Certain Tissue Paper from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Preliminary Rescission, In Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 17477-17484 [E7-6635]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 67 (Monday, April 9, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17477-17484]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-6635]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-894]


Certain Tissue Paper from the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results and Preliminary Rescission, In Part, of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the 
Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting the first 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain tissue 
paper (tissue paper) from the People's Republic of China (PRC). The 
period of review (POR) is September 21, 2004, through February 28, 
2006. We have preliminarily determined that two of the three 
respondents made sales of the subject merchandise at prices below 
normal value.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 9, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristina Horgan or Bobby Wong, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
8173 or (202) 482-0409, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On March 30, 2005, the Department published in the Federal Register 
an antidumping duty order covering tissue paper from the PRC. See 
Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value 
and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Tissue Paper Products from the 
People's Republic of China, 70 FR 16223 (March 30, 2005) (Tissue Paper 
Order). On March 2, 2006, the Department published a Notice of 
Opportunity to Request Administrative Review of Antidumping or 
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation, 71 FR 
10642 (March 2, 2006).
    On March 30, 2006, Cleo Inc., an importer of subject merchandise, 
requested, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on tissue paper from the PRC for 
China National Aero-Technology Import & Export Xiamen Corp. (China 
National), Putian City Hong Ye Paper Products Co., Ltd. (Hong Ye), and 
Putian City Chengxiang Qu Li Feng (Chengxiang) covering the POR. On 
March 31, 2006, Seaman Paper Company of Massachusetts, Inc., 
petitioner, requested, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on tissue paper 
from the PRC for 16 companies. The companies are: AR Printing and 
Packaging (AR P&P); China National; Fujian Naoshan Paper Industry Group 
Co., Ltd. (Naoshan); Fuzhou Magicpro Gifts Co., Ltd. (Magicpro); 
Giftworld Enterprise Co., Ltd. (Giftworld); Guilin Qifeng Paper Co., 
Ltd. (Guilin Qifeng); Goldwing Co., Ltd. (Goldwing); Kepsco, Inc. 
(Kepsco); Max Fortune Industrial Limited; Foshan Sansico Co., Ltd., PT 
Grafitecindo Ciptaprima, PT Printec Perkasa, PT Printec Perkasa II, PT 
Sansico Utama, Sansico Asia Pasific Limited (collectively, the Sansico 
Group); and Vietnam Quijiang Paper Co., Ltd. (Quijiang).
    On March 31, 2006, Samsam Productions Ltd. (Samsam) requested, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on tissue paper from the PRC for itself and its 
affiliated Chinese supplier Guangzhou Baxi Printing Products Co., Ltd., 
as did Max Fortune Industrial Limited and Max Fortune (FETDE) Paper 
Products Co., Ltd. (collectively, Max Fortune). On April 28, 2006, the 
Department initiated an administrative review of the above-mentioned 20 
companies. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 71 FR 25145 (April 28, 2006) (Initiation 
Notice).
    On May 10, 2006, Naoshan submitted a letter to the Department 
claiming it had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United 
States during

[[Page 17478]]

