Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China, 60632-60636 [E7-21041]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
60632
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 206 / Thursday, October 25, 2007 / Notices
this proceeding in accordance with 19
CFR 351.224(b).
International Trade Commission (ITC)
Notification
In accordance with section 735(d) of
the Act, we have notified the ITC of our
final determination. As our final
determination is affirmative, the ITC
will determine within 45 days whether
imports of the subject merchandise are
causing material injury, or threat of
material injury, to the industry in the
United States. If the ITC determines that
material injury or threat of injury does
not exist, the proceeding will be
terminated and all securities posted will
be refunded or canceled. If the ITC
determines that such injury does exist,
the Department will issue an
antidumping duty order directing CBP
to assess antidumping duties on all
imports of the subject merchandise
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the effective
date of the suspension of liquidation.
Return or Destruction of Proprietary
Information
This notice will serve as the only
reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’)
of their responsibility concerning the
destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely
written notification of return/
destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is
hereby requested. Failure to comply
with the regulations and the terms of an
APO is a sanctionable violation. We are
issuing and publishing this
determination and notice in accordance
with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the
Act.
Dated: October 17, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
A. General Comments
Targeting
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Comment 9: Application of Partial Facts
Available to Hansol, Moorim, and
Hankuk’s Total Cost of Manufacture
Comment 10: Differences in
Merchandise Were Not Verified
B. Company–Specific Comments
Hansol
Comment 1: Treatment of Constructed
Export Price (CEP) Offset
Comment 2: Treatment of Indirect
Selling Expenses Incurred in Korea
(DINDIRSU)
Comment 3: Treatment of Missing U.S.
Payment Dates
Comment 4: Treatment of U.S.
Repacking
Comment 5: Adjustment of Hansol’s
Reported U.S. Rebates
Comment 6: Production Quantities Were
Not Verified
Comment 7: General and Administrative
Expense Rate
Comment 8: Financial Expense Rate
Kyesung
Comment 9: Price Adjustment Related
to the U.S. Price
Comment 10: Request to Apply Partial
Adverse Facts Available
Moorim
Hankuk
Comments
Comment 1: Standard and Appropriate
Statistical Techniques
Comment 2: Validity of Certain Pasta
from Italy
Comment 3: Statistical Significance
Requirement
Comment 4: Whether the Average–to–
Average Method Can Account for
Targeted Dumping
Comment 5: Statutory Application of
Transaction–to–Transaction
Methodology
17:26 Oct 24, 2007
Cost of Production
Comment 11: Moorim’s Pulp Costs
Remain Unexplained
Appendix—Issues in Decision Memo
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Comment 6: Discretionary Application
of Transaction–to–Transaction
Methodology
Comment 7: Margin Calculation of
Targeted and Non–Targeted Sales
Comment 8: Proposed Transaction–to–
Transaction Margin Program
Jkt 214001
Comment 12: Timeliness of Targeted
Dumping Allegation concerning Hankuk
Paper
Comment 13: Standard Costs for
Hankuk
EN Paper
Comment 14: Credit Balance for Bad
Debt Allowance
[FR Doc. E7–21035 Filed 10–24–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A–570–906
Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet
Paper from the People’s Republic of
China
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 25, 2007.
SUMMARY: On June 4, 2007, the
Department of Commerce (the
‘‘Department’’) published its
preliminary determination of sales at
less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) in the
antidumping investigation of coated free
sheet paper (‘‘CFS’’) from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). The period
of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is April 1, 2006,
through September 30, 2006. We invited
interested parties to comment on our
preliminary determination of sales at
LTFV. Based on our analysis of the
comments we received, we have made
changes to our calculations for the
mandatory respondents. The final
dumping margins for this investigation
are listed in the ‘‘Final Determination
Margins’’ section below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Magd Zalok or Drew Jackson, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–4162 and 482–
4406, respectively.
AGENCY:
Final Determination
We determine that CFS from the PRC
is being, or is likely to be, sold in the
United States at LTFV as provided in
section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (‘‘the Act’’). The estimated
margins of sales at LTFV are shown in
the ‘‘Final Determination Margins’’
section of this notice.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Department published its
preliminary determination of sales at
LTFV on June 4, 2007. See Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper
from the People’s Republic of China, 72
FR 30758 (June 4, 2007) (‘‘Preliminary
Determination’’). Between June 18,
2007, and July 13, 2007, the Department
conducted verifications of the collapsed
entity Gold East Co. Ltd.(Gold East
Paper (Jiangsu) Co. Ltd., Gold Hua
Sheng Paper (Suzhou Industry Park) Co.
Ltd., and China Union (Macao
E:\FR\FM\25OCN1.SGM
25OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 206 / Thursday, October 25, 2007 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Commercial Offshore) Company Ltd.)
(collectively ‘‘Gold East’’) and its U.S.
affiliate, and separate rates applicant
Yanzhou Tianzhang Paper Industry Co.
Ltd. (‘‘Yanzhou Tianzhang’’), and its
U.S. importer. See the ‘‘Verification’’
section below for additional
information.
We invited parties to comment on the
Preliminary Determination. On August
31, 2007, petitioner,1 the Bureau of Fair
Trade, Ministry of Commerce, People’s
Republic of China (‘‘BOFT’’), Yanzhou
Tianzhang, and Gold East filed case
briefs. Petitioner and Gold East filed
rebuttal briefs on September 7, 2007.
Additionally, on September 12, 2007,
petitioner, Gold East, Yanzhou
Tianzhang, and BOFT, along with other
interested parties in concurrent CFS
investigations, submitted comments
regarding the scope of the instant
investigation. These parties filed
rebuttal scope comments on September
20, 2007. In response to requests from
interested parties, the Department held
a hearing on the scope of the
investigation on September 26, 2007.
