[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 162 (Wednesday, August 22, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46957-46966]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-16584]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-890]


Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
and New Shipper Reviews: Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's 
Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On February 9, 2007, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') published its preliminary results in the antidumping duty 
administrative review and new shipper reviews and notice of partial 
rescission for wooden bedroom furniture from the People's Republic of 
China. The period of review (``POR'') for the administrative review and 
the new shipper reviews is June 24, 2004 through December 31, 2005. For 
the final results of administrative review, see this notice. As a 
result of an inadvertent error, the version of this notice released on 
Wednesday, August 8, 2007, contained the appendix from the 
investigation of this proceeding, rather than the appendix intended for 
this administrative review. These amended final results correct this 
error. No changes to the analysis, methodologies employed, or the rates 
calculated were made. Because this error was discovered prior to 
publication in the Federal Register, this amendment is being published 
in place of the original version released on August 8, 2007.
    In the administrative review, we have determined that all five 
mandatory respondents (i.e., Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited and its 
affiliates (``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 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. (collectively, ``Starcorp'')) made sales in the United States 
at prices below normal value. With respect to the remaining respondents 
in the administrative review (collectively, ``Separate Rate 
Applicants''), we have determined that 42 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 these separate-rate entities. We invited 
interested parties to comment on our preliminary results of review. For 
the new shipper reviews, the Department also reviewed two exporters/
producers, i.e., Dongguan Huanghouse Furniture Co., Ltd. 
(``Huanghouse'') and Tianjin First Wood Co., Ltd. (``First Wood''). 
Based on our analysis of the comments we received, we have made certain 
changes to our calculations for all mandatory respondents. The final 
dumping margins for this review are listed in the ``Final Results 
Margins'' section below.

DATES: Effective Date: August 22, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gene Degnan or Robert Bolling, 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.

Background

    The Department published its preliminary results on February 9, 
2007. See 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, 72 FR 6201 (February 9, 2007) (``Preliminary Results''). 
The Department conducted verification of two of the mandatory 
respondents' and certain Separate-Rate Applicants' data in the People's 
Republic of China (``PRC''). See Verification section, below, for 
additional information.
    On June 12, 2007, the Department extended the deadline for the 
final results of review to August 8, 2007. See Wooden Bedroom Furniture 
from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limits for the 
Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New 
Shipper Reviews, 72 FR 32281 (June 12, 2007).
    We invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. We 
received comments from the Petitioners, certain mandatory respondents, 
certain Separate-Rate Applicants, and other interested parties to this 
review. On June 18, 2007, parties submitted case briefs. On June 26, 
2007, parties submitted rebuttal briefs. On July 12, 2007, the 
Department held public and closed hearings.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in 
this review are addressed in the memorandum from Stephen J. Claeys, 
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. 
Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, ``Issues and 
Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews on Wooden Bedroom 
Furniture from the People's Republic of China,'' Issues and Decision 
Memorandum, dated August 8, 2007, which is hereby adopted by this 
notice (``Issues and Decision Memorandum''). A list of the issues which 
parties raised and to which we respond in the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Issues and 
Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file in the Central 
Records Unit (``CRU''), Main Commerce Building, Room B-099, and is 
accessible on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and 
electronic version of the memorandum are identical in content.

Period of Review

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

Scope of Order

    The product covered by the order is wooden bedroom furniture. 
Wooden bedroom furniture is generally, but not

[[Page 46958]]

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, \1\ highboys, \2\ lowboys, \3\ chests of drawers, \4\ chests, 
\5\ door chests, \6\ chiffoniers, \7\ hutches, \8\ and armoires; \9\ 
(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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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.
    \2\ 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).
    \3\ A lowboy is typically a short chest of drawers, not more 
than four feet high, normally set on short legs.
    \4\ A chest of drawers is typically a case containing drawers 
for storing clothing.
    \5\ 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.
    \6\ 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.
    \7\ A chiffonier is typically a tall and narrow chest of drawers 
normally used for storing undergarments and lingerie, often with 
mirror(s) attached.
    \8\ A hutch is typically an open case of furniture with shelves 
that typically sits on another piece of furniture and provides 
storage for clothes.
    \9\ 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 \10\; (9) jewelry armories \11\; (10) cheval mirrors 
\12\; (11) certain metal parts \13\;(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; and (13) upholstered beds. \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 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.
    \11\ 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 Issues and 
Decision Memorandum from Laurel LaCivita to Laurie Parkhill, Office 
Director, 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).
    \12\ Cheval mirrors are, 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: 
Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review and Determination To 
Revoke Order in Part, 72 FR 948 (January 9, 2007).
    \13\ 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 the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') 
subheading 9403.90.7000.
    \14\ Upholstered beds that are completely upholstered, i.e., 
containing filling material and completely covered in sewn genuine 
leather, synthetic leather, or natural or synthetic decorative 
fabric. To be excluded, the entire bed (headboards, footboards, and 
side rails) must be upholstered except for bed feet, which may be of 
wood, metal, or any other material and which are no more than nine 
inches in height from the floor. See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from 
the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Changed 
Circumstances Review and Determination to Revoke Order in Part, 72 
FR 7013 (February 14, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Imports of subject merchandise are classified under subheading 
9403.50.9040 of the 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.

