhangzhou) 
Furniture Co., Ltd.; Top Goal Furniture Co., Ltd (Shenzhen); Trade Rich 
Furniture (Dongguan) Corp. Ltd.; and Winbuild Industrial Ltd.) because 
1) the respondent could not demonstrate that it made sales of subject 
merchandise to the United States during the POR or 2) record evidence 
demonstrates that the respondent did not have any exports of subject 
merchandise during the POR.

Non-Market Economy Country Status

    In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the 
PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (``NME'') country. In 
accordance with 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. See 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). None of the 
parties to this proceeding 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

    When the Department is investigating imports from an NME country, 
section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV on the NME 
producer's FOPs. The Act further instructs that valuation of the FOPs 
shall be based on the best available information in a surrogate market 
economy country or countries considered to be appropriate by the 
Department. See Section 773(c)(1) of the Act. When valuing the FOPs, 
the Department shall utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or 
costs of FOPs in one or more market economy countries that are: (1) at 
a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country; 
and (2) significant producers of comparable merchandise. See Section 
773(c)(1) of the Act. The sources of the surrogate values (``SV'') are 
discussed under the Normal Value section below and in the Memorandum to 
the File, Factors Valuations for the Preliminary Results of the 
Administrative Review, dated January 31, 2007 (``Factor Valuation 
Memorandum''), which is on file in the CRU.
    The Department first determined that India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, 
the Philippines, and Egypt are countries comparable to the PRC in terms 
of economic development. See Memorandum to the File, Administrative 
Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China 
(PRC): Request for a List of Surrogate Countries, dated August 7, 2006, 
(``Policy Memo'') which is on file in the CRU.
    On September 12, 2006, the Department issued a request for parties 
to submit comments on surrogate country selection. On October 3, 2006, 
Petitioners submitted comments regarding the selection of a surrogate 
country.\16\ Also, on October 3, 2006, the Dare Group submitted 
comments regarding the selection of a surrogate country.\17\ On October 
13, 2006, Petitioners submitted comments responding to the Dare Group's 
comments.\18\ Also, on October 13, 2006, the Dare Group and Starcorp 
submitted comments responding to Petitioners' comments.\19\ On October 
23, 2006, Petitioners submitted rebuttal comments to the Dare Group's 
October 13, 2006, comments.\20\ No other party to the proceeding 
submitted information or comments concerning the selection of a 
surrogate country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Letter dated October 3, 2006, from King & Spalding to 
Secretary of Commerce, Re: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the 
People's Republic of China.
    \17\ Letter dated October 3, 2006, from Kay Scholer to Secretary 
of Commerce, Re: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic 
of China.
    \18\ Letter dated October 13, 2006, from King & Spalding to 
Secretary of Commerce, Re: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the 
People's Republic of China.
    \19\ See Letter dated October 13, 2006, from Kay Scholer to 
Secretary of Commerce, Re: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the 
People's Republic of China, and Letter dated October 13, 2006, from 
Steptoe & Johnson to Secretary of Commerce, Re: Wooden Bedroom 
Furniture from the People's Republic of China.
    \20\ Letter dated October 23, 2006, from King & Spalding to 
Secretary of Commerce, Re: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the 
People's Republic of China.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioners assert that India is the appropriate surrogate country 
for the PRC because India is at a level of economic development 
comparable to that of the PRC and is a significant producer of 
comparable merchandise. Additionally, Petitioners note that the 
Department selected India as the surrogate country in the original 
investigation.
    The Dare Group claims that the method by which the Department 
selected the five surrogate countries is arbitrary and flawed. The Dare 
Group argues the surrogate country list in the Policy Memo is 
unsupported by record evidence and is contrary to the Department's 
regulations. The Dare Group argues that because India's per capita GNI 
is less than half that of the PRC, India cannot reasonably be described 
as ``economically comparable'' to the PRC, and would

[[Page 6208]]

thus not be an appropriate surrogate in this review. The Dare Group 
argues that the Philippines is a more appropriate choice for a 
surrogate country because it is at a level of economic development 
comparable to that of the PRC and is a significant producer of 
comparable merchandise.
    Starcorp, a mandatory respondent in this review, urges the 
Department ``to not automatically revert to its 'default' position of 
selecting India as the surrogate country for this proceeding, despite 
the fact that it determined that India was the appropriate surrogate 
country in the less than fair value (``LTFV'') investigation.'' 
Starcorp agues that the Department's surrogate country determination in 
the LTFV investigation was made on the basis of 2001 data. Starcorp 
contends that the PRC's per capita GNI growth has significantly 
outpaced India's GNI growth since 2001. Starcorp states that at this 
stage of the review it cannot rule out or endorse India or any other 
potential surrogate country and requests that the Department address 
the question anew in light of updated data placed on the record of this 
proceeding by the Dare Group.
    On January 22, 2007, the Department issued its surrogate country 
memorandum in which we addressed the parties' comments. See Memorandum 
to the File, Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Wooden Bedroom 
Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate 
Country, dated January 22, 2007 (``Surrogate Country Memorandum''), 
which is on file in the CRU. After evaluating concerns and comments, 
the Department determined that India is the appropriate surrogate 
country to use in this review. The Department based its decision on the 
following facts: 1) India is at a level of economic development 
comparable to that of the PRC; 2) India is a significant producer of 
comparable merchandise; and, 3) India provides the best opportunity to 
use quality, publicly available data to value the FOPs. See Surrogate 
Country Memorandum.
    Therefore, we have selected India as the surrogate country and, 
accordingly, have calculated NV using Indian prices to value the 
respondents' FOPs, when available and appropriate. We have obtained and 
relied upon publicly available information wherever possible. See 
Factor Valuation Memorandum. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.301(c)(3)(ii), interested parties may submit publicly available 
information to value FOPs until 20 days after the date of publication 
of these preliminary results.

Affiliation

    Section 771(33) of the Act directs that the following persons will 
be considered affiliated: (A) Members of a family, including brothers 
and sisters (whether by whole or half blood), spouse, ancestors, and 
lineal descendants; (B) Any officer or director of an organization and 
such organization; (C) Partners; (D) Employer and employee; (E) Any 
person directly or indirectly owning, controlling, or holding with 
power to vote, five percent or more of the outstanding voting stock or 
shares of any organization and such organization; (F) Two or more 
persons directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under 
common control with, any person; and (G) Any person who controls any 
other person and such other person.
    For purposes of affiliation, a person shall be considered to 
control another person if the person is legally or operationally in a 
position to exercise restraint or direction over the other person. See 
Section 771(33) of the Act. In order to find affiliation between 
companies, the Department must find that at least one of the criteria 
listed above is applicable to the respondents. Moreover, stock 
ownership is not the only evidentiary factor that the Department may 
consider to determine whether a person is in a position to exercise 
restraint or direction over another person, e.g., control may be 
established through corporate or family groupings, or joint ventures 
and other means as well. See The Statement of Administrative Action 
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``SAA''), H.R. Doc. 103-
316, 838 (1994). See also Certain Fresh Cut Flowers from Colombia; 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 42833, 
42853 (August 19, 1996); and Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and 
Tubes from Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 62 FR 53808, 53810 (October 16, 1997).
    To the extent that the affiliation provisions in section 771(33) of 
the Act do not conflict with the Department's application of separate 
rates and the statutory NME provisions in section 773(c) of the Act, 
the Department will determine that exporters and/or producers are 
affiliated if the facts of the case support such a finding. See Certain 
Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary 
Results of Sixth New Shipper Review and Preliminary Results and Partial 
Rescission of Fourth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 
10410, 10413 (March 5, 2004) (``Mushrooms''), unchanged in Final 
Results and Final Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's 
Republic of China, 70 FR 54361 (September 14, 2005).

The Dare Group

    Following these guidelines, we preliminarily determine that Fujian 
Lianfu Forestry Co. Ltd./Fujian Wonder Pacific Inc./Fuzhou Huan Mei 
Furniture Co., Ltd./Jiangsu Dare Furniture Co., Ltd., collectively, 
(``Dare Group'') are affiliated pursuant to sections 771(33)(A), (E) 
and (F) of the Act and that these companies should be treated as a 
single entity for the purposes of the antidumping administrative review 
of wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC. Based on our examination of 
the evidence presented in the Dare Group's questionnaire responses, we 
have determined that: (1) Fujian Lianfu Forestry Co. Ltd./Fujian Wonder 
Pacific Inc./Fuzhou Huan Mei Furniture Co., Ltd./Jiangsu Dare Furniture 
Co., Ltd. have overlapping managers and directors; (2) Fujian Lianfu 
Forestry Co. Ltd./Fujian Wonder Pacific Inc./Fuzhou Huan Mei Furniture 
Co., Ltd./Jiangsu Dare Furniture Co., Ltd. have some common ownership; 
(3) There is a familial relationship between persons with significant 
ownership interests in all three companies. See Memorandum to Wendy 
Frankel, Director, Office 8, NME/China Group, through Robert Bolling, 
Program Manager, From Eugene Degnan, Case Analyst, Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's 
Republic of China: Fujian Lianfu Forestry Co. Ltd./Fujian Wonder 
Pacific Inc./Fuzhou Huan Mei Furniture Co., Ltd./Jiangsu Dare Furniture 
Co., Ltd. and Treatment as a Single Entity, dated October 28, 2005 
(``Affiliation/Single Entity Treatment Memorandum'').

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving 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 deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign 
all exporters of merchandise subject to review in an NME country this 
single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently 
independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. The five mandatory 
respondents (i.e., Dare Group, Fine Furniture, Foshan Guanqiu, Shanghai 
Aosen, and Starcorp) and 64 separate-rate respondents have provided 
company-specific information

[[Page 6209]]

and each has stated that it meets the standards for the assignment of a 
separate rate.
    We have considered whether each of these companies referenced above 
is 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, 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, 61758 (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 the Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic 
of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (``Sparklers''), as amplified by 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide 
from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (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.

