[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 91 (Thursday, May 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27425-27428]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11220]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-888]


Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts 
Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a request from Home Products International (the 
Petitioner in this proceeding), the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on floor-standing, metal-top ironing tables and certain 
parts thereof (ironing tables) from the People's Republic of China 
(PRC). The period of review (POR) is August 1, 2010, through July 31, 
2011. The review covers one respondent Foshan Shunde Yongjian 
Housewares & Hardware Co., Ltd. (Foshan Shunde). As discussed below, we 
have preliminarily determined that Foshan Shunde is part of the PRC-
wide entity and that the entity has failed to cooperate to the best of 
its ability. We are, therefore, applying adverse facts available (AFA) 
to the PRC-wide entity, which includes Foshan Shunde. If these 
preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct 
the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping 
duties on entries of the subject merchandise during the POR.

DATES: Effective May 10, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael J. Heaney or Robert James, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4475 or (202) 482-0649, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On August 6, 2004, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the antidumping duty order regarding ironing tables from the PRC.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Floor-Standing, Metal-
Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof From the People's 
Republic of China, 69 FR 47868 (August 6, 2004) (Amended Final and 
Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 1, 2011, the Department published a notice of opportunity 
to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on, 
inter alia, ironing tables from the PRC.\2\ On August 31, 2011, Home 
Products International and Foshan Shunde requested, in accordance with 
19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), an administrative review of this order for Foshan 
Shunde.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative 
Review, 76 FR 45773 (August 1, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 3, 2011, the Department initiated an administrative 
review of Foshan Shunde.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 76 FR 
61076 (October 3, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department issued its antidumping questionnaire to Foshan 
Shunde on October 6, 2011. On October 27, 2011, counsel for Foshan 
Shunde withdrew Foshan Shunde's request for review. Additionally, the 
law firm that had represented Foshan Shunde indicated it ``has not been 
authorized to enter an appearance or to otherwise participate in this 
review'' on Foshan Shunde's behalf.\4\ Because, the review request 
filed by Home Products International was not withdrawn, the Department 
continued the administrative review of Foshan Shunde. On November 4, 
2011, the Department sent Foshan Shunde a letter, which was received, 
requesting confirmation that Foshan Shunde received our antidumping 
questionnaire through its counsel at the time. However, Foshan Shunde 
filed no response to either our October 6, 2011, questionnaire or our 
November 4, 2011, letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See October 27, 2011, letter from the law firm of deKieffer 
& Horgan to the Department.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    For purposes of this order, the product covered consists of floor-
standing, metal-top ironing tables, assembled or unassembled, complete 
or incomplete, and certain parts thereof. The subject tables are 
designed and used principally for the hand ironing or pressing of 
garments or other articles of fabric. The subject tables have full-
height leg assemblies that support the ironing surface at an 
appropriate (often adjustable) height above the floor. The subject 
tables are produced in a variety of leg finishes, such as painted, 
plated, or matte, and they are available with various features, 
including iron rests, linen racks, and others. The subject ironing 
tables may be sold with or without a pad and/or cover. All types and 
configurations of floor-standing, metal-top ironing tables are covered 
by this review.
    Furthermore, this order specifically covers imports of ironing 
tables, assembled or unassembled, complete or incomplete, and certain 
parts thereof. For purposes of this order, the term ``unassembled'' 
ironing table means a product requiring the attachment of the leg 
assembly to the top or the attachment of an included feature such as an 
iron rest or linen rack. The term ``complete'' ironing table means 
product sold as a ready-to-use ensemble consisting of the metal-top 
table and a pad and cover, with or without additional features, e.g., 
iron rest or linen rack. The term ``incomplete'' ironing table means 
product shipped or sold as a ``bare board''--i.e., a metal-top table 
only, without the pad and cover--with or without additional features, 
e.g., iron rest or linen rack. The major parts or components of ironing 
tables that are intended to be covered by this order under the term 
``certain parts thereof'' consist of the metal top component (with or 
without assembled supports and slides) and/or the leg components, 
whether or not attached together as a leg assembly. The order covers 
separately shipped metal top components and leg components, without 
regard to whether the respective quantities would yield an exact 
quantity of assembled ironing tables.
    Ironing tables without legs (such as models that mount on walls or 
over doors) are not floor-standing and are specifically excluded. 
Additionally, tabletop or countertop models with short legs that do not 
exceed 12 inches in length (and which may or may not collapse or 
retract) are specifically excluded.
    The subject ironing tables are currently classifiable under 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 
9403.20.0011. The subject metal top and leg components are classified 
under HTSUS subheading 9403.90.8041. Although the HTSUS subheadings are 
provided for convenience and for Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 
purposes, the Department's written description of the scope remains 
dispositive.

