[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 28 (Thursday, February 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7534-7546]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3024]


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

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.


[[Page 7535]]


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, 2009 through December 31, 2009. This 
administrative review covers multiple exporters of the subject 
merchandise, one of which is being individually examined as a 
``mandatory respondent.''
    We have preliminarily determined that the mandatory respondent, 
Huafeng Furniture Group Co., Ltd. (``Huafeng''), made sales to the 
United States at prices below normal value (``NV''). Nine companies 
failed to provide separate rate information and thus did not 
demonstrate that they are entitled to a separate rate, and have been 
treated as part of the PRC-wide entity. Additionally, 31 separate rate 
applicants (including Huafeng) have demonstrated that they are entitled 
to a separate rate and have been assigned the dumping margin calculated 
for the 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.

DATES:  Effective Date: February 10, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Pedersen or Rebecca Pandolph, 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 or (202) 482-3627, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On January 4, 2005, the Department published in the Federal 
Register the antidumping duty order on WBF from the PRC.\1\ On January 
11, 2010, the Department notified interested parties of their 
opportunity to request an administrative review of orders, findings, or 
suspended investigations with anniversaries in January 2010, 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, 75 FR 1333 (January 11, 
2010) (``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review''). In January 
2010, the petitioners, American Furniture Manufacturers Committee for 
Legal Trade and Vaughan-Bassett Furniture Company, Inc. (``AFMC/
Vaughan-Bassett''), and the domestic interested parties, Kimball 
International, Inc., Kimball Furniture Group, Inc. and Kimball 
Hospitality Inc., American of Martinsville, and Ashley Furniture, and 
certain foreign exporters requested that the Department conduct an 
administrative review. In total, the Department received review 
requests covering 171 companies. On March 4, 2010, the Department 
published a notice initiating an antidumping duty administrative review 
of WBF from the PRC covering 171 companies and the period January 1, 
2009 through December 31, 2009. See Initiation of Administrative Review 
of the Antidumping Duty Order on Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the 
People's Republic of China, 75 FR 9869 (March 4, 2010) (``Initiation 
Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Initiation Notice and Opportunity to Request Administrative 
Review, 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. The Department 
further stated its intention to limit the number of Q&V questionnaires 
issued in the review based on CBP data for U.S. imports classified 
under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') 
headings identified in the scope of the antidumping duty order on WBF 
from the PRC and to send Q&V questionnaires to the 20 companies for 
which a review was requested with the largest total values of subject 
merchandise imported into the United States during the POR according to 
CBP data. See Initiation Notice, 75 FR at 9870. The Initiation Notice 
also notified parties that they must timely submit separate rate 
applications or separate rate certifications in order to qualify for a 
separate rate. See Initiation Notice, 75 FR at 9870-71.
    On March 2, 2010, the Department issued Q&V questionnaires to the 
20 companies for which a review was requested with the largest 
shipments by value according to information gathered from CBP. These 
questionnaires requested that the companies report the Q&V of their POR 
exports and/or shipments of WBF to the United States for the purpose of 
respondent selection. The Department received 59 Q&V questionnaire 
responses during March 2010. In addition, from March through May 2010, 
the Department received separate rate certifications and applications 
as well as requests from seven companies to be treated as voluntary 
respondents.
    On April 5, 2010, AFMC/Vaughan-Bassett submitted comments on the 
Department's process of selecting mandatory respondents. Given its 
limited resources, and the fact that an administrative review was 
requested for 171 companies/company groupings, on April 28, 2010, the 
Department decided to individually examine the following companies, 
based upon the Q&V data: (1) Huafeng and (2) the Dorbest Group, which 
consists of Rui Feng Woodwork Co. Ltd., Rui Feng Lumber Development 
Co., Ltd., Dorbest Ltd., Rui Feng Woodwork (Dongguan) Co., Ltd., and 
Rui Feng Lumber Development (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia, Director, Office 4, 
AD/CVD Operations, regarding, ``Respondent Selection in the 2009 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture 
from the People's Republic of China,'' dated April 28, 2010 
(``Respondent Selection Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 28, 2010, the Department issued the antidumping 
questionnaire to Huafeng and the Dorbest Group, and made the 
questionnaire available to the voluntary respondents. After all parties 
withdrew their review requests for the Dorbest Group,\3\ the Department 
issued an amendment to the Respondent Selection Memorandum on June 16, 
2010, naming the company group Dongguan Sunrise Furniture Co., Taicang 
Sunrise Wood Industry Co., Ltd., and Huafeng Designs (``Fairmont'') as 
an additional mandatory respondent.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ All review requests were withdrawn for the Dorbest Group 
prior to the due date for the group to respond to section A of the 
antidumping questionnaire.
    \4\ See memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia, Director, Office 4, 
AD/CVD Operations, regarding, ``Amendment to Respondent Selection in 
the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Wooden Bedroom 
Furniture from the People's Republic of China (PRC),'' dated June 
16, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From March through August 2010, a number of interested parties 
withdrew

