Lightweight Thermal Paper From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 27504-27513 [E8-10663]

Download as PDF 27504 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Notices to six months from the date of implementation. See section 735(a)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2). In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because (1) our preliminary determination is affirmative, (2) the requesting exporter accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are granting its request and are postponing the final determination until no later than 135 days after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Suspension of liquidation will be extended accordingly. This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: May 6, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8–10659 Filed 5–12–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–920] Lightweight Thermal Paper From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce DATES: Effective Date: May 13, 2008. SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine that lightweight thermal paper (‘‘LWTP’’) from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’), as provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the ‘‘Preliminary Determination’’ section of this notice. Pursuant to requests from interested parties, we are postponing the final determination and extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to not more than six months. Accordingly, we will make our final determination not later than 135 days after publication of the preliminary determination. See the ‘‘Postponement of the Final Determination’’ section below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frances Veith or Marin Weaver, AD/ CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES AGENCY: VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:17 May 12, 2008 Jkt 214001 Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4295 or (202) 482– 2336, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Initiation On September 19, 2007, Appleton Papers, Inc. (‘‘petitioner’’ or ‘‘Appleton’’), filed an antidumping petition in proper form on behalf of the domestic industry and workers producing LWTP, concerning imports of LWTP from Germany, the Republic of Korea (‘‘Korea’’), and the PRC, in addition to a countervailing duty petition on LWTP from the PRC. See Antidumping Duty Petition on Lightweight Thermal Paper from Germany, the Republic of Korea, and the People’s Republic of China and Countervailing Duty Petition on Lightweight Thermal Paper from the People’s Republic of China, dated September 19, 2007 (the ‘‘Petition’’). On October 16, 2007, the Department of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’), pursuant to section 732(c)(1)(B) of the Act, extended the deadline for the initiation determination in order to determine the adequacy of the petition.1 The Department initiated this investigation on October 29, 2007.2 In the Initiation Notice, the Department notified parties of the application process by which exporters and producers may obtain separate-rate status in non-market economy (‘‘NME’’) investigations. The process requires exporters and producers to submit a separate-rate status application (‘‘SRA’’).3 However, the standard for eligibility for a separate rate (which is whether a firm can demonstrate an absence of both de jure and de facto government control over its export activities) has not changed. The SRA for this investigation was posted on the Department’s Web site http:// ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-andnews.html on November 5, 2007. The 1 See Notice of Extension of the Deadline for Determining the Adequacy of the Antidumping Duty Petitions: Lightweight Thermal Paper from Germany, the Republic of Korea, and the People’s Republic of China; and the Countervailing Duty Petition: Lightweight Thermal Paper from the People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 58639 (October 16, 2007). 2 See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Lightweight Thermal Paper from Germany, the Republic of Korea, and the People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 62430 (November 5, 2007) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). 3 See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market Economy Countries (April 5, 2005) (‘‘Policy Bulletin 05.1’’), available at <http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/ bulletin05-1.pdf>. PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 due date for filing an SRA was December 28, 2007. No party filed an SRA in this investigation. On December 5, 2007, the International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) determined that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of LWTP from the PRC.4 Period of Investigation The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is January 1, 2007, through June 30, 2007. This period corresponds to the two most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition, which was September 2007. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1). Postponement of Preliminary Determination On February 6, 2008, petitioner made a timely request pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(2) and (e) for a 50-day postponement of the preliminary determination. On February 25, 2008, the Department published a postponement of the preliminary antidumping duty determination on LWTP from the PRC.5 Postponement of Final Determination On April 14, 2008, and May 2, 2008, Hanhong International Limited, Shanghai Hanhong Paper Co., Ltd., and Hong Kong Hanhong Ltd. (collectively (‘‘Hanhong’’)) and Guangdong Guanhao High-Tech Co., Ltd. (‘‘Guanhao’’), respectively, made a timely request pursuant to section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii) that the Department extend the final determination by the full amount of time allowed by law. On May 6, 2008, Hanhong and Guanhao supplemented their requests to extend the final determination to include requests to extend provisional measures pursuant to section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2). Scope of the Investigation The merchandise covered by this investigation includes certain lightweight thermal paper, which is thermal paper with a basis weight of 70 grams per square meter (g/m2) (with a tolerance of ± 4.0 g/m2) or less; 4 See Investigation Nos. 701–TA–451 and 731– TA–1126–1128 (Preliminary): Certain Lightweight Thermal Paper from China, Germany, and Korea, 72 FR 70343 (December 11, 2007). 5 See Lightweight Thermal Paper From Germany and the People’s Republic of China: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations of Antidumping Duty Investigations, 73 FR 9997 (February 25, 2008). E:\FR\FM\13MYN1.SGM 13MYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Notices irrespective of dimensions; 6 with or without a base coat 7 on one or both sides; with thermal active coating(s) 8 on one or both sides that is a mixture of the dye and the developer that react and form an image when heat is applied; with or without a top coat; 9 and without an adhesive backing. Certain lightweight thermal paper is typically (but not exclusively) used in point-ofsale applications such as ATM receipts, credit card receipts, gas pump receipts, and retail store receipts. The merchandise subject to this investigation may be classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) under subheadings 4811.90.8040, 4811.90.9090, 3703.10.60, 4811.59.20, 4820.10.20, and 4823.40.00.10 Although HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive. rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES Scope Comments We set aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). The Department encouraged all interested parties to submit such comments within 20 calendar days of signature of the Initiation Notice, 72 FR at 62431. We only received comments on the scope from petitioner. See petitioner’s letter to the Department regarding, ‘‘Lightweight Thermal Paper From China, Germany, And Korea,’’ dated November 19, 2007. 6 LWTP is typically produced in jumbo rolls that are slit to the specifications of the converting equipment and then converted into finished slit rolls. Both jumbo and converted rolls (as well as LWTP in any other form, presentation, or dimension) are covered by the scope of these investigations. 7 A base coat, when applied, is typically made of clay and/or latex and like materials and is intended to cover the rough surface of the paper substrate and to provide insulating value. 8 A thermal active coating is typically made of sensitizer, dye, and co-reactant. 9 A top coat, when applied, is typically made of polyvinyl acetone, polyvinyl alcohol, and/or like materials and is intended to provide environmental protection, an improved surface for press printing, and/or wear protection for the thermal print head. 10 HTSUS subheading 4811.90.8000 was a classification used for LWTP until January 1, 2007. Effective that date, subheading 4811.90.8000 was replaced with 4811.90.8020 (for gift wrap, a nonsubject product) and 4811.90.8040 (for ‘‘other’’ including LWTP). HTSUS subheading 4811.90.9000 was a classification for LWTP until July 1, 2005. Effective that date, subheading 4811.90.9000 was replaced with 4811.90.9010 (for tissue paper, a nonsubject product) and 4811.90.9090 (for ‘‘other,’’ including LWTP). Petitioner indicated that, from time to time, LWTP also may have been entered under HTSUS subheading 3703.90, HTSUS heading 4805, and perhaps other subheadings of the HTSUS, including HTSUS subheadings: 3703.10.60, 4811.59.20, 4820.10.20, and 4823.40.00. VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:14 May 12, 2008 Jkt 214001 Petitioner requested that the Department include in LWTP’s scope language the HTSUS subheadings 3703.10.60,11 4811.59,12 4820.10,13 and 4823.40 14 because LWTP may enter the United States under one of these HTSUS subheadings. Specifically, the petitioner contends that HTSUS subheading 3703.1060 should be included because LWTP is sensitive to heat radiation; LWTP with certain latex topcoats could enter as paper coated with plastic under HTSUS subheading 4811.59; HTSUS subheading 4820.10’s description may encompass products converted from thermal paper; and HTSUS subheading 4823.40’s description appears to encompass LWTP not elsewhere specified within the HTSUS. In the Petition we stated that merchandise subject to this investigation may be classified in the HTSUS under subheadings 4811.90.8040 and 4811.90.9090. On April 11, 2008 and April 16, 2008, the Department received a request from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to update the antidumping and countervailing duty (‘‘AD/CVD’’) module for LWTP from the PRC. Specifically, CBP requested that the Department add HTSUS subheadings 3703.10.60, 4811.59.20, 4820.10.20, and 4823.40.00 to the AD/CVD module. See the Department’s memorandum to the file entitled, ‘‘Request from Customs and Border Protection to update AD/ CVD Module,’’ dated April 17, 2008. We have reviewed petitioner’s and CBP’s request and have updated the AD/CVD module accordingly. Non-Market Economy Country For purposes of initiation, petitioner submitted an LTFV analysis for the PRC as an NME.15 Recently, the Department examined the PRC’s market status and determined that NME status should continue for the PRC.16 Additionally, in 11 See ITC Web site located at http://usitc.gov/, which describes 3703.1060 as ‘‘photographic paper, paperboard, and textiles, sensitized: other.’’ 12 See id., which describes HTSUS subheading 4859.10 as ‘‘other: In strips or rolls of a width exceeding 15 cm or in rectangular (including square) sheets with one side exceeding 36 cm and the other side exceeding 15 cm in the unfolded state.’’ 13 See id., which describes HTSUS subheading 4820.10 as ‘‘Registers, account books, notebooks, order books, receipt books, letter pads, memorandum pads, diaries and similar articles.’’ 14 See id., which describes HTSUS subheading 4823.40 as ‘‘Rolls, sheets and dials, printed for selfrecording apparatus.’’ 15 Initiation Notice, 72 FR at 62433. 16 See the Department’s memorandum entitled, ‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Lined Paper Products from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘China’’)—China’s status as a non-market economy (‘‘NME’’),’’ dated August 30, 2006. This document is available online at: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 27505 two recent investigations, the Department also determined that the PRC is an NME country.17 In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the NME status remains in effect until revoked by the Department. The presumption of the NME status of the PRC has not been revoked by the Department and, therefore, remains in effect for purposes of this investigation. Selection of Respondents In accordance with section 777A(c)(2) of the Act, the Department selected the two largest exporters of LWTP (i.e., Hanhong and Kosoku Business Paper Ltd. (‘‘Kosoku’’)) by volume as the mandatory respondents in this investigation based on CBP entry data listed in the data under the HTSUS subheadings 4811.9080.00, 4811.9080.40, 4811.9090.90, 4811.9090.00.18 These two companies appeared to cover a significant share of the total U.S. imports by volume, and both had been identified in the public realm.19 The Department issued its antidumping questionnaire to Hanhong and Kosoku on December 3, 2007.20 In its questionnaire, the Department requested that the two firms provide a response to section A of the Department’s questionnaire on December 24, 2007, and to sections C and D of the questionnaire on January 8, 2008. Additionally we asked Hanhong and Kosoku to notify the official in charge if they did not export/ ship any merchandise falling within the scope of the investigation that entered the United States during the POI. On December 11, 2007, Kosoku contacted the Department and stated that it did not export or ship any merchandise falling under investigation that entered the United States during the POI.21 download/prc-nmestatus/prc-lined-paper-memo08302006.pdf. 17 See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Activated Carbon from the People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 9508 (March 2, 2007), and Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 19690 (April 19, 2007). 