[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 127 (Friday, July 2, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38459-38463]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-16198]
[[Page 38459]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-951]
Certain Woven Electric Blankets From the People's Republic of
China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: July 2, 2010.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') has determined
that certain woven electric blankets (``woven electric blankets'') from
the People's Republic of China (``PRC'') are being, or are likely to
be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (``LTFV'') as
provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the
Act''). The final dumping margins for this investigation are listed in
the ``Final Determination Margins'' section below. The period covered
by the investigation is October 1, 2008 through March 31, 2009 (the
``POI'').
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Howard Smith or Drew Jackson, 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-
5193 and 482-4406, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Department published its preliminary determination of sales at
LTFV on February 3, 2010.\1\ Between February 1, 2010 and February 12,
2010, the Department conducted a verification of the sole respondent in
this investigation, Hung Kuo Electronics (Shenzhen) Company Limited
(``Hung Kuo'') and its U.S. affiliate, Biddeford Blankets LLC
(``Biddeford Blankets''). See the ``Verification'' section below for
additional information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Certain Woven Electric Blankets From the People's
Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 75 FR 5567
(February 3, 2010) (``Preliminary Determination'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 5, 2010, Hung Kuo submitted a written request that the
Department issue revised cash deposit instructions to U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (``CBP'') indicating that Hung Kuo Electronics
(Shenzhen) Company Limited can also be translated as Ongain Electronics
(Shenzhen) Company Limited. On March 30, 2010, the Department granted
Hung Kuo's request and subsequently issued revised cash deposit
instructions to CBP.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Memorandum to John M. Andersen, Acting Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, from
Abdelali Elouaradia, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4,
concerning ``Request to Modify Customs Instructions, dated March 30,
2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the Department's invitation to comment on the
Preliminary Determination, on April 1, 2010, Jarden Consumer Solutions
(hereinafter, ``Petitioner'') and Hung Kuo filed case briefs.
Petitioner and Hung Kuo filed rebuttal briefs on April 6, 2010. On
April 20, 2010, the Department rejected rebuttal surrogate value
information, case briefs, and rebuttal briefs filed by Hung Kuo because
they contained untimely filed new factual information, including the
2008-2009 financial statement of Bawa Woollen and Spinning Mills
Limited (``Bawa''), an Indian producer of non-electric blankets, which
Hung Kuo proposed as a surrogate value source for manufacturing
overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses, and profit.
Hung Kuo refiled versions of these submissions without the new factual
information on April 22, 2010. On May 7, 2010, Hung Kuo submitted a
written request that the Department reconsider its decision to reject
the 2008-2009 Bawa financial statement. On May 26, 2010, the Department
notified Hung Kuo that it would not accept the untimely filed 2008-2009
Bawa statement.
On June 9, 2010, the Department notified interested parties that it
would be reconsidering its valuation of the labor wage rate in this
investigation, as a result of the recent decision in Dorbest Limited et
al. v. United States, 2009-1257, -1266, issued by the United States
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (``CAFC'') on May 14, 2010. On
June 9, 2010,\3\ and June 11, 2010,\4\ the Department placed export
data, which the Department was considering in connection with the
valuation of the labor wage rate, on the record of this investigation
and invited interested parties to comment on the narrow issue of the
labor wage value in light of the CAFC's decision. On June 16, 2010,
Hung Kuo and Petitioner submitted comments on the export data. On June
21, 2010, the Department released additional information to interested
parties.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Memorandum to the File, through Howard Smith, Program
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, concerning, ``Export Data,''
dated June 9, 2010.
\4\ See Memorandum to the File, through Howard Smith, Program
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, concerning, ``Export Data,''
dated June 11, 2010.
\5\ See Memorandum to the File, through Howard Smith, Program
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, concerning, ``Wage Data,''
dated June 11, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis of Comments Received
All of the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs submitted
in this investigation are addressed in the ``Issues and Decision
Memorandum for the Final Determination'' dated June 25, 2010, which is
hereby adopted by this notice (``Issues and Decision Memorandum'').
