[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 6 (Monday, January 11, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1339-1344]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-891]
Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic
of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
and Rescission in Part
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
[[Page 1340]]
DATES: Effective Date: January 11, 2010.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is currently
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, 2007, through
November 30, 2008. We preliminarily determine that sales made by Since
Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. (Since Hardware) were made below normal
value (NV). We invite interested parties to comment on these
preliminary results. In addition, we are also rescinding this
administrative review with respect to New-Tec Integration (Xiamen) Co.,
Ltd. (New-Tec).
Parties who submit comments are requested to submit with each
argument a statement of the issue and a summary of the argument.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Baker or Robert James, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
2924 or (202) 482-0649, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On December 2, 2004, the Department published in the Federal
Register the antidumping duty order on hand trucks from the PRC. See
Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof
From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 70122 (December 2, 2004). On
December 1, 2008, the Department published in the Federal Register its
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, 73 FR 72764 (December 1,
2008). On December 30, 2008, Gleason Industrial Products, Inc., and
Precision Products, Inc. (Petitioners) requested that the Department
conduct an administrative review of Since Hardware, New-Tec, Qingdao
Huatian Hand Truck Co., Ltd. (Huatian), and True Potential Co., Ltd.
(True Potential). On February 2, 2009, the Department published in the
Federal Register a notice of initiation of the antidumping duty
administrative review of hand trucks from the PRC for the period
December 1, 2007, through November 30, 2008, with respect to the four
companies named above. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing
Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 74 FR
5821 (February 2, 2009) (Initiation Notice).
On March 4, 2009, New-Tec provided certification that it had not
shipped to the United States any subject merchandise during the period
of review (POR), and requested the Department rescind the review with
respect to New-Tec. On April 21, 2009, Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) posted the Department's no shipments inquiry with respect to New-
Tec. See message number 9120201 dated April 21, 2009. The Department
received no information in response to that inquiry, and found no
evidence of shipments of subject merchandise to the United States by
New-Tec during the POR. Therefore the Department published a notice of
intent to rescind the review with respect to New-Tec on June 19, 2009.
See Notice of Partial Rescission, Intent to Rescind and Extension of
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Hand
Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China,
74 FR 29178 (June 19, 2009) (Partial Rescission Notice).
On May 1, 2009, Petitioners withdrew their requests for review of
Huatian and True Potential. Because Petitioners were the only party
that requested a review of Huatian and True Potential, the Department
rescinded the review with respect to these companies on June 19, 2009.
See Partial Rescission Notice at 29178.
We issued the standard antidumping duty questionnaire to Since
Hardware on May 5, 2009, and received timely responses in June 2009. We
issued supplemental questionnaires covering sections A, C, and D of the
original questionnaire on July 7, 2009, September 18, 2009, November 6,
2009, and December 16, 2009, and received timely responses to those
questionnaires.
Period of Review
The POR covers December 1, 2007, through November 30, 2008.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise subject to this antidumping duty 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 materials
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
[[Page 1341]]
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.
Non-Market Economy Country Status
In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, we
have treated the PRC as a non-market economy (NME) country. In
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination
that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until
revoked by the administering authority. None of the parties to this
proceeding have contested such treatment. Accordingly, we calculated NV
in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME
countries.
Separate Rates Determination
A designation of a country as an NME remains in effect until it is
revoked by the Department. See section 771(18)(C) of the Act.
Accordingly, the Department applies a rebuttable presumption that all
companies within the PRC are subject to government control, and thus
should be assessed a single antidumping duty rate. It is the
Department's policy to assign all exporters of the merchandise subject
to review in NME countries a single rate unless an exporter can
affirmatively demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law
(de jure) and in fact (de facto), with respect to exports. To establish
whether a company is sufficiently independent to be entitled to a
separate, company-specific rate, the Department analyzes each exporting
entity in an NME country under the test established in the Final
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Sparklers from the
People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), (Sparklers) as
amplified by the 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) (Silicon Carbide).
