[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 6, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19034-19043]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8173]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-570-971]
Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce preliminarily determines that
countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters
of multilayered wood flooring from the People's Republic of China. For
information on the estimated subsidy rates, see the ``Suspension of
Liquidation'' section of this notice.
DATES: Effective Date: April 6, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shane Subler, Matthew Jordan, Patricia
Tran, or Joshua Morris, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20230; telephone: (202) 482-0189, (202) 482-1540, (202) 482-1503, and
(202) 482-1779, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Case History
The following events have occurred since the publication of the
Department of Commerce's (``Department'') notice of initiation in the
Federal Register. See Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's
Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation, 75
FR 70719 (November 18, 2010) (``Initiation Notice''), and the
accompanying Initiation Checklist.
On November 18, 2010, the Department released the U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (``CBP'') data for the instant investigation under
administrative protective order (``APO'') to all parties with APO
access. See Memorandum to File from Matthew Jordan, International Trade
Compliance Analyst, ``Release of Customs and Border Protection Entry
Data to Interested Parties for Comment'' (November 18, 2010) at
Attachment 1. This memorandum is on file in the Department's Central
Records Unit (``CRU'') in Room 7046 of the main Department building. We
received comments on this CBP data from Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Ltd.
(``Fine Furniture'') on November 19, 2010, and Dun Hua City Jisen Wood
Industry Co., Ltd. and Chinafloors Timber (China) Co., Ltd. on November
24, 2010. We received comments from Shanghai Lizhong Wood Product Co.,
Ltd. and the Coalition for American Hardwood Parity (Anderson Hardwood
Floors, LLC; Award Hardwood Floors; Baker's Creek Wood Floors, Inc.;
From the Forest; Howell Hardwood Flooring; Mannington Mills, Inc.;
Nydree Flooring; Shaw Industries Group, Inc.) (collectively,
``Petitioner'') on November 26, 2010.
In their comments, the interested parties unanimously requested
that the Department forgo using CBP data for its selection of mandatory
respondents. Instead, the parties stated, the Department should issue
quantity and value (``Q&V'') questionnaires to the companies identified
by Petitioner as potential producers/exporters of the subject
merchandise. After examining the CBP data, the Department agreed that
the data did not provide a basis for selecting respondents and
determined it was necessary to issue Q&Vs.
On December 2, 2010, and December 3, 2010, the Department issued
Q&Vs to the 174 companies listed in the Petition, plus two additional
companies that identified themselves via requests for
[[Page 19035]]
voluntary treatment as producers and/or exporters of subject
merchandise before the Q&Vs were issued, for a total of 176
questionnaires issued. In total, the Department received 70 responses.
On December 30, 2010, the Department selected three Chinese
producers/exporters of multilayered wood flooring (``wood flooring'')
as mandatory respondents: (1) Fine Furniture; (2) Zhejiang Layo Wood
Industry Co., Ltd. (``Layo''); and (3) Zhejiang Yuhua Timber Co., Ltd.
(``Yuhua''). See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations,
``Selection of Respondents for the Countervailing Duty Investigation of
Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China''
(December 30, 2010) (``Respondent Selection Memo'') at 4.
On January 3, 2011, we issued questionnaires to the Government of
the People's Republic of China (``GOC''), Fine Furniture, Layo, and
Yuhua. Also on January 3, 2011, the Department published a postponement
of the deadline for the preliminary determination in this
countervailing duty (``CVD'') investigation until March 21, 2011. See
Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China:
Postponement of Preliminary Determination in the Countervailing Duty
Investigation, 76 FR 92 (January 3, 2011).
On February 7, 2011, Petitioner requested an extension of time to
submit new subsidy allegations to the Department. On February 7, 2011,
we partially extended the deadline; however, no new subsidy allegations
were submitted.
On February 14, 2011, we received responses to our questionnaires
from the GOC, Fine Furniture, Layo, and Yuhua. See the GOC's Initial
CVD Questionnaire Response (``GQR''), the Countervailing Duty
Questionnaire Response of Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited (``FFQR''),
Layo's Questionnaire Response (``LQR'') (as well as affiliated trading
company Jiaxing Brilliant Import & Export Co., Ltd.'s Questionnaire
Response ``LQR (Brilliant)''), and Yuhua's CVD Questionnaire Response
(``YQR''). We sent supplemental questionnaires to the GOC, Fine
Furniture, Layo, and Yuhua on February 18, 2011. We received responses
to these supplemental questionnaires from the GOC, Layo, and Yuhua on
February 25, 2011, and Fine Furniture on March 2, 2011. See the GOC's
First Supplemental CVD Questionnaire Response (``G1SR''), the First
Supplemental Countervailing Duty Questionnaire Response of Fine
Furniture (Shanghai) Limited (``FF1SR''), Layo's Supplemental
Questionnaire Response (``L1SR''), and Yuhua's Supplemental CVD
Response (``Y1SR''). We sent a second supplemental questionnaire to
Fine Furniture on March 8, 2011. We received a response to the second
supplemental questionnaire on March 11, 2011. See Fine Furniture's
Second Supplemental Questionnaire Response (``FF2SR'').
Scope Comments
In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations, we
set aside a period of time in our Initiation Notice for parties to
raise issues regarding product coverage, and encouraged all parties to
submit comments within 20 calendar days of publication of that notice.
See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May
19, 1997), and Initiation Notice, 75 FR at 70719. We received numerous
comments concerning the scope of the antidumping duty (``AD'') and CVD
investigations of wood flooring from the People's Republic of China
(``PRC''), including requests to exclude certain products from the
scope of the investigations.
On March 14, 2011, Petitioner submitted a response to the
individual scope comments and exclusion requests. See letter from
Petitioner to the Department, ``Multilayered Wood Flooring from the
People's Republic of China'' (March 14, 2011).
Because of the timing of the scope comments and Petitioner's
response to the comments, we did not have time to analyze the issues
raised by parties prior to this preliminary determination. Therefore,
after this preliminary determination, we intend to issue a preliminary
analysis with respect to the scope issues raised by interested parties.
Scope of the Investigation
Multilayered wood flooring is composed of an assembly of two or
more layers or plies of wood veneer(s) \1\ in combination with a core.
The several layers, along with the core, are glued or otherwise bonded
together to form a final assembled product. Multilayered wood flooring
is often referred to by other terms, e.g., ``engineered wood flooring''
or ``plywood flooring.'' Regardless of the particular terminology, all
products that meet the description set forth herein are intended for
inclusion within the definition of subject merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A ``veneer'' is a thin slice of wood, rotary cut, sliced or
sawed from a log, bolt, or flitch. Veneer is referred to as a ply
when assembled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All multilayered wood flooring is included within the definition of
subject merchandise, without regard to: Dimension (overall thickness,
thickness of face ply, thickness of back ply, thickness of core, and
thickness of inner plies; width; and length); wood species used for the
face, back and inner veneers; core composition; and face grade.