the POR. On May 10, 2006, the Department issued quantity and value 
questionnaires to 18 companies for which the review was initiated, and 
on May 11, 2006, the Department issued quantity and value 
questionnaires to the remaining two companies, Naoshan and Magicpro. On 
May 15, 2006, the Department sent another quantity and value 
questionnaire to PT Printec Perkasa II using an alternate address. On 
May 22, 2006, Samsam and Max Fortune submitted separate quantity and 
value questionnaires, as requested by the Department, indicating that 
each company had sales of subject merchandise during the POR. On May 
24, 2006, Naoshan stated again that it had no shipments of subject 
merchandise during the POR. On May 30, 2006, petitioner submitted 
comments on Naoshan's May 10, 2006, submission, requesting that the 
Department seek further information regarding its claims of no 
shipments of subject merchandise during the POR.
    On June 5, 2006, the Department sent a second quantity and value 
questionnaire to Kepsco, China National, Guilin Qifeng, Hong Ye, 
Giftworld, MagicPro, and Chengxiang, asking them to respond and 
informing the companies that, in failing to respond, the Department 
might find them uncooperative and use facts available with an adverse 
inference to determine the appropriate antidumping duty margins. On 
June 23, 2006, the Department issued a letter to the Chinese Ministry 
of Commerce requesting its assistance in finding a correct address for 
MagicPro; however, the Department received no response.
    On July 3, 2006, the Department stated in a memorandum to the file 
that only three companies had replied to its quantity and value 
questionnaires indicating that they had sales of subject merchandise 
during the POR; therefore, the Department issued questionnaires to 
these companies: Guilin Qifeng and Quijiang,\1\ Max Fortune, and 
Samsam. See Memorandum to The File, through Carrie Blozy, Program 
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Bobby Wong, Case Analyst, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding Certain Tissue Paper Products 
from the People's Republic of China: Respondent Questionnaires (July 3, 
2006). On July 17, 2006, Naoshan reiterated on the record that it had 
no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR and replied to 
petitioner's May 30, 2006, comments. On July 18, 2006, the Department 
outlined, in a memorandum to the file, the various steps it took to 
attempt to deliver the quantity and value questionnaire to Magicpro, 
and indicated that it had not succeeded in its various attempts. On 
July 18, 2006, the Department placed letters from Goldwing and AR P&P 
on the record, in which each company stated that it had no shipments of 
subject merchandise during the POR. On July 20, 2006, the Department 
sent a letter to Naoshan stating that our research had indicated that 
Naoshan had shipments of subject merchandise during the POR and 
requested that the company respond to the research finding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ We note that Guilin Qifeng and Quijiang are affiliated 
parties. See Section A Questionnaire Response from Guilin Qifeng 
(July 31, 2006) at 9. The Department issued one questionnaire 
addressed to both companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 24, 2006, petitioner requested that the Department extend 
the deadline for withdrawing requests for specific producers and 
exporters in the instant review. On July 26, 2006, in accordance with 
19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department granted an extension for 
withdrawing requests until August 25, 2006. On July 31, 2006, Guilin 
Qifeng submitted a Section A response to the Department's 
questionnaire. On August 15, 2006, Naoshan replied to the Department's 
July 20, 2006, request for further information. On August 23, 2006, 
Guilin Qifeng submitted Section C and D responses to the Department. On 
August 25, 2006, petitioner filed a letter withdrawing its request for 
review of five companies: Naoshan, Magicpro, Guilin Qifeng, Goldwing, 
and AR P&P.
    On September 11, 2006, we invited interested parties to comment on 
the Department's surrogate country selection and/or to submit publicly 
available information to value the factors of production. On September 
29, 2006, the Department rescinded this review with respect to Naoshan, 
Magicpro, Guilin Qifeng, Goldwing, and AR P&P because the only 
requesting party withdrew its request for review in a timely manner. 
See Certain Tissue Paper Products from the People's Republic of China: 
Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
71 FR 57471 (September 29, 2006). On October 10, 2006, petitioner 
submitted comments with regard to surrogate country selection. On 
October 24, 2006, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff 
Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), the 
Department extended the deadline for the preliminary results of review 
until February 16, 2007. See Certain Tissue Paper Products from the 
People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 
Results of the First Administrative Review, 71 FR 62249 (October 24, 
2006). On October 27, 2006, the Department extended the time limit for 
submitting surrogate country and surrogate value comments.
    On November 6, 2006, the Department, in response to petitioner's 
November 3, 2006, request to reopen the record of the review to submit 
new factual information, extended the opportunity to submit new factual 
information. On November 27, 2006, the Department received a letter 
from the law firm of Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz, Silverman, and 
Klestadt LLP, notifying the Department that it had withdrawn its 
representation of Samsam. On December 6, 2006, we received surrogate 
value comments from Max Fortune. Petitioner commented on surrogate 
values on December 11, 2006.
    On January 4, 2007, the Department received a letter from Grunfeld, 
Desiderio, Lebowitz, Silverman, and Klestadt LLP notifying the 
Department that it was again representing Samsam in the instant review. 
On January 23, 2007, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act 
and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), the Department further extended the deadline 
for the preliminary results of review until April 2, 2006. See Certain 
Tissue Paper Products from the People's Republic of China: Extension of 
Time Limit for Preliminary Results of the First Administrative Review, 
72 FR 2859 (January 23, 2007).
    On March 22, 2007, petitioner submitted comments on Max Fortune's 
dye and ink factors of production allocation. On March 23, 2007, 
petitioner submitted comments on the bona fides nature of Samsam's POR 
sales. On March 30, 2007, petitioner also submitted comments on Max 
Fortune paper making division's financial statements. On April 2, 2007, 
Samsam replied to petitioner's March 23, 2007, comments.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Because these parties submitted these comments just before 
the preliminary results, the Department was not able to consider 
these comments for the preliminary results. However, the Department 
will consider these comments for the final results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the course of the administrative review, the Department also 
received timely filed original and supplemental questionnaire responses 
from Max Fortune and Samsam.

Quijiang

    In response to the Department's quantity and value questionnaire, 
on May 25, 2006, Quijiang stated that it had no shipments of subject 
merchandise during the POR. After the Department issued a full 
questionnaire to Guilin Qifeng and Quijiang on July 3, 2006, Quijiang 
asked the Department on July 12, 2006, to clarify how it should reply

[[Page 17479]]

to the antidumping duty questionnaire, as it stated it had no shipments 
of subject merchandise during the POR on May 25, 2006. On July 18, 
2006, the Department informed Quijiang, in a memorandum to the file, 
that ``to the extent that it did not sell or resell the subject 
merchandise to the United States during the POR, {it{time} is not 
required to submit a response to the Department's July 3, 2006, 
antidumping questionnaire.'' See Memorandum to The File, through Carrie 
Blozy, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Kristina 
Boughton, Senior International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 9, regarding First Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review of Certain Tissue Paper Products from the People's Republic of 
China: Clarification of Respondent Selection (July 18, 2006). As noted 
above, while Guilin Qifeng submitted responses to the Department's 
questionnaire before the review was rescinded for Guilin Qifeng, it did 
so only on behalf of itself and not on behalf of its affiliate, 
Quijiang.

