[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 217 (Wednesday, November 10, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69055-69057]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28415]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-928]


Uncovered Innerspring Units From the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results of First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the ``Department'') is conducting 
an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on uncovered 
innerspring units (``innersprings'') from the People's Republic of 
China (``PRC''), covering the period of review (``POR'') August 6, 
2008-January 31, 2010. As discussed below, we preliminarily determine 
that the PRC-wide entity made sales in the United States at prices 
below normal value (``NV''). 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.

DATES: Effective Date: November 10, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toni Dach, AD/CVD Operations, Office 
9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-1655.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 1, 2010, we received a request from 
the Petitioner \1\ to conduct administrative reviews for two companies, 
Foshan Jingxin Steel Wire & Spring Co., Ltd. (``Jingxin'') and Top One 
Manufacturing Factory (``Top One''). On March 30, 2010, we initiated an 
administrative review of the antidumping order on innersprings from the 
PRC.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioner is Leggett & Platt, Incorporated (hereinafter 
referred to as the ``Petitioner'').
    \2\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 75 FR 
15679 (March 30, 2010) (``Initiation'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 31, 2010, the Department issued antidumping duty 
questionnaires to Jingxin and Top One, since they were the only two 
companies for which a review was requested.\3\ On April 3, 2010, 
Jingxin received the antidumping duty questionnaire. On April 23, 2008, 
the Department re-issued the antidumping duty questionnaire to Top One 
because the initial questionnaire had not been delivered by FedEx.\4\ 
On April 26, 2010 Top One received the antidumping duty questionnaire 
reissued by the Department on April 23, 2010.\5\ We note that neither 
Jingxin nor Top One responded to the Department's questionnaire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See the Department's letters dated March 31, 2010.
    \4\ See the Department's letter dated April 23, 2010; see also 
Delivery Memo.
    \5\ See Delivery Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the order is uncovered innerspring units 
composed of a series of individual metal springs joined together in 
sizes corresponding to the sizes of adult mattresses (e.g., twin, twin 
long, full, full long, queen, California king and king) and units used 
in smaller constructions, such as crib and youth mattresses. All 
uncovered innerspring units are included in the scope regardless of 
width and length. Included within this definition are innersprings 
typically ranging from 30.5 inches to 76 inches in width and 68 inches 
to 84 inches in length. Innersprings for crib mattresses typically 
range from 25 inches to 27 inches in width and 50 inches to 52 inches 
in length.
    Uncovered innerspring units are suitable for use as the innerspring 
component in the manufacture of innerspring mattresses, including 
mattresses that incorporate a foam encasement around the innerspring.
    Pocketed and non-pocketed innerspring units are included in this 
definition. Non-pocketed innersprings are typically joined together 
with helical wire and border rods. Non-pocketed innersprings are 
included in this definition regardless of whether they have border rods 
attached to the perimeter of the innerspring. Pocketed innersprings are 
individual coils covered by a ``pocket'' or ``sock'' of a nonwoven 
synthetic material or woven material and then glued together in a 
linear fashion.
    Uncovered innersprings are classified under subheading 9404.29.9010 
and have also been classified under subheadings 9404.10.0000, 
7326.20.0070, 7320.20.5010, or 7320.90.5010 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''). The HTSUS subheadings are 
provided for convenience and customs purposes only; the written 
description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the 
Act''), provides that, if an interested party: (A)

[[Page 69056]]