Multilayered wood flooring included within the definition of subject
merchandise may be unfinished (i.e., without a finally finished surface
to protect the face veneer from wear and tear) or ``prefinished''
(i.e., a coating applied to the face veneer, including, but not
exclusively, oil or oil-modified or water-based polyurethanes, ultra-
violet light cured polyurethanes, wax, epoxy-ester finishes, moisture-
cured urethanes and acid-curing formaldehyde finishes.) The veneers may
be also soaked in an acrylic-impregnated finish. All multilayered wood
flooring is included within the definition of subject merchandise
regardless of whether the face (or back) of the product is smooth, wire
brushed, distressed by any method or multiple methods, or hand-scraped.
In addition, all multilayered wood flooring is included within the
definition of subject merchandise regardless of whether or not it is
manufactured with any interlocking or connecting mechanism (for
example, tongue-and-groove construction or locking joints). All
multilayered wood flooring is included within the definition of the
subject merchandise regardless of whether the product meets a
particular industry or similar standard.
The core of multilayered wood flooring may be composed of a range
of materials, including but not limited to hardwood or softwood veneer,
particleboard, medium-density fiberboard (``MDF''), high-density
fiberboard (``HDF''), stone and/or plastic composite, or strips of
lumber placed edge-to-edge.
Multilayered wood flooring products generally, but not exclusively,
may be in the form of a strip, plank, or other geometrical patterns
(e.g., circular, hexagonal). All multilayered wood flooring products
are included within this definition regardless of the actual or nominal
dimensions or form of the product.
Specifically excluded from the scope are cork flooring and bamboo
flooring, regardless of whether any of the sub-surface layers of either
flooring are made from wood. Also excluded is laminate flooring.
Laminate flooring consists of a top wear layer sheet not
[[Page 19036]]
made of wood, a decorative paper layer, a core-layer of high-density
fiberboard, and a stabilizing bottom layer.
Imports of the subject merchandise are provided for under the
following subheadings of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (``HTSUS''): 4412.31.0520; 4412.31.0540; 4412.31.0560;
4412.31.2510; 4412.31.2520; 4412.31.4040; 4412.31.4050; 4412.31.4060;
4412.31.4070; 4412.31.5125; 4412.31.5135; 4412.31.5155; 4412.31.5165;
4412.31.3175; 4412.31.6000; 4412.31.9100; 4412.32.0520; 4412.32.0540;
4412.32.0560; 4412.32.2510; 4412.32.2520; 4412.32.3125; 4412.32.3135;
4412.32.3155; 4412.32.3165; 4412.32.3175; 4412.32.3185; 4412.32.5600;
4412.39.1000; 4412.39.3000; 4412.39.4011; 4412.39.4012; 4412.39.4019;
4412.39.4031; 4412.39.4032; 4412.39.4039; 4412.39.4051; 4412.39.4052;
4412.39.4059; 4412.39.4061; 4412.39.4062; 4412.39.4069; 4412.39.5010;
4412.39.5030; 4412.39.5050; 4412.94.1030; 4412.94.1050; 4412.94.3105;
4412.94.3111; 4412.94.3121; 4412.94.3131; 4412.94.3141; 4412.94.3160;
4412.94.3171; 4412.94.4100; 4412.94.5100; 4412.94.6000; 4412.94.7000;
4412.94.8000; 4412.94.9000; 4412.94.9500; 4412.99.0600; 4412.99.1020;
4412.99.1030; 4412.99.1040; 4412.99.3110; 4412.99.3120; 4412.99.3130;
4412.99.3140; 4412.99.3150; 4412.99.3160; 4412.99.3170; 4412.99.4100;
4412.99.5100; 4412.99.5710; 4412.99.6000; 4412.99.7000; 4412.99.8000;
4412.99.9000; 4412.99.9500; 4418.71.2000; 4418.71.9000; 4418.72.2000;
and 4418.72.9500.
In addition, imports of subject merchandise may enter the U.S.
under the following HTSUS subheadings: 4409.10.0500; 4409.10.2000;
4409.29.0515; 4409.29.0525; 4409.29.0535; 4409.29.0545; 4409.29.0555;
4409.29.0565; 4409.29.2530; 4409.29.2550; 4409.29.2560; 4418.71.1000;
4418.79.0000; and 4418.90.4605.
While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the subject merchandise is
dispositive.
Injury Test
On December 17, 2010, the U.S. International Trade Commission
(``ITC'') published its affirmative preliminary determination that
there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States
is materially injured by reason of allegedly subsidized imports of wood
flooring from the PRC. See Multilayered Wood Flooring From China, 75 FR
79019 (December 17, 2010).
Period of Investigation
The period for which we are measuring subsidies, i.e., the period
of investigation (``POI''), is January 1, 2009, through December 31,
2009.
Application of the Countervailing Duty Law to Imports From the PRC
On October 25, 2007, the Department published Coated Free Sheet
Paper from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determination, 72 FR 60645 (October 25, 2007)
(``CFS from the PRC ''), and the accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum (``CFS Decision Memorandum''). In CFS from the PRC, the
Department found that
given the substantial difference between the Soviet-style economies
and China's economy in recent years, the Department's previous
decision not to apply the CVD law to these Soviet-style economies
does not act as {a{time} bar to proceeding with a CVD investigation
involving products from China.
See CFS Decision Memorandum, at Comment 6. The Department has
affirmed its decision to apply the CVD law to the PRC in subsequent
final determinations. See, e.g., Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel
Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determination and Final Affirmative Determination
of Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 31966 (June 5, 2008), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum (``CWP Decision Memorandum'') at Comment
1.
Additionally, for the reasons stated in the CWP Decision
Memorandum, we are using the date of December 11, 2001, the date on
which the PRC became a member of the WTO, as the date from which the
Department will identify and measure subsidies in the PRC. See CWP
Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences
Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(``the Act''), provide that the Department shall apply ``facts
otherwise available'' if necessary information is not on the record or
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.
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.
GOC--Electricity
The GOC did not provide a complete response to the Department's
January 3, 2011, questionnaire regarding the alleged provision of
electricity for less than adequate remuneration (``LTAR'').
Specifically, the Department requested that the GOC provide the
original Provincial Price Proposals for 2006 and 2008 for each province
in which a mandatory respondent or any reported ``cross-owned'' company
is located. Because the requested price proposals are core documents
for the GOC's electricity price adjustment process, the documents are
necessary for the Department's analysis of the program.
At page 48 of the GQR, the GOC responded that the proposals are
drafted by the provincial governments and submitted to the National
Development and Reform Commission (``NDRC''). The GOC stated it is
unable to provide the internal working documents from the NDRC with its
response. On February 18, 2011, the Department issued a supplemental
questionnaire and reiterated its request for this information. In
response, the GOC stated, the ``GOC maintains its position that the
requested original provincial proposals are internal working documents
for NDRC's review and cannot be provided.'' See G1SR at 4.
