Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Lined Paper Products from Indonesia, 15162-15168 [E6-4399]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 58 (Monday, March 27, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15162-15168]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-4399]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-560-818]


Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Lined Paper Products from Indonesia

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 27, 2006
SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine that imports of certain lined paper 
products (``CLPP'') are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United 
States at less than fair value, as provided in section 733 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). Interested parties are 
invited to comment on this preliminary determination. We will make our 
final determination within 75 days after the date of this preliminary 
determination.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brandon Farlander, or Natalie Kempkey, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
0182 or (202) 482-1698, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On October 6, 2005, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') 
initiated the antidumping investigation of CLPP from Indonesia. See 
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Lined Paper 
Products from Indonesia, 70 FR 58374 (October 6, 2005) (``Initiation 
Notice''). The Department set aside a period for all interested parties 
to raise issues regarding product coverage. See Initiation Notice. The 
comments we received are discussed in the ``Scope Comments'' section 
below.
    On October 31, 2005, the International Trade Commission (``ITC'') 
issued its affirmative preliminary determination that there is a 
reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is 
materially injured by reason of imports from Indonesia of CLPP alleged 
to be sold in the United States at less than fair value. See Certain 
Lined Paper School Supplies From China, India, and Indonesia 
[Investigation Nos. 701-TA-442-443 and 731-TA-1095-1097 (Preliminary)], 
(ITC Preliminary Report) 70 FR 62329 ( October 31, 2005).
    On October 31, 2005, the Department issued Mini-section A quantity 
and value (``Q&V'') questionnaires to six

[[Page 15163]]

potential respondents. On November 4, 2005, we issued an extension to 
the deadline for the Q&V from November 9, 2005, to November 15, 2005. 
On November 14 and 15, 2005, we issued a memorandum to the file 
including the responses of two of the six companies from which we 
requested Q&V information. See Memorandum from Natalie Kempkey to the 
File entitled ``November 12, 2005, Letter from P.T. Solo Murni Certain 
Lined Paper School Supplies from Indonesia;'' see also Memorandum from 
Natalie Kempkey to the File entitled ``November 15, 2005, Letter from 
P.T. Locomotif Certain Lined Paper School Supplies from Indonesia.'' We 
received responses from the rest of the companies on November 15, 2005, 
the extended deadline. On November 17, 2005, we concluded that the only 
potential respondent was P.T. Pabrik Kertas Tjiwi Kimia T.B.K. 
(``TK''). See the Memorandum from Natalie Kempkey to Susan Kuhbach 
entitled ``Antidumping Investigation of Certain Lined Paper Products 
from Indonesia: Selection of Respondents.'' On November 28, 2005, the 
Association of American School Paper Suppliers and its individual 
members (MeadWestvaco Corporation; Norcom, Inc.; and Top Flight, Inc.) 
(``Petitioner'') alleged that critical circumstances existed with 
regard to imports from Indonesia, China, and India.
    On November 18, 2005, we issued Sections A, B, C, and D of the 
antidumping questionnaire to TK. We received a Section A response from 
TK on December 9, 2005. On December 20, 2005, TK asked the Department 
to extend the deadlines for responding to Sections B and C and Section 
D to January 2 and 9, 2006, respectively. On December 20, 2006, we 
granted TK's request. We received the Section B-D responses on the 
extended deadlines. On January 26, 2006, the Department sent out its 
second supplemental questionnaire for Section D. This response was due 
by February 10, 2006. We did not receive a timely response from TK for 
this supplemental questionnaire. On February 3, 2006, the Department 
issued a third supplemental questionnaire on sections A-C, due by 
February 17, 2006. We did not receive a timely response from TK for 
this third supplemental questionnaire.
    On January 30, 2006, the Department issued a letter to Tri-Coastal 
Design Group, Inc. (``Tri-Coastal'') questioning whether Tri-Coastal is 
an importer of subject merchandise consistent with 19 CFR. 351.102(b) 
and whether Tri-Coastal qualifies as an interested party to this 
proceeding consistent with 19 U.S.C. 1677(a). Tri-Coastal responded via 
a letter dated February 1, 2006, which the Department received on 
February 6, 2006, that it does not qualify as an interested party. Tri-
Coastal subsequently withdrew its appearance in this investigation, 
resulting in Tri-Coastal's removal from the APO and Public Service 
lists of this proceeding. On March 20, 2006, the Department issued a 
Memorandum to the File concerning the Department's conversation with 
counsel for TK on February 17, 2006, confirming that TK would not 
respond to further Department supplemental questionnaires and that TK 
did not expect the Department to verify TK's information on the record. 
See Memorandum from Damian Felton to the File, dated March 20, 2006, 
and entitled ``Conversation with Counsel for PT. Pabrik Kertas Tjiwi 
Kimia Tbk. Regarding Respondent's Withdrawal from Active 
Participation.''