The Sansico Group

    In response to the Department's quantity and value questionnaire, 
on May 22, 2006, the Sansico Group submitted a letter to the Department 
claiming each of its affiliated companies had no shipments of subject 
merchandise during the POR. On May 30, 2006, petitioner submitted 
comments on the Sansico Group's May 22, 2006, submission, requesting 
that the Department seek further information from the Sansico Group 
regarding its claims of no shipments of subject merchandise during the 
POR. On June 7, 2006, the Sansico Group responded to the petitioner's 
comments on its claim of no shipments during the POR.
    In response to the Department's opening of the record to new 
factual information, as mentioned above, on November 13, 2006, 
petitioner submitted comments analyzing the Sansico Group's production 
and export activities. On December 22, 2006, petitioner resubmitted, at 
the Department's request, the November 13, 2006, submission with 
revised bracketing. On January 3, 2007, the Sansico Group responded to 
the petitioner's comments on its export and production activities, 
restating that it did not export Chinese-origin tissue paper to the 
United States. On January 8, 2007, the Department issued a supplemental 
questionnaire to the Sansico Group regarding its POR export and 
production activities. On January 29, 2007, the Sansico Group submitted 
its response to the Department's supplemental questionnaire. On 
February 8, 2007, the Department received petitioner's comments on the 
Sansico Group's supplemental response. On March 23, 2007, petitioner 
submitted additional comments on the Sansico Group and its claims of no 
shipments. On April 2, 2007, the Sansico Group replied to petitioner's 
March 23, 2007, comments.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Because parties submitted these comments just before the 
preliminary results, the Department was not able to consider these 
comments for the preliminary results. However, the Department will 
consider these comments for the final results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

China National, Hong Ye, Chengxiang, Kepsco, and Giftworld

    In its first quantity and value questionnaire, the Department 
established a deadline of May 22, 2006, for submitting such responses; 
however, the Department did not receive responses from China National, 
Hong Ye, Chengxiang, Kepsco, and Giftworld. The Department sent follow-
up quantity and value questionnaires to each of the above-referenced 
firms on June 5, 2006, requesting a response within five days of the 
receipt of the June 5 letter. The Department also noted in this letter 
that it might resort to facts available with an adverse inference if 
the companies failed to file a response. See Letters to China National, 
Hong Ye, Chengxiang, Kepsco, and Giftworld from Carrie Blozy, Program 
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding Certain Tissue Paper 
from the People's Republic of China: Quantity and Value Follow-Up 
Questionnaire (June 5, 2006). Although China National, Hong Ye, 
Chengxiang, Kepsco, and Giftworld received the initial questionnaire 
and the follow-up letter, which included the quantity and value 
questionnaire, Hong Ye, Chengxiang, Kepsco, and Giftworld did not reply 
to the Department. See Memorandum to the File, from Bobby Wong, 
International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 
regarding Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Tissue 
Paper Products from the People's Republic of China: Proof of Delivery 
to China National, Hong Ye, Chengxiang, Kepsco, and Giftworld (April 2, 
2007).
    On June 28, 2006, the Department placed a facsimile it received 
from China National on the record, in which the company stated that it 
would not participate in the review. See Memorandum to the File, from 
Bobby Wong, International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 9, regarding Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain 
Tissue Paper Products from the People's Republic of China: Notice of 
non-participation by China National Aero-Technology Import & Export 
Xiamen Corporation (June 28, 2006).

Scope of the Order

    The tissue paper products subject to this order are cut-to-length 
sheets of tissue paper having a basis weight not exceeding 29 grams per 
square meter. Tissue paper products subject to this order may or may 
not be bleached, dye-colored, surface-colored, glazed, surface 
decorated or printed, sequined, crinkled, embossed, and/or die cut. The 
tissue paper subject to this order is in the form of cut-to-length 
sheets of tissue paper with a width equal to or greater than one-half 
(0.5) inch. Subject tissue paper may be flat or folded, and may be 
packaged by banding or wrapping with paper or film, by placing in 
plastic or film bags, and/or by placing in boxes for distribution and 
use by the ultimate consumer. Packages of tissue paper subject to this 
order may consist solely of tissue paper of one color and/or style, or 
may contain multiple colors and/or styles.
    The merchandise subject to this order does not have specific 
classification numbers assigned to them under the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Subject merchandise may be under 
one or more of several different subheadings, including: 4802.30; 
4802.54; 4802.61; 4802.62; 4802.69; 4804.31.1000; 4804.31.2000; 
4804.31.4020; 4804.31.4040; 4804.31.6000; 4804.39; 4805.91.1090; 
4805.91.5000; 4805.91.7000; 4806.40; 4808.30; 4808.90; 4811.90; 
4823.90; 4820.50.00; 4802.90.00; 4805.91.90; 9505.90.40. The tariff 
classifications are provided for convenience and customs purposes; 
however, the written description of the scope of this order is 
dispositive.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ On January 30, 2007, at the direction of U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection (CBP), the Department added the following HTSUS 
classifications to the AD/CVD module for tissue paper: 4802.54.3100, 
4802.54.6100, and 4823.90.6700. However, we note that the six-digit 
classifications for these numbers were already listed in the scope.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Excluded from the scope of this order are the following tissue 
paper products: (1) tissue paper products that are coated in wax, 
paraffin, or polymers, of a kind used in floral and food service 
applications; (2) tissue paper products that have been perforated, 
embossed, or die-cut to the shape of a toilet seat, i.e., disposable 
sanitary covers for toilet seats; (3) toilet or facial tissue stock, 
towel or napkin stock, paper of a kind used for household or sanitary 
purposes, cellulose wadding, and webs

[[Page 17480]]

of cellulose fibers (HTSUS 4803.00.20.00 and 4803.00.40.00).

