[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 9 (Monday, January 14, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2214-2222]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-456]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-891]


Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic 
of China; Preliminary Results, Partial Intent to Rescind and Partial 
Rescission of the 2005-06 Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the 
Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on hand trucks and 
certain parts thereof (``hand trucks'') from the People's Republic of 
China (``PRC'') covering the period December 1, 2005, through November 
30, 2006. We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made 
below normal value (``NV'') by one exporter participating in the 
review. We have also preliminarily rescinded the review for five 
exporters that did not have any exports during the period of review 
(``POR'') or whose request for review was timely withdrawn. We have 
also preliminarily determined that two companies have not demonstrated 
that they are entitled to separate rates and have assigned them the 
rate for the PRC-wide entity. If these preliminary results are adopted 
in the final results of these reviews, we will instruct U.S. Customs 
and Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. We will issue the final results no later than 120 days from 
the date of publication of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: (January 14, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Stolz, 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) 482-4474.

Background

    On December 1, 2006, the Department published a notice of 
opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty 
order on hand trucks from the PRC. See Antidumping or Countervailing 
Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request 
Administrative Review, 71 FR 69543 (December 1, 2006). In accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), on December 29, 2006, Petitioners, Gleason 
Industrial Products, Inc. and Precision Products, Inc., requested that 
the Department conduct an administrative review for the following 
exporters of the subject merchandise: Qingdao Huatian Hand Truck Co., 
Ltd. (``Huatian''); Qingdao Future Tool, Inc. (``Future Tool''); 
Qingdao Taifa Group Co. Ltd. (``Taifa''); True Potential Co., Ltd. 
(``True Potential''); Shandong Machinery I&E Group Corp. (``Shandong 
Machinery''); Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. (``Since 
Hardware''); Formost Plastics & Metalworks (Jiazing) Co., Ltd. 
(``Formost''); and Forecarry Corp (``Forecarry''). Also, on December 
29, 2006, the Department received a request to conduct an 
administrative review from Taifa, an exporter of the subject 
merchandise.
    On January 3, 2007, the Department received a request to conduct an 
administrative review from Since Hardware, an exporter of subject 
merchandise from the PRC. On February 2, 2007, the Department published 
in the Federal Register a notice of the initiation of the antidumping 
duty administrative review of hand trucks from the PRC for the period 
December 1, 2005, through November 30, 2006, with respect to eight 
companies. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 72 FR 5005 
(February 2, 2007).
    On March 1, 2007, the Department issued quantity and value 
(``Q&V'') questionnaires along with separate rate applications and 
certifications to Forecarry, Formost, Future Tool, Huatian, Shandong 
Machinery, Since Hardware, True Potential, and Taifa requesting each 
party's quantity (i.e., pieces) and U.S. dollar sales value of all 
exports of hand trucks and parts thereof to the United States during 
the POR. See Quantity and Value Questionnaire (``Q&V Questionnaire'') 
dated March 1, 2007. In our Q&V questionnaire, we notified all 
interested parties that we were considering limiting the number of 
respondents selected for review in accordance with section 777A(c)(2) 
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``Act''), due to the number of 
firms requested for this administrative review and the resulting 
administrative burden to review each company for which a request had 
been made. On March 15, 2007, we received responses to the Q&V 
questionnaire from Huatian, Since Hardware (stating it had no shipments 
during the POR), Taifa and True Potential. On May 1 and 25, 2007, we 
issued letters to Formost, Forecarry, Future Tool, and Shandong 
Machinery providing each a second opportunity to respond to the 
Department's request for Q&V information. See Second Quantity and Value 
Questionnaire dated May 1, 2007 (``Second Q&V Questionnaire''). On June 
4, 2007, Formost and Forecarry responded to the Department's request 
for Q&V information stating that they had no exports to the United 
States during the POR. Future Tool and Shandong Machinery did not 
respond to the Department's letters. See the ``Facts Available'' 
section of this notice, below, for further discussion.
    On March 15, 2007, Since Hardware withdrew its request for an 
administrative review within the time limits specified under 19 CFR 
351.213(d)(1). See the ``Partial Rescission of Administrative Review'' 
section of this notice, below, for further discussion. On May 3, 2007, 
Petitioners withdrew their request for an administrative review within 
the time limits specified under 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1) with respect to 
Huatian, Taifa, and True Potential.
    On June 21, 2007, the Department determined that it was not 
practicable to examine individually all of the companies covered by the 
2005-2006 administrative review, and thus it limited its examination to 
the largest producers/exporters that could reasonably be reviewed, 
pursuant to section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act. Therefore, on this date 
the Department selected Taifa as the sole respondent required to submit 
a full questionnaire response in the administrative review (i.e., 
mandatory respondent). See the memorandum titled ``Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review of Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the 
People's Republic of China: Selection of Respondents'' dated June 21, 
2007.
    On June 22, 2007, we issued the antidumping duty questionnaire to 
Taifa. We received separate-rate certifications from Taifa and True 
Potential. On July 13, 2007, we received Taifa's responses to section A 
of the Department's original questionnaire. On August 14, 2007, we 
received Taifa's response to sections C and D of the Department's 
original questionnaire. On