1. Absence of De Jure Control

    The Department considers the following de jure criteria in 
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate 
rate: (1) an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an 
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative 
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal 
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See 
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
    Our analysis shows that, for the each of the mandatory respondents 
located in the PRC and certain separate-rate respondents, the evidence 
on the record supports a preliminary finding of de jure absence of 
government control based on record statements and supporting 
documentation showing the following: 1) an absence of restrictive 
stipulations associated with the individual exporter's business and 
export licenses; 2) the applicable legislative enactments 
decentralizing control of the companies; and 3) any other formal 
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See 
Memorandum to Wendy J. Frankel, Director, Office 8, Import 
Administration, from Charles Riggle, Program Manager, Wooden Bedroom 
Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Separate Rates for 
Producers/Exporters that Submitted Separate Rate Certifications and 
Applications (``Separate-Rates Memo''), dated January 31, 2007.

2. Absence of De Facto Control

    Through previous cases, the Department has learned that certain 
enactments of the PRC central government have not been implemented 
uniformly among different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. See 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Preserved 
Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China, 63 FR 72255 (December 
31, 1998). 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. The Department considers 
four factors in evaluating whether each respondent is subject to de 
facto government control of its export functions: (1) whether the 
exporter sets its own export prices independent of the government and 
without the approval of a government authority; (2) whether the 
respondent has the 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.
    We determine that, for the mandatory respondents located in the PRC 
and certain separate- rate respondents, the evidence on the record 
supports a preliminary finding of de facto absence of government 
control based on record statements and supporting documentation showing 
the following: 1) each exporter sets its own export prices independent 
of the government and without the approval of a government authority; 
2) each exporter retains the proceeds from its sales and makes 
independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of 
losses; 3) each exporter has the authority to negotiate and sign 
contracts and other agreements; and 4) each exporter has autonomy from 
the government regarding the selection of management.
    Therefore, the evidence placed on the record of this administrative 
review by each of the mandatory respondents and certain separate-rate 
respondents demonstrates an absence of government control, both in law 
and in fact, with respect to each of the exporter's exports of the 
subject merchandise, in accordance with the criteria identified in 
Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. As a result, for the purposes of these 
preliminary results, we have granted separate, company-specific rates 
to each of the five mandatory respondents and certain separate-rate 
respondents\21\ that shipped wooden bedroom furniture to the United 
States during the POR. For a full discussion of this issue and list of 
separate-rate respondents, please see the Separate-Rates Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Fujian Lianfu Forestry Co. Ltd./Fujian Wonder Pacific Inc.; 
Fuzhou Huan Mei Furniture Co., Ltd.; Jiangsu Dare Furniture Co., 
Ltd.; Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited; Foshan Guanqiu Furniture 
Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Aosen Furniture Co., Ltd., Starcorp Funiture 
Co., Ltd, Starcorp Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., Orin Furniture 
(Shanghai) Co., Ltd., Shanghai Star Furniture Co., Ltd., and 
Shanghai Xing Ding Furniture Industrial Co., Ltd.; Tianjin First 
Wood Co., Ltd.; Ace Furniture & Crafts Ltd. (a.k.a. Deqing Ace 
Furniture and Crafts Limited); Baigou Crafts Factory of Fengkai; 
Best King International Ltd.; Dalian Pretty Home Furniture; Decca 
Furniture Limited; Der Cheng Wooden Works of Factory; Dongguan Dihao 
Furniture Co., Ltd.; Dongguan Hua Ban Furniture Co., Ltd; Dongguan 
Mingsheng Furniture Co., Ltd.; Dongguan New Technology Import & 
Export Co., Ltd.; Dongguan Sunpower Enterprise Co., Ltd.; Dongguan 
Yihaiwei Furniture Limited; Kalanter (Hong Kong) Furniture Company 
Limited; Furnmart Ltd.; Guangzhou Lucky Furniture Co. Ltd.; Hong Yu 
Furniture (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd.; Hung Fai Wood Products Factory, Ltd.; 
Hwang Ho International Holdings Limited; King Wood Furniture Co., 
Ltd.; Meikangchi Nantong Furniture Company Ltd.; Nantong Yangzi 
Furniture Co., Ltd.; Po Ying Industrial Co.; Profit Force Ltd.; 
Qingdao Beiyuan-Shengli Furniture Co., Ltd.; Qingdao Shenchang 
Wooden Co., Ltd.; Red Apple Trading Co. Ltd.; Shenyang Kunyu Wood 
Industry Co., Ltd.; Shenzhen Dafuhao Industrial Development Co., 
Ltd.; Shenzhen Shen Long Hang Industry Co., Ltd.; Sino Concord 
International Corporation; T.J. Maxx International Co., Ltd.; Top 
Goal Development Co.; Transworld (Zhangzhou) Furniture Co. Ltd.; Wan 
Bao Chen Group Hong Kong Co. Ltd.; Winmost Enterprises Limited; 
Xilinmen Group Co. Ltd.; Yongxin Industrial (Holdings) Limited; and 
Zhongshan Gainwell Furniture Co. Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, we have found that certain separate-rate 
applicants\22\ have

[[Page 6210]]

not demonstrated an absence of government control over their export 
activities, both in law and in fact, and are therefore, subject to the 
PRC-entity rate. See Separate-Rates Memo. For several of these 
entities,\23\ the Department has found that additional information is 
necessary in order to determine whether they are eligible for separate-
rate status, however, we did not address these issues in our 
supplemental questionnaires. Therefore, the Department will issue an 
additional supplemental questionnaire to these entities, and will re-
evaluate their separate-rate status for the final results. See 
Separate-Rates Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Conghua J. L. George Timber & Co., Ltd., Four Seas 
Furniture Manufacturing Ltd., King Kei Furniture Factory, King Kei 
Trading Co. Ltd, Jiu Ching Trading Co., Ltd., Kong Fong Mao Iek Hong 
and Kong Fong Art Factory, Kunwa Enterprise Company, Macau Youcheng 
Trading Co., Ngai Kun Trading , Putian Ou Dian Furniture Co., Ltd., 
Speedy International, Ltd., Sanxiang Top Art Furniture, Top Art 
Furniture, Triple J Enterprises Co. and Mandarin Furniture 
(Shenzhen) Co. Ltd., Zheijiang Niannian Hong Industrial Co., Ltd., 
Zhongshan Winny Furniture Ltd., Winny Universal, Ltd., and Winny 
Overseas Ltd. (collectively ``Winny''), and Zhongshan Youcheng 
Wooden Arts & Crafts Co. Ltd.
    \23\ Conghua J. L. George Timber & Co., Ltd., Four Seas 
Furniture Manufacturing Ltd., King Kei Furniture Factory, King Kei 
Trading Co. Ltd, Jiu Ching Trading Co., Ltd., Kunwa Enterprise 
Company, Macau Youcheng Trading Co., Ngai Kun Trading, Sanxiang Top 
Art Furniture, Top Art Furniture, and Zhongshan Youcheng Wooden Arts 
& Crafts Co. Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, in the recently completed new shipper reviews, see Final 
New Shipper Review, the Department determined that Shenyang Kunyu Wood 
Industry Co., Ltd. (``Kunyu'') and Meikangchi (Nantong) Furniture 
Company Ltd. (``Meikangchi'') demonstrated their eligibility for 
separate-rate status and as such calculated an individual rate for each 
of these companies. The Department then instructed CBP to liquidate 
their entries for the new shipper review period, June 24, 2004, through 
June 30, 2005, at their respective assessment rates. See Wooden Bedroom 
Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the 
2004-2005 Semi-Annual New Shipper Reviews, 71 FR 70739 (December 6, 
2006). Both Kunyu and Meikangchi are also subject to this 
administrative review where both have preliminarily been granted a 
separate rate. If both continue to demonstrate their eligibility for 
separate-rate status for the final results, the Department will 
instruct CBP to liquidate their entries for the period July 1, 2005, 
through December 31, 2005, at their respective assessment rates.

Margins for Separate-Rate Applicants

    Exporters subject to this review that submitted responses to the 
Department's separate-rate application and had sales of the subject 
merchandise to the United States during the POR, but were not selected 
as mandatory respondents (``Separate-Rate Applicants'') have applied 
for separate-rate status and provided information for the Department to 
consider for this purpose. Therefore, for the Separate-Rate Applicants 
that provided sufficient evidence that they are separate from the 
state-controlled entity, we have established a weighted-average margin 
based on an average of the rates we calculated for the five mandatory 
respondents, excluding any rates that are zero, de minimis, or based 
entirely on adverse facts available. That rate is 62.94 percent. 
Entities receiving this rate are identified by name in the 
``Preliminary Results of Review'' section of this notice and our 
Separate-Rates Memo.

Application of Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act provides that the Department 
shall apply ``facts otherwise available'' if, inter alia, necessary 
information is not on the record or an interested party or any other 
person (A) withholds information that has been requested, (B) fails to 
provide information within the deadlines established, or in the form 
and manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) 
and (e) of section 782, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D) 
provides information that cannot be verified as provided by section 
782(i) of the Act.
    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 will so inform the party submitting the 
response and will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the 
opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to 
remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits and subject to 
section 782(e) of the Act, the Department may disregard all or part of 
the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. 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 applicable requirements 
established by the administering authority'' if the information is 
timely, can be verified, is not so incomplete that it cannot be used, 
and if the interested party acted to the best of its ability in 
providing the information. Where all of these conditions are met, the 
statute requires the Department to use the information supplied if it 
can do so without undue difficulties.
    Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may 
use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when 
a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its 
ability to comply with a request for information. Such an adverse 
inference may include reliance on information derived from the 
petition, the final determination, a previous administrative review, or 
other information placed on the record.
    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies 
on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the 
course of an investigation or review, it shall, to the extent 
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that 
are reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is defined as 
``[lsqb]i[rsqb]nformation 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. Corroborate means 
that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information 
to be used has probative value. Id. To corroborate secondary 
information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine 
the reliability and relevance of the information to be used.

