Notice of Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations: Certain Lined Paper Products from India (C-533-844) and Indonesia (C-560-819), 58690-58694 [E5-5541]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
58690
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 194 / Friday, October 7, 2005 / Notices
Assessment
Upon completion of this
administrative review, pursuant to 19
CFR 351.212(b), the Department will
calculate an assessment rate on all
appropriate entries. We will calculate
importer–specific duty assessment rates
on the basis of the ratio of the total
amount of antidumping duties
calculated for the examined sales to the
total quantity of the sales for that
importer. Where the assessment rate is
above de minimis, we will instruct CBP
to assess duties on all entries of subject
merchandise by that importer. In
addition, based on proprietary
information in a June 17, 2005,
memorandum placed on the record of
the proceeding by the Department, we
have adjusted the calculation of the
importer–specific duty assessment rate.
For an explanation of the adjustment to
the calculated assessment rate, see the
Analysis Memorandum.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following deposit rates will be
effective upon publication of the final
results of this administrative review for
all shipments of rebar from Latvia
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the
publication date, as provided by section
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit
rate listed above for LM will be the rate
established in the final results of this
review, except if a rate is less than 0.5
percent, and therefore de minimis, the
cash deposit will be zero; (2) for
previously reviewed or investigated
companies not listed above, the cash
deposit rate will continue to be the
company–specific rate published for the
most recent period; (3) if the exporter is
not a firm covered in this review, a prior
review, or the less–than-fair–value
(LTFV) investigation, but the
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate
will be the rate established for the most
recent period for the manufacturer of
the merchandise; and (4) if neither the
exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm
covered in this or any previous review
conducted by the Department, the cash
deposit rate will be 17.21 percent, the
‘‘All Others’’ rate established in the
LTFV investigation. These cash deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until publication of the
final results of the next administrative
review.
This notice serves as a preliminary
reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)
to file a certificate regarding the
reimbursement of antidumping duties
prior to liquidation of the relevant
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:27 Oct 06, 2005
Jkt 208001
entities 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.
This determination is issued and
published in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: September 30, 2005.
Barbara E. Tillman,
Acting Assistant Secretaryfor Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E5–5569 Filed 10–6–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE: 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–533–844, C–560–819]
Notice of Initiation of Countervailing
Duty Investigations: Certain Lined
Paper Products from India (C–533–844)
and Indonesia (C–560–819)
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Initiation of countervailing duty
investigation.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
is initiating countervailing duty
investigations to determine whether
manufacturers, producers, or exporters
of certain lined paper products from
India and Indonesia receive
countervailable subsidies.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 7, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Maura Jeffords and Eric B. Greynolds
(India) or Indonesia, David Layton or
David Neubacher (Indonesia) AD/CVD
Operations, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)
482–0371 and (202) 482–5823,(202)
482–3146 and (202) 482–6071,(202) or
482–0371 and (202) 482–5823,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Initiation of Investigations
The Petitions
Between September 9 and September
26, 2005, the Department of Commerce
(‘‘the Department’’) received Petitions,
and amendments to the Petitions, (‘‘the
Petitions’’) filed in proper form by
Association of American School
Suppliers (‘‘Petitioner’’).
In accordance with section 702(b)(1)
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act
(effective January 1, 1995) (‘‘the Act’’),
Petitioner alleges that manufacturers,
producers, or exporters of certain lined
paper products (‘‘certain lined CLPP
paper’’ or ‘‘subject merchandise’’) from
India and Indonesia receive
countervailable subsidies within the
meaning of section 701 of the Act, and
that such imports are materially
injuring, or threatening material injury,
to an industry in the United States. On
September 21, 2005, the Department
issued a memo clarifying that the
official filing date of the Petitions was
September 9, 2005. See Memorandum
from the Team to Acting Deputy
Assistant Secretary Barbara Tillman:
Decision Memorandum Concerning
Filing Date of Petitions, September 21,
2005, (explaining that the proper file
date is September 9, 2005, as it was filed
at the ITC after the noon deadline on the
previous day).
The Department finds that Petitioner
filed the Petitions on behalf of the
domestic industry because they are
interested parties, as defined in sections
771(9)(E) and (F) of the Act, and have
demonstrated sufficient industry
support in accordance with section
702(c)(4)(A) of the Act. See infra,
‘‘Determination of Industry Support for
the Petitions.’’
Scope of Investigation
See Appendix I.
Comments on Scope of Investigations
During our review of the Petitions, we
discussed the scope with Petitioner to
ensure that it accurately reflects the
product for which the domestic industry
is seeking relief. Moreover, as discussed
in the preamble to the Department’s
regulations, we are setting aside a
period for interested parties to raise
issues regarding product coverage. See
Antidumping Duties; Countervailing
Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27295, 27323
(1997). The Department encourages all
interested parties to submit such
comments within 20 calendar days of
publication of this initiation notice.
Comments should be addressed to
Import Administration’s Central
Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’) in Room 1870,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230 - Attn: James
Terpstra. The period of scope
consultations is intended to provide the
Department with ample opportunity to
consider all comments and consult with
interested parties prior to the issuance
of the preliminary determinations.
E:\FR\FM\07OCN1.SGM
07OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 194 / Friday, October 7, 2005 / Notices
Consultations
Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of
the Act, the Department invited
representatives of the Governments of
India and Indonesia for consultations
with respect to the Petitions. The
Department held consultations with the
Government of Indonesia on September
23, 2005. The points raised in the
consultations are described in the
consultation memorandum to the file
dated September 26, 2005, and in the
Government of Indonesia’s September
22, 2005, and September 26, 2005,
submissions to the Department, both of
which are on file in the CRU. The
Government of India declined the
Department’s invitation for
consultations.1
Determination of Industry Support for
the Petitions
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires
that a petition be filed on behalf of the
domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A)
of the Act provides that a petition meets
this requirement if the domestic
producers or workers who support the
petition account for: (1) at least 25
percent of the total production of the
domestic like product; and (2) more
than 50 percent of the production of the
domestic like product produced by that
portion of the industry expressing
support for, or opposition to, the
petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D)
of the Act provides that, if the petition
does not establish support of domestic
producers or workers accounting for
more than 50 percent of the total
production of the domestic like product,
the Department shall: (1) poll the
industry or rely on other information in
order to determine if there is support for
the petition, as required by
subparagraph (A), or (2) determine
industry support using a statistically
valid sample.
