Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Artist Canvas from the People's Republic of China, 16116-16120 [E6-4657]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
16116
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 61 / Thursday, March 30, 2006 / Notices
TA–311–314, 317 and 379 (Second
Review)).
Determination
As a result of the determination by the
ITC that revocation of these orders is not
likely to lead to the continuation or
recurrence of material injury to an
industry in the United States, the
Department, pursuant to section 751(d)
of the Act, is revoking the AD orders on
brass sheet and strip from Brazil and
Canada and the CVD order on brass
sheet and strip from Brazil. Pursuant to
section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.222(i)(2)(i), the effective date of
revocation is May 1, 2005 (i.e., the fifth
anniversary of the date of publication in
the Federal Register of the notices of
continuation of these AD and CVD
orders). The Department will notify U.S.
Customs and Border Protection to
discontinue suspension of liquidation
and collection of cash deposits on
entries of the subject merchandise
entered or withdrawn from warehouse
on or after May 1, 2005, the effective
date of revocation of the AD orders and
the CVD order. The Department will
complete any pending administrative
reviews of these orders and will conduct
administrative reviews of subject
merchandise entered prior to the
effective date of revocation in response
to appropriately filed requests for
review.
These five-year sunset reviews and
notice are in accordance with section
751(d)(2) and published pursuant to
section 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: March 23, 2006.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E6–4660 Filed 3–29–06; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–899]
Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Certain Artist Canvas
from the People’s Republic of China
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On November 7, 2005, the
Department of Commerce (‘‘the
Department’’) published its preliminary
determination of sales at less than fair
value (‘‘LTFV’’) in the antidumping
investigation of artist canvas from the
People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’).
The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is
July 1, 2004, through December 31,
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:32 Mar 29, 2006
Jkt 208001
FINAL DETERMINATION
We determine that artist canvas from
the PRC is being, or is likely to be, sold
in the United States at LTFV as
provided in section 735 of Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). The
estimated margins of sales at LTFV are
shown in the ‘‘Final Determination
Margins’’ section of this notice.
Case History
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
AGENCY:
2004. The investigation covers two
manufacturers/exporters which are
mandatory respondents and two
separate–rate status applicants. On
February 17, 2006, we issued a
preliminary scope ruling with regard to
cut and stretched artist canvas made in
the PRC from bulk roll canvas woven
and primed in India. We invited
interested parties to comment on our
preliminary determination of sales at
LTFV and our preliminary scope ruling.
Based on our analysis of the comments
we received, we have made changes to
our calculations for the mandatory
respondents. The final dumping
margins for this investigation are listed
in the ‘‘Final Determination Margins’’
section below.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 30, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Holton or Robert Bolling,
Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue N.W., Washington,
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1324
and (202) 482–3434, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Department published its
preliminary determination of sales at
LTFV on November 7, 2005. See Notice
of Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Artist
Canvas from the People’s Republic of
China, 70 FR 67412 (November 7, 2005)
(‘‘Preliminary Determination’’). The
Department conducted verification of
both mandatory respondents in both the
PRC and the United States (where
applicable), and one separate–rate status
applicant. See the ‘‘Verification’’ section
below for additional information. On
February 9, 2006, the Department
solicited comments from all interested
parties regarding changes to its
calculation of financial ratios and the
expected wage rate (i.e., $0.97) for the
PRC which are based on 2003 income
data. On February 17, 2006, the
Department issued a memorandum
finding that primed bulk rolls of artist
canvas produced, coated, and shipped
from India to the PRC and stretched and
framed in the PRC are not substantially
transformed in the PRC and, therefore,
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
not covered by the scope of this
investigation. See Preliminary Decision
Regarding the Country of Origin of
Artist Canvas Exported by Hangzhou
Foreign Economic Relations & Trade
Service Co., Ltd., - Certain Artist Canvas
from the People’s Republic of China
from Jon Freed to Wendy Frankel, dated
February 17, 2006 (‘‘Scope
Memorandum’’).
We invited parties to comment on the
Preliminary Determination and Scope
Memorandum. We received comments
from the Petitioner, the mandatory
respondents, the separate–rate status
applicant, and other interested parties to
this investigation.
On February 27, 2006, parties
submitted case briefs. On March 1,
2006, parties submitted rebuttal briefs.
On December 7, 2005, Wuxi Phoenix
Artist Materials Co., Ltd. (‘‘Phoenix
Materials’’) requested the Department
hold a public hearing in this
proceeding. On March 1, 2006, Phoenix
Materials withdrew its request for a
public hearing.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and
rebuttal briefs by parties to this
investigation are addressed in the Issues
and Decision Memorandum, dated
March 22, 2006, which is hereby
adopted by this notice (‘‘Issues and
Decision Memorandum’’). A list of the
issues which parties raised and to
which we respond in the Issues and
Decision Memorandum is attached to
this notice as an Appendix. The
Decision Memorandum is a public
document and is on file in the Central
Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’), Main Commerce
Building, Room B–099, and is accessible
on the Web at https://ia.ita.doc.gov. The
paper copy and electronic version of the
memorandum are identical in content.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on our analysis of comments
received, we have made changes in the
margin calculation for Phoenix
Materials. See Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comments 3, 4, and 6.
Phoenix Materials
• In the Preliminary Determination, the
Department used facts available for
the distance from Phoenix
Material’s factory to two of its coal
suppliers. As facts available, the
Department used the distance to the
nearest port as the distance from the
factory to the coal suppliers.
However, based on information
found at verification, for the final
determination, we have used the
actual distances between the
producer and its two coal suppliers.