[[Page 7536]]

their review requests, including all review requests of the mandatory 
respondent Fairmont. On September 9, 2010, the Department published a 
notice rescinding the review with respect to 119 entities for which all 
review requests had been withdrawn.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of 
China: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
75 FR 54854 (September 9, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Between June and November 2010, Huafeng responded to the 
Department's antidumping questionnaire and supplemental questionnaires 
and AFMC/Vaughan-Bassett commented on Huafeng's responses.
    In response to the Department's September 2, 2010, letter providing 
parties with an opportunity to submit comments regarding surrogate 
country and surrogate value selection, AFMC/Vaughan Bassett and Huafeng 
filed surrogate value comments in September and November 2010.
    On September 15, 2010, the Department extended the deadline for the 
issuance of the preliminary results of the administrative review until 
January 31, 2011.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 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, 75 FR 56059 (September 15, 
2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In November and December 2010, the Department verified the 
antidumping questionnaire and supplemental questionnaire responses of 
Huafeng by visiting its PRC headquarters and factory and its U.S. sales 
affiliate Great River Trading Co. (``GRT'').\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See the separate January 31, 2010, memoranda regarding 
verification in the 5th Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of 
Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China 
covering Dalian Huafeng Furniture Group Co., Ltd. and Great River 
Trading Co., Ltd. (collectively, the ``5th Review Verification 
Reports'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 7, 2010, AFMC/Vaughan-Bassett withdrew the sole request 
for a review of Zhangjiagang Zheng Yan Decoration Co., Ltd. (``ZYD''). 
Although the withdrawal was submitted more than six months after the 
90-day regulatory deadline for withdrawing review requests established 
in 19 CFR 351.213(d), AFMC/Vaughan-Bassett contend that the Department 
has not expended considerable resources and effort on this company and 
thus it should exercise its discretion to accept the withdrawal of the 
review request with respect to ZYD. The Department has decided it is 
not reasonable to extend the time for AFMC/Vaughan-Bassett's filing a 
withdrawal of its request for a review of ZYD because it was submitted 
at an advanced stage of the review.

Scope of the Order

    The product covered by the order is WBF. WBF 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,\8\ highboys,\9\ lowboys,\10\ chests of 
drawers,\11\chests,\12\door chests,\13\ chiffoniers,\14\ hutches,\15\ 
and armoires;\16\(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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 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.
    \9\ 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).
    \10\ A lowboy is typically a short chest of drawers, not more 
than four feet high, normally set on short legs.
    \11\ A chest of drawers is typically a case containing drawers 
for storing clothing.
    \12\ 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.
    \13\ 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.
    \14\ A chiffonier is typically a tall and narrow chest of 
drawers normally used for storing undergarments and lingerie, often 
with mirror(s) attached.
    \15\ A hutch is typically an open case of furniture with shelves 
that typically sits on another piece of furniture and provides 
storage for clothes.
    \16\ 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; \17\ (9) jewelry armories; \18\ (10) cheval

[[Page 7537]]

mirrors; \19\ (11) certain metal parts; \20\ (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 \21\ and (14) toy 
boxes.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 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 CBP's Headquarters Ruling Letter 043859, 
dated May 17, 1976.
    \18\ Any armoire, cabinet or other accent item for the purpose 
of storing jewelry, not to exceed 24 inches in width, 18 inches in 
depth, and 49 inches 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: Final Changed Circumstances Review, and 
Determination To Revoke Order in Part, 71 FR 38621 (July 7, 2006).
    \19\ Cheval mirrors are any framed, tiltable mirror with a 
height in excess of 50 inches 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 Changed Circumstances Review and Determination To Revoke Order 
in Part, 72 FR 948 (January 9, 2007).
    \20\ 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 HTSUS 
subheadings 9403.90.7005, 9403.90.7010, or 9403.90.7080.
    \21\ 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).
    \22\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Imports of subject merchandise are classified under subheadings 
9403.50.9042 and 9403.50.9045 \23\ 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 
9403.50.9042 or 9403.50.9045 of the HTSUS as ``parts of wood.'' Subject 
merchandise may also be entered under subheading 9403.60.8081.\24\ 
Further, framed glass mirrors may be entered under subheading 
7009.92.1000 \25\ or 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ These HTSUS numbers, as well as the numbers in footnote 19, 
reflect the HTSUS numbers currently in effect. These numbers differ 
from those used in the last completed antidumping duty 
administrative review of WBF from the PRC because the HTSUS has been 
revised.
    \24\ This HTSUS number has been added to the scope in this 
segment of the proceeding.
    \25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(``the Act''), we have verified the information provided by Huafeng 
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 5th 
Review PRC Verification Report \26\ and 5th Review CEP Verification 
Report,\27\ the public versions of which are available in the Central 
Records Unit, Room 7046 of the main Department building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See memorandum to the file through Howard Smith, Program 
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, entitled ``Verification at 
Dalian Huafeng Furniture Group Co., Ltd. in the 5th Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's 
Republic of China,'' dated January 31, 2011.
    \27\ See memorandum to the file through Howard Smith, Program 
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, entitled ``Verification at 
Great River Trading Co., Ltd. in the 5th Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's 
Republic of China,'' (``CEP Verification Report'') dated January 31, 
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Intent To Rescind the 2009 Administrative Review, in Part

