Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances in Part: Certain Lined Paper Products From India, 19706-19714 [E6-5690]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
19706
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 73 / Monday, April 17, 2006 / Notices
Weighted–Average
Deposit Rate
Exporter
Producer
Paperline Limited ...........................................................................
Paperline Limited ...........................................................................
Paperline Limited ...........................................................................
Paperline Limited ...........................................................................
Paperline Limited ...........................................................................
Essential Industries Limited ...........................................................
MGA Entertainment (H.K.) Limited ................................................
PRC Entity* ....................................................................................
Changshu Changjiang Printing Co., Ltd.
Linqing Silver Star Paper Products Co., Ltd.
Jiaxing Te Gao Te Paper Products Co., Ltd.
Yantai License Printing & Making Co., Ltd.
Anhui Jinhua Import & Export Co., Ltd.
Dongguan Yizhi Gao Paper Products Ltd.
Kon Dai (Far East) Packaging Co., Ltd.
..........................................................................................
135.02
135.02
135.02
135.02
135.02
135.02
135.02
258.21
*Including Atico and the companies that did not respond to the Q&V questionnaire.
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).
Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 733(d) of
the Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to
suspend liquidation of all entries of
subject merchandise, entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the date of
publication of this notice in the Federal
Register. We will instruct CBP to
require a cash deposit or the posting of
a bond equal to the weighted–average
amount by which the normal value
exceeds U.S. price, as indicated above.
The suspension of liquidation will
remain in effect until further notice.
International Trade Commission
Notification
In accordance with section 733(f) of
the Act, we have notified the ITC of our
preliminary affirmative determination of
sales at LTFV. Because we have
postponed the deadline for our final
determination to 135 days from the date
of publication of this preliminary
determination, section 735(b)(2) of the
Act requires the ITC to make its final
determination as to whether the
domestic industry in the United States
is materially injured, or threatened with
material injury, by reason of imports of
CLPP, or sales (or the likelihood of
sales) for importation, of the subject
merchandise within 45 days of our final
determination.
dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
Public Comment
Case briefs or other written comments
may be submitted to the Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration no
later than seven days after the date of
the final verification report is issued in
this proceeding and rebuttal briefs
limited to issues raised in case briefs no
later than five days after the deadline
date for case briefs. A list of authorities
used and an executive summary of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:16 Apr 14, 2006
Jkt 208001
issues should accompany any briefs
submitted to the Department. This
summary should be limited to five pages
total, including footnotes.
In accordance with section 774 of the
Act, we will hold a public hearing, if
requested, to afford interested parties an
opportunity to comment on arguments
raised in case or rebuttal briefs. If a
request for a hearing is made, we intend
to hold the hearing three days after the
deadline of submission of rebuttal briefs
at the U.S. Department of Commerce,
14th Street and Constitution Ave, NW,
Washington, DC 20230, at a time and
location to be determined. Parties
should confirm by telephone the date,
time, and location of the hearing two
days before the scheduled date.
Interested parties who wish to request
a hearing, or to participate if one is
requested, must submit a written
request to the Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30
days after the date of publication of this
notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests
should contain the party’s name,
address, and telephone number, the
number of participants, and a list of the
issues to be discussed.
We will make our final determination
no later than 135 days after the date of
publication of this preliminary
determination, pursuant to section
735(a)(2) of the Act.
This determination is issued and
published in accordance with sections
733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: April 7, 2006.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 06–3638 Filed 4–14–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
PO 00000
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–533–843]
Notice of Preliminary Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value,
Postponement of Final Determination,
and Affirmative Preliminary
Determination of Critical
Circumstances in Part: Certain Lined
Paper Products From India
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of
Commerce (‘‘the Department’’)
preliminarily determines that certain
lined paper products from India
(‘‘CLPP’’) are being, or are likely to be,
sold in the United States at less than fair
value, as provided in section 733(b) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the
Act’’). Interested parties are invited to
comment on this preliminary
determination. Pursuant to requests
from interested parties, we are
postponing for 30 days the final
determination and extending the
provisional measure from a four-month
period to not more than six months.
Accordingly, we will make our final
determination not later than 105 days
after publication of the preliminary
determination.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 17, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Christopher Hargett, Joy Zhang, or James
Terpstra, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3,
Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–4161,
(202) 482–1168, or (202) 482–3965,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
On October 6, 2005, the Department
of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’)
initiated an antidumping duty
investigation of certain lined paper
products from India. See Initiation of
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\17APN1.SGM
17APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 73 / Monday, April 17, 2006 / Notices
dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
Antidumping Duty Investigations:
Certain Lined Paper Products From
India, Indonesia, and the People’s
Republic of China, 70 FR 58374
(October 6, 2005) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’).
The petitioner in this investigation is
the Association of American School
Paper Suppliers and its individual
members (MeadWestvaco Corporation;
Norcom, Inc.; and Top Flight, Inc.)
(‘‘petitioner’’).
The Department 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. See Initiation Notice,
70 FR at 58374; see also Antidumping
Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final
Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19,1997)
(‘‘Final Rule’’).
On October 31, 2005, the United
States International Trade Commission
(‘‘ITC’’) preliminarily determined that
there is a reasonable indication that
imports of CLPP from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘China’’), India and
Indonesia are materially injuring the
U.S. industry and the ITC notified the
Department of its findings. See Certain
Lined Paper School Supplies from
China, India, and Indonesia,
Investigation Nos. 701–TA–442–443 and
731–TA–1095–1097 (Preliminary), 70 FR
62329 (October 31, 2005) (‘‘ITC
Preliminary Report’’).
On November 8, 2005, the Department
issued its antidumping questionnaire to
the following three respondents: Aero
Exports (‘‘Aero’’), Kejriwal Paper
Limited (‘‘Kejriwal’’), and Navneet
Publications (India) Ltd. (‘‘Navneet’’),
specifying that the responses to Section
A and Sections B–D would be due on
November 29 and December 15, 2005,
respectively.1 We received responses to
Sections A–D of the antidumping
questionnaire and issued supplementary
questionnaires as referenced below. On
November 28, 2005, petitioner alleged
that critical circumstances existed with
regard to imports from Indonesia, China,
and India.
On December 16, 2005 the
Department received section A
questionnaire responses from Aero,
1 Section A of the questionnaire requests general
information concerning a company’s corporate
structure and business practices, the merchandise
under investigation that it sells, and the manner in
which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets.
Section B requests a complete listing of all home
market sales or, if the home market is not viable,
of sales in the most appropriate third-country
market. Section C requests a complete listing of U.S.
sales. Section D requests information on the cost of
production of the foreign like product and the
constructed value of the merchandise under
investigation. Section E requests information on
further manufacturing.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:16 Apr 14, 2006
Jkt 208001
Kejriwal, and Navneet. The Department
subsequently issued a supplemental
questionnaire to Aero, Kejriwal and
Navneet. See Section A–D
Supplemental Questionnaire, dated
January 27, 2006. On February 21, 2006,
the Department received the first
supplemental questionnaire responses
for Sections A–D from Aero, Kejriwal
and Navneet. On February 23, 2006, the
Department issued a second
supplemental questionnaire for Section
D to Aero. On February 24, 2006, the
Department issued a second
supplemental questionnaire for Section
D to Kejriwal and Navneet. On March
29, 2006, the Department received the
third Supplemental D questionnaire
response from Aero, Kejriwal and
Navneet.
In its section A response, Kejriwal
stated that it had neither home market
nor third country sales during the
period of investigation (‘‘POI’’). See
Kejriwal’s Section A Questionnaire
Response, dated December 16, 2005, at
4. Kejriwal reiterated that it did not sell
subject merchandise in the ordinary
course of trade in its home market
during the POI. See Kejriwal Exports
Section A - D Supplemental
Questionnaire Response, dated February
21, 2006, at Exhibit SB–1. As a result,
the Department must use constructed
value (‘‘CV’’) in its calculation of normal
value (‘‘NV’’). For a discussion of the
Department’s calculation of CV, see the
‘‘Constructed Value’’ section below.