Application of Total Adverse Facts Available

Huanghouse

    As discussed below, the Department initiated a new shipper review 
of Huanghouse's exports of merchandise covered by the antidumping duty 
order on wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC. See New Shipper 
Initiation Notice. On July 19, 2006, the Department issued Huanghouse a 
supplemental Section A questionnaire. On August 2, 2006, Huanghouse 
responded to the supplemental questionnaire but informed the Department 
that it did not intend to participate further in this new shipper 
review. We find that because Huanghouse ceased participation in the 
review, and none of the submitted information can be verified, 
Huanghouse has not demonstrated its entitlement to a separate rate and 
is, therefore, subject to the PRC-wide rate.

Kong Fong Art Factory and Kong Fong Mao Iek Hong

    On April 18, 2006, Kong Fong Art Factory and Kong Fong Mao Iek Hong 
(``Kong Fong'') submitted its separate-rate application to the 
Department. On

[[Page 6211]]

December 15, 2006, the Department issued Kong Fong a supplemental 
questionnaire on its separate-rate application. On January 12, 2007, 
Kong Fong informed the Department that it did not intend to participate 
further in the administrative review and it would not provide a 
response to the Department's supplemental questionnaire.

Putian Ou Dian Furniture Co., Ltd.

    On April 18, 2006, Putian Ou Dian Furniture Co., Ltd. (``Putian'') 
submitted its separate-rate application to the Department. On November 
8, 2006, the Department issued Putian a supplemental questionnaire on 
its separate-rate application. On November 30, 2006, Putian informed 
the Department of its intent to withdraw from the administrative 
review, and stated that it would not provide a response to the 
Department's supplemental questionnaire. Pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.214(f)(1), the Department ``will rescind an administrative review, 
if the party that requested the review withdraws the request within 90 
days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the review. 
The Department may extend this time limit if it determines that it is 
reasonable to do so.'' In this case, the 90-day regulatory deadline was 
June 5, 2006; however, Putian did not submit its withdrawal request 
until November 30, 2006, more than five months past the regulatory 
deadline and after receiving the Department's supplemental 
questionnaire. During that time, the Department expended resources in 
reviewing Putian's separate-rate application and issuing a supplemental 
questionnaire. Where a party withdraws its request for review after the 
regulatory deadline and the Department has already expended resources 
in reviewing that respondent's data, the Department does not permit the 
party to withdraw from the proceeding.\24\ Therefore, the Department 
denies Putian's withdrawal because we have already expended resources 
in the conduct of this administrative review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from 
Thailand: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review and Rescission in Part, 71 FR 65458 (November 8, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Speedy International, Ltd. (``Speedy'')

    Speedy is a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands, and 
located on Taiwan. Speedy has a branch office in the PRC, but that 
entity does not have legal person status. Speedy claims that its owner 
is a citizen of Taiwan. The SRA states that firms owned by entities 
located in market-economy countries need only fill out the 
certifications contained in the application and provide supporting 
documentation for the fields in the application that are marked with an 
asterisk, ``provided that the ultimate owners are also located in 
market-economy countries.'' Speedy responded only to those items marked 
with an asterisk; however, the documentation that it provided in its 
questionnaire response failed to support its claim that its owner was a 
citizen of Taiwan. Consequently, we preliminary determine that Speedy 
is not eligible for separate-rate status.

Triple J Enterprises Co. Ltd. And Mandarin Furniture (Shenzhen) Co. 
Ltd. (``Triple J'')

    Triple J submitted an SRA on April 18, 2006. On November 17, 2006 
the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Triple J, 
establishing a due date of November 27, 2006 for Triple J's response. 
The Department telephoned Bruce Aitken of Aitken Berlin & Vrooman, 
counsel for Triple J, twice on November 17, 2006, both times leaving 
messages on Mr. Aitken's voice mail informing him that the supplemental 
questionnaire was available for pickup. The Department left voice 
messages again on November 22, 2006 and November 27, 2006 informing Mr. 
Aitken that the supplemental questionnaire still had not been picked 
up. Mr. Aitken did not return the Department's calls and Triple J did 
not pick up the supplemental questionnaire or submit a supplemental 
questionnaire response, nor did it request an extension of the deadline 
to respond to the supplemental questionnaire. The Department determined 
that the SRA contained several areas in which additional information 
was required for the Department to consider Triple J's eligibility for 
separate-rate status. For instance, the Department asked that Triple J 
explain how the submitted sales-related documents tied to one another 
to demonstrate that they related to the same sale. The Department also 
requested that Triple J submit a complete, fully translated copy of its 
business registration. In addition, the Department requested that 
Triple J correct inaccuracies found by the Department in the 
translation of the submitted Shareholder Certificate, and proof that 
the ultimate owners were citizens of a market-economy country. 
Consequently, we find that Triple J does not merit a separate rate and 
will remain part of the PRC entity because by not responding to the 
Department's request for information, it has not demonstrated an 
absence of government control either in law, or in fact.

Zheijiang Niannian Hong Industrial Co., Ltd (``Nanaholy'')

    On April 18, 2006, Nanaholy submitted its SRA. On October 23, 2006, 
the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Nanaholy. The due 
date for Nanaholy's response to the supplemental questionnaire was 
November 6, 2006. Nanaholy did not submit a response to the 
supplemental questionnaire nor did it request an extension of the due 
date to respond. Nanaholy's importer and U.S. customer, acting on 
Nanaholy's behalf in this proceeding, claimed that it never received 
the Department's October 23, 2006 supplemental questionnaire. On 
November 17, 2006, the Department provided Nanaholy with another 
opportunity to complete the supplemental questionnaire.
    After analyzing Nanaholy's supplemental questionnaire response, the 
Department has determined the response to be deficient. First, Nanaholy 
failed to provide the requested auditor's notes that accompanied its 
capital statement. Second, the Department requested detailed 
information on the relationship between Nanaholy and its U.S. customer 
Starlin Interiors. Nanaholy stated it had an exclusive 10-year contract 
with Starlin Interiors, but did not provide a copy of this contract as 
requested by the Department. Third, the Department requested a fully 
translated copy of Nanaholy's audited financial statements. Nanaholy 
resubmitted a translated copy of what appears to be a summary of its 
financial statements, but did not submit the requested fully translated 
copy. Thus, the Department has preliminarily determined that Nanaholy 
is not eligible for a separate rate because it has failed to 
demonstrate an absence of government control of its export activities, 
in law and in fact.

Zhongshan Winny Furniture Ltd. (``Winny'')

    Winny submitted its SRA on April 17, 2006. However, information 
contained in Winny's application indicates that is the manufacturer of 
the subject merchandise, and that the subject merchandise was exported 
by during the POR by its affiliate Winny Overseas Ltd. (``Winny 
Overseas''). On December 11, 2006, the Department issued to Winny 
Overseas a supplemental questionnaire requesting that Winny Overseas 
submit an SRA under its own name. Winny Overseas did not respond to the 
Department's supplemental questionnaire and failed to submit an

[[Page 6212]]

SRA in its own name. As a result, we preliminarily find that Winny is 
not eligible for a separate rate because it did not export subject 
merchandise to the United States during the POR.

The PRC-Wide Entity

    The Department issued a letter to all respondents identified in the 
Initiation Notice informing them of the requirements to respond to both 
the Department's Quantity and Value Questionnaire and either the 
separate-rate application or certification, as appropriate. Although 
Time Crown (U.K.) International Ltd, and China United International 
Co., (collectively ``China United'') and Hainan Ruiai Furniture Co., 
Ltd, (``Ruiai Furniture'') requested an administrative review, they did 
not respond to the Quantity and Value Questionnaire and the separate-
rate application/certification. Also, several separate-rate applicants 
(i.e., Kong Fong, Putian, Speedy, Triple J, Nanaholy, and Winny) did 
not respond to the Department's supplemental questionnaires. See 
Separate-Rates Memo. Additionally, Huanghouse, one of the companies 
subject to a new shipper review, informed the Department, after 
responding to the supplemental Section A questionnaire, that it would 
no longer participate in the new shipper review (see Huanghouse above). 
Therefore, the Department determines preliminarily that there were 
exports of merchandise under review from PRC producers/exporters that 
did not respond to the Department's questionnaire and consequently did 
not demonstrate their eligibility for separate-rate status. As a 
result, the Department is treating these PRC producers/exporters as 
part of the countrywide entity.
    Additionally, because we have determined that the companies named 
above are part of the PRC-wide entity, the PRC-wide entity is now under 
review. Pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act, we further find that 
because the PRC-wide entity (including the companies discussed above) 
failed to respond to the Department's questionnaires, withheld or 
failed to provide information in a timely manner or in the form or 
manner requested by the Department, submitted information that cannot 
be verified, or otherwise impeded the proceeding, it is appropriate to 
apply a dumping margin for the PRC-wide entity using the facts 
otherwise available on the record. Additionally, because these parties 
failed to respond to our requests for information, we find an adverse 
inference is appropriate.

