[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 24 (Friday, February 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5952-5964]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-2590]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-890]


Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Intent To Rescind Review in Part

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the 
Department of Commerce (Department) is conducting an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture (WBF) 
from the People's Republic of China (PRC). The period of review (POR) 
is January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008. This administrative 
review covers multiple exporters of the subject merchandise, two of 
which are being individually examined as mandatory respondents.
    We have preliminarily determined that one of the mandatory 
respondents made sales in the United States at prices below normal 
value (NV), one mandatory respondent and two separate rate applicants 
did not demonstrate that they are entitled to a separate rate, and thus 
have been treated as part of the PRC-wide entity, and 12 separate rate 
applicants demonstrated that they are entitled to a separate rate and 
have been assigned the dumping margin calculated for the one fully 
participating mandatory respondent. If these preliminary results are 
adopted in our final results of review, we will instruct U.S. Customs 
and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on entries of 
subject merchandise during the POR for which the importer-specific 
assessment rates are above de minimis.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit comments are requested to submit with each 
argument a statement of the issue and a brief summary of the argument. 
We intend to issue the final results of this review no later than 120 
days from the date of publication of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Pedersen or David Edmiston, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
2769, and (202) 482-0989 respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 4, 2005, the Department published 
in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on WBF from the PRC. 
See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the 
People's Republic of China, 70 FR 329 (January 4, 2005) (Order). On 
January 5, 2009, the Department notified interested parties of their 
opportunity to request an administrative review of orders, finding, or 
suspended investigations with anniversaries in January 2009, including 
the antidumping duty order on WBF from the PRC. See Antidumping or 
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; 
Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 74 FR 265 (January 5, 
2009). In January 2009, the American Furniture Manufacturers Committee 
for Legal Trade and Vaughan-Bassett Furniture Company, Inc., (AFMC/
Vaughan-Bassett) (petitioners), Kimball

[[Page 5953]]

International, Inc., Kimball Furniture Group, Inc. and Kimball 
Hospitality Inc., and the domestic interested party American of 
Martinsville, and certain foreign exporters requested that the 
Department conduct an administrative review of certain companies. In 
total, administrative reviews were requested for 200 companies. On 
February 26, 2009, the Department published in the Federal Register a 
notice initiating an antidumping duty administrative review of WBF from 
the PRC covering 200 companies and the period January 1, 2008 through 
December 31, 2008. See Initiation of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 74 FR 8776 (February 26, 2009) (Initiation Notice).
    In the Initiation Notice, parties were notified that if the 
Department limited the number of respondents selected for individual 
examination, it would select respondents based on export/shipment data 
provided in response to the Department's quantity and value (Q&V) 
questionnaire. See Initiation Notice 74 FR at 8776-77. The Initiation 
Notice also notified parties that they must timely submit Q&V 
questionnaire responses and separate rate applications or separate rate 
certifications in order to qualify for a separate rate. See Id.
    On February 26, 2009, the Department issued Q&V questionnaires to 
all companies subject to the review, and requested that the companies 
report the Q&V of their POR exports and/or shipments of WBF to the 
United States. The Department received Q&V questionnaire responses and 
separate rate certifications and applications in March and April 
2009.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Department did not receive Q&V questionnaire responses 
from all 200 of the companies for which the instant review was 
initiated. See the ``Non-responsive Companies'' section of this 
notice below for a detailed discussion of these companies. In 
addition to the mandatory respondents, the Department received 
separate rate certifications and applications from 12 companies for 
which all review requests have not been withdrawn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 27, 2009, petitioners requested that the Department 
determine whether certain companies for which it requested a review had 
absorbed antidumping duties for U.S. sales of WBF made during the POR, 
pursuant to section 751(a)(4) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(the Act).
    In March and April 2009, interested parties submitted comments on 
respondent selection.\2\ Given its limited resources, and the fact that 
an administrative review was requested for 200 companies/company 
groupings, using Q&V data the Department limited the number of 
companies to be individually examined to: (1) Dalian Huafeng Furniture 
Co., Ltd., (Huafeng) (2) Guangdong Yihua Timber Industry Co., Ltd., 
(Yihua) and (3) Shanghai Aosen Furniture Co., Ltd. (Aosen) as mandatory 
respondents.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia regarding ``Respondent 
Selection in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Wooden 
Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China'' dated April 
20, 2009 (Respondent Selection Memorandum).
    \3\ See Respondent Selection Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 20 and 21, 2009, the Department issued the antidumping 
questionnaire to Huafeng, Yihua, Aosen, and made the questionnaire 
available to the voluntary respondents, which included the group 
Dongguan Sunrise Furniture Co., Taicang Sunrise Wood Industry Co., 
Ltd., and Fairmont Designs.\4\ After all parties withdrew their review 
requests for Huafeng and Yihua,\5\ the Department issued an amendment 
to the Respondent Selection Memorandum on May 29, 2009, naming the 
group Dongguan Sunrise Furniture Co., Taicang Sunrise Wood Industry 
Co., Ltd., and Fairmont Designs as an additional mandatory 
respondent.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Dongguan Sunrise Furniture Co., Taicang Sunrise Wood 
Industry Co., Ltd., Fairmont Designs, Shanghai Sunrise Furniture 
Co., Ltd., Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Ltd. and Meikangchi (Nantong) 
Furniture Company Ltd. requested to be treated as voluntary 
respondents. See Fairmont's Quantity and Value submission of January 
29, 2009.
    \5\ All review requests were withdrawn for Huafeng and Yihua 
prior to the due date for them to respond to section A of the 
questionnaire.
    \6\ See memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia regarding ``Amendment 
to Respondent Selection in the Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of 
China'' dated May 29, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Between April 2009 and January 2010, Fairmont \7\ responded to the 
Department's questionnaire and supplemental questionnaires and the 
petitioners commented on Fairmont's responses. After partially 
responding to section A of the antidumping questionnaire, on June 3, 
2009, Aosen notified the Department that it would no longer be 
participating in the review, except with respect to demonstrating its 
eligibility to receive a separate rate, briefing, and any hearing that 
may be held in the review.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Fairmont refers to the following companies which the 
Department has treated as a single entity: Dongguan Sunrise 
Furniture Co., Ltd., Taicang Sunrise Wood Industry Co., Ltd., 
Taicang Fairmount Designs Furniture Co., Ltd., and Meizhou Sunrise 
Furniture Co., Ltd. (Fairmont). See memorandum to John M. Andersen 
regarding ``Affiliation and Single Entity Status of Dongguan Sunrise 
Furniture Co., Ltd., Taicang Sunrise Wood Industry Co., Ltd., 
Taicang Fairmount Designs Furniture Co., Ltd., and Meizhou Sunrise 
Furniture Co., Ltd.'' dated October 8, 2009.
    \8\ See Aosen's Withdrawal of Section A Questionnaire Response, 
dated June 3, 2009; also see the section of this notice entitled 
``Aosen'' below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering comments from interested parties, the Department 
accepted American of Martinsville's February 2, 2009, request for an 
administrative review of Guangzhou Maria Yee Furnishings Ltd., PYLA HK 
Ltd., and Maria Yee, Inc.\9\ The Department also determined that 
Xilinmen Group Co. Ltd. does not currently have separate rate status; 
\10\ decided it was inappropriate to apply Woodworth Wooden Industries 
(Dong Guan) Co., Ltd.'s separate rate to Woodworth International Corp. 
(HK); \11\ and found that Yeh Brothers World Trade, Inc. had no sales 
of subject merchandise for export to the United States during the 
instant POR.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See April 13, 2009, memorandum entitled ``Requests for 
Review of Maria Yee by American Furniture Manufacturers Committee 
for Legal Trade and American of Martinsville in the Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's 
Republic of China.''
    \10\ See May 8, 2009, memorandum entitled ``Xilinmen Group Co. 
Ltd.'s Separate Rate Status in the Antidumping Duty Proceeding 
Involving Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of 
China.''
    \11\ See September 15, 2009, memorandum entitled ``Woodworth 
Wooden Industries (Dong Guan) Co., Ltd.'s Request in the Fourth 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture 
from the People's Republic of China.''
    \12\ See the November 13, 2009, memorandum entitled ``2008 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture 
from the People's Republic of China (PRC): Whether to Rescind the 
Review with Respect to Yeh Brothers World Trade, Inc.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the Department's June 22, 2009, letter providing 
parties with an opportunity to submit comments regarding surrogate 
country and surrogate value selection,\13\ Fairmont and AFMC/Vaughan 
Bassett filed surrogate country and surrogate value comments from July 
2009 through January 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Letter from Howard Smith, Program Manager, Office 4, to 
All Interested Parties, ``Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of 
Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China 
(PRC),'' dated June 22, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During March, April, and May 2009, a number of interested parties 
withdrew their review requests. On September 2, 2009, the Department 
published a notice rescinding the review with respect to 125 entities 
for which all review requests had been withdrawn. See Wooden Bedroom 
Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Partial 
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 45424 
(September 2, 2009).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Six companies (Ningbo Hengrun Furniture Co. Ltd, Ningbo 
Furniture Industries Limited, Ningbo Fubang Furniture Industries 
Limited, Techniwood Industries Ltd., Techniwood (Macao Commercial 
Offshore) Limited, Ningbo Techniwood Furniture Industries Limited) 
listed as one company in the initiation were itemized as 4 companies 
in the rescission notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 18, 2009, the Department extended the deadline for