Analysis of Comments Received
With the exception of the scope issue,
all issues raised in the case and rebuttal
briefs by parties to this investigation are
addressed in the ‘‘Investigation of
Coated Free Sheet Paper from the
People’s Republic of China: Issues and
Decision Memorandum,’’ dated October
17, 2007, which is hereby adopted by
this notice (‘‘Issues and Decision
Memorandum’’). The scope issue is
addressed in a separate memorandum.
See ‘‘Scope Comments’’ section, below.
A list of the issues which parties raised
and to which we respond in the Issues
and Decision Memorandum is attached
to this notice as an Appendix. The Issue
and Decision Memorandum is a public
document and is on file in the Central
Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’), Main Commerce
Building, Room B–099, and is accessible
on the Web at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn.
The paper copy and electronic version
of the memorandum are identical in
content. Additionally, because some of
the issues that parties raised and to
which we respond contain proprietary
information, there is a separate
proprietary version of the Issues and
Decision Memorandum. See
‘‘Investigation of Coated Free Sheet
Paper from the People’s Republic of
China: Issues and Decision
Memorandum, Comments and
Department of Commerce’s Positions
Containing Proprietary Information,’’
dated October 17, 2007.
1 Petitioner in this investigation is NewPage
Corporation.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:26 Oct 24, 2007
Jkt 214001
Changes Since the Preliminary
Determination
Based on our analysis of the
comments received, we have changed
the margin calculation for Gold East.
Those changes include the following:
1. We revised our calculation of the
per–unit cost of Gold East’s self–
produced electricity and did not
value steam used in production.
2. Based on verification findings, (a)
we revised the average market–
economy price reported for a type
of pulp; (b) recalculated the net unit
price of constructed export price
(‘‘CEP’’) sales to account for
unreported selling expenses; (c)
reclassified one export price sale as
a CEP sale and adjusted the sale’s
price to reflect CEP expenses; and
(d) based the dumping margin of
one unreported sale on adverse
facts available (‘‘AFA’’).
3. We did not value certain reported
factors based on our finding that
these factors are used in the
maintenance of machines, and are
properly classified as overhead
items.
4. We revised surrogate values for
certain factors of production.
5. We valued certain inputs used by
Gold East to treat water.
6. We revised the surrogate values for
factory overhead, selling, general
and administrative (‘‘SG&A’’), and
profit.
7. We corrected a ministerial error
involving one of Gold East’s self–
produced inputs.
For a detailed analysis of Gold East’s
margin calculation, see ‘‘Final
Determination in the Investigation of
Coated Free Sheet Paper from the
People’s Republic of China: Analysis
Memorandum for Gold East’’, dated
October 17, 2007.
We assigned separate rates applicant
Yanzhou Tianzhang the revised final
margin calculated for Gold East, the
only mandatory respondent to fully
participate in this investigation.
We assigned the PRC–wide rate, as
total AFA, to Shandong Chenming
Paper Holdings Limited (‘‘Chenming’),
because it ceased participating in this
investigation prior to the scheduled
verification and, consequently, did not
demonstrate its entitlement to a separate
rate.
Scope of Investigation
The merchandise covered by this
investigation includes coated free sheet
paper and paperboard of a kind used for
writing, printing or other graphic
purposes. Coated free sheet paper is
produced from not–more-than 10
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
60633
percent by weight mechanical or
combined chemical/mechanical fibers.
Coated free sheet paper is coated with
kaolin (China clay) or other inorganic
substances, with or without a binder,
and with no other coating. Coated free
sheet paper may be surface–colored,
surface–decorated, printed (except as
described below), embossed, or
perforated. The subject merchandise
includes single- and double–side-coated
free sheet paper; coated free sheet paper
in both sheet or roll form; and is
inclusive of all weights, brightness
levels, and finishes. The terms ‘‘wood
free’’ or ‘‘art’’ paper may also be used to
describe the imported product.
Excluded from the scope are: (1)
Coated free sheet paper that is imported
printed with final content printed text
or graphics; (2) base paper to be
sensitized for use in photography; and
(3) paper containing by weight 25
percent or more cotton fiber. Coated free
sheet paper is classifiable under
subheadings 4810.13.1900,
4810.13.2010, 4810.13.2090,
4810.13.5000, 4810.13.7040,
4810.14.1900, 4810.14.2010,
4810.14.2090, 4810.14.5000,
4810.14.7040, 4810.19.1900,
4810.19.2010, and 4810.19.2090 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). While
HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, our
written description of the scope of this
investigation is dispositive.
Scope Comments
On August 20, August 28, and
September 10, 2007, the petitioner
requested that the Department clarify
the scope of the antidumping and
countervailing duty investigations of
CFS paper from Indonesia, Korea and
the People’s Republic of China.
Specifically, the petitioner asked the
Department to ‘‘clarify that the scope of
the investigation includes coated free
sheet paper containing hardwood
BCTMP.’’
Because this was a general issue
pertaining to all six investigations, the
Department set up a general issues file
to handle this scope request. A hearing
on the scope request was held on
September 26, 2007. The hearing
comprised a public session, a closed
session for the antidumping
investigation from Korea, and a closed
session for the countervailing duty
investigation from the PRC. After
considering the comments submitted by
the parties to these investigations, we
have determined not to adopt the scope
clarification sought by the petitioner.
See Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
E:\FR\FM\25OCN1.SGM
25OCN1
60634
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 206 / Thursday, October 25, 2007 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Administration, entitled ‘‘Scope
Clarification Request: NewPage
Corporation’’ dated concurrently with
this notice, which is appended to
‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for
the Final Determination in the
Countervailing Duty Investigation of
Coated Free Sheet Paper from the
People’s Republic of China.’’
