[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 157 (Monday, August 17, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41374-41382]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-19666]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

A-570-890


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

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

[[Page 41375]]

SUMMARY: On February 9, 2009, the Department of Commerce 
(``Department'') published its preliminary results and partial 
rescission in the antidumping duty administrative review and new 
shipper reviews (``NSRs'') of wooden bedroom furniture from the 
People's Republic of China (``PRC''). The period of review (``POR'') 
for the administrative review and the new shipper reviews is January 1, 
2007, through December 31, 2007. In the administrative review, we have 
determined that the participating mandatory respondent, Guangdong Yihua 
Timber Industry Co., Ltd. (``Yihua Timber''), made sales in the United 
States at prices below normal value. With respect to the remaining 
respondents in the administrative review, we have determined that these 
entities have provided sufficient evidence demonstrating that they are 
separate from the PRC-entity and, with the exception of Orient 
International Holding Shanghai Foreign Trading Co. Ltd. (``Orient 
International''), we have assigned a margin based on the rate 
calculated for Yihua Timber. For the NSRs, the Department also reviewed 
two exporter/producers, Golden Well International (HK), Ltd./Zhangzhou 
XYM Furniture Product Co., Ltd. (``Golden Well'') and Dongguan Sunshine 
Furniture Co., Ltd./Dongguan Sunshine Furniture Co., Ltd. 
(``Sunshine''). We invited interested parties to comment on our 
preliminary results in these reviews. Based on our analysis of the 
comments we received in these reviews, we made certain changes to our 
calculations for Yihua Timber and for the new shippers. The final 
dumping margins for these reviews are listed in the ``Final Results 
Margins'' section below.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 17, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Stolz or Sergio Balbontin, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4474 and (202) 482-6478, respectively.

Background

    The Department published its preliminary results on February 9, 
2009. See Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative and New Shipper 
Reviews and Partial Rescission of Administrative Review, 74 FR 6372 
(February 9, 2009) (``Preliminary Results''). We invited parties to 
comment on the Preliminary Results. On February 24, 2009, and March 4, 
2009, the Department sent Yihua Timber the Fourth Supplemental 
Questionnaire and addendum, respectively. On March 17, 2009, Yihua 
Timber provided its response to the Fourth Supplemental Questionnaire. 
On February 24, 2009, March 10, 2009, March 20, 2009, and March 25, 
2009, Yihua Timber provided information on the weights of it products. 
On March 6, 2009, we received publicly available surrogate value 
information from Yihua Timber and American Furniture Manufacturers 
Committee for Legal Trade and Vaughan-Bassett Furniture Company 
(``Petitioners''). On March 16, 2009, we received rebuttal comments on 
the publicly available surrogate value information from Yihua Timber 
and the Petitioners.
    On April 20, 2009, the Department extended the deadline for the 
final results of the administrative and new shipper reviews to August 
10, 2009. See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of 
China: Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results of the Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews, 74 FR 17951 (April 
20, 2009).
    The Department conducted verification of Yihua Timber, Yihua 
Timber's U.S. subsidiary New Classic Home Furnishings, Inc.'s (``New 
Classic''), and Sunshine's data from April 6, 2009, to April 16, 2009, 
and April 22, 2009, to April 24, 2009. See ``Verification'' section, 
below, for additional information. On May 18, 2009, we requested that 
Yihua Timber submit revised U.S. sales and factors of production 
(``FOP'') databases pursuant to the minor corrections presented at 
Yihua Timber's and New Classic's verification. On May 22, 2009, Yihua 
Timber provided the revised U.S. sales and FOP databases.
    On May 21, 2009 Yihua Timber submitted unsolicited, untimely new 
factual information, which the Department rejected on May 26, 2009. See 
Letter from the Department, regarding ``Wooden Bedroom Furniture from 
the People's Republic of China: Rejection of New Factual Information,'' 
dated May 26, 2009.
    Interested parties submitted case and rebuttal briefs on May 27, 
2009, and June 4, 2009, respectively. On May 28, 2009, we rejected 
Yihua Timber's case brief due to untimely new information included in 
Yihua Timber's case brief. See Letter from the Department, regarding, 
``Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: 
Rejection of Case Brief,'' dated May 28, 2009. On June 6, 2009, Yihua 
Timber resubmitted its case brief with the new information redacted. On 
June 10, 2009, we rejected the rebuttal brief of Lifestyle Enterprise, 
Inc., Trade Masters of Texas, Inc., and Emerald Home Furnishings, LLC 
(collectively ``Importers' Coalition'') and the rebuttal brief of COE, 
Ltd. due to untimely new arguments included in their rebuttal briefs. 
See Letters from the Department, regarding ``Wooden Bedroom Furniture 
from the People's Republic of China: Rejection of New Argument,'' dated 
June 10, 2009. On June 11, 2009, the Importers' Coalition and COE, Ltd. 
resubmitted their respective rebuttal briefs with the new arguments 
redacted. On June 12, 2009, we rejected Yihua Timber's rebuttal brief 
due to an untimely new argument included its rebuttal brief. See Letter 
from the Department, regarding ``Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the 
People's Republic of China: Rejection of Argument,'' dated June 12, 
2009. On June 15, 2009, Yihua Timber resubmitted its rebuttal brief 
with the new argument redacted.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in 
these reviews are addressed in the Memorandum from John M. Andersen, 
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for 
Import Administration, ``Antidumping Duty Administrative and New 
Shipper Reviews of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic 
of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the 
2007 Antidumping Duty Administrative and New Shipper Reviews,'' dated 
August 10, 2009, 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, Main 
Commerce Building, Room 1117, 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 January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2007.