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation is July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005.

Scope of Investigation

    The scope of this investigation includes certain lined paper 
products, typically school supplies (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) 
composed of or including paper that incorporates straight horizontal 
and/or vertical lines on ten or more paper sheets (there shall be no 
minimum page requirement for looseleaf filler paper) 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 investigation 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 investigation 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;

[[Page 15164]]

 Stenographic pads (``steno pads''), Gregg ruled (``Gregg 
ruling'' consists of a 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.), measuring 6 inches by 9 inches;
    Also excluded from the scope of this investigation 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 (products found to be bearing an invalidly licensed or 
used trademark are not excluded from the scope).
 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 (products found to be bearing an 
invalidly licensed or used trademark are not excluded from the scope).
 FiveStar[reg]AdvanceTM: 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 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]AdvanceTM (products found to be bearing an 
invalidly licensed or used trademark are not excluded from the scope).
 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 (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). During the 
investigation additional HTS codes may be identified. The tariff 
classifications are provided for convenience and customs purposes; 
however, the written description of the scope of the investigation is 
dispositive.

Scope Comments

    In accordance with the preamble to our regulations (see Antidumping 
Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296 (May 19, 1997)), in our 
Initiation Notice we set aside a period of time for parties to raise 
issues regarding product coverage and encouraged all parties to submit 
comments within 20 calendar days of publication of the Initiation 
Notice.
    On October 28, 2005, Continental Accessory Corporation 
(``Continental'') submitted timely scope comments in which it argues 
that the Department should issue a ruling that the scope of this 
investigation does not cover ``fashion stationery,'' a niche lined 
paper product. Continental argues that fashion stationery is 
substantially different from subject commodity-grade lined paper 
products because of differences in physical appearance, production 
methods, costs, consumer expectations, and other factors. Continental 
also argues that none of the domestic petitioners has the capability of 
manufacturing fashion stationery in the United States.
    On November 16, 2005, Petitioner submitted rebuttal comments. 
Petitioner argues that what Continental refers to as ``stationery,'' 
and ``fashion goods,'' is actually nothing more than notebooks. 
Contrary to Continental's allegation, Petitioner claims these notebooks 
are ``substantially produced'' within the United States. Petitioner 
states that the language of the scope is clear in describing the 
products for which relief is sought, ``certain lined paper products 
regardless of the material used for a front or back cover, regardless 
of the inclusion of material on the front and cover, and regardless of 
the binding materials.'' Petitioner also argues that Continental's 
claim that fashion notebooks ``are not intended to be included with 
covered merchandise'' is baseless. Petitioner states that Continental 
has provided no evidence to demonstrate that the purchaser views 
fashion notebooks as a higher value product. Lastly, Petitioner notes 
that the ITC has already rejected Continental's claims that its fashion 
books are not within the scope of the domestic like product or should 
be treated as a separate like product. See ITC Preliminary Report.
    As further discussed in the March 20, 2006, memorandum entitled 
``Scope Exclusion Request: Continental Accessory Corporation'' (on file 
in the Department's Central Records Unit), we denied Continental's 
request that its fashion notebooks be excluded from the scope of the 
investigation.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

    For the reasons discussed below, we determine that the use of 
adverse facts available (``AFA'') is appropriate for the preliminary 
determination with respect

[[Page 15165]]

to TK. See Memorandum to the File from Natalie Kempkey entitled 
``Preliminary Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of 
Certain Lined Paper Products from Indonesia: Corroboration of Total 
Adverse Facts Available Rate,'' dated March 20, 2006.