    Among the companies still under review, 12 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 requesting that it provide 
any information that contradicted the no-shipment claims, and obtained 
entry documents from CBP.\28\ After examining record information, we 
have preliminarily determined that three of the 12 companies, Nantong 
Yangzi Furniture Company (``Nantong Yangzi''), Zhongshan Gainwell 
Furniture Co., Ltd. (``Zhongshan Gainwell''), and Dongguan Landmark 
Furniture Products Ltd. (``Dongguan Landmark''), had shipments of 
subject merchandise that entered the United States during the POR.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See memorandum to Abdelali Elouaradia, Director, Office 4, 
AD/CVD Operations, regarding ``Intent to Rescind the Review of 
Respondents Claiming No Sales/Shipments'' dated January 31, 2011.
    \29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since record evidence does 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):
     Clearwise Company Limited
     Dongguan Huangsheng Furniture Co., Ltd.\30\
     Dongguan Mu Si Furniture Co. Ltd.
     Fleetwood Fine Furniture LP
     Hainan Jong Bao Lumber Co. Ltd/Jibbon Enterprise Co., Ltd.
     Shanghai Fangjia Industry Co., Ltd.
     Yeh Brothers World Trade Inc.
     Golden Well International (HK) Ltd.
     Zhejiang Tianyi Scientific and Educational Equipment Co., 
Ltd. (``Zhejiang Tianyi'') \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Dongguan Huangsheng Furniture Co., Ltd.'s only sales made 
during the POR were covered by a new shipper review for the period 
January 1, 2009, through December 31, 2009. If the new shipper 
review of this company is completed, these shipments are not subject 
to this administrative review. See Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the 
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
New Shipper Reviews, 75 FR 72794 (November 26, 2010); see also 19 
CFR 351.214(j).
    \31\ Zhejiang Tianyi's only sales made during the POR were 
covered by a new shipper review covering the period January 1, 2009, 
through June 30, 2009 and thus are not subject to this review. See 
Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 75 FR 44764 (July 
29, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 7538]]

administering authority. None of the parties to this proceeding have 
contested NME 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 an 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, 
Peru, the Philippines, Thailand, and Ukraine as being at a level of 
economic development comparable to the PRC.\32\ On September 14, 2010, 
AFMC/Vaughan-Bassett provided information regarding the selection of a 
surrogate country.\33\ AFMC/Vaughan-Bassett asserted that the 
Philippines satisfies the statutory requirements for the selection of 
the surrogate country because it is at a level of economic development 
comparable to the PRC and is a significant producer of comparable 
merchandise.\34\ AFMC/Vaughan-Bassett provided an October 2007 report 
entitled the The Furniture Industry in the Philippines published by the 
international research firm CSIL Milano that demonstrates the 
significance of Philippine production of wooden furniture.\35\ 
Moreover, AFMC/Vaughan-Bassett noted that the Philippines has been 
selected as the surrogate country in the recent segments of this 
proceeding and provides readily available and reliable factor value 
data.\36\ No other interested parties commented on the selection of a 
surrogate country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 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 26, 2010 (``Policy Memorandum''). The 
Department notes that these six countries are part of a non-
exhaustive list of countries that are at a level of economic 
development comparable to the PRC.
    \33\ See Letter from AFMC/Vaughan-Bassett regarding, ``Wooden 
Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China: Comments 
Concerning Surrogate Country And The April 26, 2010, Office Of 
Policy Memorandum,'' dated September 14, 2010 (``AFMC/Vaughan-
Bassett's Surrogate Country Comments'').
    \34\ See AFMC/Vaughan-Bassett's Surrogate Country Comments at 2.
    \35\ See AFMC/Vaughan-Bassett's Surrogate Country Comments at 
Attachment 1.
    \36\ See AFMC/Vaughan-Bassett's Surrogate Country Comments at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.\37\ In addition, The Furniture Industry in the 
Philippines describes the furniture sector as comprised of 
approximately 15,000 manufacturers and 800,000 workers.\38\ Thus, 
record evidence shows that the Philippines is a significant producer of 
merchandise that is comparable to the merchandise under review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See AFMC/Vaughan-Bassett's' Surrogate Country Comments at 
Attachment 1.
    \38\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to data considerations in selecting a surrogate 
country, from September to December 2010, AFMC/Vaughan-Bassett and 
Huafeng submitted publicly-available Philippine data for valuing 
Huafeng's FOP. In addition, the Department used the Philippines as the 
primary surrogate country in the second, third, and fourth 
administrative reviews of this proceeding.\39\ Therefore, based on 
parties' submissions on the instant record and its experience in this 
proceeding, the Department finds that reliable, publicly available data 
for valuing FOP are available from the Philippines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 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, 73 FR 49162; 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, 74 FR 41374; and Wooden 
Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent To 
Rescind Review in Part, 75 FR 5952, 5956 (February 5, 2010), 
unchanged in the final results, 75 FR 50992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, for the input ``railway freight,'' the Department has been 
unable to locate a suitable surrogate value from the Philippines. 
Therefore, we preliminary determine to use India as a secondary 
surrogate country because the record shows that India is at a level of 
economic development comparable to that of the PRC \40\ and is a 
significant producer of merchandise comparable to the subject 
merchandise.\41\ Moreover, India has publicly available, country-wide 
data that clearly identifies the relevant time period and prices for 
valuing railway freight.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See Policy Memorandum.
    \41\ See memorandum to the File through Howard Smith, Program 
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, entitled ``Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review of Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's 
Republic of China: Factor Valuation Memorandum,'' dated January 31, 
2011 (``Factor Valuation Memorandum'') at Attachments III and IV.
    \42\ See the Factor Valuations section below for further 
details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.\43\ 
Accordingly, we have selected the Philippines as the surrogate country 
and we have calculated NV using Philippine prices to value Huafeng's 
FOP.\44\ 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.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See Factor Valuation Memorandum.
    \44\ Id.
    \45\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 7539]]