Withholds information that has been requested by the Department; (B) 
fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or 
manner requested subject to sections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act; (C) 
significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute; or 
(D) provides such information but the information cannot be verified, 
the Department shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the Act, use 
facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination.
    As discussed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section above, 
neither Jingxin nor Top One responded to the antidumping duty 
questionnaires issued by the Department on March 31, 2010, and April 
23, 2010, respectively. Additionally, the Department confirmed delivery 
for the initial questionnaires.\6\ Therefore, the Department finds that 
Jingxin and Top One did not cooperate to the best of their abilities, 
and their non-responsiveness necessitates the use of facts available, 
pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B) and (C) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Delivery Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based upon Jingxin's and Top One's failure to submit responses to 
the Department's questionnaires, the Department finds that Jingxin and 
Top One withheld requested information, failed to provide the 
information in a timely manner and in the form requested, and 
significantly impeded this proceeding, pursuant to sections 
776(a)(2)(A), (B) and (C) of the Act. Further, because Jingxin and Top 
One failed to demonstrate that they qualify for separate rate 
status,\7\ we consider both entities to be part of the PRC-wide entity. 
Thus, we find that the PRC-wide entity, including Jingxin and Top One, 
withheld requested information, failed to provide information in a 
timely manner and in the form requested, and significantly impeded this 
proceeding. Therefore, the Department must rely on the facts otherwise 
available in order to determine a margin for the PRC-wide entity, 
pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A), (B) and (C) of the Act.\8\

Adverse Facts Available
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In a non-market economy companies that do not submit a 
response to the questionnaire or do not adequately establish that 
they are independent of government control are subject to the single 
economy-wide rate. In this case, by failing to respond to the 
antidumping duty questionnaire, Jingxin and Top One did not provide 
evidence that they are independent of government control.
    \8\ See Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 71 FR 69546 (December 1, 2006) and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 776(b) of the Act states that if the Department ``finds 
that an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the 
best of its ability to comply with a request for information from the 
administering authority or the Commission, the administering authority 
or the Commission * * *, in reaching the applicable determination under 
this title, may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of 
that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.'' \9\ 
Adverse inferences are appropriate ``to ensure that the party does not 
obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had 
cooperated fully.'' \10\ An adverse inference may include reliance on 
information derived from the petition, the final determination in the 
investigation, any previous review, or any other information placed on 
the record.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See also Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316 at 870 (1994).
    \10\ Id.
    \11\ See section 776(b) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because Jingxin and Top One, which are part of the PRC-wide entity, 
failed to cooperate to the best of their ability in providing the 
requested information, as discussed above, we find it appropriate, in 
accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B) and (C), as well as section 
776(b), of the Act, to assign total adverse facts available (``AFA'') 
to the PRC-wide entity.\12\ By doing so, we ensure that the companies 
that are part of the PRC-wide entity will not obtain a more favorable 
result by failing to cooperate than had they cooperated fully in this 
review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results of the First Administrative 
Review and New Shipper Review, 72 FR 10689, 10692 (March 9, 2007) 
(decision to apply total AFA to the NME-wide entity unchanged in 
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam: Final Results of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review and First New Shipper Review, 72 FR 52052 (September 12, 
2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the 
Department to use, as AFA, information derived from the petition, the 
final determination in the less-than-fair-value (``LTFV'') 
investigation, any previous administrative review, or any other 
information placed on the record. In selecting an AFA rate, the 
Department's practice has been to assign non-cooperative respondents 
the highest margin determined for any party in the LTFV investigation 
or in any administrative review.\13\ As AFA, we are assigning the PRC-
wide entity, which includes Jingxin and Top One, the highest rate from 
any segment of this proceeding, which in this case is 234.51 percent, 
as establish in the investigation.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of 
China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 
33977 (June 16, 2008).
    \14\ See Uncovered InnerspringUnits from the People's Republic 
of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 
FR 79443 (December 29, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Corroboration of PRC-Wide Entity Rate