Adverse Facts Available
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides
that, if an interested party (A) withholds
information requested by the
Department, (B) fails to provide such
information by the deadline, or in the
form or manner requested, (C)
significantly impedes a proceeding, or
(D) provides information that cannot be
verified, the Department shall use,
subject to sections 782(d) and (e) of the
Act, facts otherwise available in
reaching the applicable determination.
Pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act,
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.
On June 7, 2007, six days before the
commencement of verification, counsel
for Chenming informed Department
officials that Chenming would not
continue its participation in the instant
investigation. See Memorandum to the
File through Howard Smith, Program
Manager, Office 4, concerning
‘‘Telephone Conversation with Counsel
for Shandong Chenming Paper Holdings
Co., Ltd.,’’ dated June 7, 2007; see also
Chenming’s letter to the Department,
concerning, ‘‘Coated Free Sheet Paper
from the People’s Republic of China;
Withdrawal of Shandong Chenming
Paper Holdings Limited and Withdrawal
of Consent to Access Proprietary
Information,’’ dated June 11, 2007.
Because Chenming ceased participation
in the instant investigation, the
Department was not able to conduct its
scheduled verification of Chenming’s
responses. Verification is integral to the
Department’s analysis because it allows
the Department to satisfy itself that it is
relying upon accurate information and
calculating dumping margins as
accurately as possible. By failing to
participate in verification, Chenming
prevented the Department from
verifying its reported information,
including separate rates information,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:26 Oct 24, 2007
Jkt 214001
and significantly impeded the
proceeding. Moreover, by not permitting
verification, Chenming failed to prove
that it is free of government control and
entitled to a separate rate. Additionally,
Chenming’s refusal to participate in
verification demonstrates that it failed
to cooperate by not acting to the best of
its ability to comply with a request from
the Department. Section 776(b) of the
Act authorizes the Department to use an
adverse inference with respect to an
interested party if the Department finds
that the party failed to cooperate by not
acting to the best of its ability to comply
with a request for information. See, e.g.,
Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and
Tubes From Thailand: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 62 FR 53808, 53819–20
(October 16, 1997); see also Crawfish
Processors Alliance v. United States,
343 F. Supp.2d 1242 (CIT 2004)
(approving use of AFA when
respondent refused to participate in
verification). Therefore, pursuant to
sections 776(a)(2)(C) and (D) and 776(b)
of the Act, we have, as AFA, treated
Chenming as part of the PRC–wide
entity and assigned Chenming the PRC–
wide rate of 99.65 percent. See the
sections entitled ‘‘The PRC–Wide Rate’’
and ‘‘Corroboration,’’ below, for a
discussion of the selection and
corroboration of the PRC–Wide rate.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the
Act, we conducted verifications in the
PRC and the United States of the
information submitted by the
respondent and the separate rate
applicant for use in our final
determination. See the Department’s
verification reports on the record of this
investigation in the CRU with respect to
Gold East and Yanzhou Tianzhang. For
all verified companies, we used
standard verification procedures,
including examination of relevant
accounting and production records, as
well as original source documents
provided by respondents.
Surrogate Country
In the Preliminary Determination, we
stated that we had selected India as the
appropriate surrogate country to use in
this investigation for the following
reasons: (1) it is a significant producer
of comparable merchandise; (2) it is at
a similar level of economic development
pursuant to 773(c)(4) of the Act; and (3)
we have reliable data from India that we
can use to value the factors of
production. See Preliminary
Determination. For the final
determination, we received no
comments and made no changes to our
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
findings with respect to the selection of
a surrogate country.
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving non–
market–economy (‘‘NME’’) countries,
the Department begins with a rebuttable
presumption that all companies within
the country are subject to government
control and, thus, should be assigned a
single antidumping duty deposit rate. It
is the Department’s policy to assign all
exporters of merchandise subject to an
investigation in an NME country this
single rate unless an exporter can
demonstrate that it is sufficiently
independent so as to be entitled to a
separate rate. See Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers
from the People’s Republic of China, 56
FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’),
as amplified by Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the
People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585
(May 2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon Carbide’’), and
Section 351.107(d) of the Department’s
regulations.
In the Preliminary Determination, we
found that Gold East and the separate
rate applicant, Yanzhou Tianzhang,
demonstrated their eligibility for
separate–rate status. No party has
commented on the eligibility of Gold
East or Yanzhou Tianzhang for
separate–rate status. For the final
determination, we continue to find that
the evidence placed on the record of
this investigation by Gold East and
Yanzhou Tianzhang demonstrate both a
de jure and de facto absence of
government control, with respect to
their respective exports of the
merchandise under investigation and
thus are eligible for separate rate status.
The PRC–Wide Rate
In the Preliminary Determination, the
Department found that certain
companies and the PRC–wide entity did
not respond to our requests for
information. In the Preliminary
Determination, we treated these PRC
producers/exporters as part of the PRC–
wide entity because they did not
demonstrate that they operate free of
government control over their export
activities. No additional information has
been placed on the record with respect
to these entities after the Preliminary
Determination. The PRC–wide entity
has not provided the Department with
the requested information; therefore,
pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the
Act, the Department continues to find
that the use of facts available is
appropriate to determine the PRC–wide
rate. Section 776(b) of the Act provides
that, in selecting from among the facts
E:\FR\FM\25OCN1.SGM
25OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 206 / Thursday, October 25, 2007 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
otherwise available, the Department
may employ an adverse inference if an
interested party fails to cooperate by not
acting to the best of its ability to comply
with requests for information. See
Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold–
Rolled Flat–Rolled Carbon–Quality Steel
Products from the Russian Federation,
65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000).
See also, ‘‘Statement of Administrative
Action’’ accompanying the URAA, H.R.