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 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). As part of our analysis we sent several supplemental 
questionnaires to certain separate rate respondents and received 
responses in September and October 2010.

A. Separate Rate Recipients

1. Wholly Foreign-Owned \46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Wholly foreign-owned companies are identified in the 
Preliminary Results of Review section below by the symbol ``*'', 
while partially and wholly owned Chinese companies are identified by 
the symbol ``''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain companies reported that 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.
2. Joint Ventures Between Chinese and Foreign Companies or Wholly 
Chinese- Owned Companies \47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 an absence of de jure 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 PRC SR Applicants supports a 
preliminary finding of an absence of de facto 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 governmental 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.

B. Margins for Separate Rate Recipients Not Individually Examined

    Consistent with our normal practice,\48\ we based the weighted-
average dumping margin for the separate rate recipients not 
individually examined on the weighted-average dumping margin calculated 
for Huafeng, the one mandatory respondent that participated in this 
review. The entities receiving this rate are identified by name in the 
Preliminary Results of Review section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical 
Circumstances: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's 
Republic of China, 71 FR 77373, 77377 (December 26, 2006), unchanged 
in final determination, 72 FR 19690.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Companies Not Receiving a Separate Rate

    The following nine companies and company groupings for which the 
Department initiated the instant review did not provide a separate rate 
certification or application:
     Dongguan Creation Furniture Co., Ltd., Creation Industries 
Co., Ltd.
     Foshan Guanqiu Furniture Co., Ltd.
     Jiangsu Weifu Group Fullhouse Furniture Mfg. Corp.
     Link Silver Ltd. (V.I.B.), Forward Win Enterprises Company 
Limited, Dongguan Haoshun Furniture Ltd.
     Nantong Yushi Furniture Co., Ltd.
     Shanghai Aosen Furniture Co., Ltd.
     Shenzhen Xiande Furniture Factory
     Tarzan Furniture Industries, Ltd., Samso Industries Ltd.
     Tianjin Master Home Furniture
    The companies listed above, which were named in the Initiation 
Notice, were notified in that notice that they

[[Page 7540]]

must timely submit 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 and the separate rate application could be 
found. 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.
    Also, we have preliminarily found that (1) Nantong Yangzi, (2) 
Zhongshan Gainwell, and (3) Dongguan Landmark shipped subject 
merchandise during the POR, despite their claims to the contrary.\49\ 
Because these companies did not file a timely separate rate 
certification or application and thereby failed to provide separate 
rate information, they have failed to demonstrate their eligibility for 
separate rate status. As a result, the Department is treating these 
companies as part of the PRC-wide entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See the January 31, 2011, memorandum from Drew Jackson to 
Abdelali Elouaradia entitled ``Intent to Rescind the Review of 
Respondents Claiming No Sales/Shipments.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 AFA 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 WBF 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.
    Certain companies which we are treating as part of the PRC-wide 
entity did not respond to the Department's request for Q&V data. We 
preliminarily determine that these companies withheld information 
requested by the Department.
    Thus, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) (withholds requested 
information) and (C) (significantly impedes a proceeding) of the Act, 
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 
(``CAFC'') explained 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 AFA for Huafeng