First Wood

    As noted above, the Department initiated a new shipper review of 
First Wood's exports of merchandise covered by the antidumping duty 
order on wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC. See New Shipper 
Initiation Notice. On March 14, 2006, the Department issued its 
antidumping duty questionnaire to First Wood. The Department received 
First Wood's Section A response on April 18, 2006, and its Sections C, 
and D questionnaire responses on May 11, 2006. The Department issued 
its first supplemental questionnaire to First Wood (addressing 
deficiencies in the response to Sections A, C and D) on July 14, 2006, 
and received the company's response on August 17, 2006 (``First Wood 
1\st\ Supplemental Response''). On December 7, 2006, the Department 
issued First Wood a second supplemental questionnaire (again addressing 
deficiencies in the company's response to Sections A, C, and D, 
repeating many of the questions asked in the original and first 
supplemental questionnaires), to which First Wood responded on January 
3, 2007 (``First Wood 2\nd\ Supplemental Response''). In that 
supplemental response, First Wood indicated that it would be amenable 
to withdrawing its request for review if the Department would consider 
allowing the late withdrawal.
    On January 9, 2007, First Wood clarified this statement by 
submitting a withdrawal of its request for review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.214(f)(1), the Department ``may rescind a new shipper review under 
this section...if a party that requested a review withdraws its request 
not later then 60 days after the date of publication of notice of 
initiation of the requested review.'' In this case, the 60-day 
regulatory deadline was May 7, 2006; however, First Wood did not submit 
its withdrawal until January 9, 2007, more than 7 months past the 
regulatory deadline. During that time, the Department expended 
considerable resources reviewing First Wood's original questionnaire 
response, issuing two sets of supplemental questionnaires, each 
addressing Sections A, C, and D of its response and reviewing the two 
supplemental responses. Where a party withdraws its request for review 
after the regulatory deadline and the Department has already expended 
considerable resources in reviewing that respondent's data, the 
Department does not permit the party to withdraw from the 
proceeding.\25\ Therefore, the Department denies First Wood's request 
because we have already expended considerable resources in the conduct 
of this new shipper review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from 
Thailand: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review and Rescission in Part, 71 FR 65458 (November 8, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to First Wood's Section A questionnaire responses and 
its information regarding separate-rate eligibility, the Department has 
determined that First Wood has responded fully to this part of the 
questionnaire. Moreover, First Wood has not declined to participate in 
verification and, therefore, has not impeded the proceeding with 
respect to the issue of its separate-rate status. For a further 
discussion of the preliminary decision that First Wood has demonstrated 
its eligibility for a separate rate, please see the Separate-Rates 
Memo.
    However, notwithstanding the fact that the Department issued two 
full sets of supplemental questionnaires to First Wood regarding its 
reported sales and factors information, repeating many of the same 
questions in both supplemental questionnaires, First Wood withheld 
crucial sales and production information requested by the Department 
and failed to report information in the form or manner requested as 
described in sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Act. As a 
consequence, the Department has preliminarily determined that it does 
not have sufficient information on the record of this review to 
calculate a margin for First Wood based on the respondent's submitted 
data, pursuant to section 776(a)(1) of the Act. Specifically, in the 
original and first and second supplemental questionnaires, the 
Department requested that First Wood provide sales and cost 
reconciliations reconciling its reported POR sales and FOPs to its 
financial statements. Sales and cost reconciliations serve as the 
starting point for the Department to use a respondent's data as they 
provide a road map for how the reported information is an accurate 
reflection of the information contained in the company's books and 
records and its financial statements. Without these reconciliations, 
the Department is unable to ascertain whether the sales and factor 
information submitted by the respondent are consistent with its 
financial statements. Nor, can the Department conduct a verification of 
the sales and factor information. Additionally, in the original and two 
subsequent

[[Page 6213]]

supplemental questionnaires, the Department requested that First Wood 
report quantifiable units of measure for its reported consumption of 
FOPs. For example, for a certain input, First Wood reported ``bottle'' 
as the unit of measure. However, it never specified a manner of 
quantifying the amount of the FOP actually consumed (e.g., liter bottle 
or quart bottle). Due to the proprietary nature of this discussion, 
please see Application of Adverse Facts Available, Tianjin First Wood 
Co. Ltd. (``First Wood'') in the Preliminary Results in the New Shipper 
Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China, 
dated January 31, 2007 (``First Wood AFA Memo''). Without quantifiable 
measurements for the reported FOPs, the Department is unable to 
determine the actual consumption rate or calculate a value for those 
FOPs and consequently is unable to calculate a margin using the 
reported data. For further discussion of First Wood's reporting 
failures, see First Wood AFA Memo.
    Sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), (C) and (D) of the Act authorize the 
Department, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, to use facts 
otherwise available when a respondent withholds information that has 
been requested by the Department, fails to provide such information in 
a timely manner or in the form or manner requested subject to sections 
782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act in this proceeding, significantly impedes 
the proceeding, or provides such information, but the information 
cannot be verified.
    The Department has preliminarily determined that, pursuant to 
Section 782(e) of the Act, it cannot rely on the information provided 
by First Wood and that the use of facts otherwise available is 
warranted for First Wood pursuant to each of the four criteria 
identified in section 776(a)(2) of the Act. Specifically, First Wood 
withheld the sales and cost reconciliations as well as extensive FOP 
data requested by the Department as discussed above. In addition, First 
Wood failed to provide the units of measure for its FOP consumption in 
a form or manner requested by the Department. Further, First Wood 
reported its FOP consumption in units of measure in a manner that does 
not allow the Department to identify the actual consumption rates or 
calculate the value for the FOP consumed in the production of subject 
merchandise, thereby significantly impeding the proceeding. See First 
Wood AFA Memo. Furthermore, First Wood's failure to provide the 
requisite sales and FOP (cost) reconciliations has resulted in the 
sales and FOP data being unverifiable, as discussed above.
    Section 782(d) of the Act requires that, in the case of a deficient 
response by the respondent, the Department inform the respondent of the 
deficiency and give the respondent an opportunity to remedy or explain 
the deficiency. In addition to its original questionnaire, the 
Department issued two supplemental questionnaires to First Wood. In 
each of these three questionnaires, the Department requested that First 
Wood provide sales and cost reconciliation documents demonstrating how 
it identified the sales and cost information it reported to the 
Department and reconciling the reported sales and cost data to its 
financial statements, as well as the reported units of measure for its 
FOPs. Despite being afforded three opportunities to supply the 
requested information and/or provide a reason for its inability to do 
so, First Wood failed to furnish the required sales and cost 
reconciliations and units of measure for quantifying inputs. See First 
Wood AFA Memo. Consequently, the Department has determined that the 
information submitted by First Wood is inappropriate for use pursuant 
to section 782(e) of the Act. Specifically, as discussed above, the 
sales and FOP information cannot be verified; further, the information 
is so incomplete (see discussion of FOP units of measure and First Wood 
AFA Memo) it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the 
applicable determination and cannot be used without undue difficulties, 
and First Wood has not demonstrated that it acted to the best of its 
ability to comply with the Department's requests for information. 
Therefore, the Department has preliminarily determined that the use of 
total facts available are warranted with respect to First Wood for this 
new shipper review.
    Moreover, we have determined that First Wood has not acted to the 
best of its ability in providing the requested data. While the standard 
for cooperation does ``not require perfection and recognizes that 
mistakes sometimes occur, it does not condone inattentiveness, 
carelessness, or inadequate record keeping.'' Nippon Steel Corp. v. 
United States, 337 F. 3d 1373, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In this instance, 
First Wood requested that it be a reviewed as a new shipper, but then 
failed to adequately respond to our requests for information. In 
addition, First Wood did not apprise the Department of any reason why 
it could not furnish the requested information. Considering that this 
type of information is expected to be normally part of the financial 
statement and accounting ledgers that First Wood maintains, First Wood 
was not acting as a ``reasonable respondent'' nor was it acting ``to 
the best of its ability,'' as required by the statute. Based on First 
Wood's lack of cooperation, we preliminarily determine that it has 
failed to cooperate to the best of its ability in responding to the 
Department's requests for information. Therefore, we preliminarily 
determine that, when selecting from among the facts otherwise 
available, an adverse inference is warranted for First Wood pursuant to 
section 776(b) of the Act.

Selection of the Adverse Facts Available Rate

    In sum, because the PRC-wide entity failed to respond to our 
request for information, it has failed to cooperate to the best of its 
ability. Further, as discussed above, First Wood also failed to 
cooperate to the best of its ability with respect to responding to the 
Department's requests for information. Therefore, the Department 
preliminarily finds that, in selecting from among the facts available, 
an adverse inference is appropriate pursuant to section 776(b) of the 
Act for both the PRC-wide entity and First Wood.
    In deciding which facts to use as adverse facts available 
(``AFA''), section 776(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize 
the Department to rely on information derived from (1) the petition, 
(2) a final determination in the investigation, (3) any previous review 
or determination, or (4) any information placed on the record. In 
selecting a rate for AFA, 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 Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Static Random 
Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 
23, 1998). The Department's practice also ensures ``that the party does 
not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it 
had cooperated fully.'' See SAA at 870. See also, Brake Rotors From the 
People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 
Seventh Administrative Review; Final Results of the Eleventh New 
Shipper Review, 70 FR 69937, 69939 (November 18, 2005).
    Generally, it is the Department's practice to select, as AFA, the 
highest rate in any segment of the proceeding. See, e.g., Certain Cased 
Pencils from the People's Republic of China; Notice of Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping

[[Page 6214]]

Duty Administrative Review and Intent to Rescind in Part, 70 FR 76755, 
76761 (December 28, 2005).
    The Court of International Trade (``CIT'') and the Court of Appeals 
for the Federal Circuit (``Fed. Cir.'') have consistently upheld the 
Department's practice. See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 F. 
2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (upholding the Department's presumption 
that the highest margin was the best information of current margins) 
(``Rhone Poulenc''); NSK Ltd. v. United States, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 
1335 (CIT 2004) (upholding a 73.55 percent total AFA rate, the highest 
available dumping margin from a different respondent in an LTFV 
investigation); Kompass Food Trading International v. United States, 24 
CIT 678, 683 (2000) (upholding a 51.16 percent total AFA rate, the 
highest available dumping margin from a different, fully cooperative 
respondent); and Shanghai Taoen International Trading Co., Ltd. v. 
United States, 360 F. Supp. 2d 1339, 1348 (CIT 2005) (upholding a 
223.01 percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin 
from a different respondent in a previous administrative review).
    In choosing the appropriate balance between providing respondents 
with an incentive to respond accurately and imposing a rate that is 
reasonably related to the respondents' prior commercial activity, 
selecting the highest prior margin ``reflects a common sense inference 
that the highest prior margin is the most probative evidence of current 
margins, because, if it were not so, the importer, knowing of the rule, 
would have produced current information showing the margin to be 
less.'' See Rhone Poulenc, 899 F. 2d at 1190.
    As AFA, we have preliminarily assigned to the PRC-wide entity and 
to First Wood a rate of 216.01 percent, the highest calculated rate 
from the most recently completed new shipper reviews of wooden bedroom 
furniture from the PRC which is the highest rate on the record of all 
segments of this proceeding. The Department preliminarily determines 
that this information is the most appropriate from the available 
sources to effectuate the purposes of AFA. The Department's reliance on 
the highest calculated rate from the recently published new shipper 
review to determine an AFA rate is subject to the requirement to 
corroborate secondary information. See the Corroboration of Secondary 
Information section below.