Rep. No. 103–316, vol. 1, at 870 (1994).
We determine that because the PRC–
wide entity has failed to cooperate to
the best of its ability because it did not
respond to our request for information.
Therefore, the Department finds that, in
selecting from among the facts
otherwise available, an adverse
inference is appropriate for the PRC–
wide entity.
Because we begin with the
presumption that all companies within
a NME country are subject to
government control and because only
the companies listed under the ‘‘Final
Determination Margins’’ section below
have overcome that presumption, we are
applying a single antidumping rate - the
PRC–wide rate - to all other exporters of
subject merchandise from the PRC. Such
companies did not demonstrate
entitlement to a separate rate. See, e.g.,
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).
The PRC–wide rate applies to all entries
of subject merchandise except for
entries from the respondents which are
listed in the ‘‘Final Determination
Margins’’ section below (except as
noted).
Corroboration
At the Preliminary Determination, we
corroborated our AFA margin by
comparing the range of control number–
specific dumping margins calculated for
the preliminary determination to the
dumping margin alleged in the petition.
For the final determination, we
conducted a similar analysis and
continue to find that the margin of 99.65
percent has probative value. See
Memorandum to the File:
‘‘Corroboration of the PRC–Wide Facts
Available Rate for the Final
Determination in the Antidumping Duty
Investigation of Coated Free Sheet Paper
from the People’s Republic of China’’,
dated October 17, 2007. In addition, no
party to this investigation has
commented on our selection of this rate
as AFA. Accordingly, we find that the
rate of 99.65 percent is corroborated
within the meaning of section 776(c) of
the Act.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:26 Oct 24, 2007
Jkt 214001
Final Determination Margins
We determine that the following
weighted–average dumping margins
exist for the period April 1, 2006,
thorough September 30, 2006:
Weighted
Average
Margin
(percent)
60635
does exist, the Department will issue an
antidumping duty order directing CBP
to assess antidumping duties on all
imports of the subject merchandise
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the effective
date of the suspension of liquidation.
Notification Regarding APO
This notice also serves as a reminder
to the parties subject to administrative
GE’s Collapsed Entity: ................
21.12
protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their
(Gold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co.
responsibility concerning the
Ltd.-Gold Hua Sheng Paper.
disposition of proprietary information
(Suzhou Industry Park) Co. Ltd.disclosed under APO in accordance
China Union.
with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely
(Macao Commercial Offshore)
Company Ltd.
notification of return or destruction of
Yanzhou Tianzhang Paper InAPO materials or conversion to judicial
dustry Co. Ltd. ........................
21.12 protective order is hereby requested.
PRC–Wide Rate .........................
99.65 Failure to comply with the regulations
and the terms of an APO is a
Disclosure
sanctionable violation. This
determination and notice are issued and
We will disclose to parties the
calculations performed within five days published in accordance with sections
735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
of the date of publication of this notice
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Dated: October 17, 2007.
Manufacturer/Exporter
Continuation of Suspension of
Liquidation
In accordance with section
735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(‘‘CBP’’) to continue to suspend
liquidation of all imports of subject
merchandise that are entered or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after June 4, 2007,
the date of publication of the
preliminary determination in the
Federal Register. We will instruct CBP
to continue to require a cash deposit or
the posting of a bond for all companies
based on the estimated weighted–
average dumping margins shown above.
The suspension of liquidation
instructions will remain in effect until
further notice.
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 735(d) of
the Act, we have notified the
International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’)
of our final determination of sales at
LTFV. As our final determination is
affirmative, in accordance with section
735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will
determine whether the domestic
industry in the United States is
materially injured, or threatened with
material injury, by reason of imports or
sales (or the likelihood of sales) for
importation of the subject merchandise
within 45 days of this final
determination. If the ITC determines
that material injury or threat of material
injury does not exist, the proceeding
will be terminated and all securities
posted will be refunded or canceled. If
the ITC determines that such injury
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
Appendix I
Parties’ Comments
Comment 1: Whether to Reconsider
China’s Non–Market Economy (NME)
Status and Whether to Treat Certain
PRC Companies as Market Oriented
Enterprises
Comment 2: Alleged Double Remedy in
Concurrent NME AD and CVD
Proceedings
Comment 3: The Appropriate Surrogate
Financial Statements to use to Calculate
Financial Ratios
Comment 4: Whether to Adjust the
Financial Ratios by Allocating Wages
and Salaries Between Non–
manufacturing and Manufacturing
Expenses
Comment 5: Whether to Adjust the
Financial Ratios by Allocating ‘‘Stores
and Spares’’ Expenses Between Direct
Material Costs and Overhead Expenses
Comment 6: Whether to Value Certain
Materials Claimed to be Overhead
Expenses
Comment 7: Whether to Value Self–
Produced Electricity Used to Produce
Electricity
Comment 8: Whether to Value Steam
That is a By–Product of Self–Produced
Electricity
Comment 9: Whether to Value Certain
Inputs used in Treating Water
Comment 10: Whether GE Incorrectly
Reported the Unit Price of Certain
Purchases
Comment 11: Whether the Department
Erred in Calculating the Value of a Self–
Produced Input
E:\FR\FM\25OCN1.SGM
25OCN1
60636
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 206 / Thursday, October 25, 2007 / Notices
Comment 12: Whether Certain Pulp
Purchases Should be Treated as Market–
Economy Purchases
Comment 13: Whether it is Appropriate
to Value Labor Using the Expected Wage
Rate Calculated by the Department
Comment 14: The Appropriate
Surrogate Value For A Ground Calcium
Carbonate Input
Comments 15: The Appropriate
Surrogate Value for a Proprietary
Material
Comment 16: The Appropriate
Surrogate Value for a Proprietary
Material
Comment 17: The Appropriate
Surrogate Value for Hydrochloric Acid
Comment 18: The Appropriate
Surrogate Values For Other Paper
Chemicals
Comment 19: The Appropriate
Surrogate Value For Steam Coal
Comment 20: The Appropriate
Surrogate Value for Certain PET Packing
Materials
Comment 21: The Appropriate
Surrogate Value for a Proprietary
Material
Comment 22: How to Account for
Certain Unreported Expenses
Comment 23: Whether the Department
Should Base the Dumping Margin for
One Unreported Sale on Total Adverse
Facts Available
Comment 24: Whether to Reclassify One
Sale as a CEP Sale
Comment 25: Whether to Adjust the
Market–Economy Purchase Price of
NBKP
[FR Doc. E7–21041 Filed 10–24–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A–560–820
Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free
Sheet Paper from Indonesia
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: We determine that imports of
coated free sheet paper (‘‘CFS paper’’)
are being, or are likely to be, sold in the
United States at less than fair value
(‘‘LTFV’’), as provided in section 735 of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the
Act’’). The estimated margins of sales at
LTFV are shown in the ‘‘Final
Determination’’ section of this notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 25, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Brian C. Smith or Gemal Brangman, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 2, Import
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:26 Oct 24, 2007
Jkt 214001
Administration–Room B–099,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)
482–1766 or (202) 482–3773,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On June 4, 2007, the Department
published in the Federal Register the
Preliminary Determination of sales at
LTFV in the antidumping duty
investigation of CFS paper from
Indonesia. See Coated Free Sheet Paper
from Indonesia: Notice of Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Postponement of Final
Determination, 72 FR 30753 (June 4,
2007) (‘‘Preliminary Determination’’).