[[Page 46959]]

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(``Act''), we verified the information submitted by certain mandatory 
respondents and certain Separate-Rate Applicants for use in our final 
results. See the Department's verification reports on the record of 
this review in the CRU with respect to Shanghai Aosen; Starcorp; Baigou 
Crafts Factory of Fengkai (``Baigou Crafts''); Dongguan Dihao Furniture 
Co., Ltd. (``Dihao''); and Transworld (Zhangzhou) Furniture Co., Ltd. 
(``Transworld''). For all verified companies, we used standard 
verification procedures, including examination of relevant accounting 
and production records, as well as original source documents provided 
by respondents. For the further details on the verifications, see the 
aforementioned verification reports.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on an analysis of comments received, the Department has made 
certain changes in the margin calculations. For the final results, the 
Department has made the following changes with respect to Shanghai 
Aosen, Dare Group, Foshan Guanqui, Starcorp, and Fine Furniture.

General Issues

Calculation of Surrogate Financial Ratios

     For the final results, the Department is no longer using 
the Nizamuddin Furnitures Private Limited 2004-2005 financial statement 
in the calculation of the surrogate financial ratios. See Issues and 
Decision Memorandum.
     For the final results, the Department is using the 
following additional financial statements (not used in the preliminary 
results) to calculate surrogate financial ratios: (1) Nizamuddin 
Furnitures Private Limited (2005-2006); (2) James Andrew Newton Art 
Export Pvt. Ltd. (2004-2005); (3) Nikhil Decore Industries Pvt. Ltd. 
(2004-2005); and (4) Indian Furniture Products Limited (2005-2006). See 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 17, and ``First 
Administrative Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's 
Republic of China: Factor Valuation Memorandum for the Final Results'' 
dated August 8, 2007 (``WBF Final Factor Valuation Memorandum'').
     For the final results, in the calculation of Akriti 
Perfections India Pvt. Ltd.'s surrogate financial ratios, the 
Department has reclassified ``Consumables'' from raw material to 
manufacturing overhead. See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 
21, and WBF Final Factor Valuation Memorandum.
     For the final results, the Department has excluded 
``Octroi'' expenses from the calculation of Huzaifa Furniture 
Industries Pvt. Ltd.'s surrogate financial ratios. See Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 25.
     For the final results, the Department has included the 
line-item ``Contract Manufacturing'' in manufacturing overhead of Ahuja 
Furnishers Private Limited's surrogate financial ratios. See Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 18, and WBF Final Factor Valuation 
Memorandum.
     For the final results, the Department has re-classified 
``Bonuses'' and ``Gratuities'' from manufacturing overhead or selling, 
general and administrative expenses to the direct labor portion of 
Materials, Labor and Energy (``ML&E'') in the calculation of surrogate 
financial ratios for Ahuja Furnishers Private Limited, Huzaifa 
Furniture Industries Pvt. Ltd., and Indian Furniture Products Limited. 
See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 20 and WBF Final Factor 
Valuation Memorandum.
     For the final results, the Department has included 
``Closing Stock'' and ``Opening Stock'' in the material portion of ML&E 
in the calculation of Fusion Design Private Ltd.'s surrogate financial 
ratios. See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 23, and WBF Final 
Factor Valuation Memorandum.

Recalculation of Surrogate Values

     For the final results, the Department has recalculated 
surrogate values for the polymers of styrene, cardboard, paint, and 
resin. See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 10, 13, 14, 47, 
and 48 and WBF Final Factor Valuation Memorandum.
     For the final results, the Department has calculated a 
surrogate value for mirrors using Glass Yug instead of the Monthly 
Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India, Volume II: Imports. See 
http://www.gtis.com/wta.htm, which we used for the preliminary results. 
See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 12 and WBF Final Factor 
Valuation Memorandum.
     For the final results, the Department has recalculated the 
surrogate value for labor using the surrogate value of $0.83 per hour 
instead of $0.97 per hour used for the preliminary results. See Issues 
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 17 and WBF Final Factor Valuation 
Memorandum.

Company-Specific Issues

Dare Group

     For the final results, the Department has revised the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (``HTS'') category used to calculate the 
surrogate value for cardboard. See Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 34 and WBF Final Factor Valuation Memorandum.
     For the final results, the Department has revised certain 
assessment rate calculations. See Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 36 and ``Analysis Memorandum for the Final Results of 
Administrative Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's 
Republic of China for Fujian Lianfu Forestry Co., Ltd., Fuzhou Huan Mei 
Furniture Co. Ltd., and Jiangsu Dare Furniture Co, Ltd.'' dated (August 
8, 2007) (``WBF Dare Group Final Results Analysis Memo 08/08/07'').
     For the final results, the Department has excluded certain 
non-scope merchandise from the margin calculation. See Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 37 and WBF Dare Group Final Results 
Analysis Memo 08/08/07.
     For the final results, the Department is using a material-
specific conversion rate to calculate surrogate values for 
``FIBERBOARDMD'', ``PAPEREDFIBERBOARDMD'', and ``FIBERBOARDPACKING.'' 
See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 40 and WBF Dare Group 
Final Results Analysis Memo 08/08/07.
     For the final results, the Department has corrected a 
conversion error in the calculation of the surrogate values for 
``WOODPLUG'' and ``OKOUEMEVEMEER.'' See Issues and Decision Memorandum 
at Comments 41 and 42 and WBF Dare Group Final Results Analysis Memo 
08/08/07.
     For the final results, the Department is using data from a 
different HTS category to calculate the surrogate value of ``PIGMENT--
O''. See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 31 and WBF Dare 
Group Final Results Analysis Memo 08/08/07.
     For the final results, the Department is using updated 
quantity data submitted by Dare Group and is no longer applying facts 
available to certain sales where Dare Group reported zero quantity in 
gross unit kilograms. See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 39 
and WBF Dare Group Final Results Analysis Memo 08/08/07.
     In the preliminary results, the Department used partial 
adverse facts available (``AFA'') to value the indirect and packing 
labor which was not reported for certain control numbers (``CONNUMs''). 
For the final results, the