[[Page 5954]]

the issuance of the preliminary results of the administrative review 
until February 1, 2010. See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's 
Republic of China: Extension of Time Limits for the Preliminary Results 
of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 47919 (September 
18, 2009).
    In October and November, 2009, the Department verified the 
questionnaire and supplemental questionnaire responses of Fairmont and 
the separate rate respondent, Longrange Furniture Co. Ltd. 
(Longrange).\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See the separate December 30, 2009, memoranda regarding 
verification in the 4th Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of 
Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China 
covering Longrange, Dongguan Sunrise Furniture Co., Ltd., Fairmont 
International Co., Ltd., Cambium Business Group, Inc. (d.b.a. 
Fairmont), FDUSA, and Taicang Sunrise Wood Industry Co., Ltd. 
(referred to collectively as the 4th Review Verification Reports).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    The product covered by the order is wooden bedroom furniture. 
Wooden bedroom furniture is generally, but not exclusively, designed, 
manufactured, and offered for sale in coordinated groups, or bedrooms, 
in which all of the individual pieces are of approximately the same 
style and approximately the same material and/or finish. The subject 
merchandise is made substantially of wood products, including both 
solid wood and also engineered wood products made from wood particles, 
fibers, or other wooden materials such as plywood, 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,\16\ highboys,\17\ lowboys,\18\ chests of drawers,\19\ 
chests,\20\ door chests,\21\ chiffoniers,\22\ hutches,\23\ and 
armoires; \24\ (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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 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.
    \17\ 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).
    \18\ A lowboy is typically a short chest of drawers, not more 
than four feet high, normally set on short legs.
    \19\ A chest of drawers is typically a case containing drawers 
for storing clothing.
    \20\ 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.
    \21\ 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.
    \22\ A chiffonier is typically a tall and narrow chest of 
drawers normally used for storing undergarments and lingerie, often 
with mirror(s) attached.
    \23\ A hutch is typically an open case of furniture with shelves 
that typically sits on another piece of furniture and provides 
storage for clothes.
    \24\ 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; \25\ (9) jewelry armories; \26\ (10) cheval mirrors; 
\27\ (11) certain metal parts; \28\ (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; (13) upholstered beds \29\ and (14) toy boxes.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 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.
    \26\ 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).
    \27\ 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 line 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).
    \28\ 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.
    \29\ 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).
    \30\ To be excluded the toy box must: (1) Be wider than it is 
tall; (2) have dimensions within 16 inches to 27 inches in height, 
15 inches to 18 inches in depth, and 21 inches to 30 inches in 
width; (3) have a hinged lid that encompasses the entire top of the 
box; (4) not incorporate any doors or drawers; (5) have slow-closing 
safety hinges; (6) have air vents; (7) have no locking mechanism; 
and (8) comply with American Society for Testing and Materials 
(ASTM) standard F963-03. Toy boxes are boxes generally designed for 
the purpose of storing children's items such as toys, books, and 
playthings. See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic 
of China: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review and 
Determination to Revoke Order in Part, 74 FR 8506 (February 25, 
2009). Further, as determined in the scope ruling memorandum 
``Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: 
Scope Ruling on a White Toy Box,'' dated July 6, 2009, the 
dimensional ranges used to identify the toy boxes that are excluded 
from the wooden bedroom furniture order apply to the box itself 
rather than the lid.

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

[[Page 5955]]

    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 WBF 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 Act, we have verified 
information provided by Fairmont and Longrange using standard 
verification procedures including on-site inspection of the 
manufacturer's facilities and the examination of relevant sales and 
financial records. Our verification results are outlined in the 
verification reports, the public versions of which are available in the 
Central Records Unit, Room 1117 of the main Department building.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See the February 1, 2010, memoranda titled ``Verification 
of the Sales and Separate Rate Questionnaire Responses of Longrange 
Furniture Co., Ltd in the 4th Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China 
(PRC),'' ``Verification at Dongguan Sunrise Furniture Co., Ltd. in 
the 4th Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Wooden Bedroom 
Furniture from the People's Republic of China,'' ``Verification at 
Fairmont International Co., Ltd. in the 4th Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's 
Republic of China,'' ``Verification at Cambium Business Group, Inc. 
(d.b.a. Fairmont) in the 4th Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China,'' 
and ``Verification at Taicang Sunrise Wood Industry Co., Ltd. in the 
4th Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Wooden Bedroom 
Furniture from the People's Republic of China,'' (collectively 
referred to as the 4th Review Verification Reports).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Duty Absorption

    Section 751(a)(4) of the Act provides for the Department, if 
requested, to determine during an administrative review initiated two 
or four years after publication of the order, whether antidumping 
duties have been absorbed by a foreign producer or exporter, if the 
subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an affiliated 
importer. See also, 19 CFR 351.213(j). On March 27, 2009, the 
petitioners requested that the Department determine whether the 
mandatory respondents and separate-rate respondents had absorbed 
antidumping duties for U.S. sales of WBF made during the POR. Since the 
instant review was initiated four years after publication of the WBF 
order, we have conducted a duty absorption analysis.
    In determining whether the antidumping duties have been absorbed by 
the respondent, we presume the duties will be absorbed for those sales 
that have been made at less than NV. This presumption can be rebutted 
with evidence (e.g., an agreement between the affiliated importer and 
unaffiliated purchaser) that the unaffiliated purchaser will pay the 
full duty ultimately assessed on the subject merchandise. See, e.g., 
Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Taiwan: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part, 70 FR 39735, 39737 (July 11, 
2005), (unchanged in final results) Notice of Final Results and Final 
Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain 
Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Taiwan, 70 FR 73727, 73728 
(December 13, 2005). The Department requested that Fairmont provide 
evidence that its unaffiliated U.S. purchaser will pay any antidumping 
duties ultimately assessed on entries of subject merchandise.\32\ 
Fairmont did not provide any evidence in response to the Department's 
request.\33\ Accordingly, based on the information on the record, we 
cannot conclude that the unaffiliated purchasers in the United States 
will ultimately pay assessed duties. Since Fairmont did not rebut the 
duty-absorption presumption with evidence that its unaffiliated U.S. 
purchasers will pay the full duty ultimately assessed on the subject 
merchandise, we preliminarily find that antidumping duties have been 
absorbed by Fairmont on all U.S. sales made through its affiliated 
importer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See the Department's June 10, 2009, supplemental 
questionnaire sent to Fairmont at question 146.
    \33\ See Fairmont's July 2, 2009, supplemental questionnaire 
response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The separate-rate respondents were only requested to provide 
information on their separate-rate status. Thus, we do not have the 
information necessary to assess whether the separate-rate respondents 
absorbed antidumping duties. Accordingly, we cannot make duty 
absorption determinations with respect to these companies. As explained 
below, Aosen did not fully participate in this review and has been 
treated as part of the PRC entity.