On June 13, 2007,1 PT. Pindo Deli
Pulp & Paper Mills (‘‘PD’’), PT. Pabrik
Kertas Tjiwi Kimia, Tbk (‘‘TK’’), and
their affiliates PT. Cakrawala Mega
Indah (‘‘CMI’’), PT Indah Kiat Pulp &
Paper Tbk (‘‘IK’’), PT. Lontar Papyrus
Pulp & Paper Industries (‘‘Lontar’’), PT
Arara Abadi (‘‘AA’’) and PT. Wirakarya
Sakti (‘‘WKS’’) (hereafter collectively
referred to as ‘‘the Indonesian
Respondents’’) 2 submitted a revised
cost of production (‘‘COP’’) database for
TK which incorporated corrections
found prior to the start of verification.
On June 27, 2007, the Indonesian
Respondents submitted a revised COP
database for PD which incorporated
corrections submitted at the start of PD’s
cost verification on June 22, 2007.
From June 20 through July 20, 2007,
we verified the sales and cost
questionnaire responses of the
Indonesian Respondents. On August 20,
27, and 28, 2007, the Department issued
its verification reports. We provided the
interested parties an opportunity to
comment on the Preliminary
Determination and the Department’s
verification findings.
On June 29, 2007, the petitioner 3
requested a hearing to discuss issues
addressed by the interested parties in
their case and rebuttal briefs.
On August 28, 2007, the petitioner
requested that the Department clarify
the scope of the investigation of CFS
paper from Indonesia and placed on the
record of this review information to
support its request.
1 June 13, 2007, is seven days prior to the start
of the cost verification.
2 PD and TK are CFS paper producers, whereas
CMI is a reseller of paper products produced by PD
and TK. IK and Lontar are pulp producers, whereas
AA and WKS are forestry companies.
3 The petitioner in this investigation is NewPage
Corporation.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
On September 5, 2007, the petitioner
and the Indonesian Respondents
submitted case briefs. On September 6,
2007, the petitioner withdrew its
request for a hearing. Because the
petitioner was the only interested party
to request a hearing and it subsequently
withdrew its request, no hearing was
held on issues raised in the September
5, 2007, case briefs. On September 10,
2007, both the petitioner and the
Indonesian Respondents submitted
rebuttal briefs.
Also on September 10, 2007, the
Department rejected the petitioner’s
August 28, 2007, scope clarification
submission because it contained
untimely filed new factual information.
The petitioner refiled its submission
with the new factual information
redacted on September 10, 2007.
On September 12, 2007, the petitioner
and Indonesian Respondents filed case
briefs on the scope issue. On September
14, 2007, the Department rejected the
Indonesian Respondents’ case brief on
the scope issue because it contained
untimely filed new factual information.
The Indonesian Respondents refiled this
case brief with the new factual
information redacted on September 17,
2007.
On September 17, 2007, the
Department rejected the Indonesian
Respondents’ September 10, 2007,
rebuttal brief because it contained
untimely filed new argument. The
Indonesian Respondents refiled their
rebuttal brief with the new argument
redacted on September 18, 2007.
On September 20, 2007, the petitioner
and Indonesian Respondents filed
rebuttal briefs on the scope issue. A
hearing on the scope issue was held on
September 26, 2007.
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation is October
1, 2005, through September 30, 2006.
This period corresponds to the four
most recent fiscal quarters prior to the
month of the filing of the petition.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and
rebuttal briefs submitted by the parties
to this investigation are addressed in the
‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’
(‘‘Decision Memo’’) from Stephen J.
Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, to David M.
Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, dated October 17, 2007,
which is hereby adopted by this notice.
A list of the issues that parties have
raised and to which we have responded,
all of which are in the Decision Memo,
is attached to this notice as an
appendix. Parties can find a complete
E:\FR\FM\25OCN1.SGM
25OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 206 (Thursday, October 25, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60632-60636]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-21041]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A-570-906
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coated Free
Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 25, 2007.