Absence of De Jure Control
Evidence supporting, though not requiring, a finding of de jure
absence of government control over export activities includes: (1) an
absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the individual
exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative enactments
decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any other formal measures
by the government decentralizing control of companies. See Sparklers,
56 FR at 20589. In this administrative review, Since Hardware submitted
a complete response to the separate rates section of the Department's
questionnaire. See Since Hardware's June 5, 2009 submission at 5-6. The
evidence submitted in the instant review by Since Hardware includes
government laws and regulations on corporate ownership and control
(i.e., the Company Law and the Foreign Trade Law of the People's
Republic of China), individual business licenses, and narrative
information regarding the company's operations and selection of
management. The evidence Since Hardware provided supports a preliminary
finding of an absence of de jure government control over its export
activities because: (1) there are no controls on exports of subject
merchandise, such as quotas applied to, or licenses required for,
exports of the subject merchandise to the United States; and (2) the
government of the PRC has passed legislation decentralizing control of
companies. See Since Hardware's June 5, 2009 submission at 5-6, and
Exhibit 4 and its August 3, 2009 submission at 4 and Exhibit 7.
Absence of De Facto Control
The absence of de facto government control over exports generally
is based on whether the respondent: (1) sets its own export prices
independent of the government and other exporters; (2) retains the
proceeds from its export sales and makes independent decisions
regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses; (3) has
the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; and
(4) has autonomy from the government regarding the selection of
management. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-87; Sparklers, 56 FR at
20589; and Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544,
22545 (May 8, 1995).
In its June 5, 2009, submission, Since Hardware submitted evidence
demonstrating an absence of de facto government control over its export
activities. Specifically, this evidence indicates: (1) the company sets
its own export prices independent of the government and without the
approval of a government authority; (2) the company retains the
proceeds from its sales and makes independent decisions regarding the
disposition of profits or financing of losses; (3) the company has a
general manager with the authority to negotiate and bind the company in
an agreement; (4) the general manager is selected by the company's
board of shareholders, and the general manager appoints the company's
management personnel; and (5) there is no restriction on the company's
use of export revenues.
Therefore, in the absence of both de jure or de facto government
control over Since Hardware's export activities, we preliminarily find
that Since Hardware has established prima facie that it qualifies for a
separate rate under the criteria established by Silicon Carbide and
Sparklers.
Surrogate Country
When the Department investigates imports from an NME country,
section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV, in most
circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of production (FOPs),
valued in a surrogate market-economy country or countries considered to
be appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4)
of the Act, in 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 at a level of economic development
comparable to that of the NME country and are significant producers of
comparable merchandise. The sources of the surrogate values we have
used in this administrative review are discussed under the ``Normal
Value'' section, below. On February 24, 2009, the Department determined
that India, the Philippines, Indonesia, Colombia, Thailand and Peru are
countries comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development, and
requested comments from interested parties on selecting the appropriate
surrogate country for this review. See Letter to All Interested
Parties, ``Administrative Review of Hand Trucks and Certain Parts
Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Country List,''
dated March 2, 2009, at Attachment 1. No party submitted surrogate
country selection comments.
The Department has examined the export levels\1\ of subject
merchandise from the above-mentioned countries and found that India,
Indonesia, Thailand, Colombia, and the Philippines are significant
producers of comparable merchandise. See Memorandum from Fred Baker,
International Trade Compliance Analyst, to Richard Weible, Office
Director, ``Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Hand Trucks and
Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Selection of
a Surrogate Country,'' dated concurrently with this notice (Surrogate
[[Page 1342]]
Country Memorandum) at 4. However, in selecting the appropriate
surrogate country, the Department also examines the availability and
reliability of data from the countries deemed to be economically
comparable and significant producers of subject merchandise. For a
description of our practice, see Department Policy Bulletin No. 04.1:
Non-Market Economy Surrogate Country Selection Process (March 1, 2004).
India has been the primary surrogate country in numerous past segments
for this proceeding. In those past segments, the Department found
India's import statistics to be an available and reliable source for
surrogate values. See Surrogate Country Memorandum at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Department was unable to find world production data for
subject merchandise and relied on export data as a substitute for
overall production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, because India: (1) is a significant producer of
comparable merchandise; (2) is at a similar level of economic
development as the PRC; (3) has publicly available and reliable data,
which the Department has previously relied upon for numerous segments
of this proceeding, the Department has selected India as the primary
surrogate country, pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act. See
Surrogate Country Memorandum at 5.