18 See the Department’s memorandum entitled, ‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation on Lightweight Thermal Paper from the People’s Republic of China: Selection of Respondents,’’ dated November 29, 2007 (‘‘Respondent Selection Memo’’). 19 See the Department’s memorandum regarding ‘‘Release of Customs Entry data from U.S. Customs and Border Security,’’ dated November 5, 2007. 20 See, e.g., the Department’s letter to Hanhong entitled, ‘‘Antidumping Investigation of Lightweight Thermal Paper from the People’s Republic of China: Questionnaire,’’ dated December 3, 2007. 21 See the Department’s memorandum to the file entitled, ‘‘Lightweight Thermal Paper from the E:\FR\FM\13MYN1.SGM Continued 13MYN1 27506 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Notices rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES Because our Respondent Selection Memo stated that we had resources to investigate two firms with the largest export volume during the POI, and one of the two firms selected (i.e., Kosoku) reported that it did not export or ship merchandise under investigation during the POI, we looked to the next four companies listed in the CBP data to identify and select the next largest exporter by volume as a mandatory respondent. On December 17, 2007, the Department sent Ampress Enterprises Ltd. (‘‘Ampress’’), Arting Stationery Products Factory Ltd. (‘‘Arting’’), Xiamen Anne Paper Co., Ltd. (‘‘Anne Paper’’), and Yalong Paper Product (Kunshan) Co., Ltd. (‘‘Yalong’’) a shipment questionnaire asking each whether the company exported merchandise under investigation that entered the United States during the POI. Responses were due by close of business on December 27, 2007.22 The Department did not receive any responses from any of the four parties as of that deadline. The Department sent a second letter to each of the four parties noted above on December 28, 2007, again requesting information on shipments of merchandise under investigation. Responses were due to the Department no later than January 11, 2008.23 On January 2, 2008, Ampress submitted a response to the Department stating that it did not have any shipments of LWTP during the POI.24 On January 11, 2008, Arting submitted a response to the Department stating that it did not have any shipments of LWTP during the POI.25 Anne Paper and Yalong did not respond to the Department’s first or second requests for information.26 See ‘‘Facts Available and the PRC-wide Entity’’ section below for further information on Anne Paper and Yalong. People’s Republic of China: No Shipments,’’ dated December 12, 2007. 22 See, e.g., the Department’s letter to Ampress entitled, ‘‘Antidumping Investigation of Lightweight Thermal Paper from the People’s Republic of China: Shipment Questionnaire,’’ dated December 17, 2007. 23 See, e.g., the Department’s letter to Ampress entitled, ‘‘Antidumping Investigation of Lightweight Thermal Paper from the People’s Republic of China: Shipment Questionnaire,’’ dated December 28, 2007. 24 See the Department’s memorandum to the file entitled, ‘‘Investigation of Lightweight Thermal Paper from the People’s Republic of China: Ampress Enterprises Ltd. Shipment Questionnaire Response,’’ dated January 3, 2008. 25 See the Department’s memorandum to the file entitled, ‘‘Investigation of Lightweight Thermal Paper from the People’s Republic of China: Arting Stationery Products Factory Ltd. Shipment Questionnaire Response,’’ dated January 11, 2008. 26 See id. VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:14 May 12, 2008 Jkt 214001 Section 782(a) of the Act states that the Department shall examine voluntary respondents: (1) if they submit information within the deadlines established by the Department, and (2) if the number of voluntary respondents is not so large as to be unduly burdensome and inhibit the Department’s timely completion of the review. In the Respondent Selection Memo, we noted that, in the event a mandatory respondent failed to participate, we might, at our discretion, accept a voluntary respondent for review, provided that the voluntary respondent had met the two criteria outlined above. As noted above, one of the two firms selected for investigation, Kosoku, did not ship the merchandise under investigation during the POI. Also, as noted above, the Department was unsuccessful in its attempts to select a second mandatory firm for investigation from the next four firms listed in the CBP data. Because of our statutory deadlines, we determined that we could not expend additional resources in attempting to identify the next largest exporter by volume of merchandise subject to this investigation during the POI to serve as the second firm to be investigated.27 On December 4, 2007, Guanhao reported that it had shipped merchandise under consideration during the POI, and requested that it be treated as a voluntary respondent in this investigation. Further, Guanhao submitted sections A, C, and D questionnaire responses on December 21, 2007, January 9, 2008, and January 16, 2008, respectively, within the Department’s deadlines established in this investigation. Therefore, on January 18, 2008, we determined to accept the voluntary respondent (i.e., Guanhao), pursuant to section 782(a) of the Act.28 Thus, the Department is examining two firms (i.e., Hanhong and Guanhao) in this investigation. We noted, however, that as explained in our Respondent Selection Memorandum, the Department will exclude any individually calculated rate for voluntary respondents (i.e., Guanhao) from the calculation of the rate to be applied to exporters/ producers which qualify for a separate rate but were not selected for examination as mandatory respondents. As stated in the ‘‘Initiation’’ section Respondent Selection Memorandum. the Department’s memorandum regarding, ‘‘Lightweight Thermal Paper from the People’s Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Investigation: Selection of Voluntary Respondent: Guangdong Guanhao High-Tech co., Ltd.,’’ dated January 18, 2008. above, no party filed an SRA in this investigation. Thus, it is not necessary to calculate a weighted-average margin for exporters/producers that were not selected for examination as mandatory respondents in this investigation. Surrogate Value Comments Surrogate factor valuation comments and surrogate value information with which to value the factors of production (‘‘FOPs’’) in this proceeding were filed on February 28, 2008, by Guanhao and on February 29, 2008, by petitioner and Hanhong. On March 12, 2008, petitioner and Hanhong filed rebuttal comments on surrogate factor valuation comments and surrogate value information. For a detailed discussion of the surrogate values used in this LTFV proceeding, see the ‘‘Factor Valuation’’ section below and the Department’s memorandum to the file entitled, ‘‘Antidumping Investigation of Lightweight Thermal Paper from the People’s Republic of China: Factor Valuations for the Preliminary Determination,’’ dated concurrently with this notice (‘‘Surrogate Value Memorandum’’). Surrogate Country Section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to base normal value (‘‘NV’’) on the NME producer’s FOPs, valued in a surrogate market economy (‘‘ME’’) country or countries considered to be appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the FOPs, the Department shall use, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of the FOPs in one or more ME countries that are: (1) At a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country; and (2) significant producers of comparable merchandise. The sources of the surrogate factor values are discussed under the ‘‘Factor Valuations’’ section below. See also Surrogate Value Memorandum. On December 20, 2007, the Department determined that India, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, and Colombia are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development.29 On January 15, 2008, the Department requested comments on the selection of a surrogate country from the interested parties in this investigation. Petitioner submitted comments on February 12, 2008, and 27 See 28 See PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 29 See the Department’s Office of Policy memorandum entitled, ‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation of Lightweight Thermal Paper from the People’s Republic of China (PRC): Request for a List of Surrogate Countries,’’ dated December 20, 2007 (‘‘Policy Memorandum’’). E:\FR\FM\13MYN1.SGM 13MYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Notices Hanhong submitted comments on February 13, 2008. Customarily, we select an appropriate surrogate country from the Policy Memorandum based on the availability and reliability of data from the countries that are significant producers of comparable merchandise. In this case, we found that India is at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC; is a significant producer of comparable merchandise (i.e., LWTP); and has publicly available and reliable data.30 Accordingly, we selected India as the primary surrogate country for purposes of valuing the FOPs in the calculation of NV because it meets the Department’s criteria for surrogate country selection.31 We obtained and relied upon publicly available information wherever possible. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), for the final determination in antidumping investigations, interested parties may submit publicly available information to value FOPs under 19 CFR 351.408(c) within 40 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination.32 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES Separate Rates In the Initiation Notice, the Department notified parties of the recent application process by which exporters and producers may obtain separate-rate status in NME investigations. See Initiation Notice at 62434. The process requires exporters and producers to submit an SRA. See also Policy Bulletin 05.1.33 However, the standard for 30 See the Department’s memorandum to the file entitled, ‘‘Antidumping Investigation of Lightweight Thermal Paper from the People’s Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate Country,’’ dated April 21, 2008 (‘‘Surrogate Country Memorandum’’) 31 See id. 32 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final determination of this investigation, interested parties may submit factual information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information submitted by an interested party less than ten days before, on, or after, the applicable deadline for submission of such factual information. However, the Department notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1) permits new information only insofar as it rebuts, clarifies, or corrects information recently placed on the record. The Department generally cannot accept the submission of additional, previously absentfrom-the-record alternative surrogate value information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). See Glycine from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809 (October 17, 2007) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. 33 Policy Bulletin 05.1 states: ‘‘while continuing the practice of assigning separate rates only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now assign in its NME investigations will be specific to those producers that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note, however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:14 May 12, 2008 Jkt 214001 eligibility for a separate rate (which is whether a firm can demonstrate an absence of both de jure and de facto government control over its export activities) has not changed. In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department has a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single antidumping duty rate. It is the Department’s policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to this 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. Exporters can demonstrate this independence through the absence of both de jure and de facto government control over export activities. The Department analyzes each entity exporting the merchandise subject to this investigation under a test arising from the 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’’), as further developed in 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’’). However, if the Department determines that a company is wholly foreign-owned or located in a market economy, then a separate-rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether it is independent from government control. A. Separate-Rate Recipients No company reported that it is wholly owned by individuals or companies located in a market economy or that it is located outside the PRC in this investigation. Therefore, we are not addressing these ownership structures in this preliminary determination. 1. Joint Ventures between Chinese and Foreign Companies or Wholly ChineseOwned Companies In this investigation no company reported that its ownership structure is a joint venture between Chinese and and all of the producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the period of investigation. This practice applied both to mandatory respondents receiving an individually calculated separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-average of the individually calculated rates. This practice is referred to as the application of ‘‘combination rates’’ because such rates apply to specific combinations of exporters and one or more producers. The cashdeposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to merchandise both exported by the firm in question and produced by a firm that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation.’’ See Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6. PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 27507 Foreign companies. However, both respondents examined (i.e., Hanhong and Guanhao) reported that they are wholly Chinese-owned companies. Therefore, the Department must analyze whether Hanhong and Guanhao can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto government control over their export activities. a. Absence of De Jure Control The Department considers the following de jure criteria in determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an individual exporter’s business and export licenses; (2) any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. The evidence provided by Hanhong and Guanhao supports a preliminary finding of de jure absence of government control based on the following: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the individual exporters’ business and export licenses; (2) there are applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of the companies; and (3) there are formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See, e.g., Hanhong’s and Guanhao’s section A submissions dated January 4, 2008, and December 21, 2007, respectively. b. Absence of De Facto Control Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating whether each respondent is subject to de facto government control of its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or are subject to the approval of a government agency; (2) whether the respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586–87; see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995). The Department has determined that an analysis of de facto control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of government control which would E:\FR\FM\13MYN1.SGM 13MYN1 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES 27508 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Notices preclude the Department from assigning separate rates. In this case petitioner alleged that Guanhao should not receive a separate rate because there is de facto control over Guanhao by the PRC government. See petitioner’s March 20, 2008, submission regarding its comments on the Second Supplemental A Questionnaire Response of Guanhao. Among other things, petitioner alleged that Guanhao’s chairman of the board of directors (‘‘BoD’’) and general manager (‘‘GM’’) are PRC government officials. We solicited additional information from Guanhao regarding petitioner’s allegations as they relate to the Department’s criteria in determining whether there is de facto control by the PRC government over a company’s export activities. See, e.g., Guanhao’s April 4, 2008, and April 18, 2008, supplemental questionnaire responses. In response, Guanhao reported that in addition to its chairman of the BoD and GM, there are several company officials (e.g. directors, managers) that have authority to sign and negotiate sales contracts. Guanhao further reported descriptions of the roles and duties that the BoD and GM assume in their respective non-Guanhao positions in various associations and governmentowned entities. The mere fact that Guanhao’s chairman of the BoD is a board member of a government-owned entity does not in itself demonstrate that he is a government official or is controlled by the PRC central government, nor does membership in various associations, committees, etc. mean that the chairman of the BoD or the GM are controlled by the central PRC government. Instead, we examine whether their roles, duties, etc. in these outside entities and at Guanhao, may potentially or effectively allow these officials to exercise control over certain activities at Guanhao. We do not believe that the roles and duties undertaken by these company officials outside of Guanhao confer government control over the day-to-day activities and decisions regarding its export activities. Furthermore, neither of these company officials have majority control over the disposition of Guanhao’s profits. Guanhao reported that the BoD determined the plan for Guanhao’s disposition of profits, which is then presented to the general shareholders for a vote of approval. Based on the information on the record, there is no evidence that would lead us to conclude that Guanhao’s export prices, sales negotiations or management decisions are controlled by the PRC government. The evidence placed on the record of this investigation by Hanhong and VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:14 May 12, 2008 Jkt 214001 Guanhao demonstrate an absence of de jure and de facto government control with respect to their respective exports of the merchandise under investigation, in accordance with the criteria identified in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide. B. Companies Not Receiving a Separate Rate The Department has determined that all parties applying for a separate rate in this segment of the proceeding have demonstrated an absence of government control both in law and in fact (see discussion above), and is, therefore, not denying separate-rate status to any respondent (i.e., Hanhong and Guanhao). Facts Available and the PRC-Wide Entity Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act provide that the Department shall apply ‘‘facts otherwise available’’ if, inter alia, necessary information is not on the record or 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, as provided by section 782(i) of the Act. Where the Department determines that a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act provides that the Department will so inform the party submitting the response and will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits, subject to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department may disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. 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 December 17, 2007, and December 28, 2007, the Department sent Anne Paper and Yalong a questionnaire asking each whether the company exported merchandise under investigation that PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 entered the United States during the POI.34 We have confirmed that the questionnaires were delivered to Anne Paper and Yalong.35 Responses were due by close of business on December 27, 2007 and January 11, 2008, respectively.36 The Department did not receive any responses from Anne Paper and Yalong. Because Anne Paper and Yalong did not provide any information, we determine that sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act are not relevant to our analysis. We further find that the Anne Paper and Yalong failed to respond to the Department’s requests for information and, therefore, failed to demonstrate that they operate free of government control and that they are entitled to a separate rate. Based on the above facts, the Department preliminarily determines that there were exports of the merchandise subject to this investigation from PRC exporters/ producers that did not respond to the Department’s shipment questionnaire, and we are treating these PRC exporters/ producers as part of the PRC-wide entity. Moreover, because the PRC-wide entity did not cooperate to the best of its ability when it did not respond to our questionnaire asking whether it exported merchandise under investigation that entered the United States during the POI, use of facts available pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Act is warranted for the PRC entity, which includes Anne Paper and Yalong.37 Section 776(b) of the Act provides that if an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for information, the Department may employ adverse inferences.38 We find that, because the PRC-wide entity did not respond to our request for information, it has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. Therefore, the Department preliminarily finds that, in selecting from among the facts available, an adverse inference is appropriate. 34 See Respondent Selection Memorandum. the Department’s memorandum regarding, ‘‘Lightweight Thermal Paper from the People’s Republic of China: Delivery of Shipment Questionnaires,’’ dated March 12, 2008. 36 See, e.g., the Department’s letter to Ampress entitled, ‘‘Antidumping Investigation of Lightweight Thermal Paper from the People’s Republic of China: Shipment Questionnaire,’’ dated December 17, 2007. 37 See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Artist Canvas from the People’s Republic of China, 71 FR 16116 (March 30, 2006) (‘‘Artist Canvas’’). 38 See, e.g., Artist Canvas, 71 FR 16116, 16118 (March 30, 2006). See also, Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep No. 103–316 (‘‘SAA’’) at 870. 35 See E:\FR\FM\13MYN1.SGM 13MYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Notices rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES Selection of the Adverse Facts Available Rate In deciding which facts to use as adverse facts available (‘‘AFA’’), section 776(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) provide that the Department may rely on information derived from (1) The petition, (2) a final determination in the investigation, (3) any previous review or determination, or (4) any information placed on the record. In selecting a rate for AFA, the Department selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse ‘‘as to effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.’’ 39 It is also the Department’s practice to select a rate that ensures ‘‘that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.’’ 40 Generally, the Department finds selecting the highest rate in any segment of the proceeding as AFA to be appropriate.41 It is the Department’s practice to select, as AFA, the higher of the (a) highest margin alleged in the petition, or (b) the highest calculated rate of any respondent in the investigation.42 In the instant investigation, as AFA, we have preliminarily assigned to the PRC-wide entity, including Anne Paper and Yalong, the highest calculated rate on the record of this proceeding, which in this case is the calculated margin for Hanhong. The Department preliminarily determines that this information is the most appropriate from the available sources to effectuate the purposes of AFA. The Department will consider all margins on the record at the time of the final determination for the purpose of determining the most appropriate AFA 39 See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). 40 See Brake Rotors From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the Seventh Administrative Review; Final Results of the Eleventh New Shipper Review, 70 FR 69937, 69939 (November 18, 2005); see also, SAA at 870. 41 See, e.g., Certain Cased Pencils from the People’s Republic of China; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent to Rescind in Part, 70 FR 76755, 76761 (December 28, 2005) Unchanged in Certain Cased Pencils from the People’s Republic of China; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 38366, (July 6, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 10. 42 See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from the People’s Republic of China, 65 FR 34660 (May 21, 2000), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at ‘‘Facts Available.’’ VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:14 May 12, 2008 Jkt 214001 rate for the PRC-wide entity including Anne Paper and Yalong.43 Corroboration Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the course of an investigation as facts available, it must, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is described as ‘‘information derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning merchandise subject to this investigation, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the merchandise subject to this investigation.’’ 44 To ‘‘corroborate’’ means simply that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value.45 Independent sources used to corroborate may include, for example, published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information obtained from interested parties during the particular investigation.46 To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information used.47 As we did not rely upon secondary information, no corroboration was required under section 776(c) of the Act; rather we used the highest margin rate calculated for any respondent in this investigation as the AFA rate for this investigation.48 See the ‘‘Preliminary 43 See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Saccharin from the People’s Republic of China, 67 FR 79049, 79053– 54 (December 27, 2002), unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Saccharin From the People’s Republic of China, 68 FR 27530 (May 20, 2003). 44 See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sodium Hexametaphosphate From the People’s Republic of China, 73 FR 6479, 6481 (February 4, 2008); see also, SAA at 870. 45 See id. 46 See id. 47 See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996), unchanged in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825 (March 13, 1997). 48 See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sodium Hexametaphosphate From the People’s Republic of China, 73 FR 6479 (February 4, 2008). PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 27509 Determination’’ section of this notice below. Consequently, we are applying a single antidumping rate—the PRC-wide rate—to producers/exporters that failed to respond to the Department’s antidumping questionnaires, or requests for shipment information, or did not apply for a separate rate, as applicable. The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of the merchandise under investigation except for entries from respondents, Hanhong and Guanhao. These companies and their corresponding antidumping duty cash deposit rates are listed below in the ‘‘Preliminary Determination’’ section of this notice. Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of LWTP to the United States by the respondents were made at LTFV, we compared export price (‘‘EP’’) to NV, as described in the ‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice. Export Price In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, EP is the price at which the merchandise subject to this investigation is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the merchandise subject to this investigation outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States, as adjusted under section 772(c) of the Act. In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we used EP for Hanhong’s and Guanhao’s U.S. sales because the merchandise subject to this investigation was sold directly to the unaffiliated customers in the United States prior to importation and because constructed export price (‘‘CEP’’) was not otherwise indicated. In response to questions raised by the Petitioner, we reviewed Hanhong’s relationship with its U.S. customer and find that Hanhong and its U.S. customer were not affiliated during the POI under the meaning of section 771(33) of the Act. Our determination in this regard is based on Hanhong’s response that: (1) Its U.S. customer controls the price at which it resells the merchandise under consideration to its U.S. customers; (2) Hanhong’s U.S. customer takes title to the merchandise and thus bears the risk of loss; and (3) the written agreement between Hanhong and its U.S. customer allows Hanhong to sell to other U.S. customers and does not restrict its U.S. customer from purchasing thermal paper from other U.S. domestic or foreign suppliers. Accordingly, we treated Hanhong’s reported sales to the E:\FR\FM\13MYN1.SGM 13MYN1 27510 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Notices rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES United States as EP transactions for the preliminary determination. We calculated EP based on the packed FOB delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in, or for exportation to, the United States. We made deductions, as appropriate, for any movement expenses (e.g., foreign inland freight from the plant to the port of exportation, domestic brokerage) in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.49 Where foreign inland freight or foreign brokerage and handling fees were provided by PRC service providers or paid for in renminbi, we based those charges on surrogate value rates from India. See ‘‘Factor Valuation’’ section below for further discussion of surrogate value rates. In determining the most appropriate surrogate values to use in a given case, the Department’s stated practice is to use period-wide price averages, prices specific to the input in question, prices that are net of taxes and import duties, prices that are contemporaneous with the POI, and publicly available data.50 The data we used for brokerage and handling expenses fulfill all of the foregoing criteria except that they are not specific to the merchandise subject to this investigation. There is no information of that type on the record of this investigation. The Department used two sources to calculate a surrogate value for domestic brokerage expenses: (1) data from the January 9, 2006, public version of the Section C questionnaire response from Kejriwal Paper Ltd. (‘‘Kejriwal’’) in the investigation of certain lined paper products from India; 51 and (2) data from Agro Dutch Industries Ltd. in the administrative review of certain preserved mushrooms 49 For a detailed description of all adjustments, see the Department’s Memorandum to the File entitled, ‘‘Lightweight Thermal Paper from the People’s Republic of China: Analysis of the Preliminary Determination Margin Calculation for Hanhong’’ dated May 6, 2008 (‘‘Hanhong Preliminary Analysis Memorandum’’); and the Department’s Memorandum to the File entitled, ‘‘Lightweight Thermal Paper from the People’s Republic of China: Analysis of the Preliminary Determination Margin Calculation for Guangdong Guanhao High-Tech Co., Ltd.’’ dated May 6, 2008 (‘‘Guanhao Preliminary Analysis Memorandum’’). 50 See, e.g., Certain Cased Pencils from the People’s Republic of China; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 38366 (July 6, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. 51 Kejriwal was a respondent in the certain lined paper products from India investigation for which the POI was July 1, 2004, to June 30, 2005. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances in Part: Certain Lined Paper Products From India, 71 FR 19706 (April 17, 2006) (‘‘CLPP’’) (unchanged in final determination). VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:14 May 12, 2008 Jkt 214001 from India.52 Because these values were not concurrent with the POI of this investigation, we adjusted these rates for inflation using the Wholesale Price Indices (‘‘WPI’’) for India as published in the International Monetary Fund’s (‘‘IMF’s’’) International Financial Statistics, available at http:// ifs.apdi.net/imf, and then calculated a simple average of the two companies’ brokerage expense data.53 Normal Value Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall determine the NV using an FOP methodology if the merchandise is exported from an NME and the information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. The Department bases NV on the FOPs because the presence of government controls on various aspects of NMEs renders price comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under the Department’s normal methodologies. See, e.g., CLPP, 71 FR at 19703 (unchanged in final determination). Guanhao has not provided a complete cost reconciliation to the Department nor has it shown that Guanhao’s reported FOPs tie to its accounting system. However, the Department is using Guanhao’s reported FOPs to calculate its margin for the preliminary determination and is providing Guanhao with a final opportunity to provide a complete cost reconciliation as requested by the Department in the original questionnaire issued on December 3, 2008, and in the two supplemental questionnaires, issued to Guanhao on February 5, 2008, and March 25, 2008. A complete cost reconciliation, including all requested support documentation, is hereby due to the Department no later than 14 days after its receipt of our supplemental questionnaire requesting Guanhao to provide its complete cost reconciliation, which we soon intend to issue to Guanhao. Given the fact that Guanhao was first instructed to provide this cost reconciliation on December 3, 2008, the fact that the Department has granted numerous extensions to Guanhao in which to provide its complete cost 52 See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 37757 (June 30, 2005) (unchanged in final results). 53 See, e.g., Helical Spring Lock Washers From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 52073, 52076 (September 12, 2007) (unchanged in final results). PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 reconciliation, and in light of the impending verification, which is currently scheduled for early June 2008, and statutorily prescribed deadlines, it is unlikely that the Department will be able to grant Guanhao any additional time to provide a complete cost reconciliation in accordance with the Department’s instructions and questions. If Guanhao does not provide a complete cost reconciliation in accordance with the Department’s instructions, we may not conduct verification or consider this company’s data usable for the final determination and may resort to the use of facts available or AFA for all of Guanhao’s data pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act. We may revisit this issue for the final determination pending receipt of the data. Factor Valuations In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV based on FOPs reported by respondents for the POI. To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor-consumption rates by publicly available Indian surrogate values. In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including freight costs to make them delivered prices. Specifically, we added to Indian import surrogate values a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory of production or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory of production, where appropriate. This adjustment is in accordance with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1407– 1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Guanhao reported that certain of its reported raw material inputs were sourced from a ME country and paid for in ME currencies. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), when a respondent sources inputs from an ME supplier in meaningful quantities (i.e., not insignificant quantities), we use the actual price paid by respondents for those inputs, except when prices may have been distorted by findings of dumping by the PRC and/or subsidies.54 Guanhao’s reported information demonstrates that it has both significant and insignificant quantities of certain raw materials purchased from ME suppliers. Where we found ME 54 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27366 (May 19, 1997). E:\FR\FM\13MYN1.SGM 13MYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Notices purchases to be of significant quantities, in accordance with our statement of policy as outlined in Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs,55 we used the actual purchases of these inputs to value the inputs. Accordingly, we valued Guanhao’s inputs using the ME prices paid for in ME currencies for the inputs where the total volume of the input purchased from all ME sources during the POI exceeded 33 percent of the total volume of the input purchased from all sources during the period.56 Where the quantity of the reported input purchased from ME suppliers was below 33 percent of the total volume of the input purchased from all sources during the POI, and were otherwise valid, we weight averaged the ME input’s purchase price with the appropriate surrogate value for the input according to their respective shares of the reported total volume of purchases.57 Where appropriate, we added freight to the ME prices of inputs. For a detailed description of the actual values used for the ME inputs reported, see Guanhao Preliminary. Analysis Memorandum. rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES For this preliminary determination, in accordance with past practice, we used import values from the World Trade Atlas online (‘‘Indian Import Statistics’’), published by the Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics, Ministry of Commerce of India, which were reported in rupees and are contemporaneous with the POI to calculate surrogate values for the respondents’ reported material inputs.58 In selecting the best available information for valuing FOPs in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the Department’s practice is to select, to the extent practicable, surrogate values which are non-export average values, most contemporaneous with the POI, product-specific, and taxexclusive.59 55 See Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for Comments, 71 FR 61716, 61717 (October 19, 2006) (‘‘Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs’’). 56 See Guanhao’s December 21, 2007 section D submission at Exhibit 10. See also Guanhao’s March 20, 2008, supplemental D submission at Exhibit 3. 57 See Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs at 71 FR 61718. 58 See Surrogate Value Memorandum. 59 See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:14 May 12, 2008 Jkt 214001 Where we could not obtain publicly available information contemporaneous with the POI with which to value FOPs, we adjusted the surrogate values using, where appropriate, the Indian WPI as published in the IMF’s. Furthermore, with regard to the Indian import-based surrogate values, we have disregarded import prices that we have reason to believe or suspect may be subsidized. We have reason to believe or suspect that prices of inputs from Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand may have been subsidized. We have found in other proceedings that these countries maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies and, therefore, it is reasonable to infer that all exports to all markets from these countries may be subsidized.60 We are also directed by the legislative history not to conduct a formal investigation to ensure that such prices are not subsidized.61 Rather, Congress directed the Department to base its decision on information that is available to it at the time it makes its determination. Therefore, we have not used prices from these countries in calculating the Indian import-based surrogate values. In instances where an ME input was obtained solely from suppliers located in these countries, we used Indian import-based surrogate values to value the input. In addition, we excluded Indian import data from NME and undesignated countries from our surrogate value calculations.62 In this case, parties have debated which surrogate value is the best available information for valuing coated jumbo rolls of thermal paper (‘‘CJRs’’). Hanhong argues in favor of using the average of three Indonesian HTS categories contending that these data account for much larger import quantities than Indian imports of CJRs and represent average unit prices that are more comparative to the ‘‘normal value’’ German benchmark which it calculated from publicly available data from the companion German investigation. Hanhong also asserts that Indian import values for CJRs during the Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 71005 (December 8. 2004). 60 See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color Television Receivers From the People’s Republic of China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 7. 61 See Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, Conference Report to Accompanying H.R. 3, H.R. Rep. 100–576 at 590 (1988). 