Scope of the Order

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

[[Page 41376]]

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, 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 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.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(``Act''), we verified the information submitted by Yihua Timber, New 
Classic, and Sunshine. See Memorandum from Erin Begnal, Program 
Manager, Office 8 and Sergio Balbontin, International Trade Compliance 
Analyst, Office 8 to Wendy J. Frankel, Director, Office 8, 
``Verification of the Sales and Factors of Production Response of 
Guangdong Yihua Timber Industry Co., Ltd. in the Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's 
Republic of China,''

[[Page 41377]]

(May 18, 2009) (``Yihua Timber Verification Report''); see also 
Memorandum from Robert Bolling, Program Manager, Office 4 and Gene 
Degnan, Acting Program Manager, Office 8 to Wendy J. Frankel, Director, 
Office 8, ``Verification of the U.S. Sales Questionnaire Responses of 
Guangdong Yihua Timber Industry Co., Ltd. and their U.S. Subsidiary New 
Classic Home Furnishing, Inc. in the Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of 
China'' (May 18, 2009) (``New Classic Verification Report''), and 
Memorandum from Erin Begnal, Program Manager, Office 8 and Sergio 
Balbontin, International Trade Compliance Analyst, Office 8 to Wendy J. 
Frankel, Director, Office 8, ``Verification Report of the Sales and 
Factors Response of Dongguan Sunshine Furniture Co., Ltd. in the 
Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from 
the People's Republic of China'' (May 7, 2009) (``Sunshine Verification 
Report'') on file in the CRU. For the 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 further details on the verifications, see 
the Yihua Timber Verification Report, New Classic Verification Report, 
and Sunshine Verification Report.

New Shipper Status

    For these final results, no party has contested the bona fides of 
either Golden Well's or Sunshine's sales and we continue to find, as in 
the Preliminary Results, that both Golden Well and Sunshine have met 
the requirements to qualify as a new shipper during the POR and that 
their sales of wooden bedroom furniture to the United States are 
appropriate transactions for a new shipper.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on an analysis of the comments received, the Department has 
made certain changes in the margin calculations. For the final results, 
the Department has made the following changes:

Surrogate Value Issues

     The Department revised the surrogate value for Yihua 
Timber's poplar, ash, and pine, veneers, and plywood using World Trade 
Atlas (``WTA'') data rather than Philippine National Statistics Office 
(``NSO'') data as used in the Preliminary Results. See Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 3. See also ``Final Results of the 2007 
Administrative and New Shipper Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Order on 
Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate 
Value Memorandum,'' dated August 10, 2009 (``SV Memo'').
     The Department revised the surrogate value for Yihua 
Timber's plywood using WTA data rather than NSO data as used in the 
Preliminary Results. See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4. 
See also SV Memo.
     The Department revised the surrogate value for Yihua 
Timber's medium density fiberboard (``MDF''). See Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 5.
     The Department revised the surrogate value for Yihua 
Timber's particle board. See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 
8. See also SV Memo.
     The Department will continue using the Camarines Sur data 
used in the Preliminary Results, to calculate electricity and truck 
freight; however, we will not inflate this data for the final results. 
See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 10 and 11, respectively. 
See also SV Memo.
     The Department revised the selection of surrogate 
financial statements. We continued to use the financial statements for 
the fiscal year ending December 31, 2007, from the following producers: 
Maitland-Smith Cebu, Inc. (``Maitland-Smith''); Casa Cebuana 
Incorporated (``Casa Cebuana''); Diretso Design Furniture Inc., 
(``Diresto''); Global Classic Designs, Inc., (``Global''); and Las 
Palmas Furniture, Inc., (``Las Palmas''), all of which are Philippine 
producers of comparable merchandise. In addition, we used the financial 
statements for the same period from Arkane International Corporation; 
Giardini Sole Manufacturing and Trading Corporation (``Giardini''); and 
SCT Furnishing Corporation, also Phillippine producers of comparable 
merchandise. See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 14-16 for 
discussion of financial ratios. See also SV Memo.
     The Department made changes from the Preliminary Results 
in calculating the surrogate financial ratios for the following 
surrogate companies: Maitland-Smith, Casa Cebuana, Diretso, and Las 
Palmas. See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 14-16 for a 
discussion of financial ratios. See also SV Memo.