Intent To Rescind the 2008 Administrative Review, in Part

    In response to the Department's Q&V questionnaire, 27 companies 
reported that they made no shipments of subject merchandise to the 
United States during the POR. To test these claims the Department ran a 
CBP data query, issued no-shipment inquiries to CBP asking it to 
provide any information that contradicted the no shipment claims, and 
obtained entry documents from CBP.\34\ After examining record 
information, we have preliminarily determined that one of the 27 
companies, Inni Furniture, did have shipments of subject merchandise 
that entered the United States during the POR.\35\ In addition, we 
found that there was insufficient evidence on the record to 
preliminarily rescind the review with respect to another company, 
Nanjing Nanmu Furniture Co., Ltd. (Nanjing Nanmu). We intend to obtain 
additional information regarding Nanjing Nanmu's no shipments claim and 
to continue examining the claim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia Director Office 4 
regarding ``Intent to Rescind the Review of Respondents Claiming No 
Sales/Shipments'' dated February 1, 2010.
    \35\ See Id; see also the ``Separate Rates'' section of this 
notice below for further information regarding the treatment of 
Inni.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since record evidence did not contradict the no shipment claims of 
the following companies, the Department has preliminarily rescinded 
this administrative review with respect to these companies pursuant to 
19 CFR 351.213(d)(3):

     Dalian Pretty Home Furniture
     Dongguan Dihao Furniture Co., Ltd.
     Dongguan Mingsheng Furniture Co., Ltd.
     Dongguan Mu Si Furniture Co., Ltd.
     Dongguan Sunshine Furniture Co., Ltd.
     Fortune Furniture Ltd., Dongguan Fortune Furniture Ltd.
     Foshan Guanqiu Furniture Co., Ltd.
     Fujian Lianfu Forestry Co., Ltd., a.k.a. Fujian Wonder 
Pacific Inc. (Dare Group)
     Fuzhou Huan Mei Furniture Co., Ltd. (Dare Group)

[[Page 5956]]

     Gaomi Yatai Wooden Ware Co., Ltd., Team Prospect 
International Ltd., Money Gain International Co.
     Golden Well International (HK), Ltd.
     Guangdong New Four Seas Furniture Manufacturing Ltd.
     Guangzhou Lucky Furniture Co. Ltd.
     Jiangsu Dare Furniture Co., Ltd. (Dare Group)
     Macau Youcheng Trading Co., Zhongshan Youcheng Wooden 
Arts & Crafts Co., Ltd.
     Nantong Yangzi Furniture Co., Ltd.
     Po Ying Industrial Co.
     Qingdao Beiyuan-Shengli Furniture Co., Ltd., Qingdao 
Beiyuan Industry Trading Co. Ltd.
     Qingdao Shengchang Wooden Co., Ltd
     Shanghai Fangjia Industry Co., Ltd.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Shanghai Fangjia's only sales made during the POR were 
covered by a new shipper review covering the period January 1, 2008, 
through June 30, 2008 and thus are not subject to this review. See 
Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results of New Shipper Review, 74 FR 48905 (September 25, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Shenzhen Shen Long Hang Industry Co., Ltd.
     Tianjin First Wood Co., Ltd.
     Winmost Enterprises Limited
     Yeh Brothers World Trade, Inc.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See the memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia Director, Office 
4 regarding the ``2008 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of 
Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China (PRC): 
Whether to Rescind the Review with Respect to Yeh Brothers World 
Trade, Inc.'' dated November 13, 2009 in which the Department 
indicated that it intended to rescind the instant review with 
respect to Yeh Brothers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Zhangzhou XYM Furniture Product Co., Ltd.

Non-Market Economy Country Status

    In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the 
PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (NME) country. In 
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination 
that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until 
revoked by the administering authority. None of the parties to this 
proceeding have contested such treatment. Accordingly, the Department 
calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which 
applies to NME countries.

Selection of a Surrogate Country

    When the Department conducts an antidumping duty administrative 
review of imports from a NME country, section 773(c)(1) of the Act 
directs the Department to base NV, in most cases, on the NME producer's 
factors of production (FOP) valued in a surrogate market-economy 
country or countries considered appropriate by the Department. In 
accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, the Department will value 
FOP using ``to the extent possible, the prices or costs of factors of 
production in one or more market economy countries that are--(A) At a 
level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country, 
and (B) significant producers of comparable merchandise.'' Further, 
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(2), the Department will normally value 
all FOP in a single country, except for labor.
    In the instant review, the Department identified India, Indonesia, 
the Philippines, Colombia, Thailand, and Peru as being at a level of 
economic development comparable to the PRC.\38\ On July 20, 2009, the 
petitioners and Fairmont provided information regarding the selection 
of a surrogate country.\39\ On August 11, 2009, the Department received 
rebuttal surrogate country comments from Fairmont.\40\ Although AFMC/
Vaughan Bassett asserts that India is the appropriate surrogate country 
in the instant review, they recognize that in the two most recent 
segments of this proceeding, the Department selected the Philippines as 
the surrogate country and therefore, they submitted surrogate value 
information from the Philippines.\41\ Fairmont asserts that the 
Philippines should be selected as the surrogate country.\42\ No other 
interested parties commented on the selection of a surrogate country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See memorandum entitled, ``Request for a List of Surrogate 
Countries for an Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order 
on Wooden Bedroom Furniture (``WBF'') from the People's Republic of 
China (``PRC''),'' dated April 24, 2009 (Policy Memorandum).
    \39\ See Letter from petitioners regarding, ``Wooden Bedroom 
Furniture From the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Country 
Comments,'' dated July 20, 2009, (``Petitioners' Surrogate Country 
Comments'') and Letter from Fairmont regarding, ``Wooden Bedroom 
Furniture From the People's Republic of China, A-570-890: Comments 
on Surrogate Country Selection,'' July 20, 2009 (Fairmont's 
Surrogate Country Comments'').
    \40\ See Letter from Fairmont regarding, ``Wooden Bedroom 
Furniture From the People's Republic of China, A-570-890: Rebuttal 
to Petitioners Surrogate Country and Surrogate Value Comments of 
July 20, 2009, '' dated August 11, 2009.
    \41\ See Petitioners' Surrogate Country Comments at 2.
    \42\ See Fairmont's Surrogate Country Comments at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the information on the record, we find that the 
Philippines is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. 
Specifically, The Furniture Industry in the Philippines report 
indicates that in 2006, Philippine manufacturers produced furniture 
valued at $813 million and the Philippines exported furniture valued at 
$279 million.\43\ The State of the Sector Report on Philippine 
Furniture 2006 indicates that wooden furniture has replaced rattan as 
the most commonly used material and accounted for 51% of all Philippine 
furniture exports.\44\ In addition, both The Furniture Industry in the 
Philippines and State of the Sector Report on Philippine Furniture 2006 
describe the furniture sector as comprised of approximately 15,000 
manufacturers and 800,000 workers.\45\ Thus, record evidence shows that 
the Philippines is a significant producer of merchandise that is 
comparable to the merchandise under review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See Id. at Exhibit 4.
    \44\ See Id.
    \45\ See Id. at Exhibits 2 and 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to data considerations in selecting a surrogate 
country, AFMC/Vaughan Bassett and Fairmont have submitted publicly-
available Philippine data for valuing Fairmont's FOP. In addition, the 
Department used the Philippines as the primary surrogate country in the 
second and third administrative reviews of this proceeding.\46\ 
Therefore, based on its experience, the Department finds that reliable, 
publicly available data for valuing FOPs exists for the Philippines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of 
China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review and Partial 
Rescission of Administrative Review, 73 FR 8273, 8277-78 (February 
13, 2008) (unchanged in the final results) and Wooden Bedroom 
Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative and New Shipper Reviews and 
Partial Rescission of Review, 74 FR 6372, 6376 (February 9, 2009) 
(unchanged in the final results).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, the Department has preliminarily selected the Philippines as 
the surrogate country because the record shows that the Philippines is 
at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC and is 
a significant producer of merchandise comparable to subject 
merchandise. Moreover, the record indicates that sufficient, 
contemporaneous, public Philippine data are readily-available.\47\ 
Accordingly, we have selected the Philippines as the surrogate country 
and we have calculated NV using Philippine prices to value Fairmont's 
FOP.\48\ In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), interested 
parties may submit publicly-available information to value FOP until 20 
days after the date of publication of the preliminary results.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See February 1, 2010 memorandum entitled ``Fairmont Designs 
Factor Valuation Memorandum'' (Factor Valuation Memorandum).
    \48\ See Id.
    \49\ In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final 
results of this administrative review, interested parties may submit 
factual information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual 
information submitted by an interested party less than ten days 
before, on, or after, the applicable deadline for submission of such 
factual information. However, the Department notes that 19 CFR 
351.301(c)(1) permits new information only insofar as it rebuts, 
clarifies, or corrects information placed on the record. The 
Department generally will not accept the submission of additional, 
previously absent-from-the-record alternative surrogate value 
information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). See Glycine from the 
People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Final Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809 
(October 17, 2007) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 
at Comment 2.