Preliminary Partial Rescission of Administrative Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we have preliminarily determined 
that Quijiang\5\ and the Sansico Group made no shipments of subject 
merchandise during the POR of this administrative review. In making 
this determination, the Department examined PRC tissue paper shipment 
data maintained by CBP. Based on the information obtained from CBP, we 
found no entries of subject merchandise during the POR manufactured 
and/or exported by Quijiang or the Sansico Group to the United States. 
The Department also issued no-shipment inquiries to CBP in March 2007 
asking CBP to provide any information contrary to our findings of no 
entries of subject merchandise for Quijiang and the Sansico Group 
during the POR. We received no response from CBP. See Memorandum to The 
File, from Kristina Horgan, Senior International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 9, regarding 2004-2006 Administrative Review of 
Certain Tissue Paper Products from the People's Republic of China: CBP 
No Shipment E-mail Inquiries (April 2, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ We note that Quijiang is the respondent in a concurrent 
anti-circumvention inquiry in tissue paper from the PRC. See Certain 
Tissue Paper Products from the People's Republic of China: Notice of 
Initiation of Anti-circumvention Inquiry, 71 FR 53662 (September 12, 
2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioner has alleged that the Sansico Group is selling Chinese-
origin tissue paper via its Indonesian facilities. The Sansico Group 
has stated on the record, and provided supporting evidence, that none 
of its companies exported Chinese-origin subject merchandise to the 
United States during the POR. The Department has analyzed record 
information and preliminarily finds that the Sansico Group did not 
export subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. 
However, the Department may solicit additional information prior to the 
final results of this review from the Sansico Group to confirm the 
veracity of its no shipment claims.
    Therefore, based on the results of our corroborative CBP query, 
indicating no shipments of subject merchandise by Quijiang or the 
Sansico Group during the POR, as well as Quijiang's and the Sansico 
Group's claim that each had no subject shipments, we are preliminarily 
rescinding the administrative review, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.213(d)(3), with respect to Quijiang and the Sansico Group.

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving non-market economy (NME) countries, the 
Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies 
within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should 
be assigned a single antidumping duty rate unless an exporter can 
affirmatively demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law 
(de jure) and in fact (de facto), with respect to its export 
activities. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 
(May 6, 1991) (Sparklers). In this review Max Fortune and Samsam 
submitted information indicating that they are both wholly owned Hong 
Kong-registered companies in support of their claims for company-
specific rates. See Letter to the Department of Commerce from Samsam, 
regarding Certain Tissue Paper from the People's Republic of China: 
Samsam Productions Ltd. Section A Questionnaire Response (August 2, 
2006); see also Letter to the Department of Commerce from Max Fortune, 
regarding Certain Tissue Paper from the People's Republic of China: Max 
Fortune's Section A Questionnaire Response (July 31, 2006).
    Consequently, because evidence on the record indicates an absence 
of government control, both in law and in fact, over each respondent's 
export activities, we preliminarily determine that Max Fortune and 
Samsam have each met the criteria for the application of a separate 
rate consistent with past practice. See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of 
Final Determination: Synthetic Indigo From the People's Republic of 
China, 64 FR 69723 (December 14, 1999), unchanged in Synthetic Indigo 
From the People's Republic of China; Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 65 FR 25706 (May 3, 2000).