Yihua Timber-Specific Issues

     The Department corrected the surrogate value for Yihua 
Timber's brokerage and handling charge. See Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 13.
     The Department adjusted Yihua Timber's warehousing expense 
paid to its affiliated party to reflect market value. See Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 19.
     The Department corrected its preliminary finding of facts 
available as to Yihua Timber's FOP weights. See Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 20.
     The Department is granting Yihua Timber a by-product 
offset. See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 21.
     The Department corrected its preliminary finding of 
partial adverse facts available as to Yihua Timber's affiliate (Company 
A) sales. See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 22.
     The Department corrected its preliminary finding of facts 
available as to Yihua Timber's inventory carrying costs. See Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 23.
     The Department corrected Yihua Timber's transportation 
expenses with respect to its Channel 1 sales. See Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 24.
     The Department corrected programming errors as to Yihua 
Timber's gross weight, material conversion rates, damaged sales, a 
miscoded CONNUMU, and recalculation of USDUTYU, CREDITU, and WARRU. See 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 24.

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving non-market economy (``NME'') countries, 
the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies 
within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should 
be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the 
Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to 
an investigation 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. See Final Determination of

[[Page 41378]]

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers From the People's Republic of 
China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as amplified by Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide From 
the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994).
    In the Preliminary Results, we stated that the following companies 
demonstrated their eligibility for separate-rate status: 1) Yihua 
Timber; 2) Brother Furniture Manufacture Co., Ltd.; 3) Dongguan 
Mingsheng Furniture Co., Ltd.; 4) Fujian Lianfu Forestry Co., Ltd. aka 
Fujian Wonder Pacific, Inc. (Dare Group); 5) Fuzhou Huan Mei Furniture 
Co., Ltd. (Dare Group); 6) Jiangsu Dare Furniture Co., Ltd. (Dare 
Group); 7) Shenzhen Shen Long Hang Industry Co., Ltd.; 8) Xingli Arts & 
Crafts Factory of Yangchun; and 9) Zhongshan Gainwell Furniture Co., 
Ltd. Also, in the Preliminary Results, we stated that the new shipper, 
Sunshine, demonstrated its eligibility for separate-rate status. For 
these final results, we continue to find that evidence placed on the 
record of these reviews demonstrates that these companies provided 
information that shows both a de jure and de facto absence of 
government control with respect to their respective exports of the 
merchandise under review, and, thus are eligible for separate-rate 
status.
    With respect to the following companies not selected for individual 
examination in this review: 1) COE, Ltd.; 2) Decca Furniture Limited; 
3) Dongguan Landmark Furniture Products, Ltd.; 4) Dongguan Yihaiwei 
Furniture Limited; 5) Hwang Ho International Holdings Limited; 6) 
Meikangchi (Nantong) Furniture Company, Ltd.; 7) Qingdao Shengchang 
Wooden Co., Ltd.; 8) Transworld (Zhangzhou) Furniture Co., Ltd.; and 9) 
Winny Universal, Ltd., Zhongshan Winny Furniture Ltd., Winny Overseas, 
Ltd., we continue to grant a separate rate to these companies because 
they are wholly owned by individuals or companies located in a market 
economy. With respect to the new shipper, Golden Well, we continue to 
grant it a separate rate because it is wholly owned by individuals or 
companies located in a market economy. As wholly foreign-owned 
companies, we have no evidence indicating that these companies are 
under the control of the PRC. Therefore, a separate-rate analysis is 
not necessary to determine whether these companies are independent from 
government control. See Preliminary Results. See also Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate 
from the People's Republic of China, 64 FR 71104, 71104-05 (December 
20, 1999) (where the respondent was wholly foreign-owned and, thus, 
qualified for a separate rate).
    The following five exporters did not provide, as appropriate, 
either a separate rate application or certification: 1) Dongguan Bon 
Ten Furniture Co., Ltd. (``Bon Ten'') (see Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 29); 2) Dongguan Qingxi Xinyi Craft Furniture 
Factory (Joyce Art Factory) (``Joyce Art''); 3) Tianjin Sande Fairwood 
Furniture Co. Ltd. (``Sande''); 4) Yida Co. Ltd., Yitai Worldwide Ltd., 
Yili Co., Ltd., and Yetbuild Co., Ltd. (collectively ``Yida''); and 5) 
Hamilton & Spill, Ltd. (``Hamilton''), and therefore have not 
demonstrated their eligibility for separate rate status in this 
administrative review. In the Preliminary Results, we found that Dream 
Rooms Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.'s (``Dream Rooms'') separate-rate 
certification was deficient, and thus, Dream Rooms did not demonstrate 
its eligibility for separate-rate status in this administrative review. 
See section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act. Consequently, for the final 
results, the Department is continuing to treat Dream Rooms as part of 
the PRC-wide entity. See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 30.
    In addition, while we found Orient International Holding Shanghai 
Foreign Trading Co., Ltd. (``Orient International'') to be part of the 
PRC-wide entity in the Preliminary Results, we are granting Orient 
International a separate rate for purposes of the final results. 
However, we continue to find that Orient International did not act to 
the best of its ability in this administrative review, and thus we have 
assigned Orient International a rate based on adverse facts available 
(``AFA'') for the final results. See ``Adverse Facts Available'' 
section below. See also Issues and Decision Memorandum Comment 32.