E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM
30MRN1
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 61 / Thursday, March 30, 2006 / Notices
See Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 6 for a
thorough discussion of this issue
and ‘‘Analysis Memorandum for the
Final Determination in the
Investigation of Artist Canvas from
the People’s Republic of China:
Wuxi Phoenix Artist Materials Co.,
Ltd.’’ from Michael Holton, Case
Analyst through Robert Bolling,
Program Manager, to the File, dated
March 22, 2006 (‘‘Phoenix Materials
Final Analysis Memorandum’’).
• For the final determination, the
Department has updated the
surrogate value for labor and made
changes to the surrogate financial
ratio calculation. See Phoenix
Materials Final Analysis
Memorandum.
• One of Phoenix Material’s affiliated
suppliers (i.e.,Shuyang Phoenix
Artist Materials Co. Ltd. (‘‘Shuyang
Phoenix’’)) presented minor
corrections to its reported labor
consumption at verification. For the
final determination, the Department
has incorporated this change into
the margin calculation program. See
Phoenix Materials Final Analysis
Memorandum.
• Due to the change in labor
consumption, a resulting change in
the allocation of electricity was also
required for Shuyang Phoenix. See
Phoenix Materials Final Analysis
Memorandum.
• At verification, Phoenix Materials
presented a minor correction to its
reported coal consumption. For the
final determination, the Department
has incorporated this change into
its margin calculation program. See
Phoenix Materials Final Analysis
Memorandum.
• At verification, the Department found
that Phoenix Materials had not
reported all of its indirect labor
hours (i.e., supervisors, office
cleaners, security guards, and
doormen). For the final
determination, the Department has
incorporated all of Phoenix
Material’s indirect labor hours into
its margin calculation program. See
Phoenix Materials Final Analysis
Memorandum.
• At verification, the Department found
that Phoenix Materials did not
report diesel as a factor of
production. For the final
determination, the Department has
applied the diesel consumption
factor in the margin calculation
program. See Phoenix Materials
Final Analysis Memorandum.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:32 Mar 29, 2006
Jkt 208001
Scope of Investigation
The products covered by this
investigation are artist canvases
regardless of dimension and/or size,
whether assembled or unassembled, that
have been primed/coated, whether or
not made from cotton, whether or not
archival, whether bleached or
unbleached, and whether or not
containing an ink receptive top coat.
Priming/coating includes the
application of a solution, designed to
promote the adherence of artist
materials, such as paint or ink, to the
fabric. Artist canvases (i.e., pre–
stretched canvases, canvas panels,
canvas pads, canvas rolls (including
bulk rolls that have been primed),
printable canvases, floor cloths, and
placemats) are tightly woven prepared
painting and/or printing surfaces. Artist
canvas and stretcher strips (whether or
not made of wood and whether or not
assembled) included within a kit or set
are covered by this proceeding.
Artist canvases subject to this
investigation are currently classifiable
under subheadings 5901.90.20.00 and
5901.90.40.00 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States
(‘‘HTSUS’’). Specifically excluded from
the scope of this investigation are
tracing cloths, ‘‘paint–by-number’’ or
‘‘paint–it-yourself’’ artist canvases with
a copyrighted preprinted outline,
pattern, or design, whether or not
included in a painting set or kit.1 Also
excluded are stretcher strips, whether or
not made from wood, so long as they are
not incorporated into artist canvases or
sold as part of an artist canvas kit or set.
While the HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs
purposes, our written description of the
scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
Additionally, we have determined
that canvas woven and primed in India
but cut and stretched in the PRC and
exported from the PRC is not subject to
the investigation covering artist canvas
from the PRC.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the
Act, we verified the information
submitted by the mandatory
respondents and one separate–rate
status applicant for use in our final
determination. See the Department’s
verification reports on the record of this
investigation in the CRU with respect to
Ningbo Conda Import & Export Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Ningbo Conda’’), Jinhua Universal
Canvas Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (‘‘Jinhua
1 Artist canvases with a non-copyrighted
preprinted outline, pattern, or design are included
in the scope, whether or not included in a painting
set or kit.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
16117
Universal’’), Wuxi Silver Eagle Cultural
Goods Co. Ltd., Wuxi Pegasus Cultural
Goods Co. Ltd., ColArt Americas Inc.
(‘‘ColArt US’’), Hangzhou Foreign
Relation & Trade Service Co. Ltd.
(‘‘HFERTS’’), and Phoenix Materials.
For all verified companies, we used
standard verification procedures,
including examination of relevant
accounting and production records, as
well as original source documents
provided by respondents.
Surrogate Country
In the Preliminary Determination, we
stated that we had selected India as the
appropriate surrogate country to use in
this investigation for the following
reasons: (1) It is a significant producer
of comparable merchandise; (2) it is at
a similar level of economic development
pursuant to 773(c)(4) of the Act; and (3)
we have reliable data from India that we
can use to value the factors of
production. See Preliminary
Determination, 70 FR at 67415–16. For
the final determination, we made no
changes to our findings with respect to
the selection of a surrogate country.
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving non–marketeconomy (‘‘NME’’) countries, the
Department begins with a rebuttable
presumption that all companies within
the country are subject to government
control and, thus, should be assigned a
single antidumping duty deposit rate. It
is the Department’s policy to assign all
exporters of merchandise subject to
investigation in an NME country this
single rate unless an exporter can
demonstrate that it is sufficiently
independent so as to be entitled to a
separate rate.
In the Preliminary Determination, we
found that Ningbo Conda and its
affiliated exporters, Conda (Ningbo)
Painting Material Mfg. (‘‘Conda
Painting’’) and Jinhua Universal;
Phoenix Materials and its affiliated
exporter Wuxi Phoenix Stationary Co.
