[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 6, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76126-76128]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31309]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-928]


Uncovered Innerspring Units from the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results and Preliminary Rescission, in Part, of the 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``Department'') is conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order \1\ on uncovered 
innerspring units (``innersprings'') from the People's Republic of 
China (``PRC'') for the period of review (``POR'') February 1, 2010, 
through January 31, 2011. As discussed below, we preliminarily 
determine that Goodnite Sdn Bhd (``Goodnite'') failed to cooperate to 
the best of its ability and are, therefore, applying adverse facts 
available (``AFA'') to Goodnite's PRC-origin merchandise. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Uncovered Innerspring Units from the People's Republic 
of China: Notice of Antidumping Duty Order, 74 FR 7661 (February 19, 
2009).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Pulongbarit, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4031.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case Timeline

    On February 28, 2011, the Department received a request from 
Petitioner \2\ to conduct an administrative review of two companies, 
Reztec Industries Sdn Bhd (``Reztec'') and Goodnite. On March 31, 2011, 
the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation 
of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
innersprings from the PRC.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The petitioner is Leggett & Platt, Inc. (hereinafter 
referred to as ``Petitioner'').
    \3\ See Initiation of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 
Requests for Revocation in Part, and Deferral of Administrative 
Review, 76 FR 17825 (March 31, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 28, 2011, the Department issued antidumping duty 
questionnaires to Reztec and Goodnite, since they were the only two 
companies for which a review was requested.\4\ On May 3, 2011, Goodnite 
received the antidumping duty questionnaire issued by the 
Department.\5\ On May 19, 2011, Reztec submitted a no-shipment 
certification to the Department.\6\ Goodnite did not respond to the 
Department's questionnaire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Letter from Department to Reztec, regarding Second 
Administrative Review of Uncovered Innerspring Units from the 
People's Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Questionnaire, dated 
April 28, 2011; and Letter from Department to Goodnite, regarding 
Second Administrative Review of Uncovered Innerspring Units from the 
People's Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Questionnaire, dated 
April 28, 2011.
    \5\ See Memorandum to the File, from Susan Pulongbarit, 
International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Office 9, Import Administration, 
regarding 2010-2011 Administrative Review of Uncovered Innerspring 
Units from the People's Republic of China: Confirmation of Receipt, 
dated May 17, 2011.
    \6\ See Letter from Reztec, to the Secretary of Commerce, 
regarding Uncovered Innerspring Units from China Entry of Appearance 
and No-Shipment Letter of Reztec Industries Sdn Bhd, dated May 19, 
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the order is uncovered innerspring units 
composed of a series of individual metal springs joined together in 
sizes corresponding to the sizes of adult mattresses (e.g., twin, twin 
long, full, full long, queen, California king and king) and units used 
in smaller constructions, such as crib and youth mattresses. All 
uncovered innerspring units are included in the scope regardless of 
width and length. Included within this definition are innersprings 
typically ranging from 30.5 inches to 76 inches in width and 68 inches 
to 84 inches in length. Innersprings for crib mattresses typically 
range from 25 inches to 27 inches in width and 50 inches to 52 inches 
in length.
    Uncovered innerspring units are suitable for use as the innerspring 
component in the manufacture of innerspring mattresses, including 
mattresses that incorporate a foam encasement around the innerspring.
    Pocketed and non-pocketed innerspring units are included in this 
definition. Non-pocketed innersprings are typically joined together 
with helical wire and border rods. Non-pocketed innersprings are 
included in this definition regardless of whether they have border rods 
attached to the perimeter of the innerspring. Pocketed innersprings are 
individual coils covered by a ``pocket'' or ``sock'' of a

[[Page 76127]]

nonwoven synthetic material or woven material and then glued together 
in a linear fashion.
    Uncovered innersprings are classified under subheading 9404.29.9010 
and have also been classified under subheadings 9404.10.0000, 
7326.20.0070, 7320.20.5010, or 7320.90.5010 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''). The HTSUS subheadings are 
provided for convenience and customs purposes only; the written 
description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

Intent To Rescind, in Part, of Administrative Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we have preliminarily determined 
that Reztec had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR of 
this administrative review.
    The Department received a no-shipment certification from Reztec on 
May 19, 2011. The Department issued a no-shipment inquiry to U.S. 
Customs Border and Protection (``CBP''), asking that CBP provide any 
information contrary to our preliminary findings of no entries of 
subject merchandise for merchandise manufactured and shipped by 
Reztec.\7\ We did not receive any response from CBP, thus indicating 
that there were no entries of subject merchandise into the United 
States exported by Reztec. Consequently, we intend to rescind the 
review, in part, with respect to Reztec.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Memoranda to Michael Walsh, Director, AD/CVD/Revenue 
Policy & Programs, from Jim Doyle, Office Director, dated between 
October 28, 2010, to December 17, 2010, Request for U.S. Entry 
Documents: Certain Steel Nails from the People's Republic of China.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Facts Otherwise Available