62 See Surrogate Value Memorandum. PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 27511 POI are aberrational because of small quantities and specialized imports.63 Petitioner argues that the single Indian HTS category is more appropriate as a surrogate value because it is the only value that is specific to CJRs. Additionally, petitioner asserts that these Indian data are not aberrational as evidenced by the pattern of the WTA yearly data for the category showing average prices remaining constant over a three-year period. Petitioner claims that two of the three Indonesian HTS categories submitted by Hanhong do not exist, and the third is incorrect. All the HTS data, including the Indian and Indonesian values that parties have proposed that the Department use to value the CJRs in this preliminary determination are contemporaneous with the POI and are tax-exclusive values. However, the Indonesian HTS categories submitted by Hanhong are broad basket categories. Where a category is more specific to an input it is the Department’s preference to use that category rather than a basket category. See Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews: Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 46957 (August 22, 2007), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 13; See also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part: Certain Lined Paper Products From the People’s Republic of China, 71 FR 53079, (September 8, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3 (where the Department declined to use a broad basket category because it was not as specific to the input being valued as other potential sources on the record of the proceeding). Furthermore, we have not considered using the German value as a benchmark (provided by Hanhong) because Germany is not on the list of possible surrogate countries due to its advanced level of economic development, and we have a value on the record from India, a country deemed in this proceeding to be economically comparable to the PRC, which is specific to CJRs. Therefore, the Department has valued CJRs with Indian imports from HTS 4811.90.94 for this preliminary determination because this Indian HTS category is more specific to CJRs reported by the respondent, and as 63 See, e.g., Hanhong’s submission regarding, ‘‘Lightweight Thermal Paper from the People’s Republic of China: Rebuttal regarding Surrogate Values,’’ dated March 12, 2008, at pages 3 and 4. E:\FR\FM\13MYN1.SGM 13MYN1 27512 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Notices such, is the best available information currently on the record. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), we encourage interested parties to submit additional publicly available information for consideration in valuing CJRs within 40 days after the date of publication of this determination. We used Indian transport information to value the inland truck, rail, and waterway freight cost of the raw materials. The Department valued truck freight using Indian freight rates published by Indian Freight Exchange available at http://www.infreight.com. This source provided daily rates from six major points of origin to six destinations in India for the period April 2005, through October 2005. We averaged the monthly rates for each rate observation to obtain a surrogate value. The Department determined the best available information for valuing rail freight to be from http:// www.indianrailways.gov.in. To value waterway freight, we used an Indian domestic ship rate from Indian Waterways Authority. For data that were not contemporaneous with the POI, we adjusted the rates for inflation using WPI, where applicable. For direct, indirect, and packing labor, consistent with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC regression-based wage rate as reported on Import Administration’s web page, Import Library, Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries, revised in January 2007, available at http:// ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html. Because this regression-based wage rate does not separate the labor rates into different skill levels or types of labor, we have applied the same wage rate to all skill levels and types of labor reported by the respondent. If the NME wage rates are updated by the Department prior to issuance of the final determination, we will use the updated wage rate in the final LTFV determination. The Department is currently in the process of updating its regression-based wage rate for the PRC for 2007. The deadline for submitting comments on the 2007 expected wages of selected NME countries’ calculation was May 1, 2008 and the Department intends to finalize its calculations based on 2005 GNI within one month thereafter. See http://www.trade.gov/ia/. Therefore, for the final determination of this investigation we intend to update our PRC Expected Hourly Wage Rate with the finalized 2007 expected wages calculation. To value electricity, we used data from the International Energy Agency Key World Energy Statistics (2003 edition). Because the value was not contemporaneous with the POI, we adjusted the value for inflation. The Department valued water using data from the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation http:// www.midcindia.org because it includes a wide range of industrial water tariffs. This source provides 386 industrial water rates within the Maharashtra province from June 2003: 193 for the ‘‘inside industrial areas’’ usage category and 193 for the ‘‘outside industrial areas’’ usage category. Because the value was not contemporaneous with the POI, we adjusted the rate for inflation. To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses, and profit, we used audited financial statements for the year ending March 31, 2006, of two Indian producers of identical and comparable merchandise, Parag Copigraph Pvt. Ltd. (‘‘Parag’’) and Alpha Carbonless Paper Ltd. (‘‘Alpha’’).64 The Department may consider other publicly available financial statements for the final determination, as appropriate. Currency Conversion We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. Verification As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we intend to verify the information from Hanhong and Guanhao upon which we will rely in making our final determination. However, as noted in the ‘‘Normal Value’’ section above, should Guanhao fail to provide a complete cost reconciliation, the Department may determine that there is insufficient cost reconciliation information to warrant verification of any of Guanhao’s information on the record. Combination Rates In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that it would calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this investigation.65 This practice is described in the Separate Rate Policy Bulletin. Preliminary Determination The weighted-average dumping margin percentages are as follows: Exporter/producer combination Customs ID No. Exporter: Shanghai Hanhong Paper Co., Ltd., also known as, Hanhong International Limited; Producer: Shanghai Hanhong Paper Co. Ltd ............................................................................................................... Exporter: Guangdong Guanhao High-Tech Co., Ltd.; Producer: Guangdong Guanhao High-Tech Co., Ltd PRC–Wide Entity* ............................................................................................................................................ Percent margin A–570–920–001 A–570–920–002 A–570–920–000 132.95 2.30 132.95 * Includes Anne Paper and Yalong. In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we will instruct CBP to suspend liquidation of all entries of merchandise subject to this investigation, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. The Department has determined in its Lightweight Thermal Paper from the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination with Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 73 FR 13850 (March 14, 2008) (‘‘CVD LWTP Prelim’’), 64 See petitioner’s submission entitled, ‘‘Lightweight Thermal Paper From China,’’ dated March 19, 2008, and Surrogate Value Memorandum. Disclosure We will disclose the calculations performed to parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES Suspension of Liquidation VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:14 May 12, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 that the product under investigation, exported and produced by Guanhao, benefitted from an export subsidy. Normally, where the product under investigation is also subject to a concurrent countervailing duty investigation, we instruct CBP to require an antidumping cash deposit or posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds the EP, as indicated above, minus the amount determined to constitute an 65 See E:\FR\FM\13MYN1.SGM Initiation Notice, 72 FR at 62435. 13MYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 93 / Tuesday, May 13, 2008 / Notices export subsidy. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From India, 69 FR 67306, 67307 (November 17, 2007). Therefore, for merchandise under consideration entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after publication date of this preliminary determination exported and produced by Guanhao, we will instruct CBP to require an antidumping cash deposit or the posting of a bond for each entry equal to the weighted-average margin indicated above, adjusted for the export subsidy rate determined in CVD LWTP Prelim. For the remaining exporter/producer combinations listed in the chart above, the following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the preliminary determination for all shipments of merchandise under consideration entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after publication date: (1) The rate for the exporter/producer combinations listed in the chart above will be the rate we have determined in this preliminary determination, except as noted above for Guanhao; (2) for all PRC exporters of merchandise subject to this investigation that have not received their own rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate; (3) for all nonPRC exporters of merchandise subject to this investigation that have not received their own rate, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter/producer combination that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These suspension-of-liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice. We will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds U.S. price, as indicated above. The suspension of liquidation will remain in effect until further notice. rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES International Trade Commission Notification In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of our preliminary affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Section 735(b)(2) of the Act requires the ITC to make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of LWTP, or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation, of the merchandise under consideration within 45 days of our final determination. VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:14 May 12, 2008 Jkt 214001 27513 Public Comment DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no later than seven days after the date on which the final verification report is issued in this proceeding and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309. A table of contents, list of authorities used and an executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. This summary should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. The Department also requests that parties provide an electronic copy of its case and rebuttal brief submissions in either a ‘‘Microsoft Word’’ or a ‘‘pdf’’ format. In accordance with section 774 of the Act, we will hold a public hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. Interested parties, who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.66 Requests should contain the party’s name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, we intend to hold the hearing three days after the deadline of submission of rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and location to be determined. See 19 CFR 351.310. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date. We will make our final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination, pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act. This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Defense Acquisition Regulations System Dated: May 6, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8–10663 Filed 5–12–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 66 See PO 00000 19 CFR 351.310(c). Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Information Collection Requirement; Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Construction and Architect-Engineer Contracts (OMB Control Number 0704–0255) Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD). ACTION: Notice and request for comments regarding a proposed extension of an approved information collection requirement. AGENCY: SUMMARY: In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), DoD announces the proposed extension of a public information collection requirement and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. DoD invites comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of DoD, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved this information collection requirement for use through May 31, 2008. DoD proposes that OMB extend its approval for use for three additional years. DATES: DoD will consider all comments received by July 14, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by OMB Control Number 0704–0255, using any of the following methods: Æ Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Æ E-mail: dfars@osd.mil. Include OMB Control Number 0704–0255 in the subject line of the message. Æ Fax: 703–602–7887. Æ Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Amy Williams, OUSD(AT&L) DPAP (DARS), IMD 3D139, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301–3062. Æ Hand Delivery/Courier: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Crystal Square 4, Suite 200A, 241 18th Street, Arlington, VA 22202–3402. E:\FR\FM\13MYN1.SGM 13MYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 93 (Tuesday, May 13, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27504-27513]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-10663]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-920]