Ltd (‘‘Phoenix Stationary’’); and Jiangsu
Animal By–products Import & Export
Group Corp. (‘‘Jiangsu By–products’’)
demonstrated their eligibility for
separate–rate status. For the final
determination, we continue to find that
the evidence placed on the record of
this investigation by Ningbo Conda and
its affiliated exporters, Phoenix
Materials and its affiliated exporter, and
Jiangsu By–products demonstrate an
absence of government control, both in
law and in fact, with respect to their
respective exports of the merchandise
under investigation, and, thus are
eligible for separate rate status.
E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM
30MRN1
16118
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 61 / Thursday, March 30, 2006 / Notices
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Additionally, in the Preliminary
Determination, because the Department
found that Jiangsu By–products
demonstrated its eligibility for a rate
separate from the PRC–wide rate, but
was not a mandatory respondent, the
margin we established in the
Preliminary Determination for Jiangsu
By–products was based on a weighted–
average of the margins calculated for the
two mandatory respondents. Because
we are applying facts available to one of
the selected mandatory respondents for
the final determination, we have
recalculated the rate applicable to
Jiangsu By–products based on the rate
calculated for the remaining mandatory
respondent.
Further, in the Preliminary
Determination, although we determined
that HFERTS demonstrated an absence
of government control, both in law and
in fact, with respect to its exports of
artist canvas, we had not yet determined
the country of origin of the merchandise
exported by HFERTS, and thus had not
made a determination with respect to
whether HFERTS was eligible to apply
for a separate rate. For the final
determination, we have determined that
the merchandise that HFERTS exported
to the United States is not of Chinese
origin. Thus, HFERTS did not export
subject merchandise and, therefore, is
not eligible for a separate rate.
Adverse Facts Available
Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act
provide that the Department shall apply
‘‘facts otherwise available’’ if necessary
information is not on the record or an
interested party or any other person (A)
withholds information that has been
requested, (B) fails to provide
information within the deadlines
established, or in the form and manner
requested by the Department, subject to
subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782,
(C) significantly impedes a proceeding,
or (D) provides information that cannot
be verified as provided by section 782(i)
of the Act.
Where the Department determines
that a response to a request for
information does not comply with the
request, section 782(d) of the Act
provides that the Department will so
inform the party submitting the
response and will, to the extent
practicable, provide that party the
opportunity to remedy or explain the
deficiency. If the party fails to remedy
the deficiency within the applicable
time limits and subject to section 782(e)
of the Act, the Department may
disregard all or part of the original and
subsequent responses, as appropriate.
Section 782(e) of the Act provides that
the Department ‘‘shall not decline to
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:32 Mar 29, 2006
Jkt 208001
consider information that is submitted
by an interested party and is necessary
to the determination but does not meet
all applicable requirements established
by the administering authority’’ if the
information is timely, can be verified, is
not so incomplete that it cannot be used,
and if the interested party acted to the
best of its ability in providing the
information. Where all of these
conditions are met, the statute requires
the Department to use the information if
it can do so without undue difficulties.
Section 776(b) of the Act further
provides that the Department may use
an adverse inference in applying the
facts otherwise available when a party
has failed to cooperate by not acting to
the best of its ability to comply with a
request for information. Section 776(b)
of the Act also authorizes the
Department to use as adverse facts
available (‘‘AFA’’), information derived
from the petition, the final
determination, a previous
administrative review, or other
information placed on the record.
Section 776(c) of the Act provides
that, when the Department relies on
secondary information rather than on
information obtained in the course of an
investigation or review, it shall, to the
extent practicable, corroborate that
information from independent sources
that are reasonably at its disposal.
Secondary information is defined as
‘‘[i]nformation derived from the petition
that gave rise to the investigation or
review, the final determination
concerning the subject merchandise, or
any previous review under section 751
concerning the subject merchandise.’’
See Statement of Administrative Action
(‘‘SAA’’) accompanying the Uruguay
Round Agreements Act, H. Doc. No.
316, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. Vol.1 at 870
(1994). Corroborate means that the
Department will satisfy itself that the
secondary information to be used has
probative value. See SAA at 870. To
corroborate secondary information, the
Department will, to the extent
practicable, examine the reliability and
relevance of the information to be used.
The SAA emphasizes, however, that the
Department need not prove that the
selected facts available are the best
alternative information. See SAA at 869.
The Department finds that the
information necessary to calculate an
accurate and otherwise reliable margin
is not available on the record with
respect to Ningbo Conda. As the
Department finds that Ningbo Conda
failed to act to the best of its ability,
withheld information, failed to provide
information requested by the
Department in a timely manner and in
the form required, and significantly
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
impeded the proceeding, (e.g., provided
unverifiable information, failed to
reported certain U.S. sales and certain
factors of production, and failed to
substantiate an unaffiliated supplier’s
reported factor consumption rates, etc.).
Therefore, pursuant to sections
776(a)(2)(A), (B), (C) and (D) of the Act,
the Department is resorting to facts
otherwise available. In addition, in
accordance with section 776(b) of the
Act, the Department is applying an
adverse inference in selecting the facts
available rate as it has determined that
Ningbo Conda did not act to the best of
its ability to cooperate with the
Department in this investigation.
Corroboration
At the Preliminary Determination, in
accordance with section 776(c) of the
Act, we corroborated our AFA margin
using information submitted by both
mandatory respondents. See
Memorandum to The File Through
Robert Bolling, Program Manager,
China/NME Group, Corroboration for
the Preliminary Determination of
Certain Artist Canvas from the People’s
Republic of China, dated October 28,
2005, (‘‘Corroboration Memo’’). For the
final determination, we are no longer
using the information submitted by
Ningbo Conda (see ‘‘Adverse Facts
Available’’ section above).