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.

Orient International

    In the Preliminary Results, we determined that because Orient 
International ceased participating in this administrative review, 
Orient International's information could not be verified. As a result, 
we found that Orient International did not demonstrate its entitlement 
to a separate rate and was, therefore, subject to the PRC-wide rate. 
See Preliminary Results. As stated above, for the final results, we no 
longer find Orient International to be part of the PRC-entity. Orient 
International's separate rate certification demonstrates that Orient 
International provided information that shows both a de jure and de 
facto absence of government control with respect to its exports of the 
merchandise under review, and, thus is eligible for separate-rate 
status. See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 32. However, we 
find that the application of facts available is warranted. In 
accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A) through (D), by not responding to 
the Department's questionnaire and

[[Page 41379]]

informing the Department that it would no longer participate in the 
administrative review as a mandatory respondent, we find that Orient 
International withheld information requested, failed to produce the 
requested information in a timely manner, significantly impeded the 
proceeding, and did not allow for verification, as it had ceased 
cooperating with the Department.
    Moreover, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, the Department 
finds that Orient International failed to cooperate to the best of its 
ability by not providing a questionnaire response that was essential to 
the calculation of the antidumping duty margin. Orient International 
was provided an ample amount of time to submit a response to the 
Department's antidumping duty questionnaire. At no point did Orient 
International seek clarification from the Department on the specific 
requests for information, but rather submitted a letter to the 
Department indicating that it would no longer respond to the 
Department's requests for information and that it would no longer 
participate in the proceeding as a mandatory respondent. Because Orient 
International failed to cooperate with the Department in this matter, 
we find it appropriate to use an inference that is adverse to the 
interests of Orient International in selecting from among the facts 
otherwise available. See section 776(b) of the Act. By doing so, we 
will ensure that Orient International will not obtain a more favorable 
result by failing to cooperate had it cooperated fully in this 
investigation. See Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. 103-316, vol. 1 (1994) at 870 
(``SAA''). See also Issues and Decision Memorandum Comment 32.

The PRC-Wide Entity

    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 the ``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. These other companies did not demonstrate 
entitlement to a separate rate. See, e.g., Synthetic Indigo From the 
People's Republic of China; Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value, 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.
    The Department based the margin for the PRC-wide entity on AFA. See 
Preliminary Results. 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. See ``Selection of AFA Rate,'' below.