Appendix I to this notice contains a list of the issues addressed in
the Issues and Decision Memorandum. The Issues and Decision Memorandum,
which is a public document, is on file in the Central Records Unit
(``CRU'') at the Main Commerce Building, Room 1117, and is accessible
on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic
version of the memorandum are identical in content.
Changes Since the Preliminary Determination
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made the
following changes to our preliminary determination:
1. We have based Hung Kuo's final margin on partial adverse facts
available (``AFA'').
2. Pursuant to a recent decision by the CAFC, we have calculated a
revised hourly wage rate to use in valuing Hung Kuo's reported labor
input by averaging earnings and/or wages in countries that are
economically comparable to the PRC and that are significant producers
of comparable merchandise.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. In our final margin calculation we have revised the unit of
measure conversion for certain inputs reported by Hung Kuo and limited
the deduction of ocean freight expenses to the appropriate sales.
Scope of Investigation
The scope of this investigation covers finished, semi-finished, and
unassembled woven electric blankets, including woven electric blankets
commonly referred to as throws, of all sizes and fabric types, whether
made of man-made fiber, natural fiber or a blend of both. Semi-finished
woven electric blankets and throws consist of shells of woven fabric
containing wire. Unassembled woven electric blankets and throws consist
of a shell of woven fabric and one or more of the following components
when packaged together or
[[Page 38460]]
in a kit: (1) wire; (2) controller(s). The shell of woven fabric
consists of two sheets of fabric joined together forming a ``shell.''
The shell of woven fabric is manufactured to accommodate either the
electric blanket's wiring or a subassembly containing the electric
blanket's wiring (e.g., wiring mounted on a substrate).
A shell of woven fabric that is not packaged together, or in a kit,
with either wire, controller(s), or both, is not covered by this
investigation even though the shell of woven fabric may be dedicated
solely for use as a material in the production of woven electric
blankets.
The finished, semi-finished and unassembled woven electric blankets
and throws subject to this investigation are currently classifiable
under subheading 6301.10.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (``HTSUS''). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided
for convenience and customs purposes, only the written description of
the scope is dispositive.
Scope Comments
On August 3, 2009, Perfect Fit Industries (``Perfect Fit''), a U.S.
importer of knitted electric blankets, submitted comments on the scope
of this investigation. Perfect Fit requested that the Department amend
the scope of this investigation to include the following two
statements: (1) ``knitted electric blankets in any form, whether
finished, semi-finished, or assembled, are not within the scope of this
investigation;'' and (2) electric mattress pads in any form, whether
finished, semi-finished, or assembled, are not within the scope of this
investigation.'' Perfect Fit argued that this exclusionary language was
warranted because Petitioner's counsel acknowledged that knitted
electric blankets and electric mattress pads are not within the scope
of the U.S. International Trade Commission's (``ITC'') investigation of
woven electric blankets from the PRC.\7\ No other parties commented on
this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Perfect Fit's August 3, 2010 submission (citing the
ITC's preliminary conference transcript at 16 and 111.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department finds that Perfect Fit's suggested scope amendment
is unnecessary and has made no revision to the scope of this
investigation for the final determination. We note that the scope of
this investigation explicitly covers woven electric blankets, and find
that the addition of Perfect Fit's proposed exclusionary language to be
superfluous and unwarranted.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we conducted
verifications of Hung Kuo's information.\8\ In conducting the
verifications, we used standard verification procedures, including
examination of relevant accounting and production records, as well as
original source documents provided by Hung Kuo and Biddeford Blankets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See the Department's verification reports for the Hung Kuo,
including the verification of its U.S. sales affiliate, Biddeford
Blankets, on file in the CRU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adverse Facts Available
Section 776(a) of the Act provides that subject to section 782(d)
of the Act, the Department may base its determinations on facts
otherwise available if: (1) necessary information is not available on
the record of a proceeding; or (2) an interested party (A) Withholds
information requested by the Department, (B) fails to provide such
information by the deadline, or in the form or manner requested, (C)
significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D) provides information that
cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i) of the Act. Section
782(d) of the Act allows the Department, subject to section 782(e) of
the Act, to disregard all or part of a deficient or untimely response
from a respondent.
Pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department shall not
decline to consider submitted information if all of the following
requirements are met: (1) The information is submitted by the
established deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the
information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable
basis for reaching the applicable determination; (4) the interested
party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and
(5) the information can be used by the Department without undue
difficulties.
Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to apply an
adverse inference to the facts otherwise available with respect to an
interested party if the Department finds that the party failed to
cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a
request for information.
We find that Hung Kuo: (1) withheld actual consumption quantities
for all electronic controller parts which had been requested by the
Department; and (2) reported factors of production (``FOP'') data for
all electronic controller parts, certain market economy expenses
relating to ocean freight, and certain market economy purchase quantity
data that could not be verified. Therefore, pursuant to sections
776(a)(2)(A) and (D) of the Act, we find that the use of facts
otherwise available for these items is warranted.
Furthermore, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available,
we have determined, pursuant to section 776(b)(2) of the Act, that it
is appropriate to apply an adverse inference because Hung Kuo failed to
cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a
request for information. Specifically, Hung Kuo made misstatements to
the Department regarding its methodology for reporting FOP data for
electronic controller parts and Hung Kuo failed to provide verifiable
information concerning certain ocean freight expenses, and the quantity
of heating wire and integrated circuits purchased from its market
economy suppliers. The information sought by the Department regarding
Hung Kuo's ocean freight expenses and market economy purchases was
within Hung Kuo's control and could have been reported to the
Department. Accordingly, we have determined that Hung Kuo failed to
cooperate by putting forth its maximum effort to obtain the data and,
hence, has not acted to the best of its ability to comply with a
request for information. Therefore, we have determined that it is
appropriate to use adverse inferences in selecting the facts otherwise
available on which to base Hung Kuo's dumping margin. Accordingly, we
applied adverse facts available to the aforementioned data.
Specifically, as adverse facts available we selected: (1) Electronic
controller part consumption data obtained at verification; \9\ (2) the
highest appropriate per-unit value on the record of this proceeding to
value Hung Kuo's inputs which were sourced, in part, from market
economy suppliers,\10\ and (3) record evidence of ocean-freight
expenses incurred by Hung Kuo.\11\ For further discussion concerning
the Department's analysis, see Comment 1 of the Issues and Decision
Memorandum accompanying this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The Department has used these data to adjust Hung Kuo's
reported per-unit consumption for all controller parts.
\10\ In valuing Hung Kuo's heating wire and integrated circuit
inputs, the Department has selected the highest value on the record
(i.e, an Indian surrogate value, or the reported market economy
purchase price).
\11\ The Department has adjusted Hung Kuo's ocean freight using
information contained in ocean freight invoices submitted by Hung
Kuo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surrogate Country
In the Preliminary Determination, pursuant to section 773(c) of the
Act, we selected India as the appropriate surrogate country noting that
it was on
[[Page 38461]]
the Department's list of countries that are at a level of economic
development comparable to the PRC and that India is a significant
producer of merchandise comparable to subject merchandise;
additionally, we determined that reliable Indian data for valuing FOPs
are readily available.\12\ No party has commented on our selection of
India as the appropriate surrogate country. Thus, we continue to find
India to be the appropriate surrogate country in this investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Preliminary Determination, 75 FR at 5569.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving non-market-economy (``NME'') countries,
the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies
within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should
be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the
Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to
an investigation in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter
can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be
entitled to a separate rate.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Sparklers From the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588
(May 6, 1991), as amplified by Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide From the People's
Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994); see also 19 C.F.R.