    At verification, we discovered that Huafeng failed to report all 
constructed export price (``CEP'') sales of subject merchandise that 
were shipped directly to unaffiliated U.S. customers. Specifically, 
Huafeng failed to report a number of sales where the date of sale 
occurred prior to the POR, but the merchandise entered the United 
States during the POR.\50\ We further discovered at verification that 
Huafeng failed to report CEP sales that it considered to be sample 
sales, but for which it received payment. Finally, at verification we 
discovered that Huafeng failed to report CEP sales of four dressers 
made during the POR. Since Huafeng did not report these sales and the 
related sales adjustments and did not provide the control numbers for 
these products as requested by the Department, the information 
necessary to calculate dumping margins for these sales is not on the 
record. Thus, the Department has based the dumping margins for the 
unreported sales on facts available pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) 
(withholds requested information) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See 5th Review CEP Verification Report at 12-13 and 
Exhibits 1 and 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the Department finds that in not reporting these sales, 
Huafeng has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its 
ability to comply with requests for information and thus it is 
appropriate to use an inference that is adverse to Huafeng's interests 
in selecting from among the facts otherwise available in accordance 
with section 776(b) of the Act. The Department requested that Huafeng 
report U.S. sales of subject merchandise following the reporting 
methodology laid out in the questionnaire.\51\ In preparing a response 
to a request from the Department, it is presumed that a respondent is 
familiar with its own records.\52\ At verification, the verifiers 
readily identified the unreported sales

[[Page 7541]]

described above in documents that Huafeng prepared for verification and 
in Huafeng's records.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See, e.g., the Department's antidumping questionnaire, 
dated April 28, 2010, at C-1 and D-1.
    \52\ See Nippon Steel, 337 F.3d at 1383.
    \53\ See 5th Review CEP Verification Report at Exhibit 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department's questionnaire instructs companies to ``Report each 
U.S. sale of merchandise entered for consumption during the POR.'' In 
its questionnaire response, Huafeng stated that it had ``reported its 
sales of the subject merchandise to the United States during the POR * 
* *.'' \54\ To confirm that Huafeng had reported all sales consistent 
with the Department's questionnaire instructions, the Department again 
requested of Huafeng in a supplemental questionnaire: ``All CEP sales 
where the date of sale occurs after the date of entry into the United 
States should be reported based on whether the date of sale occurred in 
the POR. All CEP sales where the date of sale occurred prior to the 
date of entry into the United States should be reported based on 
whether the date of entry was during the POR. Have you done so? If not, 
please do so at this time.'' \55\ Huafeng responded that it ``confirms 
that all CEP sales where the date of sale occurred prior to the date of 
entry into the U.S. were reported based on whether the date of entry 
was during the POR.'' \56\ Contrary to these claims, however, Huafeng 
failed to report CEP sales where the date of sale occurred prior to the 
POR, but the merchandise entered the United States during the POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See Huafeng's July 6, 2010 submission at 2.
    \55\ See Huafeng's September 20, 2010 submission at 3.
    \56\ See Huafeng's September 20, 2010 submission at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to sample sales, the Department, in its questionnaire, 
requested certain information relating to sample sales, including 
quantity and gross unit price, and then instructed Huafeng to ``Please 
report in your sales database all instances where you sold samples to 
customers in the United States.'' While Huafeng reported export price 
(``EP'') sample sales in its submitted U.S. sales database, it did not 
report the CEP sample sales in the sales database, but only reported 
the total sales value of CEP sample sales in the narrative portion of 
its questionnaire response.\57\ Thus, the Department did not know the 
product information, individual sales value, sales adjustments or 
almost any other information necessary to calculate the antidumping 
margin of the CEP sample sales. The Department also asked Huafeng in a 
supplemental questionnaire ``Did you report all sales of subject 
merchandise for which you received consideration, including sample 
sales? If not, please do so at this time.'' Huafeng replied that it had 
``reported all sales of subject merchandise for which it received 
consideration, including sample sales,'' and that in the revised 
database it had created a field that identified sales of sample 
merchandise.\58\ While Huafeng reported EP sample sales, it continually 
failed, despite specific requests, to report CEP sample sales in its 
U.S. sales database.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See Huafeng's July 6, 2010 submission at 48, which contains 
both the Department's question and Huafeng's response.
    \58\ See Huafeng's October 27, 2010 response at 12, which 
contains both the Department's question and Huafeng's response.
    \59\ Id. at Exhibit S-66.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, despite claiming in its questionnaire response that it had 
``reported its sales of the subject merchandise to the United States 
during the POR in this submission,'' \60\ at verification, the 
verifiers found that Huafeng failed to report four sales of 
dressers.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ See Huafeng's July 6, 2010 submission at 2.
    \61\ See CEP Verification Report at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When Huafeng officials were asked at verification why they failed 
to report all three types of unreported sales, they did not identify 
any impediments to reporting them.\62\ This, in conjunction with its 
failure to accurately respond to the numerous requests cited above to 
report the three different types of unreported sales, indicates that 
Huafeng did not act to the best of its abilities in investigating its 
records for reportable sales of subject merchandise. Huafeng failed to 
act to the best of its ability to comply with the Department's repeated 
requests for information regarding all of its sales of subject 
merchandise. Therefore, the Department has preliminarily determined to 
apply AFA to these unreported sales, pursuant to section 776(b) of the 
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ See 5th Review CEP Verification Report at 12-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Selection of AFA Rates