Period of Investigation
The POI is July 1, 2004, to June 30,
2005. This period corresponds to the
four most recent fiscal quarters prior to
the month of the filing of the petition.
Scope of Investigation
The scope of this investigation
includes certain lined paper products,
typically school supplies,2 composed of
or including paper that incorporates
straight horizontal and/or vertical lines
on ten or more paper sheets,3 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
2 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.
3 There shall be no minimum page requirement
for looseleaf filler paper.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
19707
‘‘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;
E:\FR\FM\17APN1.SGM
17APN1
19708
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 73 / Monday, April 17, 2006 / Notices
dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
• columnar pads & tablets, with or
without covers, primarily suited for
the recording of written numerical
business data;
• lined business or office forms,
including but not limited to:
preprinted business forms, lined
invoice pads and paper, mailing
and address labels, manifests, and
shipping log books;
• lined continuous computer paper;
• boxed or packaged writing stationary
(including but not limited to
products commonly known as ‘‘fine
business paper,’’ ‘‘parchment paper,
‘‘ and ‘‘letterhead’’), whether or not
containing a lined header or
decorative lines;
• Stenographic pads (‘‘steno pads’’),
Gregg ruled,4 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.5
• 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.6
• FiveStarTM: 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
4 ‘‘Gregg ruling’’ consists of a single- or doublemargin 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.
5 Products found to be bearing an invalidly
licensed or used trademark are not excluded from
the scope.
6Products found to be bearing an invalidly
licensed or used trademark are not excluded from
the scope.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:16 Apr 14, 2006
Jkt 208001
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 by 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 FiveStarAdvanceTM.7
• 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
7 Products found to be bearing an invalidly
licensed or used trademark are not excluded from
the scope.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
must bear the valid trademark
FiveStar FlexTM.8
Merchandise subject to this
investigation is typically imported
under headings 4820.10.2050,
4810.22.5044, and 4811.90.9090 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS).9 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 the 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. See
Final Rule.
On October 28, 2005, Continental
Accessory Corporation (‘‘Continental’’)
submitted timely scope comments in
which it argued that the Department
should issue a ruling that the scope of
this investigation does not cover
‘‘fashion stationery,’’ a niche lined
paper product. Continental argued 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 argued 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
argued that what Continental refers to as
‘‘stationery’’ and ‘‘fashion goods’’ is
actually nothing more than notebooks.
Contrary to Continental’s allegation,
petitioner claimed that these ‘‘fashion’’
notebooks are ‘‘substantially produced’’
within the United States. Petitioner
further asserted that the language of the
scope includes 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 argued that
Continental’s claim that fashion
notebooks ‘‘are not intended to be
included with covered merchandise’’ is
baseless. See letter from petitioner
entitled ‘‘Certain Lined Paper Products
from India, Indonesia, and the People’s
Republic of China: Response to Scope
Comments,’’ dated November 16, 2005,
at 2. Petitioner stated that Continental
8 Products found to be bearing an invalidly
licensed or used trademark are not excluded from
the scope.
9 During the investigation additional HTS codes
may be identified.
E:\FR\FM\17APN1.SGM
17APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 73 / Monday, April 17, 2006 / Notices
had provided no evidence to
demonstrate that the purchaser views
fashion notebooks as a higher value
product. Lastly, petitioner noted that the
ITC had 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
Import Administration’s Central
Records Unit, Room 1870, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street
and Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20230 (‘‘CRU’’), 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
to Aero and Navneet.
dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
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)
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:16 Apr 14, 2006
Jkt 208001
the information can be used without
undue difficulties.
As discussed in detail below, the Cost
of Production (‘‘COP’’) questionnaire
responses submitted by Aero and
Navneet are not useable for purposes of
calculating accurate less–than-fair–
value (‘‘LTFV’’) margins. The original
antidumping questionnaire was issued
on November 8, 2005. Since the
issuance of the initial questionnaire to
Aero and Navneet, we have granted both
parties numerous extensions up to and
including the submission of the third
supplemental questionnaire response
which was received on March 29, 2006.
Over a five-month period, we have
carefully and repeatedly identified the
numerous significant deficiencies and
errors where we needed more complete
information in order to understand the
reported information. Throughout this
process, there has been a consistent
pattern of non–responsiveness and
confusing, incomplete, and inconsistent
information provided by Aero and
Navneet. As a result of numerous,
serious deficiencies, we are unable to
adequately determine whether the cost
information contained in these
responses reasonably and accurately
reflects the costs incurred by these
companies to produce the subject
merchandise. Without this information,
we cannot accurately calculate LTFV
margins for these companies.
Aero
In accordance with section 776 of the
Act, the Department preliminarily
determines that the use of total AFA is
warranted with respect to Aero.
Throughout the course of this
investigation, Aero has repeatedly failed
to submit information and data on the
record of this proceeding in a timely
and proper manner. Generous
extensions of time were given to Aero to
respond to our section D questionnaire.
The Department provided several
opportunities for Aero to submit critical
information and the Department
extended deadlines to allow Aero the
time to respond completely to the
Department’s questionnaire and
supplemental questionnaires. Three sets
of supplemental questionnaires were
issued, repeatedly asking the same
detailed questions that remained
unanswered from the previous
supplemental questionnaire. After the
issuance of the three supplemental
questionnaires, the Department is left
with critical information absent from
the record. In addition, questions still
remain unanswered as to the accuracy
and reliability of the reported cost
information. Because Aero has withheld
requested information, failed to provide
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
19709
such information by the deadlines in the
form and manner required, impeded
this investigation, and reported
information that could not be verified,
the Department may resort to facts
otherwise available, in reaching its
preliminary determination, pursuant to
sections 776(a)(2)(A),(B),(C) and (D) of
the Act. Due to the fact that most of the
reasons regarding the use of facts
available for Aero are considered
business proprietary information, please
see the Memorandum from Sheikh M.
Hannan to Neal Halper entitled ‘‘Use of
Adverse Facts Available for the
Preliminary Determination - Aero
Exports,’’ dated April 7, 2006, on file in
the CRU.
Navneet
In accordance with section 776 of the
Act, the Department preliminarily
determines that the use of total AFA is
warranted with respect to Navneet. The
Department identified the major
deficiencies with Navneet’s submitted
cost responses early in this proceeding
and despite the Department’s repeated
requests, these deficiencies were not
rectified by Navneet. As discussed in
the memorandum mentioned below,
Navneet failed to 1) provide various
reconciliation schedules (i.e., the overall
cost reconciliation, the overall quantity
reconciliation, and the overall
purchased paper reconciliation) and
explanations of reconciling amounts; 2)
provide a consistent explanation for its
product cost calculation methodology
that demonstrates the link between its
reported costs and its normal books and
records; and 3) provide complete
supporting documentation for the
matching product control number
(‘‘CONNUM’’) cost build–up schedules.
Without this information, the
Department is unable to determine
whether Navneet accounted for all its
production costs relating to the
merchandise under investigation. The
Department is unable to rely on
Navneet’s submitted costs. Moreover,
based on the statements made by
Navneet and the exhibits provided in its
questionnaire responses, it is apparent
that Navneet departed from the product
costs recorded in its normal books and
records when calculating its reported
product costs to the Department. Thus,
the costs the Department should be
using, the per–unit costs from its normal
books and records, are not on the record
of this proceeding. Section 773(f)(1)(A)
of the Act requires that companies
normally use their normal books and
records in reporting costs for an
antidumping investigation. Finally, we
note that Navneet failed to provide the
POI job order worksheet reconciliation,
E:\FR\FM\17APN1.SGM
17APN1
19710
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 73 / Monday, April 17, 2006 / Notices
dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
which the Department requested to
determine whether Navneet relied on its
normal books and records and that its
reported costs reconciled to those
records. Because necessary information
from Navneet is not available on the
record, the use of facts available for the
preliminary determination is warranted
pursuant to section 776(a)(1) of the Act.