Consequently, we preliminarily determine that the GOC has withheld
necessary information that was requested of it and, thus, that the
Department must rely on ``facts available'' in making our preliminary
determination. See section 776(a)(1), section 776(a)(2)(A), and section
776(a)(2)(B) of the Act. Moreover, we preliminarily determine that the
GOC has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to
comply with our request for information as it did not respond by the
deadline dates, nor did it explain why it was unable to provide the
requested information. Consequently, an adverse inference is warranted
in the application of facts available. See section 776(b) of the Act.
In drawing an adverse inference, we find that the GOC's provision of
electricity constitutes a financial
[[Page 19037]]
contribution within the meaning of section 771(5)(D) of the Act and is
specific within the meaning of section 771(5A) of the Act. We have also
relied on an adverse inference in selecting the benchmark for
determining the existence and amount of the benefit. See sections
776(b)(2) and 776(b)(4) of the Act. The benchmark rates we have
selected are derived from information from the record of the instant
investigation and are the highest electricity rates on this record for
the applicable rate and user categories. See GQR at Exhibit E-4 and E-
5.
For details on the calculation of the subsidy rate for the
respondents, see below at section I.4., ``Provision of Electricity for
LTAR.''
Non-Cooperative Companies
In this investigation, 127 companies did not provide a response to
the Department's Q&V questionnaire issued during the respondent
selection process. These companies are listed below in the ``Suspension
of Liquidation'' section. We confirmed that each of these companies
either received the Q&V questionnaire sent via United Parcel Service
and did not respond, or refused delivery of the Q&V questionnaire. See
Memorandum to the File from Matthew Jordan, International Trade
Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, dated March 21, 2011,
re: Adverse Facts Available Rate for Non-Cooperating Companies (``AFA
Memo'').
These non-cooperating companies withheld requested information and
significantly impeded this proceeding. Specifically, by not responding
to requests for information concerning the quantity and value of their
sales, the companies impeded the Department's ability to select the
most appropriate respondents in this investigation. Thus, in reaching
our preliminary determination, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and
(C) of the Act, we are basing the CVD rate for these non-cooperating
companies on facts otherwise available.
We further preliminarily determine that an adverse inference is
warranted, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. By failing to submit
responses to the Department's Q&V questionnaires, these companies did
not cooperate to the best of their ability in this investigation.
Accordingly, we preliminarily find that an adverse inference is
warranted to ensure that the non-cooperating companies will not obtain
a more favorable result than had they fully complied with our request
for information.
In deciding which facts to use as adverse facts available
(``AFA''), section 776(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) and (2)
authorize the Department to rely on information derived from: (1) The
petition; (2) a final determination in the investigation; (3) any
previous review or determination; or (4) any other information placed
on the record. The Department's practice when selecting an adverse rate
from among the possible sources of information is to ensure that the
rate is sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the statutory purposes
of the adverse facts available rule to induce respondents to provide
the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely
manner.'' See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From
Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). The Department's practice
also ensures ``that the party does not obtain a more favorable result
by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.'' See
Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA'') accompanying the Uruguay
Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, Vol. I, at 870 (1994),
reprinted at 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4199.
For this preliminary determination, consistent with the
Department's recent practice, we are computing a total AFA rate for the
non-cooperating companies using program-specific rates calculated for
the cooperating respondents in the instant investigation. See, e.g.,
Certain Kitchen Shelving and Racks from the People's Republic of China:
Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 74 FR 37012 (July
27, 2009) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (``Shelving
Decision Memorandum'') at 4-5. Specifically, for programs other than
those involving income tax exemptions and reductions, we are applying
the highest calculated rate for the identical program in this
investigation.
As explained in Certain Tow-Behind Lawn Groomers and Certain Parts
Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of
Countervailing Duty Investigation, 73 FR 42324 (July 21, 2008) and
accompanying Initiation Checklist, where the GOC can demonstrate
through complete, verifiable, positive evidence that non-cooperating
companies (including all their facilities and cross-owned affiliates)
are not located in particular provinces whose subsidies are being
investigated, the Department will not include those provincial programs
in determining the countervailable subsidy rate for the non-cooperating
companies. See, e.g., Shelving Decision Memorandum at ``Use of Facts
Otherwise Available and Adverse Facts Available.'' In this
investigation, the GOC has not provided any such information.
Therefore, we are making the adverse inference that the non-cooperating
companies had facilities and/or cross-owned affiliates that received
subsidies under all of the sub-national programs on which the
Department initiated.
Consistent with this, we have calculated the non-cooperating
companies'' countervailable subsidies as follows:
Income Tax Reduction and Exemption Programs
For the income tax rate reduction or exemption programs, we are
applying an adverse inference that the non-cooperating companies paid
no income taxes during the POI. The three programs are: (1) Two Free,
Three Half Tax Exemptions for Foreign-Invested Enterprises (``FIEs'');
(2) Local Income Tax Exemption and Reduction Program for Productive
FIEs; and (3) Income Tax Benefits for FIEs Based on Geographical
Location.
The standard income tax rate for corporations in the PRC is 25
percent. See GQR at 12. The highest possible benefit for all income tax
reduction or exemption programs combined is 25 percent. Therefore, we
are applying a CVD rate of 25 percent on an overall basis for these
three income tax programs (i.e., these three income tax programs
combined provide a countervailable benefit of 25 percent). This
approach is consistent with the Department's past practice. See, e.g.,
Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 75 FR 54302, 54306
(September 7, 2010), Lightweight Thermal Paper From the People's
Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination,
73 FR 57323 (October 2, 2008) (``LWTP from the PRC''), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum (``LWTP Decision Memorandum'') at
``Selection of the Adverse Facts Available Rate,'' and CWP Decision
Memorandum at 2.
Value-Added Tax (``VAT'') and Tariff Reduction Programs
Among the responding companies in this investigation, Fine
Furniture had the highest calculated rate for the VAT and Tariff
Exemptions on Imported Equipment program. Therefore, we are using, as
AFA, Fine Furniture's rate of 0.56 percent.
[[Page 19038]]
Provision of Goods and Services for LTAR
Among the responding companies in this investigation, Fine
Furniture had the highest calculated rate for the Provision of
Electricity for LTAR program. Therefore, we are using, as AFA, Fine
Furniture's rate of 1.45 percent.
For further explanation of the derivation of the AFA rates, see the
AFA Memo.
On this basis, we preliminarily determine the AFA countervailable
subsidy rate for the non-cooperating companies to be 27.01 percent ad
valorem. See AFA Memo.
Application of All-Others Rate to Companies Not Selected as Mandatory
Respondents
In addition to Fine Furniture, Layo, and Yuhua, we received
responses to the Q&V questionnaire from 67 other companies. See
Respondent Selection Memo at 4. Though these 67 companies were not
chosen as mandatory respondents, they did cooperate fully with the
Department's request for quantity and value information. We, therefore,
are applying the all-others rate to them.