[[Page 2215]]

September 4, 2007, we issued a supplemental questionnaire regarding 
section A to Taifa. On September 11, 2007, we received Taifa's response 
to our supplemental section A. On September 14, 2007, we issued a 
supplemental questionnaire regarding sections C and D to Taifa. On 
October 11, 2007, we received Taifa's response to sections C and D of 
the Department's supplemental questionnaire. On November 26, 2007, we 
issued a second supplemental questionnaire regarding sections A, C, and 
D to Taifa. On November 28, 2007, we issued a third supplemental to 
Taifia regarding sections C and D. On December 7, 2007, we received a 
response from Taifa to the November 26, 2007, supplemental 
questionnaire. On December 10, 2007, we received a response from Taifa 
to the November 28, 2007, supplemental questionnaire. On December 14, 
2007, we issued a fourth supplemental to Taifia regarding section C.
    On October 4, 2007, the Department invited interested parties to 
comment on surrogate country selection and to provide publicly 
available information for valuing the factors of production (``FOPs''). 
On October 31, 2007, Petitioners provided comments on surrogate country 
selection.
    On August 31, 2007, the Department issued a Federal Register notice 
extending the time limits for the preliminary results of administrative 
review until no later than December 3, 2007. See Hand Trucks and 
Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China; Extension of 
Time Limits for Preliminary Results in Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 72 FR 51411 (September 7, 2007). Additionally, on November 23, 
2007, the Department issued a Federal Register notice fully extending 
the time limits for the preliminary results of administrative review 
until no later than December 31, 2007. See Hand Trucks and Certain 
Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China; Full Extension of 
Time Limits for Preliminary Results in Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 72 FR 67701 (November 30, 2007).

Period of Review

    The POR covers December 1, 2005, through November 30, 2006.

Scope of Order

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

Partial Rescission of Administrative Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary must rescind an 
administrative review if a party requesting a review withdraws the 
request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of 
initiation. As noted above, on March 15, 2007, Since Hardware timely 
withdrew its request for an administrative review. However, because 
Petitioners did not withdraw their review request with respect to Since 
Hardware, we are not rescinding the review for Since Hardware based on 
its withdrawal of its request for review. Also, on May 3, 2007, 
Petitioners withdrew their request for an administrative review with 
respect to Huatian, Taifa, and True Potential, in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.213(d)(1). Because no other interested party requested a review 
of Huatian or True Potential, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1) 
and consistent with our practice, we are rescinding the administrative 
review of these companies for the POR.