[[Page 46960]]

Department is continuing to apply as partial AFA the highest labor 
values reported by Dare Group for any CONNUM. See ``Application of 
Partial Facts Available'' section, below, the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 38, and WBF Dare Group Final Results Analysis 
Memo 08/08/07.

Fine Furniture

     For the final results, the Department has determined not 
to apply partial facts available with respect to certain of Fine 
Furniture's sample sales. With respect to Fine Furniture's sample 
sales, we are using Fine Furniture's reported data in our margin 
calculation. See ``Analysis Memorandum for the Final Results of the 
First Administrative Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the 
People's Republic of China: Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited'' dated 
August 8, 2007.

Foshan Guanqiu

     For the final results, the Department has recalculated 
surrogate values for resin and paint used by Foshan Guanqiu. See Issues 
and Decision Memorandum at Comments 47 and 48, and ``Analysis 
Memorandum for the Final Results of the First Administrative Review of 
Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Foshan 
Guanqiu'' dated August 8. 2007.

Starcorp

     For the preliminary results, we calculated a dumping 
margin of 74.69 percent for Starcorp, using partial adverse facts 
available. However, for the final results, we are applying total AFA. 
See Adverse Facts Available section, below. See also Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 63, and the companion Memorandum 
regarding ``Application of Adverse Facts Available for 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. in the Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Wooden Bedroom 
Furniture from the People's Republic of China,'' dated August 8, 2007 
(``Starcorp AFA Memorandum'').

Surrogate Country

    In the preliminary results, the Department stated that it treats 
the PRC as a non-market economy (``NME'') country, and therefore, the 
Department calculated normal value in accordance with section 773(c) of 
the Act, which applies to NME countries. Also, the Department stated 
that it selected India as the appropriate surrogate country to use in 
this review for the following reasons: (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 factors of production (``FOP''). See Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 
6208. For the final results, the Department has made no changes to its 
findings with respect to the selection of a surrogate country. See 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.

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 (``PRC-wide 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 free of de jure (in law) and de facto (in fact) 
control over its export decisions, so as to be entitled to a separate 
rate.
    In the Preliminary Results, the Department found that the mandatory 
respondents and numerous companies which provided responses to the 
separate-rate application or separate-rate certification were eligible 
for a rate separate from the PRC-wide rate. See Preliminary Results, 72 
FR at 6208, 6210. For the final results, we have determined that 
additional companies qualify for separate-rate status. For a complete 
listing of all the companies that received a separate rate, see the 
Final Results Margins section, below. See also, Memorandum regarding 
``Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: 
Separate Rates for Producers/Exporters that Submitted Separate Rate 
Certifications and Applications'' (``Final Separate-Rates Memo''), 
dated August 8, 2007.
    In the Preliminary Results, we did not grant separate-rate status 
for 14 companies. See Preliminary Results 72 FR at 6209, 6210. Of 
those, we stated that we would request additional information from six 
applicants after the Preliminary Results, whereupon we would reevaluate 
their eligibility for a separate rate for the final results. See 
Preliminary Results 72 FR at 6210. Also, three additional companies 
(i.e., Zhejiang Niannian Hong Industrial Co. Ltd. (``Nanaholy''); 
Triple J Enterprises Co. Ltd. (``Triple J''), Zhongshan Winny Furniture 
Ltd. (``Winny'')) filed post-preliminary submissions asking that the 
Department reconsider its preliminary decision to deny them separate-
rate status. See Final Separate-Rates Memo.
    Based on the information submitted in response to our post-
preliminary supplemental questionnaires, we find that Guangdong New 
Four Seas Furniture Manufacturing Ltd.; King Kei Furniture Factory/King 
Kei Trading Co., Ltd./Jin Ching Trading Co. Ltd.; and Top Art Furniture 
Factory/Sanxig Top Art Funiture/Ngai Kun Trading have provided 
sufficient information to establish an absence of government control 
and eligibility for separate-rate status. Therefore, the evidence 
placed on the record of this administrative review by these 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 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from 
the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), and Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from 
the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2,1994). As a result, 
for the purposes of these final results, we have granted separate rate 
status to the above-named separate-rate applicants that shipped wooden 
bedroom furniture to the United States during the POR. Additionally, we 
have granted a separate rate to other separate-rate applicants.\15\ See 
Final Separate-Rates Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Ace Furniture & Crafts Ltd. (a.k.a. Deqing Ace Furniture & 
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; 
Foshan Guanqiu Furniture Co., Ltd.; Fujian Lianfu Forestry Co., 
Ltd./Fujian Wonder Pacific Inc.; Furnmart Ltd.; Fuzhou Huan Mei 
Furniture Co. Ltd.; Guangdong New Four Seas Furniture Manufacturing 
Ltd.; Guangzhou Lucky Furniture Co. Ltd.; Hong Yu Furniture 
(Shenzhen) Co. Ltd.; Hung Fai Wood Products Factory, Ltd.; Hwang Ho 
International Holdings Limited; Jiangsu Dare Furniture Co, Ltd.; 
King Kei Furniture Factory; Kingwood 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.; Shanghai Aosen Furniture Co., Ltd.; 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. (collectively 
``Starcorp''); 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 Art Furniture Factory/Sanxig Top 
Art Funiture/Ngai Kun Trading; 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; Zhongshan Gainwell Furniture Co. Ltd.