Subsidies Valuation Information
Allocation Period
The average useful life (``AUL'') period in this proceeding, as
described in 19 CFR 351.524(d)(2), is 10 years according to the U.S.
Internal Revenue Service's 1977 Class Life Asset Depreciation Range
System, as revised. See U.S. Internal Revenue Service Publication 946
(2008), How to Depreciate Property, at Table B-2: Table of Class Lives
and Recovery Periods. No party in this proceeding has disputed this
allocation period.
Attribution of Subsidies
The Department's regulations at 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(i) state that
the Department will normally attribute a subsidy to the products
produced by the corporation that received the subsidy. However, 19 CFR
351.525(b)(6)(ii)-(v) directs that the Department will attribute
subsidies received by certain other companies to the combined sales of
the recipient and other companies if: (1) Cross-ownership exists
between the companies; and (2) the cross-owned companies produce the
subject merchandise, are a holding or parent company of the subject
company, produce an input that is primarily dedicated to the production
of the downstream product, or transfer a subsidy to a cross-owned
company.
According to 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(vi), cross-ownership exists
between two or more corporations where one corporation can use or
direct the individual assets of the other corporation(s) in essentially
the same ways it can use its own assets. This section of the
Department's regulations states that this standard will normally be met
where there is a majority voting ownership interest between two
corporations or through common ownership of two (or more) corporations.
The preamble to the Department's regulations further clarifies the
Department's cross-ownership standard. According to the preamble,
relationships captured by the cross-ownership definition include those
where
the interests of two corporations have merged to such a degree
that one corporation can use or direct the individual assets (or
subsidy benefits) of the other corporation in essentially the same
way it can use its own assets (or subsidy benefits) * * * Cross-
ownership does not require one corporation to own 100 percent of the
other corporation. Normally, cross-ownership will exist where there
is a majority voting ownership interest between two corporations or
through common ownership of two (or more) corporations. In certain
circumstances, a large minority voting interest (for example, 40
percent) or a ``golden share'' may also result in cross-ownership.
See Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 63 FR 65348 (November 25,
1998), at 65401.
Thus, the Department's regulations make clear that the agency must
look at the facts presented in each case in determining whether cross-
ownership exists.
The CIT has upheld the Department's authority to attribute
subsidies based on whether a company could use or direct the subsidy
benefits of another company in essentially the same way it could use
its own subsidy benefits. See Fabrique de Fer de Charleroi, SA v.
United States, 166 F. Supp. 2d 593, 600-604 (CIT 2001).
Fine Furniture
Fine Furniture responded to the Department's original and
supplemental questionnaires on behalf of itself and its affiliated
parties Great Wood (Tonghua) Ltd. (``Great Wood'') and Fine Furniture
Plantation (Shishou) Ltd. (``FF Plantation''). These companies are
cross-owned within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(vi) by virtue of
common ownership. See FFQR at 4 and 6.
Because Fine Furniture is a producer of subject merchandise, we are
preliminarily attributing subsidies received by Fine Furniture to its
sales, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6).
Fine Furniture identified Great Wood as a supplier of kiln dried
lumber, cut-to-size lumber, and face veneer for furniture and flooring.
See FFQR at 4. Because these products are primarily dedicated to the
production of the downstream product, we are preliminarily attributing
subsidies received by Great Wood to the combined sales of Great Wood
and Fine Furniture (excluding intercompany sales), in accordance with
19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(iv).
Fine Furniture identified FF Plantation as a supplier of plywood
cores to Fine Furniture for the production of wood flooring. See FFQR
at 6. Because these products are primarily dedicated to the production
of the downstream product, we are preliminarily attributing subsidies
received by FF Plantation to the combined sales of FF Plantation and
Fine Furniture (excluding intercompany sales), in accordance with 19
CFR 351.525(b)(6)(iv).
Entered Value (``EV'') Adjustment
Fine Furniture has reported that its affiliate, Double F Ltd.
(``Double F''), issued invoices for Fine Furniture's sales of subject
merchandise to the United States. Thus, Fine Furniture has requested
the Department make an adjustment to the calculated subsidy rate to
account for the mark-up between the export value from the PRC and the
entered value of subject merchandise into the United States.
Citing the Coated Paper Decision Memorandum, Fine Furniture states
that the adjustment is appropriate for six reasons. See Certain Coated
Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses
from Indonesia: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 75
FR 59209 (September 27, 2010) and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum (``Coated Paper Decision Memorandum'') at Comment 32. The
six reasons are: (1) The U.S. invoice is issued through Fine
Furniture's affiliate, Double F, and includes a mark-up from the
invoice issued from Fine Furniture to Double F; (2) the exporter, Fine
Furniture, and the party that invoices the customer, Double F, are
affiliated; (3) the U.S. invoice establishes the customs value to which
CVDs are applied; (4) there is a one-to-one correlation between the
Double F invoice and the Fine Furniture invoice; (5) the merchandise is
shipped directly to the United States; and (6) the invoices can be
tracked as back-to-back invoices that are identical except for price.
See FFQR at 26.
[[Page 19039]]
As indicated by the determination cited by Fine Furniture, the
Department has a practice of making an adjustment to the calculated
subsidy rate when the sales value used to calculate that subsidy rate
does not match the entered value of the merchandise, i.e., where
subject merchandise exported to the United States is exported with a
mark-up from an affiliated company, and where the respondent can
provide data to demonstrate that the six criteria above are met. In the
instant case, the information submitted by Fine Furniture supports its
claim and the information also permits an accurate calculation of the
adjustment. Therefore, we have made the adjustment for this preliminary
determination.
The information submitted by Fine Furniture in support of its claim
and the amounts used to calculate the adjustment are business
proprietary. See Memorandum from Matthew Jordan, International Trade
Compliance Analyst, ``Preliminary Results Calculations for Fine
Furniture,'' (March 21, 2011).
Layo
Layo responded on behalf of itself, a producer of subject
merchandise, as well as on behalf of Jiaxing Brilliant Import & Export
Co., Ltd. (``Brilliant''), an affiliated trading company. See LQR at 3.
Because Layo is a producer of subject merchandise, we are
preliminarily attributing subsidies received by Layo to its sales, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6).
Layo reported that it made export sales of subject merchandise to
the United States during the POI through Brilliant. See LQR (Brilliant)
at 2. Thus, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.525(c), we are preliminarily
cumulating the benefit from subsidies provided to Brilliant with the
benefit from subsidies provided to Layo.
Yuhua
Yuhua responded on behalf of itself, a producer of subject
merchandise. Yuhua identified affiliated companies but reported that
these affiliates do not produce the subject merchandise or provide
inputs primarily dedicated to the production of the downstream
products. See YQR at Exhibit 1. Because these companies do not fall
within the situations described in 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(iii)-(v), we do
not reach the issue of whether these companies and Yuhua are cross-
owned within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(vi), and we are not
including these companies in our subsidy calculations.