Lightweight Thermal Paper From the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Postponement of Final Determination

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

DATES: Effective Date: May 13, 2008.

SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine that lightweight thermal paper 
(``LWTP'') from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'') is being, or 
is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value 
(``LTFV''), as provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (``the Act''). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown 
in the ``Preliminary Determination'' section of this notice. Pursuant 
to requests from interested parties, we are postponing the final 
determination and extending the provisional measures from a four-month 
period to not more than six months. Accordingly, we will make our final 
determination not later than 135 days after publication of the 
preliminary determination. See the ``Postponement of the Final 
Determination'' section below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frances Veith or Marin Weaver, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4295 or (202) 482-2336, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Initiation

    On September 19, 2007, Appleton Papers, Inc. (``petitioner'' or 
``Appleton''), filed an antidumping petition in proper form on behalf 
of the domestic industry and workers producing LWTP, concerning imports 
of LWTP from Germany, the Republic of Korea (``Korea''), and the PRC, 
in addition to a countervailing duty petition on LWTP from the PRC. See 
Antidumping Duty Petition on Lightweight Thermal Paper from Germany, 
the Republic of Korea, and the People's Republic of China and 
Countervailing Duty Petition on Lightweight Thermal Paper from the 
People's Republic of China, dated September 19, 2007 (the 
``Petition'').
    On October 16, 2007, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department''), pursuant to section 732(c)(1)(B) of the Act, extended 
the deadline for the initiation determination in order to determine the 
adequacy of the petition.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Notice of Extension of the Deadline for Determining the 
Adequacy of the Antidumping Duty Petitions: Lightweight Thermal 
Paper from Germany, the Republic of Korea, and the People's Republic 
of China; and the Countervailing Duty Petition: Lightweight Thermal 
Paper from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 58639 (October 16, 
2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department initiated this investigation on October 29, 2007.\2\ 
In the Initiation Notice, the Department notified parties of the 
application process by which exporters and producers may obtain 
separate-rate status in non-market economy (``NME'') investigations. 
The process requires exporters and producers to submit a separate-rate 
status application (``SRA'').\3\ However, the standard for eligibility 
for a separate rate (which is whether a firm can demonstrate an absence 
of both de jure and de facto government control over its export 
activities) has not changed. The SRA for this investigation was posted 
on the Department's Web site http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-highlights-and-
news.html on November 5, 2007. The due date for filing an SRA was 
December 28, 2007. No party filed an SRA in this investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: 
Lightweight Thermal Paper from Germany, the Republic of Korea, and 
the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 62430 (November 5, 2007) 
(``Initiation Notice'').
    \3\ See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and 
Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations 
involving Non-Market Economy Countries (April 5, 2005) (``Policy 
Bulletin 05.1''), available at <http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/
bulletin05-1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 5, 2007, the International Trade Commission (``ITC'') 
determined that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in 
the United States is materially injured or threatened with material 
injury by reason of imports of LWTP from the PRC.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Investigation Nos. 701-TA-451 and 731-TA-1126-1128 
(Preliminary): Certain Lightweight Thermal Paper from China, 
Germany, and Korea, 72 FR 70343 (December 11, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (``POI'') is January 1, 2007, through 
June 30, 2007. This period corresponds to the two most recent fiscal 
quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition, which was 
September 2007. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).

Postponement of Preliminary Determination

    On February 6, 2008, petitioner made a timely request pursuant to 
section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(2) and (e) for a 
50-day postponement of the preliminary determination. On February 25, 
2008, the Department published a postponement of the preliminary 
antidumping duty determination on LWTP from the PRC.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Lightweight Thermal Paper From Germany and the People's 
Republic of China: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations of 
Antidumping Duty Investigations, 73 FR 9997 (February 25, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Postponement of Final Determination

    On April 14, 2008, and May 2, 2008, Hanhong International Limited, 
Shanghai Hanhong Paper Co., Ltd., and Hong Kong Hanhong Ltd. 
(collectively (``Hanhong'')) and Guangdong Guanhao High-Tech Co., Ltd. 
(``Guanhao''), respectively, made a timely request pursuant to section 
735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii) that the 
Department extend the final determination by the full amount of time 
allowed by law. On May 6, 2008, Hanhong and Guanhao supplemented their 
requests to extend the final determination to include requests to 
extend provisional measures pursuant to section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act 
and 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2).

Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation includes certain 
lightweight thermal paper, which is thermal paper with a basis weight 
of 70 grams per square meter (g/m2) (with a tolerance of 
 4.0 g/m\2\) or less;

[[Page 27505]]

irrespective of dimensions; \6\ with or without a base coat \7\ on one 
or both sides; with thermal active coating(s) \8\ on one or both sides 
that is a mixture of the dye and the developer that react and form an 
image when heat is applied; with or without a top coat; \9\ and without 
an adhesive backing. Certain lightweight thermal paper is typically 
(but not exclusively) used in point-of-sale applications such as ATM 
receipts, credit card receipts, gas pump receipts, and retail store 
receipts. The merchandise subject to this investigation may be 
classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(``HTSUS'') under subheadings 4811.90.8040, 4811.90.9090, 3703.10.60, 
4811.59.20, 4820.10.20, and 4823.40.00.\10\ Although HTSUS subheadings 
are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written 
description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ LWTP is typically produced in jumbo rolls that are slit to 
the specifications of the converting equipment and then converted 
into finished slit rolls. Both jumbo and converted rolls (as well as 
LWTP in any other form, presentation, or dimension) are covered by 
the scope of these investigations.
    \7\ A base coat, when applied, is typically made of clay and/or 
latex and like materials and is intended to cover the rough surface 
of the paper substrate and to provide insulating value.
    \8\ A thermal active coating is typically made of sensitizer, 
dye, and co-reactant.
    \9\ A top coat, when applied, is typically made of polyvinyl 
acetone, polyvinyl alcohol, and/or like materials and is intended to 
provide environmental protection, an improved surface for press 
printing, and/or wear protection for the thermal print head.
    \10\ HTSUS subheading 4811.90.8000 was a classification used for 
LWTP until January 1, 2007. Effective that date, subheading 
4811.90.8000 was replaced with 4811.90.8020 (for gift wrap, a 
nonsubject product) and 4811.90.8040 (for ``other'' including LWTP). 
HTSUS subheading 4811.90.9000 was a classification for LWTP until 
July 1, 2005. Effective that date, subheading 4811.90.9000 was 
replaced with 4811.90.9010 (for tissue paper, a nonsubject product) 
and 4811.90.9090 (for ``other,'' including LWTP). Petitioner 
indicated that, from time to time, LWTP also may have been entered 
under HTSUS subheading 3703.90, HTSUS heading 4805, and perhaps 
other subheadings of the HTSUS, including HTSUS subheadings: 
3703.10.60, 4811.59.20, 4820.10.20, and 4823.40.00.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope Comments

    We set aside a period for interested parties to raise issues 
regarding product coverage. See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 
Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). The Department 
encouraged all interested parties to submit such comments within 20 
calendar days of signature of the Initiation Notice, 72 FR at 62431. We 
only received comments on the scope from petitioner. See petitioner's 
letter to the Department regarding, ``Lightweight Thermal Paper From 
China, Germany, And Korea,'' dated November 19, 2007. Petitioner 
requested that the Department include in LWTP's scope language the 
HTSUS subheadings 3703.10.60,\11\ 4811.59,\12\ 4820.10,\13\ and 4823.40 
\14\ because LWTP may enter the United States under one of these HTSUS 
subheadings. Specifically, the petitioner contends that HTSUS 
subheading 3703.1060 should be included because LWTP is sensitive to 
heat radiation; LWTP with certain latex topcoats could enter as paper 
coated with plastic under HTSUS subheading 4811.59; HTSUS subheading 
4820.10's description may encompass products converted from thermal 
paper; and HTSUS subheading 4823.40's description appears to encompass 
LWTP not elsewhere specified within the HTSUS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See ITC Web site located at http://usitc.gov/, which 
describes 3703.1060 as ``photographic paper, paperboard, and 
textiles, sensitized: other.''
    \12\ See id., which describes HTSUS subheading 4859.10 as 
``other: In strips or rolls of a width exceeding 15 cm or in 
rectangular (including square) sheets with one side exceeding 36 cm 
and the other side exceeding 15 cm in the unfolded state.''
    \13\ See id., which describes HTSUS subheading 4820.10 as 
``Registers, account books, notebooks, order books, receipt books, 
letter pads, memorandum pads, diaries and similar articles.''
    \14\ See id., which describes HTSUS subheading 4823.40 as 
``Rolls, sheets and dials, printed for self-recording apparatus.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Petition we stated that merchandise subject to this 
investigation may be classified in the HTSUS under subheadings 
4811.90.8040 and 4811.90.9090. On April 11, 2008 and April 16, 2008, 
the Department received a request from U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (``CBP'') to update the antidumping and countervailing duty 
(``AD/CVD'') module for LWTP from the PRC. Specifically, CBP requested 
that the Department add HTSUS subheadings 3703.10.60, 4811.59.20, 
4820.10.20, and 4823.40.00 to the AD/CVD module. See the Department's 
memorandum to the file entitled, ``Request from Customs and Border 
Protection to update AD/CVD Module,'' dated April 17, 2008. We have 
reviewed petitioner's and CBP's request and have updated the AD/CVD 
module accordingly.