Furthermore, because Navneet has
withheld requested information, failed
to provide such information by the
deadlines in the form and manner
required, impeded this investigation,
and reported information that could not
be verified, the use of facts available for
the preliminary determination is
warranted pursuant to sections
776(a)(2)(A),(B),(C) and (D) of the Act.
For further discussion, please refer to
the Memorandum from Oh Ji to Neal
Halper, entitled ‘‘Use of Adverse Facts
Available for the Preliminary
Determination - Navneet Publications
(India) Ltd.,’’ dated April 7, 2006, on file
in the CRU.
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);
see also Notice of Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, Postponement of Final
Determination, and Affirmative
Preliminary Determination of Critical
Circumstances in Part: Prestressed
Concrete Steel Wire Strand From
Mexico, 68 FR 42378 (July 17, 2003).
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’’).
Furthermore, ‘‘{a}ffirmative evidence of
bad faith, or willfulness, on the part of
a respondent is not required before the
Department may make an adverse
inference.’’ See Final Rule.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:16 Apr 14, 2006
Jkt 208001
Despite repeated requests for
information concerning Aero and
Navneet’s costs, including extensions of
time granted to submit the necessary
information, neither company provided
useable cost data. The series of
supplemental questionnaire responses
submitted by Aero and Navneet
continued to remain inadequate where
certain critical information questioned
the accuracy and reliability of the
reported cost information as well as a
lack of various reconciliation schedules
and explanations. The respondents were
on notice as to the consequences of
failing to adequately respond to the
supplemental questionnaires. The
Department finds that Aero and Navneet
have failed to cooperate to the best of
their ability because they continued to
be non–responsive, despite repeated
requests to provide critical data
regarding their costs. Consequently, the
Department has preliminarily
determined that, in selecting from
among the facts otherwise available, an
adverse inference is warranted. See
Section 776(b) of the Act; see also
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), where the Department
applied total AFA because the
respondents 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 Aero’s
and Navneet’s own data and because an
adverse inference is warranted, we have
assigned to Aero and Navneet the
highest individual margin calculated in
this proceeding based on the data
reported by a respondent in this
investigation, rather than the margins
alleged in the petition. See
Memorandum to the File from the Team
entitled, ‘‘Preliminary Determination in
the Antidumping Duty Investigation of
Certain Lined Paper Products from
India: Selection of Total Adverse Facts–
Available Rate,’’ (Corroboration Memo)
dated April 7, 2006.
When using facts otherwise available,
section 776(c) of the Act provides that,
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 Office of
AD/CVD Operations Initiation
Checklist, dated September 29, 2005
(‘‘Initiation Checklist’’), on file in the
CRU.
In accordance with section 776(c) of
the Act and to the extent practicable, for
this preliminary determination, we
examined record evidence in an effort to
corroborate the margins in the Initiation
Notice, i.e., to determine whether those
margins have probative value. We find
that the estimated margins we set forth
in the Initiation Notice do not have
probative value. See Corroboration
Memo. Therefore, in selecting AFA with
respect to Aero and Navneet, we have
applied the margin rate of 110.43
percent, the highest individual rate
calculated in this proceeding.
Date of Sale
Section 351.401(i) of the Department’s
regulations states that the Department
will normally use the date of invoice, as
recorded in the producer’s or exporter’s
records kept in the ordinary course of
business, as the date of sale. However,
the Department may use a date other
than the date of invoice if the alternative
better reflects the date on which the
material terms of sales (e.g., price and
quantity) are established.
Kejriwal reported the date of invoice
as the date of sale for the U.S. market,
reflecting the Department’s stated
preference. Kejriwal stated that the
invoice date is the only date entered in
the accounting records.
The Department is preliminarily using
the invoice date as the date of sale for
U.S. sales. We intend to examine this
issue at verification, and will
incorporate our findings in our analysis
for the final determination, if we
determine that another date, other than
E:\FR\FM\17APN1.SGM
17APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 73 / Monday, April 17, 2006 / Notices
invoice date, is the appropriate date of
sale.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether Kejriwal’s sales
of CLPP from India to the United States
were made at LTFV, we compared the
export price (‘‘EP’’) to NV, as described
in the ‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal
Value’’ sections of this notice. In
accordance with section
777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we
compared POI weighted–average EP to
CV. See discussion below.
Export Price
Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP
as the price at which the subject
merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be
sold) before the date of importation by
the producer or exporter outside of the
United States to an unaffiliated
purchaser for exportation to the United
States, as adjusted under subsection (c).
During the POI, Kejriwal made direct
sales to unaffiliated customers in the
United Sates. Therefore, we have
applied the EP methodology, in
accordance with section 772(a) of the
Act, for sales that were produced and
exported by Kejriwal from India to the
first unaffiliated purchaser in the United
States prior to importation. We based EP
on the packed price to unaffiliated
purchasers in the United States. In
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of
the Act, we made deductions for
movement expenses, where appropriate,
for foreign inland freight from the plant
to the distribution warehouse,
warehousing, foreign inland freight from
plant/warehouse to the port of
exportation, foreign inland insurance,
foreign brokerage and handling, U.S.
brokerage and handling, international
freight, and U.S. inland freight from port
to warehouse. In addition, we deducted
billing adjustments and discounts from
EP, where appropriate.
Normal Value
dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
A. Home Market Viability and
Comparison Market Selection
In order to determine whether there is
a sufficient volume of sales in the home
market to serve as a viable basis for
calculating NV (i.e., the aggregate
volume of home market sales of the
foreign like product is equal to or
greater than five percent of the aggregate
volume of U.S. sales), we compared
Kejriwal’s volume of home market sales
of the foreign like product to the volume
of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise,
in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C)
of the Act.
Section 773(a)(1)(C)(i) of the Act
applies to the Department’s
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:16 Apr 14, 2006
Jkt 208001
determination of NV if the foreign like
product is not sold (or offered for sale)
for consumption in the exporting
country. When sales in the home market
are not viable, section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of
the Act provides that sales to a
particular third country market may be
utilized if: (1) the prices in such market
are representative; (2) the aggregate
quantity of the foreign like product sold
by the producer or exporter in the third
country market is five percent or more
of the aggregate quantity of the subject
merchandise sold in or to the United
States; and (3) the Department does not
determine that a particular market
situation in the third country market
prevents a proper comparison with the
U.S. price.
Kejriwal reported that it made no
sales to the home market and no sales
to a third country. See Kejriwal’s
Section A Response, dated December
16, 2005 at 4; see also Kejriwal’s Section
A–D questionnaire responses, dated
February 21, 2006, at SB–1. Therefore,
for Kejriwal, we used CV as the basis for
calculating NV, in accordance with
section 773(a)(4) of the Act, for all sales.
B. Level of Trade
Kejriwal reported sales only to
unaffiliated distributors in the U.S.
market, and no sales to either the home
or third country markets. In the U.S.
market, they reported only one level of
trade. The selling functions, customer
category, and the level of selling
expenses for each type of sale was
consistent for all distributors in the U.S.
However, all of Kejriwal’s sales are
compared to CV and a level–of-trade
adjustment is not necessary.