Use of Facts Otherwise Available and the PRC-Wide Rate

    For the reasons outlined below, we have applied total adverse facts 
available to China National, Hong Ye, Chengxiang, Kepsco, and 
Giftworld. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested 
party: (A) withholds information that has been requested by the 
Department; (B) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or 
in the form or manner requested subject to sections 782(c)(1) and (e) 
of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the 
antidumping statute; or (D) provides such information but the 
information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to 
section 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching 
the applicable determination.
    By failing to respond to the Department's requests for information 
(i.e., responding to the quantity and value questionnaire) and by not 
allowing the Department to conduct verification, China National, Hong 
Ye, Chengxiang, Kepsco, and Giftworld, respectively, have not proven 
they are free of government control and are, therefore, not eligible to 
receive a separate rate. In the Initiation Notice, the Department 
stated that if one of the companies on which we initiated a review does 
not qualify for a separate rate, all other exporters of tissue paper 
from the PRC who have not qualified for a separate rate are deemed to 
be covered by this review as part of the single PRC-wide entity of 
which the named exporter is a part. See Initiation Notice at n.1. For 
these preliminary results, China National, Hong Ye, Chengxiang, Kepsco, 
and Giftworld will all be considered part of the PRC-wide entity, 
subject to the PRC-wide rate.
    According to section 776(b) of the Act, if the Department finds 
that an interested party ``has failed to cooperate by not acting to the 
best of its ability to comply with a request for information,'' the 
Department may use information that is adverse to the interests of the 
party as facts otherwise available. Adverse inferences are appropriate 
``to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by 
failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.'' See Statement 
of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act (URAA), H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, Vol. 1 at 870 (1994).
    As explained above, the PRC-wide entity (including China National, 
Hong Ye, Chengxiang, Kepsco, and Giftworld) did not respond to the 
Department's requests for information. Therefore, the PRC-wide entity 
did not cooperate to the best of its ability. Because the PRC-wide 
entity did not cooperate to the best of its ability in the proceeding, 
the Department finds it necessary, pursuant to sections 
776(a)(2)(A),(B) and (C) and 776(b) of the Act, to use adverse facts 
available (AFA) as the basis for these preliminary results of review 
for the PRC-wide entity.

Selection of AFA Rate

    In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act 
and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize the Department to rely on 
information derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final determination in 
the investigation, (3)

[[Page 17481]]

any previous review or determination, or (4) any information placed on 
the record. In reviews, the Department normally selects, as AFA, the 
highest rate on the record of any segment of the proceeding. See, e.g., 
Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: 
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 
FR 19504 (April 21, 2003). The Court of International Trade (CIT) and 
the Federal Circuit have consistently upheld the Department's practice 
in this regard. See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 
1185, 1190 (Fed. Circ. 1990) (Rhone Poulenc); NSK Ltd. v. United 
States, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1335 (CIT 2004) (upholding a 73.55 
percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a 
different respondent in a LTFV investigation); see also Kompass Food 
Trading Int'l v. United States, 24 CIT 678, 689 (2000) (upholding a 
51.16 percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from 
a different, fully cooperative respondent); and Shanghai Taoen 
International Trading Co., Ltd. v. United States, 360 F. Supp 2d 1339, 
1348 (CIT 2005) (upholding a 223.01 percent total AFA rate, the highest 
available dumping margin from a different respondent in a previous 
administrative review).
    The Department's practice when selecting an adverse rate from among 
the possible sources of information is to ensure that the margin is 
sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the purpose of the facts 
available role to induce respondents to provide the Department with 
complete and accurate information in a timely manner.'' See Static 
Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan; Final Determination of 
Sales at Less than Fair Value, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). 
The Department's practice also ensures ``that the party does not obtain 
a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had 
cooperated fully.'' See SAA at 870; see also Final Determination of 
Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater 
Shrimp from Brazil, 69 FR 76910 (December 23, 2004); D&L Supply Co. v. 
United States, 113 F. 3d 1220, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In choosing the 
appropriate balance between providing respondents with an incentive to 
respond accurately and imposing a rate that is reasonably related to 
the respondent's prior commercial activity, selecting the highest prior 
margin ``reflects a common sense inference that the highest prior 
margin is the most probative evidence of current margins, because, if 
it were not so, the importer, knowing of the rule, would have produced 
current information showing the margin to be less.'' Rhone Poulenc, 899 
F.2d at 1190. Consistent with the statute, court precedent, and its 
normal practice, the Department has assigned the rate of 112.64 
percent, the highest rate on the record of any segment of the 
proceeding, to the PRC-wide entity (including China National, Hong Ye, 
Chengxiang, Kepsco, and Giftworld) as AFA. See, e.g., Tissue Paper 
Order. As discussed further below, this rate has been corroborated.

Corroboration of Secondary Information Used as AFA

    Section 776(c) of the Act requires that the Department corroborate, 
to the extent practicable, a figure which it applies as AFA. To be 
considered corroborated, information must be found to be both reliable 
and relevant. We are applying as AFA the highest rate from any segment 
of this proceeding, which is the rate currently applicable to all 
exporters subject to the PRC-wide rate. The AFA rate in the current 
review (i.e., the PRC-wide rate of 112.64 percent) represents the 
highest rate from the petition in the LTFV investigation. See Tissue 
Paper Order.
    For purposes of corroboration, the Department will consider whether 
that margin is both reliable and relevant. The AFA rate we are applying 
for the current review was corroborated in the LTFV investigation. See 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 
Tissue Paper Products from the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 7475 
(February 14, 2005). Moreover, no information has been presented in the 
current review that calls into question the reliability of this 
information.
    With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the 
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to 
determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where 
circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as 
AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an 
appropriate margin. For example, in Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; 
Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 
(February 22, 1996), the Department disregarded the highest margin in 
that case as adverse best information available (the predecessor to 
facts available) because the margin was based on another company's 
uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high 
margin. The information used in calculating this margin was based on 
sales and production data submitted by the petitioner in the LTFV 
investigation, together with the most appropriate surrogate value 
information available to the Department chosen from submissions by the 
parties in the LTFV investigation. Furthermore, the calculation of this 
margin was subject to comment from interested parties in the 
proceeding. As there is no information on the record of this review 
that demonstrates that this rate is not appropriate for use as AFA, we 
determine that this rate has relevance.
    As the 112.64 percent rate is both reliable and relevant, we 
determine that it has probative value and is corroborated to the extent 
practicable, in accordance with section 776(c) of the Act. Therefore, 
we have assigned this AFA rate to exports of the subject merchandise by 
the PRC-wide entity.