To assess the probative value of the
total AFA rate it has chosen for Ningbo
Conda and the PRC–wide entity, the
Department compared the final margin
calculations of Phoenix Materials in this
investigation with the rate of 264.09
percent from the petition. We find that
the rate is within the range of the
highest margins we have determined in
this investigation. See Final
Determination in the Investigation of
Artist Canvas from the People’s
Republic of China, Corroboration
Memorandum from Michael Holton,
Analyst, through Robert Bolling,
Program Manager, (‘‘Final
Corroboration Memo’’), dated March 22,
2006. Since the record of this
investigation contains margins within
the range of the petition margin, we
determine that the rate from the petition
continues to be relevant for use in this
investigation. As discussed therein, we
found that the margin of 264.09 percent
has probative value. See Final
Corroboration Memo. Accordingly, we
find that the rate of 264.09 percent is
corroborated within the meaning of
section 776(c) of the Act.
The PRC–Wide Rate
Because we begin with the
presumption that all companies within
a NME country are subject to
E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM
30MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 61 / Thursday, March 30, 2006 / Notices
government control and because only
the companies listed under the ‘‘Final
Determination Margins’’ section below
have overcome that presumption, we are
applying a single antidumping rate - the
PRC–wide rate - to all other exporters of
subject merchandise from the PRC. Such
companies did not demonstrate
entitlement to a separate rate. See, e.g.,
Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Synthetic Indigo from
the People’s Republic of China, 65 FR
25706 (May 3, 2000). The PRC–wide
rate applies to all entries of subject
merchandise except for entries from the
respondents which are listed in the
‘‘Final Determination Margins’’ section
below (except as noted).
Combination Rates
In the Notice of Initiation, the
Department stated that it would
calculate combination rates for certain
respondents that are eligible for a
separate rate in this investigation. See
Notice of Initiation, 70 FR 21996, 21999.
This change in practice is described in
Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate–Rates
Practice and Application of
Combination Rates in Antidumping
Investigations involving Non–Market
Economy Countries, (April 5, 2005),
(‘‘Policy Bulletin 05.1’’) available at
https://ia.ita.doc.gov/. The Policy
Bulletin 05.1, states:
‘‘[w]hile continuing the practice of
assigning separate rates only to
exporters, all separate rates that the
Department will now assign in its
NME investigations will be specific
to those producers that supplied the
exporter during the period of
investigation. Note, however, that
one rate is calculated for the
exporter and all of the producers
which supplied subject
merchandise to it during the period
of investigation. This practice
applies both to mandatory
respondents receiving an
individually calculated separate
rate as well as the pool of non–
16119
investigated firms receiving the
weighted–average of the
individually calculated rates. This
practice is referred to as the
application of ‘‘combination rates’’
because such rates apply to specific
combinations of exporters and one
or more producers. The cash–
deposit rate assigned to an exporter
will apply only to merchandise
both exported by the firm in
question and produced by a firm
that supplied the exporter during
the period of investigation.’’
Policy Bulletin 05.1, at page 6.
Therefore, for the final determination,
we have assigned a combination rate to
respondents that are eligible for a
separate rate. See Final Determination
Margins, below.
Final Determination Margins
We determine that the following
percentage weighted–average margins
exist for the POI:
ARTIST CANVAS FROM THE PRC - WEIGHTED–AVERAGE DUMPING MARGINS
Weighted–Average Deposit
Rate
Exporter
Producer
Ningbo Conda ..................................................................................
Ningbo Conda ..................................................................................
Conda Painting ................................................................................
Jinhua Universal ..............................................................................
Phoenix Materials ............................................................................
Phoenix Materials ............................................................................
Phoenix Materials ............................................................................
Phoenix Stationary ...........................................................................
Phoenix Stationary ...........................................................................
Phoenix Stationary ...........................................................................
Jiangsu By–products .......................................................................
Jinhua Universal
Wuxi Silver Eagle Cultural Goods Co. Ltd.
Wuxi Pegasus Cultural Goods Co. Ltd.
Jinhua Universal
Phoenix Materials
Phoenix Stationary
Shuyang Phoenix
Phoenix Materials
Phoenix Stationary
Shuyang Phoenix
Wuxi Yinying Stationery and Sports
Products Co. Ltd. Corp.
Yinying Stationery and Sports Products Co.
Ltd. Corp.
......................................................................
Jiangsu By–products Su Yang ........................................................
China–Wide Rate .............................................................................
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Continuation of Suspension of
Liquidation
Disclosure
Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the
Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to continue
to suspend liquidation of all entries of
subject merchandise from the PRC
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after November
7, 2005, the date of publication of the
Preliminary Determination. CBP shall
continue to require a cash deposit or the
posting of a bond equal to the estimated
amount by which the normal value
exceeds the U.S. price as shown above.
These instructions suspending
liquidation will remain in effect until
further notice.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:32 Mar 29, 2006
Jkt 208001
We will disclose the calculations
performed within five days of the date
of publication of this notice to parties in
this proceeding in accordance with 19
CFR 351.224(b).
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 735(d) of
the Act, we have notified the ITC of our
final determination of sales at LTFV. As
our final determination is affirmative, in
accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the
Act, within 45 days the ITC will
determine whether the domestic
industry in the United States is
materially injured, or threatened with
material injury, by reason of imports or
sales (or the likelihood of sales) for
importation of the subject merchandise.