A. Use of Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party 
withholds information requested by the administering authority, fails 
to provide such information by the deadlines for submission of the 
information and in the form or manner requested, subject to subsections 
(c)(1) and (e) of section 782 of the Act, significantly impedes a 
proceeding under this title, or provides such information but the 
information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i), the 
administering authority shall use, subject to section 782(d) of the 
Act, facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable 
determination. Section 782(d) of the Act provides that, if the 
administering authority determines that a response to a request for 
information does not comply with the request, the administering 
authority shall promptly inform the responding party and provide an 
opportunity to remedy the deficient submission. Section 782(e) of the 
Act further states that the Department shall not decline to consider 
submitted information if all of the following requirements are met: (1) 
the information is submitted by the established deadline; (2) the 
information can be verified; (3) the information is not so incomplete 
that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable 
determination; (4) the interested party has demonstrated that it acted 
to the best of its ability; and (5) the information can be used without 
undue difficulties.
    In this case, TK did not provide information we requested that is 
necessary to calculate an antidumping margin for the preliminary 
determination. Specifically, TK did not respond to two of the 
Department's supplemental questionnaires. We note that information 
requested in those supplemental questionnaires is necessary for the 
Department to complete its analysis and calculations. Thus, in reaching 
our preliminary determination, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A), and 
(C) of the Act, we have based TK's dumping margin on facts otherwise 
available.

B. Application of Adverse Inferences for Facts Available

    In applying adverse inferences to facts otherwise available, 
section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the administering authority 
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, in reaching the applicable determination 
under this title, the administering authority may use an inference 
adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from among the 
facts otherwise available. See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Postponement of 
Final Determination: Certain Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Line Pipe 
From Mexico, 69 FR 59892 (October 6, 2004).
    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.'' See Statement of Administrative Action 
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H. Doc. No. 103-316, at 
870 (1994) (``SAA''). Further, ``affirmative evidence of bad faith, or 
willfulness, on the part of a respondent is not required before the 
Department may make an adverse inference.'' See Antidumping Duties; 
Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296 (May 19, 1997).
    Although the Department provided the respondent with notice of the 
consequences of failure to respond adequately to the supplemental 
questionnaires in this case, TK did not respond to the supplemental 
questionnaires. This constitutes a failure on the part of TK to 
cooperate to the best of its ability to comply with a request for 
information by the Department within the meaning of section 776 of the 
Act. Therefore, the Department has preliminarily determined that, in 
selecting from among the facts otherwise available, an adverse 
inference is warranted. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less than Fair Value: Circular Seamless Stainless Steel Hollow 
Products from Japan, 65 FR 42985 (July 12, 2000) (the Department 
applied total AFA where the respondent failed to respond to the 
antidumping questionnaire).

C. Selection and Corroboration of Information Used as Facts Available

    Where the Department applies AFA because a respondent failed to 
cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a 
request for information, section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the 
Department to rely on information derived from the petition, a final 
determination, a previous administrative review, or other information 
placed on the record. See also 19 CFR 351.308(c) and SAA at 829-831. In 
this case, because we are unable to calculate a margin based on TK's 
own data and because an adverse inference is warranted, we have 
assigned to TK the highest margin alleged in the petition and which we 
included in the notice of initiation of this investigation. See 
Initiation Notice, 70 FR 58374.
    When using facts otherwise available, section 776(c) of the Act 
provides that, when the Department relies on secondary information 
(such as the petition), it must, to the extent practicable, corroborate 
that information from independent sources that are reasonably at its 
disposal.
    The SAA clarifies that ``corroborate'' means the Department will 
satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative 
value. See SAA at 870. The Department's regulations state that 
independent sources used to corroborate such evidence may include, for 
example, published price lists, official import statistics and customs 
data, and information obtained from interested parties during the 
particular investigation. See 19 CFR 351.308(d) and SAA at 870.
    For the purposes of this investigation, to the extent appropriate 
information was available, we reviewed the adequacy and accuracy of the 
information in the petition during our pre-initiation analysis. See the 
September 29, 2005, Office of AD/CVD Operations Initiation Checklist 
(Initiation Checklist) on file in Import Administration's Central 
Records Unit, Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.
    For this preliminary determination, we examined evidence supporting 
the calculations in the petition to determine the probative value of 
the margins in the petition. In accordance with section 776(c) of the 
Act, to the extent practicable, we examined the key elements of the 
export-price and normal-value calculations on which the margins in the 
petition were based. We find that the estimated margins we set forth in 
the Initiation Notice have probative value. See Memorandum to the File 
from Natalie Kempkey entitled ``Preliminary Determination in the 
Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Lined Paper Products from 
Indonesia: Corroboration of Total Adverse Facts Available Rate,'' dated 
March 20, 2006. Therefore, in selecting