Non-Market Economy Country

    For purposes of initiation, petitioner submitted an LTFV analysis 
for the PRC as an NME.\15\ Recently, the Department examined the PRC's 
market status and determined that NME status should continue for the 
PRC.\16\ Additionally, in two recent investigations, the Department 
also determined that the PRC is an NME country.\17\ In accordance with 
section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the NME status remains in effect 
until revoked by the Department. The presumption of the NME status of 
the PRC has not been revoked by the Department and, therefore, remains 
in effect for purposes of this investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Initiation Notice, 72 FR at 62433.
    \16\ See the Department's memorandum entitled, ``Antidumping 
Duty Investigation of Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's 
Republic of China (``China'')--China's status as a non-market 
economy (``NME''),'' dated August 30, 2006. This document is 
available online at: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/download/prc-nmestatus/
prc-lined-paper-memo-08302006.pdf.
    \17\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Activated Carbon from the People's Republic of China, 72 FR 
9508 (March 2, 2007), and Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical 
Circumstances: Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from the People's 
Republic of China, 72 FR 19690 (April 19, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Selection of Respondents

    In accordance with section 777A(c)(2) of the Act, the Department 
selected the two largest exporters of LWTP (i.e., Hanhong and Kosoku 
Business Paper Ltd. (``Kosoku'')) by volume as the mandatory 
respondents in this investigation based on CBP entry data listed in the 
data under the HTSUS subheadings 4811.9080.00, 4811.9080.40, 
4811.9090.90, 4811.9090.00.\18\ These two companies appeared to cover a 
significant share of the total U.S. imports by volume, and both had 
been identified in the public realm.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See the Department's memorandum entitled, ``Antidumping 
Duty Investigation on Lightweight Thermal Paper from the People's 
Republic of China: Selection of Respondents,'' dated November 29, 
2007 (``Respondent Selection Memo'').
    \19\ See the Department's memorandum regarding ``Release of 
Customs Entry data from U.S. Customs and Border Security,'' dated 
November 5, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department issued its antidumping questionnaire to Hanhong and 
Kosoku on December 3, 2007.\20\ In its questionnaire, the Department 
requested that the two firms provide a response to section A of the 
Department's questionnaire on December 24, 2007, and to sections C and 
D of the questionnaire on January 8, 2008. Additionally we asked 
Hanhong and Kosoku to notify the official in charge if they did not 
export/ship any merchandise falling within the scope of the 
investigation that entered the United States during the POI. On 
December 11, 2007, Kosoku contacted the Department and stated that it 
did not export or ship any merchandise falling under investigation that 
entered the United States during the POI.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See, e.g., the Department's letter to Hanhong entitled, 
``Antidumping Investigation of Lightweight Thermal Paper from the 
People's Republic of China: Questionnaire,'' dated December 3, 2007.
    \21\ See the Department's memorandum to the file entitled, 
``Lightweight Thermal Paper from the People's Republic of China: No 
Shipments,'' dated December 12, 2007.

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

[[Page 27506]]

    Because our Respondent Selection Memo stated that we had resources 
to investigate two firms with the largest export volume during the POI, 
and one of the two firms selected (i.e., Kosoku) reported that it did 
not export or ship merchandise under investigation during the POI, we 
looked to the next four companies listed in the CBP data to identify 
and select the next largest exporter by volume as a mandatory 
respondent. On December 17, 2007, the Department sent Ampress 
Enterprises Ltd. (``Ampress''), Arting Stationery Products Factory Ltd. 
(``Arting''), Xiamen Anne Paper Co., Ltd. (``Anne Paper''), and Yalong 
Paper Product (Kunshan) Co., Ltd. (``Yalong'') a shipment questionnaire 
asking each whether the company exported merchandise under 
investigation that entered the United States during the POI. Responses 
were due by close of business on December 27, 2007.\22\ The Department 
did not receive any responses from any of the four parties as of that 
deadline. The Department sent a second letter to each of the four 
parties noted above on December 28, 2007, again requesting information 
on shipments of merchandise under investigation. Responses were due to 
the Department no later than January 11, 2008.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See, e.g., the Department's letter to Ampress entitled, 
``Antidumping Investigation of Lightweight Thermal Paper from the 
People's Republic of China: Shipment Questionnaire,'' dated December 
17, 2007.
    \23\ See, e.g., the Department's letter to Ampress entitled, 
``Antidumping Investigation of Lightweight Thermal Paper from the 
People's Republic of China: Shipment Questionnaire,'' dated December 
28, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 2, 2008, Ampress submitted a response to the Department 
stating that it did not have any shipments of LWTP during the POI.\24\ 
On January 11, 2008, Arting submitted a response to the Department 
stating that it did not have any shipments of LWTP during the POI.\25\ 
Anne Paper and Yalong did not respond to the Department's first or 
second requests for information.\26\ See ``Facts Available and the PRC-
wide Entity'' section below for further information on Anne Paper and 
Yalong.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See the Department's memorandum to the file entitled, 
``Investigation of Lightweight Thermal Paper from the People's 
Republic of China: Ampress Enterprises Ltd. Shipment Questionnaire 
Response,'' dated January 3, 2008.
    \25\ See the Department's memorandum to the file entitled, 
``Investigation of Lightweight Thermal Paper from the People's 
Republic of China: Arting Stationery Products Factory Ltd. Shipment 
Questionnaire Response,'' dated January 11, 2008.
    \26\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 782(a) of the Act states that the Department shall examine 
voluntary respondents: (1) if they submit information within the 
deadlines established by the Department, and (2) if the number of 
voluntary respondents is not so large as to be unduly burdensome and 
inhibit the Department's timely completion of the review.
    In the Respondent Selection Memo, we noted that, in the event a 
mandatory respondent failed to participate, we might, at our 
discretion, accept a voluntary respondent for review, provided that the 
voluntary respondent had met the two criteria outlined above. As noted 
above, one of the two firms selected for investigation, Kosoku, did not 
ship the merchandise under investigation during the POI. Also, as noted 
above, the Department was unsuccessful in its attempts to select a 
second mandatory firm for investigation from the next four firms listed 
in the CBP data. Because of our statutory deadlines, we determined that 
we could not expend additional resources in attempting to identify the 
next largest exporter by volume of merchandise subject to this 
investigation during the POI to serve as the second firm to be 
investigated.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Respondent Selection Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 4, 2007, Guanhao reported that it had shipped 
merchandise under consideration during the POI, and requested that it 
be treated as a voluntary respondent in this investigation. Further, 
Guanhao submitted sections A, C, and D questionnaire responses on 
December 21, 2007, January 9, 2008, and January 16, 2008, respectively, 
within the Department's deadlines established in this investigation. 
Therefore, on January 18, 2008, we determined to accept the voluntary 
respondent (i.e., Guanhao), pursuant to section 782(a) of the Act.\28\ 
Thus, the Department is examining two firms (i.e., Hanhong and Guanhao) 
in this investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See the Department's memorandum regarding, ``Lightweight 
Thermal Paper from the People's Republic of China: Antidumping Duty 
Investigation: Selection of Voluntary Respondent: Guangdong Guanhao 
High-Tech co., Ltd.,'' dated January 18, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We noted, however, that as explained in our Respondent Selection 
Memorandum, the Department will exclude any individually calculated 
rate for voluntary respondents (i.e., Guanhao) from the calculation of 
the rate to be applied to exporters/producers which qualify for a 
separate rate but were not selected for examination as mandatory 
respondents. As stated in the ``Initiation'' section above, no party 
filed an SRA in this investigation. Thus, it is not necessary to 
calculate a weighted-average margin for exporters/producers that were 
not selected for examination as mandatory respondents in this 
investigation.

Surrogate Value Comments

    Surrogate factor valuation comments and surrogate value information 
with which to value the factors of production (``FOPs'') in this 
proceeding were filed on February 28, 2008, by Guanhao and on February 
29, 2008, by petitioner and Hanhong. On March 12, 2008, petitioner and 
Hanhong filed rebuttal comments on surrogate factor valuation comments 
and surrogate value information. For a detailed discussion of the 
surrogate values used in this LTFV proceeding, see the ``Factor 
Valuation'' section below and the Department's memorandum to the file 
entitled, ``Antidumping Investigation of Lightweight Thermal Paper from 
the People's Republic of China: Factor Valuations for the Preliminary 
Determination,'' dated concurrently with this notice (``Surrogate Value 
Memorandum'').