Application of Partial Facts Available

    Sections 776(a)(2)(A) and 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act provide for the 
use of facts available when an interested party withholds information 
that has been requested by the Department or when an interested party 
fails to provide the information requested in a timely manner and in 
the form required. Additionally, section 776(b) of the Act provides for 
the use of AFA when an interested party has failed to cooperate by not 
acting to the best of its ability. We have concluded that the Dare 
Group and Starcorp each did not cooperate to the best of its ability, 
see below for specific explanations for each mandatory respondent.

Dare Group

    We have preliminarily determined that the use of a partial adverse 
inference is warranted for certain FOPs reported by the Dare Group.
    The information the Department requested is incomplete for several 
of the Dare Group's sales, and as a result, the Department is unable to 
calculate margins for these sales based on the information supplied. 
Specifically, the Dare Group's December 18, 2006, Section D database 
inexplicably reported labor usages of zero for numerous control 
numbers. On December 16, 2006, the Department notified the Dare Group 
that its FOP database reported these zero values. See January 16, 2007, 
Memorandum to the File from Eugene Degnan re: Telephone Conversation 
with Counsel for the Dare Group. In its January 22, 2007, supplemental 
Sections A, C, and D response, the Dare Group explained the basis for 
these erroneous zero amounts reported, and stated that it had rectified 
the errors and reported labor for all of its control numbers. However, 
numerous control numbers in the Dare Group's January 22, 2007, FOP 
database continue to have zero values reported for both indirect and 
packing labor.
    Because the Dare Group has not provided the Department with 
complete information with respect to indirect and packing labor for 
certain control numbers, as requested in the Department's 
questionnaires, the Department does not have adequate information to 
calculate margins for the sales in question. Thus, the information on 
the record cannot serve as a reliable basis for this review under 
section 782(e) of the Act. Accordingly, we have determined that we must 
calculate margins for the sales in question using facts otherwise 
available in accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A) and 776(a)(2)(B) of 
the Act.
    We have further concluded that when selecting from among the facts 
available, an adverse inference is appropriate pursuant to section 
776(b) of the Act. In this instance, the Department fully notified the 
Dare Group of the deficiencies in its submission to the Department, and 
has further provided the Dare Group with the opportunity to correct its 
deficiencies. Despite these efforts, the Dare Group failed to provide 
us with all of the missing data. The courts have recognized that, 
notwithstanding the Department's obligations to notify parties of 
deficiencies in submissions received, a respondent also has the burden 
to create a complete and accurate record. See e.g. Pistachio Group of 
Association Food Industries v. United States, 671 F. Supp. 31, 39-40 
(CIT 1987). Because the Dare Group did not provide us with information 
we requested, despite being provided multiple opportunities to do so, 
we find that it has not cooperated to the best of its ability, pursuant 
to section 776(b) of the Act, when providing us with the requisite 
information from which we could calculate margins for the sales in 
question.
    Therefore, in accordance with sections 776(a)(2) and 776(b) of the 
Act, we have applied partial AFA in calculating the Dare Group's 
margin. For each of the Dare Group's transactions that have a zero 
value for indirect and/or packing labor, we have applied the highest 
value of the respective CONNUM from the Dare Group's FOP database. See 
Memorandum to The File Through Robert Bolling, Program Manager, China/
NME Group, from Eugene Degnan, Case Analyst, Analysis for the 
Preliminary Results of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's 
Republic of China: Fujian Lianfu Forestry Co./Fujian Wonder Pacific 
Inc./Fuzhou Huan Mei Furniture Co., Ltd./Jiangsu Dare Furniture Co., 
Ltd. (``Dare Group'') (``Analysis Memo Dare Group''), dated January 31, 
2007.

Starcorp

    We have preliminarily determined that the use of a partial adverse 
inference is warranted for certain U.S. sales made by Starcorp.
    In its questionnaire responses, Starcorp reported that it operates 
four separate plants, which produce finished subject merchandise from 
raw material inputs. See Starcorp's Section A response, dated August 
25, 2006. For respondents with multiple production plants, the 
Department's normal practice is to weight-average plant-specific FOPs 
by control number. The Department's questionnaire requires

[[Page 6215]]

that the respondent provide information regarding the weighted-average 
FOPs across all of the company's plants that produce the subject 
merchandise. See Section D of the Department's Questionnaire, released 
to parties on July 28, 2006. The Department normally finds that, due to 
differences in product mixes and production efficiencies at each plant, 
this methodology ensures that the Department's calculations are as 
accurate as possible. See e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part, and 
Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Lined Paper Products from 
the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 19695-02 (April 17, 2006); 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 
Artist Canvas from the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 67420, 
(November 7, 2005); 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 (October 28, 2003), 
and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 19.
    In its October 2, 2006, Section D questionnaire response (``DQR''), 
rather than submit weighted-average information from its four 
production facilities, Starcorp instead submitted an FOP database based 
on data maintained in what it refers to as its ``combined'' financial 
statements. In this questionnaire response, Starcorp asserted that its 
combined data reflected its actual factors consumption during the POR. 
Starcorp further stated that it reported its FOPs based on ``a standard 
cost allocation methodology that allocated its total actual consumption 
of a given raw material to each unit of a particular model sold during 
the POR.'' See pages D-10-11 of the DQR. However, in this questionnaire 
response, Starcorp did not acknowledge that some of its control numbers 
sold during the POR were not produced during the POR. In fact, 
Starcorp's response was misleading in that it stated ``Starcorp has 
reported the per unit consumption of all raw materials used to produce 
the subject merchandise in its FOP data file in Field No.2.1 to Field 
No.2.69. Starcorp grouped these Fields into 11 categories based on the 
allocation methodology it used to determine the appropriate per-unit 
factor of production for each of the CONNUMs produced and sold during 
the POR,'' See DQR at page 11, thus indicating that the merchandise 
sold had all been produced during the POR.
    In our first supplemental questionnaire, we instructed Starcorp to 
provide separate databases for each of its four plants. In its 
response, Starcorp declined to comply with our request and continued to 
assert the accuracy and relevance of the ``combined'' database, arguing 
that the ``combined'' financial system truly reflects the full 
integration of the four plants. See pages 1-2 of Starcorp's November 
29, 2006, supplemental Section D questionnaire response (``SDQR''). In 
that same response, Starcorp went on to argue that it did not in fact 
maintain a standard cost system, but rather maintained a ``bill of 
materials'' and that its own term ``'standard usage rate' is an 
inaccurate way to describe the net volume of material needed to produce 
a given product. 'Standard usage rate' represents the quantities of 
each input that actually comprise the finished good.'' See SDQR at 
pages 3-4. In other words, according to Starcorp, ``standard usage 
rate'' reflects the net consumption contained in the finished product, 
not the gross consumption used to produce the finished product. In 
continuing to explain its calculation methodology, Starcorp explained 
that it ``allocated the actual consumption of factors over the net 
volume of materials.'' Starcorp further explained that, using the 
``standard usage rate'' from the bill of materials, it ``multiplied the 
net volume of surface area of different types of materials by the 
production quantity for each product produced during the POR, and 
aggregated the results to derive the total net volume of different 
materials.'' See SDQR at pages 4-5. Again, there is no indication in 
Starcorp's response that it did not actually produce during the POR all 
the merchandise it sold during the POR.
    In our second supplemental Section D questionnaire, the Department 
asked Starcorp to provide additional information to support its claim 
that the plant-specific databases are inappropriate for use in the 
margin calculation. See the Department's Supplemental Questionnaire 
dated December 20, 2006, at question 2. In its second supplemental 
Section D questionnaire response, dated January 8, 2007, Starcorp 
finally submitted the multiple FOP databases the Department had 
requested initially, along with a revised combined Starcorp-wide 
database, and what it purported was a weighted-average database of the 
data from the four individual plants. However, after analyzing the data 
submitted, we found that the four individual plant-specific FOP 
databases are missing control numbers that were included in both the 
``combined'' and weighted-average databases. Additionally, our analysis 
revealed reported U.S. sales of control numbers for which there is no 
corresponding FOP data in any of the four plant-specific databases.
    In response to comments submitted by Petitioners on January 16, 
2007, reflecting an analysis similar to that described above, Starcorp, 
in a submission on January 19, 2007, attempting to explain the above 
discrepancies, stated that the ``combined'' database provided factors 
for all control numbers in the U.S. sales database, even those not 
produced during the POR, while the four individual plant databases only 
provided FOPs for merchandise produced during the POR. Starcorp also 
stated, for the first time, that the weighted-average database is based 
on the control numbers of the four individual plant databases plus 
additional control numbers reflecting merchandise sold but not produced 
during the POR. See Starcorp's January 19, 2007, submission at page 6. 
In its January 19, 2007, submission, Starcorp relayed for the first 
time in this proceeding certain information regarding the contents of 
its combined and so-called weighted-average databases. Specifically, 
Starcorp stated that the four individual plant databases reflect the 
production quantities and FOPs of products produced during the POR, 
while the ``combined'' and weighted-average databases also include 1) 
data that reflect the sales quantities and FOPs of products which were 
sold but not produced during the POR, and 2) sales quantities and FOPs 
of certain products sold as sets, which are produced as only separate 
parts by the individual plants.
    The revelation by Starcorp that the ``combined'' database, as well 
as the weighted-average database, reflected sales quantities and FOPs 
for products which were sold but not produced, appears not to be in 
line with the information Starcorp provided in its earlier responses, 
in which Starcorp stated it was reporting production quantities in its 
FOP database. Specifically, in its initial questionnaire, the 
Department instructed respondents to provide a reconciliation tying 
their reported sales and production quantities to their internal 
accounting documents and financial statements. In responding to this 
request, Starcorp provided schedules which clearly indicate differences 
between production amounts and sales amounts, and which indicate that 
the combined database reflected production, not sales quantities. See 
Exhibits SD-26 and SD-29 of the November 29, 2006, response.