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

[[Page 5957]]

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department has a 
rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country 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 subject merchandise in a NME country this single rate 
unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent 
so as to be entitled to a separate rate. Exporters can demonstrate this 
independence through the absence of both de jure and de facto 
governmental control over export activities. The Department analyzes 
each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test arising from 
the Notice of 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 Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from 
the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585, 22586-87 (May 2, 1994) 
(Silicon Carbide). However, if the Department determines that a company 
is wholly foreign-owned or located in a market economy, then a separate 
rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether it is independent 
from government control. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate from the People's Republic 
of China, 64 FR 71104, 71105 (December 20, 1999) (where the respondent 
was wholly foreign-owned, and thus, qualified for a separate rate).

A. Separate Rate Recipients

1. Wholly Foreign-Owned
    Certain companies reported they are wholly owned by individuals or 
companies located in a market economy (collectively ``Foreign-owned SR 
Applicants''). The record indicates that these companies are wholly 
foreign-owned and the Department has no evidence indicating that they 
are under the control of the PRC government. Accordingly, the 
Department has preliminarily granted a separate rate to these Foreign-
owned SR Applicants. See Preliminary Results of Review section below 
for companies marked with a ``[caret]'' designating these companies as 
wholly foreign-owned.
2. Joint Ventures Between Chinese and Foreign Companies or Wholly 
Chinese-Owned Companies
    For all separate-rate applicants that reported that they are either 
joint ventures between Chinese and foreign companies or are wholly 
Chinese-owned companies (collectively PRC SR Applicants), the 
Department has analyzed whether each PRC SR Applicant has demonstrated 
the absence of de jure and de facto governmental control over its 
respective export activities.
a. 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 license; (2) legislative 
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal 
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See 
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
    The evidence provided by the PRC SR Applicants supports a 
preliminary finding of de jure absence of governmental control based on 
the following: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated 
with the individual exporters' business and export licenses; (2) 
applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of PRC 
companies; and (3) formal measures by the government decentralizing 
control of PRC companies.
    b. Absence of De Facto Control
    The Department considers four factors in evaluating whether each 
respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of its export 
functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or are subject to 
the approval of a governmental agency; (2) whether the respondent has 
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 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 22586-87; see also Notice of 
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). 
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 governmental control which would preclude the Department from 
assigning separate rates.
    The evidence provided by the SR Applicants supports a preliminary 
finding of de facto absence of governmental control based on the 
following: (1) An absence of restrictive governmental control on the 
PRC SR Applicants' export prices; (2) a showing of the PRC SR 
Applicants' authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other 
agreements; (3) a showing that the PRC SR Applicants maintain autonomy 
from the government in making decisions regarding the selection of 
management; and (4) a showing that the PRC SR Applicants retain the 
proceeds of their respective export sales and make independent 
decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses.
    The evidence placed on the record by the PRC SR Applicants 
demonstrates an absence of de jure and de facto government control, in 
accordance with the criteria identified in Sparklers and Silicon 
Carbide. Accordingly, the Department has preliminarily granted a 
separate rate to the PRC SR Applicants. See ``Preliminary Results of 
Review'' section below for companies marked with an ``*'' designating 
these companies as joint ventures between Chinese and foreign companies 
or wholly Chinese-owned companies.

B. Margins for Separate Rate Recipients Not Individually Examined

    Consistent with our normal practice, we based the weighted-average 
dumping margin for the separate rate recipients not individually 
examined on the weighted average dumping margin calculated for 
Fairmont, the one mandatory respondent that fully participated in this 
review. The entities receiving this rate are identified by name in the 
``Preliminary Results of Review'' section of this notice.

C. Nanjing Nanmu

    Nanjing Nanmu, which had been granted a separate rate in the most 
recently completed review in which it was a respondent, did not file a 
separate rate application or separate rate certification in the instant 
review. Instead, Nanjing Nanmu reported that it made no shipments of 
subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. When record 
evidence does not call into question the no shipments claim of a 
respondent with a separate

[[Page 5958]]

rate, the Department generally will rescind the review in which the 
respondent claimed no shipments and the respondent will retain its 
separate rate. However, as noted above, the Department has not 
preliminarily rescinded the review with respect to Nanjing Nanmu; 
rather it intends to obtain additional information regarding Nanjing 
Nanmu's no shipments claim and to continue examining the claim. As 
Nanjing Nanmu has not applied for separate rate status in this 
administrative review, and we have not preliminarily rescinded the 
review with respect to Nanjing Nanmu, we have considered Nanjing Nanmu 
to be part of the PRC-wide entity for purposes of these preliminary 
results. The Department intends to make a preliminary determination 
regarding whether Nanjing Nanmu shipped subject merchandise during the 
POR at a later date.