Selection of AFA Rate

    In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act 
and 19 CFR 351.308(c) 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 on the record of 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, 19506 (April 21, 2003). The Court 
of International Trade (``CIT'') and the Court of Appeals for the 
Federal Circuit have consistently upheld the Department's practice in 
this regard. 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 investigation); see also Kompass 
Food Trading Int'l v. United States, 24 CIT 678, 680 (2000) (upholding 
a 51.16 percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin 
from a different, fully cooperative respondent); and Shanghai Taoen 
Int'l 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 adverse rate from among 
the possible sources of information is to ensure that the margin is 
sufficiently adverse ``so 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 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 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain 
Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, 69 FR 76910, 76912 
(December 23, 2004); 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.'' Rhone Poulenc, 899 F.2d at 1190. 
Consistent with the statute, court precedent, and its normal practice, 
the Department has assigned the rate of 216.01 percent, the highest 
rate on the record of any segment of the proceeding, a calculated 
company-specific rate in a new shipper review of wooden bedroom 
furniture from the PRC, to Orient International and to the PRC-wide 
entity,\15\ as AFA. See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results of the 2004-2005 Semi-Annual New 
Shipper Reviews, 71 FR 70739 (December 6, 2006) (``Final 04-05 New 
Shipper Reviews'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Bon Ten, Dream Rooms, Hamilton, Joyce Art, Sande, and Yida 
are all part of the PRC-wide entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Corroboration of Secondary Information

    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies 
on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the 
course of an investigation or review, it shall, to the extent 
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that 
are reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is defined as 
information derived from the petition that gave rise to the 
investigation or

[[Page 41380]]

review, the final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or 
any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject 
merchandise. See SAA at 870. Corroborate means that the Department will 
satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative 
value. Id. To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, 
to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the 
information to be used. See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 
Finished and Unfinished from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings Four 
Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and 
Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 
(November 6, 1996) (unchanged in the final determination, Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part: 
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, 62 FR 11825 (March 13, 
1997)). Independent sources used to corroborate such evidence may 
include, for example, published price lists, official import statistics 
and customs data, and information obtained from interested parties 
during the particular investigation. See Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: High and Ultra-High 
Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators from Japan, 68 FR 35627 (June 
16, 2003) (unchanged in final determination, 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 
(November 5, 2003)); and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Live Swine From Canada, 70 FR 12181, 12183-84 (March 
11, 2005).
    The AFA rate that the Department is now using was determined in the 
published final results of a previous new shipper 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, 70741 
(December 6, 2006). In that new shipper review, the Department 
calculated a company-specific rate, which was above the PRC-wide rate 
established in the investigation. Because this rate is a company-
specific calculated rate, 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. See Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: Final Results of 
Antidumping Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996) 
(where 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) 
(ruling that the Department will not use a margin that has been 
judicially invalidated). To assess the relevancy of the rate used, the 
Department compared the margin calculations of the mandatory respondent 
in the instant administrative review with the 216.01 percent calculated 
rate from the 2004-2005 new shipper review. The Department found that 
the margin of 216.01 percent was within the range of the margins 
calculated on the record of the instant administrative review. Because 
the record of this administrative review contains margins within the 
range of 216.01 percent, we determine that the rate from the 2004-2005 
review continues 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 criterion established in section 776(c) of the 
Act 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 the PRC-
wide entity as AFA.

Final Results Margins

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

Administrative Review

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Exporter                 Antidumping Duty Percent Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guangdong Yihua Timber Industry                            29.98[percnt]
 co., Ltd. (a.k.a. Yihua Timber
 Industry Co., Ltd.)...............
Brother Furniture Manufacture Co.,                         29.98[percnt]
 Ltd...............................
COE, Ltd...........................                        29.98[percnt]
Decca Furniture Limited............                        29.98[percnt]
Dongguan Landmark Furniture                                29.98[percnt]
 Products Ltd......................
Dongguan Mingsheng Furniture Co.,                          29.98[percnt]
 Ltd...............................
Dongguan Yihaiwei Furniture Limited                        29.98[percnt]
Fujian Lianfu Forestry Co., Ltd.                           29.98[percnt]
 aka Fujian Wonder Pacific , Inc.
 (Dare Group)......................
Fuzhou Huan Mei Furniture Co., Ltd.                        29.98[percnt]
 (Dare Group)......................
Jiangsu Dare Furniture Co., Ltd.                           29.98[percnt]
 (Dare Group)......................
Hwang Ho International Holdings                            29.98[percnt]
 Limited...........................
Meikangchi (Nantong) Furniture                             29.98[percnt]
 Company Ltd.......................
Orient International Holding                              216.01[percnt]
 Shanghai Foreign Trading Co., Ltd.
Qingdao Shengchang Wooden Co., Ltd.                        29.98[percnt]
Shenzhen Shen Long Hang Industry                           29.98[percnt]
 Co., Ltd..........................
Transworld (Zhangzhou) Furniture                           29.98[percnt]
 Co., Ltd..........................
Winny Universal, Ltd., Zhongshan                           29.98[percnt]
 Winny Furniture Ltd., Winny
 Overseas, Ltd.....................
Xingli Arts & Crafts Factory of                            29.98[percnt]
 Yangchun..........................
Zhongshan Gainwell Furniture Co.,                          29.98[percnt]
 Ltd...............................
PRC-Wide Entity\16\................                       216.01[percnt]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Bon Ten, Dream Rooms, Hamilton, Joyce Art, Sande, and Yida are all
  part of the PRC-wide entity.