[[Page 6216]]

Nevertheless, in piecing together Starcorp's methodology from its 
contradictory and confusing submissions, it appears that Starcorp may 
have allocated the variance between its actual consumption of inputs 
during the POR to the model-specific ``standard usage rate'' reflected 
on its bill of materials for each product sold during the POR and the 
total net volume. However, since actual consumption would vary from 
year-to-year based on the product mix produced, it is unclear how 
applying the consumption ratio that occurred in one year's production 
reflects the consumption ratio that would have resulted from the prior 
year's production which may have yielded a different product mix. Thus, 
for all products that Starcorp did not produce during the POR, it did 
not even attempt to identify accurate consumption rates.
    For the preliminary results, we have determined to use the four 
plant-specific individual databases in our margin calculation program, 
because the record indicates that these databases contain the FOPs for 
those products which were produced by each plant, and do not 
incorporate sales quantities in the allocation of factor consumption to 
each control number. While Starcorp has provided what it stated was a 
weighted-average database for all four plants, we find that this is not 
the case and, therefore, it is inappropriate for use in our margin 
calculation. Similarly, the ``combined'' FOP database, by Starcorp's 
own admission, also does not reflect actual production during the POR. 
Thus, the Department has determined to use the four plant-specific 
individual databases, which appear to be based on the plant-specific 
production quantities and FOPs. However, this database is missing 
certain control numbers, which leaves certain U.S. transactions without 
a corresponding FOP. Thus, information on the record cannot serve as a 
reliable basis for calculating a margin on these transactions for this 
determination under section 782(e) of the Act. Therefore, the 
Department must use the facts otherwise available to calculate margins 
for all of Starcorp's U.S. sales that do not have a matching FOP 
control number in the four individual plant databases. We have 
concluded that Starcorp did not cooperate to the best of its ability 
because it did not disclose, in a timely manner, the nature of all its 
reported FOP and quantity data that would allow the Department to 
conduct a meaningful analysis or calculate a margin based on all the 
U.S. sales it reported. Despite being asked to submit the four 
individual databases much earlier in the proceeding, Starcorp only 
submitted these databases on January 8, 2007. Moreover, Starcorp only 
first identified the nature of reporting less than two weeks before the 
deadline for the preliminary results of review. Therefore, in 
accordance with sections 776(a)(2) and 776(b) of the Act, we have 
applied AFA to all of Starcorp's U.S. sales that do not have a matching 
control number in the individual plant databases. As AFA, we have 
applied 216.01 percent, the rate calculated for another respondent in 
the recently completed new shipper review. See Memorandum to The File 
Through Robert Bolling, Program Manager, China/NME Group, from Lilit 
Astvatsatrian, Case Analyst, Analysis for the Preliminary Results of 
Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Shanghai 
Starcorp Furniture Co., Ltd., Starcorp Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., 
Orin Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., Shanghai Star Furniture Co., Ltd., 
and Shanghai Xing Ding Furniture Industrial Co., Ltd. (``Analysis Memo 
Starcorp''), dated January 31, 2007.

Application of Facts Available

Dare Group

    We have preliminarily determined that the use of facts available is 
warranted for certain sales reported by the Dare Group.
    The information the Department requested is incomplete for several 
of the Dare Group's sales and, as a result, the Department is unable to 
calculate margins for these sales based on the information supplied. 
Specifically, in its October 2, 2007, Section C submission, the Dare 
Group reported the unit weight in kilograms in its U.S. sales database. 
On November 22, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental Section C & 
D questionnaire requesting that the Dare Group provide a field in its 
U.S. sales database for the gross unit weight. In its December 18, 
2006, supplemental Section C and D response, the Dare Group submitted a 
U.S. sales database with a field for gross unit weight. However, this 
field reported quantities of zero for numerous transactions.
    Because the Dare Group has not provided the Department with 
complete information with respect to the gross unit weights of these 
sales, the Department cannot calculate dumping margins for the sales 
with reported quantities of zero. Accordingly, we find that for the 
sales at issue, we must calculate dumping margins using the facts 
otherwise available pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the 
Act.
    In accordance with section 776(a)(2) of the Act, we have applied 
facts available to the Dare Group's sales with reported quantities of 
zero. As facts available, we have applied the Dare Group's weighted-
average margin to these sales. See Analysis Memo Dare Group. At this 
time we do not find an adverse inference is appropriate because we did 
not identify the deficiency and did not provide the Dare Group with an 
opportunity to remedy the deficiency. The Department will issue 
supplemental questionnaires after issuance of these preliminary results 
of review, and further analyze these transactions for the final 
results.

Fine Furniture

    We have preliminarily determined that the use of a facts available 
is warranted for certain sample sales made by Fine Furniture.
    Despite the Department's requests for information, Fine Furniture 
has not provided us with complete and accurate information with respect 
to certain U.S. sample sales it made during the POR. For certain of 
these U.S. sample sales, while Fine Furniture reported the invoice 
price of the transactions for all of its U.S. sample sales, it failed 
to report control numbers for these sales. For certain other U.S. sales 
Fine Furniture provided control numbers in its U.S. database that do 
not correspond to control numbers in its FOP database. Furthermore, 
Fine Furniture has not provided any explanation that sheds light on 
these discrepancies. Absent this information, (i.e., accurate control 
numbers, needed to compare NV to U.S. price), the Department cannot 
calculate dumping margins for the sample sales in question. Thus, the 
information on the record cannot serve as a reliable basis for this 
determination under section 782(e) of the Act. Accordingly, we find 
that for the sample sales at issue, we must calculate dumping margins 
using the facts otherwise available pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) 
and (B) of the Act.
    In accordance with section 776(a)(2) of the Act, we have applied 
facts available for each of Fine Furniture's U.S. sample sales that do 
not have a control number. As facts available, we have applied Fine 
Furniture's weighted-average margin to these sales. See Memorandum to 
The File Through Robert Bolling, Program Manager, China/NME Group, from 
Paul Stolz, Case Analyst, Analysis for the Preliminary Results of 
Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Fine 
Furniture (Shanghai) Limited and its affiliates (``Analysis Memo Fine 
Furniture''), dated January 31, 2007. At this time we do not find an

[[Page 6217]]

adverse inference is appropriate because we did not identify the 
deficiency and did not provide the Fine Furniture with an opportunity 
to remedy the deficiency. The Department will issue supplemental 
questionnaires after issuance of these preliminary results of review, 
and further analyze these transactions for the final results.

Corroboration

    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies 
on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the 
course of an investigation or review, it shall, to the extent 
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that 
are reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is defined 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. Corroborate means that the 
Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be 
used has probative value. Id. To corroborate secondary information, the 
Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and 
relevance of the information to be used. See 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 (Nov. 6, 1996) (unchanged in the final 
determination). Independent sources used to corroborate such evidence 
may include, for example, published price lists, official import 
statistics and customs data, and information obtained from interested 
parties during the particular investigation. See Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: High and Ultra-High 
Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators from Japan, 68 FR 35627 (June 
16, 2003) (unchanged in final determination); and, Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Live Swine From Canada, 
70 FR 12181 (March 11, 2005).
    The AFA rate that the Department is now using was determined in the 
recently published new shipper review. See Final New Shipper Review 71 
FR 70741. In the new shipper review, the Department calculated a 
company-specific rate, which was above the PRC-wide rate established in 
the LTFV investigation. Because this new rate is a company-specific 
calculated rate, we have determined this rate to be reliable.
    To assess the relevancy of the new rate used, the Department 
examined the highest rate from the recently completed new shipper 
review. We find that the highest rate from the new shipper proceeding 
of 216.01 percent is relevant to this proceeding because: (1) it is a 
company-specific calculated rate; and (2) the new shipper review period 
overlaps this administrative review period by twelve months (i.e., June 
24, 2004, through June 30, 2005). Therefore, we have determined the 
216.01 percent rate to be relevant for use in this administrative 
review.
    As the adverse margin is both reliable and relevant, we determine 
that it has probative value. Accordingly, we determine that this rate, 
meets the corroboration criteria established in section 776(c) that 
secondary information have probative value. As a result, the Department 
determines that the margin is corroborated for the purposes of this 
administrative review and may reasonably be applied to First Wood, 
Huanghouse, Starcorp, and the PRC-wide entity as AFA.
    Because these are preliminary results of review, the Department 
will consider all margins on the record at the time of the final 
results of review for the purpose of determining the most appropriate 
final adverse margin. See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Solid Fertilizer Grade Ammonium Nitrate From the 
Russian Federation, 65 FR 1139 (January 7, 2000).