C. Calculation of Normal Value Based
on Constructed Value
In accordance with section 773(a)(4)
of the Act, we based Kejriwal’s NV on
CV. In accordance with section 773(e) of
the Act, we calculated CV based on the
sum of Kejriwal’s cost of materials and
fabrication for the foreign like product,
plus amounts for selling, general, and
administrative expenses (‘‘SG&A’’),
profit, and U.S. packing costs. We
calculated the cost of materials and
fabrication based on the CV information
provided by Kejriwal in its section D
response. We disallowed Kejriwal’s
claimed offsets for duty–free
replenishment certificates and excise
duty rebated. We have recalculated
Kejriwal’s general and administrative
(‘‘G&A’’) expense ratio based on G&A
expenses for the year ending March 31,
2005, incurred by Kejriwal Paper Ltd.
only and not those of the Kejriwal
Group. In doing so, we have removed
the imputed cost of newsprint from
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
19711
Kejriwal’s reported cost of goods sold
denominator. We also added sundry
expenses to our calculation of the G&A
expense ratio. We recalculated
Kejriwal’s interest expense ratio to
include sundry expenses in the cost of
goods sold denominator and have
removed the imputed cost of newsprint
from the cost of goods sold
denominator. Because Kejriwal does not
have Indian sales of the foreign like
product or third country sales, the
Department does not have comparison
market selling expenses or profit to use
in its calculations, as directed by section
773(e) of the Act. As an alternative, the
Department has used as selling expenses
and profit for Kejriwal, data from the
March 31, 2005, financial statements of
Kanoi Paper Industries Limited
(‘‘Kanoi’’). Kanoi sells merchandise
within the same general category of
products as the foreign like product in
the Indian market. See Memorandum
from Laurens Van Houten to Neal
Halper, Director, Office of Accounting,
Cost of Production and Constructed
Value Calculation Adjustments for the
Preliminary Determination- Kejriwal,
dated April 7, 2006 (‘‘COP/CV Memo’’).
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions into
U.S. dollars in accordance with section
773A(a) of the Act based on exchange
rates in effect on the dates of the U.S.
sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve
Bank.
All Others Rate
Section 735(c)(5)(A) 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. The ‘‘all
others’’ rate is derived exclusive of all
de minimis margins and margins based
entirely on facts available. Kejriwal is
the only respondent in this investigation
for which the Department has calculated
a company–specific rate that is not
based entirely on facts available.
Therefore, for purposes of determining
the ‘‘all others’’ rate and pursuant to
section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we are
using the dumping margin calculated
for Kejriwal, as referenced in the
‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section
below.
E:\FR\FM\17APN1.SGM
17APN1
19712
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 73 / Monday, April 17, 2006 / Notices
dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
Critical Circumstances
A. Aero, Navneet, and Kejriwal
On November 28, 2005, petitioner
requested that the Department make an
expedited finding that critical
circumstances exist with respect to
CLPP from India. 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.
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
19 CFR 351.206(c)(2); see also Policy
Bulletin 98/4 regarding Timing of
Issuance of Critical Circumstances
Determinations, 63 FR 55364 (October
15, 1998).
Section 733(e)(1) 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: (A) (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, and (B) there have
been massive imports of the subject
merchandise over a relatively short
period.
In determining whether the relevant
statutory criteria have been satisfied, the
Department considered: (i) the evidence
presented in the petitioners’ November
28, 2005, submission, (ii) exporter–
specific shipment data submitted by
Kejriwal on February 21, 2006, and (iii)
the 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 Determinations of Critical
Circumstances: Steel Concrete
Reinforcing Bars From Ukraine and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:16 Apr 14, 2006
Jkt 208001
Moldova, 65 FR 70696 (November 27,
2000). Petitioner makes no statement
concerning a history of dumping of
CLPP from India. Moreover, we are not
aware of any antidumping order on
CLPP from India in any other country.
Therefore, the Department finds no
history of injurious dumping of CLPP
from India 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 110.43 percent to Aero and
Navneet. Based on this margin, we have
imputed importer knowledge of
dumping for Aero and Navneet. 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, 68 FR 71077 (December 22,
2003) (‘‘TTR from Japan’’). However,
because the preliminary dumping
margin for Kejriwal’s EP sales is less
than 25 percent, we preliminarily
determine that the knowledge criterion
has not been met.
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, 64 FR 30574, 30578 (June
8, 1999) (‘‘Stainless Steel from Japan’’).
The ITC preliminarily found material
injury to the domestic industry due to
imports of CLPP from India, 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
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
whether critical circumstances exist has
been satisfied.
Since Aero and Navneet have met the
first prong of the critical circumstances
test, according to section 733(e)(1)(A)(i)
of the Act, we must examine whether
imports from Aero and Navneet 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
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 21, 2006, Aero, Kejriwal,
and Navneet 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 the
information reported by Aero and
Navneet because, as noted above, we are
applying AFA to Aero and Navneet and
their company–specific data will not be
subject to verification. Therefore, the
Department must base its determination
on facts available. Moreover, because of
Aero and Navneet’s failure to cooperate
to the best of their ability, we have made
an adverse inference that there were
massive imports from Aero and Navneet
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
E:\FR\FM\17APN1.SGM
17APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 73 / Monday, April 17, 2006 / Notices
dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
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, ‘‘{t}he 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.
Accordingly, we preliminarily find
critical circumstances exist with respect
to Aero and Navneet. In regard to
Kejriwal, we examined Kejriwal’s
reported shipments, which show that
this company only exported subject
merchandise to the United States for the
period of August 2004 - July 2005.
Kejriwal reported that it made no
shipments to the United States
subsequent to the filing date of the
petition. The data reported by Kejriwal
does not show a surge and there is no
data to compare the seasonal trends. See
Kejriwal’s Section A–C questionnaire
response, dated April 3, 2006, exhibit
SA–1, (revised). Therefore, we
preliminarily find that critical
circumstances do not exist for Kejriwal.
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), where the
Department found that critical
circumstances existed for the majority of
the companies investigated and
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, 68 FR at 71077. The dumping
margin for the ‘‘all others’’ category,
22.53 percent, is less than the 25
percent threshold necessary to impute
knowledge of dumping consistent with
733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act. Second,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:16 Apr 14, 2006
Jkt 208001
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 Aero
and Navneet because our determination
for Aero and Navneet was based on
AFA. Consistent with TTR from Japan,
we have not inferred adverse facts, that
massive imports exist for ‘‘all others’’
because, unlike Aero and Navneet, the
‘‘all others’’ companies have not failed
to cooperate to the best of their ability
in this investigation. Therefore, an
adverse inference with respect to
shipment levels by the ‘‘all others’’
companies is not appropriate.
Generally, the Department’s approach
is to examine CBP data on overall
imports from the country 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. See Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Hot–Rolled Flat–Rolled
Carbon–Quality Steel Products from
Japan, 64 FR 24329 (May 6, 1999); see
also 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 5520, 5527
(February 4, 2000). 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 criteria necessary
for determining affirmative critical
circumstances have not been met.
Therefore, we have preliminarily
determined that critical circumstances
do not exist for imports of CLPP from
India for companies in the ‘‘all others’’
category.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the
Act, we intend to verify all information
relied upon in making our final
determination for Kejriwal.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
19713
Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 733(d)(2)
of the Act, we are directing CBP to
suspend liquidation of all entries of
CLPP from India that are entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the date of
publication of this notice in the Federal
Register. Additionally, for Aero and
Navneet, we are instructing CBP to
suspend the liquidation of entries made
on or after 90 days prior to the
publication of this notice in accordance
with section 733(e)(2) of the Act. We are
also instructing CBP to require a cash
deposit or the posting of a bond equal
to the weighted–average dumping
margin, as indicated in the chart below.
These suspension–of-liquidation
instructions will remain in effect until
further notice.
The weighted–average dumping
margins are as follows:
Manufacturer/Exporter
Aero Exports .................
Kejriwal Paper Limited ..
Navneet Publications
(India) Ltd. .................
All Others ......................
Weighted Average
Margin (percent)
110.43
22.53
110.43
22.53
Disclosure
We will disclose the calculations used
in our analysis to parties in this
proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR
351.224(b).
