81 FR 12688 - Uncovered Innerspring Units From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 47 (March 10, 2016)

The Department of Commerce (the ``Department'') is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on uncovered innerspring units from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''), for the period of review (``POR''), February 1, 2014, to January 31, 2015. The Department preliminarily determines that Macao Commercial and Industrial Spring Mattress Manufacturer (``Macao Commercial'') had no reviewable shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. We also preliminarily determine that East Grace Corporation (``East Grace'') has not established its entitlement to separate rate status and, therefore, is being treated as part of the PRC-wide entity. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 47 (Thursday, March 10, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12688-12690]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05404]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-928]


Uncovered Innerspring Units From the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 
2014-2015

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the ``Department'') is conducting 
an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on uncovered 
innerspring units from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''), for 
the period of review (``POR''), February 1, 2014, to January 31, 2015. 
The Department preliminarily determines that Macao Commercial and 
Industrial Spring Mattress Manufacturer (``Macao Commercial'') had no 
reviewable shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. We also 
preliminarily determine that East Grace Corporation (``East Grace'') 
has not established its entitlement to separate rate status and, 
therefore, is being treated as part of the PRC-wide entity. Interested 
parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

DATES: Effective Date: March 10, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Hawkins, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade 
Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6491.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On February 19, 2009, the Department published in the Federal 
Register an antidumping duty order on uncovered innerspring units from 
the PRC.\1\ On June 30, 2014, the Department received a request from 
Petitioner \2\ to conduct an administrative review of East Grace and 
Macao Commercial.\3\ On April 3, 2015, the Department initiated this 
review based on Petitioner's review request.\4\ On May 11, 2015, the 
Department issued its standard antidumping duty questionnaires to East 
Grace and Macao Commercial.\5\ Macao Commercial provided timely 
responses to the Department's initial and supplemental questionnaires. 
East Grace did not respond to the Department's standard questionnaire 
and has not participated in this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Uncovered Innerspring 
Units from the People's Republic of China, 74 FR 7661 (February 19, 
2009) (``Order'').
    \2\ The Petitioner is Leggett & Platt Inc. (hereinafter 
``Petitioner'').
    \3\ See Request for Antidumping Administrative Review of the 
Antidumping Duty Order on Uncovered Innerspring Units from the 
People's Republic of China, dated February 27, 2015.
    \4\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 80 FR 18202 (April 3, 2015) (``Initiation 
Notice''). We note that the Initiation Notice appeared to identify 
``Macao Commercial'' and ``Industrial Spring Mattress Manufacturer'' 
as two separate companies. However, the name of the single company 
for which a review was requested was actually ``Macao Commercial and 
Industrial Spring Mattress Manufacturer,'' and we clarify now that 
this is the correct name of the company under review.
    \5\ See Letter to East Grace Corporation, dated May 11, 2015, 
and Letter to Macao Commercial and Industrial Spring Mattress 
Manufacturer, dated May 11, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the order is uncovered innerspring units 
composed of a series of individual metal springs joined together in 
sizes corresponding to the sizes of adult mattresses (e.g., twin, twin 
long, full, full long, queen, California king and king) and units used 
in smaller constructions, such as crib and youth mattresses. Uncovered 
innersprings are classified under subheading 9404.29.9010 and have also 
been classified under subheadings 9404.10.0000, 9404.29.9005, 
9404.29.9011, 7326.20.0070, 7320.20.5010, 7320.90.5010, or 7326.20.0071 
of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''). The 
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes 
only; the written description of the scope of the order is 
dispositive.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For a full description of the scope of the Order, see 
Decision Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary 
for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, 
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, entitled 
``Preliminary Results of 2014-2015 Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review: Uncovered Innerspring Units from the People's Republic of 
China'' (``Preliminary Decision Memorandum''), issued concurrently 
with and adopted by this notice.

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

[[Page 12689]]

Methodology

    The Department conducted this review in accordance with section 
751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For a 
full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the 
Preliminary Decision Memorandum.\7\ The Preliminary Decision Memorandum 
is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and 
Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic 
Service System (``ACCESS''). ACCESS is available to registered users at 
http://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central 
Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. 
In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum 
can be accessed directly on the internet at http://www.trade.gov/enforcement/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the 
electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are 
identical in content.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision 
Memorandum is provided at Appendix I to this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preliminary Determination of No Shipments

    In its certified response to the Department's standard antidumping 
duty questionnaire, Macao Commercial stated that it had no shipments of 
PRC origin innersprings to the United States during the POR. Between 
June 6, 2015 and December 24, 2015, the Department issued supplemental 
questionnaires to Macao Commercial to verify this no shipments claim. 
Additionally, to corroborate Macao Commercial's no shipments claim, the 
Department submitted a formal query to U.S. Customs & Border Protection 
(``CBP''), the results of which did not provide any evidence that 
contradicts Macao Commercial's claim of no shipments. Thus, the 
Department preliminarily determines that Macao Commercial had no 
shipments of innerspring units of PRC origin to the United States 
during the POR and, therefore, had no reviewable entries.\8\ In 
addition, consistent with the Department's practice in nonmarket 
economy cases, the Department finds that it is appropriate not to 
rescind the review, in part, in these circumstances, but rather to 
complete the review with respect to Macao Commercial and issue 
appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of the 
review.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For more detail see Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
    \9\ See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment 
of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694, 65694-95 (October 24, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Companies That Did Not Establish Their Eligibility for a Separate Rate