Export Price

    For the Dare Group, Fine Furniture, Foshan Guanqui, and Starcorp, 
we based the U.S. price on export price (``EP''), in accordance with 
section 772(a) of the Act, because EP is the price at which the subject 
merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of 
importation by the producer or exporter of the subject merchandise 
outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United 
States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United 
States, as adjusted under section 772(c) of the Act. Additionally, we 
calculated EP based on the packed price from the exporter to the first 
unaffiliated customer in the United States.
    For the Dare Group, we calculated EP based on delivered prices to 
unaffiliated purchaser(s) in the United States. We made deductions from 
the U.S. sales price for movement expenses in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These included foreign inland freight expenses 
for inter-factory shipping, inland freight from the plant to the port, 
foreign brokerage and handling, U.S. brokerage and handling, and import 
duties. We also deducted certain customer discounts from the gross unit 
price.
    For the Dare Group, the Department has denied its claim for a U.S. 
price adjustment (i.e., Other Revenue) for the preliminary results. 
From the information that the Dare Group has submitted on the record, 
we have determined that this may be a circumstance-of-sale adjustment 
rather than an adjustment to U.S. price, and since the Department is 
not able to make circumstance-of-sale adjustments in NME proceedings, 
we have denied this adjustment. For a detailed description of all 
adjustments, see Analysis Memo Dare Group.
    For Foshan Guanqui, we calculated EP based on delivered prices to 
unaffiliated purchaser(s) in the United States. We made deductions from 
the U.S. sales price for movement expenses in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These included inland freight - plant/
warehouse to port of exit. Additionally, for certain sales, we deducted 
brokerage and handling, international ocean freight, and market economy 
brokerage and handling expenses from the gross unit price, in 
accordance with section 772(c) of the Act.
    For Foshan Guanqui, the Department has denied its claim for a U.S. 
price adjustment (i.e., Convenience Fee) for the preliminary results. 
From the information that Foshan Guanqui has submitted on the record, 
we have determined that this convenience fee does not have any 
relationship to Foshan Guanqui sales of subject merchandise to the 
United States. Therefore, we have denied this adjustment. For a 
detailed description of all adjustments, see Memorandum to The File 
Through Robert Bolling, Program Manager, China/NME Group, from Hua Lu, 
Case Analyst, Analysis for the Preliminary Results of Wooden Bedroom 
Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Foshan Guanqiu Furniture 
Co., Ltd. (``Analysis Memo Foshan Guanqiu''), dated January 31, 2007.
    For Shanghai Aosen, we calculated EP based on delivered prices to 
unaffiliated purchaser(s) in the United States. We made deductions from 
the U.S. sales price for movement expenses in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These included foreign inland freight and 
foreign brokerage and handling expenses. For a detailed description of 
all adjustments, see Memorandum to The File Through

[[Page 6218]]

Robert Bolling, Program Manager, China/NME Group, from Hilary Sadler, 
Case Analyst, Analysis for the Preliminary Results of Wooden Bedroom 
Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Shanghai Aosen Furniture 
Co., Ltd. (``Analysis Memo Shanghai Aosen''), dated January 31, 2007.
    For Starcorp, we calculated EP based on delivered prices to 
unaffiliated purchaser(s) in the United States. We made deductions from 
the U.S. sales price for movement expenses in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These included inland freight from the plant 
to the port of exit and domestic brokerage and handling charges. For a 
detailed description of all adjustments, see Analysis Memo Starcorp.

Constructed Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we used Constructed 
Export Price (``CEP'') methodology for Fine Furniture because the first 
sale to the unaffiliated person was made by Fine Furniture's U.S. 
affiliate, Fine Furniture Design & Marketing LLC (``FFDM''). We 
calculated the CEP for Fine Furniture based on the sales made by FFDM 
to unaffiliated U.S. customers. We based CEP on delivered prices to the 
first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States.
    For Fine Furniture, we made adjustments to the gross unit price for 
revenue item(s), foreign inland freight from the processing facility to 
the port of exit, export fees, international ocean freight, marine 
insurance, and U.S. import duties. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) 
of the Act, we also deducted those selling expenses associated with 
economic activities occurring in the United States, including 
commissions, warranty expenses, credit expenses, discounts, rebates, 
billing adjustments, royalties, and indirect selling expenses. We also 
made an adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of 
the Act. See Analysis Memo Fine Furniture.
    For the Dare Group, Fine Furniture, and Starcorp, we note that each 
entity provided a separate database of free-of-charge merchandise, as 
requested in our original questionnaire. See Original Questionnaire 
dated July 28, 2006. For the preliminary results, we have not included 
any of these transactions in our margin calculation programs. However, 
we have not had an opportunity to issue supplemental questionnaires 
with respect to these sales; therefore, the Department will issue 
supplemental questionnaires after issuance of the preliminary results 
of review to further analyze these transactions for the final results.

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine the NV using an FOP methodology if: (1) the merchandise is 
exported from an NME country; and (2) the information does not permit 
the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, 
or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. When determining 
NV in an NME context, the Department will base NV on FOP, because the 
presence of government controls on various aspects of these economies 
renders price comparisons and the calculation of production costs 
invalid under our normal methodologies. Under section 772(c)(3) of the 
Act, FOPs include but are not limited to: (1) hours of labor required; 
(2) quantities of raw materials employed; (3) amounts of energy and 
other utilities consumed; and (4) representative capital costs. We used 
FOPs reported by respondents for materials, energy, labor and packing.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), the Department will 
normally use publicly available information to find an appropriate 
surrogate value to value FOPs, but when a producer sources an input 
from a market economy and pays for it in market-economy currency, the 
Department will normally value the factor using the actual price paid 
for the input. See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1); see also Lasko Metal Products, 
Inc. v. United States, 43 F.3d 1442, 1446 (Fed. Cir. 1994). However, 
when the Department has reason to believe or suspect that such prices 
may be distorted by subsidies, the Department will disregard the market 
economy purchase prices and use SVs to determine the NV. See Tapered 
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the 
People's Republic of China; Final Results of the 1998-1999 
Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and Determination 
Not to Revoke Order in Part, 66 FR 1953 (January 10, 2001) (``TRBs 
1998-1999''), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 1.
    It is the Department's consistent practice that, where the facts 
developed in the United States or third-country countervailing duty 
findings include the existence of subsidies that appear to be used 
generally (in particular, broadly available, non-industry specific 
export subsidies), it is reasonable for the Department to find that it 
has particular and objective evidence to support a reason to believe or 
suspect that prices of the inputs from the country granting the 
subsidies may be subsidized. See TRBs 1998-1999 at Comment 1; see also 
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 also 
China National Machinery Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. United States, 293 F. 
Supp. 2d 1334, 1338-39 (CIT 2003).
    In avoiding the use of prices that may be subsidized, the 
Department does not conduct a formal investigation to ensure that such 
prices are not subsidized, but rather relies on information that is 
generally available at the time of its determination. See also H.R. 
Rep. 100-576, at 590 (1988), reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 1623-
24.
    We have reason to believe or suspect that prices of inputs from 
Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand may have been subsidized. Through 
other proceedings, the Department has learned that these countries 
maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies and, 
therefore, finds it reasonable to infer that all exports to all markets 
from these countries may be subsidized. See, e.g., TRBs 1998-1999 at 
Comment 1. Accordingly, we have disregarded prices from Indonesia, 
South Korea and Thailand in calculating the Indian import-based SVs 
because we have reason to believe or suspect such prices may be 
subsidized.

Factor Valuations

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on FOPs reported by respondents for the POR. To calculate NV, we 
multiplied the reported per-unit factor quantities by publicly 
available Indian SVs (except as noted below). In selecting the 
surrogate values, we considered the quality, specificity, and 
contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices 
by including freight costs to make them delivered prices. Specifically, 
we added to Indian import SVs a surrogate freight cost using the 
shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the 
factory or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory where 
appropriate (i.e., where the sales terms for the market-economy inputs 
were not delivered to the factory). This adjustment is in accordance 
with the decision of the Federal Circuit in Sigma Corp. v. United 
States, 117 F.3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Due to the extensive

[[Page 6219]]