SUMMARY: On June 4, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the
``Department'') published its preliminary determination of sales at
less than fair value (``LTFV'') in the antidumping investigation of
coated free sheet paper (``CFS'') from the People's Republic of China
(``PRC''). The period of investigation (``POI'') is April 1, 2006,
through September 30, 2006. We invited interested parties to comment on
our preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. Based on our analysis
of the comments we received, we have made changes to our calculations
for the mandatory respondents. The final dumping margins for this
investigation are listed in the ``Final Determination Margins'' section
below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magd Zalok or Drew Jackson, Import
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC
20230; telephone: (202) 482-4162 and 482-4406, respectively.
Final Determination
We determine that CFS from the PRC is being, or is likely to be,
sold in the United States at LTFV as provided in section 735 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). The estimated margins of
sales at LTFV are shown in the ``Final Determination Margins'' section
of this notice.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Department published its preliminary determination of sales at
LTFV on June 4, 2007. See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of
China, 72 FR 30758 (June 4, 2007) (``Preliminary Determination'').
Between June 18, 2007, and July 13, 2007, the Department conducted
verifications of the collapsed entity Gold East Co. Ltd.(Gold East
Paper (Jiangsu) Co. Ltd., Gold Hua Sheng Paper (Suzhou Industry Park)
Co. Ltd., and China Union (Macao
[[Page 60633]]
Commercial Offshore) Company Ltd.) (collectively ``Gold East'') and its
U.S. affiliate, and separate rates applicant Yanzhou Tianzhang Paper
Industry Co. Ltd. (``Yanzhou Tianzhang''), and its U.S. importer. See
the ``Verification'' section below for additional information.
We invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Determination. On
August 31, 2007, petitioner,\1\ the Bureau of Fair Trade, Ministry of
Commerce, People's Republic of China (``BOFT''), Yanzhou Tianzhang, and
Gold East filed case briefs. Petitioner and Gold East filed rebuttal
briefs on September 7, 2007. Additionally, on September 12, 2007,
petitioner, Gold East, Yanzhou Tianzhang, and BOFT, along with other
interested parties in concurrent CFS investigations, submitted comments
regarding the scope of the instant investigation. These parties filed
rebuttal scope comments on September 20, 2007. In response to requests
from interested parties, the Department held a hearing on the scope of
the investigation on September 26, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Petitioner in this investigation is NewPage Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis of Comments Received
With the exception of the scope issue, all issues raised in the
case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this investigation are addressed
in the ``Investigation of Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's
Republic of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum,'' dated October 17,
2007, which is hereby adopted by this notice (``Issues and Decision
Memorandum''). The scope issue is addressed in a separate memorandum.
See ``Scope Comments'' section, below. A list of the issues which
parties raised and to which we respond in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Issue and
Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file in the Central
Records Unit (``CRU''), Main Commerce Building, Room B-099, and is
accessible on the Web at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and
electronic version of the memorandum are identical in content.
Additionally, because some of the issues that parties raised and to
which we respond contain proprietary information, there is a separate
proprietary version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum. See
``Investigation of Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic
of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum, Comments and Department of
Commerce's Positions Containing Proprietary Information,'' dated
October 17, 2007.
Changes Since the Preliminary Determination
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have changed the
margin calculation for Gold East. Those changes include the following:
1. We revised our calculation of the per-unit cost of Gold East's
self-produced electricity and did not value steam used in production.
2. Based on verification findings, (a) we revised the average
market-economy price reported for a type of pulp; (b) recalculated the
net unit price of constructed export price (``CEP'') sales to account
for unreported selling expenses; (c) reclassified one export price sale
as a CEP sale and adjusted the sale's price to reflect CEP expenses;
and (d) based the dumping margin of one unreported sale on adverse
facts available (``AFA'').
3. We did not value certain reported factors based on our finding
that these factors are used in the maintenance of machines, and are
properly classified as overhead items.
4. We revised surrogate values for certain factors of production.
5. We valued certain inputs used by Gold East to treat water.
6. We revised the surrogate values for factory overhead, selling,
general and administrative (``SG&A''), and profit.
7. We corrected a ministerial error involving one of Gold East's
self-produced inputs.
For a detailed analysis of Gold East's margin calculation, see
``Final Determination in the Investigation of Coated Free Sheet Paper
from the People's Republic of China: Analysis Memorandum for Gold
East'', dated October 17, 2007.
We assigned separate rates applicant Yanzhou Tianzhang the revised
final margin calculated for Gold East, the only mandatory respondent to
fully participate in this investigation.
We assigned the PRC-wide rate, as total AFA, to Shandong Chenming
Paper Holdings Limited (``Chenming'), because it ceased participating
in this investigation prior to the scheduled verification and,
consequently, did not demonstrate its entitlement to a separate rate.
Scope of Investigation
The merchandise covered by this investigation includes coated free
sheet paper and paperboard of a kind used for writing, printing or
other graphic purposes. Coated free sheet paper is produced from not-
more-than 10 percent by weight mechanical or combined chemical/
mechanical fibers. Coated free sheet paper is coated with kaolin (China
clay) or other inorganic substances, with or without a binder, and with
no other coating. Coated free sheet paper may be surface-colored,
surface-decorated, printed (except as described below), embossed, or
perforated. The subject merchandise includes single- and double-side-
coated free sheet paper; coated free sheet paper in both sheet or roll
form; and is inclusive of all weights, brightness levels, and finishes.
The terms ``wood free'' or ``art'' paper may also be used to describe
the imported product.
Excluded from the scope are: (1) Coated free sheet paper that is
imported printed with final content printed text or graphics; (2) base
paper to be sensitized for use in photography; and (3) paper containing
by weight 25 percent or more cotton fiber. Coated free sheet paper is
classifiable under subheadings 4810.13.1900, 4810.13.2010,
4810.13.2090, 4810.13.5000, 4810.13.7040, 4810.14.1900, 4810.14.2010,
4810.14.2090, 4810.14.5000, 4810.14.7040, 4810.19.1900, 4810.19.2010,
and 4810.19.2090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(``HTSUS''). While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and
customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this
investigation is dispositive.