    Section 776(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the 
Act''), mandates that the Department use facts otherwise available if 
necessary information is not available on the record of an antidumping 
proceeding. In addition, section 776(a)(2) of the Act mandates that the 
Department use facts otherwise available where an interested party or 
any other person: (A) Withholds information requested by the 
Department; (B) fails to provide requested information by the requested 
date or in the form and manner requested; (C) significantly impedes an 
antidumping proceeding; or (D) provides information that cannot be 
verified.
    As previously noted, Goodnite did not respond to the antidumping 
duty questionnaire issued by the Department on April 28, 2011. 
Accordingly, the Department finds that the necessary information is not 
available on the record of this proceeding. Further, based upon 
Goodnite's failure to submit responses to the Department's 
questionnaire, the Department finds that Goodnite withheld the 
requested information, failed to provide the information in a timely 
manner and in the form requested, and significantly impeded this 
proceeding, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act. 
Therefore, the Department must rely on the facts otherwise available in 
order to determine a margin for Goodnite.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Non-Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 71 FR 69546 (December 1, 2006) (``Cast Iron Pipe Fittings'') 
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adverse Facts Available

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

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

    As previously stated, Goodnite failed to cooperate to the best of 
its ability in providing the requested information. Accordingly, 
pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) and section 776(b) of 
the Act, we find it appropriate to assign total AFA to Goodnite.\12\ By 
doing so, we ensure that Goodnite will not obtain a more favorable 
result by failing to cooperate than had they cooperated fully in this 
review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In selecting an AFA rate, the Department's practice has been to 
assign non-cooperative respondents the highest margin determined for 
any party in the less than fair value (``LTFV'') investigation or in 
any administrative review.\13\ Therefore, because Goodnite is not a PRC 
exporter, we are not assigning Goodnite the PRC-wide entity's rate, but 
rather its own rate, based on AFA, which in this case is 234.51 
percent, as established in the investigation.14 15
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See, e.g., Cast Iron Pipe Fittings, 71 FR at 69548.
    \14\ See Uncovered Innerspring Units From the People's Republic 
of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 
FR 79443, 79446 (December 29, 2008) and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum.
    \15\ We note that this decision applies only to Goodnite's 
subject merchandise, which is limited to PRC-origin merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Corroboration

    Section 776(c) of the Act requires that, where the Department 
relies on secondary information in selecting AFA, the Department 
corroborate such information to the extent practicable. To be 
considered corroborated, the Department must find the information has 
probative value, meaning that the information must be both reliable and 
relevant.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See SAA at 870; 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 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department considers the AFA rate calculated for the current 
review as both reliable and relevant. On the issue of reliability, the 
Department corroborated the AFA rate in the LTFV investigation.\17\ No 
information has been presented in the current review that calls into 
question the reliability of this information. With respect to the 
relevance, 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

[[Page 76128]]

will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. For 
example, in Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico the Department disregarded 
the highest margin in that case as best information available (the 
predecessor to AFA) because the margin was based on another company's 
uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high 
margin.\18\ The information used in calculating this margin was based 
on sales and production data submitted by Petitioner in the LTFV 
investigation, together with the most appropriate surrogate value 
information available to the Department chosen from submissions by the 
parties in the LTFV investigation.\19\ Finally, there is no information 
on the record of this review that demonstrates that this rate is not 
appropriate for use as AFA. For all these reasons, we determine that 
this rate continues to have relevance with respect to Goodnite.
    As the 234.51 percent AFA rate is both reliable and relevant, we 
determine that it has probative value and is corroborated to the extent 
practicable, in accordance with section 776(c) of the Act. Therefore, 
we have assigned this AFA rate to exports of the subject merchandise by 
Goodnite.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Uncovered Innerspring Units From the People's Republic 
of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 
FR 79443, 79446 (December 29, 2008) and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum (``Innersprings Final Determination'').
    \18\ See Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of 
Antidumping Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 
1996) (``Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico'').
    \19\ See Uncovered Innerspring Units from the People's Republic 
of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, 73 FR 45729, 45735 (August 6, 2008), unchanged in Innerspring 
Final Determination, 73 FR at 79446.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preliminary Results of Review

    The Department preliminarily determines that the following 
weighted-average dumping margin exists:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                    Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goodnite....................................................      234.51
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Briefs and Public Hearing

    Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary 
results and may submit case briefs and/or written comments within 30 
days of the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the 
case briefs, will be due five days later, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.309(d). Parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs in this 
proceeding are requested to submit with each argument (1) A statement 
of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Parties are 
requested to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five 
pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2).
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to 
request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a 
written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, 
Room 1117, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. 
Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address and telephone 
number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be 
discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised 
in the respective case briefs.
    The Department intends to issue the final results of this 
administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the 
issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the 
date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of 
the Act.

Assessment Rates

    Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, 
and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries 
covered by this review. The Department intends to issue assessment 
instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final 
results of this review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we 
will calculate importer- (or customer-) specific assessment rates for 
the merchandise subject to this review. Where the respondent has 
reported reliable entered values, we will calculate importer- (or 
customer-) specific ad valorem rates by aggregating the dumping margins 
calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer (or customer) and 
dividing this amount by the total entered value of the sales to each 
importer (or customer). Where an importer- (or customer-) specific ad 
valorem rate is greater than de minimis, we will apply the assessment 
rate to the entered value of the importers'/customers' entries during 
the POR, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters 
listed above, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the 
final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de 
minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit rate will be 
required for that company); (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 recently completed period; (3) for all PRC 
exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be 
entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide 
rate of 234.51 percent; (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject 
merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit 
rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter(s) that supplied 
that non-PRC exporter; and (5) for Goodnite, any uncovered innerspring 
units of PRC origin, the cash deposit rate will be 234.51 percent. 
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)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    These preliminary results are issued and published in accordance 
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.221(b)(4).

    Dated: November 30, 2011.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-31309 Filed 12-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P