Discount Rates for Allocating Non-Recurring Subsidies
Consistent with 19 CFR 351.524(d)(3)(i)(C), we have used, as our
discount rate, the long-term interest rate calculated according to the
methodology described below for the year in which the government agreed
to provide the subsidy.
Short-Term RMB Interest Rate Benchmark
The Department's regulations at 19 CFR 351.524(d)(3) state that
Department will use as a discount rate the following, in order of
preference: (A) The cost of long-term, fixed-rate loans of the firm in
question, excluding any loans that the Department has determined to be
countervailable subsidies; (B) the average cost of long-term, fixed-
rate loans in the country in question; or (C) a rate that the
Department considers to be most appropriate. For the reasons explained
in CFS from the PRC, loans provided by Chinese banks reflect
significant government intervention in the banking sector and do not
reflect rates that would be found in a functioning market. See CFS
Decision Memorandum at Comment 10. Because of this, any loans received
by respondents from private Chinese or foreign-owned banks would be
unsuitable for use as a discount rate under 19 CFR 351.524(d)(3)(i)(A).
Similarly, we cannot use a national interest rate for commercial loans
as envisaged by 19 CFR 351.524(d)(3)(i)(A).
Therefore, because of the special difficulties inherent in using a
Chinese benchmark for loans, the Department is selecting an external
market-based benchmark interest rate. The use of an external benchmark
is consistent with the Department's practice. For example, in lumber
from Canada, the Department used U.S. timber prices to measure the
benefit for government-provided timber in Canada. See Notice of Final
Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Final Negative
Critical Circumstances Determination: Certain Softwood Lumber Products
From Canada, 67 FR 15545 (April 2, 2002) and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at ``Analysis of Programs, Provincial Stumpage
Programs Determined to Confer Subsidies, Benefit.''
We are calculating the external benchmark using the regression-
based methodology first developed in CFS from the PRC and updated in
LWTP from the PRC. See CFS Decision Memorandum at Comment 10 and LWTP
Decision Memorandum at 8-10. This benchmark interest rate is based on
the inflation-adjusted interest rates of countries with per capita
gross national incomes (``GNIs'') similar to the PRC, and takes into
account a key factor involved in interest rate formation, that of the
quality of a country's institutions, that is not directly tied to the
state-imposed distortions in the banking sector discussed above.
Following the methodology developed in CFS from the PRC, we first
determined which countries are similar to the PRC in terms of GNI,
based on the World Bank's classification of countries as low income,
lower-middle income, upper-middle income, and high income. The PRC
falls in the lower-middle income category, a group that includes 55
countries. See The World Bank Country Classification, http://econ.worldbank.org/. As explained in CFS from the PRC, this pool of
countries captures the broad inverse relationship between income and
interest rates.
Many of these countries reported lending and inflation rates to the
International Monetary Fund, and they are included in that agency's
international financial statistics (``IFS''). With the exceptions noted
below, we have used the interest and inflation rates reported in the
IFS for the countries identified as ``low middle income'' by the World
Bank. First, we did not include those economies that the Department
considered to be non-market economies for AD purposes for any part of
the years in question, for example: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus,
Georgia, Moldova, Turkmenistan. Second, the pool necessarily excludes
any country that did not report both lending and inflation rates to IFS
for those years. Third, we removed any country that reported a rate
that was not a lending rate or that based its lending rate on foreign-
currency denominated instruments. For example, Jordan reported a
deposit rate, not a lending rate, and the rates reported by Ecuador and
Timor L'Este are dollar-denominated rates; therefore, the rates for
these three countries have been excluded. Finally, for each year the
Department calculated an inflation-adjusted short-term benchmark rate,
we have also excluded any countries with aberrational or negative real
interest rates for the year in question.
The resulting inflation-adjusted benchmark lending rates are
provided in the Memorandum from Shane Subler to the File, ``Discount
Rates for Allocating Non-recurring Subsidies'' (March 10, 2011).
Benchmarks for Long-Term Loans
The lending rates reported in the IFS represent short- and medium-
term
[[Page 19040]]
lending, and there are not sufficient publicly available long-term
interest rate data upon which to base a robust benchmark for long-term
loans. To address this problem, the Department has developed an
adjustment to the short- and medium-term rates to convert them to long-
term rates using Bloomberg U.S. corporate BB-rated bond rates. See,
e.g., Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From People's Republic of
China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Investigation
Determination, 73 FR 35642 (June 24, 2008) and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at 8. In Citric Acid from the PRC, this methodology
was revised by switching from a long-term mark-up based on the ratio of
the rates of BB-rated bonds to applying a spread which is calculated as
the difference between the two-year BB bond rate and the n-year BB bond
rate, where n equals or approximates the number of years of the term of
the loan in question. See Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts From
the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination, 74 FR 16836 (April 13, 2009) (``Citric Acid from the PRC
'') and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (``Citric Acid
Decision Memorandum'') at Comment 14.
Analysis of Programs
Based upon our analysis of the petition and the responses to our
questionnaires, we preliminarily determine the following:
I. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Be Countervailable
Income Tax Subsidies for FIEs Based on Geographic Location
To promote economic development and attract foreign investment,
``productive'' FIEs located in coastal economic zones, special economic
zones or economic and technical development zones in the PRC were
subject to preferential tax rates of 15 percent or 24 percent,
depending on the zone. See GQR at Exhibit A-1. These preferential rates
were established on June 15, 1988, pursuant to the Provisional Rules on
Exemption and Reduction of Corporate Income Tax and Business Tax of
FIEs in Coastal Economic Development Zone issued by the Ministry of
Finance, and continued under Article 7 of the FIE Tax Law on July 1,
1991. The Department has previously found the preferential tax rates
for FIEs based on geographic location to be countervailable. See Citric
Acid Decision Memorandum at 14-15 and CFS Decision Memorandum at 12.
As a result of the transition provisions of the new Enterprise
Income Tax Law, which came into force on January 1, 2008, enterprises
that were eligible for the reduced rates of 15 percent or 24 percent
are to be gradually transitioned to the uniform rate of 25 percent over
a five-year period. See G1SR at SGQ1-2.
Fine Furniture reported using this program during the POI. See FFQR
at 18. In particular, because of its location Fine Furniture was
entitled to a 15 percent rate until December 31, 2007. See FFQR at 18.
Under the transition rules, the State Council Notice on Implementation
of Transnational Preferential Policies, Fine Furniture's maximum tax
rate increased to 18 percent in 2008. See G1SR at SGQ1-2.
We preliminarily determine that the reduced income tax rate paid by
productive FIEs under this program confers a countervailable subsidy.