Normal Value Comparisons

    To determine whether the respondents' sales of the subject 
merchandise were made at prices below normal value, we compared their 
United States prices to normal values, as described in the ``U.S. 
Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice.

U.S. Price

Export Price

    For Max Fortune, we based U.S. price on export price (EP) in 
accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the first sale to an 
unaffiliated purchaser was made prior to importation, and constructed 
export price (CEP) was not otherwise warranted by the facts on the 
record. We calculated EP based on the packed price from the exporter to 
the first unaffiliated customer in the United States. Where applicable, 
for Max Fortune, we deducted foreign inland freight, insurance, foreign 
brokerage and handling expenses, ocean freight, and marine insurance 
from the starting price (gross unit price), in accordance with section 
772(c) of the Act.

Constructed Export Price

    For Samsam, we calculated CEP in accordance with section 772(b) of 
the Act, because sales were made on behalf of the PRC-based company by 
its U.S. affiliate to unaffiliated purchasers. We based CEP on FOB 
prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where 
appropriate, for Samsam, we made deductions from the starting price 
(gross unit price) for movement expenses in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, which included foreign inland freight, 
international freight, U.S. freight from the port to the warehouse, and 
U.S. duties.
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we also deducted 
for

[[Page 17482]]

Samsam those selling expenses associated with economic activities 
occurring in the United States, including credit expenses, inventory 
carrying costs, and indirect selling expenses. We also made an 
adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act.
    For both Max Fortune and Samsam, where foreign inland freight, 
insurance, or foreign brokerage and handling were provided by PRC 
service providers or paid for in renminbi, we valued these services 
using Indian surrogate values (see ``Factors of Production'' section 
below for further discussion). For those expenses that were provided by 
a market-economy provider and paid for in market-economy currency, we 
used the reported expense, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1).

Normal Value

NME Country

    In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the 
PRC has been treated as an NME country. See, e.g., Honey from the 
People's Republic of China: Final Results and Final Rescission, in 
Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 34893 (June 16. 
2006). Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination 
that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until 
revoked by the administering authority. See, e.g., Freshwater Crawfish 
Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 7013 (February 10, 
2006). None of the parties to this proceeding have contested such 
treatment. Accordingly, we calculated normal value (NV) in accordance 
with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME countries.

Surrogate Country

    Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires the Department to value an 
NME producer's factors of production, to the extent possible, in one or 
more market-economy countries that (1) are at a level of economic 
development comparable to that of the NME country, and (2) are 
significant producers of comparable merchandise. India is among the 
countries comparable to the PRC in terms of overall economic 
development. See Letter to All Interested Parties from Carrie Blozy, 
Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding Certain Tissue 
Paper from the People's Republic of China: Request for Comments on 
Surrogate Country and Surrogate Values (September 11, 2006). In 
addition, based on publicly available information placed on the record 
(e.g., production data), India is a significant producer of comparable 
merchandise. See Memorandum to The File, through James C. Doyle, 
Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, and 
Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 
from Catherine Bertrand, Senior International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 9, regarding Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
of Certain Tissue Paper from the People's Republic of China: Selection 
of a Surrogate Country (April 2, 2007). Accordingly, we have selected 
India as the surrogate country for purposes of valuing the factors of 
production because it meets the Department's criteria for surrogate-
country selection. See Id. Where Indian import statistics were 
unavailable, i.e., paraffin oil, the Department has used Indonesian 
import statistics, as published by the World Trade Atlas (WTA), based 
on the fact that Indonesia is economically comparable and a producer of 
comparable merchandise. See Id.