D. Companies Not Receiving a Separate Rate

    The following 34 companies for which the Department initiated the 
instant review did not provide a separate rate certification or 
application:

     Best King International Ltd.
     Brother Furniture Manufacture Co., Ltd.
     BNBM Co., Ltd. (aka Beijing New Materials Co., Ltd.)
     Classic Furniture Global Co., Ltd.
     Der Cheng Wooden Works of Factory
     Dong Guan Golden Fortune Houseware Co., Ltd.
     Dongguan Chunsan Wood Products Co., Ltd., Trendex 
Industries Ltd.
     Dongguan Hua Ban Furniture Co., Ltd.
     Dongguan New Technology Import & Export Co., Ltd.
     Dongguan Sunpower Enterprise Co., Ltd.
     Ever Spring Furniture Co. Ltd., S.Y.C Family Enterprise 
Co., Ltd.
     Furnmart Ltd.
     Green River Wood (Dongguan) Ltd.
     Guangming Group Wumahe Furniture Co., Ltd.
     Hamilton & Spill Ltd.
     Hung Fai Wood Products Factory, Ltd.
     Hwang Ho International Holdings Limited
     Kalanter (Hong Kong) Furniture Company Limited
     King Kei Furniture Factory, King Kei Trading Co., Ltd., 
Jiu Ching Trading Co., Ltd.
     King Wood Furniture Co., Ltd.
     King's Way Furniture Industries Co., Ltd., Kingsyear 
Ltd.
     Profit Force Ltd.
     Shenyang Kunyu Wood Industry Co., Ltd.
     Shenzhen Dafuhao Industrial Development Co., Ltd.
     Sino Concord International Corporation
     Starwood Furniture Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
     Top Goal Development Co.
     Union Friend International Trade Co., Ltd.
     Wan Bao Chen Group Hong Kong Co. Ltd.
     Xingli Arts & Crafts Factory of Yangchun
     Yangchen Hengli Co., Ltd.
     Yichun Guangming Furniture Co., Ltd.
     Yongxin Industrial (Holdings) Limited
     Zhong Cheng Furniture Co., Ltd.

In addition, with the exception of Brother Furniture Manufacture Co., 
Ltd., none of the above companies responded to the Department's Q&V 
questionnaire.
    The companies listed above, which were named in the Initiation 
Notice, were notified in that notice that they must timely submit Q&V 
questionnaire responses and separate rate applications or separate rate 
certifications in order to qualify for a separate rate. Additionally, 
the Initiation Notice identified the Web site address where the 
separate rate certification, the separate rate application, and the Q&V 
questionnaire could be found. Further, the Department sent Q&V 
questionnaires to each of the above companies.\50\ Since each of the 
companies listed above did not provide separate rate information, they 
have failed to demonstrate their eligibility for separate-rate status. 
As a result, the Department is treating these PRC exporters as part of 
the PRC-wide entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ The Department was able to confirm delivery of the Q&V 
questionnaire to all of the companies listed above except the 
following companies: Yongxin Industrial (Holdings) Limited, Ever 
Spring Furniture Co. Ltd., S.Y.C Family Enterprise Co., Ltd., King's 
Way Furniture Industries Co., Ltd., Kingsyear Ltd., Yichun Guangming 
Furniture Co., Ltd. See memorandum to the File regarding ``Delivery 
Documentation for Quantity and Value Questionnaires Sent to 
Nonresponsive Companies'' dated August 5, 2009; see also memorandum 
to the File regarding ``Quantity and Value Questionnaires That Could 
Not Be Delivered'' dated December 9, 2009. In issuing Q&V 
questionnaires, the Department relied upon the addresses provided by 
the petitioners and attempted to obtain new addresses from the 
petitioners and to resend the Q&V questionnaire to companies to 
which the first Q&V questionnaire issued could not be delivered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also, Inni Furniture, which the Department found to have made 
shipments of subject merchandise during the POR, despite its claims to 
the contrary, did not file a separate rate certification or 
application. Since this company did not provide separate rate 
information, it has failed to demonstrate its eligibility for separate-
rate status. As a result, the Department is treating this company as 
part of the PRC-wide entity.

Aosen

    After examining Aosen's response to section A of the Department's 
antidumping duty questionnaire, the Department determined that the 
response was incomplete (Aosen did not respond to questions in Appendix 
X of the questionnaire), and that it required additional information, 
including information related to Aosen's eligibility for a separate 
rate. On June 3, 2009, the Department issued a supplemental 
questionnaire to Aosen. On that same day, Aosen notified the Department 
that it would no longer participate in the instant review, except with 
respect to demonstrating its eligibility for a separate rate.\51\ Aosen 
did not respond to sections C or D of the antidumping questionnaire, 
nor did it respond to the section A supplemental questionnaire. On June 
30, 2009, the Department issued a letter notifying Aosen that ``it 
requires mandatory respondents to fully participate in a proceeding in 
order to qualify for separate rate status.'' \52\ In that letter, the 
Department provided Aosen with additional time to complete Appendix X 
of the questionnaire and the section A supplemental questionnaire and 
explained that, once selected as a mandatory respondent, a respondent 
cannot decide to participate in a review only for purposes of 
establishing its separate rate status. Aosen did not submit a response 
to either Appendix X or the supplemental questionnaire, but instead it 
submitted a letter stating that it was no longer participating in the 
instant review ``except with respect to demonstrating the evidence it 
has already placed on the record is correct, submitting comments on the 
Department's preliminary and final results, and participating in any 
hearing in this review.'' \53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See Aosen's letter regarding ``Wooden Bedroom Furniture 
from the People's Republic of China; Withdrawal of Shanghai Aosen 
Section A Questionnaire Response'' dated June 3, 2009.
    \52\ See letter to Shanghai Aosen Furniture Co., Ltd. regarding 
``Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture 
from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'') for the Period January 
1, 2008, through December 31, 2008, dated June 30, 2009.
    \53\ See Aosen's letter regarding ``Wooden Bedroom Furniture 
from the People's Republic of China; Withdrawal of Shanghai Aosen 
Furniture Co., Ltd.'' (July 13, 2009) at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We preliminarily determine that Aosen has withheld requested 
information and, contrary to its assertions, that Aosen has not 
demonstrated its eligibility for separate-rate status in this 
administrative review. Although Aosen provided a response to the 
separate rate portion of section A of the questionnaire, it failed to 
respond to the section A supplemental questionnaire which contained 
several questions and requests relating to its separate rate status. 
For example, Aosen failed to respond to requests in the supplemental 
section A questionnaire asking it to provide documents memorializing 
the making or approving of pricing decisions, a complete set of written 
price negotiations for sales

[[Page 5959]]

during the period of review, and written evidence supporting claims 
regarding the selection of management. Moreover, Aosen did not respond 
to the supplemental questions asking how the general manager was 
selected and who was authorized to sign sales contracts, nor did it 
respond to requests in the section A supplemental questionnaire 
regarding its business license and capital verification report. Since 
Aosen failed to provide information requested by the Department that is 
necessary to analyze whether it qualified for a separate rate, Aosen 
has failed to rebut the presumption of PRC government control. 
Therefore, we have preliminarily determined that Aosen does not qualify 
for a separate rate, but rather should be treated as part of the PRC-
wide entity. Furthermore, as noted in the Department's June 30, 2009 
letter, once selected as a mandatory respondent, a company may not 
chose to participate in an administrative review solely for purposes of 
demonstrating its eligibility for a separate rate. It must fully 
participate in the review as a mandatory respondent in order to qualify 
for separate rate status.

Use of Facts Available and Adverse Facts Available (AFA)

    Section 776(a) of the Act provides that the Department shall apply 
``facts otherwise available'' if: (1) Necessary information is not on 
the record, or (2) 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 of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D) 
provides information that cannot be verified as provided by section 
782(i) of the Act.
    Where the Department determines that a response to a request for 
information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act 
provides that the Department will so inform the party submitting the 
response and will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the 
opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to 
remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits and subject to 
section 782(e) of the Act, the Department may disregard all or part of 
the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate.
    Section 782(e) of the Act provides that the Department ``shall not 
decline to consider information that is submitted by an interested 
party and is necessary to the determination but does not meet all 
applicable requirements established by the administering authority'' if 
the information is timely, can be verified, is not so incomplete that 
it cannot be used, and if the interested party acted to the best of its 
ability in providing the information. Where all of these conditions are 
met, the statute requires the Department to use the information 
supplied if it can do so without undue difficulties.
    Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may 
use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when 
a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its 
ability to comply with a request for information. Such an adverse 
inference may include reliance on information derived from the 
petition, the final determination, a previous administrative review, or 
other information placed on the record.