    Section 776(c) of the Act requires that where the Department relies 
on secondary information, the Department corroborate, to the extent 
practicable, a figure which it applies as AFA. To be considered 
corroborated, information must be found to be both reliable and 
relevant. As noted above, we are applying as AFA the highest rate from 
any segment of this proceeding, which is the rate currently applicable 
to all exporters subject to the PRC-wide rate. The AFA rate in the 
current review (i.e., the PRC-wide rate of 234.51 percent) represents 
the highest rate from the petition in the LTFV investigation.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For purposes of corroboration, the Department will consider whether 
that margin is both reliable and relevant. The AFA rate we are applying 
for the current review was corroborated in the LTFV investigation.\16\ 
Moreover, no information has been presented in the current review that 
calls into question the reliability of this information.
    With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the 
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to 
determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where 
circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as 
AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an 
appropriate margin. For example, in Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; 
Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 
(February 22, 1996), the Department disregarded the highest margin in 
that case as best information available (the predecessor to adverse 
facts available) because the margin was based on another company's 
uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high 
margin. The information used in calculating this margin was based on 
sales and production data submitted by the petitioner in the LTFV 
investigation, together with the most appropriate surrogate value 
information available to the Department chosen from submissions by the 
parties in the LTFV investigation. Furthermore, the calculation of this 
margin was subject to comment from interested parties in the

[[Page 69057]]

proceeding after this margin was selected in calculating the rate for 
the PRC-wide entity in the investigation's Innersprings Investigation 
Prelim.\17\ As there is no information on the record of this review 
that demonstrates that this rate is not appropriate for use as AFA, we 
determine that this rate continues to have relevance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Id.
    \17\ See Uncovered Innerspring Units from the People's Republic 
of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, 73 FR 45729 (August 6, 2008) (``Innersprings Investigation 
Prelim'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the 234.51 percent rate is both reliable and relevant, we 
determine that it has probative value and is corroborated to the extent 
practicable, in accordance with section 776(c) of the Act. Therefore, 
we have assigned this AFA rate to exports of the subject merchandise by 
the PRC-wide entity.

Preliminary Results of Review

    The Department has determined that the following preliminary 
dumping margin exists for the period August 6, 2008-January 31, 2010:

                        Innersprings From the PRC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Margin
                  Manufacturer/Exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRC-wide Entity \18\....................................          234.51
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 351.301(c)(3)(ii) of the Department's 
regulations, for purposes of the final results of this administrative 
review, interested parties may submit publicly available information to 
value factors of production within 20 days after the date of 
publication of these preliminary results. Interested parties must 
provide the Department with supporting documentation for the publicly 
available information to value each factor of production. Additionally, 
in accordance with section 351.301(c)(1) of the Department's 
regulations, for purposes of 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 section 351.301(c)(1) of the Department's regulations 
permits new information only insofar as it rebuts, clarifies, or 
corrects information recently placed on the record. The Department 
generally cannot accept the submission of additional, previously 
absent-from-the-record alternative surrogate value information pursuant 
to section 351.301(c)(1) of the Department's regulations.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The PRC-wide entity includes Jingxin and Top One.
    \19\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments 
no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these 
preliminary results of review.\20\ Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to 
written comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, 
may be filed no later than 37 days after the date of publication of 
these preliminary results of review.\21\ The Department urges 
interested parties to provide an executive summary of each argument 
contained within the case briefs and rebuttal briefs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See section 351.309(c)(ii) of the Department's regulations.
    \21\ See section 351.309(d) of the Department's regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will issue the final results of this administrative 
review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised 
in any such comments, within 120 days of publication of these 
preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Assessment Rates

    Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, 
and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries 
covered by this review. The Department intends to issue assessment 
instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final 
results of this review excluding any reported sales that entered during 
the gap period.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of these final results for shipments of the subject 
merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or 
after the publication date of these final results, as provided by 
section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For subject merchandise exported 
by Jingxin and Top One the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate 
of 234.51 percent; (2) for all other PRC exporters of subject 
merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate 
rate, and thus, are a part of the PRC-wide entity, the cash-deposit 
rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 234.51 percent; and (3) for all non-
PRC exporters of subject merchandise, the cash-deposit rate will be the 
rate applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter. These deposit 
requirements shall remain in effect until further notice.

Notification of Interested Parties

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under section 351.402(f) of the Department's 
regulations to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of 
antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during 
this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could 
result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping 
duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping 
duties.
    This administrative review, and this notice are in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, and sections 351.213 and 
351.221(b)(4) of the Department's regulations.

    Dated: October 27, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-28415 Filed 11-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P