However, for the input ``rubber wheels'' the Department has been
unable to locate a suitable surrogate value from India. The WTA data
which we relied upon for the other direct inputs reported the quantity
of rubber wheels on a per-piece basis, rather than a weight basis.
Thus, because the size of the units involved as reported by WTA data
could vary greatly, covering wheels with rims up to two feet in
diameter, we do not consider a per-piece measurement a reliable source
for valuation in this review. Therefore, we have selected the
Philippines as the secondary surrogate country because it reported
Philippine imports of rubber wheels on a weight basis. All of the other
countries on the Department's list of potential surrogate countries
either had no imports of rubber wheels or, like India, reported them on
a per-piece basis.
Rescission in Part
As described above, on June 19, 2009, the Department published a
notice of intent to rescind the administrative review of New-Tec
because it had no shipments. We gave interested parties an opportunity
to comment on this preliminary intent. See Preliminary Rescission
Notice at 29179. We received no comments. There continues to be no
record evidence to suggest New-Tec had shipments or entries of subject
merchandise to the United States during the POR. Therefore, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we are rescinding the review with
respect to New-Tec.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether Since Hardware's sales of subject merchandise
to the United States were made at a price below NV, we compared its
U.S. price to NV, as described in the ``U.S. Price'' and ``Normal
Value'' sections of this notice, below.
U.S. Price
We used invoice date as the date of sale because record evidence
indicated the terms of Since Hardware's U.S. sales changed following
the contract date. See Since Hardware's October 5, 2009 submission at
2-3 and 19 CFR 351.401(i). (The Department will normally use the
invoice date as the date of sale.)
In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we based U.S. price
on the export price (EP) of the sale to the United States by Since
Hardware because the first sale to an unaffiliated party was made
before the date of importation, and the use of constructed export price
was not otherwise warranted. We calculated EP based on the free-on-
board (FOB) price to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United
States. For this EP sale, we deducted foreign inland freight and
foreign brokerage and handling from the starting price (or gross unit
price), in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. For Since
Hardware's U.S. sale, each of these services was provided by an NME
vendor. Thus, we based the deduction of these movement charges on
surrogate values.
We valued truck freight expenses using a per-unit average rate
calculated from data on the following website: http://www.infobanc.com/logistics/logtruck.htm. The logistics section of this website contains
inland freight truck rates between many large Indian cities. We used
data from this website for four months of the POR for which the website
contained data. See Memorandum from Fred Baker, International Trade
Compliance Analyst, through Robert James, Program Manager, to the File,
``Administrative Review of Hand Trucks and Parts Thereof from the
People's Republic of China: Surrogate Values for the Preliminary
Results'' (Surrogate Values Memorandum) at Exhibit 5.
We valued brokerage and handling using a simple average of the
brokerage and handling costs reported in public submissions filed in
three antidumping duty cases. Specifically, we averaged the public
brokerage and handling expenses reported by Navneet Publications
(India) Ltd. in the 2007-2008 administrative review of certain lined
paper products from India, Essar Steel Limited in the 2006-2007
antidumping duty administrative review of hot-rolled carbon steel flat
products from India, and Himalaya International Ltd. in the 2005-2006
administrative review of certain preserved mushrooms from India. The
Department adjusted the average brokerage and handling rate for
inflation. See Surrogate Value Memorandum at Exhibit 8.
Our surrogate values for truck freight and for brokerage and
handling were in Indian rupees. Therefore, in accordance with section
773A(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415, we converted them to U.S.
dollars using the official exchange rate for India recorded on the date
of sale of subject merchandise in this case. See http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html.
Normal Value
1. Methodology
Section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Act provides that the Department shall
determine the NV using an FOP methodology if the merchandise is
exported from an NME and 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. The Department bases
NV on FOPs because the presence of government controls on various
aspects of NMEs renders price comparisons and the calculation of
production costs invalid under the Department's normal methodologies.
See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished,
From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part, 70
FR 39744 (July 11, 2005), unchanged in 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 (January 17, 2006).
We calculated NV by adding the value of the FOPs, general expenses,
profit, and packing costs. The FOPs for subject merchandise include:
(1) quantities of raw materials employed; (2) hours of labor required;
(3) amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; (4) representative
capital and selling costs; and (5) packing materials. We used the FOPs
that Since Hardware reported for materials, energy, labor, and packing,
and valued those FOPs by multiplying the amount of the factor consumed
in
[[Page 1343]]
producing subject merchandise by the average unit surrogate value of
the factor.