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

[[Page 46961]]

    Furthermore, we continue to find that the following separate-rate 
applicants have not demonstrated an absence of government control over 
their export activities, both in law and in fact: Conghua J. L. George 
Timber & Co. Ltd. (``Conghua''); Zhongshan Youcheng Wooden Arts & 
Crafts Co., Ltd. (``ZY Wooden'') and Macau Youcheng Trading Co. (``MY 
Trading'') (collectively, ``ZY Wooden/MY Trading''); Kunwa Enterprise 
Company (``Kunwa''), Nanaholy; Triple J, Winny, Kong Fong Art Factory 
and Kong Fong Mao Iek Hong (``Kong Fong''), Putian Ou Dian Furniture 
Co., Ltd. (``Putian''), and Speedy International, Ltd. (``Speedy''). 
Therefore, we determine that Conghua, Kunwa, Nanaholy, Triple J, Winny, 
ZY Wooden/MY Trading, Kong Fong, Putian, and Speedy are part of the 
PRC-wide entity and, therefore, do not qualify for a separate rate and 
will be subject to PRC-wide rate. See Final Separate-Rates Memo.
    The margin we calculated in the Preliminary Results for these 
separate-rate companies was 62.94 percent. Because the rates of the 
selected mandatory respondents have changed since the Preliminary 
Results, we have recalculated the rate for Separate-Rate Applicants. 
The final rate is 35.38 percent. See Memorandum to the File from Eugene 
Degnan, ``Calculation of Separate Rate,'' dated August 8, 2007.

Affiliation

    In the Preliminary Results, we stated Fujian Lianfu Forestry Co. 
Ltd./Fujian Wonder Pacific Inc./Fuzhou Huan Mei Furniture Co., Ltd./
Jiangsu Dare Furniture Co., Ltd., collectively, (``Dare Group'') were 
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. See Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 6208. For the 
final results, we have made no changes to our findings with respect to 
Dare Group's affiliation.

Adverse Facts Available

    Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act provide that the Department 
shall apply ``facts otherwise available'' if 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 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. Section 776(b) of the 
Act also authorizes the Department to use as AFA information derived 
from the petition, the final determination, a previous administrative 
review, or other information placed on the record.

Application of Facts Available

First Wood

    In the Preliminary Results, we determined pursuant to sections 
776(a)(1), 776(a)(2), and 776(b) of the Act to apply AFA to First Wood 
in the new shipper review because First Wood: withheld the sales and 
cost reconciliations as well as extensive factors of production 
(``FOP'') data requested by the Department; failed to provide the units 
of measure for its FOP consumption in a form or manner requested by the 
Department; 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, resulting in the sales and FOP data being unverifiable. See 
Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 6212-13. We also determined that First 
Wood did not act ``to the best of its ability,'' as required by the 
statute. See Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 6212-13. Thus, based on 
First Wood's actions, we preliminarily determined that it failed to 
cooperate to the best of its ability in responding to the Department's 
requests for information. Therefore, we preliminarily determined 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. See Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 6212, 6213. For the final 
results, we have made no changes to our findings with respect to First 
Wood's total AFA determination. See Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comments 43 and 44.

Huanghouse

    In the Preliminary Results, we determined that because Huanghouse 
ceased participating in the new shipper review, and none of its 
submitted information could be verified, Huanghouse did not demonstrate 
its entitlement to a separate rate and was, therefore, subject to the 
PRC-wide rate. See Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 6212-13. For the final 
results, we made no changes to our findings with respect to 
Huanghouse's determination.

Kong Fong Art Factory and Kong Fong Mao Iek Hong

    In the Preliminary Results, we determined that because Kong Fong 
ceased participating in the administrative review and would not provide 
a response to the Department's supplemental questionnaire, Kong Fong 
did not demonstrate its entitlement to a separate rate and was, 
therefore, subject to the PRC-wide rate. See Preliminary Results, 72 FR 
at 6210-12. For the final results, we made no changes to our findings 
with respect to Huanghouse's determination.

Putian Ou Dian Furniture Co., Ltd.