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 733(f) of
the Act, we have notified the ITC of the
Department’s preliminary affirmative
determination. If the Department’s final
determination is affirmative, the ITC
will determine before the later of 120
days after the date of this preliminary
determination or 45 days after our final
determination whether imports of CLPP
from India are materially injuring, or
threaten material injury to, the U.S.
industry. Because we have postponed
the deadline for our final determination
to 105 days from the date of the
publication of this preliminary
determination, the ITC will make its
final determination within 45 days of
our final determination.
Public Comment
Interested parties are invited to
comment on the preliminary
determination. Interested parties may
submit case briefs to the Department no
later than seven days after the date of
the issuance of the final verification
report in this proceeding. Rebuttal
briefs, the content of which is limited to
the issues raised in the case briefs, must
E:\FR\FM\17APN1.SGM
17APN1
19714
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 73 / Monday, April 17, 2006 / Notices
dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
be filed within five days from the
deadline date for the 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. Further,
we request that parties submitting briefs
and rebuttal briefs provide the
Department with a copy of the public
version of such briefs on diskette. In
accordance with section 774 of the Act,
the Department will hold a public
hearing, if requested, to afford interested
parties an opportunity to comment on
arguments raised in case or rebuttal
briefs, provided that such a hearing is
requested by an interested party. If a
request for a hearing is made in this
investigation, the hearing will
tentatively be held two days after the
rebuttal brief deadline date at the U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street
and Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20230, at a time and in
a room to be determined. Parties should
confirm by telephone, the date, time,
and location of the hearing 48 hours
before the scheduled date.
Interested parties who wish to request
a hearing, or to participate in a hearing
if one is requested, must submit a
written request to the Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, Room
1870, within 30 days of the publication
of this notice. Requests should contain:
(1) The party’s name, address, and
telephone number; (2) the number of
participants; and (3) a list of the issues
to be discussed. At the hearing, oral
presentations will be limited to issues
raised in the briefs.
Postponement of Final Determination
and Extension of Provisional Measures
Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the
Act, on March 30, 2006, Aero, Kejriwal
and Navneet requested that in the event
of an affirmative preliminary
determination in this investigation, the
Department postpone its final
determination by 30 days. At the same
time, Aero, Kejriwal and Navneet
requested that the Department extend by
30 days the application of the
provisional measures prescribed under
19 CFR 351.210(e)(2). In accordance
with section 733(d) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.210(b), because (1) our
preliminary determination is
affirmative, (2) the requesting exporter
accounts for a significant proportion of
exports of the subject merchandise, and
(3) no compelling reasons for denial
exist, we are granting their request and
are postponing the final determination
until no later than 105 days after the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:16 Apr 14, 2006
Jkt 208001
publication of this notice in the Federal
Register. Suspension of liquidation will
be extended accordingly.
This determination is issued and
published pursuant to sections 733(f)
and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: April 7, 2006.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretaryfor Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E6–5690 Filed 4–14–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–580–841]
Structural Steel Beams from the
Republic of Korea; Extension of Time
Limit for Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
AGENCY:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
April 17, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Brian Sheba, Maryanne Burke or Robert
James, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7,
Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–0145,
(202) 482–5604, or (202) 482–0649,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Frm 00033
Dated: April 4, 2006.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretaryfor Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E6–5696 Filed 4–14–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
On August 31, 2005, the Department
of Commerce (the Department) received
timely requests from respondents
Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd. (DSM) and
INI Steel Company (INI) along with
petitioners, Nucor Corp., Nucor–Yamato
Steel Co., Steel Dynamics, Inc., and
Chaparral Steel Inc. (collectively,
petitioners) to conduct an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on structural
steel beams from the Republic of Korea.
On September 28, 2005, the Department
published a notice of initiation of this
administrative review, covering the
period of August 1, 2004 to July 31,
2005. See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Request for Revocation in
Part, 70 FR 56631 (September 28, 2005).
The preliminary results are currently
due no later than May 3, 2006.
PO 00000
Extension of Time Limits for
Preliminary Results
Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act),
requires the Department to complete the
preliminary results of an administrative
review within 245 days after the last day
of the anniversary month of an order for
which a review is requested. However,
if it is not practicable to complete the
review within these time periods,
section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act
allows the Department to extend the
time limit for the preliminary results to
a maximum of 365 days after the last
day of the anniversary month of an
order for which a review is requested.
The Department has determined that
it is not practicable to complete this
administrative review within the time
limit mandated by section 751(a)(3)(A)
of the Tariff Act. We require additional
time to develop the record and examine
DSM’s cost of production data and
issues of affiliation. Regarding INI,
further analysis is necessary with
respect to certain movement expenses.
Accordingly, the Department is
extending the time limit for completion
of the preliminary results of this
administrative review to August 31,
2006, which is 365 days from the last
day of the anniversary month. We
intend to issue the final results no later
than 120 days after publication of the
preliminary results notice.
This extension is issued and
published in accordance with sections
751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i) of the Tariff Act.
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–427–810, C–580–818]
Corrosion–Resistant Carbon Steel Flat
Products from France and the
Republic of Korea: Extension of Time
Limit for Preliminary Results of
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 17, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kristen Johnson or Robert Copyak, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 3, Import
Administration, International Trade
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\17APN1.SGM
17APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 73 (Monday, April 17, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19706-19714]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-5690]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-533-843]
Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary
Determination of Critical Circumstances in Part: Certain Lined Paper
Products From India
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Commerce (``the Department'')
preliminarily determines that certain lined paper products from India
(``CLPP'') are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at
less than fair value, as provided in section 733(b) of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). Interested parties are invited to
comment on this preliminary determination. Pursuant to requests from
interested parties, we are postponing for 30 days the final
determination and extending the provisional measure from a four-month
period to not more than six months. Accordingly, we will make our final
determination not later than 105 days after publication of the
preliminary determination.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 17, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Hargett, Joy Zhang, or
James Terpstra, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone
(202) 482-4161, (202) 482-1168, or (202) 482-3965, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 6, 2005, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'')
initiated an antidumping duty investigation of certain lined paper
products from India. See Initiation of
[[Page 19707]]
Antidumping Duty Investigations: Certain Lined Paper Products From
India, Indonesia, and the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 58374
(October 6, 2005) (``Initiation Notice''). The petitioner in this
investigation is the Association of American School Paper Suppliers and
its individual members (MeadWestvaco Corporation; Norcom, Inc.; and Top
Flight, Inc.) (``petitioner'').
The Department 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. See Initiation Notice, 70 FR at 58374; see also Antidumping
Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May
19,1997) (``Final Rule'').
On October 31, 2005, the United States International Trade
Commission (``ITC'') preliminarily determined that there is a
reasonable indication that imports of CLPP from the People's Republic
of China (``China''), India and Indonesia are materially injuring the
U.S. industry and the ITC notified the Department of its findings. See
Certain Lined Paper School Supplies from China, India, and Indonesia,
Investigation Nos. 701-TA-442-443 and 731-TA-1095-1097 (Preliminary),
70 FR 62329 (October 31, 2005) (``ITC Preliminary Report'').
On November 8, 2005, the Department issued its antidumping
questionnaire to the following three respondents: Aero Exports
(``Aero''), Kejriwal Paper Limited (``Kejriwal''), and Navneet
Publications (India) Ltd. (``Navneet''), specifying that the responses
to Section A and Sections B-D would be due on November 29 and December
15, 2005, respectively.\1\ We received responses to Sections A-D of the
antidumping questionnaire and issued supplementary questionnaires as
referenced below. On November 28, 2005, petitioner alleged that
critical circumstances existed with regard to imports from Indonesia,
China, and India.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Section A of the questionnaire requests general information
concerning a company's corporate structure and business practices,
the merchandise under investigation that it sells, and the manner in
which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. Section B
requests a complete listing of all home market sales or, if the home
market is not viable, of sales in the most appropriate third-country
market. Section C requests a complete listing of U.S. sales. Section
D requests information on the cost of production of the foreign like
product and the constructed value of the merchandise under
investigation. Section E requests information on further
manufacturing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 16, 2005 the Department received section A
questionnaire responses from Aero, Kejriwal, and Navneet. The
Department subsequently issued a supplemental questionnaire to Aero,
Kejriwal and Navneet. See Section A-D Supplemental Questionnaire, dated
January 27, 2006. On February 21, 2006, the Department received the
first supplemental questionnaire responses for Sections A-D from Aero,
Kejriwal and Navneet. On February 23, 2006, the Department issued a
second supplemental questionnaire for Section D to Aero. On February
24, 2006, the Department issued a second supplemental questionnaire for
Section D to Kejriwal and Navneet. On March 29, 2006, the Department
received the third Supplemental D questionnaire response from Aero,
Kejriwal and Navneet.