number of SVs it was necessary to assign in this administrative review, 
we present a discussion of the main factors. For a detailed description 
of all SVs used to value the respondent's reported FOPs, see Factor 
Valuation Memorandum.
    The mandatory respondents reported that certain of their reported 
raw material inputs were sourced from a market-economy country and paid 
for in market-economy currencies. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), 
when a mandatory respondent source inputs from a market-economy 
supplier in meaningful quantities (i.e., not insignificant quantities), 
we use the actual price paid by respondents for those inputs, except 
when prices may have been distorted by findings of dumping by the PRC 
and/or subsidies. See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final 
Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27366 (May 19, 1997). The Dare Group, Fine 
Furniture, Shanghai Aosen, and Starcorp's reported information 
demonstrates that the quantities of certain raw materials purchased 
from market-economy suppliers are significant. For a detailed 
description of all actual values used for market-economy inputs, see 
the company-specific analysis memoranda dated January 31, 2007. Where 
the quantity of the input purchased from market-economy suppliers is 
insignificant, the Department will not rely on the price paid by an NME 
producer to a market-economy supplier because it cannot have confidence 
that a company could fulfill all its needs at that price. For two 
mandatory respondents (i.e., the Dare Group and Fine Furniture), the 
Department found certain of their inputs purchased from market-economy 
suppliers to be insignificant. See Analysis Memo Dare Group and the 
Analysis Memo Fine Furniture. In these instances, for the preliminary 
results, we valued the market economy purchase using the appropriate SV 
for this input. Id. For wood inputs (e.g., lumber of various species), 
wood veneer of various species, processed woods (e.g., fiberboard, 
particleboard, plywood, etc.), adhesives and finishing materials (e.g., 
glue, paints, stains, lacquer, etc.), hardware (e.g., nails, staples, 
screws, bolts, knobs, pulls, drawer slides, hinges, clasps, etc.), 
other materials (e.g., mirrors, glass, leather, marble, cloth, foam, 
etc.), and packing materials (e.g., cardboard, cartons, styrofoam, 
bubblewrap, labels, tape, etc.), we used import values from the World 
Trade Atlas[reg] online (``Indian Import Statistics''), which were 
published by the Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and 
Statistics, Ministry of Commerce of India, which were reported in 
rupees and are contemporaneous with the POR. Where data appeared to be 
aberrational within selected HTS values, we removed the aberrational 
data from the calculation of these selected HTS values. For a complete 
listing of all the inputs and the valuation for each mandatory 
respondent see the Factor Valuation Memorandum.
    Where we could not obtain publicly available information 
contemporaneous with the POR with which to value FOPs, we adjusted the 
SVs using, where appropriate, the Indian Wholesale Price Index 
(``WPI'') as published in the International Financial Statistics of the 
International Monetary Fund. See Factor Valuation Memorandum; see also 
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, 
from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 2003-2004 
Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review, 71 FR 2517, 
2522 (January 17, 2006) (``TRBs 2003-2004'').
    For the purposes of the preliminary results, the Department has 
used http://www.allmeasures.com and other publicly available 
information where interested parties did not submit alternative 
conversion values for specific FOPs. Due to the complexity and number 
of the conversions, however, the Department has preliminarily 
determined to use the allmeasures website to convert certain values. 
For the final results, the Department will continue to consider other 
appropriate conversion ratios.
    For direct labor, indirect labor, and packing labor, consistent 
with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC regression-based wage rate 
as reported on Import Administration's website, Import Library, 
Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries, revised in November 2005, 
http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html. The source of these wage-rate 
data is the Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2004, ILO (Geneva: 2003), 
Chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing. The years of the reported wage 
rates range from 1998 to 2003. Because this regression-based wage rate 
does not separate the labor rates into different skill levels or types 
of labor, we have applied the same wage rate to all skill levels and 
types of labor reported by the respondent. See Factor Valuation 
Memorandum.
    To value electricity, we used data from the International Energy 
Agency Key World Energy Statistics (2003 edition). Because the value 
for electricity was not contemporaneous with the POR, we adjusted the 
values for inflation. See Factor Valuation Memorandum.
    To calculate the value for domestic brokerage and handling, the 
Department used information available to it contained in the public 
version of two questionnaire responses placed on the record of separate 
proceedings. The first source was December 2003-November 2004 data 
contained in the public version of Essar Steel's February 28, 2005, 
questionnaire submitted in the antidumping duty administrative review 
of hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from India. See Certain Hot-
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India: Notice of Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 2018 (January 
12, 2006)(unchanged in final results). This value was averaged with the 
February 2004-January 2005 data contained in the public version of Agro 
Dutch Industries Limited's (``Agro Dutch'') May 24, 2005, questionnaire 
response submitted in the administrative review of the antidumping duty 
order on certain preserved mushrooms from India. See Fresh Garlic from 
the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Results of New Shipper 
Reviews, 71 FR 26329 (May 4, 2006). The brokerage expense data reported 
by Essar Steel and Agro Dutch in their public versions is ranged data. 
The Department first derived an average per-unit amount from each 
source. Then the Department adjusted each average rate for inflation 
using the WPI. Finally, the Department averaged the two per-unit 
amounts to derive an overall average rate for the POR. See Factor 
Valuation Memorandum.
    To value international freight, the Department obtained a generally 
publicly available price quote from http://www.maersksealand.com/HomePage/appmanager/, a market-economy provider of international 
freight services. See Factor Valuation Memorandum.
    The Department valued steam coal using the 2003/2004 Tata Energy 
Research Institute's Energy Data Directory & Yearbook (``TERI Data''). 
The Department was able to determine, through its examination of the 
2003/2004 TERI Data, that: a) the annual TERI Data publication is 
complete and comprehensive because it covers all sales of all types of 
coal made by Coal India Limited and its subsidiaries, and b) the annual 
TERI Data publication prices are exclusive of duties and taxes. Because 
the value was not contemporaneous with the POR, the Department adjusted 
the rate for

[[Page 6220]]

inflation. See Factor Valuation Memorandum.
    We used Indian transport information in order to value the freight-
in cost of the raw materials. The Department determined the best 
available information for valuing truck and rail freight to be from 
www.infreight.com. This source provides daily rates from six major 
points of origin to five destinations in India during the POR. The 
Department obtained a price quote on the first day of each month of the 
POR from each point of origin to each destination and averaged the data 
accordingly. See Factor Valuation Memorandum.
    To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative 
expenses (``SG&A''), and profit, we used the audited financial 
statements for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2005, from the 
following producers: Ahuja Furnishers Pvt. Ltd., Akriti Perfections 
India Pvt. Ltd., Fusion Design Private Ltd., Huzaifa Furniture 
Industries Pvt. Ltd., Imperial Furniture Company Pvt. Ltd., Indian 
Furniture Products, Ltd., and Nizamuddin Furnitures Pvt. Ltd., all of 
which are Indian producers of comparable merchandise. From this 
information, we were able to determine factory overhead as a percentage 
of the total raw materials, labor and energy (``ML&E'') costs; SG&A as 
a percentage of ML&E plus overhead (i.e., cost of manufacture); and the 
profit rate as a percentage of the cost of manufacture plus SG&A. For 
further discussion, see Factor Valuation Memorandum.

Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average 
dumping margins exist for the period June 24, 2004, through December 
31, 2005:

                  Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the PRC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Producer/Exporter            Weighted-Average Margin (Percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fujian Lianfu Forestry Co. Ltd. /                                  58.84
 Fujian Wonder Pacific Inc. (Dare
 Group)............................
Fuzhou Huan Mei Furniture Co., Ltd.                                58.84
 (Dare Group)......................
Jiangsu Dare Furniture Co., Ltd.                                   58.84
 (Dare Group)......................
Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited..                                 2.13
Foshan Guanqiu Furniture Co., Ltd..                                13.26
Shanghai Aosen Furniture Co., Ltd..                                 1.24
Starcorp Funiture Co., Ltd,                                        74.69
 Starcorp Furniture (Shanghai) Co.,
 Ltd., Orin Furniture (Shanghai)
 Co., Ltd., Shanghai Star Furniture
 Co., Ltd., and Shanghai Xing Ding
 Furniture Industrial Co., Ltd.....
Dongguan Huanghouse Furniture Co.,                                216.01
 Ltd...............................
Tianjin First Wood Co., Ltd........                               216.01
Ace Furniture & Crafts Ltd. (a.k.a.                                62.94
 Deqing Ace Furniture and Crafts
 Limited)..........................
Baigou Crafts Factory of Fengkai...                                62.94
Best King International Ltd........                                62.94
Dalian Pretty Home Furniture.......                                62.94
Decca Furniture Limited............                                62.94
Der Cheng Wooden Works of Factory..                                62.94
Dongguan Dihao Furniture Co., Ltd..                                62.94
Dongguan Hua Ban Furniture Co.,                                    62.94
 Ltd...............................
Dongguan Mingsheng Furniture Co.,                                  62.94
 Ltd...............................
Dongguan New Technology Import &                                   62.94
 Export Co., Ltd...................
Dongguan Sunpower Enterprise Co.,                                  62.94
 Ltd...............................
Dongguan Yihaiwei Furniture Limited                                62.94
Kalanter (Hong Kong) Furniture                                     62.94
 Company Limited...................
Furnmart Ltd.......................                                62.94
Guangzhou Lucky Furniture Co. Ltd..                                62.94
Hong Yu Furniture (Shenzhen) Co.                                   62.94
 Ltd...............................
Hung Fai Wood Products Factory,                                    62.94
 Ltd...............................
Hwang Ho International Holdings                                    62.94
 Limited...........................
King Wood Furniture Co., Ltd.......                                62.94
Meikangchi Nantong Furniture                                       62.94
 Company Ltd.......................
Nantong Yangzi Furniture Co., Ltd..                                62.94
Po Ying Industrial Co..............                                62.94
Profit Force Ltd...................                                62.94
Qingdao Beiyuan-Shengli Furniture                                  62.94
 Co., Ltd..........................
Qingdao Shenchang Wooden Co., Ltd..                                62.94
Red Apple Trading Co. Ltd..........                                62.94
Shenyang Kunyu Wood Industry Co.,                                  62.94
 Ltd...............................
Shenzhen Dafuhao Industrial                                        62.94
 Development Co., Ltd..............
Shenzhen Shen Long Hang Industry                                   62.94
 Co., Ltd..........................
Sino Concord International                                         62.94
 Corporation.......................
T.J. Maxx International Co., Ltd...                                62.94
Top Goal Development Co............                                62.94
Transworld (Zhangzhou) Furniture                                   62.94
 Co. Ltd...........................
Wan Bao Chen Group Hong Kong Co.                                   62.94
 Ltd...............................
Winmost Enterprises Limited........                                62.94
Xilinmen Group Co. Ltd.............                                62.94
Yongxin Industrial (Holdings)                                      62.94
 Limited...........................
Zhongshan Gainwell Furniture Co.                                   62.94
 Ltd...............................
PRC-Wide Rate......................                               216.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 6221]]

Disclosure

    The Department will disclose calculations performed for these 
preliminary results to the parties within five days of the date of 
publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). 
Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no 
later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary 
results of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs and 
rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs 
or comments, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of 
publication. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Further, parties submitting written 
comments are requested to provide the Department with an additional 
copy of those comments on diskette. Any interested party may request a 
hearing within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results. See 
19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held two days 
after the scheduled date for submission of rebuttal briefs. See 19 CFR 
351.310(d).
    The Department will issue the final results of these administrative 
reviews, which will include the results of its analysis of issues 
raised in the briefs, within 120 days of publication of these 
preliminary results, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1), unless 
the time limit is extended.

Assessment Rates

    Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, 
and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. 
The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions 
directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final 
results of these new shipper and administrative reviews. In accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated an exporter/importer-or 
customer-specific assessment rate or value for merchandise subject to 
these reviews. For these preliminary results, we divided the total 
dumping margins for the reviewed sales by the total entered quantity of 
those reviewed sales for each applicable importer. In these reviews, if 
these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of review, 
we will direct CBP to assess the resulting rate against the entered 
customs value for the subject merchandise on each importer's/customer's 
entries during the POR.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of these administrative reviews for 
shipments of subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided by sections 751(a)(1)( C ) and (a)(2)( C ) of the Act: (1) for 
the Dare Group, Fine Furniture, Foshan Guanqui, Shanghai Aosen, and 
Starcorp, and the separate-rate applicants being granted a separate 
rate, the cash deposit rate will be that established in the final 
results of these reviews; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed 
PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, 
the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate 
published for the most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of 
subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a 
separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 
216.01 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.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    The Department is issuing and publishing these preliminary results 
of administrative review and new shipper reviews in accordance with 
sections 751(a) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b) and 
351.214(h).

    Dated: January 31, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-2130 Filed 2-8-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S