If the ITC determines that material
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
264.09
264.09
264.09
264.09
77.90
77.90
77.90
77.90
77.90
77.90
77.90
77.90
264.09
injury or threat of material injury does
not exist, the proceeding will be
terminated and all securities posted will
be refunded or canceled. If the ITC
determines that such injury does exist,
the Department will issue an
antidumping duty order directing CBP
to assess antidumping duties on all
imports of the subject merchandise
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the effective
date of the suspension of liquidation
(i.e., November 7, 2005).
Notification Regarding APO
This notice also serves as a reminder
to parties subject to administrative
protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their
responsibility concerning the
disposition of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM
30MRN1
16120
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 61 / Thursday, March 30, 2006 / Notices
with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely
notification of return or destruction of
APO materials or conversion to judicial
protective order is hereby requested.
Failure to comply with the regulations
and the terms of an APO is a
sanctionable violation.
This determination and notice are
issued and published in accordance
with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the
Act.
Dated: March 22, 2006.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E6–4657 Filed 3–29–06; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–504]
Petroleum Wax Candles from the
People’s Republic of China: Extension
of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of
the Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(‘‘the Department’’) is extending the
time limit for the preliminary results of
the review of petroleum wax candles
(‘‘candles’’) from the People’s Republic
of China (‘‘PRC’’). This review covers
the period August 1, 2004, through July
31, 2005.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 30, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Cindy Lai Robinson, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 9, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–3797.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
Statutory Time Limits
Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’),
requires the Department to make a
preliminary determination within 245
days after the last day of the anniversary
month of an order for which a review
is requested and a final determination
within 120 days after the date on which
the preliminary determination is
published. However, if it is not
practicable to complete the review
within these time periods, section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the
Department to extend the time limit for
the preliminary determination to a
18:18 Mar 29, 2006
Jkt 208001
Background
The Department determines that this
review is extraordinarily complicated
and that completion of the preliminary
results of this review within the 245-day
period is not practicable. Specifically,
the Department requires additional time
to examine whether the respondent,
Qingdao Youngson Industrial Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Youngson’’), is affiliated with other
PRC producers and to conduct
verification of Youngson’s questionnaire
responses.
Therefore, in accordance with section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department
is extending the time limit for the
completion of the preliminary results of
the review by 45 days to June 17, 2006.
However, June 17, 2006, falls on
Saturday, and it is the Department’s
long–standing practice to issue a
determination the next business day
when the statutory deadline falls on a
weekend, federal holiday, or any other
day when the Department is closed. See
Notice of Clarification: Application of
‘‘Next Business Day’’ Rule for
Administrative Determination Deadlines
Pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, As
Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005).
Accordingly, the deadline for
completion of the preliminary results is
June 19, 2006. The final results continue
to be due 120 days after the publication
of the preliminary results.
We are issuing and publishing this
notice in accordance with sections
751(a)(2) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: March 23, 2006.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E6–4658 Filed 3–29–03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
PO 00000
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–122–838]
On September 28, 2005, the
Department published a notice of
initiation of a review of candles from
the PRC covering the period August 1,
2004, through July 31, 2005. See
Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Requests for Revocation in
Part, 70 FR 56631 (September 28, 2005).
Extension of Time Limit of Preliminary
Results
BILLING CODE: 3510–DS–S
VerDate Aug<31>2005
maximum of 365 days after the last day
of the anniversary month.
Certain Softwood Lumber Products
from Canada: Notice of Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Changed
Circumstances Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 30, 2006.
SUMMARY: On January 19, 2006, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) published in the Federal
Register a notice announcing the
initiation of a changed circumstances
review of the antidumping duty order
on certain softwood lumber products
from Canada. See Initiation of
Antidumping Duty Changed
Circumstances Review: Certain
Softwood Lumber Products from
Canada 71 FR 4350 (January 19, 2006)
(Initiation Notice). The review was
requested by Weyerhaeuser Company
Limited and Weyerhaeuser
Saskatchewan Limited (collectively,
Weyerhaeuser). We are now rescinding
this review as a result of Weyerhaeuser’s
withdrawal of its request for a changed
circumstances review.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Salim Bhabhrawala or Constance
Handley at (202) 482–1784 or (202) 482–
0631, respectively, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 1, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street & Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.216(b), Weyerhaeuser, a Canadian
producer of softwood lumber products,
filed a request for a changed
circumstances review of the
antidumping duty order on certain
softwood lumber products from Canada.
On January 19, 2006, in accordance with
19 CFR 351.221(c)(3), we published the
initiation of a changed circumstances
review of this order. See Initiation
Notice. On March 6, 2006,
Weyerhaeuser withdrew its request for a
changed circumstances review.
Rescission of Changed Circumstances
Review
The Department’s regulations provide
that the Department will rescind an
administrative review if the party that
requested the review withdraws the
request within ninety days of the date
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM
30MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 61 (Thursday, March 30, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16116-16120]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-4657]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-899]
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain
Artist Canvas from the People's Republic of China
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On November 7, 2005, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') published its preliminary determination of sales at less
than fair value (``LTFV'') in the antidumping investigation of artist
canvas from the People's Republic of China (``PRC''). The period of
investigation (``POI'') is July 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004. The
investigation covers two manufacturers/exporters which are mandatory
respondents and two separate-rate status applicants. On February 17,
2006, we issued a preliminary scope ruling with regard to cut and
stretched artist canvas made in the PRC from bulk roll canvas woven and
primed in India. We invited interested parties to comment on our
preliminary determination of sales at LTFV and our preliminary scope
ruling. Based on our analysis of the comments we received, we have made
changes to our calculations for the mandatory respondents. The final
dumping margins for this investigation are listed in the ``Final
Determination Margins'' section below.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 30, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Holton or Robert Bolling,
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue N.W.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1324 and (202) 482-3434,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FINAL DETERMINATION
We determine that artist canvas from the PRC is being, or is likely
to be, sold in the United States at LTFV as provided in section 735 of
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). The estimated margins of
sales at LTFV are shown in the ``Final Determination Margins'' section
of this notice.