Partial Intent to Rescind Administrative Review

    On March 15, 2007, Since Hardware responded to the Department's Q&V 
questionnaire stating it had no POR shipments to the United States. On 
June 27, 2007, Petitioners submitted comments arguing that Since 
Hardware incorrectly stated that it exported no subject merchandise to 
the United States during the POR. Petitioners based their argument on 
the Department's new shipper verification report of Since Hardware from 
the 2004-2005 new shipper review. See Letter from Petitioners; Hand 
Trucks and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Selection 
of Respondents, dated June 27, 2007, at Exhibit 2, ``Verification of 
Sales and Factors Responses of Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. in 
the New Shipper Review of Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from 
the People's Republic of China'' (``NSR Verification Report'') (October 
5, 2006). Citing the NSR Verification Report, Petitioners contend that 
at verification in the 2004-2005 review, the Department compared a 
post-POR sale to Since Hardware's NSR sale. See NSR Verification Report 
at page 4. We examined the NSR Verification Report

[[Page 2216]]

that refers to a production order but does not refer to an actual sale. 
Petitioners have not put forth any other evidence of a shipment by 
Since Hardware during the POR.
    Further, record evidence indicates that Formost, Forecarry, and 
Since Hardware did not have any exports of subject merchandise during 
the POR. See March 15, 2007, Q&V response from Since Hardware and June 
4, 2007, Q&V response from Formost and Forecarry. Additionally, we have 
reviewed the CBP entry data for the POR and found no evidence of 
exports from these three entities. See Memorandum to the File from 
Robert Bolling, Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's 
Republic of China, No Shipment Inquiry, dated November 26, 2007, and 
Memorandum to the File from Robert Bolling, Hand Trucks and Certain 
Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China, No Shipment Inquiry, 
dated December 13, 2007. We have received no evidence that Formost, 
Forecarry, or Since Hardware had any shipments to the United States of 
subject merchandise during the POR. Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.213(d)(3), the Department preliminarily rescinds this review as to 
Formost, Forecarry, and Since Hardware.

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. 
Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a 
foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked 
by the administering authority. See, e.g., Fresh Garlic from the 
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Rescission in Part, 69 FR 70638 (Dec. 7, 
2004). None of the parties to this proceeding has contested such 
treatment. Accordingly, we calculated 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 December 31, 2007 (``Factor Valuation 
Memorandum''), which is on file in the Central Records Unit (``CRU''), 
Room B-099 of the main Commerce Building.
    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 Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's 
Republic of China (PRC): Request for a List of Surrogate Countries, 
dated October 3, 2007, (``Policy Memo'') which is on file in the CRU.
    On October 4, 2007, the Department issued a request for parties to 
submit comments on surrogate country selection. On October 31, 2007, 
Petitioners submitted comments regarding the selection of a surrogate 
country.\1\ No other party to the proceeding submitted information or 
comments concerning the selection of a surrogate country. Petitioners 
assert that India is the appropriate surrogate country for the PRC 
because India meets the statutory criteria set forth in section 
773(c)(4) of the Act for selection as a surrogate country for the PRC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Letter dated October 31, 2007, from Petitioners to Secretary 
of Commerce, re: Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the 
People's Republic of China.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 10, 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 Hand Trucks and 
Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Selection of 
a Surrogate Country, dated December 10, 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.

Facts Available

A. 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.

[[Page 2217]]

    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 Statement of Administrative 
Action, H.R. Doc. 103-316 at 870 (1994) (``SAA''). 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.

Future Tool & Shandong Machinery

    On March 1, 2007, we issued Q&V Questionnaires along with separate-
rate applications and certifications to Future Tool and Shandong 
Machinery, and requested a response by March 15, 2007. See Q&V 
Questionnaire. Neither Future Tool nor Shandong Machinery provided a 
response to our initial Q&V Questionnaire. On May 1, 2007, we issued a 
second Q&V Questionnaire to Future Tool and Shandong Machinery. See 
Second Q&V Questionnaire. Once again, neither Future Tool nor Shandong 
Machinery provided a response to our second Q&V Questionnaire. 
Moreover, Future Tool and Shandong Machinery did not file a separate-
rate application/certification and thus failed to establish their 
eligibility for a separate rate. Therefore, both Future Tool and 
Shandong Machinery will be part of the PRC-wide entity, subject to the 
PRC-wide rate. This rate will be based on facts available, as discussed 
below.