In addition, we added freight costs to the surrogate costs that we
calculated for material inputs. We calculated freight costs by
multiplying surrogate freight rates by the shorter of the reported
distance from the domestic supplier to the factory that produced the
subject merchandise or the distance from the nearest seaport to the
factory that produced the subject merchandise, as appropriate. Where
there were multiple domestic suppliers of a material input, we
calculated a weighted-average distance after limiting each supplier's
distance to no more than the distance from the nearest seaport to Since
Hardware. This adjustment is in accordance with the decision by the
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Sigma Corp. v. United
States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407-1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
We also increased the calculated costs of the FOPs for surrogate
general expenses and profit. See Surrogate Values Memorandum at Exhibit
7.
2. Selection of Surrogate Values
In selecting surrogate values, we followed, to the extent
practicable, the Department's practice of choosing public values which
are non-export averages, representative of a range of prices in effect
during the POR, or over a period as close as possible in time to the
POR, product-specific, and tax-exclusive. See, e.g., Notice of
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative
Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of
Final Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004),
unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic
of Vietnam, 69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004). We also considered the
quality of the source of surrogate information in selecting surrogate
values. See Manganese Metal From the People's Republic of China; Final
Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 63 FR 12440 (March 13, 1998). Where we could obtain only
surrogate values that were not contemporaneous with the POR, we
inflated (or deflated) the surrogate values using the Indian wholesale
price index (WPI) as published in International Financial Statistics by
the International Monetary Fund. See Surrogate Values Memorandum at
Exhibit 1.
In calculating surrogate values from import statistics, in
accordance with the Department's practice, we disregarded statistics
for imports from NME countries and countries deemed to maintain broadly
available, non-industry-specific subsidies which may benefit all
exporters to all export markets (e.g., Indonesia, South Korea, and
Thailand). See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields From The
People's Republic of China, 67 FR 6482 (February 12, 2002) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1; see also
Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value,
Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color Television
Receivers From the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 66800, 66808
(November 28, 2003), unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of
Critical Circumstances: Certain Color Television Receivers From the
People's Republic of China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004). Additionally,
we excluded from our calculations imports that were labeled as
originating from an unspecified country because we could not determine
whether they were from an NME country.
Except as noted in the section entitled ``Surrogate Country,''
above, we valued all direct materials (zinc-galvanized cold-rolled
steel plate, zinc-galvanized hot-rolled steel tube, aluminum tube,
aluminum parts, PP plastic parts, PVC plastic parts, zinc-galvanized
iron clip, lock washer, spring, tapping screw, bolt, nut, rivet, and
welding rod) using weighted-average Indian import values derived from
the World Trade Atlas online (WTA), for the period December 2007
through November 2008. See Surrogate Values Memorandum at Exhibit 2. We
valued rubber wheels using WTA data for imports to the Philippines for
the same December 2007 through November 2008 period. Id. In addition,
we valued packing material inputs (corrugated paper, plastic strip,
label, steel clip, polyethylene plastic sheet, and the instruction
manual) with weighted-average Indian import values derived from the WTA
for the period December 2007 through November 2008. Id. at Exhibit 4.
The Indian import statistics obtained from the WTA were published by
the Indian Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and
Statistics, Ministry of Commerce of India, and are contemporaneous with
the POR.
Energy inputs consisted of argon gas and electricity. We valued
argon gas using weighted-average Indian import values derived from the
WTA for the period December 2007 through November 2008. See Surrogate
Values Memorandum at Exhibit 3. We valued electricity using price data
for small, medium, and large industries, as published by the Central
Electricity Authority of the Government of India in its publication
titled Electricity Tariff & Duty and Average Rates of Electricity
Supply in India, dated March 2008. These electricity rates represent
actual country-wide publicly-available information on tax-exclusive
electricity rates charged to industries in India. We did not inflate
this value because utility rates represent current rates, as indicated
by the effective dates listed for each of the rates provided. See
Surrogate Value Memorandum at Exhibit 3 for our computation.