    In the Preliminary Results, we determined that because Putian 
submitted a withdrawal of its request for the administrative review 
after the 90-day regulatory deadline (i.e., November 30, 2006), and 
stated that it would not provide a response to the Department's

[[Page 46962]]

supplemental questionnaire. Thus Putian stopped participating in this 
review, did not demonstrate its entitlement to a separate rate and was, 
therefore, subject to the PRC-wide rate. See Preliminary Results, 72 FR 
at 6211-12. For the final results, we made no changes to our findings 
with respect to Putian's determination.

Speedy International, Ltd.

    In the Preliminary Results, we determined that because Speedy 
International, Ltd. (``Speedy'') failed to support its claim that its 
owner was a citizen of Taiwan, and did not complete the sections of the 
separate rate application for NME owned entities, thus, Speedy did not 
demonstrate its entitlement to a separate rate and was, therefore, 
subject to the PRC-wide rate. See Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 6211-
12. For the final results, we have made no changes to our findings with 
respect to Speedy's determination.

Starcorp

    The Department finds that the information necessary to calculate an 
accurate and reliable margin is not available on the record with 
respect to Starcorp. See Issues and Decision Memo at Comment 63; and 
Starcorp AFA Memorandum. Specifically, Starcorp has significantly 
impeded the Department's ability to calculate accurate margins for a 
significant percentage of its U.S. sales as a direct result of its 
misreporting and withholding of information that would have served as 
the basis for the Department's analysis. Therefore, we find use of 
facts available appropriate pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B) and 
(C) of the Act, and as discussed in extensive detail in the Starcorp 
AFA Memorandum. Despite having numerous opportunities to provide the 
Department with requested information with respect to merchandise sold 
but not produced during the POR, the facts on the record lead the 
Department to the conclusion that Starcorp did not act as a reasonable 
respondent by withholding certain information necessary to calculate an 
accurate margin (i.e., it failed to disclose the methodology it used to 
derive its proxy FOPs for merchandise sold but not produced during the 
POR (i.e., proxy FOPs) and failed to provide forthcoming responses in a 
timely manner to the Department's numerous direct questions regarding 
its reporting methodology (i.e., use of proxy FOPs and use of sales 
quantities instead of production quantities to weight certain FOPs 
within numerous CONNUMs)). See Starcorp AFA Memorandum and Comment 63 
of the Issues and Decision Memorandum. These failures significantly 
impeded the Department's ability to comprehend and analyze Starcorp's 
data adequately within the Department's statutory timeframe. As a 
result of Starcorp's repeated misreporting and failure to provide 
information that was responsive to the Department's requests, the 
Department's ability to calculate accurate margins for a significant 
portion of Starcorp's sales was compromised.
    Starcorp further impeded the Department's ability to calculate 
accurate margins as a direct result of its failure to provide, in the 
form and manner requested by the Department and within the Department's 
established deadlines, the information that would have served as the 
basis of the Department's analysis, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(B) 
and (C) of the Act. Specifically, and as discussed in great detail in 
the Starcorp AFA Memorandum, Starcorp did not provide plant-specific 
plant data until very late in the proceeding, and did not disclose that 
these data do not contain FOPs for all of the CONNUMs correlating to 
its U.S. sales (i.e., the plant-specific databases did not contain the 
requisite data for calculating normal values for all of Starcorp's U.S. 
sales and thus do not contain the data necessary to calculate a dumping 
margin for those sales). Despite having numerous opportunities to 
provide the plant-specific and weighted-average data in a timely 
manner, as evidenced by the Department's numerous supplemental 
questionnaires addressing deficiencies in Starcorp's responses, 
Starcorp did not do so. Thus, as explained in detail in the Starcorp 
AFA Memorandum, the facts on the record lead the Department to the 
conclusion that Starcorp failed to provide forthcoming responses in a 
timely manner to the Department's numerous direct requests, and this 
failure significantly impeded the Department's ability to comprehend 
and analyze Starcorp's data adequately within the Department's 
statutory time frame. As a result, the Department's ability to 
calculate accurate margins for any of Starcorp's sales was compromised.
    Further, the Department also found Starcorp's financial statements 
to be unreliable. See Comment 56 of the Issues and Decision Memorandum 
and the Starcorp AFA Memo. Because the Department finds that Starcorp's 
submitted information cannot be tied to reliable financial statements 
or a reliable financial recording system, the Department must conclude 
that any submitted data are also not reliable.
    Finally, there remain significant discrepancies between Starcorp's 
numerous data files and the narrative descriptions Starcorp provided 
purporting to explain those data files. For example, there are 
inconsistencies related to: which unique products were not sold during 
the POR and which FOPs were therefore based on proxy FOP data; 
Starcorp's reported production quantities for sets, notwithstanding 
Starcorp's repeated statements that it does not produce sets; and 
Starcorp's inclusion of the same product in the FOP buildups for more 
than one CONNUM.
    Based on the analysis above, for the final results, we applied 
facts available pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the 
Act with respect to Starcorp's sales. Furthermore, it is apparent from 
the facts on the record, i.e., Starcorp's repeated unresponsiveness to 
information requests, its repeated failure to provide requested data in 
a timely manner, its withholding of its methodology to determine the 
product-specific source of proxy FOP data, and the significant level of 
inconsistencies and contradictions in its data and narrative 
submissions (including information obtained at verification), that 
Starcorp did not act as a reasonable respondent because its failure to 
be responsive was unnecessary. See Starcorp AFA Memorandum. Thus, we 
find that Starcorp failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its 
ability. For this reason, we find it appropriate that an adverse 
inference be applied when selecting from among the facts available in 
accordance with section 776(b) of the Act.
    As AFA we are applying a rate of 216.01 percent, the rate 
calculated for a respondent in the most recently completed new shipper 
reviews of wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC, covering the first 12 
months of this administrative review. See Final Results of the 2004-
2005 Semi-Annual New Shipper Reviews: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the 
People's Republic of China, 71 FR 70739 (December 6, 2006) (``04-05 New 
Shipper Reviews''). This represents the highest rate from the history 
of this proceeding.