Case History
The Department published its preliminary determination of sales at
LTFV on November 7, 2005. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Artist Canvas from the People's
Republic of China, 70 FR 67412 (November 7, 2005) (``Preliminary
Determination''). The Department conducted verification of both
mandatory respondents in both the PRC and the United States (where
applicable), and one separate-rate status applicant. See the
``Verification'' section below for additional information. On February
9, 2006, the Department solicited comments from all interested parties
regarding changes to its calculation of financial ratios and the
expected wage rate (i.e., $0.97) for the PRC which are based on 2003
income data. On February 17, 2006, the Department issued a memorandum
finding that primed bulk rolls of artist canvas produced, coated, and
shipped from India to the PRC and stretched and framed in the PRC are
not substantially transformed in the PRC and, therefore, not covered by
the scope of this investigation. See Preliminary Decision Regarding the
Country of Origin of Artist Canvas Exported by Hangzhou Foreign
Economic Relations & Trade Service Co., Ltd., - Certain Artist Canvas
from the People's Republic of China from Jon Freed to Wendy Frankel,
dated February 17, 2006 (``Scope Memorandum'').
We invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Determination and
Scope Memorandum. We received comments from the Petitioner, the
mandatory respondents, the separate-rate status applicant, and other
interested parties to this investigation.
On February 27, 2006, parties submitted case briefs. On March 1,
2006, parties submitted rebuttal briefs. On December 7, 2005, Wuxi
Phoenix Artist Materials Co., Ltd. (``Phoenix Materials'') requested
the Department hold a public hearing in this proceeding. On March 1,
2006, Phoenix Materials withdrew its request for a public hearing.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to
this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum,
dated March 22, 2006, which is hereby adopted by this notice (``Issues
and Decision Memorandum''). A list of the issues which parties raised
and to which we respond in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is
attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Decision Memorandum is a
public document and is on file in the Central Records Unit (``CRU''),
Main Commerce Building, Room B-099, and is accessible on the Web at
https://ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper copy and electronic version of the
memorandum are identical in content.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made changes in
the margin calculation for Phoenix Materials. See Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comments 3, 4, and 6.
Phoenix Materials
In the Preliminary Determination, the Department used facts
available for the distance from Phoenix Material's factory to two of
its coal suppliers. As facts available, the Department used the
distance to the nearest port as the distance from the factory to the
coal suppliers. However, based on information found at verification,
for the final determination, we have used the actual distances between
the producer and its two coal suppliers.
[[Page 16117]]
See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6 for a thorough
discussion of this issue and ``Analysis Memorandum for the Final
Determination in the Investigation of Artist Canvas from the People's
Republic of China: Wuxi Phoenix Artist Materials Co., Ltd.'' from
Michael Holton, Case Analyst through Robert Bolling, Program Manager,
to the File, dated March 22, 2006 (``Phoenix Materials Final Analysis
Memorandum'').
For the final determination, the Department has updated the
surrogate value for labor and made changes to the surrogate financial
ratio calculation. See Phoenix Materials Final Analysis Memorandum.
One of Phoenix Material's affiliated suppliers (i.e.,Shuyang
Phoenix Artist Materials Co. Ltd. (``Shuyang Phoenix'')) presented
minor corrections to its reported labor consumption at verification.
For the final determination, the Department has incorporated this
change into the margin calculation program. See Phoenix Materials Final
Analysis Memorandum.
Due to the change in labor consumption, a resulting change in
the allocation of electricity was also required for Shuyang Phoenix.
See Phoenix Materials Final Analysis Memorandum.
At verification, Phoenix Materials presented a minor
correction to its reported coal consumption. For the final
determination, the Department has incorporated this change into its
margin calculation program. See Phoenix Materials Final Analysis
Memorandum.
At verification, the Department found that Phoenix Materials
had not reported all of its indirect labor hours (i.e., supervisors,
office cleaners, security guards, and doormen). For the final
determination, the Department has incorporated all of Phoenix
Material's indirect labor hours into its margin calculation program.
See Phoenix Materials Final Analysis Memorandum.
At verification, the Department found that Phoenix Materials
did not report diesel as a factor of production. For the final
determination, the Department has applied the diesel consumption factor
in the margin calculation program. See Phoenix Materials Final Analysis
Memorandum.
Scope of Investigation
The products covered by this investigation are artist canvases
regardless of dimension and/or size, whether assembled or unassembled,
that have been primed/coated, whether or not made from cotton, whether
or not archival, whether bleached or unbleached, and whether or not
containing an ink receptive top coat. Priming/coating includes the
application of a solution, designed to promote the adherence of artist
materials, such as paint or ink, to the fabric. Artist canvases (i.e.,
pre-stretched canvases, canvas panels, canvas pads, canvas rolls
(including bulk rolls that have been primed), printable canvases, floor
cloths, and placemats) are tightly woven prepared painting and/or
printing surfaces. Artist canvas and stretcher strips (whether or not
made of wood and whether or not assembled) included within a kit or set
are covered by this proceeding.
Artist canvases subject to this investigation are currently
classifiable under subheadings 5901.90.20.00 and 5901.90.40.00 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'').
Specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation are tracing
cloths, ``paint-by-number'' or ``paint-it-yourself'' artist canvases
with a copyrighted preprinted outline, pattern, or design, whether or
not included in a painting set or kit.\1\ Also excluded are stretcher
strips, whether or not made from wood, so long as they are not
incorporated into artist canvases or sold as part of an artist canvas
kit or set. While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience
and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this
proceeding is dispositive.