We valued truck freight expenses for inputs using the same
surrogate data source we used for valuing domestic inland freight for
Since Hardware's U.S. sale (i.e., we used data from the website http://www.infobanc.com/logistics/logtruck.htm, which contains inland freight
truck rates between many large Indian cities). See Surrogate Values
Memorandum at Exhibit 5.
The electricity and truck freight expenses were denominated in
Indian rupees. Therefore, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act
and 19 CFR 351.415, we converted them to U.S. dollars using the
official exchange rate for India recorded on the date of sale of
subject merchandise in this case. See http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html.
The Department's regulations require the use of a regression-based
wage rate. See 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3). Therefore, to value labor, the
Department used the regression-based wage rate for the PRC published on
the Import Administration website. See the IA website at: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/07wages/2009-2007-wages.html#table1.
To value the surrogate financial ratios for factory overhead (OH),
selling, general & administrative (SG&A) expenses, and profit, the
Department prefers to use contemporaneous, publicly available and
subsidy-free financial statements of companies producing comparable
merchandise from the surrogate country. For these preliminary results,
Department used the 2005-2006 financial statement of Godrej & Boyce
Manufacturing Company Limited (Godrej & Boyce), an Indian producer of
comparable
[[Page 1344]]
merchandise. However, Godrej & Boyce's 2005-2006 financial statement
does make reference to an unspecified ``{i{time} nvestment subsidy
under the Central/State investment incentive scheme.'' See Surrogate
Values Source Documents, Exhibit 1 at 27. The Department has a general
practice to reject the use of certain financial statements where the
statements show that the company benefitted from subsidy programs which
Commerce has found to be countervailable. See Certain Tissue Paper
Products from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial
Rescission of the 2007-2008 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and
Determination Not to Revoke in Part, 74 FR 52176 (October 9, 2009).
Nevertheless, we have used Godrej & Boyce's 2005-2006 financial
statement for these preliminary results because it is the only
financial statement available to us and it is unclear if the subsidy
mentioned is countervailable. For the final results, we invite
interested parties to submit additional financial statements to the
record for consideration. We will then examine again whether it is
appropriate to use Godrej & Boyce's financial statement to calculate
the surrogate financial ratios.
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with
section 773A(a) and 19 CFR 351.415 of the Act, based on the exchange
rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the
Federal Reserve Bank. These exchange rates can be accessed at the IA
website at: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html.
Preliminary Results of Review
We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margin exists
during the period December 1, 2007, through November 30, 2008:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/Exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. (Since Hardware)....... 17.57
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Comment
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose
to parties to this proceeding the calculations performed in reaching
the preliminary results within five days of publication of these
preliminary results. Interested parties may submit written comments
(case briefs) within 30 days of publication of the preliminary results
and rebuttal comments (rebuttal briefs) within five days after the time
limit for filing case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii) and
351.309(d)(1). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d)(2), rebuttal briefs must
be limited to issues raised in the case briefs. Parties who submit
arguments are requested to submit with the case or rebuttal briefs: (1)
a statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3)
a table of authorities. Further, the Department requests that parties
submitting written comments provide the Department with a diskette
containing the public version of those comments.
Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of
publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Interested parties
who wish to request a hearing or to participate if one is requested,
must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration within 30 days of publication of this notice. Requests
should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number;
(2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be
discussed. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in the hearing will be
limited to those raised in the briefs.
Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section
751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act, the Department will issue the final
results of this administrative review, including the results of our
analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their comments, within
90 days of publication of these preliminary results.
Assessment Rates
Upon issuing the final results of the review, 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-specific
ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount
of the dumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total
entered value of those same sales. We will instruct CBP to assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if
any importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results
of this review is above de minimis. However, 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, when imposed, will apply
to all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication of the final
results of this administrative review, as provided by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for Since Hardware
will be the rate established in the final results of this
administrative review; (2) for any previously reviewed or investigated
PRC or non-PRC exporter, not covered in this administrative review,
with a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the company-
specific rate established in the most recent segment of this
proceeding; (3) for all other PRC exporters, the cash deposit rate will
continue to be the PRC-wide rate (i.e., 383.60 percent); and (4) the
cash-deposit rate for any non-PRC exporter of subject merchandise from
the PRC will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied
that exporter. These cash 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)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(i).
Dated: December 31, 2009.
Susan H. Kuhbach,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-30 Filed 1-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S