The reduced rate is a financial contribution in the form of revenue
forgone by the GOC and it provides a benefit to the recipient in the
amount of the tax savings. See section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.509(a)(1). We further determine preliminarily that the
reduction afforded by this program is limited to enterprises located in
designated geographic regions and, hence, is specific under section
771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act.
To calculate the benefit, we treated the income tax savings enjoyed
by Fine Furniture as a recurring benefit, consistent with 19 CFR
351.524(c)(1). To compute the amount of the tax savings, we compared
the income tax Fine Furniture would have paid in the absence of the
program (i.e., 25 percent) with the maximum tax rate applicable to the
company for the tax return filed during the POI (i.e., 18 percent).
We divided the benefits received by Fine Furniture in the POI by
its sales during the POI, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(i).
On this basis, we preliminarily determine that Fine Furniture received
a countervailable subsidy of 0.09 percent ad valorem under this
program.
2. Income Tax Exemption/Reduction Under the Two Free/Three Half Program
Under Article 8 of the FIE Tax Law, an FIE that is ``productive''
and is scheduled to operate for more than ten years may be exempted
from income tax in the first two years of profitability and pay income
taxes at half the standard rate for the subsequent three years. See GQR
at Exhibit A-1. The Department has previously found this program
countervailable. See, e.g., CFS Decision Memorandum at 10-11.
Fine Furniture reported that it and Great Wood used this program
during the POI. See FFQR at 14. Specifically, in 2008, Fine Furniture
was in the second year of paying taxes at half its normal tax rate. See
FFQR at 16. Great Wood was in its first of two tax-free years. See FFQR
at 16.
We preliminarily determine that the exemption or reduction of the
income tax paid by productive FIEs under this program confers a
countervailable subsidy. The exemption/reduction is a financial
contribution in the form of revenue forgone by the GOC, and it provides
a benefit to the recipient in the amount of the tax savings. See
section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.509(a)(1). We also
preliminarily determine that the exemption/reduction afforded by this
program is limited as a matter of law to certain enterprises, i.e.,
``productive'' FIEs and, hence, is specific under section 771(5A)(D)(i)
of the Act. See CFS Decision Memorandum at Comment 14.
To calculate the benefit, we treated the income tax savings enjoyed
by Fine Furniture and Great Wood as a recurring benefit, consistent
with 19 CFR 351.524(c)(1). To compute the amount of the tax savings, we
compared the income tax the above companies would have paid in the
absence of the program (i.e., at the rates of 18 percent for Fine
Furniture and 25 percent for Great Wood) with the income tax the
companies actually paid during the POI (i.e., at the rates of nine
percent for Fine Furniture and zero percent for Great Wood).
For Fine Furniture, we divided the benefits received in the POI by
its sales during the POI, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(i).
For Great Wood, we divided the benefits received in the POI by the
combined sales of Fine Furniture and Great Wood, less intercompany
sales, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.525(b)(6)(iv). On this basis, we
preliminarily determine that Fine Furniture received a countervailable
subsidy of 0.15 percent ad valorem under this program.
3. VAT and Tariff Exemptions on Imported Equipment
Enacted in 1997, the Circular of the State Council on Adjusting Tax
Policies on Imported Equipment (GUOFA No. 37) exempts both FIEs and
certain domestic enterprises from the value added tax (``VAT'') and
tariffs on imported equipment used in their production so long as the
equipment does not fall into prescribed lists of non-eligible items.
Qualified enterprises receive a certificate of entitlement either from
the NDRC or its provincial branch.
[[Page 19041]]
The Department has previously found this program to be
countervailable. See Citric Acid Decision Memorandum at 19-20, CFS
Decision Memorandum at 14, and Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel
Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from the People's Republic of China:
Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, Final Affirmative
Critical Circumstances Determination, 75 FR 57444 (September 21, 2010)
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 23-25.
Fine Furniture and Great Wood reported using this program and
provided a list of VAT and tariff exemptions that they received for
imported capital equipment since December 11, 2001. See FFQR at 21 and
Exhibit 14.
We preliminarily determine that VAT and tariff exemptions on
imported equipment confer a countervailable subsidy. The exemptions are
a financial contribution in the form of revenue forgone by the GOC and
they provide a benefit to the recipients in the amount of the VAT and
tariff savings. See section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.510(a)(1). We further determine the VAT and tariff exemptions under
this program are specific under section 771(5A)(D)(i) because the
program is limited to certain enterprises, i.e., FIEs and domestic
enterprises with government-approved projects. See CFS Decision
Memorandum at Comment 16.
Normally, we treat exemptions from indirect taxes and import
charges, such as the VAT and tariff exemptions, as recurring benefits,
consistent with 19 CFR 351.524(c)(1), and expense these benefits in the
year in which they were received. However, when an indirect tax or
import charge exemption is provided for, or tied to, the capital
structure or capital assets of a firm, the Department may treat it as a
non-recurring benefit and allocate the benefit to the firm over the
AUL. See 19 CFR 351.524(c)(2)(iii) and 19 CFR 351.524(d)(2). Because
these VAT and tariff exemptions were received for capital equipment, we
are applying the allocation rules described in 19 CFR 351.524(b), as
explained below.
For Fine Furniture and Great Wood, we applied the ``0.5 percent
test,'' pursuant to 19 CFR 351.524(b)(2), for each of the years in
which exemptions were reported (treating the year of receipt as the
year of approval). For the years in which the amount was less than 0.5
percent, we have expensed the exempted amounts in the year of receipt,
consistent with 19 CFR 351.524(b)(2). For those years in which the VAT
and tariff exemptions were greater than or equal to 0.5 percent, we
have allocated the benefit over the AUL, consistent with 19 CFR
351.524(b)(1). We used the discount rate described above in the
``Benchmarks and Discount Rates'' section to calculate the amount of
the benefit for the POI.
For Fine Furniture, we divided the benefits received in or
allocated to the POI by its sales during the POI, in accordance with 19
CFR 351.525(b)(6)(i). For Great Wood, we divided the benefits received
in or allocated to the POI by the combined POI sales of Fine Furniture
and Great Wood, less intercompany sales, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.525(b)(6)(iv).
On this basis, we preliminarily determine that Fine Furniture
received a countervailable subsidy of 0.56 percent ad valorem.
4. Electricity for LTAR
For the reasons explained in the ``Use of Facts Otherwise Available
and Adverse Inferences''tion above, we are basing our determination
regarding the government's provision of electricity in part on AFA.
In a CVD case, the Department requires information from both the
government of the country whose merchandise is under investigation and
the foreign producers and exporters. When the government fails to
provide requested information concerning alleged subsidy programs, the
Department, as AFA, typically finds that a financial contribution
exists under the alleged program and that the program is specific.
However, where possible, the Department will normally rely on the
responsive producer's or exporter's records to determine the existence
and amount of the benefit to the extent that those records are useable
and verifiable.