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 Q&V questionnaire and either the separate-rate 
application or certification, as appropriate. Both Future Tool and 
Shandong Machinery failed to respond to the Q&V Questionnaire and the 
separate-rate application/certification. 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 Q&V 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.

B. Adverse Facts Available (``AFA'')

    According to section 776(b) of the Act, if the Department finds 
that an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best 
of its ability to comply with requests for information, the Department 
may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in 
selecting from the facts otherwise available. See, e.g., Notice of 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless 
Steel Bar from India, 70 FR 54023, 54025-26 (September 13, 2005); see 
also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Final Negative Critical Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel 
Wire Rod from Brazil, 67 FR 55792, 55794-96 (August 30, 2002). Adverse 
inferences are appropriate ``to ensure that the party does not obtain a 
more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated 
fully.'' See SAA at 870. Furthermore, ``affirmative evidence of bad 
faith on the part of a respondent is not required before the Department 
may make an adverse inference.'' See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 
Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997); see also Nippon 
Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 
(``Nippon'').
    Both Future Tool and Shandong Machinery were notified in the 
Department's questionnaires that failure to submit the requested 
information by the date specified might result in the use of facts 
available. Generally, it is reasonable to assume that the PRC-wide 
entity (including Shandong Machinery and Future Tool) possessed the 
records necessary for this administrative review and that, by not 
supplying the information the Department requested, these companies 
failed to cooperate to the best of their ability. In addition, none of 
the companies in this review argued that it was incapable of providing 
the information the Department requested, or requested that the 
Department modify its reporting requirements in accordance with 
782(c)(1) of the Act. Accordingly, because the PRC-wide entity 
(including Future Tool and Shandong Machinery) failed to respond to the 
Department's requests for information, we preliminarily find that the 
PRC-wide entity has not acted to the best of its ability in this 
proceeding, within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act. Therefore, 
an adverse inference is warranted in selecting from the facts otherwise 
available. See Nippon, 337 F.3d at 1382-83.

C. Selection of An AFA Rate

    In deciding which facts to use as 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 reviews, the Department normally 
selects as AFA the highest rate determined for any respondent in any 
segment of the proceeding. See, e.g., Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat 
from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 19504, 19508 (April 21, 
2003). The Court of International Trade (``CIT'') and the Court of 
Appeals for the Federal Circuit (``Federal Circuit'') have consistently 
upheld the Department's practice. See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United 
States, 899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (``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 a less-than-fair-value (``LTFV'') 
investigation); Kompass Food Trading Int'l v. United States, 24 CIT 
678, 684 (2000) (upholding a 51.16 percent total

[[Page 2218]]

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). The 
Department's practice, when selecting an AFA rate from among the 
possible sources of information, has been to ensure that the margin is 
sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the statutory purposes of the 
adverse facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the 
Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.'' 
See, e.g., 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 
Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Frozen 
and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, 69 FR 76910, 76912 (December 
23, 2004); and D&L Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F. 3d 1220, 1223 
(Fed. Cir. 1997). In choosing the appropriate balance between providing 
respondents with an incentive to respond accurately and imposing a rate 
that is reasonably related to the respondent's 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. Consistent with the 
statute, court precedent, and its normal practice, the Department has 
assigned the rate of 383.60 percent to the PRC-wide entity (including 
Future Tool and Shandong Machinery) as AFA. This rate was assigned in 
the investigation of this proceeding and is the highest rate determined 
for any party in any segment of this proceeding. See Amended Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Hand Trucks and Certain 
Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 65410 
(November 12, 2004) (Hand Trucks Amended Final Determination). As 
discussed below, this rate has been corroborated.