Factors of Production

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on the factors of production which included, but were not limited 
to: (A) hours of labor required; (B) quantities of raw materials 
employed; (C) amounts of energy and other utilities consumed; and (D) 
representative capital costs, including depreciation. We used the 
factors of production reported by the producer for materials, energy, 
labor, and packing. To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported unit 
factor quantities by publicly available Indian surrogate values.
    Certain of Max Fortune's inputs into the production of the 
merchandise under review were purchased from market economy suppliers 
and paid for in market economy currencies. We used the reported weight-
averaged market economy prices to value the appropriate input when the 
item was paid for in a market economy currency and accounted for a 
significant portion of the total purchases of that input. For purposes 
of the preliminary results, we have determined that only two of Max 
Fortune's reported market economy purchases accounted for a significant 
portion of total purchases of that input and, therefore, have used the 
reported purchase prices for those two inputs in our calculation. See 
Memorandum to the File, through Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Kristina Horgan, Senior International 
Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding Max Fortune 
Industrial Limited and Max Fortune (FETDE) Paper Products Co., Ltd. 
(collectively, Max Fortune) Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary 
Results of Review (April 2, 2007).
    Max Fortune also reported by-product sales. With respect to the 
application of the by-product offset to normal value, consistent with 
the Department's determination in Diamond Sawblades from the PRC, 
because our surrogate financial statements refers to income from by-
product sales and because Max Fortune reported that it sold its by-
product, we will deduct the surrogate value of the by-product from 
normal value. This is consistent with accounting principles based on a 
reasonable assumption that if a company sells a by-product, the by-
product necessarily incurs expenses for overhead, SG&A, and profit. See 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Partial 
Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades 
and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 29303 (May 
22, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 9 
(unchanged in Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's 
Republic of China, 71 FR 35864 (June 22, 2006)).
    Normally, the Department prefers to use factors of production data 
that accurately represent the quantity of inputs consumed on a control 
number (CONNUM)-specific basis. In the present case, however, Max 
Fortune has indicated that its records for dye and ink consumption in 
the papermaking and paper printing stages of production do not permit 
it to report the FOP data in a manner consistent with the Department's 
requests. While we prefer greater specificity in the reporting of these 
factors of production, for these preliminary results, we have used Max 
Fortune's reported aggregate consumption in the calculation of normal 
value, subject to verification.
    In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, 
specificity, and contemporaneity of the data, in accordance with our 
normal practice. See, e.g., Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 67 FR 
72139 (December 4, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 6; and Final Results of First New Shipper Review 
and First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Preserved 
Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China, 66

[[Page 17483]]

FR 31204 (June 11, 2001), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 5. When we used publicly available import data 
from the Ministry of Commerce of India (Indian Import Statistics) for 
September 2004 through February 2006, as published by the WTA, to value 
inputs sourced domestically by PRC suppliers, we added a surrogate cost 
for freight using the shorter of the reported distance from the 
domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the closest 
seaport to the factory. See Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 
1401, 1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). When we used non-import surrogate values 
for factors sourced domestically by PRC suppliers (e.g., coal, market 
economy purchased inputs), we based freight for this input on the 
actual distance from the input supplier to the site at which the input 
was consumed.
    Additionally, in instances where we relied on Indian import data to 
value inputs, in accordance with the Department's practice, we excluded 
imports from both NME countries and countries deemed to maintain 
broadly available, non-industry-specific subsidies which may benefit 
all exporters to all export markets (i.e., Indonesia, South Korea, and 
Thailand) from our surrogate value calculations. See, e.g., Tapered 
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the 
People's Republic of China; Final Results of 1999-2000 Administrative 
Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and Determination Not to Revoke 
Order in Part, 66 FR 57420 (November 15, 2001) and accompanying Issues 
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1; see also Memorandum to the File, 
through James C. Doyle, Director, Office 9, and Christopher D. Riker, 
Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Bobby Wong, 
International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, and Kristina 
Horgan, Senior International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 
9, regarding Factors of Production Valuation Memorandum for the 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Administrative Review of Certain 
Tissue Paper from the People's Republic of China (April 2, 2007) 
(Factor Valuation Memo). This memorandum is on file in the Central 
Records Unit (CRU), room B-099 of the Department building.
    Where we could not obtain publicly available information 
contemporaneous with the POR to value factors of production, we 
inflated the surrogate value using the Indian Wholesale Price Index 
(WPI), as published in the International Financial Statistics of the 
International Monetary Fund, for those surrogate values in Indian 
rupees to be contemporaneous with the POR. We also made currency 
conversions, where necessary, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.415, to U.S. 
dollars using the daily exchange rate corresponding to the reported 
date of each sale. We relied on the daily exchanges rates posted on the 
Import Administration Web site (https://www.trade.gov/ia/). See Factor 
Valuation Memo.
    Specifically, the Department used Indian Import Statistics to value 
the raw material\6\ and packing material inputs that Max Fortune and 
Samsam used to produce the merchandise under review during the POR, 
except where listed below. For a detailed description of all surrogate 
values used for respondents, see Factor Valuation Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Regarding the surrogate value for dyes and inks, the 
Department used an average of three types of dyes and inks as there 
was not more specific information regarding the types of dyes and 
inks used by respondents' on the record. The Department intends to 
ask respondents for more specific information on the composition of 
the dyes and inks used in the production process after the 
preliminary results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To value paraffin oil, also known as kerosene, we used Indonesian 
import statistics, as published by the WTA, instead of Indian Import 
Statistics, because India did not import this input during the POR.
    To value water, we calculated the average water rates from various 
regions as reported by the Maharashtra Industrial Development 
Corporation, https://midcindia.org, dated June 1, 2003. We inflated the 
value for water using the POR average WPI rate. See Factor Valuation 
Memo.
    We valued diesel, electricity and coal using the rates provided by 
the OECD's International Energy Agency's publication: Key World Energy 
Statistics from 2004 and 2005. For diesel, the prices are based on 2004 
and 2005 first quarter prices of automotive diesel fuel retail prices. 
For electricity, the prices are based on 2002 fourth quarter prices; we 
inflated the value for electricity using the POR average WPI rate. For 
coal, the prices are based on 2004, 2005, and 2006 first quarter 
prices. See Factor Valuation Memo.
    Consistent with the determination in the LTFV investigation, to 
value the surrogate financial ratios of factory overhead, selling, 
general & administrative expenses, and profit, the Department relied on 
the publicly available information in the financial statements for 
Pudumjee Pulp & Paper Mills Ltd. (Pudumjee) for fiscal year 2005-2006, 
submitted by petitioner on December 11, 2006. The annual report covers 
the period April 1, 2005, to March 31, 2006 and includes data for the 
2004-2005 fiscal year as well, covering the entire POR. We determine 
that Pudumjee's financial statements are appropriate for use in these 
preliminary results because Pudumjee is a producer of comparable 
merchandise and its financial data are contemporaneous with the POR. 
See Factor Valuation Memo.
    Because of the variability of wage rates in countries with similar 
levels of per capita gross national product, 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3) 
requires the use of a regression-based wage rate. Therefore, to value 
the labor input, we used the PRC's regression-based wage rate published 
by Import Administration on its Web site, https://www.trade.gov/ia/. We 
note that this wage rate is calculated in accordance with the 
Department's revised methodology. See Expected Non Market Economy 
Wages: Request for Comments on 2006 Calculation, 72 FR 949 (January 9, 
2007) and Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, Expected 
Non Market Economy Wages, Duty Drawback, and Request for Comments, 71 
FR 6176 (October 19, 2006). See also Factor Valuation Memo.
    To value truck freight, we calculated a weighted-average freight 
cost based on publicly available data from www.infreight.com, an Indian 
inland freight logistics resource Web site. See Factor Valuation Memo.
    To value brokerage and handling, we used a simple average of the 
publicly summarized version of the average value for brokerage and 
handling expenses reported in the U.S. sales listings in Essar Steel 
Ltd.'s (Essar) February 28, 2005, Section C submission in the 
antidumping duty review of certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat 
products from India, for which the POR was December 1, 2003, through 
November 30, 2004; information from Agro Dutch Industries Ltd.'s (Agro 
Dutch) May 25, 2005, Section C submission, taken from the 
administrative review of preserved mushrooms from India, for which the 
POR was February 1, 2004, through January 31, 2005; and information 
from Kejriwal Paper Ltd.'s (Kejriwal) January 9, 2006, Section C 
submission, taken from the investigation of certain lined paper from 
India, for which the POR was July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005. See 
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 2018 (January 
12, 2006); Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 10646 (March 2, 2006);