Sec. 351.107(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Preliminary Determination, we found that Hung Kuo, and
separate rate applicants, Ningbo V.K. Industry & Trading Co., Ltd., and
Ningbo Jifa Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd./Ningbo Jinchun Electric
Appliances Co., Ltd. demonstrated their eligibility for, and were hence
assigned, separate rate status. No party has commented on the
eligibility of these companies for separate rate status. Therefore, for
the final determination, we continue to find that the evidence placed
on the record of this investigation by these companies demonstrates
both a de jure and de facto absence of government control with respect
to their exports of the merchandise under investigation and that these
companies are thus eligible for separate rate status.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Preliminary Determination, 75 FR at 5569-71.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PRC-Wide Rate
In the Preliminary Determination, the Department considered certain
non-responsive PRC producers/exporters to be part of the PRC-wide
entity because they did not respond to our requests for information and
did not demonstrate that they operated free of government control over
their export activities.\15\ No additional information regarding these
entities has been placed on the record since the publication of the
Preliminary Determination. Since the PRC-wide entity did not provide
the Department with requested information, pursuant to section
776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we continue to find it appropriate to base the
PRC-wide rate on facts otherwise available. Moreover, given that the
PRC-wide entity did not respond to our request for information, we
continue to find that it failed to cooperate to the best of its ability
to comply with a request for information. Thus, pursuant to section
776(b) of the Act, and consistent with the Department's practice, we
have continued to use an adverse inference in selecting from among the
facts otherwise available.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See id., 75 FR at 5571.
\16\ See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality
Steel Products From the Russian Federation, 65 FR 5510, 5518
(February 4, 2000) (where the Department applied an adverse
inference in determining the Russia-wide rate); Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Artists Canvas from the
People's Republic of China, 71 FR 16116, 16118-19 (March 30, 2006)
(where the Department applied an adverse inference in determining
the PRC-wide rate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, the Department may select,
as AFA, information derived from: (1) The petition; (2) the final
determination from the LTFV investigation; (3) a previous
administrative review; or (4) any other information placed on the
record. To induce respondents to provide the Department with complete
and accurate information in a timely manner, the Department's practice
is to select, as AFA, the higher of: (a) the highest margin alleged in
the petition; or (b) the highest calculated rate for any respondent in
the investigation.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products
From the People's Republic of China, 65 FR 34660 (May 31, 2000), and
accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum at ``Facts Available.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since we begin with the presumption that all companies within an
NME country are subject to government control and only the exporters
listed under the ``Final Determination Margins'' section below have
overcome that presumption, consistent with the Department's practice,
we are applying a single antidumping rate (i.e., the PRC-wide rate) to
all exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC, other than the
exporters listed in the ``Final Determination Margins'' section of this
notice.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See, e.g., Synthetic Indigo From the People's Republic of
China; Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value, 65 FR 25706 (May 3, 2000) (applying the PRC-wide rate to all
exporters of subject merchandise in the PRC based on the presumption
that the export activities of the companies that failed to respond
to the Department's questionnaire were controlled by the PRC
government).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corroboration
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 as facts available, it must, to the extent
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources
reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is described in the
Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA'') as ``information derived
from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the
final determination concerning subject merchandise, or any previous
review under section 751 of the Act concerning the subject
merchandise.'' \19\ The SAA provides that to ``corroborate'' means
simply that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary
information to be used has probative value.\20\ The SAA also states
that independent sources used to corroborate may include, for example,
published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and
information obtained from interested parties during the particular
investigation.\21\ To corroborate secondary information, the Department
will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance
of the information used.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See SAA, accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act,
H.R. Doc. 103-316, Vol. 1 at 870.
\20\ See id.
\21\ See id.
\22\ See, e.g., 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As total AFA the Department preliminarily selected the rate of
174.85 percent from the Petition. In the Preliminary Determination, we
preliminarily found the rate of 174.85 percent to be the highest
Petition margin that could be corroborated within the meaning of
section 776(c) of the Act. For the final determination, we find that
the rate is within the range of the margins calculated on individual
sales by Hung Kuo, the cooperative respondent. Therefore, we continue
to find that the margin of 174.85 percent has probative value.
Accordingly, we find that the rate of 174.85 percent is corroborated
within the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act.
[[Page 38462]]
Combination Rates
In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that it would
calculate combination rates for respondents that are eligible for a
separate rate in this investigation.\23\ This practice is described in
Department Policy Bulletin 05.1, ``Separate-Rates Practice and
Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations
involving Non-Market Economy Countries,'' which states:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Certain Woven Electric Blankets From the People's
Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 74
FR 37001 (July 27, 2009) (``Initiation Notice'').