Consistent with this practice, the Department finds that the GOC's
provision of electricity confers a financial contribution, under
section 771(5)(D)(iii) of the Act, and is specific, under section
771(5A) of the Act. To determine the existence and amount of any
benefit from this program, we relied on the companies'' reported
information on the amounts of electricity they purchased and the
amounts they paid for electricity during the POI. We compared the rates
paid by Fine Furniture, Layo, and Yuhua for their electricity to the
highest rates that they would have paid in the PRC during the POI.
Specifically, we compared respondents'' electricity payments to what
the respondents would have paid under the highest rates on the record
for the same user category (e.g., ``large industrial users'') and time
period category (e.g., peak, normal, and valley). This benchmark
reflects the adverse inference we have drawn as a result of the GOC's
failure to act to the best of its ability in providing requested
information about its provision of electricity in this investigation.
On this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable
subsidy rate to be 1.45 percent ad valorem for Fine Furniture. Because
the preliminary countervailable subsidy rate for both Layo and Yuhua is
less than 0.005 percent, we did not include this program in our
preliminary net countervailing duty rates for these companies. See,
e.g., CFS Decision Memorandum at 15.
II. Programs for Which More Information Is Required: Potential
Subsidies in Layo's and Yuhua's Financial Statements
Layo's and Yuhua's financial statements indicate that both
companies may have received certain additional subsidies. See L1SR at
6; see also Y1SR at 3-4. Because the companies did not disclose these
potential subsidies in their original questionnaire responses, we did
not have time to request and analyze information from the GOC on these
programs prior to the preliminary determination. We intend to request
this information from the GOC and address these programs after this
preliminary determination.
III. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Be Not Used by Respondents
We preliminarily determine that the respondent companies did not
apply for or receive benefits during the POI under the programs listed
below.
1. Local Income Tax Exemption and Reductions for ``Productive''
FIEs
2. Provision of Electricity at LTAR for FIEs and ``Technologically
Advanced'' Enterprises by Jiangsu Province
Verification
In accordance with section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we will verify the
information submitted by the respondents prior to making our final
determination.
Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we
calculated an individual rate for each producer/exporter of the subject
merchandise individually investigated. We preliminarily determine the
total estimated net countervailable subsidy rates to be:
[[Page 19042]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exporter/manufacturer Net subsidy rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Ltd.; Great Wood 2.25
(Tonghua) Ltd.; Fine Furniture Plantation
(Shishou) Ltd.
Zhejiang Layo Wood Industry Co., Ltd.; Zero
Jiaxing Brilliant Import & Export Co.,
Ltd.
Zhejiang Yuhua Timber Co., Ltd............ Zero
9 Miles Oak Flooring (China).............. 27.01
Anhui Hupo Wood Industry Co., Ltd......... 27.01
Anji Tianpeng Bamboo & Wooden Floor Co., 27.01
Ltd.
Anlian Wood Co., Ltd...................... 27.01
Beijing Forever Strong Construction & 27.01
Decoration Material Co., Ltd.
Beijing New Building Material (Group) Co., 27.01
Ltd.
Beijing W.A. Wood Co., Ltd................ 27.01
Cairun Floor Building Material Co., Ltd... 27.01
Changchun Zhongyi Wood Co., Ltd........... 27.01
Changzhou Credit International Trade Co., 27.01
Ltd.
Changzhou Green Spot Wood Industry Co., 27.01
Ltd.
Changzhou Jiahao Wood Trade Co., Ltd...... 27.01
Changzhou Leili Wood Industry Co., Ltd.... 27.01
Changzhou Opls Decoration Materials Co., 27.01
Ltd.
Chaohu Great Mainland Flooring Co., Ltd... 27.01
Chaohu Vgreen Timber Co., Ltd............. 27.01
China Xuzhou Tengmao Wood Co., Ltd........ 27.01
Chuangfu Wood Flooring Cld., Co........... 27.01
Complete Flooring Supply Corporation...... 27.01
Dalian Brilliant Future International 27.01
Trade Co., Ltd.
Dalian Hongjia Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd....... 27.01
Dalian Luming Group....................... 27.01
Dalian Maruni Wood Works Co., Ltd......... 27.01
Dalian Ontime International Trade Co...... 27.01
Dalian Taiyangshi International Trading 27.01
Co., Ltd.
Dalian Turuss Wood Industry Co., Ltd...... 27.01
Dongguan Forest Century Wooden Co., Ltd... 27.01
Elegant Living Corporation................ 27.01
Foshan Linguan Wood Products Co., Ltd..... 27.01
Foshan Pengbang Wood Manufacturer Co., Ltd 27.01
Foshan Shunde Hechengchuangzhan Wood Co., 27.01
Ltd.
Foshan Tocho Timber Co., Ltd.............. 27.01
Fujian Jianou Huayu Bamboo Industry Co., 27.01
Ltd.
Fuzhou Floors China Co., Ltd.............. 27.01
Gao'an City Kangli Bamboo And Wooden 27.01
Products Co., Ltd.
Giant Flooring............................ 27.01
Glassical Industrial Limited.............. 27.01
Great Forest Wood Limited................. 27.01
Green Elf Flooring (Also Dba Hong Ding 27.01
Lumber Co.).
Guangdong Guangyang Hi-Tech Industry Co., 27.01
Ltd.
Guangdong Yingran Wood Industry........... 27.01
Guangzhou Fnen Wood Flooring.............. 27.01
Guangzhou Homewell Trade Co., Ltd......... 27.01
Guangzhou Quanfeng Wood Industry Co., Ltd. 27.01
Handan Global Wood Limited................ 27.01
Hangzhou Dazhuang Floor Co................ 27.01
Hangzhou Fuyang Zhongjian Wood Industry 27.01
Co., Ltd.
Hangzhou Kingdom Imp & Exp Trading Corp., 27.01
Ltd.
Hangzhou Singular Group Co., Ltd.......... 27.01
Hangzhou Tianlin Industrial Co., Ltd...... 27.01
Heze Lv Sen Wood Co., Ltd................. 27.01
Homewell (Xiamen) Industry Co., Ltd....... 27.01
Huidong Weikang Rubber & Plastic Products 27.01
Co., Ltd.
Hu'made Group............................. 27.01
Huzhou Boge Import And Export Co., Ltd.... 27.01
Huzhou Jinjie Industrial Co., Ltd......... 27.01
Huzhou Natural Forest Flooring Co., Ltd... 27.01
Huzhou Tianlong Wood Co., Ltd............. 27.01
Huzhou Top Wood Co., Ltd.................. 27.01
Huzhou Yaxin Arts & Crafts Co., Ltd....... 27.01
Jiangmen Xinhui Yinhu Woodwork Co., Ltd... 27.01
Jiangsu Happy Wood Industrial Group Co., 27.01
Ltd.