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines
the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers of a
domestic like product. Thus, to
determine whether the petition has the
requisite industry support, the Act
directs the Department to look to
producers and workers who account for
production of the domestic like product.
The ITC, which is responsible for
determining whether ‘‘the domestic
industry’’ has been injured, must also
determine what constitutes a domestic
like product in order to define the
industry. While both the Department
and the ITC must apply the same
statutory definition regarding the
domestic like product (see section
1 See Memorandum to the File from Maura
Jeffords Regarding Subject Consultations and the
Government of India (GOI), Sept. 22, 2005.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:27 Oct 06, 2005
Jkt 208001
771(10) of the Act), they do so for
different purposes and pursuant to
separate and distinct authority. In
addition, the Department’s
determination is subject to limitations of
time and information. Although this
may result in different definitions of the
domestic like product, such differences
do not render the decision of either
agency contrary to the law. See USEC,
Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1
(CIT 2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp.
Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639,
642–44 (CIT 1988)).
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the
domestic like product as ‘‘a product that
is like, or in the absence of like, most
similar in characteristics and uses with,
the article subject to an investigation
under this title.’’ Thus, the reference
point from which the domestic like
product analysis begins is ‘‘the article
subject to an investigation’’ (i.e., the
class or kind of merchandise to be
investigated, which normally will be the
scope as defined in the petition).
With regard to the domestic like
product, Petitioner does not offer a
definition of domestic like product
distinct from the scope of the
investigation. See Indonesia Initiation
Checklist, India Initiation Checklist at
Attachment II (Industry Support). Based
on our analysis of the information
submitted in the Petitions we have
determined that there is a single
domestic like product, certain lined
paper products, which is defined further
in the ‘‘Scope of the Investigations’’
section in Appendix I, and we have
analyzed industry support in terms of
that domestic like product.
Our review of the data provided in the
petition and other information readily
available to the Department indicates
that Petitioner has established industry
support representing at least 25 percent
of the total production of the domestic
like product, and more than 50 percent
of the production of the domestic like
product produced by that portion of the
industry, requiring no further action by
the Department pursuant to section
702(c)(4)(D) of the Act. In addition, the
Department received no opposition to
the Petitions from domestic producers
of the like product. Therefore, the
domestic producers (or workers) who
support the Petitions account for at least
25 percent of the total production of the
domestic like product, and the
requirements of section 702(c)(4)(A)(i)
of the Act are met. Furthermore, the
domestic producers who support the
Petitions account for more than 50
percent of the production of the
domestic like product produced by that
portion of the industry expressing
support for or opposition to the
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
58691
Petitions. Thus, the requirements of
section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act also
are met. Accordingly, the Department
determines that the Petitions were filed
on behalf of the domestic industry
within the meaning of section 702(b)(1)
of the Act. See Indonesia Initiation
Checklist and India Initiation Checklist
at Attachment II (Industry Support).
The Department finds that Petitioner
filed these petitions on behalf of the
domestic industry because it is an
interested party as defined in sections
771(9)(E) and (F) of the Act and it has
demonstrated sufficient industry
support with respect to the
countervailing duty investigations that
it is requesting the Department initiate.
See Indonesia Initiation Checklist and
India Initiation Checklist.
Injury Test
Because India and Indonesia are each
a ‘‘Subsidies Agreement Country’’
within the meaning of section 701(b) of
the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act
applies to these investigations.
Accordingly, the ITC must determine
whether imports of the subject
merchandise from India and Indonesia
materially injure, or threaten material
injury to, a U.S. industry.
Allegations and Evidence of Material
Injury and Causations
With regard to India and Indonesia,
Petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry
producing the domestic like product is
being materially injured, and is
threatened with material injury, by
reason of the individual and cumulative
imports of the subject merchandise.
Petitioner contends that the industry’s
injured condition is illustrated by the
decline in its customer base, market
share, domestic shipments, prices and
profit. We have assessed the allegations
and supporting evidence regarding
material injury and causation, and we
have determined that these allegations
are properly supported by adequate
evidence and meet the statutory
requirements for initiation. See
Indonesia Initiation Checklist, India
Initiation Checklist at Attachment III
(Injury).
Initiation of Countervailing Duty
Investigations
Section 702(b) of the Act requires the
Department to initiate a countervailing
duty proceeding whenever an interested
party files a petition on behalf of an
industry that (1) alleges the elements
necessary for an imposition of a duty
under section 701(a) of the Act and (2)
is accompanied by information
reasonably available to Petitioner
supporting the allegations.
E:\FR\FM\07OCN1.SGM
07OCN1
58692
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 194 / Friday, October 7, 2005 / Notices
The Department has examined the
countervailing duty petitions on certain
lined paper products from India and
Indonesia and found that they comply
with the requirements of section 702(b)
of the Act. Therefore, in accordance
with section 702(b) of the Act, we are
initiating countervailing duty
investigations to determine whether
manufacturers, producers, or exporters
of certain lined paper products from
India and Indonesia receive
countervailable subsidies. For a
discussion of evidence supporting our
initiation determination, see Indonesia
Initiation Checklist and India Initiation
Checklist.