Application of Partial Facts Available

    Sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (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

[[Page 46963]]

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 did not 
cooperate to the best of its ability.

Dare Group

    Because the Dare Group did not provide complete information with 
respect to indirect and packing labor for certain CONNUMs, as requested 
in the Department's questionnaires, we preliminarily determined that 
the use of an adverse inference was warranted to value these FOPs. See 
Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 6214. For the final results, we have 
determined to continue to apply sections 776(a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B), and 
(b) of the Act because the Dare Group did not provide us with the 
information we requested. Therefore, in accordance with sections 
776(a)(2) and (b) of the Act, we have applied partial AFA in 
calculating the Dare Group's margin. For each CONNUM for which zero 
labor hours were reported, we have applied the highest labor hour value 
for any CONNUM reported in the Dare Group's FOP database. See Issues 
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 38.

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 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 e.g., Statement of Administration Action accompanying 
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, (1994) (SAA) 
at 870. Corroborate means that the Department will satisfy itself that 
the secondary information to be used has probative value. To 
corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent 
practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information 
to be used. See e.g., Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 
Finished and Unfinished from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four 
Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and 
Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 
(November 6, 1996) (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 or review. See 19 CFR 351.308(d).
    The AFA rate that the Department is now using was determined in the 
recently published new shipper review. See 04-05 New Shipper Reviews 71 
FR at 70741. In that new shipper review, the Department calculated a 
company-specific rate of 216.01 percent, which was above the PRC-wide 
rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation. Because 
this new rate is a company-specific calculated rate concerning subject 
merchandise, we have determined this rate to be reliable.
    With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the 
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to 
determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where 
circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as 
AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an 
appropriate margin. For example, in Fresh Cut Flowers From Mexico: 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812 
(February 22, 1996), the Department disregarded the highest margin in 
that case as adverse best information available (the predecessor to 
facts available), because the margin was based on another company's 
uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high 
margin. Similarly, the Department does not apply a margin that has been 
discredited. See D&L Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1221 
(Fed. Cir. 1997) where the Court ruled that the Department will not use 
a margin that has been judicially invalidated. Nothing on the record of 
this review calls into question the relevance of the margin selected as 
AFA. Further, the selected margin is a company-specific calculated rate 
for another respondent for a period covering 12 months (i.e., June 24, 
2004, through June 30, 2005) of this 18-month administrative review. 
Moreover, this rate has not been invalidated judicially, and falls 
within the range of margins calculated for another respondent in this 
review. Therefore, it is appropriate to use the selected rate as AFA 
and 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, Kong Fong, Putian, Speedy, and Starcorp, and the PRC-wide 
entity as AFA.

The PRC-Wide Rate

    Because we begin with the presumption that all companies within an 
NME country are subject to government control and because only the 
companies listed under these ``Final Results Margins'' section, below, 
have overcome that presumption, we are applying a single antidumping 
rate (i.e., the PRC-wide rate) to all other exporters of subject 
merchandise from the PRC. Such companies did not demonstrate 
entitlement to a separate rate. See e.g., Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Synthetic Indigo from the People's 
Republic of China, 65 FR 25706, 25707 (May 3, 2000). The PRC-wide rate 
applies to all entries of subject merchandise except for entries from 
the respondents that are listed in the ``Final Results Margins'' 
section, below (except as noted).
    The Department based the margin for the PRC-wide entity on adverse 
facts available. See Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 6212, 6214. Pursuant 
to section 776(a) of the Act, the Department found that because the 
PRC-wide entity 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 
could not be verified, or otherwise impeded the process, it was 
appropriate to apply a dumping margin for the PRC-wide entity using 
facts otherwise available on the record. The Department further 
determined that an adverse inference was appropriate because the PRC-
wide entity failed to respond to requests for information and therefore 
failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability. As AFA we 
are applying the highest calculated rate from the history of this 
proceeding, a rate calculated for a respondent in the most recently 
completed new shipper reviews of wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC, 
covering the first 12 months of this administrative review. 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).