A. Application of Total Adverse Facts Available to the PRC-Wide Entity

    In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that if one of the 
companies for which this review has been initiated ``does not qualify 
for a separate rate, all other exporters of wooden bedroom furniture 
from the PRC that have not qualified for a separate rate are deemed to 
be covered by this review as part of a single PRC entity * * *.'' As 
noted above, not all of the companies for which this review was 
initiated have qualified for a separate rate; as a result, the PRC-wide 
entity is now under review.
    With the exception of Brother Furniture Manufacture Co., Ltd., the 
companies which we are treating as part of the PRC-wide entity either 
did not provide shipment information in response to the Department's 
request for Q&V data, or, in Aosen's case, did not fully respond to the 
Department's antidumping duty questionnaire. Thus, we preliminarily 
determine that these companies withheld information requested by the 
Department. Furthermore, these companies' refusal to participate in the 
review significantly impeded the proceeding. For example, the 
Department selected Aosen as a mandatory respondent for which it would 
have calculated a company-specific dumping margin. Moreover, Aosen's 
dumping margin would have been averaged with the margin of the other 
mandatory respondent to calculate the dumping margin assigned to the 
separate rate respondents. Aosen's refusal to respond to section C and 
D of the questionnaire prevented the Department from determining its 
dumping margin. In addition, the other companies' failure to provide 
shipment information precluded the Department from determining whether 
or not these companies should be selected as mandatory respondents for 
which individual dumping margins would be calculated.
    Thus, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act 
(withholds requested information and significantly impedes a 
proceeding), the Department has preliminarily based the dumping margin 
of the PRC-wide entity on the facts otherwise available on the record. 
Furthermore, the PRC-wide entity's refusal to provide the requested 
information constitutes circumstances under which it is reasonable to 
conclude that less than full cooperation has been shown. See Nippon 
Steel Corporation v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 
2003) (Nippon Steel) where the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 
provided an explanation of the ``failure to act to the best of its 
ability'' standard noting that the Department need not show intentional 
conduct existed on the part of the respondent, but merely that a 
``failure to cooperate to the best of a respondent's ability'' existed 
(i.e., information was not provided ``under circumstances in which it 
is reasonable to conclude that less than full cooperation has been 
shown''). Hence, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, the Department 
has determined that, when selecting from among the facts otherwise 
available, an adverse inference is warranted with respect to the PRC-
wide entity.

B. Application of Partial Adverse Facts Available for Fairmont

    At verification we discovered that Fairmont failed to report sales 
of 24 different models of Hospitality division products that appeared 
to be sales of subject merchandise.\54\ We later confirmed that the 
sales in question were sales of subject merchandise by examining the 
engineering diagram for each product.\55\ Since Fairmont did not report 
these sales and the related sales adjustments and did not provide 
information that would allow the Department to determine normal value 
for these products as requested by the Department, the information 
necessary to calculate a dumping margin for these sales is not on the 
record. Thus, the Department has based the dumping margin for the 
unreported sales on facts

[[Page 5960]]

available pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See FDUSA Verification Report.
    \55\ See the Fairmont Analysis Memorandum entitled, ``Wooden 
Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Analysis of 
the Preliminary Results Margin Calculation for Fairmont Designs'' 
(Fairmont Analysis Memorandum), dated February 1, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the Department finds that in not reporting these sales, 
Fairmont has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its 
ability to comply with a request for information and thus it is 
appropriate to use an inference that is adverse to Fairmont's interests 
in selecting from among the facts otherwise available in accordance 
with section 776(b) of the Act. The Department requested that Fairmont 
report all U.S. sales and FOP information for subject merchandise sold 
during the POR.\56\ In preparing a response to an inquiry from the 
Department, it is presumed that a respondent is familiar with its own 
records.\57\ At verification, the verifiers readily identified these 
unreported sales in Fairmont's records.\58\ Moreover, Fairmont 
acknowledges that most of these sales should have been reported.\59\ 
This indicates that Fairmont did not act to the full extent of its 
abilities in investigating its records for sales of subject 
merchandise. Thus, Fairmont failed to act to the best of its ability to 
comply with the Department's repeated requests for information 
regarding all of its sales and FOP information for subject merchandise. 
Therefore, the Department has preliminarily determined to apply AFA to 
these unreported sales, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See, e.g., the Department's letter dated April 20, 2009, at 
C-1 and D-1.
    \57\ See Nippon Steel, 337 F.3d 1373,1383.
    \58\ See December 30, 2009, memoranda entitled ``Verification at 
Cambium Business Group, Inc. (d.b.a. Fairmont Designs) in the 4th 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture 
from the People's Rebublic of China'' at 9.
    \59\ See Fairmont's December 4, 2009, submission at 4-8 and 
Fairmont's December 30, 2009, submission at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Selection of AFA Rates

A. Total AFA Rate for the PRC-Wide Entity

    In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act 
and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) provide that the Department may 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. The Department's practice is to 
select an AFA rate that is sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the 
purpose of the facts available rule to induce respondents to provide 
the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely 
manner'' and that ensures ``that the party does not obtain a more 
favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated 
fully.'' \60\ Specifically, the Department's practice in reviews, in 
selecting a rate as total AFA, is to use the highest rate on the record 
of the proceeding which, to the extent practicable, can be corroborated 
(assuming the rate is based on secondary information).\61\ The Court of 
International Trade (CIT) and the Court of Appeals for the Federal 
Circuit (Federal Circuit) have affirmed decisions to select the highest 
margin from any prior segment of the proceeding as the AFA rate on 
numerous occasions.\62\ Therefore, as AFA, the Department has 
preliminarily assigned the PRC-wide entity a dumping margin of 216.01 
percent. This margin, which is from the 2004-2005 new shipper reviews 
of WBF from the PRC, is the highest dumping margin on the record of any 
segment of this proceeding.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than 
Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan, 
63 FR 8909, 8911 (February 23, 1998); see also Brake Rotors From the 
People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of 
the Seventh Administrative Review; Final Results of the Eleventh New 
Shipper Review, 70 FR 69937, 69939 (November 18, 2005) and the SAA 
at 870.
    \61\ See Glycine from the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 
15930, 15934 (April 8, 2009) unchanged in Glycine from the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 74 FR 41121 (August 14, 2009); see also Fujian Lianfu 
Forestry Co., Ltd., a.k.a. Fujian Wonder Pacific Inc., et al. v. 
United States, 638 F.Supp.2d 1325, 1336 (CIT August 10, 2009) 
(``Commerce may, of course, begin its total AFA selection process by 
defaulting to the highest rate in any segment of the proceeding, but 
that selection must then be corroborated, to the extent 
practicable.'').
    \62\ See e.g. NSK Ltd. v. United States, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 
1335 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2004) (affirming a 73.55 percent total AFA 
rate, the highest available dumping margin from a different 
respondent in the investigation); Kompass Food Trading International 
v. United States, 24 CIT 678, 683-84 (2000) (affirming a 51.16 
percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a 
different, fully cooperative respondent); and Shanghai Taoen 
International Trading Co., Ltd. v. United States, 360 F. Supp. 2d 
1339, 1348 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2005) (affirming a 223.01 percent total 
AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a different 
respondent in a previous administrative review).
    \63\ 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) (2004-2005 New 
Shipper Review).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Partial AFA for Fairmont's Unreported Sales