D. Corroboration of Secondary Information

    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that when the Department relies 
on the facts otherwise available and on ``secondary information,'' the 
Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that 
information from independent sources reasonably at the Department's 
disposal. The SAA states that ``corroborate'' means to determine that 
the information used has probative value. See SAA at 870. The 
Department has determined that to have probative value, information 
must be reliable and relevant. See SAA at 870; see also 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). The SAA also states 
that 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 SAA at 870. See also Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: High and Ultra-High 
Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators from Japan, 68 FR 35627, 35629 
(June 16, 2003), unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: High and Ultra-High Voltage Ceramic Station Post 
Insulators from Japan, 68 FR 62560, 62561 (Nov. 5, 2003); and Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Live Swine from Canada, 
70 FR 12181, 12183-84 (March 11, 2005).
    We are applying as AFA the highest rate from any segment of this 
administrative proceeding, which is the rate currently applicable to 
all exporters subject to the PRC-wide rate. The information upon which 
the AFA rate is based in the current review (i.e., the PRC-wide rate of 
383.60 percent) was the highest rate calculated based on information 
contained in the petition in the LTFV investigation. See Hand Trucks 
Amended Final Determination, 69 FR at 65411. This AFA rate is the same 
rate that the Department assigned to certain hand truck companies in 
the original LTFV final determination. In the investigation, the 
Department determined the reliability of the margin contained in the 
petition by comparing the U.S. prices from the price quotes in the 
petition to prices of comparable products sold by Huatian, a mandatory 
respondent in the LTFV investigation, and found them to be comparable. 
The Department also compared the SVs used in the petition to the SVs 
selected for the final determination, and then adjusted and replaced 
certain values to make them more accurate. Finally, the Department 
replaced the SV ratios in the petition with those used in the final 
investigation. Therefore, in the investigation, we found this margin to 
be reliable. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Hand Trucks 
and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 
29509 (May 24, 2004), and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the 
People's Republic of China, 69 FR 60980 (October 14, 2004), as amended 
by Hand Trucks Amended Final Determination, 69 FR at 65411. Further, 
the application of this margin was subject to comment from interested 
parties in that segment of the proceeding. The Department has received 
no information to date that warrants revisiting the issue of the 
reliability of the rate and no party has submitted comments challenging 
the reliability of this margin. Thus, the Department finds that the 
margin calculated in the LTFV investigation is 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 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, 1222 
(Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Department will not use a margin that has been 
judicially invalidated). None of these unusual circumstances are 
present here. Further, the selected margin is currently the PRC-wide 
rate. As there is no information on the record of this review that 
indicates that this rate is not

[[Page 2219]]

relevant as AFA for Future Tool and Shandong Machinery and the PRC-wide 
entity, we determine that this rate is relevant.
    Because the rate is both reliable and relevant, it has probative 
value. Accordingly, we determine that the highest rate determined in 
any segment of this administrative proceeding (i.e., 383.60 percent) is 
corroborated (i.e., it has probative value). We have assigned this AFA 
rate to exports of the subject merchandise by the PRC-wide entity, 
including Future Tool and Shandong Machinery.

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. Taifa has provided 
company-specific information and has certified that it meets the 
standards for the assignment of a separate rate.
    We have considered whether Taifa 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 further 
developed in 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.
    On June 22, 2007, we received Taifa's separate-rate certification. 
Our analysis shows that, for Taifa, 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 Tafia's Separate Rate Certification Submission dated 
March 15, 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. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22587; Sparklers, 56 
FR at 20589.
    We determine that, for Taifa, 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) it sets its own export prices independent of the government and 
without the approval of a government authority; 2) it retains the 
proceeds from its sales and makes independent decisions regarding 
disposition of profits or financing of losses; 3) it has the authority 
to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; and 4) it has 
autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management. See 
Tafia's Separate Rate Certification Submission, dated March 15, 2007.
    On December 7, 2007, Petitioners put on the record certain evidence 
that Petitioners claimed demonstrated that the PRC government owns a 
majority of shares in Taifa and that Taifa is therefore subject to 
government control and ineligible for a separate rate. See Handtrucks 
and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Comments 
Regarding Taifa's Questionnaire Responses. In our separate-rate 
analysis, however, government ownership by itself is not dispositive in 
determining government control. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586. As 
described above, we analyze de jure and de facto evidence to determine 
government control. In their December 7, 2007, submission, Petitioners 
have provided no other evidence regarding the de jure and de facto 
factors in our separate-rates test. Therefore, because evidence placed 
on the record of this administrative review by Taifa demonstrates an 
absence of government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to 
Taifa's exports of the subject merchandise, in accordance with the 
criteria identified in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide, for the purposes 
of these preliminary results, we have granted a separate rate to Taifa.