We are including in our investigations
the following programs alleged in the
Petitions to have provided
countervailable subsidies to producers
and exporters of the subject
merchandise in India and Indonesia:
I. India:
A. Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme
(‘‘DEPS’’)
B. Export Processing Zones and Export
Oriented Units
1. Duty Free Import of Capital Goods
and Raw Materials
2. Reimbursement of Central Sales
Tax Paid on Domestically–Sourced
Materials
3. Duty Drawback on Furnace Oil
Sourced from Domestic Companies
C. Pre–Shipment and Post Shipment
Export Financing
D. Income Tax Exemption Schemes
under Sections 10A, 10B and 80 HHC
E. Export Promotion Capital Goods
Scheme (‘‘EPCGS’’)
G. Market Access Initiative
H. Market Development Assistance
I. Status Certificate Program
J. State Programs
1. State of Gujarat Sales Tax Program
2. State of Maharashtra Sales Tax
Program
II. Indonesia
A. Provision of Logs at Less Than
Adequate Remuneration
1. Provision of Fiber at Preferential
Rates
2. Government Ban on Log Exports
B. Subsidized Funding for Reforestation
(Hutan Tanaman Industria or HTI
Program)
C. Accelerated Depreciation
We are not including in our
investigation the following programs
alleged to benefit producers and
exporters of the subject merchandise in
Indonesia:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:27 Oct 06, 2005
Jkt 208001
A. Non–Enforcement of Banking
Regulations at Conglomerate–Owned
Financial Institutions
Petitioner alleges that the Government
of Indonesia’s non–enforcement of its
laws intended to ensure prudent
lending and the solvency of lending
institutions permitted financial
institutions controlled by forest industry
conglomerates to provide credit to
producers of the subject merchandise
which would not have otherwise been
available. In particular, Petitioner
asserts that Sinar Mas/APP’s affiliated
bank, Bank Internasional Indonesia
(BII), made loans to its affiliates that
exceeded the legal loan exposure limit
of the bank to any one affiliated
company.
Petitioner provided insufficient
information regarding the existence of a
financial contribution or specificity.
B. Government Protection from
Bankruptcy
Sinar Mas/APP had amassed an
estimated debt of $13.4 to $13.9 billion
in high yield bonds and loans from
several domestic and international
financial institutions and Export Credit
Agencies (ECAs). In March 2001, Sinar
Mas/APP unilaterally ceased all of its
debt payments. Of this estimated debt,
$1.3 billion was owed to BII. In May
2001, the BII and the Sinar Mas/APP
debt owed to the bank were placed
under the control of the Indonesian
Bank Restructuring Agency (IBRA), a
government entity created under the
Indonesian Ministry of Finance. In
assuming the Sinar Mas/APP debt, IBRA
received a lien on all Sinar Mas/APP
assets, which gave the agency first rights
to Sinar Mas/APP assets. Because IBRA
never attempted to exercise its liens,
Petitioner alleges that IBRA provided a
shield for Sinar Mas/APP preventing
foreign creditors from collecting on the
estimated $12.6 billion or forcing Sinar
Mas/APP into bankruptcy. Sinar Mas/
APP continued to operate without any
changes to ownership.
Petitioner provided insufficient
information regarding the existence of a
financial contribution or specificity.
C. Invalidation of Bonds Through Court
Action
Sinar Mas/APP sued in Indonesian
court to invalidate bonds it had issued
with an estimated value of $550 million.
The bonds were registered with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange commission,
underwritten by Morgan Stanley, and
held by international investors. The
District Court of Kuala Tungkal ruled
that the bonds were invalid on the
grounds that they were concocted by the
foreign institutions to earn excessive
fees. Therefore, the court ruled that
Sinar Mas/APP did not have to repay
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the $550 million in bonds or the
accrued interest to its creditors.
Petitioner provided insufficient
information regarding the financial
contribution or specificity. Moreover,
according to the information provided
by Petitioner, the financial institutions
still have the option of appealing the
Indonesian court decision. Therefore,
the judicial process in this claim has not
finished its course.
D. Tax Holidays, Import Duty
Exemption and Other Tax Benefits
The Department found in Indonesian
Textiles2 that the Indonesian Ministry of
Finance may grant industries a variety
of tax benefits, such as tax holidays,
exemption from capital stamp duties
and different levels of exemption from
corporate taxes. The industries
approved for the tax benefits are
deemed ‘‘priority’’ industries by the
Ministry of Finance and also are listed
on two priority lists called Daftar Skala
Priorities (DSP).
We do not plan to investigate these
alleged subsidies because they were
recurring subsidies which occurred in
1983, 22 years ago, and there has been
no new information provided by
Petitioner to indicate that these
programs are still in existence.
E. Working Capital Export Credits
Beginning in June 1983, Indonesian
state and private banks offered working
capital export credits to domestic
companies exporting goods other than
gas and oil. The banks decided which
companies could borrow and the
interest rate to charge. The Department
preliminarily found this to be a
countervailable subsidy.
We do not plan to investigate these
alleged subsidies because they were
recurring subsidies which occurred in
1983, 22 years ago, and there has been
no new information provided by
Petitioner to indicate that these
programs are still in existence.
Other
A. Provision of Capital on Preferential
Terms Prior to the Indonesian Financial
Crisis
In its September 9th filing, Petitioner
alleged that preferential financing was
provided to the forest industry during
the 1990’s and included information
regarding loans to Bob Hasan’s
Kalimanis Group. In its September 22nd
submission, Petitioner stated that it did
not know whether any members of the
Bob Hasan Group produced or exporter
subject merchandise, and reserved the
right to provide additional information.
2 See Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determinations; Certain Textile Mills Products and
Apparel from Indonesia, 49 FR 49672 (December
12, 1984) (Indonesian Textiles).
E:\FR\FM\07OCN1.SGM
07OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 194 / Friday, October 7, 2005 / Notices
Therefore, we are not including this
allegation in our investigation at this
time.
Distribution of Copies of the Petitions
In accordance with section
702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, a copy of the
public version of the Petitions has been
provided to the Government of India
and Government of Indonesia. We will
attempt to provide a copy of the public
version of the Petition to each exporter
named in the Petition, as provided for
under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
ITC Notification
We have notified the ITC of our
initiations, as required by section 702(d)
of the Act.
Preliminary Determinations by the ITC
The ITC will preliminarily determine,
within 25 days after the date on which
it receives notice of these initiations,
whether there is a reasonable indication
that imports of certain lined paper
products from India and Indonesia are
causing material injury, or threatening
to cause material injury, to a U.S.
industry. See section 703(a)(2) of the
Act. A negative ITC determination will
result in the investigations being
terminated; otherwise, these
investigations will proceed according to
statutory and regulatory time limits.
This notice is issued and published
pursuant to section 777(I) of the Act.
Dated: September 29, 2005.
Barbara E. Tillman,
Acting Assistant Secretaryfor Import
Administration.