In its section A response, Kejriwal stated that it had neither home
market nor third country sales during the period of investigation
(``POI''). See Kejriwal's Section A Questionnaire Response, dated
December 16, 2005, at 4. Kejriwal reiterated that it did not sell
subject merchandise in the ordinary course of trade in its home market
during the POI. See Kejriwal Exports Section A - D Supplemental
Questionnaire Response, dated February 21, 2006, at Exhibit SB-1. As a
result, the Department must use constructed value (``CV'') in its
calculation of normal value (``NV''). For a discussion of the
Department's calculation of CV, see the ``Constructed Value'' section
below.
Period of Investigation
The POI is July 1, 2004, to June 30, 2005. This period corresponds
to the four most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month of the
filing of the petition.
Scope of Investigation
The scope of this investigation includes certain lined paper
products, typically school supplies,\2\ composed of or including paper
that incorporates straight horizontal and/or vertical lines on ten or
more paper sheets,\3\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 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.
\3\ There shall be no minimum page requirement for looseleaf
filler paper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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;
[[Page 19708]]
columnar pads & tablets, with or without covers, primarily
suited for the recording of written numerical business data;
lined business or office forms, including but not limited to:
preprinted business forms, lined invoice pads and paper, mailing and
address labels, manifests, and shipping log books;
lined continuous computer paper;
boxed or packaged writing stationary (including but not
limited to products commonly known as ``fine business paper,''
``parchment paper, `` and ``letterhead''), whether or not containing a
lined header or decorative lines;
Stenographic pads (``steno pads''), Gregg ruled,\4\ 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.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``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.
\5\ 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.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\Products found to be bearing an invalidly licensed or used
trademark are not excluded from the scope.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FiveStar[reg]TM: A notebook or notebook organizer
bound by a continuous spiral, or helical, wire and with plastic front
and rear covers made of a blended polyolefin plastic material joined by
300 denier polyester, coated on the backside with PVC (poly vinyl
chloride) coating, and extending the entire length of the spiral or
helical wire. The polyolefin plastic covers are of specific thickness;
front cover is .019 inches (within normal manufacturing tolerances) and
rear cover is .028 inches (within normal manufacturing tolerances).
Integral with the stitching that attaches the polyester spine covering,
is captured by 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.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 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.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 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, and 4811.90.9090 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).\9\ The tariff
classifications are provided for convenience and customs purposes;
however, the written description of the scope of the investigation is
dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ During the investigation additional HTS codes may be
identified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope Comments
In the 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. See Final Rule.
On October 28, 2005, Continental Accessory Corporation
(``Continental'') submitted timely scope comments in which it argued
that the Department should issue a ruling that the scope of this
investigation does not cover ``fashion stationery,'' a niche lined
paper product. Continental argued 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 argued 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 argued that what Continental refers to as ``stationery'' and
``fashion goods'' is actually nothing more than notebooks. Contrary to
Continental's allegation, petitioner claimed that these ``fashion''
notebooks are ``substantially produced'' within the United States.
Petitioner further asserted that the language of the scope includes
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 argued that Continental's claim that fashion notebooks ``are not
intended to be included with covered merchandise'' is baseless. See
letter from petitioner entitled ``Certain Lined Paper Products from
India, Indonesia, and the People's Republic of China: Response to Scope
Comments,'' dated November 16, 2005, at 2. Petitioner stated that
Continental
[[Page 19709]]
had provided no evidence to demonstrate that the purchaser views
fashion notebooks as a higher value product. Lastly, petitioner noted
that the ITC had 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 Import Administration's Central Records Unit, Room 1870, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20230 (``CRU''), 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 to Aero and Navneet.
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.
As discussed in detail below, the Cost of Production (``COP'')
questionnaire responses submitted by Aero and Navneet are not useable
for purposes of calculating accurate less-than-fair-value (``LTFV'')
margins. The original antidumping questionnaire was issued on November
8, 2005. Since the issuance of the initial questionnaire to Aero and
Navneet, we have granted both parties numerous extensions up to and
including the submission of the third supplemental questionnaire
response which was received on March 29, 2006. Over a five-month
period, we have carefully and repeatedly identified the numerous
significant deficiencies and errors where we needed more complete
information in order to understand the reported information. Throughout
this process, there has been a consistent pattern of non-responsiveness
and confusing, incomplete, and inconsistent information provided by
Aero and Navneet. As a result of numerous, serious deficiencies, we are
unable to adequately determine whether the cost information contained
in these responses reasonably and accurately reflects the costs
incurred by these companies to produce the subject merchandise. Without
this information, we cannot accurately calculate LTFV margins for these
companies.
Aero
In accordance with section 776 of the Act, the Department
preliminarily determines that the use of total AFA is warranted with
respect to Aero. Throughout the course of this investigation, Aero has
repeatedly failed to submit information and data on the record of this
proceeding in a timely and proper manner. Generous extensions of time
were given to Aero to respond to our section D questionnaire. The
Department provided several opportunities for Aero to submit critical
information and the Department extended deadlines to allow Aero the
time to respond completely to the Department's questionnaire and
supplemental questionnaires. Three sets of supplemental questionnaires
were issued, repeatedly asking the same detailed questions that
remained unanswered from the previous supplemental questionnaire. After
the issuance of the three supplemental questionnaires, the Department
is left with critical information absent from the record. In addition,
questions still remain unanswered as to the accuracy and reliability of
the reported cost information. Because Aero has withheld requested
information, failed to provide such information by the deadlines in the
form and manner required, impeded this investigation, and reported
information that could not be verified, the Department may resort to
facts otherwise available, in reaching its preliminary determination,
pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A),(B),(C) and (D) of the Act. Due to
the fact that most of the reasons regarding the use of facts available
for Aero are considered business proprietary information, please see
the Memorandum from Sheikh M. Hannan to Neal Halper entitled ``Use of
Adverse Facts Available for the Preliminary Determination - Aero
Exports,'' dated April 7, 2006, on file in the CRU.
Navneet
In accordance with section 776 of the Act, the Department
preliminarily determines that the use of total AFA is warranted with
respect to Navneet. The Department identified the major deficiencies
with Navneet's submitted cost responses early in this proceeding and
despite the Department's repeated requests, these deficiencies were not
rectified by Navneet. As discussed in the memorandum mentioned below,
Navneet failed to 1) provide various reconciliation schedules (i.e.,
the overall cost reconciliation, the overall quantity reconciliation,
and the overall purchased paper reconciliation) and explanations of
reconciling amounts; 2) provide a consistent explanation for its
product cost calculation methodology that demonstrates the link between
its reported costs and its normal books and records; and 3) provide
complete supporting documentation for the matching product control
number (``CONNUM'') cost build-up schedules. Without this information,
the Department is unable to determine whether Navneet accounted for all
its production costs relating to the merchandise under investigation.
The Department is unable to rely on Navneet's submitted costs.