Facts Otherwise Available

    Section 776(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), 
mandates that the Department use facts otherwise

[[Page 27426]]

available if necessary information is not otherwise available on the 
record of the antidumping proceeding. Specifically, section 776(a)(2) 
of the Act provides that where an interested party: (A) Withholds 
information that has been 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 such information but the information cannot be 
verified, the Department shall use facts otherwise available in 
reaching its determination.
    Foshan Shunde did not respond to the antidumping questionnaire 
issued by the Department on October 6, 2011, and thus Foshan Shunde did 
not establish its eligibility in this segment of the proceeding for a 
separate rate. As a result, we preliminarily find Foshun Shunde to be 
part of the PRC-wide entity. Because the entity, which includes Foshun 
Shunde, provided the Department with no data from which it could 
calculate a margin, the record lacks the requisite data that is needed 
to reach a determination. Accordingly, the Department finds that 
necessary information to calculate an accurate and reliable margin is 
not available on the record of this proceeding. The Department finds 
that because Foshan Shunde, as part of the PRC-wide entity, failed to 
submit any response to the Department's questionnaire, the PRC-wide 
entity 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. On this basis, the Department 
finds that it must rely on the facts otherwise available to determine a 
margin for the PRC-wide entity in accordance with section 776(a) of the 
Act.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 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 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 Department{time}  * * * may use an 
inference that is adverse to the interests of the party in selecting 
from among the facts otherwise available.''\6\ 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.''\7\ 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.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See also Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No., 103-316 at 870 (1994) 
(SAA).
    \7\ Id.
    \8\ See section 776(b) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department determines that the PRC-wide entity, which includes 
Foshan Shunde's failure to respond to the Department's questionnaire, 
has 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 
apply a margin to the PRC-wide entity based entirely on the facts 
available, and to apply an adverse inference.\9\ By doing so, we ensure 
that the PRC-wide entity, which includes Foshan Shunde, will not obtain 
a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than had it cooperated 
fully in this review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results of the First Administrative 
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 Administrative Review and First New Shipper Review, 72 FR 
52052 (September 12, 2007), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.\10\ Specifically, the 
Department's practice in reviews, when selecting a rate as total AFA, 
is to use the highest rate on the record of the proceeding which, to 
the extent practicable, can be corroborated.\11\ 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.\12\ Therefore, we are assigning the 
PRC-wide entity, which includes Foshan Shunde, a rate of 157.68 
percent, which is the highest rate on the record of this proceeding and 
which was the rate assigned to the PRC-wide entity in a previously 
published antidumping determination.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 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 SAA at 
870.
    \11\ See Glycine from the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 
15930, 15934 (April 8, 2009), unchanged in Glycine From the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 74 FR 41121 (August 14, 2009); see also Fujian Lianfu 
Forestry Co., Ltd. v. United States, 638 F. Supp. 2d 1325, 1336 (CIT 
August 10, 2009) (''Commerce may, of course, begin its total AFA 
selection process by defaulting to the highest rate in any segment 
of the proceeding, but that selection must then be corroborated, to 
the extent practicable.'').
    \12\ See, e.g., KYD, Inc. v. United States, 607 F.3d 760, 766-
767 (CAFC 2010) (KYD); see also NSK Ltd. v. United States, 346 F. 
Supp. 2d 1312, 1335 (CIT 2004) (affirming a 73.55 percent total AFA 
rate, the highest available dumping margin calculated for a 
different respondent in the investigation).
    \13\ See Amended Final and Order 69 FR 47868.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Corroboration

    Section 776(c) of the Act requires the Department to corroborate, 
to the extent practicable, secondary information used as FA. To be 
considered corroborated, the Department must find the information has 
probative value, meaning that the information must be both reliable and 
relevant.\14\ Secondary information is {i{time} nformation 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 {time}  concerning the subject 
merchandise.'' \15\ Unlike other types of information, such as input 
costs or selling expenses, there are no independent sources for 
calculated margins. Thus, in an administrative review, if the 
Department chooses, as AFA, a calculated dumping margin from a prior 
segment of the proceeding, it is not necessary to question the 
reliability of the margin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 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).
    \15\ See SAA, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316 at 870 (1994) and 19 CFR 
351.308(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department considers the AFA rate calculated for the current 
review as both reliable and relevant. On the issue of reliability, the 
adverse rate selected was calculated for another respondent, Shunde 
Yongjian, during the LTFV