    In our Initiation Notice, we stated, ``{f{time} or exporters and 
producers who submit a separate-rate status application or 
certification and subsequently are selected as mandatory respondents, 
these exporters and producers will no longer be eligible for separate 
rate status unless they respond to all parts of the questionnaire as 
mandatory respondents.''[hairsp]\10\ East Grace was selected as a 
mandatory respondent in the instant review, but East Grace failed to 
respond to the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire, and East 
Grace did not submit a no-shipments certification. Therefore, we 
preliminarily find that East Grace is no longer eligible for separate 
rate status and that the PRC-wide entity includes East Grace.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Initiation Notice, 80 FR at 18203.
    \11\ See section 776(b) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also note that the Department's change in policy \12\ regarding 
conditional review of the PRC-wide entity applies to this 
administrative review.\13\ Under this policy, the PRC-wide entity will 
not be under review unless a party specifically requests, or the 
Department self-initiates, a review of the entity. Because no party 
requested a review of the PRC-wide entity in this review, the PRC-wide 
entity is not under review and therefore its rate is not subject to 
change. The rate previously established for the PRC-wide entity in this 
proceeding is 234.51 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Antidumping Proceedings: Announcement of Change in 
Department Practice for Respondent Selection in Antidumping Duty 
Proceedings and Conditional Review of the Nonmarket Economy Entity 
in NME Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 65963 (November 4, 2013).
    \13\ Under this policy, the PRC-wide entity will not be under 
review unless a party specifically requests, or the Department self-
initiates, a review of the entity. Because no party requested a 
review of the PRC-wide entity in this review, the entity is not 
under review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Comment and Opportunity To Request a Hearing \14\

    Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days after the 
date of publication of these preliminary results of review.\15\ 
Rebuttals to case briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the 
case briefs, must be filed within five days after the time limit for 
filing case briefs.\16\ Parties who submit arguments are requested to 
submit with the argument (a) a statement of the issue, (b) a brief 
summary of the argument, and (c) a table of authorities.\17\ Parties 
submitting briefs should do so pursuant to the Department's electronic 
filing system, ACCESS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Normally, the Department discloses to interested parties 
the calculations performed in connection with a preliminary results 
result of review within five days of the date of publication of the 
notice of preliminary results in the Federal Register, in accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, because the Department has 
preliminarily determined that East Grace is ineligible for a 
separate rate and that Macao Commercial had no shipments during the 
POR, there are no calculations to disclose.
    \15\ See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii).
    \16\ See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
    \17\ See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2), (d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
publication of this notice.\18\ Hearing requests should contain the 
following information: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone 
number; (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.\19\ If a request for a hearing is made, parties will be 
notified of the time and date for the hearing to be held at the U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20230.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
    \19\ Id.
    \20\ See 19 CFR 351.310(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department intends to issue the final results of this 
administrative review, which will include the results of our analysis 
of any issues raised in case briefs, within 120 days of publication of 
these preliminary results in the Federal Register, unless extended, 
pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Assessment Rates

    Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, 
and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries 
covered by this review.\21\ The Department intends to issue assessment 
instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final 
results of this review. We intend to instruct CBP to liquidate relevant 
entries from the PRC-wide entity (including East Grace) at the current 
rate for the PRC-wide entity (i.e., 234.51 percent). For Macao 
Commercial, which we preliminarily find had no shipments during the 
POR, we intend to instruct CBP to liquidate any suspended entries of 
subject merchandise that entered under that exporter's case number 
(i.e.,

[[Page 12690]]

at that exporter's rate) at the PRC-wide rate.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See 19 CFR 351.212(b).
    \22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this review for shipments of the 
subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by 
sections 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For any companies listed that 
have a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that established in 
the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de 
minimis, then zero cash deposit will be required); (2) for previously 
investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed that 
received a separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding, the 
cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific 
rate; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not 
been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate 
will be that for the PRC-wide entity; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters 
of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash 
deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that 
supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when 
imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during the POR. Failure to comply with this 
requirement could result in the Department's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    These preliminary results are being issued and published in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.221(b)(4).

    Dated: March 2, 2016.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

Appendix I

    List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum:

1. Summary
2. Case History
3. Scope of the Order
4. Discussion of the Methodology
    a. Non-Market Economy Status
    b. Companies that Did Not Establish Their Eligibility for a 
Separate Rate
    c. Preliminary Determination of No Shipments
5. Recommendation

[FR Doc. 2016-05404 Filed 3-9-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P