Normal Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of the subject merchandise by Taifa to 
the United States were made at prices below

[[Page 2220]]

NV, we compared each company's export prices (EPs) to NV, as described 
in the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice, 
below.

Export Price

    For Taifa, we used EP methodology in accordance with section 772(a) 
of the Act for sales in which the subject merchandise was first sold 
prior to importation by the exporter outside the United States directly 
to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States and for sales in 
which constructed export price was not otherwise indicated.
    For Taifa, 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, foreign 
brokerage and handling expenses, marine insurance. For a detailed 
description of all adjustments, see Memorandum to The File Through 
Robert Bolling, Program Manager, China/NME Group, from Paul Stolz, Case 
Analyst, Analysis for the Preliminary Results of Hand Trucks and 
Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Qingdao 
Taifa Group Co. Ltd. (``Analysis Memo Taifa''), dated concurrently with 
this notice.

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine NV using an FOPs 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 FOPs 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 773(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 SV 
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 Brake 
Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative and New Shipper Reviews and Partial 
Rescission of the 2005-2006 Administrative Review, 72 FR 42386 (August 
2, 2007) (``Brake Rotors''), 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 Brake Rotors and 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 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 Brake Rotors. 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 consumption quantities by 
publicly available Indian SVs (except as noted below). In selecting the 
SVs, 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, 1407-08 
(Fed. Cir. 1997). Due to the extensive 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.
    During the POR, Taifa purchased all or a portion of certain inputs 
from a market economy supplier and paid for the inputs in a market 
economy currency. The Department has instituted a rebuttable 
presumption that market economy input prices are the best available 
information for valuing an input when the total volume of the input 
purchased from all market economy sources during the period of 
investigation or review exceeds 33 percent of the total volume of the 
input purchased from all sources during the period. In these cases, 
unless case-specific facts provide adequate grounds to rebut the 
Department's presumption, the Department will use the weighted-average 
market economy purchase price to value the input. Alternatively, when 
the volume of an NME firm's purchases of an input from market economy 
suppliers during the period is below 33 percent of its total volume of 
purchases of the input during the period, but where these purchases are 
otherwise valid and there is no reason to disregard the prices, the 
Department will weight-average the weighted-average market economy 
purchase price with an appropriate SV according to their respective 
shares of the total volume of purchases, unless case-specific facts 
provide adequate grounds to rebut the presumption. When a firm has made 
market economy input purchases that may have been dumped or subsidized, 
are not bona fide, or are otherwise not acceptable for use in a dumping 
calculation, the Department will exclude them from the numerator of the 
ratio to ensure a fair determination of

[[Page 2221]]