Appendix I
Scope of the Investigation
The scope of this investigation includes
certain lined paper products, typically
school supplies,1 composed of or
including paper that incorporates
straight horizontal and/or vertical lines
on ten or more paper sheets,2 including
but not limited to such products as
single- and multi–subject notebooks,
composition books, wireless notebooks,
looseleaf or glued filler paper, graph
paper, and laboratory notebooks, and
with the smaller dimension of the paper
measuring 6 inches to 15 inches
(inclusive) and the larger dimension of
the paper measuring 8–3/4 inches to 15
inches (inclusive). Page dimensions are
measured size (not advertised, stated, or
‘‘tear–out’’ size), and are measured as
1 For purposes of this scope definition, the actual
use of or labeling these products as school supplies
or non–school supplies is not a defining
characteristic.
2 There shall be no minimum page requirement
for looseleaf filler paper.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:27 Oct 06, 2005
Jkt 208001
they appear in the product (i.e., stitched
and folded pages in a notebook are
measured by the size of the page as it
appears in the notebook page, not the
size of the unfolded paper). However,
for measurement purposes, pages with
tapered or rounded edges shall be
measured at their longest and widest
points. Subject lined paper products
may be loose, packaged or bound using
any binding method (other than case
bound through the inclusion of binders
board, a spine strip, and cover wrap).
Subject merchandise may or may not
contain any combination of a front
cover, a rear cover, and/or backing of
any composition, regardless of the
inclusion of images or graphics on the
cover, backing, or paper. Subject
merchandise is within the scope of this
petition whether or not the lined paper
and/or cover are hole punched, drilled,
perforated, and/or reinforced. Subject
merchandise may contain accessory or
informational items including but not
limited to pockets, tabs, dividers,
closure devices, index cards, stencils,
protractors, writing implements,
reference materials such as
mathematical tables, or printed items
such as sticker sheets or miniature
calendars, if such items are physically
incorporated , included with, or
attached to the product, cover and/or
backing thereto.
Specifically excluded from the scope of
this petition are:
• unlined copy machine paper;
• writing pads with a backing (including
but not limited to products commonly
known as ‘‘tablets,’’ ‘‘note pads,’’ ‘‘legal
pads,’’ and ‘‘quadrille pads’’), provided
that they do not have a front cover
(whether permanent or removable). This
exclusion does not apply to such
writing pads if they consist of hole–
punched or drilled filler paper;
• three–ring or multiple–ring binders, or
notebook organizers incorporating such
a ring binder provided that they do not
include subject paper;
• index cards;
• printed books and other books that are
case bound through the inclusion of
binders board, a spine strip, and cover
wrap;
• newspapers;
• pictures and photographs;
• desk and wall calendars and
organizers (including but not limited to
such products generally known as
‘‘office planners,’’ ‘‘time books,’’ and
‘‘appointment books’’);
• telephone logs;
• address books;
• columnar pads & tablets, with or
without covers, primarily suited for the
recording of written numerical business
data;
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
58693
• lined business or office forms,
including but not limited to: preprinted
business forms, lined invoice pads and
paper, mailing and address labels,
manifests, and shipping log books;
• lined continuous computer paper;
• boxed or packaged writing stationary
(including but not limited to products
commonly known as ‘‘fine business
paper,’’ ‘‘parchment paper, ‘‘ and
‘‘letterhead’’), whether or not containing
a lined header or decorative lines;
• Stenographic pads (‘‘steno pads’’),
Gregg ruled,3 measuring 6 inches by 9
inches;
Also excluded from the scope of these
investigations are the following
trademarked products:
• FlyTM lined paper products: A
notebook, notebook organizer, loose or
glued note paper, with papers that are
printed with infrared reflective inks and
readable only by a FlyTM pen–top
computer. The product must bear the
valid trademark FlyTM.4
• ZwipesTM: A notebook or notebook
organizer made with a blended
polyolefin writing surface as the cover
and pocket surfaces of the notebook,
suitable for writing using a specially–
developed permanent marker and erase
system (known as a ZwipesTM pen).
This system allows the marker portion
to mark the writing surface with a
permanent ink. The eraser portion of the
marker dispenses a solvent capable of
solubilizing the permanent ink allowing
the ink to be removed. The product
must bear the valid trademark
ZwipesTM.5
• FiveStarAdvanceTM: A notebook or
notebook organizer bound by a
continuous spiral, or helical, wire and
with plastic front and rear covers made
of a blended polyolefin plastic material
joined by 300 denier polyester, coated
on the backside with PVC (poly vinyl
chloride) coating, and extending the
entire length of the spiral or helical
wire. The polyolefin plastic covers are
of specific thickness; front cover is .019
inches (within normal manufacturing
tolerances) and rear cover is .028 inches
(within normal manufacturing
tolerances). Integral with the stitching
that attaches the polyester spine
covering, is captured both ends of a 1’’
wide elastic fabric band. This band is
located 2–3/8’’ from the top of the front
3 ‘‘Gregg ruling’’ consists of single– or double–
margin vertical ruling line down the center of the
page. For a six–inch by nine–inch stenographic pad,
the ruling would be located approximately three
inches from the left of the book.
4 Products found to be bearing an invalidly
licensed or used trademark are not excluded from
the scope.
5 Products found to be bearing an invalidly
licensed or used trademark are not excluded from
the scope.
E:\FR\FM\07OCN1.SGM
07OCN1
58694
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 194 / Friday, October 7, 2005 / Notices
plastic cover and provides pen or pencil
storage. Both ends of the spiral wire are
cut and then bent backwards to overlap
with the previous coil but specifically
outside the coil diameter but inside the
polyester covering. During construction,
the polyester covering is sewn to the
front and rear covers face to face
(outside to outside) so that when the
book is closed, the stitching is
concealed from the outside. Both free
ends (the ends not sewn to the cover
and back) are stitched with a turned
edge construction. The flexible
polyester material forms a covering over
the spiral wire to protect it and provide
a comfortable grip on the product. The
product must bear the valid trademarks
FiveStarAdvanceTM.6
• FiveStar FlexTM: A notebook, a
notebook organizer, or binder with
plastic polyolefin front and rear covers
joined by 300 denier polyester spine
cover extending the entire length of the
spine and bound by a 3–ring plastic
fixture. The polyolefin plastic covers are
of a specific thickness; front cover is
.019 inches (within normal
manufacturing tolerances) and rear
cover is .028 inches (within normal
manufacturing tolerances). During
construction, the polyester covering is
sewn to the front cover face to face
(outside to outside) so that when the
book is closed, the stitching is
concealed from the outside. During
construction, the polyester cover is
sewn to the back cover with the outside
of the polyester spine cover to the inside
back cover. Both free ends (the ends not
sewn to the cover and back) are stitched
with a turned edge construction. Each
ring within the fixture is comprised of
a flexible strap portion that snaps into
a stationary post which forms a closed
binding ring. The ring fixture is riveted
with six metal rivets and sewn to the
back plastic cover and is specifically
positioned on the outside back cover.