[[Page 15166]]

AFA with respect to TK, we have applied the margin rate of 118.63 
percent, the highest estimated dumping margin set forth in the notice 
of initiation. See Initiation Notice.

All Others Rate

    Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act provides that, where the estimated 
weighted-average dumping margins established for all exporters and 
producers individually investigated are zero or de minimis or are 
determined entirely under section 776 of the Act, the Department may 
use any reasonable method to establish the estimated ``all others'' 
rate for exporters and producers not individually investigated. This 
provision contemplates that the Department may weight-average margins 
other than the zero, de minimis, or facts-available margins to 
establish the ``all others'' rate.
    For purposes of determining the ``all others'' rate and pursuant to 
section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act, we have calculated a simple average of 
the two margin rates from the petition. As such, we shall use the 
weighted-average percent of 97.85 percent as the ``all others'' rate.

Critical Circumstances

A. TK

    On November 28, 2005, Petitioner requested that the Department make 
an expedited finding that critical circumstances exist with respect to 
CLPP from Indonesia. Petitioner alleged that there is a reasonable 
basis to believe or suspect that critical circumstances exist with 
respect to the subject merchandise. Petitioner based its allegation on 
evidence of retailers engaging in negotiations that would cause a surge 
of imports of subject merchandise into the United States from December 
2005 through February 2006 (in advance of the preliminary determination 
date) in order to avoid duties.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2), since this allegation was 
filed earlier than the deadline for the Department's preliminary 
determination, we must issue our preliminary critical circumstances 
determination not later than the preliminary determination. See Policy 
Bulletin 98/4 regarding Timing of Issuance of Critical Circumstances 
Determinations, 63 FR 55364 (October 15, 1998).
    Section 733(e)(1)(A) of the Act provides that the Department will 
preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist if there is a 
reasonable basis to believe or suspect that: (i) there is a history of 
dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports in the United 
States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise; or (ii) the person by 
whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was imported knew or should 
have known that the exporter was selling the subject merchandise at 
less than its fair value and that there was likely to be material 
injury by reason of such sales.
    The statute and the SAA are silent as to how we are to make a 
finding that there was knowledge that there was likely to be material 
injury. Therefore, Congress has left the method of implementing this 
provision to the Department's discretion. In determining whether the 
relevant statutory criteria have been satisfied, we considered: (i) 
Import statistics from the ITC Dataweb, and (ii) the ITC preliminary 
injury determination. See ITC Preliminary Report.
    To determine whether there is a history of injurious dumping of the 
merchandise under investigation, in accordance with section 
733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, the Department normally considers evidence 
of an existing antidumping duty order on the subject merchandise in the 
United States or elsewhere to be sufficient. See Preliminary 
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Steel Concrete Reinforcing 
Bars From Ukraine and Moldova, 65 FR 70696 (November 27, 2000). Because 
we are not aware of any antidumping order in any country on CLPP from 
Indonesia, we do not find that a reasonable basis exists to believe or 
suspect that there is a history of dumping and material injury by 
reason of dumped imports in the United States or elsewhere of the 
subject merchandise. For this reason, the Department does not find a 
history of injurious dumping of CLPP from Indonesia pursuant to section 
733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act.
    To determine whether the person by whom, or for whose account, the 
merchandise was imported knew or should have known that the exporter 
was selling the subject merchandise at less than its fair value in 
accordance with section 733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department 
normally considers margins of 25 percent or more for export price 
sales, or 15 percent or more for constructed export price transactions, 
sufficient to impute knowledge of dumping. See Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length 
Carbon Steel Plate from the People's Republic of China, 62 FR 31972, 
31978 (June 11, 1997). For the reasons explained above, we have 
assigned a margin of 118.63 percent to TK. Based on this margin, we 
have imputed importer knowledge of dumping for TK. See Notice of 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances: Wax 
and Wax/Resin Thermal Transfer Ribbons from Japan, (TTR from Japan) 68 
FR 71072, 71076 (December 22, 2003).
    In determining whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or 
suspect that an importer knew or should have known that there was 
likely to be material injury by reason of dumped imports consistent 
with section 733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department normally will 
look to the preliminary injury determination of the ITC. See Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel 
Sheet and Strip in Coils From Japan, (Stainless Steel from Japan) 64 FR 
30573, 30578 (June 8, 1999). The ITC preliminarily found material 
injury to the domestic industry due to imports from Indonesia of CLPP, 
which are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair 
value and, on this basis, the Department may impute knowledge of 
likelihood of injury to these respondents. See ITC Preliminary Report. 
Thus, we determine that the knowledge criterion for ascertaining 
whether critical circumstances exist has been satisfied.
    Since TK has met the first prong of the critical circumstances test 
according to section 733(e)(1)(A) of the Act, we must examine whether 
its imports were massive over a relatively short period. Section 
733(e)(1)(B) of the Act provides that the Department will preliminarily 
determine that critical circumstances exist if there is a reasonable 
basis to believe or suspect that there have been massive imports of the 
subject merchandise over a relatively short period.
    Section 351.206(h)(1) of the Department's regulations provides 
that, in determining whether imports of the subject merchandise have 
been ``massive,'' the Department normally will examine: (i) The volume 
and value of the imports; (ii) seasonal trends; and (iii) the share of 
domestic consumption accounted for by the imports. In addition, 19 CFR 
351.206(h)(2) provides that an increase in imports of 15 percent during 
the ``relatively short period'' of time may be considered ``massive.''
    Section 351.206(i) of the Department's regulations defines 
``relatively short period'' as normally being the period beginning on 
the date the proceeding begins (i.e., the date the petition is filed) 
and ending at least three months later. The Department's regulations 
also provide, however, that if the