Scope Comments
On August 20, August 28, and September 10, 2007, the petitioner
requested that the Department clarify the scope of the antidumping and
countervailing duty investigations of CFS paper from Indonesia, Korea
and the People's Republic of China. Specifically, the petitioner asked
the Department to ``clarify that the scope of the investigation
includes coated free sheet paper containing hardwood BCTMP.''
Because this was a general issue pertaining to all six
investigations, the Department set up a general issues file to handle
this scope request. A hearing on the scope request was held on
September 26, 2007. The hearing comprised a public session, a closed
session for the antidumping investigation from Korea, and a closed
session for the countervailing duty investigation from the PRC. After
considering the comments submitted by the parties to these
investigations, we have determined not to adopt the scope clarification
sought by the petitioner. See Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Import
[[Page 60634]]
Administration, entitled ``Scope Clarification Request: NewPage
Corporation'' dated concurrently with this notice, which is appended to
``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the
Countervailing Duty Investigation of Coated Free Sheet Paper from the
People's Republic of China.''
Adverse Facts Available
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party
(A) withholds information requested by the Department, (B) fails to
provide such information by the deadline, or in the form or manner
requested, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D) provides
information that cannot be verified, the Department shall use, subject
to sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act, facts otherwise available in
reaching the applicable determination.
Pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act, 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.
On June 7, 2007, six days before the commencement of verification,
counsel for Chenming informed Department officials that Chenming would
not continue its participation in the instant investigation. See
Memorandum to the File through Howard Smith, Program Manager, Office 4,
concerning ``Telephone Conversation with Counsel for Shandong Chenming
Paper Holdings Co., Ltd.,'' dated June 7, 2007; see also Chenming's
letter to the Department, concerning, ``Coated Free Sheet Paper from
the People's Republic of China; Withdrawal of Shandong Chenming Paper
Holdings Limited and Withdrawal of Consent to Access Proprietary
Information,'' dated June 11, 2007. Because Chenming ceased
participation in the instant investigation, the Department was not able
to conduct its scheduled verification of Chenming's responses.
Verification is integral to the Department's analysis because it allows
the Department to satisfy itself that it is relying upon accurate
information and calculating dumping margins as accurately as possible.
By failing to participate in verification, Chenming prevented the
Department from verifying its reported information, including separate
rates information, and significantly impeded the proceeding. Moreover,
by not permitting verification, Chenming failed to prove that it is
free of government control and entitled to a separate rate.
Additionally, Chenming's refusal to participate in verification
demonstrates that it failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of
its ability to comply with a request from the Department. Section
776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use an adverse inference
with respect to an interested party if the Department finds that the
party failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to
comply with a request for information. See, e.g., Certain Welded Carbon
Steel Pipes and Tubes From Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 62 FR 53808, 53819-20 (October 16, 1997); see
also Crawfish Processors Alliance v. United States, 343 F. Supp.2d 1242
(CIT 2004) (approving use of AFA when respondent refused to participate
in verification). Therefore, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(C) and (D)
and 776(b) of the Act, we have, as AFA, treated Chenming as part of the
PRC-wide entity and assigned Chenming the PRC-wide rate of 99.65
percent. See the sections entitled ``The PRC-Wide Rate'' and
``Corroboration,'' below, for a discussion of the selection and
corroboration of the PRC-Wide rate.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we conducted
verifications in the PRC and the United States of the information
submitted by the respondent and the separate rate applicant for use in
our final determination. See the Department's verification reports on
the record of this investigation in the CRU with respect to Gold East
and Yanzhou Tianzhang. For all verified companies, we used standard
verification procedures, including examination of relevant accounting
and production records, as well as original source documents provided
by respondents.
Surrogate Country
In the Preliminary Determination, we stated that we had selected
India as the appropriate surrogate country to use in this investigation
for the following reasons: (1) it is a significant producer of
comparable merchandise; (2) it is at a similar level of economic
development pursuant to 773(c)(4) of the Act; and (3) we have reliable
data from India that we can use to value the factors of production. See
Preliminary Determination. For the final determination, we received no
comments and made no changes to our findings with respect to the
selection of a surrogate country.
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving non-market-economy (``NME'') countries,
the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies
within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should
be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the
Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to
an investigation in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter
can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be
entitled to a separate rate. See Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR
20588 (May 6, 1991) (``Sparklers''), as amplified by Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from
the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (``Silicon
Carbide''), and Section 351.107(d) of the Department's regulations.
In the Preliminary Determination, we found that Gold East and the
separate rate applicant, Yanzhou Tianzhang, demonstrated their
eligibility for separate-rate status. No party has commented on the
eligibility of Gold East or Yanzhou Tianzhang for separate-rate status.
For the final determination, we continue to find that the evidence
placed on the record of this investigation by Gold East and Yanzhou
Tianzhang demonstrate both a de jure and de facto absence of government
control, with respect to their respective exports of the merchandise
under investigation and thus are eligible for separate rate status.