The product must bear the valid
trademark FiveStar FlexTM.7
Merchandise subject to this
investigation is typically imported
under headings 4820.10.2050,
4810.22.5044, 4811.90.9090 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS).8 The tariff
classifications are provided for
convenience and U.S. Customs and
Border Protection purposes; however,
6 Products found to be bearing an invalidly
licensed or used trademark are not excluded from
the scope.
7 Products found to be bearing an invalidly
licensed or used trademark are not excluded from
the scope.
8 During the investigation additional HTS codes
may be identified.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:27 Oct 06, 2005
Jkt 208001
the written description of the scope of
the investigation is dispositive.
[FR Doc. E5–5541 Filed 10–6–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Institute of Standards and
Technology
Advanced Technology Program
Advisory Committee
National Institute of Standards
and Technology, Department of
Commerce.
AGENCY:
Notice of partially closed
meeting.
ACTION:
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal
Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app.
2, notice is hereby given that the
Advanced Technology Program
Advisory Committee, National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST),
will meet Tuesday, November 1, 2005
from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. The Advanced
Technology Program Advisory
Committee is composed of ten members
appointed by the Director of NIST; who
are eminent in such fields as business,
research, new product development,
engineering, education, and
management consulting. The purpose of
this meeting is to review and make
recommendations regarding general
policy for the Advanced Technology
Program (ATP), its organization, its
budget, and its programs within the
framework of applicable national
policies as set forth by the President and
the Congress. The agenda will include
presentations on American
Competitiveness and the U.S.
Electronics Sector, Nanotechnology, the
Current State of Aquaculture and
International Economic Challenges. A
discussion scheduled to begin at 2 p.m.
and to end at 4 p.m. on November 1,
2005, on ATP budget issues will be
closed. Agenda may change to
accommodate Committee business. All
visitors to the National Institute of
Standards and Technology site will
have to pre-register to be admitted.
Please submit your name, time of
arrival, e-mail address and phone
number to Donna Paul no later than
Friday, October 28, and she will provide
you with instructions for admittance.
Ms. Paul’s e-mail address is
donna.paul@nist.gov and her phone
number is 301/975–2162.
The meeting will convene
Tuesday, November 1, at 9 a.m. and will
adjourn at 4 p.m. on Tuesday,
November 1, 2005.
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The meeting will be held at
the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, Administration Building,
Employees’ Lounge, Gaithersburg,
Maryland 20899. Please note admittance
instructions under SUMMARY paragraph.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donna Paul, National Institute of
Standards and Technology,
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899–4700,
telephone number (301) 975–2162.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Assistant Secretary for Administration,
with the concurrence of the General
Counsel, formally determined on
December 27, 2004, that portions of the
meeting of the Advanced Technology
Program Advisory Committee which
involve discussion of proposed funding
of the Advanced Technology Program
may be closed in accordance with 5
U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B), because that
portion will divulge matters the
premature disclosure of which would be
likely to significantly frustrate
implementation of proposed agency
actions.
ADDRESSES:
Dated: October 3, 2005.
William Jeffrey,
Director.
[FR Doc. 05–20197 Filed 10–6–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Notice of Availability of Draft
Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS), Notice of Public Comment
Period for the DEIS and Schedule of
Public Hearings for the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration’s Office of Ocean and
Coastal Resource Management’s
Review of Amendments to the Alaska
Coastal Management Program
Department of Commerce
(DOC), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management (OCRM).
ACTION: Notice of Availability of DEIS,
Notice of Public Comment Period for the
DEIS and Schedule of Public Hearings.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: NOAA’s Office of Ocean and
Coastal Resource Management is issuing
this notice to advise the public that a
DEIS for OCRM’s review of amendments
to the Alaska Coastal Management
Program has been prepared and is
available for public review and
comment. Written requests for the DEIS
and written comments on the DEIS can
be submitted to the individual listed in
E:\FR\FM\07OCN1.SGM
07OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 194 (Friday, October 7, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58690-58694]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-5541]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-533-844, C-560-819]
Notice of Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations:
Certain Lined Paper Products from India (C-533-844) and Indonesia (C-
560-819)
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Initiation of countervailing duty investigation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is initiating countervailing duty
investigations to determine whether manufacturers, producers, or
exporters of certain lined paper products from India and Indonesia
receive countervailable subsidies.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 7, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maura Jeffords and Eric B. Greynolds
(India) or Indonesia, David Layton or David Neubacher (Indonesia) AD/
CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
0371 and (202) 482-5823,(202) 482-3146 and (202) 482-6071,(202) or 482-
0371 and (202) 482-5823, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Initiation of Investigations
The Petitions
Between September 9 and September 26, 2005, the Department of
Commerce (``the Department'') received Petitions, and amendments to the
Petitions, (``the Petitions'') filed in proper form by Association of
American School Suppliers (``Petitioner'').
In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (effective January 1, 1995)
(``the Act''), Petitioner alleges that manufacturers, producers, or
exporters of certain lined paper products (``certain lined CLPP paper''
or ``subject merchandise'') from India and Indonesia receive
countervailable subsidies within the meaning of section 701 of the Act,
and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material
injury, to an industry in the United States. On September 21, 2005, the
Department issued a memo clarifying that the official filing date of
the Petitions was September 9, 2005. See Memorandum from the Team to
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary Barbara Tillman: Decision Memorandum
Concerning Filing Date of Petitions, September 21, 2005, (explaining
that the proper file date is September 9, 2005, as it was filed at the
ITC after the noon deadline on the previous day).
The Department finds that Petitioner filed the Petitions on behalf
of the domestic industry because they are interested parties, as
defined in sections 771(9)(E) and (F) of the Act, and have demonstrated
sufficient industry support in accordance with section 702(c)(4)(A) of
the Act. See infra, ``Determination of Industry Support for the
Petitions.''