[[Page 15167]]

Department finds that importers, exporters, or producers had reason to 
believe, at some time prior to the beginning of the proceeding, that a 
proceeding was likely, the Department may consider a period of not less 
than three months from that earlier time.
    On February 6, 2006, TK filed company-specific monthly import data 
for shipments of subject merchandise to the United States for January 
2003 through January 2006. However, we are disregarding this 
information because, as noted above, TK has withdrawn from the 
investigation and we will not be able to verify this data. Therefore, 
the Department must base its determination on facts available. 
Moreover, because of TK's failure to cooperate, we have made an adverse 
inference that there were massive imports from TK over a relatively 
short period. See TTR from Japan, 68 FR at 71077.
    In this case, the Department is unable to use information supplied 
by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to corroborate whether 
massive imports occurred because the HTS numbers listed in the scope of 
the investigation are basket categories that include non-subject 
merchandise and, thus, do not permit the Department to make an accurate 
analysis. See Stainless Steel from Japan, 64 FR at 30585. In addition, 
the SAA states that, ``The fact that corroboration may not be 
practicable in a given circumstance will not prevent the agencies from 
applying an adverse inference under subsection (b).'' See SAA at 870.
    Based upon the above, we preliminarily find critical circumstances 
with respect to TK.

B. All Others

    It is the Department's normal practice to conduct its critical 
circumstances analysis of companies in the ``all others'' group based 
on the experience of investigated companies. See Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Steel Concrete 
Reinforcing Bars from Turkey, 62 FR 9737, 9741 ( March 4, 1997) (the 
Department found that critical circumstances existed for the majority 
of the companies investigated and, therefore, concluded that critical 
circumstances also existed for companies covered by the ``all others'' 
rate). However, the Department does not automatically extend an 
affirmative critical circumstances determination to companies covered 
by the ``all others'' rate. See Stainless Steel from Japan, 64 FR at 
30585. Instead, the Department considers the traditional critical 
circumstances criteria with respect to the companies covered by the 
``all others'' rate.
    First, in determining whether there is a reasonable basis to 
believe or suspect that an importer knew or should have known that the 
exporter was selling CLPP at less than fair value, we look to the ``all 
others'' rate. See TTR from Japan, 64 FR at 71077. The dumping margin 
for the ``all others'' category, 97.85 percent, exceeds the 15 percent 
threshold necessary to impute knowledge of dumping consistent with 19 
CFR 351.206. Second, based on the ITC's preliminary material injury 
determination, we also find that importers knew or should have known 
that there would be material injury from the dumped merchandise 
consistent with 19 CFR. 351.206. See ITC Preliminary Report.
    Finally, with respect to massive imports, we are unable to base our 
determination on our findings for TK because our determination for TK 
was based on AFA. Consistent with TTR from Japan, 68 FR at 71077, we 
have not inferred, as AFA, that massive imports exist for ``all 
others'' because, unlike TK, the ``all others'' companies have not 
failed to cooperate in this investigation. Therefore, an adverse 
inference with respect to shipment levels by the ``all others'' 
companies is not appropriate.
    The approach taken in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel 
Products from Japan, 64 FR 24239 (May 6, 1999) and Notice of Final 
Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled 
Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products From Argentina, Japan and 
Thailand, 65 FR 5220, 5227 (February 4, 2000), was to examine CBP data 
on overall imports from the countries in question to see if the 
Department could ascertain whether an increase in shipments occurred 
within a relatively short period following the point at which importers 