[[Page 41381]]

New Shipper Review

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Exporter / Producer Combination      Antidumping Duty Percent Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Golden Well International (HK),                                0[percnt]
 Ltd. / Producer: Zhangzhou XYM
 Furniture Product Co., Ltd........
Dongguan Sunshine Furniture Co.,                               0[percnt]
 Ltd. /Dongguan Sunshine Furniture
 Co., Ltd..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

    The Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (``CBP'') shall assess, antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final 
results of this review. For assessment purposes, we calculated 
exporter/importer- (or customer) -specific assessment rates for 
merchandise subject to this review. Where appropriate, we calculated an 
ad valorem rate for each importer (or customer) by dividing the total 
dumping margins for reviewed sales to that party by the total entered 
values associated with those transactions. For duty-assessment rates 
calculated on this basis, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting ad 
valorem rate against the entered customs values for the subject 
merchandise. Where appropriate, we calculated a per-unit rate for each 
importer (or customer) by dividing the total dumping margins for 
reviewed sales to that party by the total sales quantity associated 
with those transactions. For duty-assessment rates calculated on this 
basis, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting per-unit rate against 
the entered quantity of the subject merchandise. Where an importer- (or 
customer) -specific assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 
percent), the Department will instruct CBP to assess that importer (or 
customer's) entries of subject merchandise without regard to 
antidumping duties. We intend to instruct CBP to liquidate entries 
containing subject merchandise exported by the PRC-wide entity at the 
PRC-wide rate we determine in the final results of this review. The 
Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions 
directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this 
review.

Cash-Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review and new 
shipper reviews 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; 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 these final results and notice in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: August 10, 2009.
Carole Showers,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations.

Appendix

Comment 1: Use of the Philippines as Surrogate Country
Comment 2: Net Import Quantity - Philippines
Comment 3: Surrogate Value for Poplar, Ash and Pine, Veneers and 
Plywood
Comment 4: Surrogate Value for Plywood
Comment 5: Surrogate Value for Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF)
Comment 6: HS Code for Calculation of the Surrogate Value for Pine
Comment 7: Surrogate Value for Sealer
Comment 8: Surrogate Value for Particle Board
Comment 9: Surrogate Value for Labor
Comment 10: Surrogate Value for Energy
Comment 11: Surrogate Value for Truck Freight
Comment 12: Treatment of Ocean Freight Expense
Comment 13: Treatment of and Surrogate Value for Brokerage & Handling
Comment 14: Selection of Financial Statements
Comment 15: Treatment of Works-in-Progress and Changes in Finished 
Goods Inventory in Surrogate Financial Ratios
Comment 16: Treatment of Indirect Materials, Indirect Labor & 
Subcontractor Expenses
Comment 17: Constructed Export Price Offset
Comment 18: Yield Ratio Calculation
Comment 19: Treatment of Warehousing Expense
    Comment 20: Treatment of Yihua Timber's FOP and Gross Weights
Comment 21: By-Product Offset
Comment 22: Yihua Timber Affiliate's (Company A's) Sales
Comment 23: Inventory Carrying Costs
Comment 24: Inland Freight for Yihua Timber's Channel 1 Sales
Comment 25: SAS Programming Changes and Error
Comment 26: Use of Combination Rates
Comment 27: Absorption of Antidumping Duties
Comment 28: Cash Deposit Instruction for Companies that Lost Their 
Separate Rate

[[Page 41382]]

Comment 29: Whether to Rescind the Review with Respect to Dongguan Bon 
Ten Furniture Co., Ltd.
Comment 30: Whether to Grant Dream Rooms Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. 
a Separate Rate
Comment 31: Whether the Department Failed to Timely Initiate the 
Administrative Review Thereby Erroneously Choosing Orient International 
as a Mandatory Respondent
Comment 32: Separate Rate Status of Orient International
[FR Doc. E9-19666 Filed 8-14-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S