Scope of Investigation
See Appendix I.
Comments on Scope of Investigations
During our review of the Petitions, we discussed the scope with
Petitioner to ensure that it accurately reflects the product for which
the domestic industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as discussed in the
preamble to the Department's regulations, we are setting aside a period
for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. See
Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27295,
27323 (1997). The Department encourages all interested parties to
submit such comments within 20 calendar days of publication of this
initiation notice. Comments should be addressed to Import
Administration's Central Records Unit (``CRU'') in Room 1870, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230 - Attn: James Terpstra. The period of scope
consultations is intended to provide the Department with ample
opportunity to consider all comments and consult with interested
parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determinations.
[[Page 58691]]
Consultations
Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department
invited representatives of the Governments of India and Indonesia for
consultations with respect to the Petitions. The Department held
consultations with the Government of Indonesia on September 23, 2005.
The points raised in the consultations are described in the
consultation memorandum to the file dated September 26, 2005, and in
the Government of Indonesia's September 22, 2005, and September 26,
2005, submissions to the Department, both of which are on file in the
CRU. The Government of India declined the Department's invitation for
consultations.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Memorandum to the File from Maura Jeffords Regarding
Subject Consultations and the Government of India (GOI), Sept. 22,
2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic
producers or workers who support the petition account for: (1) at least
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and
(2) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product
produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or
opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act
provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic
producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total
production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (1) poll
the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if
there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A), or
(2) determine industry support using a statistically valid sample.
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the
producers of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether the
petition has the requisite industry support, the Act directs the
Department to look to producers and workers who account for production
of the domestic like product. The ITC, which is responsible for
determining whether ``the domestic industry'' has been injured, must
also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to
define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply
the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product (see
section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different purposes and
pursuant to separate and distinct authority. In addition, the
Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and
information. Although this may result in different definitions of the
domestic like product, such differences do not render the decision of
either agency contrary to the law. See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132
F. Supp. 2d 1 (CIT 2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd. v. United
States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 642-44 (CIT 1988)).
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a
product that is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation
under this title.'' Thus, the reference point from which the domestic
like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an
investigation'' (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the
petition).
With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioner does not offer
a definition of domestic like product distinct from the scope of the
investigation. See Indonesia Initiation Checklist, India Initiation
Checklist at Attachment II (Industry Support). Based on our analysis of
the information submitted in the Petitions we have determined that
there is a single domestic like product, certain lined paper products,
which is defined further in the ``Scope of the Investigations'' section
in Appendix I, and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that
domestic like product.
Our review of the data provided in the petition and other
information readily available to the Department indicates that
Petitioner has established industry support representing at least 25
percent of the total production of the domestic like product, and more
than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced
by that portion of the industry, requiring no further action by the
Department pursuant to section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act. In addition,
the Department received no opposition to the Petitions from domestic
producers of the like product. Therefore, the domestic producers (or
workers) who support the Petitions account for at least 25 percent of
the total production of the domestic like product, and the requirements
of section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act are met. Furthermore, the
domestic producers who support the Petitions account for more than 50
percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that
portion of the industry expressing support for or opposition to the
Petitions. Thus, the requirements of section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the
Act also are met. Accordingly, the Department determines that the
Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the
meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. See Indonesia Initiation
Checklist and India Initiation Checklist at Attachment II (Industry
Support).
The Department finds that Petitioner filed these petitions on
behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as
defined in sections 771(9)(E) and (F) of the Act and it has
demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the
countervailing duty investigations that it is requesting the Department
initiate. See Indonesia Initiation Checklist and India Initiation
Checklist.
Injury Test
Because India and Indonesia are each a ``Subsidies Agreement
Country'' within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section
701(a)(2) of the Act applies to these investigations. Accordingly, the
ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from
India and Indonesia materially injure, or threaten material injury to,
a U.S. industry.
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causations
With regard to India and Indonesia, Petitioner alleges that the
U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially
injured, and is threatened with material injury, by reason of the
individual and cumulative imports of the subject merchandise.
Petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is
illustrated by the decline in its customer base, market share, domestic
shipments, prices and profit. We have assessed the allegations and
supporting evidence regarding material injury and causation, and we
have determined that these allegations are properly supported by
adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for initiation.
See Indonesia Initiation Checklist, India Initiation Checklist at
Attachment III (Injury).
Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations
Section 702(b) of the Act requires the Department to initiate a
countervailing duty proceeding whenever an interested party files a
petition on behalf of an industry that (1) alleges the elements
necessary for an imposition of a duty under section 701(a) of the Act
and (2) is accompanied by information reasonably available to
Petitioner supporting the allegations.
[[Page 58692]]
The Department has examined the countervailing duty petitions on
certain lined paper products from India and Indonesia and found that
they comply with the requirements of section 702(b) of the Act.
Therefore, in accordance with section 702(b) of the Act, we are
initiating countervailing duty investigations to determine whether
manufacturers, producers, or exporters of certain lined paper products
from India and Indonesia receive countervailable subsidies. For a
discussion of evidence supporting our initiation determination, see
Indonesia Initiation Checklist and India Initiation Checklist.
We are including in our investigations the following programs
alleged in the Petitions to have provided countervailable subsidies to
producers and exporters of the subject merchandise in India and
Indonesia:
I. India:
A. Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (``DEPS'')
B. Export Processing Zones and Export Oriented Units
1. Duty Free Import of Capital Goods and Raw Materials
2. Reimbursement of Central Sales Tax Paid on Domestically-Sourced
Materials
3. Duty Drawback on Furnace Oil Sourced from Domestic Companies
C. Pre-Shipment and Post Shipment Export Financing
D. Income Tax Exemption Schemes under Sections 10A, 10B and 80 HHC
E. Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (``EPCGS'')
G. Market Access Initiative
H. Market Development Assistance
I. Status Certificate Program
J. State Programs
1. State of Gujarat Sales Tax Program
2. State of Maharashtra Sales Tax Program
II. Indonesia
A. Provision of Logs at Less Than Adequate Remuneration
1. Provision of Fiber at Preferential Rates
2. Government Ban on Log Exports
B. Subsidized Funding for Reforestation (Hutan Tanaman Industria or HTI
Program)
C. Accelerated Depreciation
We are not including in our investigation the following programs
alleged to benefit producers and exporters of the subject merchandise
in Indonesia:
A. Non-Enforcement of Banking Regulations at Conglomerate-Owned
Financial Institutions
Petitioner alleges that the Government of Indonesia's non-
enforcement of its laws intended to ensure prudent lending and the
solvency of lending institutions permitted financial institutions
controlled by forest industry conglomerates to provide credit to
producers of the subject merchandise which would not have otherwise
been available. In particular, Petitioner asserts that Sinar Mas/APP's
affiliated bank, Bank Internasional Indonesia (BII), made loans to its
affiliates that exceeded the legal loan exposure limit of the bank to
any one affiliated company.