Moreover, based on the statements made by Navneet and the exhibits
provided in its questionnaire responses, it is apparent that Navneet
departed from the product costs recorded in its normal books and
records when calculating its reported product costs to the Department.
Thus, the costs the Department should be using, the per-unit costs from
its normal books and records, are not on the record of this proceeding.
Section 773(f)(1)(A) of the Act requires that companies normally use
their normal books and records in reporting costs for an antidumping
investigation. Finally, we note that Navneet failed to provide the POI
job order worksheet reconciliation,
[[Page 19710]]
which the Department requested to determine whether Navneet relied on
its normal books and records and that its reported costs reconciled to
those records. Because necessary information from Navneet is not
available on the record, the use of facts available for the preliminary
determination is warranted pursuant to section 776(a)(1) of the Act.
Furthermore, because Navneet has withheld requested information, failed
to provide such information by the deadlines in the form and manner
required, impeded this investigation, and reported information that
could not be verified, the use of facts available for the preliminary
determination is warranted pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A),(B),(C)
and (D) of the Act. For further discussion, please refer to the
Memorandum from Oh Ji to Neal Halper, entitled ``Use of Adverse Facts
Available for the Preliminary Determination - Navneet Publications
(India) Ltd.,'' dated April 7, 2006, on file in the CRU.
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); see also Notice of
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value,
Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary
Determination of Critical Circumstances in Part: Prestressed Concrete
Steel Wire Strand From Mexico, 68 FR 42378 (July 17, 2003).
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''). Furthermore, ``{a{time} ffirmative evidence of
bad faith, or willfulness, on the part of a respondent is not required
before the Department may make an adverse inference.'' See Final Rule.
Despite repeated requests for information concerning Aero and
Navneet's costs, including extensions of time granted to submit the
necessary information, neither company provided useable cost data. The
series of supplemental questionnaire responses submitted by Aero and
Navneet continued to remain inadequate where certain critical
information questioned the accuracy and reliability of the reported
cost information as well as a lack of various reconciliation schedules
and explanations. The respondents were on notice as to the consequences
of failing to adequately respond to the supplemental questionnaires.
The Department finds that Aero and Navneet have failed to cooperate to
the best of their ability because they continued to be non-responsive,
despite repeated requests to provide critical data regarding their
costs. Consequently, the Department has preliminarily determined that,
in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, an adverse
inference is warranted. See Section 776(b) of the Act; see also 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), where the Department applied total AFA because the
respondents 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 Aero's
and Navneet's own data and because an adverse inference is warranted,
we have assigned to Aero and Navneet the highest individual margin
calculated in this proceeding based on the data reported by a
respondent in this investigation, rather than the margins alleged in
the petition. See Memorandum to the File from the Team entitled,
``Preliminary Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of
Certain Lined Paper Products from India: Selection of Total Adverse
Facts-Available Rate,'' (Corroboration Memo) dated April 7, 2006.
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
Office of AD/CVD Operations Initiation Checklist, dated September 29,
2005 (``Initiation Checklist''), on file in the CRU.
In accordance with section 776(c) of the Act and to the extent
practicable, for this preliminary determination, we examined record
evidence in an effort to corroborate the margins in the Initiation
Notice, i.e., to determine whether those margins have probative value.
We find that the estimated margins we set forth in the Initiation
Notice do not have probative value. See Corroboration Memo. Therefore,
in selecting AFA with respect to Aero and Navneet, we have applied the
margin rate of 110.43 percent, the highest individual rate calculated
in this proceeding.
Date of Sale
Section 351.401(i) of the Department's regulations states that the
Department will normally use the date of invoice, as recorded in the
producer's or exporter's records kept in the ordinary course of
business, as the date of sale. However, the Department may use a date
other than the date of invoice if the alternative better reflects the
date on which the material terms of sales (e.g., price and quantity)
are established.
Kejriwal reported the date of invoice as the date of sale for the
U.S. market, reflecting the Department's stated preference. Kejriwal
stated that the invoice date is the only date entered in the accounting
records.
The Department is preliminarily using the invoice date as the date
of sale for U.S. sales. We intend to examine this issue at
verification, and will incorporate our findings in our analysis for the
final determination, if we determine that another date, other than
[[Page 19711]]
invoice date, is the appropriate date of sale.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether Kejriwal's sales of CLPP from India to the
United States were made at LTFV, we compared the export price (``EP'')
to NV, as described in the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value''
sections of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of
the Act, we compared POI weighted-average EP to CV. See discussion
below.
Export Price
Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as the price at which the
subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the
date of importation by the producer or exporter outside of the United
States to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United
States, as adjusted under subsection (c).
During the POI, Kejriwal made direct sales to unaffiliated
customers in the United Sates. Therefore, we have applied the EP
methodology, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, for sales
that were produced and exported by Kejriwal from India to the first
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation. We
based EP on the packed price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United
States. In accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we made
deductions for movement expenses, where appropriate, for foreign inland
freight from the plant to the distribution warehouse, warehousing,
foreign inland freight from plant/warehouse to the port of exportation,
foreign inland insurance, foreign brokerage and handling, U.S.
brokerage and handling, international freight, and U.S. inland freight
from port to warehouse. In addition, we deducted billing adjustments
and discounts from EP, where appropriate.
Normal Value
A. Home Market Viability and Comparison Market Selection
In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales
in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e.,
the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product
is equal to or greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of
U.S. sales), we compared Kejriwal's volume of home market sales of the
foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act.
Section 773(a)(1)(C)(i) of the Act applies to the Department's
determination of NV if the foreign like product is not sold (or offered
for sale) for consumption in the exporting country. When sales in the
home market are not viable, section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act
provides that sales to a particular third country market may be
utilized if: (1) the prices in such market are representative; (2) the
aggregate quantity of the foreign like product sold by the producer or
exporter in the third country market is five percent or more of the
aggregate quantity of the subject merchandise sold in or to the United
States; and (3) the Department does not determine that a particular
market situation in the third country market prevents a proper
comparison with the U.S. price.
Kejriwal reported that it made no sales to the home market and no
sales to a third country. See Kejriwal's Section A Response, dated
December 16, 2005 at 4; see also Kejriwal's Section A-D questionnaire
responses, dated February 21, 2006, at SB-1. Therefore, for Kejriwal,
we used CV as the basis for calculating NV, in accordance with section
773(a)(4) of the Act, for all sales.
B. Level of Trade
Kejriwal reported sales only to unaffiliated distributors in the
U.S. market, and no sales to either the home or third country markets.
In the U.S. market, they reported only one level of trade. The selling
functions, customer category, and the level of selling expenses for
each type of sale was consistent for all distributors in the U.S.
However, all of Kejriwal's sales are compared to CV and a level-of-
trade adjustment is not necessary.
C. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value
In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we based
Kejriwal's NV on CV. In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we
calculated CV based on the sum of Kejriwal's cost of materials and
fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling,
general, and administrative expenses (``SG&A''), profit, and U.S.
packing costs. We calculated the cost of materials and fabrication
based on the CV information provided by Kejriwal in its section D
response. We disallowed Kejriwal's claimed offsets for duty-free
replenishment certificates and excise duty rebated. We have
recalculated Kejriwal's general and administrative (``G&A'') expense
ratio based on G&A expenses for the year ending March 31, 2005,
incurred by Kejriwal Paper Ltd. only and not those of the Kejriwal
Group. In doing so, we have removed the imputed cost of newsprint from
Kejriwal's reported cost of goods sold denominator. We also added
sundry expenses to our calculation of the G&A expense ratio. We
recalculated Kejriwal's interest expense ratio to include sundry
expenses in the cost of goods sold denominator and have removed the
imputed cost of newsprint from the cost of goods sold denominator.