[[Page 27427]]

investigation.\16\ 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 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 facts available) because 
the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business 
expense resulting in an unusually high margin).\17\ The selected AFA 
margin is based upon the calculated rate for another respondent in the 
LTFV investigation, and thus reflects the commercial reality of a 
competitor in the same industry.\18\ Given that the PRC-wide entity, 
which includes Foshan Shunde, failed to cooperate to the best of its 
ability in this administrative review, it is appropriate to select an 
AFA rate that serves as an adequate deterrent in order to induce 
cooperation in the proceeding. As the Federal Circuit found in KYD, we 
find that in choosing the appropriate balance between providing a 
respondent with an incentive to respond accurately and imposing a rate 
that is reasonably related to the respondent's prior commercial 
activity, selecting the highest prior margin reflects ''a common sense 
inference that the highest prior margin is the most probative evidence 
of current margins in this instance, because, if it were not so,'' 
Foshan Shunde, ``knowing of the rule, would have produced current 
information showing the margin to be less.'' \19\ We find this to be 
particularly true in this case because, Foshan Shunde, as part of the 
PRC entity, was assigned the same calculated AFA rate in a prior review 
due to its failure to cooperate.\20\ On this basis, we find that 
selecting the highest calculated rate of this proceeding is 
sufficiently relavant to the commercial reality for the PRC entity, 
which includes Foshan Shunde. Furthermore, there is no information on 
the record of this review that demonstrates that this rate is 
uncharacteristic of the industry, or otherwise inappropriate for use as 
AFA. Based upon the foregoing, we determine this rate to be relevant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Amended Final and Order 69 FR 47868.
    \17\ See Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of 
Antidumping Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 
1996) (Fresh Cut Flowers) cited in Certain Kitchen Appliance 
Shelving and Racks from the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results and Partial Rescission of First Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 77 FR 21734, 21737 (April 11, 2012).
    \18\ See Amended Final and Order 69 FR 47868.
    \19\ See KYD, 607 F.3d at 766, citing Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. 
United States, 899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (CAFC 1990).
    \20\ See Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain 
Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 3201, 3202 (January 
20, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the 157.68 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 rate as AFA, to exports of the subject 
merchandise by the PRC-wide entity, including Foshan Shunde.

Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following antidumping duty 
margin exists:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                          Exporter                             (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRC wide entity (includes Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares       157.68
 & Hardware Co., Ltd.)......................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

    Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine 
and CBP will assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries 
covered by this review. The Department intends to issue assessment 
instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final 
results of this review. Where assessments are based upon total facts 
available, including total AFA, we instruct CBP to assess duties at the 
ad valorem margin rate published above. We will instruct CBP to assess 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if 
any assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is 
above de minimis. The final results of this review shall be the basis 
for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise 
covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of 
estimated duties, where applicable.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements 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 exporter 
listed above, the cash deposit rate will be 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 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 recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise 
which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash 
deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 157.68 percent (see Amended 
Final and Order); and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject 
merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit 
rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied 
that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall 
remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next 
administrative review.

Public Comment

    The Department will disclose calculations performed in connection 
with the preliminary results of this review within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.224(b). Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days 
of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any 
hearing will be held 37 days after the publication of this notice, or 
the first workday thereafter unless the Department alters the date 
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(d). Individuals who wish to request a 
hearing must submit a written request within 30 days of the publication 
of this notice in the Federal Register to the Assistant Secretary for 
Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, pursuant to the 
Department's e-filing regulations. See https://iaaccess.trade.gov/help/IA%20ACCESS%20User%20Guide.pdf.
    Requests for a public hearing should contain: (1) The party's name, 
address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) 
to the extent practicable, an identification of the arguments to be 
raised at the hearing.
    Unless otherwise notified by the Department, interested parties may 
submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this 
notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). As part of the case 
brief, parties are encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments and 
a table of authorities cited in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2). 
Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case 
briefs, must be filed within five days after the case brief is filed in

[[Page 27428]]

accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(d). If a hearing is held, an interested 
party may make an affirmative presentation only on arguments included 
in that party's case brief and may make a rebuttal presentation only on 
arguments included in that party's rebuttal brief in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.310(c). Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and 
place of the hearing within 48 hours before the scheduled time. The 
Department will issue the final results of this review, which will 
include the results of its analysis of issues raised in the briefs, not 
later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice in 
accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.213(h)(1).

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 these review periods. 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 of administrative review are issued and 
this notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 
777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: May 2, 2012.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-11220 Filed 5-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P