[w]hile continuing the practice of assigning separate rates only
to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now assign
in its [non-market economy] investigations will be specific to those
producers that supplied the exporter during the period of
investigation. Note, however, that one rate is calculated for the
exporter and all of the producers which supplied subject merchandise
to it during the period of investigation. This practice applies both
to mandatory respondents receiving an individually calculated
separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated firms
receiving the weighted-average of the individually calculated rates.
This practice is referred to as the application of ``combination
rates'' because such rates apply to specific combinations of
exporters and one or more producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned
to an exporter will apply only to merchandise both exported by the
firm in question and produced by a firm that supplied the exporter
during the period of investigation.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Policy Bulletin 05.1 can be found on the Import
Administration website at the following address: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Determination Margins
We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins
exist for the period October 1, 2008, through March 31, 2009:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-average
Exporter and producer margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hung Kuo Electronics (Shenzhen) Company Limited....... 77.75%
Produced by: Hung Kuo Electronics (Shenzhen)
Company Limited..................................
Ningbo V.K. Industry & Trading Co., Ltd............... 77.75%
Produced by: Ningbo V.K. Industry & Trading Co.,
Ltd..............................................
Ningbo Jifa Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd. or........ 77.75%
Ningbo Jinchun Electric Appliances Co., Ltd...........
Produced by: Ningbo Jifa Electrical Appliances
Co., Ltd. or Ningbo Jinchun Electric Appliances
Co., Ltd.........................................
PRC-Wide Rate......................................... 174.85%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosure
We will disclose to parties the calculations performed within five
days of the date of public announcement of this determination in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department
will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of
woven electric blankets from the PRC, as described in the ``Scope of
Investigation'' section, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after, February 3, 2010, the date of publication of
the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register. The Department
will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond
equal to the weighted-average dumping margin amount by which the normal
value exceeds U.S. price, as follows: (1) The rate for the exporter/
producer combinations listed in the chart above will be the rate the
Department has determined in this final determination; (2) for all PRC
exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own
rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the PRC-wide entity rate; and (3)
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/producer combination that supplied that
non-PRC exporter. These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will
remain in effect until further notice.
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the
ITC of our final determination of sales at LTFV. As our final
determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of
the Act, the ITC will determine whether the domestic industry in the
United States is materially injured, or threatened with material
injury, by reason of imports or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for
importation of the subject merchandise within 45 days of this final
determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of
material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and
all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC
determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an
antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further
instruction by the Department, antidumping duties on all imports of the
subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of
liquidation.
Notification Regarding APO
This notice also serves as a reminder to the parties subject to
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return or
destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order
is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the
terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. This determination and
notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and
777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: June 25, 2010.
Paul Piquado,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix I
Comment 1: Application of Partial Adverse Facts Available--Hung Kuo
Comment 2: Financial Statements Used to Derive Manufacturing
Overhead, Selling, General and Administrative Expenses, and Profit
Comment 3: The Classification of Certain Expenses Contained in the
Bawa Financial Statement Used to Derive Manufacturing Overhead,
Selling, General and Administrative Expenses, and Profit
Comment 4: The Treatment of Certain Movement Expenses Contained in
the Prakash Surrogate Financial Statement
Comment 5: Surrogate Value for Alphanumeric LEDs
Comment 6: International Movement Expenses
Comment 7: Calculation of Normal Value Using FOP Data That Reflect
both Semi-Finished and Finished Goods
[[Page 38463]]
Comment 8: Unit of Measure Conversion for Certain Inputs
Comment 9: Surrogate Value for Acrylic/Polyester Blend Woven Textile
Comment 10: Calculation of Indirect Selling Expenses Applied to Hung
Kuo's CEP Sales
Comment 11: Surrogate Value for Power Cords
Comment 12: Hung Kuo's Reported FOP for Woven Textile Used to
Produce King Size Electric Blankets
Comment 13: Valuation of Labor
[FR Doc. 2010-16198 Filed 7-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P