[[Page 17484]]

and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and 
Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Lined Paper 
Products from India, 71 FR 45012 (August 8, 2006). See also Factor 
Valuation Memo.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the preliminary 
results of this administrative review, interested parties may submit 
publicly available information to value the factors of production until 
20 days following the date of publication of these preliminary results.

Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following antidumping duty 
margins exist:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Individually Reviewed Exporters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Max Fortune Ltd.............................................  0.15[percn
                                                                      t]
Samsam Productions Ltd......................................  115.24[per
                                                                    cnt]
------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        PRC-Wide Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRC-Wide Rate (including China National, Hong Ye,             112.64[per
 Chengxiang, Kepsco, and Giftworld).........................        cnt]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For details on the calculation of the antidumping duty weighted-
average margin for each company, see the respective company's analysis 
memorandum for the preliminary results of the first administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on tissue paper from the PRC, 
dated April 2, 2007. Public versions of these memoranda are on file in 
the CRU.

Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and 
CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The 
Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions 
directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this 
review. For assessment purposes, where possible, we calculated 
importer-specific assessment rates for tissue paper from the PRC via ad 
valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of 
the dumping margins calculated for the examined sales to the total 
entered value of those same sales. We will instruct CBP to assess 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if 
any assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is 
above de minimis. The final results of this review shall be the basis 
for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise 
covered by the final results of these reviews and for future deposits 
of estimated duties, where applicable.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for the exporters 
listed above, the cash deposit rate will be established in the final 
results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, 
i.e., less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit will be required for that 
company); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC 
exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit 
rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the 
most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise 
which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash 
deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 112.64 percent; and (4) for 
all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received 
their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to 
the PRC exporters that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit 
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of 
the final results of the next administrative review.

Schedule for Final Results of Review

    The Department will disclose calculations performed in connection 
with the preliminary results of this review within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.224(b). Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days 
of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any 
hearing will normally be held 37 days after the publication of this 
notice, or the first workday thereafter, at the U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14\th\ Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 
20230. Individuals who wish to request a hearing must submit a written 
request within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the Federal 
Register to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, Room 1870, 14\th\ Street and Constitution 
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. Requests for a public hearing should 
contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the 
number of participants; and (3) to the extent practicable, an 
identification of the arguments to be raised at the hearing.
    Unless otherwise notified by the Department, interested parties may 
submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this 
notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). As part of the case 
brief, parties are encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not 
to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases 
cited in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, 
which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, must be 
filed within five days after the case brief is filed in accordance with 
19 CFR 351.309(d). The Department will issue the final results of this 
review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised 
in the briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of 
this notice in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and 
19 CFR 351.213(h)(1).

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during these review periods. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This administrative review and this notice are published in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: April 2, 2007.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-6635 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S