1. 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.'' \63\ Specifically, the Department's practice in selecting a 
total AFA rate in administrative reviews 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).\64\ 
The Court of International Trade (``CIT'') and the CAFC have affirmed 
decisions to select the highest margin from any prior segment of the 
proceeding as the AFA rate on numerous occasions.\65\ 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.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ 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 
Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. 103, 316, 838, 870 (1994).
    \64\ 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 the final results, 74 FR 
41121; see also Fujian Lianfu Forestry Co., Ltd. v. United States, 
638 F. Supp. 2d 1325, 1336 (Ct. Int'l Trade 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.'').
    \65\ 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 Int'l 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 Int'l 
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).
    \66\ 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Partial AFA for Huafeng's Unreported Sales
    Consistent with the approach taken under the same circumstances in 
the 2008 antidumping duty administrative review of WBF from the PRC, we 
have

[[Page 7542]]

assigned as partial AFA for the unreported sales the PRC-wide rate of 
216.01 percent cited above, which is from the 2004-2005 new shipper 
reviews of WBF from the PRC, and is the highest dumping margin on the 
record of any segment of this proceeding.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 of the Act 
concerning the subject merchandise.\68\ Corroborate means that the 
Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be 
used has probative value.\69\ To corroborate secondary information, the 
Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and 
relevance of the information to be used.\70\ Independent sources used 
to corroborate such information may include, for example, published 
price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and 
information obtained from interested parties during the particular 
investigation.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ See SAA at 870.
    \69\ Id.
    \70\ 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 results, 62 FR 11825; 
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; Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part, 
62 FR 11825 (March 13, 1997).
    \71\ 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, 68 FR 62560; 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.\72\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ 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 Duty 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 Huafeng in the instant 
administrative review with the 216.01 percent rate calculated in the 
2004-2005 New Shipper Review and found that the 216.01 percent margin 
was within the range of the margins calculated on the record of the 
instant administrative review. Because the dumping margins used to 
corroborate the AFA rate do not reflect unusually high dumping margins 
relative to the calculated rates determined for the cooperating 
respondent, the Department is satisfied that the dumping margins used 
for corroborative purposes reflect commercial reality because they are 
based upon real transactions that occurred during the POR, were subject 
to verification by the Department, and were sufficient in number both 
in terms of the number of sales and as a percentage of total sales 
quantity.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ See the January 31, 2010 Corroboration Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the 216.01 percent margin is within the range of Huafeng's 
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 
and for use as an AFA rate applied to Huafeng'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 Huafeng 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 
Huafeng to be EP sales 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 from the plant 
to the port of exportation, and foreign brokerage and handling. Where 
applicable, we reduced movement expenses by freight revenue. For a 
detailed description of all adjustments, see Huafeng Analysis 
Memorandum, dated concurrently with this notice.

Constructed Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, 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 Huafeng's U.S. affiliate in 
the United States to be CEP sales.
    We calculated CEP based on prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the 
United

[[Page 7543]]

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 the plant to 
the port of exportation, foreign brokerage and handling, ocean freight, 
marine insurance, U.S. inland freight from the port to the warehouse, 
U.S. freight from the warehouse to the 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 Huafeng's credit expenses and inventory carrying costs 
based on short-term interest rates. Because Huafeng did not incur 
short-term U.S. dollar borrowings during the POR, we based its interest 
rate on the short-term interest rate from the Federal Reserve. For a 
detailed description of all adjustments, see Huafeng Analysis 
Memorandum, dated January 31, 2010.