[[Page 46964]]

Final Results Margins

    We determine that the following percentage weighted-average margins 
exist for the POR:

                  Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the PRC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Weighted-average
                 Producer/exporter                    margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fujian Lianfu Forestry Co. Ltd /Fujian Wonder                      48.97
 Pacific Inc. (Dare Group)........................
Fuzhou Huan Mei Furniture Co., Ltd (Dare Group)...                 48.97
Jiangsu Dare Furniture Co., Ltd (Dare Group)......                 48.97
Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited.................                  1.97
Foshan Guanqiu Furniture Co., Ltd.................                 11.72
Shanghai Aosen Furniture Co., Ltd.................                  0.53
Starcorp Funiture Co., Ltd, Starcorp Furniture                    216.01
 (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.......................                216.01
Ace Furniture & Crafts Ltd (a.k.a. Deqing Ace                      35.38
 Furniture and Crafts Limited)....................
Baigou Crafts Factory of Fengkai..................                 35.38
Best King International Ltd.......................                 35.38
Dalian Pretty Home Furniture......................                 35.38
Decca Furniture Limited...........................                 35.38
Der Cheng Wooden Works of Factory.................                 35.38
Dongguan Dihao Furniture Co., Ltd.................                 35.38
Dongguan Hua Ban Furniture Co., Ltd...............                 35.38
Dongguan Mingsheng Furniture Co., Ltd.............                 35.38
Dongguan New Technology Import & Export Co., Ltd..                 35.38
Dongguan Sunpower Enterprise Co., Ltd.............                 35.38
Dongguan Yihaiwei Furniture Limited...............                 35.38
Kalanter (Hong Kong) Furniture Company Limited....                 35.38
Furnmart Ltd......................................                 35.38
Guangdong New Four Seas Furniture Manufacturing                    35.38
 Ltd..............................................
Guangzhou Lucky Furniture Co. Ltd.................                 35.38
Hong Yu Furniture (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd..............                 35.38
Hung Fai Wood Products Factory, Ltd...............                 35.38
Hwang Ho International Holdings Limited...........                 35.38
King Kei Furniture Factory........................                 35.38
King Wood Furniture Co., Ltd......................                 35.38
Meikangchi Nantong Furniture Company Ltd..........                 35.38
Nantong Yangzi Furniture Co., Ltd.................                 35.38
Po Ying Industrial Co.............................                 35.38
Profit Force Ltd..................................                 35.38
Qingdao Beiyuan-Shengli Furniture Co., Ltd........                 35.38
Qingdao Shenchang Wooden Co., Ltd.................                 35.38
Red Apple Trading Co. Ltd.........................                 35.38
Shenyang Kunyu Wood Industry Co., Ltd.............                 35.38
Shenzhen Dafuhao Industrial Development Co., Ltd..                 35.38
Shenzhen Shen Long Hang Industry Co., Ltd.........                 35.38
Sino Concord International Corporation............                 35.38
T.J. Maxx International Co., Ltd..................                 35.38
Top Art Furniture Factory/Sanxiang Top Art                         35.38
 Funiture/Ngai Kun Trading........................
Top Goal Development Co...........................                 35.38
Transworld (Zhangzhou) Furniture Co. Ltd..........                 35.38
Wan Bao Chen Group Hong Kong Co. Ltd..............                 35.38
Winmost Enterprises Limited.......................                 35.38
Xilinmen Group Co. Ltd............................                 35.38
Yongxin Industrial (Holdings) Limited.............                 35.38
Zhongshan Gainwell Furniture Co. Ltd..............                 35.38
PRC-Wide Rate.....................................                216.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Starcorp is not subject to the PRC-wide rate.

Assessment Rates

    The Department has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (``CBP'') shall assess, antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries. For customers/importers of respondents that did 
not report entered value, we calculated customer/importer-specific 
antidumping duty assessment amounts based on the ratio of the total 
amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales of 
subject merchandise to the total quantity of subject merchandise sold 
in those transactions. For customers/importers of respondents that 
reported entered value, we calculated customer-specific antidumping 
duty assessment amounts based on customer/importer-specific ad valorem 
rates in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). For the companies 
receiving a separate rate that were not selected for individual review 
(i.e., separate rate companies) we will calculate an assessment rate 
based on the weighted average of the cash deposit rates calculated for 
the companies

[[Page 46965]]

selected for individual review excluding any that are zero, de minimis, 
or based entirely on AFA pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act. 
The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP within 
15 days after the date of publication of these final results of 
administrative and new shippers review.

Cash Deposit Requirements

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

Notification of Interested Parties

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) 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 the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective orders (``APOs'') of their responsibility 
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under the APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which 
continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of 
the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction 
of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby 
requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO 
is a violation which is subject to sanction.

Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
    We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