    With respect to partial AFA, the Department's practice in reviews, 
in selecting a rate as partial AFA is to use the highest transaction-
specific margin calculated for the respondent in question on a non-
aberrational sale subject to the instant review.\64\ In this case, we 
note that Fairmont's U.S. sales database contains an extremely high 
volume of transactions involving a wide and complex variety of 
products/models and types of sales. For example, Fairmont sold products 
as diverse as spare parts of bedroom furniture, armoires, wardrobes, 
and mirrors. Further, the types of sales are quite varied including 
sales to retail establishments and hotels. As a result, we believe 
under these particular circumstances that it is not feasible to apply 
our traditional methodology. Instead we assigned as partial AFA for the 
unreported sales the PRC-wide entity a dumping margin of 216.01 
percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ See Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe, Inc. v. United States, 24 
CIT 841, 846 2000 WL 1225799 (August 25, 2000) and Ta Chen Stainless 
Steel Pipe, Inc. v. United States, 298 F. 3d 1330, 1338.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 review, the final determination concerning the subject 
merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the 
subject merchandise.\65\ Corroborate means that the Department will 
satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative 
value.\66\ To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, 
to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the 
information to be used.\67\ 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

[[Page 5961]]

parties during the particular investigation.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ See SAA at 870.
    \66\ See Id.
    \67\ 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).
    \68\ 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, 35629 (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 216.01 AFA rate that the Department is using in this review is 
a company-specific rate calculated in the 2004-2005 New Shipper Review 
of the WBF order.\69\ No additional information has been presented in 
the current review which calls into question the reliability of the 
information. Thus we have determined this information continues to be 
reliable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ See 2004-2005 New Shipper Review, 71 FR at 70741.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 transaction-specific margins calculated for 
Fairmont in the instant administrative review with the 216.01 percent 
rate calculated in the 2004-2005 New Shipper Review. The Department 
found that the 216.01 percent margin was within the range of the 
margins calculated on the record of the instant administrative review. 
Since the 216.01 percent margin is within the range of transaction-
specific margins on the record of this administrative review, the 
Department has determined that the 216.01 percent margin continues to 
be relevant for use as an AFA rate for the PRC-wide entity in this 
administrative review. Also, because this rate is within the range of 
Fairmont's transaction-specific margins in this review, we 
preliminarily find the rate relevant as applied to Fairmont's 
unreported sales.
    As the adverse margin is both reliable and relevant, the Department 
has determined that it has probative value. Accordingly, the Department 
has determined that this rate meets the corroboration criterion 
established in section 776(c) of the Act.

Fair Value Comparisons

    In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, to determine 
whether Fairmont, a mandatory respondent, sold WBF to the United States 
at less than NV, we compared the weighted-average export and 
constructed export price of the WBF to the NV of the WBF, as described 
in the ``U.S. Price,'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice.

Export Price

    The Department considered the U.S. prices of certain sales by 
Fairmont to be export prices (EPs) in accordance with section 772(a) of 
the Act, because these were the prices at which the subject merchandise 
was first sold before the date of importation by the producer/exporter 
of the subject merchandise outside of the United States to an 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated 
purchaser for exportation to the United States.
    We calculated EPs based on prices to unaffiliated purchaser(s) in 
the United States. We deducted movement expenses from the gross unit 
U.S. sales price in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. 
These movement expenses include foreign inland freight-plant/warehouse 
to port of exit, and foreign brokerage and handling. For a detailed 
description of all adjustments, see Fairmont Analysis Memorandum, dated 
February 1, 2010.

Constructed Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, constructed export 
price (CEP) is the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold 
(or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of 
importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such 
merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to 
a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter, as adjusted 
under sections 772(c) and (d) of the Act. We considered sales made by 
Fairmont's U.S. affiliate in the United States to be CEP sales.
    We calculated CEP based on prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the 
United States. In accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) and 772(d)(1) 
and of the Act, where applicable, we made deductions from the starting 
price for billing adjustments, discounts and rebates, movement 
expenses, and commissions, credit expenses, inventory carrying costs, 
factoring expense, warranty expense, and indirect selling expenses 
which relate to commercial activity in the United States. Movement 
expenses included, where applicable, foreign inland freight from plant 
to the port of exportation, foreign brokerage and handling, ocean 
freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland freight from port to the 
warehouse, U.S. freight from warehouse to customer, U.S. customs duty, 
and other U.S. transportation costs. Where applicable, we reduced 
movement expenses by freight revenue. In addition, we deducted CEP 
profit from U.S. price in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) 
of the Act. As a CEP adjustment and in accordance with section 773(a) 
of the Act, we calculated Fairmont's credit expenses and inventory 
carrying costs based on the company's short-term interest rate. For a 
detailed description of all adjustments, see Fairmont Analysis 
Memorandum, dated February 1, 2010.

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine the NV using an FOP methodology if: (1) The merchandise is 
exported from an NME country; and (2) the information does not permit 
the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, 
or constructed value under section 773(e) of the Act. When determining 
NV in an NME context, the Department will base NV on FOP, because the 
presence of government controls on various aspects of these economies 
renders price comparisons and the calculation of production costs 
invalid under our normal methodologies. Under section 773(c)(3) of the 
Act, FOP 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. The 
Department based NV on FOP reported by the respondent for materials, 
energy, labor and packing.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), the Department will 
normally use publicly-available surrogates to value FOP, 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. However, when the Department 
has reason to believe or suspect that

[[Page 5962]]

such prices may be distorted by subsidies, the Department will 
disregard the market economy purchase prices and use SVs to determine 
the NV.\70\ Where the facts developed in either U.S. 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), the Department will have reason to 
believe or suspect that prices of the inputs from the country granting 
the subsidies may be subsidized.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China; Final Results of 
the 1998-1999 Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, 
and Determination Not to Revoke Order in Part, 66 FR 1953 (January 
10, 2001) (TRBs 1998-1999), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 1.
    \71\ See TRBs 1998-1999 at Comment 1; see also Tapered Roller 
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the 
People's Republic of China; Final Results of 1999-2000 
Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and 
Determination Not To Revoke Order in Part, 66 FR 57420 (November 15, 
2001), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1; 
see also China National Machinery Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. United 
States, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1338-39 (Ct. Int'l Trade 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.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ See H.R. Rep. 100-576, at 590 (1988), reprinted in 1988 
U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 1623-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Factor Valuations