The PRC-Wide Rate
In the Preliminary Determination, the Department found that certain
companies and the PRC-wide entity did not respond to our requests for
information. In the Preliminary Determination, we treated these PRC
producers/exporters as part of the PRC-wide entity because they did not
demonstrate that they operate free of government control over their
export activities. No additional information has been placed on the
record with respect to these entities after the Preliminary
Determination. The PRC-wide entity has not provided the Department with
the requested information; therefore, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A)
of the Act, the Department continues to find that the use of facts
available is appropriate to determine the PRC-wide rate. Section 776(b)
of the Act provides that, in selecting from among the facts
[[Page 60635]]
otherwise available, the Department may employ an adverse inference if
an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best of its
ability to comply with requests for information. See Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled
Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products from the Russian Federation,
65 FR 5510, 5518 (February 4, 2000). See also, ``Statement of
Administrative Action'' accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316,
vol. 1, at 870 (1994). We determine that because the PRC-wide entity
has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability because it did not
respond to our request for information. Therefore, the Department finds
that, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, an adverse
inference is appropriate for the PRC-wide entity.
Because we begin with the presumption that all companies within a
NME country are subject to government control and because only the
companies listed under the ``Final Determination Margins'' section
below have overcome that presumption, we are applying a single
antidumping rate - the PRC-wide rate - to all other exporters of
subject merchandise from the PRC. Such companies did not demonstrate
entitlement to a separate rate. See, e.g., 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). The PRC-wide rate
applies to all entries of subject merchandise except for entries from
the respondents which are listed in the ``Final Determination Margins''
section below (except as noted).
Corroboration
At the Preliminary Determination, we corroborated our AFA margin by
comparing the range of control number-specific dumping margins
calculated for the preliminary determination to the dumping margin
alleged in the petition. For the final determination, we conducted a
similar analysis and continue to find that the margin of 99.65 percent
has probative value. See Memorandum to the File: ``Corroboration of the
PRC-Wide Facts Available Rate for the Final Determination in the
Antidumping Duty Investigation of Coated Free Sheet Paper from the
People's Republic of China'', dated October 17, 2007. In addition, no
party to this investigation has commented on our selection of this rate
as AFA. Accordingly, we find that the rate of 99.65 percent is
corroborated within the meaning of section 776(c) of the Act.
Final Determination Margins
We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins
exist for the period April 1, 2006, thorough September 30, 2006:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted
Average
Manufacturer/Exporter Margin
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GE's Collapsed Entity:...................................... 21.12
(Gold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co. Ltd.-Gold Hua Sheng Paper....
(Suzhou Industry Park) Co. Ltd.-China Union.................
(Macao Commercial Offshore) Company Ltd.....................
Yanzhou Tianzhang Paper Industry Co. Ltd.................... 21.12
PRC-Wide Rate............................................... 99.65
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosure
We will disclose to parties the calculations performed within five
days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19
CFR 351.224(b).
Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are
directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to continue to
suspend liquidation of all imports of subject merchandise that are
entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after June
4, 2007, the date of publication of the preliminary determination in
the Federal Register. We will instruct CBP to continue to require a
cash deposit or the posting of a bond for all companies based on the
estimated weighted-average dumping margins shown above. The suspension
of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the
International Trade Commission (``ITC'') of our final determination of
sales at LTFV. As our final determination is affirmative, in accordance
with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will determine whether the
domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or
threatened with material injury, by reason of imports or sales (or the
likelihood of sales) for importation of the subject merchandise within
45 days of this final determination. If the ITC determines that
material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the
proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be
refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does
exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing
CBP to assess antidumping duties on all imports of the subject
merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or
after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.
Notification Regarding APO
This notice also serves as a reminder to the parties subject to
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return or
destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order
is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the
terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. This determination and
notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and
777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: October 17, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix I
Parties' Comments
Comment 1: Whether to Reconsider China's Non-Market Economy (NME)
Status and Whether to Treat Certain PRC Companies as Market Oriented
Enterprises
Comment 2: Alleged Double Remedy in Concurrent NME AD and CVD
Proceedings
Comment 3: The Appropriate Surrogate Financial Statements to use to
Calculate Financial Ratios
Comment 4: Whether to Adjust the Financial Ratios by Allocating Wages
and Salaries Between Non-manufacturing and Manufacturing Expenses
Comment 5: Whether to Adjust the Financial Ratios by Allocating
``Stores and Spares'' Expenses Between Direct Material Costs and
Overhead Expenses
Comment 6: Whether to Value Certain Materials Claimed to be Overhead
Expenses
Comment 7: Whether to Value Self-Produced Electricity Used to Produce
Electricity
Comment 8: Whether to Value Steam That is a By-Product of Self-Produced
Electricity
Comment 9: Whether to Value Certain Inputs used in Treating Water
Comment 10: Whether GE Incorrectly Reported the Unit Price of Certain
Purchases
Comment 11: Whether the Department Erred in Calculating the Value of a
Self-Produced Input
[[Page 60636]]
Comment 12: Whether Certain Pulp Purchases Should be Treated as Market-
Economy Purchases
Comment 13: Whether it is Appropriate to Value Labor Using the Expected
Wage Rate Calculated by the Department
Comment 14: The Appropriate Surrogate Value For A Ground Calcium
Carbonate Input
Comments 15: The Appropriate Surrogate Value for a Proprietary Material
Comment 16: The Appropriate Surrogate Value for a Proprietary Material
Comment 17: The Appropriate Surrogate Value for Hydrochloric Acid
Comment 18: The Appropriate Surrogate Values For Other Paper Chemicals
Comment 19: The Appropriate Surrogate Value For Steam Coal
Comment 20: The Appropriate Surrogate Value for Certain PET Packing
Materials
Comment 21: The Appropriate Surrogate Value for a Proprietary Material
Comment 22: How to Account for Certain Unreported Expenses
Comment 23: Whether the Department Should Base the Dumping Margin for
One Unreported Sale on Total Adverse Facts Available
Comment 24: Whether to Reclassify One Sale as a CEP Sale
Comment 25: Whether to Adjust the Market-Economy Purchase Price of NBKP
[FR Doc. E7-21041 Filed 10-24-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