     Dated: August 15, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix

Issues in the Issues and Decision Memorandum

I. General Issues
    Comment 1: Surrogate Country Selection
    A. Economic Comparability
    B. Significant Producer
    C. Data Considerations
    D. Burden and Predictability
    Comment 2: Labor Rate Methodology
    Comment 3: Application of the 33 Percent Threshold for Market 
Economy Purchases
    Comment 4: Zeroing
    Comment 5: Department Should Apply Combination Rates to Separate 
Rate Companies
    Comment 6: Use of Values Versus Quantities To Determine the 
Weighted-Average Separate Rate Margin
    Comment 7: Incorporation of Zero, De Minimis, and Total Adverse 
Facts Available Margins in Non-selected Respondents' Rate
    Comment 8: Standard for Accepting Respondents Factor 
Descriptions and Appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule of India 
Categories
    Comment 9: Time Period Used To Calculate Surrogate Values
    Comment 10: Ministerial Error in the Valuation of Polymers of 
Styrene
    Comment 11: Exclusion of Myanmar and Bhutan Data in the 
Surrogate Value Calculation for Plywood
    Comment 12: Surrogate Value Source for Mirrors
    Comment 13: HTS Classification for Corrugated Paper
    Comment 14: HTS Classification for Cardboard
    Comment 15: Surrogate Value Source for Electricity
    Comment 16: Electricity and Coal Inflator
II. Surrogate Financial Ratio Issues
    Comment 17: Use of Certain Financial Statements for the 
Calculation of Surrogate Financial Ratios
    A. Ahuja
    B. Evergreen
    C. Huzaifa (2005-2006)
    D. IFP (2004-2005 and 2005-2006)
    E. Imperial (2006)
    F. Jayabharatham (2006)
    G. Newton (2005)
    H. Nikhil (2005)
    I. Nizamuddin (2005-2006)
    J. Raghbir (2004-2005 & 2005-2006)
    K. Usha Shriram (2005 & 2006)
    Comment 18: Treatment of Polish, Contract Manufacturing, and 
Manufacturing Glass in Ahuja's Financial Statement
    Comment 19: Treatment of Job Work Expense in Huzaifa and IFP's 
Financial Statement
    Comment 20: Treatment of Labor-Related Expenses in Multiple 
Surrogate Financial Statement
    Comment 21: Treatment of Consumables in Akriti's Financial 
Statement
    Comment 22: Treatment of ``Designing Charges,'' Consumables, and 
Profit on Sale of Assets in Imperial's 2004-2005 Financial 
Statements
    Comment 23: Treatment of Nizamuddin's 2004-2005 Financial 
Statement and Treatment of Manufacturing Charges Labour in 
Nizamuddin's 2005-2006 Financial Statement
    Comment 24: Use of 2004-2005 Data from Jayabharathan's 2005-2006 
Financial Statements
    Comment 25: Treatment of Octroi Expenses in Huzaifa's Financial 
Statement
    Comment 26: Allocation of Aggregated Personnel Expenses in the 
Calculation of Surrogate Financial Ratios Based on ASI Data
    Comment 27: Allocation of Aggregated Personnel Expenses in the 
Calculation of Surrogate Financial Ratios Based on Record Financial 
Statements
III. Aosen-Specific Issues
    Comment 28: Application of Partial AFA for Nails
    Comment 29: HTS Classification for ``PLYWOOD,'' ``MDBD,'' 
``PINE,'' ``ASHVEN,'' ``EXPLYSHT,'' and ``POLYFOAM''
IV. Baigou Crafts
    Comment 30: Application of Total AFA to Baigou Crafts
V. Dare Group-Specific Issues
    Comment 31: HTS Classification for ``PIGMENT--O''
    Comment 32: HTS Classification for ``CURVINGWOODY'' and 
``VENEERPLY''
    Comment 33: HTS Classification for ``WOODSALICACEAE''
    Comment 34: HTS Classification for Box/Carton
    Comment 35: Unit of Measure for ``TURNINGDY''
    Comment 36: Assessment Rate Calculations
    Comment 37: Certain Non-Scope Merchandise Should be Excluded 
from the Margin Calculation
    Comment 38: Post Preliminary Results Updated FOP database to 
Reflect Correction for Previously Unreported Labor Hours Data
    Comment 39: Updated Sales Database Which Includes Previously 
Unreported Weight Information

[[Page 46966]]

    Comment 40: Use of Material-Specific Conversion Rate for 
FIBERBOARDMD, PAPEREDFIBERBOARDMD, and FIBERBOARDPACKING
    Comment 41: WOODPLUG--Clerical Error Allegation
    Comment 42: OKOUEMEVEMEER--Clerical Error Allegation
VI. First Wood-Specific Issues
    Comment 43: Rescission of First Wood's New Shipper Review is 
Consistent With Department Precedent
VII. Guanqiu-Specific Issues
    Comment 44: HTS Classification for Plywood
    Comment 45: HTS Classification for MDF
    Comment 46: HTS Classification for Resin
    Comment 47: HTS Classification for Paint
    Comment 48: Surrogate Value Selection for Ocean Freight
VIII. Starcorp-Specific Issues
    Comment 49: Total Labor Hour Consumption
    Comment 50: Market Economy Purchases, Wood Materials and Wood 
Screws
    Comment 51: Department's Conduct at Verification
    Comment 52: Timing of Verification Outline
    Comment 53: Appropriateness of Plant-Specific versus Combined 
FOP Data and Valuation of the Appropriate Data
    Comment 54: Application of Partial Adverse Facts Available for 
CONNUMs Consisting of Sets and ``Sold But Not Produced''
    Comment 55: Starcorp's Financial Statements
    Comment 56: Raw Material Consumption Methodology
    Comment 57: Non-Wood Materials
    Comment 58: Valuation of Thinner
    Comment 59: Electricity
    Comment 60: Packing Materials
    Comment 61: Minor Corrections
    Comment 62: Application of Total Adverse Facts Available
IX. Separate Rate Company-Specific Issues
    Comment 63: Separate-Rate Status for New Four Seas
    Comment 64: Separate-Rate Status for Winny and Triple J
    Comment 65: Separate-Rate Status for ZY Wooden/MY Trading

[FR Doc. E7-16584 Filed 8-21-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P