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on FOP reported by respondents for the POR. To calculate NV, the 
Department multiplied the reported per-unit factor quantities by 
publicly-available Philippine SVs (except as noted below). In selecting 
the SV, the Department considered the quality, specificity, and 
contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, the Department adjusted 
input prices by including freight costs to make them delivered prices. 
Specifically, the Department added to Philippine import SVs a surrogate 
freight cost using the shorter of the reported distance from the 
domestic supplier to the respondent's factory or the distance from the 
nearest seaport to the respondent's 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 only a 
brief discussion of the main factors in this notice. For a detailed 
description of all SVs used to value the respondents reported FOP, see 
Factor Valuation Memorandum.
    Fairmont reported that certain of its reported raw material inputs 
were sourced from a market-economy country and paid for in market-
economy currencies. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), when a mandatory 
respondent sources inputs from a market-economy supplier in meaningful 
quantities (i.e., not insignificant quantities), we use the actual 
price paid by respondents for those inputs, except when prices may have 
been distorted by findings of dumping by the PRC and/or subsidies.\73\ 
Fairmont reported information demonstrating that the quantities of 
certain raw materials purchased from market-economy suppliers are 
significant. Where we found market-economy purchases of inputs to be in 
significant quantities, in accordance with our statement of policy as 
outlined in Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, we have 
used the actual purchases of these inputs to value the inputs.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 
62 FR 27296, 27366 (May 19, 1997).
    \74\ See Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, 
Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for 
Comments, 71 FR 61716, 61717 (October 19, 2006) (Antidumping 
Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs); See also Fairmont Analysis 
Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where market-economy purchases of inputs were not made in 
significant quantities, we used import values for the POR from the 
Philippines National Statistics Office (Philippines NSO) reported in 
U.S. dollars on a cost, insurance, and freight (CIF) basis to value the 
following inputs: processed woods (e.g., particleboard, etc.), 
adhesives and finishing materials (e.g., glue, paints, sealer, lacquer, 
etc.), hardware (e.g., nails, staples, screws, bolts, knobs, pulls, 
drawer slides, hinges, clasps, etc.), other materials (e.g., mirrors, 
glass, leather, cloth, sponge, etc.), and packing materials (e.g., 
cardboard, cartons, plastic film, labels, tape, etc.). The Philippines 
NSO is the only data source on the record that provides data on a net 
weight basis, which is the same basis as reported by the respondent in 
reporting its FOP. For a complete listing of all the inputs and the 
valuation for each see Factor Valuation Memorandum.
    Where we could only obtain surrogate values that were not 
contemporaneous with the POI, we inflated (or deflated) the surrogate 
values using the Philippine Wholesale Price Index (WPI) as published in 
the International Financial Statistics of the International Monetary 
Fund.
    Consistent with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), we valued labor using the PRC 
regression-based wage rate as reported on Import Administration's home 
page, Import Library, Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries, revised 
in December 2009, available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html. 
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. If the NME wage rates are updated by the Department 
prior to issuance of the final results, we will use the updated wage 
rate in the final results. See Factor Valuation Memorandum.
    We valued electricity using contemporaneous Philippine data from 
The Cost of Doing Business in Camarines Sur available at the Philippine 
government's Web site for the province: http://www.camarinessur.gov.ph. 
This data pertained only to industrial consumption. See Factor 
Valuation Memorandum.
    We calculated the value of domestic brokerage and handling using 
Philippine data cited in a report compiled and released by the World 
Bank Group, entitled ``Trading Across Borders'' and available at http://www.doingbusiness.org/ExploreTopics/TradingAcrossBorders/Details.aspx?economyid=153. This was the only surrogate value for 
brokerage and handling on the record that specifically stated that its 
costs included amounts for both brokerage and handling.
    We calculated the surrogate value for truck freight using 
Philippine data from two sources: (1) The Cost of Doing Business in 
Camarines Sur, available at the Philippine government's Web site for 
the province: http://www.camarinessur.gov.ph; and (2) a news article 
from the Manila Times entitled ``Government Mulls Cut in Export 
Target.''
    We calculated the surrogate value for diesel fuel using Philippine 
data from a Web site entitled Philippine Business available at http://www.philippinebusiness.com.ph/economic_stats/utilities.htm.
    We calculated the surrogate value for water using Philippine data 
based on two water utility companies providing service to the Manila 
metropolitan area: Manila Water (http://

[[Page 5963]]

www.manilawater.com/downloads/tariff08.pdf) and Maynilad Water 
Services, Inc. (http//www.mayniladwater.comph/files/Tariff_effective_
Jan012008.pdf); and also data based on a water utility company covering 
all of the Philippines outside of Manila: Philippines Local Water 
Utilities Administration (LUWUA). We averaged all data from the 
``Manila'' service providers and the ``outside of Manila'' service 
providers separately and based the surrogate value on an average of the 
two figures.
    We valued factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative 
expenses (SG&A), and profit, using the audited financial statements for 
the fiscal year ending December 31, 2008, from the following producers: 
Tequesta International Inc.; Insular Rattan and Native Products Corp.; 
Horizon International Manufacturing, Inc.; Arkane International 
Corporation; and Casa Cebuana Incorada, which are the only Philippine 
producers of merchandise identical to subject merchandise, received no 
countervailable subsidies, and earned a before tax profit in 2008 for 
which we have financial information. From this information, we were 
able to determine factory overhead as a percentage of the total raw 
materials, labor and energy (ML&E) costs; SG&A as a percentage of ML&E 
plus overhead (i.e., cost of manufacture); and the profit rate as a 
percentage of the cost of manufacture plus SG&A. For further 
discussion, see Factor Valuation Memorandum.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with 
section 773A(a) 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.

Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average 
dumping margins exist for the period January 1, 2008 through December 
31, 2008:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Antidumping
                        Exporter                           duty percent
                                                              margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dongguan Sunrise Furniture Co., Ltd., Taicang Sunrise              20.36
 Wood Industry Co., Ltd., Taicang Fairmount Designs
 Furniture Co., Ltd., and Meizhou Sunrise Furniture Co.,
 Ltd.*..................................................
Longrange Furniture Co., Ltd.*..........................           20.36
Langfang Tiancheng Furniture Co., Ltd.*.................           20.36
Shun Feng Furniture Co., Ltd.[supcaret].................           20.36
COE Ltd.[supcaret]......................................           20.36
Tianjin Fortune Furniture Co., Ltd.*....................           20.36
Transworld (Zhangzhou) Furniture Co., Ltd.[supcaret]....           20.36
Decca Furniture Ltd., aka Decca[supcaret]...............           20.36
Dongguan Landmark Furniture Products, Ltd.[supcaret]....           20.36
Winny Overseas, Ltd.[supcaret]..........................           20.36
Dongguan Yihaiwei Furniture Limited[supcaret]...........           20.36
Baigou Crafts Factory of Fengkai*.......................           20.36
Zhongshan Gainwell Furniture Co., Ltd.*.................           20.36
PRC-Wide Entity \75\....................................          216.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ The mandatory respondent Aosen is part of the PRC-wide 
entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments

    Interested parties may submit written comments no later than 30 
days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of 
review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal comments must be limited 
to the issues raised in the written comments and may be filed no later 
than 35 days after the date of publication. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). 
Parties submitting written comments or rebuttal are requested to 
provide the Department with an additional copy of those comments on 
diskette. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
publication of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any 
hearing, if requested, ordinarily will be held two days after the 
scheduled date for submission of rebuttal briefs. See 19 CFR 
351.310(d). Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and 
location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.
    The Department will issue the final results of the administrative 
review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised 
in the briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary 
results, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1) unless the time limit 
is extended.

Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212, the Department will determine, and CBP 
shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject 
merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. For 
assessment purposes, the Department calculated exporter/importer- (or 
customer) -specific assessment rates for merchandise subject to this 
review. Where appropriate, the Department 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, the Department will direct CBP to assess the resulting ad 
valorem rate against the entered customs values for the subject 
merchandise. Where appropriate, the Department 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, the Department 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. The Department 
intends 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

[[Page 5964]]

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 these reviews for shipments of 
subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by 
sections 751(a)(1) and (a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For all respondents 
receiving a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that 
established in the final results of these reviews; (2) for previously 
investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above 
that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the 
exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for 
all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be 
entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide 
rate of 216.01 percent; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject 
merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit 
rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied 
that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall 
remain in effect until further notice.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    The Department is issuing and publishing these preliminary results 
of administrative review in accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the 
Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

    Dated: February 1, 2010.
Carole Showers,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations.
[FR Doc. 2010-2590 Filed 2-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P