Petitioner provided insufficient information regarding the
existence of a financial contribution or specificity.
B. Government Protection from Bankruptcy
Sinar Mas/APP had amassed an estimated debt of $13.4 to $13.9
billion in high yield bonds and loans from several domestic and
international financial institutions and Export Credit Agencies (ECAs).
In March 2001, Sinar Mas/APP unilaterally ceased all of its debt
payments. Of this estimated debt, $1.3 billion was owed to BII. In May
2001, the BII and the Sinar Mas/APP debt owed to the bank were placed
under the control of the Indonesian Bank Restructuring Agency (IBRA), a
government entity created under the Indonesian Ministry of Finance. In
assuming the Sinar Mas/APP debt, IBRA received a lien on all Sinar Mas/
APP assets, which gave the agency first rights to Sinar Mas/APP assets.
Because IBRA never attempted to exercise its liens, Petitioner alleges
that IBRA provided a shield for Sinar Mas/APP preventing foreign
creditors from collecting on the estimated $12.6 billion or forcing
Sinar Mas/APP into bankruptcy. Sinar Mas/APP continued to operate
without any changes to ownership.
Petitioner provided insufficient information regarding the
existence of a financial contribution or specificity.
C. Invalidation of Bonds Through Court Action
Sinar Mas/APP sued in Indonesian court to invalidate bonds it had
issued with an estimated value of $550 million. The bonds were
registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange commission,
underwritten by Morgan Stanley, and held by international investors.
The District Court of Kuala Tungkal ruled that the bonds were invalid
on the grounds that they were concocted by the foreign institutions to
earn excessive fees. Therefore, the court ruled that Sinar Mas/APP did
not have to repay the $550 million in bonds or the accrued interest to
its creditors.
Petitioner provided insufficient information regarding the
financial contribution or specificity. Moreover, according to the
information provided by Petitioner, the financial institutions still
have the option of appealing the Indonesian court decision. Therefore,
the judicial process in this claim has not finished its course.
D. Tax Holidays, Import Duty Exemption and Other Tax Benefits
The Department found in Indonesian Textiles\2\ that the Indonesian
Ministry of Finance may grant industries a variety of tax benefits,
such as tax holidays, exemption from capital stamp duties and different
levels of exemption from corporate taxes. The industries approved for
the tax benefits are deemed ``priority'' industries by the Ministry of
Finance and also are listed on two priority lists called Daftar Skala
Priorities (DSP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determinations; Certain Textile Mills Products and Apparel from
Indonesia, 49 FR 49672 (December 12, 1984) (Indonesian Textiles).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We do not plan to investigate these alleged subsidies because they
were recurring subsidies which occurred in 1983, 22 years ago, and
there has been no new information provided by Petitioner to indicate
that these programs are still in existence.
E. Working Capital Export Credits
Beginning in June 1983, Indonesian state and private banks offered
working capital export credits to domestic companies exporting goods
other than gas and oil. The banks decided which companies could borrow
and the interest rate to charge. The Department preliminarily found
this to be a countervailable subsidy.
We do not plan to investigate these alleged subsidies because they
were recurring subsidies which occurred in 1983, 22 years ago, and
there has been no new information provided by Petitioner to indicate
that these programs are still in existence.
Other
A. Provision of Capital on Preferential Terms Prior to the Indonesian
Financial Crisis
In its September 9th filing, Petitioner alleged that preferential
financing was provided to the forest industry during the 1990's and
included information regarding loans to Bob Hasan's Kalimanis Group. In
its September 22nd submission, Petitioner stated that it did not know
whether any members of the Bob Hasan Group produced or exporter subject
merchandise, and reserved the right to provide additional information.
[[Page 58693]]
Therefore, we are not including this allegation in our investigation at
this time.
Distribution of Copies of the Petitions
In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, a copy of
the public version of the Petitions has been provided to the Government
of India and Government of Indonesia. We will attempt to provide a copy
of the public version of the Petition to each exporter named in the
Petition, as provided for under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
ITC Notification
We have notified the ITC of our initiations, as required by section
702(d) of the Act.
Preliminary Determinations by the ITC
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 25 days after the date
on which it receives notice of these initiations, whether there is a
reasonable indication that imports of certain lined paper products from
India and Indonesia are causing material injury, or threatening to
cause material injury, to a U.S. industry. See section 703(a)(2) of the
Act. A negative ITC determination will result in the investigations
being terminated; otherwise, these investigations will proceed
according to statutory and regulatory time limits.
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(I) of
the Act.
Dated: September 29, 2005.
Barbara E. Tillman,
Acting Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.
