Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“Department”) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order 
on uncovered innerspring units (“innersprings”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) for the period of review (“POR”) February 1, 2010, through January 31, 2011. As discussed below, we preliminarily determine that Goodnite Sdn Bhd (“Goodnite”) failed to cooperate to the best of its ability and are, therefore, applying adverse facts available (“AFA”) to Goodnite's PRC-origin merchandise. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on entries of subject merchandise during the POR.
Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Susan Pulongbarit, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4031.
End Further Info
Start Supplemental Information
On February 28, 2011, the Department received a request from Petitioner 
to conduct an administrative review of two companies, Reztec Industries Sdn Bhd (“Reztec”) and Goodnite. On March 31, 2011, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on innersprings from the PRC.
On April 28, 2011, the Department issued antidumping duty questionnaires to Reztec and Goodnite, since they were the only two companies for which a review was requested.
On May 3, 2011, Goodnite received the antidumping duty questionnaire issued by the Department.
On May 19, 2011, Reztec submitted a no-shipment certification to the Department.
Goodnite did not respond to the Department's questionnaire.
Scope of the Order
The merchandise subject to the order is uncovered innerspring units composed of a series of individual metal springs joined together in sizes corresponding to the sizes of adult mattresses (e.g., twin, twin long, full, full long, queen, California king and king) and units used in smaller constructions, such as crib and youth mattresses. All uncovered innerspring units are included in the scope regardless of width and length. Included within this definition are innersprings typically ranging from 30.5 inches to 76 inches in width and 68 inches to 84 inches in length. Innersprings for crib mattresses typically range from 25 inches to 27 inches in width and 50 inches to 52 inches in length.
Uncovered innerspring units are suitable for use as the innerspring component in the manufacture of innerspring mattresses, including mattresses that incorporate a foam encasement around the innerspring.
Pocketed and non-pocketed innerspring units are included in this definition. Non-pocketed innersprings are typically joined together with helical wire and border rods. Non-pocketed innersprings are included in this definition regardless of whether they have border rods attached to the perimeter of the innerspring. Pocketed innersprings are individual coils covered by a “pocket” or “sock” of a Start Printed Page 76127nonwoven synthetic material or woven material and then glued together in a linear fashion.
Uncovered innersprings are classified under subheading 9404.29.9010 and have also been classified under subheadings 9404.10.0000, 7326.20.0070, 7320.20.5010, or 7320.90.5010 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only; the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
Intent To Rescind, in Part, of Administrative Review
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we have preliminarily determined that Reztec had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR of this administrative review.
The Department received a no-shipment certification from Reztec on May 19, 2011. The Department issued a no-shipment inquiry to U.S. Customs Border and Protection (“CBP”), asking that CBP provide any information contrary to our preliminary findings of no entries of subject merchandise for merchandise manufactured and shipped by Reztec.
We did not receive any response from CBP, thus indicating that there were no entries of subject merchandise into the United States exported by Reztec. Consequently, we intend to rescind the review, in part, with respect to Reztec.
Facts Otherwise Available
Section 776(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), mandates that the Department use facts otherwise available if necessary information is not available on the record of an antidumping proceeding. In addition, section 776(a)(2) of the Act mandates that the Department use facts otherwise available where an interested party or any other person: (A) Withholds information requested by the Department; (B) fails to provide requested information by the requested date or in the form and manner requested; (C) significantly impedes an antidumping proceeding; or (D) provides information that cannot be verified.
As previously noted, Goodnite did not respond to the antidumping duty questionnaire issued by the Department on April 28, 2011. Accordingly, the Department finds that the necessary information is not available on the record of this proceeding. Further, based upon Goodnite's failure to submit responses to the Department's questionnaire, the Department finds that Goodnite withheld the requested information, failed to provide the information in a timely manner and in the form requested, and significantly impeded this proceeding, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act. Therefore, the Department must rely on the facts otherwise available in order to determine a margin for Goodnite.
Adverse Facts Available
Section 776(b) of the Act states that if the Department “finds that an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information from the administering authority * * *, the administering authority * * * may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.” 
Adverse inferences are appropriate “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” 
In selecting an adverse inference, the Department may rely on information derived from the petition, the final determination in the investigation, any previous review, or any other information placed on the record.
As previously stated, Goodnite failed to cooperate to the best of its ability in providing the requested information. Accordingly, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) and section 776(b) of the Act, we find it appropriate to assign total AFA to Goodnite.
By doing so, we ensure that Goodnite will not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than had they cooperated fully in this review.
In selecting an AFA rate, the Department's practice has been to assign non-cooperative respondents the highest margin determined for any party in the less than fair value (“LTFV”) investigation or in any administrative review.
Therefore, because Goodnite is not a PRC exporter, we are not assigning Goodnite the PRC-wide entity's rate, but rather its own rate, based on AFA, which in this case is 234.51 percent, as established in the investigation.
Section 776(c) of the Act requires that, where the Department relies on secondary information in selecting AFA, the Department corroborate such information to the extent practicable. To be considered corroborated, the Department must find the information has probative value, meaning that the information must be both reliable and relevant.
The Department considers the AFA rate calculated for the current review as both reliable and relevant. On the issue of reliability, the Department corroborated the AFA rate in the LTFV investigation.
No information has been presented in the current review that calls into question the reliability of this information. With respect to the relevance, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as AFA, the Department Start Printed Page 76128will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. For example, in Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico the Department disregarded the highest margin in that case as best information available (the predecessor to AFA) because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high margin.
The information used in calculating this margin was based on sales and production data submitted by Petitioner in the LTFV investigation, together with the most appropriate surrogate value information available to the Department chosen from submissions by the parties in the LTFV investigation.
Finally, there is no information on the record of this review that demonstrates that this rate is not appropriate for use as AFA. For all these reasons, we determine that this rate continues to have relevance with respect to Goodnite.
As the 234.51 percent AFA rate is both reliable and relevant, we determine that it has probative value and is corroborated to the extent practicable, in accordance with section 776(c) of the Act. Therefore, we have assigned this AFA rate to exports of the subject merchandise by Goodnite.
Preliminary Results of Review
The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists:
Briefs and Public Hearing
Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results and may submit case briefs and/or written comments within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, will be due five days later, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument (1) A statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Parties are requested to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2).
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Room 1117, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs.
The Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final results of this review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate importer- (or customer-) specific assessment rates for the merchandise subject to this review. Where the respondent has reported reliable entered values, we will calculate importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total entered value of the sales to each importer (or customer). Where an importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem rate is greater than de minimis, we will apply the assessment rate to the entered value of the importers'/customers' entries during the POR, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters listed above, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit rate will be required for that company); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recently completed period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 234.51 percent; (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter(s) that supplied that non-PRC exporter; and (5) for Goodnite, any uncovered innerspring units of PRC origin, the cash deposit rate will be 234.51 percent. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
These preliminary results are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
End Supplemental Information
Dated: November 30, 2011.
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-31309 Filed 12-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P