whether valid market economy purchases meet the 33-percent threshold. 
See Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, Expected Non-
Market Economy Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for Comments, 71 FR 
61716, 61717-18 (October 19, 2006). Accordingly, we valued Taifa's 
inputs using the market economy prices paid for the inputs where the 
total volume of the input purchased from all market economy sources 
during the POR exceeded 33 percent of the total volume of the input 
purchased from all sources during that period. Alternatively, when the 
volume of Taifa's purchases of an input from market economy suppliers 
during the POR was below 33 percent of the company's total volume of 
purchases of the input during the POR, we weight-averaged the weighted-
average market economy purchase price with an appropriate surrogate 
value according to their respective shares of the total volume of 
purchases, as appropriate. Where appropriate, we increased the market 
economy prices of inputs by freight and brokerage and handling 
expenses. See Taifa's Factor Value Memorandum. For a detailed 
description of all actual values used for market-economy inputs, see 
the Analysis Memo Taifa. 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.
    We used contemporaneous import data from the World Trade Atlas 
online (``Indian Import Statistics''), published by the Directorate 
General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics, Ministry of Commerce 
of India, to calculate SVs for the reported FOPs purchased from NME 
sources. Where data appeared to be aberrational within selected HTS 
values, we removed the aberrational data from the calculation of these 
selected HTS values. Among the FOPs for which we calculated SVs using 
Indian Import Statistics are brightening agents, carbon dioxide, cast 
aluminum, dye, epoxy resin, hot-rolled steel plate, nitric acid, 
phosphoric acid, steel rod, zinc ingots, and zinc powder. 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 (``WP'') 
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).
    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 January 2007, 
http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/04wages/04wages-010907.html. The source of 
these wage-rate data is the Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2006, ILO 
(Geneva: 2006), Chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing. The years of the 
reported wage rates range from 2004 and 2005. 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 (``IEA'') Key World Energy Statistics (2003 edition). Because 
the value for electricity was not contemporaneous with the POR, we 
adjusted it 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 Certain Preserved 
Mushrooms From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 70 FR 37757 (June 30, 2005) (Agro Dutch's May 24, 2005, 
submission). The brokerage expense data reported by Essar Steel and 
Agro Dutch in their public versions are ranged data. The Department 
derived an average per-unit amount from each source and then adjusted 
each average rate for inflation using the WPI. The Department then 
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 generally 
publicly available price quotes from Maersk Sealand at 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 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 producer: Rexello Castors Pvt. Ltd., which is an Indian 
producer 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

[[Page 2222]]

percentage of the cost of manufacture plus SG&A. For further 
discussion, see Factor Valuation Memorandum.
    We valued diesel oil using data obtained from the IEA Key World 
Energy Statistics 2007, for the first quarter of 2007. Because these 
data were after the POR, we applied a WPI deflator to make them 
contemporaneous with the POR. See Factor Valuation Memorandum.
    Finally, Taifa reported that it generated certain other by-products 
as a result of the production of hand trucks. We valued aluminum and 
steel scrap using Indian import statistics as published by the WTA, 
contemporaneous with the POR. We valued aluminum scrap and recycled 
paint powder using Indian import statistics as published by the WTA, 
contemporaneous with the POR.

Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following margins exist during 
the period December 1, 2005, through November 30, 2006:

               Hand Trucks and Parts Thereof from the PRC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted-Average
                      Exporter                         Margin (Percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qingdao Taifa Group Co. Ltd.........................                3.82
PRC-Wide Rate\2\....................................              383.60
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ We note that because both Future Tool and Shandong Machinery are
  part of the PRC-wide entity, they are subject to the PRC-wide rate.

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). 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 generally be held two days after the scheduled date for 
submission of rebuttal briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(d). 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 five days after the time limit for filing 
the case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Further, we request that 
parties submitting written comments provide the Department with an 
additional copy of those comments on diskette. The Department will 
issue the final results of this administrative review, which will 
include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any comments, 
and at a hearing, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary 
results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue 
assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of 
the final results of review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will 
calculate importer- or customer-specific ad valorem duty assessment 
rates based on the ratio of the total amount of the dumping margins 
calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those 
same sales. To determine whether the duty assessment rates are de 
minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent), in accordance with the 
requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will calculate 
customer-specific ad valorem ratios based on export prices.
    We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer- or 
customer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of 
this review is above de minimis.
    For entries of the subject merchandise during the POR from 
companies not subject to this review, we will instruct CBP to liquidate 
them at the cash deposit rate in effect at the time of entry. The final 
results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of 
antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final 
results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, 
where applicable.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for 
shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided by sections 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for Taifa, which has 
a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that established in the 
final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de 
minimis, zero cash deposit will be required); (2) for previously 
investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above 
that received a separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding 
(which were not reviewed in this segment of the proceeding), the cash 
deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate; (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 383.60 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 exporter that supplied that 
non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall 
remain in effect until further notice.

Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a preliminary 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 antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213.

    Dated: December 31, 2007.
Susan H. Kuhbach,
Acting Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-456 Filed 1-11-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S