Jiangsu Horizon Trade Co., Ltd............ 27.01
Jiangsu Kentier Wood Co., Ltd............. 27.01
Jiangsu Nanyang Wood Co., Ltd............. 27.01
Jiangsu Wanli Wooden Co., Ltd............. 27.01
Jiangxi Kangtilong Bamboo Products Co., 27.01
Ltd.
Jiashan Greenland International Trading 27.01
Co., Ltd.
Jiashan Huayu Lumber Co., Ltd............. 27.01
Jiashan Longsen Lumbering Co., Ltd........ 27.01
Jiashan On-Line Lumber Co., Ltd........... 27.01
Jiaxing Hengtong Wood Co., Ltd............ 27.01
Jilin Newco Wood Industries Co., Ltd...... 27.01
Jining Sensen Wood Industry Co., Ltd...... 27.01
Jining Sunny Wood Co., Ltd................ 27.01
Kingswood Timber.......................... 27.01
Kornbest Enterprises Ltd.................. 27.01
Lianyungang Shuntian Timber Co., Ltd...... 27.01
Longeron I&E Co., Ltd..................... 27.01
Lord Parquet Industry Co., Limited........ 27.01
Lyowood Industrial Co., Ltd............... 27.01
Macdouglas Wood Flooring (Suzhou) Co., Ltd 27.01
Nanjing Dimac Wood Industry Co., Ltd...... 27.01
Qiaosen Wood Flooring Industry Company.... 27.01
Qichuang Wood Industrial Co., Ltd......... 27.01
Qingdao Fuguichao Wood Co., Ltd........... 27.01
Quanfa Woodwork (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd....... 27.01
Shandong Fuma Commerce & Trade Co., Ltd... 27.01
Shandong Yuncheng Jinyang Wood Industry 27.01
Co., Ltd.
Shanghai Chunna Industrial Co., Ltd....... 27.01
Shanghai Eswell Enterprise Co., Ltd....... 27.01
Shanghai Feihong Wood Products Co......... 27.01
Shanghai Guangri Flooring Co., Ltd........ 27.01
Shanghai Pinsheng Wood Industry Co., Ltd.. 27.01
Shanghai Pujiang United Wood Co., Ltd..... 27.01
Shanghai Yiming Wooden Industry Co., Ltd.. 27.01
Shenyang Bask Industry Co., Ltd........... 27.01
Shenzhen Jianyuanxin Trade Co., Ltd....... 27.01
Shenzhen Shi Huanwei Woods Co., Ltd....... 27.01
Shuanghai Shuai Yuan Wood Industry Co., 27.01
Ltd.
Sterling Pacific Wood Products Co., Ltd... 27.01
Suifenhe Sanmulin Economic And Trade Co., 27.01
Ltd.
Suzhou Duolun Wood Industry Co., Ltd...... 27.01
Tengmao Wood Co., Ltd..................... 27.01
Tianjin Zeyuan Wood Industry Co., Ltd..... 27.01
Times Flooring Co., Ltd................... 27.01
Twowins Bamboo & Wood Products Co., Ltd... 27.01
Ua Wood Floors............................ 27.01
Weifang Jiayuan Imp & Exp Co., Ltd........ 27.01
Wenzhou Timber Group Company.............. 27.01
Wuhan Nanhong Materials & Goods Fitting 27.01
Co., Ltd.
Wuxi Haisen Decorates Material Co., Ltd... 27.01
Xiamen Homeshining Industry Co., Ltd...... 27.01
Xuzhou Fuxiang Wood Co., Ltd.............. 27.01
Xuzhou Huanqiu Import & Export Trade Co., 27.01
Ltd.
Xuzhou Tengmao Wood Co., Ltd.............. 27.01
Xuzhou Yijia Manufacture Co., Ltd......... 27.01
Xuzhou Yijia Wood Manufacture Co., Ltd.... 27.01
Yinlong Wood Products Co., Ltd............ 27.01
Ys Nature International Trading Co., Ltd.. 27.01
Zhejiang Assun Wood Co., Ltd.............. 27.01
Zhejiang Gaopai Wood Co., Ltd............. 27.01
[[Page 19043]]
Zhejiang Huayue Wooden Products Co., Ltd.. 27.01
Zhejiang Yongji Wooden Co., Ltd........... 27.01
Zhejiang Yongyu Bamboo Development........ 27.01
Zhongshan New Oasis Wood Industry Co., Ltd 27.01
Zhongyi Bamboo Industrial Co., Ltd. Fujian 27.01
All Others................................ 2.25
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Non-cooperative company receiving the AFA rate. See ``Non-Cooperative Companies'' section, above.
In accordance with sections 703(d)(1)(B) and (2) of the Act, we are
directing CBP to suspend liquidation of all entries of wood flooring
from the PRC that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the date of the publication of this notice in
the Federal Register, and to require a cash deposit or bond for such
entries of merchandise in the amounts indicated above. However, because
the estimated CVD rate for Layo and Yuhua is de minimis, liquidation
will not be suspended and no cash deposits or bonds are required for
merchandise produced and exported by Layo or Yuhua.
In accordance with sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act, for
companies not investigated, we apply an ``all-others'' rate, which is
normally calculated by weighting the subsidy rates of the individual
companies selected as respondents by those companies'' exports of the
subject merchandise to the United States. The ``all-others'' rate does
not include zero and de minimis rates or any rates based solely on the
facts available. In this investigation, because we have only one rate
that can be used to calculate the ``all-others'' rate, Fine Furniture's
rate, we have assigned that rate to ``all-others.''
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, we will notify the
ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the
ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information relating to this
investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and
business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC
confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or
under an administrative protective order, without the written consent
of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
In accordance with section 705(b)(2) of the Act, if our final
determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final determination
within 45 days after the Department makes its final determination.
Disclosure and Public Comment
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), we will disclose to the
parties the calculations for this preliminary determination within five
days of its announcement. Due to the anticipated timing of verification
and issuance of verification reports, case briefs for this
investigation must be submitted no later than one week after the
issuance of the last verification report. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(i) (for
a further discussion of case briefs). Rebuttal briefs must be filed
within five days after the deadline for submission of case briefs,
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). A list of authorities relied upon, a
table of contents, and an executive summary of issues should accompany
any briefs submitted to the Department. Executive summaries should be
limited to five pages total, including footnotes. See 19 CFR
351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2).
Section 774 of the Act provides that the Department will hold a
public hearing to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment
on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a
hearing is requested by an interested party. If a request for a hearing
is made in this investigation, the hearing will be held two days after
the deadline for submission of the rebuttal briefs, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.310(d), at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Parties should confirm
by telephone the time, date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before
the scheduled time.
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, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room
1870, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230,
within 30 days of the publication of this notice, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.310(c). Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and
telephone; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues
to be discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in
the briefs. Id.
This determination is published pursuant to sections 703(f) and
777(i) of the Act.
Dated: March 21, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-8173 Filed 4-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P