Additionally, we have determined that canvas woven and primed in
India but cut and stretched in the PRC and exported from the PRC is not
subject to the investigation covering artist canvas from the PRC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Artist canvases with a non-copyrighted preprinted outline,
pattern, or design are included in the scope, whether or not
included in a painting set or kit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the
information submitted by the mandatory respondents and one separate-
rate status applicant for use in our final determination. See the
Department's verification reports on the record of this investigation
in the CRU with respect to Ningbo Conda Import & Export Co., Ltd.
(``Ningbo Conda''), Jinhua Universal Canvas Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
(``Jinhua Universal''), Wuxi Silver Eagle Cultural Goods Co. Ltd., Wuxi
Pegasus Cultural Goods Co. Ltd., ColArt Americas Inc. (``ColArt US''),
Hangzhou Foreign Relation & Trade Service Co. Ltd. (``HFERTS''), and
Phoenix Materials. For all verified companies, we used standard
verification procedures, including examination of relevant accounting
and production records, as well as original source documents provided
by respondents.
Surrogate Country
In the Preliminary Determination, we stated that we had selected
India as the appropriate surrogate country to use in this investigation
for the following reasons: (1) It is a significant producer of
comparable merchandise; (2) it is at a similar level of economic
development pursuant to 773(c)(4) of the Act; and (3) we have reliable
data from India that we can use to value the factors of production. See
Preliminary Determination, 70 FR at 67415-16. For the final
determination, we made no changes to our findings with respect to the
selection of a surrogate country.
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving non-market-economy (``NME'') countries,
the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies
within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should
be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the
Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to
investigation in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can
demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to
a separate rate.
In the Preliminary Determination, we found that Ningbo Conda and
its affiliated exporters, Conda (Ningbo) Painting Material Mfg.
(``Conda Painting'') and Jinhua Universal; Phoenix Materials and its
affiliated exporter Wuxi Phoenix Stationary Co. Ltd (``Phoenix
Stationary''); and Jiangsu Animal By-products Import & Export Group
Corp. (``Jiangsu By-products'') demonstrated their eligibility for
separate-rate status. For the final determination, we continue to find
that the evidence placed on the record of this investigation by Ningbo
Conda and its affiliated exporters, Phoenix Materials and its
affiliated exporter, and Jiangsu By-products demonstrate an absence of
government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to their
respective exports of the merchandise under investigation, and, thus
are eligible for separate rate status.
[[Page 16118]]
Additionally, in the Preliminary Determination, because the
Department found that Jiangsu By-products demonstrated its eligibility
for a rate separate from the PRC-wide rate, but was not a mandatory
respondent, the margin we established in the Preliminary Determination
for Jiangsu By-products was based on a weighted-average of the margins
calculated for the two mandatory respondents. Because we are applying
facts available to one of the selected mandatory respondents for the
final determination, we have recalculated the rate applicable to
Jiangsu By-products based on the rate calculated for the remaining
mandatory respondent.
Further, in the Preliminary Determination, although we determined
that HFERTS demonstrated an absence of government control, both in law
and in fact, with respect to its exports of artist canvas, we had not
yet determined the country of origin of the merchandise exported by
HFERTS, and thus had not made a determination with respect to whether
HFERTS was eligible to apply for a separate rate. For the final
determination, we have determined that the merchandise that HFERTS
exported to the United States is not of Chinese origin. Thus, HFERTS
did not export subject merchandise and, therefore, is not eligible for
a separate rate.
Adverse Facts Available
Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act provide that the Department
shall apply ``facts otherwise available'' if necessary information is
not on the record or an interested party or any other person (A)
withholds information that has been requested, (B) fails to provide
information within the deadlines established, or in the form and manner
requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of
section 782, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D) provides
information that cannot be verified as provided by section 782(i) of
the Act.
Where the Department determines that a response to a request for
information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act
provides that the Department will so inform the party submitting the
response and will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the
opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to
remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits and subject to
section 782(e) of the Act, the Department may disregard all or part of
the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Section 782(e)
of the Act provides that the Department ``shall not decline to consider
information that is submitted by an interested party and is necessary
to the determination but does not meet all applicable requirements
established by the administering authority'' if the information is
timely, can be verified, is not so incomplete that it cannot be used,
and if the interested party acted to the best of its ability in
providing the information. Where all of these conditions are met, the
statute requires the Department to use the information if it can do so
without undue difficulties.
Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may
use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when
a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its
ability to comply with a request for information. Section 776(b) of the
Act also authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available
(``AFA''), information derived from the petition, the final
determination, a previous administrative review, or other information
placed on the record.
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies
on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the
course of an investigation or review, it shall, to the extent
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that
are reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is defined as
``[i]nformation derived from the petition that gave rise to the
investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject
merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the
subject merchandise.'' See Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA'')
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H. Doc. No. 316, 103d
Cong., 2d Sess. Vol.1 at 870 (1994). Corroborate means that the
Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be
used has probative value. See SAA at 870. To corroborate secondary
information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine
the reliability and relevance of the information to be used. The SAA
emphasizes, however, that the Department need not prove that the
selected facts available are the best alternative information. See SAA
at 869.