had reason to believe that a proceeding was likely. However, we are 
unable to rely on information supplied by CBP because in this 
investigation the HTS numbers listed in the scope of the investigation 
are basket categories that include non-subject merchandise. Lacking 
information on whether there was a massive import surge for the ``all 
others'' category, we are unable to determine whether there have been 
massive imports of CLPP from the producers included in the ``all 
others'' category. See TTR from Japan, 68 FR at 71077. Consequently, 
the third criterion necessary for determining affirmative critical 
circumstances has not been met. Therefore, we have preliminarily 
determined that critical circumstances do not exist for imports of CLPP 
from Indonesia for companies in the ``all others'' category.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we are directing CBP 
to suspend liquidation of all entries of CLPP from Indonesia that are 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the 
date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. For P.T. 
Pabrik Kertas Tjiwi Kimia T.B.K., we are directing CBP to suspend 
liquidation of all imports of subject merchandise that are entered or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date 90 days 
prior to the date of publication of this notice in the Federal 
Register. See section 733(e)(2) of the Act. We will instruct CBP to 
require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the margins, 
as indicated in the chart below. These suspension-of-liquidation 
instructions will remain in effect until further notice. The dumping 
margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin
                   Manufacturer or Exporter                    (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.T. Pabrik Kertas Tjiwi Kimia T.B.K.........................     118.63
All Others...................................................      97.85
------------------------------------------------------------------------

International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our preliminary determination of sales at less than fair value. 
If our final antidumping determination is affirmative, the ITC will 
determine whether the imports covered by that determination are 
materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the U.S. 
industry. The deadline for the ITC's determination would be the later 
of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days 
after the date of our final determination.

Public Comment

    Case briefs for this investigation must be submitted no later than 
30 days after the publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs must be 
filed within five days after the deadline for submission of case 
briefs. A list of authorities used, a table of contents, and an 
executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to 
the Department. Executive summaries should be limited to five pages 
total, including footnotes.
    Section 774 of the Act provides that the Department will hold a 
hearing to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on 
arguments raised in case

[[Page 15168]]

or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a hearing is requested by an 
interested party. If a request for a hearing is made in an 
investigation, the hearing normally will be held two days after the 
deadline for submission of the rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department 
of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 
20230. Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of 
the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate 
if one is requested, must submit a written request within 30 days of 
the publication of this notice. Requests should specify the number of 
participants and provide a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral 
presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. We will 
make our final determination within 75 days after the date of this 
preliminary determination.
    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 
733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: March 20, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-4399 Filed 3-24-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S