Appendix I
Scope of the Investigation
The scope of this investigation includes certain lined paper products,
typically school supplies,\1\ composed of or including paper that
incorporates straight horizontal and/or vertical lines on ten or more
paper sheets,\2\ including but not limited to such products as single-
and multi-subject notebooks, composition books, wireless notebooks,
looseleaf or glued filler paper, graph paper, and laboratory notebooks,
and with the smaller dimension of the paper measuring 6 inches to 15
inches (inclusive) and the larger dimension of the paper measuring 8-3/
4 inches to 15 inches (inclusive). Page dimensions are measured size
(not advertised, stated, or ``tear-out'' size), and are measured as
they appear in the product (i.e., stitched and folded pages in a
notebook are measured by the size of the page as it appears in the
notebook page, not the size of the unfolded paper). However, for
measurement purposes, pages with tapered or rounded edges shall be
measured at their longest and widest points. Subject lined paper
products may be loose, packaged or bound using any binding method
(other than case bound through the inclusion of binders board, a spine
strip, and cover wrap). Subject merchandise may or may not contain any
combination of a front cover, a rear cover, and/or backing of any
composition, regardless of the inclusion of images or graphics on the
cover, backing, or paper. Subject merchandise is within the scope of
this petition whether or not the lined paper and/or cover are hole
punched, drilled, perforated, and/or reinforced. Subject merchandise
may contain accessory or informational items including but not limited
to pockets, tabs, dividers, closure devices, index cards, stencils,
protractors, writing implements, reference materials such as
mathematical tables, or printed items such as sticker sheets or
miniature calendars, if such items are physically incorporated ,
included with, or attached to the product, cover and/or backing
thereto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For purposes of this scope definition, the actual use of or
labeling these products as school supplies or non-school supplies is
not a defining characteristic.
\2\ There shall be no minimum page requirement for looseleaf
filler paper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically excluded from the scope of this petition are:
unlined copy machine paper;
writing pads with a backing (including but not limited to
products commonly known as ``tablets,'' ``note pads,'' ``legal pads,''
and ``quadrille pads''), provided that they do not have a front cover
(whether permanent or removable). This exclusion does not apply to such
writing pads if they consist of hole-punched or drilled filler paper;
three-ring or multiple-ring binders, or notebook organizers
incorporating such a ring binder provided that they do not include
subject paper;
index cards;
printed books and other books that are case bound through the
inclusion of binders board, a spine strip, and cover wrap;
newspapers;
pictures and photographs;
desk and wall calendars and organizers (including but not
limited to such products generally known as ``office planners,'' ``time
books,'' and ``appointment books'');
telephone logs;
address books;
columnar pads & tablets, with or without covers, primarily
suited for the recording of written numerical business data;
lined business or office forms, including but not limited to:
preprinted business forms, lined invoice pads and paper, mailing and
address labels, manifests, and shipping log books;
lined continuous computer paper;
boxed or packaged writing stationary (including but not
limited to products commonly known as ``fine business paper,''
``parchment paper, `` and ``letterhead''), whether or not containing a
lined header or decorative lines;
Stenographic pads (``steno pads''), Gregg ruled,\3\ measuring
6 inches by 9 inches;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``Gregg ruling'' consists of single- or double-margin
vertical ruling line down the center of the page. For a six-inch by
nine-inch stenographic pad, the ruling would be located
approximately three inches from the left of the book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also excluded from the scope of these investigations are the following
trademarked products:
Fly\TM\ lined paper products: A notebook, notebook organizer,
loose or glued note paper, with papers that are printed with infrared
reflective inks and readable only by a Fly\TM\ pen-top computer. The
product must bear the valid trademark Fly\TM\.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Products found to be bearing an invalidly licensed or used
trademark are not excluded from the scope.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zwipes\TM\: A notebook or notebook organizer made with a
blended polyolefin writing surface as the cover and pocket surfaces of
the notebook, suitable for writing using a specially-developed
permanent marker and erase system (known as a Zwipes\TM\ pen). This
system allows the marker portion to mark the writing surface with a
permanent ink. The eraser portion of the marker dispenses a solvent
capable of solubilizing the permanent ink allowing the ink to be
removed. The product must bear the valid trademark Zwipes\TM\.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Products found to be bearing an invalidly licensed or used
trademark are not excluded from the scope.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FiveStar[reg]Advance\TM\: A notebook or notebook organizer
bound by a continuous spiral, or helical, wire and with plastic front
and rear covers made of a blended polyolefin plastic material joined by
300 denier polyester, coated on the backside with PVC (poly vinyl
chloride) coating, and extending the entire length of the spiral or
helical wire. The polyolefin plastic covers are of specific thickness;
front cover is .019 inches (within normal manufacturing tolerances) and
rear cover is .028 inches (within normal manufacturing tolerances).
Integral with the stitching that attaches the polyester spine covering,
is captured both ends of a 1'' wide elastic fabric band. This band is
located 2-3/8'' from the top of the front
[[Page 58694]]
plastic cover and provides pen or pencil storage. Both ends of the
spiral wire are cut and then bent backwards to overlap with the
previous coil but specifically outside the coil diameter but inside the
polyester covering. During construction, the polyester covering is sewn
to the front and rear covers face to face (outside to outside) so that
when the book is closed, the stitching is concealed from the outside.
Both free ends (the ends not sewn to the cover and back) are stitched
with a turned edge construction. The flexible polyester material forms
a covering over the spiral wire to protect it and provide a comfortable
grip on the product. The product must bear the valid trademarks
FiveStar[reg]Advance\TM\.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Products found to be bearing an invalidly licensed or used
trademark are not excluded from the scope.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FiveStar Flex\TM\: A notebook, a notebook organizer, or binder
with plastic polyolefin front and rear covers joined by 300 denier
polyester spine cover extending the entire length of the spine and
bound by a 3-ring plastic fixture. The polyolefin plastic covers are of
a specific thickness; front cover is .019 inches (within normal
manufacturing tolerances) and rear cover is .028 inches (within normal
manufacturing tolerances). During construction, the polyester covering
is sewn to the front cover face to face (outside to outside) so that
when the book is closed, the stitching is concealed from the outside.
During construction, the polyester cover is sewn to the back cover with
the outside of the polyester spine cover to the inside back cover. Both
free ends (the ends not sewn to the cover and back) are stitched with a
turned edge construction. Each ring within the fixture is comprised of
a flexible strap portion that snaps into a stationary post which forms
a closed binding ring. The ring fixture is riveted with six metal
rivets and sewn to the back plastic cover and is specifically
positioned on the outside back cover. The product must bear the valid
trademark FiveStar Flex\TM\.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Products found to be bearing an invalidly licensed or used
trademark are not excluded from the scope.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Merchandise subject to this investigation is typically imported under
headings 4820.10.2050, 4810.22.5044, 4811.90.9090 of the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).\8\ The tariff
classifications are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs and
Border Protection purposes; however, the written description of the
scope of the investigation is dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ During the investigation additional HTS codes may be
identified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. E5-5541 Filed 10-6-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