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine 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 NMEs 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 consumption quantities reported by Huafeng 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 such prices may be distorted by 
subsidies, the Department will disregard the market economy purchase 
prices and use surrogate values (``SVs'') to determine the NV.\74\ 
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.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ 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.
    \75\ 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; 
China National Machinery Imp. & Exp. Corp. v. United States, 293 F. 
Supp. 2d 1334, 1338-39 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with the OTCA 1988 legislative history, the 
Department continues to apply its long-standing practice of 
disregarding SVs if it has a reason to believe or suspect the source 
data may be subsidized.\76\ In this regard, the Department has 
previously found that it is appropriate to disregard such prices from 
India, Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand because we have determined 
that these countries maintain broadly available, non-industry specific 
export subsidies.\77\ Based on the existence of these subsidy programs 
that were generally available to all exporters and producers in these 
countries at the time of the POR, the Department finds that it is 
reasonable to infer that all exporters from India, Indonesia, South 
Korea and Thailand may have benefitted from these subsidies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ See Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, Conf. 
Report to Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. Rep. No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd 
Sess. (1988) (``OTCA 1988'') at 590.
    \77\ See, e.g., Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India: Final 
Results of the Expedited Five-year (Sunset) Review of the 
Countervailing Duty Order, 75 FR 13257 (March 19, 2010) and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2; Certain 
Cut-to-Length Carbon Quality Steel Plate from Indonesia: Final 
Results of Expedited Sunset Review, 70 FR 45692 (August 8, 2005) and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at page 4; Corrosion-
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: 
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 
2512 (January 15, 2009) and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at pages 17, 19-20; Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From 
Thailand, 66 FR 50410 (October 3, 2001) and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at page 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Factor Valuations

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on FOP reported by Huafeng 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 CAFC in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407-08 (Fed. 
Cir. 1997). Due to the extensive number of SVs in this administrative 
review, we present only a brief discussion of the main FOP in this 
notice. For a detailed description of all SVs used to value Huafeng's 
reported FOP, see Factor Valuation Memorandum.
    Huafeng reported that certain of its reported raw material inputs 
were sourced from market economy countries and paid for in market 
economy currencies. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), when a respondent 
sources inputs from a market economy supplier in meaningful quantities 
(i.e., not insignificant quantities), we use the actual price paid by 
the respondents for those inputs, except when prices may have been 
distorted by findings of dumping by the PRC and/or subsidies.\78\ 
Huafeng 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

[[Page 7544]]

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.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 
62 FR 27296, 27366 (May 19, 1997).
    \79\ 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 Huafeng Analysis 
Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where market economy purchases of inputs were not made in 
significant quantities, we used, in part, 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 SVs that were not contemporaneous with 
the POR, we inflated (or deflated) the surrogate values using the 
Philippine Wholesale Price Index as published in the International 
Financial Statistics of the International Monetary Fund.
    On May 14, 2010, the CAFC in Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 
F.3d 1363, 1372 (CAFC 2010) (``Dorbest IV[rdquo)]), found that the 
``{regression-based{time}  method for calculating wage rates {as 
stipulated by 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3){time}  uses data not permitted by 
{the statutory requirements laid out in section 773 of the Act (i.e., 
19 U.S.C. 1677b(c)){time} .''
    For the preliminary results of this review, the Department is 
valuing labor using a simple average industry-specific wage rate using 
earnings or wage data reported under Chapter 5B by the International 
Labor Organization (``ILO''). To achieve an industry-specific labor 
value, we relied on industry-specific labor data from the countries we 
determined to be both economically comparable to the PRC and 
significant producers of comparable merchandise. A full description of 
the industry-specific wage rate calculation methodology is provided in 
the Factor Valuation Memorandum. The Department calculated a simple 
average industry-specific wage rate of $1.20 for these preliminary 
results. Specifically, for this review, the Department has calculated 
the wage rate using a simple average of the data provided to the ILO 
under Sub-Classification 36 of the ISIC-Revision 3 standard by 
countries determined to be both economically comparable to the PRC and 
significant producers of comparable merchandise. The Department finds 
the two-digit description under International Standard Industrial 
Classification--Revision 3 (``Manufacture of furniture; manufacturing 
n.e.c.'') to be the best available wage rate surrogate value on the 
record because it is specific and derived from industries that produce 
merchandise comparable to the subject merchandise. Consequently, we 
averaged the ILO industry-specific wage rate data or earnings data 
available from the following countries found to be economically 
comparable to the PRC and significant producers of comparable 
merchandise: Ecuador, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Peru, the Philippines, 
Thailand, and Ukraine. For further information on the calculation of 
the wage rate, 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.\80\ This data pertained only to industrial 
consumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ For a copy of pages from this website, see the Factor 
Valuation Memorandum at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We calculated the value of domestic brokerage and handling and 
truck freight 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/data/explore economies/
philippines/trading-across-borders.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ For a copy of pages from this website, see the Factor 
Valuation Memorandum at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the Department has been unable to locate a suitable 
surrogate value from the Philippines for the input ``railway freight.'' 
Therefore, the Department has calculated the surrogate value for 
railway freight using data from Indian Railways available at: http://www.Indianrailways.gov.in/. While the Department normally does not use 
data from an alternative surrogate country, no such data is available 
for truck freight in the Philippines. Thus, the Department has 
determined that the Indian Railways data are the only data on the 
record that are contemporaneous, country-wide and clearly identify the 
relevant time period, exact prices, distances, and weights. We further 
note that the Department has relied on surrogate values from India when 
usable surrogate values from the Philippines are not on the record,\82\ 
has relied on India as a surrogate country in a previous segment of the 
proceeding,\83\ and listed India as a suitable surrogate country for 
this review.\84\ For these reasons, in the final results we will value 
Huafeng's inland freight expenses using Indian Railways data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ Id.; see also Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review and New Shipper Review, 73 FR 49162 (August 20, 2008) and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
    \83\ See Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews: Wooden Bedroom 
Furniture From the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 46957, 46960 
(August 22, 2007).
    \84\ See Policy Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We valued factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative 
(``SG&A'') expenses, and profit, using the audited financial statements 
for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2009, from the following 
producers: APY Cane International; Berbenwood Industries; Clear Export 
Industries, Inc.; Heritage Meubles Mirabile Export, Inc.; Interior 
Crafts of the Islands, Incorporated; Wicker & Vine, Inc.; and Insular 
Rattan & Native Products Corp. These companies are the only Philippine 
producers of merchandise identical to subject merchandise which 
received no countervailable subsidies, and earned a before tax profit 
in 2009 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., total 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, 2009 through December 
31, 2009:

[[Page 7545]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Antidumping duty
                      Exporter                          percent margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dalian Huafeng Furniture Co., Ltd./Dalian Huafeng                  16.24
 Furniture Group Co., Ltd..................
Baigou Crafts Factory of Fengkai...........               16.24
Cheng Meng Furniture (PTE) Ltd., Cheng Meng                        16.24
 Decoration & Furniture (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.*.........
COE, Ltd.*..........................................               16.24
Dongguan Bon Ten Furniture Co., Ltd........               16.24
Dongguan Hero Way Woodwork Co., Ltd., Dongguan Da                  16.24
 Zhong Woodwork Co., Ltd., Hero Way Enterprises
 Ltd., Well Earth International Ltd.*...............
Dongguan Kin Feng Furniture Co., Ltd. .....               16.24
Dongguan Liaobushangdun Huada Furniture Factory,                   16.24
 Great Rich (HK) Enterprise Co., Ltd.*..............
Dongguan Singways Furniture Co., Ltd.......               16.24
Dongguan Sunshine Furniture Co., Ltd.......               16.24
Eurosa (Kunshan) Co., Ltd., Eurosa Furniture Co.,                  16.24
 (PTE) Ltd. (Eurosa)*...............................
Garri Furniture (Dong Guan) Co., Ltd., Molabile                    16.24
 International, Inc. Weei Geo Enterprise Co., Ltd.*.
Hong Kong Da Zhi Furniture Co., Ltd., Dongguan Grand               16.24
 Style Furniture Co., Ltd..................
Hualing Furniture (China) Co., Ltd., Tony House                    16.24
 Manufacture (China) Co., Ltd., Buysell Investments
 Ltd., Tony House Industries Co., Ltd.*.............
Jardine Enterprise, Ltd.*...........................               16.24
Longkou Huangshan Furniture Factory........               16.24
Meikangchi (Nantong) Furniture Company Ltd.*........               16.24
Nanhai Baiyi Woodwork Co. Ltd..............               16.24
Nanjing Nanmu Furniture Co., Ltd...........               16.24
Season Furniture Manufacturing Co., Season                         16.24
 Industrial Development Co.................
Shenyang Shining Dongxing Furniture Co., Ltd..................................................
Shenzhen Shen Long Hang Industry Co., Ltd..               16.24
Wanhengtong Nueevder (Furniture) Manufacture Co.,                  16.24
 Ltd., Dongguan Wanengtong Industry Co., Ltd..................................................
Winny Overseas, Ltd.*...............................               16.24
Xilinmen Furniture Co., Ltd................               16.24
Zhangjiagang Zheng Yan Decoration Co. Ltd..               16.24
Zhangjiang Sunwin Arts & Crafts Co., Ltd...               16.24
Zhong Shan Fullwin Furniture Co., Ltd.*.............               16.24
PRC-Wide Entity.....................................              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).

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 CD-
ROM. 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 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 instructions directly to CBP 15 days 
after publication of the final results of this review.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this review 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 this review; (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 established in the final results of this review; and (4) for all 
non-PRC exporters of subject

[[Page 7546]]

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: January 31, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-3024 Filed 2-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P