The Department finds that the information necessary to calculate an
accurate and otherwise reliable margin is not available on the record
with respect to Ningbo Conda. As the Department finds that Ningbo Conda
failed to act to the best of its ability, withheld information, failed
to provide information requested by the Department in a timely manner
and in the form required, and significantly impeded the proceeding,
(e.g., provided unverifiable information, failed to reported certain
U.S. sales and certain factors of production, and failed to
substantiate an unaffiliated supplier's reported factor consumption
rates, etc.). Therefore, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), (C)
and (D) of the Act, the Department is resorting to facts otherwise
available. In addition, in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act,
the Department is applying an adverse inference in selecting the facts
available rate as it has determined that Ningbo Conda did not act to
the best of its ability to cooperate with the Department in this
investigation.
Corroboration
At the Preliminary Determination, in accordance with section 776(c)
of the Act, we corroborated our AFA margin using information submitted
by both mandatory respondents. See Memorandum to The File Through
Robert Bolling, Program Manager, China/NME Group, Corroboration for the
Preliminary Determination of Certain Artist Canvas from the People's
Republic of China, dated October 28, 2005, (``Corroboration Memo'').
For the final determination, we are no longer using the information
submitted by Ningbo Conda (see ``Adverse Facts Available'' section
above).
To assess the probative value of the total AFA rate it has chosen
for Ningbo Conda and the PRC-wide entity, the Department compared the
final margin calculations of Phoenix Materials in this investigation
with the rate of 264.09 percent from the petition. We find that the
rate is within the range of the highest margins we have determined in
this investigation. See Final Determination in the Investigation of
Artist Canvas from the People's Republic of China, Corroboration
Memorandum from Michael Holton, Analyst, through Robert Bolling,
Program Manager, (``Final Corroboration Memo''), dated March 22, 2006.
Since the record of this investigation contains margins within the
range of the petition margin, we determine that the rate from the
petition continues to be relevant for use in this investigation. As
discussed therein, we found that the margin of 264.09 percent has
probative value. See Final Corroboration Memo. Accordingly, we find
that the rate of 264.09 percent is corroborated within the meaning of
section 776(c) of the Act.
The PRC-Wide Rate
Because we begin with the presumption that all companies within a
NME country are subject to
[[Page 16119]]
government control and because only the companies listed under the
``Final Determination Margins'' section below have overcome that
presumption, we are applying a single antidumping rate - the PRC-wide
rate - to all other exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC. Such
companies did not demonstrate entitlement to a separate rate. See,
e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Synthetic
Indigo from the People's Republic of China, 65 FR 25706 (May 3, 2000).
The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of subject merchandise except
for entries from the respondents which are listed in the ``Final
Determination Margins'' section below (except as noted).
Combination Rates
In the Notice of Initiation, the Department stated that it would
calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible
for a separate rate in this investigation. See Notice of Initiation, 70
FR 21996, 21999. This change in practice is described in Policy
Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination
Rates in Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market Economy
Countries, (April 5, 2005), (``Policy Bulletin 05.1'') available at
https://ia.ita.doc.gov/. The Policy Bulletin 05.1, states:
``[w]hile continuing the practice of assigning separate rates only
to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now assign in
its NME investigations will be specific to those producers that
supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note,
however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the
producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the period of
investigation. This practice applies both to mandatory respondents
receiving an individually calculated separate rate as well as the pool
of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-average of the
individually calculated rates. This practice is referred to as the
application of ``combination rates'' because such rates apply to
specific combinations of exporters and one or more producers. The cash-
deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to merchandise
both exported by the firm in question and produced by a firm that
supplied the exporter during the period of investigation.''
Policy Bulletin 05.1, at page 6.
Therefore, for the final determination, we have assigned a
combination rate to respondents that are eligible for a separate rate.
See Final Determination Margins, below.
Final Determination Margins
We determine that the following percentage weighted-average margins
exist for the POI:
Artist Canvas from the PRC - Weighted-average Dumping Margins
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exporter Producer Weighted-Average Deposit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Rate------------
Ningbo Conda............................. Jinhua Universal 264.09
Ningbo Conda............................. Wuxi Silver Eagle Cultural Goods Co. 264.09
Ltd.
Conda Painting........................... Wuxi Pegasus Cultural Goods Co. Ltd. 264.09
Jinhua Universal......................... Jinhua Universal 264.09
Phoenix Materials........................ Phoenix Materials 77.90
Phoenix Materials........................ Phoenix Stationary 77.90
Phoenix Materials........................ Shuyang Phoenix 77.90
Phoenix Stationary....................... Phoenix Materials 77.90
Phoenix Stationary....................... Phoenix Stationary 77.90
Phoenix Stationary....................... Shuyang Phoenix 77.90
Jiangsu By-products...................... Wuxi Yinying Stationery and Sports 77.90
Products Co. Ltd. Corp.
Jiangsu By-products Su Yang.............. Yinying Stationery and Sports Products 77.90
Co. Ltd. Corp.
China-Wide Rate.......................... ....................................... 264.09
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation
Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to continue to suspend
liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise from the PRC entered,
or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 7,
2005, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination. CBP
shall continue to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal
to the estimated amount by which the normal value exceeds the U.S.
price as shown above. These instructions suspending liquidation will
remain in effect until further notice.
Disclosure
We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the
date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the
ITC of our final determination of sales at LTFV. As our final
determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of
the Act, within 45 days the ITC will determine whether the domestic
industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with
material injury, by reason of imports or sales (or the likelihood of
sales) for importation of the subject merchandise. If the ITC
determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not
exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will
be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does
exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing
CBP to assess antidumping duties on all imports of the subject
merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or
after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation (i.e.,
November 7, 2005).
Notification Regarding APO
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance
[[Page 16120]]
with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return or destruction of
APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby
requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an
APO is a sanctionable violation.
This determination and notice are issued and published in
accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: March 22, 2006.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-4657 Filed 3-29-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE: 3510-DS-S