Because Kejriwal does not have Indian sales of the foreign like product
or third country sales, the Department does not have comparison market
selling expenses or profit to use in its calculations, as directed by
section 773(e) of the Act. As an alternative, the Department has used
as selling expenses and profit for Kejriwal, data from the March 31,
2005, financial statements of Kanoi Paper Industries Limited
(``Kanoi''). Kanoi sells merchandise within the same general category
of products as the foreign like product in the Indian market. See
Memorandum from Laurens Van Houten to Neal Halper, Director, Office of
Accounting, Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation
Adjustments for the Preliminary Determination- Kejriwal, dated April 7,
2006 (``COP/CV Memo'').
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with
section 773A(a) of the Act based on exchange rates in effect on the
dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.
All Others Rate
Section 735(c)(5)(A) 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. The
``all others'' rate is derived exclusive of all de minimis margins and
margins based entirely on facts available. Kejriwal is the only
respondent in this investigation for which the Department has
calculated a company-specific rate that is not based entirely on facts
available. Therefore, for purposes of determining the ``all others''
rate and pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we are using the
dumping margin calculated for Kejriwal, as referenced in the
``Suspension of Liquidation'' section below.
[[Page 19712]]
Critical Circumstances
A. Aero, Navneet, and Kejriwal
On November 28, 2005, petitioner requested that the Department make
an expedited finding that critical circumstances exist with respect to
CLPP from India. 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.
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 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2); see also Policy Bulletin 98/4
regarding Timing of Issuance of Critical Circumstances Determinations,
63 FR 55364 (October 15, 1998).
Section 733(e)(1) 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: (A) (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, and (B) there have been
massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short
period.
In determining whether the relevant statutory criteria have been
satisfied, the Department considered: (i) the evidence presented in the
petitioners' November 28, 2005, submission, (ii) exporter-specific
shipment data submitted by Kejriwal on February 21, 2006, and (iii) the
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
Determinations of Critical Circumstances: Steel Concrete Reinforcing
Bars From Ukraine and Moldova, 65 FR 70696 (November 27, 2000).
Petitioner makes no statement concerning a history of dumping of CLPP
from India. Moreover, we are not aware of any antidumping order on CLPP
from India in any other country. Therefore, the Department finds no
history of injurious dumping of CLPP from India 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 110.43 percent to Aero and Navneet. Based on this
margin, we have imputed importer knowledge of dumping for Aero and
Navneet. 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,
68 FR 71077 (December 22, 2003) (``TTR from Japan''). However, because
the preliminary dumping margin for Kejriwal's EP sales is less than 25
percent, we preliminarily determine that the knowledge criterion has
not been met.
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, 64 FR 30574, 30578 (June 8, 1999)
(``Stainless Steel from Japan''). The ITC preliminarily found material
injury to the domestic industry due to imports of CLPP from India,
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 Aero and Navneet have met the first prong of the critical
circumstances test, according to section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we
must examine whether imports from Aero and Navneet 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 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 21, 2006, Aero, Kejriwal, and Navneet 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 the information reported by Aero and Navneet because,
as noted above, we are applying AFA to Aero and Navneet and their
company-specific data will not be subject to verification. Therefore,
the Department must base its determination on facts available.
Moreover, because of Aero and Navneet's failure to cooperate to the
best of their ability, we have made an adverse inference that there
were massive imports from Aero and Navneet 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
[[Page 19713]]
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, ``{t{time} he 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.
Accordingly, we preliminarily find critical circumstances exist
with respect to Aero and Navneet. In regard to Kejriwal, we examined
Kejriwal's reported shipments, which show that this company only
exported subject merchandise to the United States for the period of
August 2004 - July 2005. Kejriwal reported that it made no shipments to
the United States subsequent to the filing date of the petition. The
data reported by Kejriwal does not show a surge and there is no data to
compare the seasonal trends. See Kejriwal's Section A-C questionnaire
response, dated April 3, 2006, exhibit SA-1, (revised). Therefore, we
preliminarily find that critical circumstances do not exist for
Kejriwal.
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), where
the Department found that critical circumstances existed for the
majority of the companies investigated and 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, 68 FR at 71077. The dumping margin
for the ``all others'' category, 22.53 percent, is less than the 25
percent threshold necessary to impute knowledge of dumping consistent
with 733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act. 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 Aero and Navneet because our
determination for Aero and Navneet was based on AFA. Consistent with
TTR from Japan, we have not inferred adverse facts, that massive
imports exist for ``all others'' because, unlike Aero and Navneet, the
``all others'' companies have not failed to cooperate to the best of
their ability in this investigation. Therefore, an adverse inference
with respect to shipment levels by the ``all others'' companies is not
appropriate.
Generally, the Department's approach is to examine CBP data on
overall imports from the country 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. See Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled
Carbon-Quality Steel Products from Japan, 64 FR 24329 (May 6, 1999);
see also 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 5520, 5527 (February 4,
2000). 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 criteria necessary for determining affirmative
critical circumstances have not been met. Therefore, we have
preliminarily determined that critical circumstances do not exist for
imports of CLPP from India for companies in the ``all others''
category.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify all
information relied upon in making our final determination for Kejriwal.
Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we are directing
CBP to suspend liquidation of all entries of CLPP from India that are
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the
date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
Additionally, for Aero and Navneet, we are instructing CBP to suspend
the liquidation of entries made on or after 90 days prior to the
publication of this notice in accordance with section 733(e)(2) of the
Act. We are also instructing CBP to require a cash deposit or the
posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average dumping margin, as
indicated in the chart below. These suspension-of-liquidation
instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted Average
Manufacturer/Exporter Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aero Exports........................................ 110.43
Kejriwal Paper Limited.............................. 22.53
Navneet Publications (India) Ltd.................... 110.43
All Others.......................................... 22.53
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosure
We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties
in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the
ITC of the Department's preliminary affirmative determination. If the
Department's final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine
before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary
determination or 45 days after our final determination whether imports
of CLPP from India are materially injuring, or threaten material injury
to, the U.S. industry. Because we have postponed the deadline for our
final determination to 105 days from the date of the publication of
this preliminary determination, the ITC will make its final
determination within 45 days of our final determination.
Public Comment
Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary
determination. Interested parties may submit case briefs to the
Department no later than seven days after the date of the issuance of
the final verification report in this proceeding. Rebuttal briefs, the
content of which is limited to the issues raised in the case briefs,
must
[[Page 19714]]
be filed within five days from the deadline date for the 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. Further, we request that parties submitting
briefs and rebuttal briefs provide the Department with a copy of the
public version of such briefs on diskette. In accordance with section
774 of the Act, the Department will hold a public hearing, if
requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on
arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a
hearing is requested by an interested party. If a request for a hearing
is made in this investigation, the hearing will tentatively be held two
days after the rebuttal brief deadline date at the U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC
20230, at a time and in a room to be determined. Parties should confirm
by telephone, the date, time, and location of the hearing 48 hours
before the scheduled date.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate
in a hearing if one is requested, must submit a written request to the
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 days of the publication of this notice.
Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone
number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to
be discussed. At the hearing, oral presentations will be limited to
issues raised in the briefs.
Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional
Measures
Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act, on March 30, 2006, Aero,
Kejriwal and Navneet requested that in the event of an affirmative
preliminary determination in this investigation, the Department
postpone its final determination by 30 days. At the same time, Aero,
Kejriwal and Navneet requested that the Department extend by 30 days
the application of the provisional measures prescribed under 19 CFR
351.210(e)(2). In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.210(b), because (1) our preliminary determination is affirmative,
(2) the requesting exporter accounts for a significant proportion of
exports of the subject merchandise, and (3) no compelling reasons for
denial exist, we are granting their request and are postponing the
final determination until no later than 105 days after the publication
of this notice in the Federal Register. Suspension of liquidation will
be extended accordingly.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections
733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: April 7, 2006.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-5690 Filed 4-14-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