Surrogate Country

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to base normal 
value (``NV'') on the NME producer's FOPs, valued in a surrogate market 
economy (``ME'') country or countries considered to be appropriate by 
the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in 
valuing the FOPs, the Department shall use, to the extent possible, the 
prices or costs of the FOPs in one or more ME countries that are: (1) 
At a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME 
country; and (2) significant producers of comparable merchandise. The 
sources of the surrogate factor values are discussed under the ``Factor 
Valuations'' section below. See also Surrogate Value Memorandum.
    On December 20, 2007, the Department determined that India, 
Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, and Colombia are countries 
comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development.\29\ On January 
15, 2008, the Department requested comments on the selection of a 
surrogate country from the interested parties in this investigation. 
Petitioner submitted comments on February 12, 2008, and

[[Page 27507]]

Hanhong submitted comments on February 13, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See the Department's Office of Policy memorandum entitled, 
``Antidumping Duty Investigation of Lightweight Thermal Paper from 
the People's Republic of China (PRC): Request for a List of 
Surrogate Countries,'' dated December 20, 2007 (``Policy 
Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Customarily, we select an appropriate surrogate country from the 
Policy Memorandum based on the availability and reliability of data 
from the countries that are significant producers of comparable 
merchandise. In this case, we found that India is at a level of 
economic development comparable to that of the PRC; is a significant 
producer of comparable merchandise (i.e., LWTP); and has publicly 
available and reliable data.\30\ Accordingly, we selected India as the 
primary surrogate country for purposes of valuing the FOPs in the 
calculation of NV because it meets the Department's criteria for 
surrogate country selection.\31\ We obtained and relied upon publicly 
available information wherever possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See the Department's memorandum to the file entitled, 
``Antidumping Investigation of Lightweight Thermal Paper from the 
People's Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate Country,'' 
dated April 21, 2008 (``Surrogate Country Memorandum'')
    \31\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), for the final 
determination in antidumping investigations, interested parties may 
submit publicly available information to value FOPs under 19 CFR 
351.408(c) within 40 days after the date of publication of this 
preliminary determination.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final 
determination of this investigation, interested parties may submit 
factual information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual 
information submitted by an interested party less than ten days 
before, on, or after, the applicable deadline for submission of such 
factual information. However, the Department notes that 19 CFR 
351.301(c)(1) permits new information only insofar as it rebuts, 
clarifies, or corrects information recently placed on the record. 
The Department generally cannot accept the submission of additional, 
previously absent-from-the-record alternative surrogate value 
information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). See Glycine from the 
People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Final Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809 
(October 17, 2007) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 
at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate Rates

    In the Initiation Notice, the Department notified parties of the 
recent application process by which exporters and producers may obtain 
separate-rate status in NME investigations. See Initiation Notice at 
62434. The process requires exporters and producers to submit an SRA. 
See also Policy Bulletin 05.1.\33\ However, the standard for 
eligibility for a separate rate (which is whether a firm can 
demonstrate an absence of both de jure and de facto government control 
over its export activities) has not changed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Policy Bulletin 05.1 states: ``while continuing the 
practice of assigning separate rates only to exporters, all separate 
rates that the Department will now assign in its NME investigations 
will be specific to those producers that supplied the exporter 
during the period of investigation. Note, however, that one rate is 
calculated for the exporter and all of the producers which supplied 
subject merchandise to it during the period of investigation. This 
practice applied both to mandatory respondents receiving an 
individually calculated separate rate as well as the pool of non-
investigated firms receiving the weighted-average of the 
individually calculated rates. This practice is referred to as the 
application of ``combination rates'' because such rates apply to 
specific combinations of exporters and one or more producers. The 
cash-deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to 
merchandise both exported by the firm in question and produced by a 
firm that supplied the exporter during the period of 
investigation.'' See Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department has a 
rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are 
subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single 
antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all 
exporters of merchandise subject to this 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. 
Exporters can demonstrate this independence through the absence of both 
de jure and de facto government control over export activities. The 
Department analyzes each entity exporting the merchandise subject to 
this investigation under a test arising from the 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''), 
as further developed in 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''). However, if the 
Department determines that a company is wholly foreign-owned or located 
in a market economy, then a separate-rate analysis is not necessary to 
determine whether it is independent from government control.

A. Separate-Rate Recipients

    No company reported that it is wholly owned by individuals or 
companies located in a market economy or that it is located outside the 
PRC in this investigation. Therefore, we are not addressing these 
ownership structures in this preliminary determination.
1. Joint Ventures between Chinese and Foreign Companies or Wholly 
Chinese-Owned Companies
    In this investigation no company reported that its ownership 
structure is a joint venture between Chinese and Foreign companies. 
However, both respondents examined (i.e., Hanhong and Guanhao) reported 
that they are wholly Chinese-owned companies. Therefore, the Department 
must analyze whether Hanhong and Guanhao can demonstrate the absence of 
both de jure and de facto government control over their export 
activities.
a. Absence of De Jure Control
    The Department considers the following de jure criteria in 
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate 
rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an 
individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative 
enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) other formal 
measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See 
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.
    The evidence provided by Hanhong and Guanhao supports a preliminary 
finding of de jure absence of government control based on the 
following: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with 
the individual exporters' business and export licenses; (2) there are 
applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of the 
companies; and (3) there are formal measures by the government 
decentralizing control of companies. See, e.g., Hanhong's and Guanhao's 
section A submissions dated January 4, 2008, and December 21, 2007, 
respectively.
b. Absence of De Facto Control
    Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating 
whether each respondent is subject to de facto government control of 
its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or are 
subject to the approval of a government agency; (2) whether the 
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other 
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government 
in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) 
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and 
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or 
financing of losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-87; see also 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 
22545 (May 8, 1995). The Department has determined that an analysis of 
de facto control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in 
fact, subject to a degree of government control which would

[[Page 27508]]

preclude the Department from assigning separate rates.
    In this case petitioner alleged that Guanhao should not receive a 
separate rate because there is de facto control over Guanhao by the PRC 
government. See petitioner's March 20, 2008, submission regarding its 
comments on the Second Supplemental A Questionnaire Response of 
Guanhao. Among other things, petitioner alleged that Guanhao's chairman 
of the board of directors (``BoD'') and general manager (``GM'') are 
PRC government officials. We solicited additional information from 
Guanhao regarding petitioner's allegations as they relate to the 
Department's criteria in determining whether there is de facto control 
by the PRC government over a company's export activities. See, e.g., 
Guanhao's April 4, 2008, and April 18, 2008, supplemental questionnaire 
responses. In response, Guanhao reported that in addition to its 
chairman of the BoD and GM, there are several company officials (e.g. 
directors, managers) that have authority to sign and negotiate sales 
contracts. Guanhao further reported descriptions of the roles and 
duties that the BoD and GM assume in their respective non-Guanhao 
positions in various associations and government-owned entities. The 
mere fact that Guanhao's chairman of the BoD is a board member of a 
government-owned entity does not in itself demonstrate that he is a 
government official or is controlled by the PRC central government, nor 
does membership in various associations, committees, etc. mean that the 
chairman of the BoD or the GM are controlled by the central PRC 
government. Instead, we examine whether their roles, duties, etc. in 
these outside entities and at Guanhao, may potentially or effectively 
allow these officials to exercise control over certain activities at 
Guanhao. We do not believe that the roles and duties undertaken by 
these company officials outside of Guanhao confer government control 
over the day-to-day activities and decisions regarding its export 
activities. Furthermore, neither of these company officials have 
majority control over the disposition of Guanhao's profits. Guanhao 
reported that the BoD determined the plan for Guanhao's disposition of 
profits, which is then presented to the general shareholders for a vote 
of approval. Based on the information on the record, there is no 
evidence that would lead us to conclude that Guanhao's export prices, 
sales negotiations or management decisions are controlled by the PRC 
government.
    The evidence placed on the record of this investigation by Hanhong 
and Guanhao demonstrate an absence of de jure and de facto government 
control with respect to their respective exports of the merchandise 
under investigation, in accordance with the criteria identified in 
Sparklers and Silicon Carbide.

B. Companies Not Receiving a Separate Rate

    The Department has determined that all parties applying for a 
separate rate in this segment of the proceeding have demonstrated an 
absence of government control both in law and in fact (see discussion 
above), and is, therefore, not denying separate-rate status to any 
respondent (i.e., Hanhong and Guanhao).

Facts Available and the PRC-Wide Entity

    Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act provide that the Department 
shall apply ``facts otherwise available'' if, inter alia, necessary 
information is not on the record or 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, as provided by section 782(i) of the Act.
    Where the Department determines that a response to a request for 
information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act 
provides that the Department will so inform the party submitting the 
response and will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the 
opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to 
remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits, subject to 
section 782(e) of the Act, the Department may disregard all or part of 
the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. 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 December 17, 2007, and December 28, 2007, the Department sent 
Anne Paper and Yalong a questionnaire asking each whether the company 
exported merchandise under investigation that entered the United States 
during the POI.\34\ We have confirmed that the questionnaires were 
delivered to Anne Paper and Yalong.\35\ Responses were due by close of 
business on December 27, 2007 and January 11, 2008, respectively.\36\ 
The Department did not receive any responses from Anne Paper and 
Yalong.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Respondent Selection Memorandum.
    \35\ See the Department's memorandum regarding, ``Lightweight 
Thermal Paper from the People's Republic of China: Delivery of 
Shipment Questionnaires,'' dated March 12, 2008.
    \36\ See, e.g., the Department's letter to Ampress entitled, 
``Antidumping Investigation of Lightweight Thermal Paper from the 
People's Republic of China: Shipment Questionnaire,'' dated December 
17, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because Anne Paper and Yalong did not provide any information, we 
determine that sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act are not relevant to 
our analysis. We further find that the Anne Paper and Yalong failed to 
respond to the Department's requests for information and, therefore, 
failed to demonstrate that they operate free of government control and 
that they are entitled to a separate rate. Based on the above facts, 
the Department preliminarily determines that there were exports of the 
merchandise subject to this investigation from PRC exporters/producers 
that did not respond to the Department's shipment questionnaire, and we 
are treating these PRC exporters/producers as part of the PRC-wide 
entity. Moreover, because the PRC-wide entity did not cooperate to the 
best of its ability when it did not respond to our questionnaire asking 
whether it exported merchandise under investigation that entered the 
United States during the POI, use of facts available pursuant to 
section 776(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Act is warranted for the PRC 
entity, which includes Anne Paper and Yalong.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Artist Canvas from the People's Republic of China, 71 
FR 16116 (March 30, 2006) (``Artist Canvas'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that if an interested party 
fails to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply 
with requests for information, the Department may employ adverse 
inferences.\38\ We find that, because the PRC-wide entity did not 
respond to our request for information, it has failed to cooperate to 
the best of its ability. Therefore, the Department preliminarily finds 
that, in selecting from among the facts available, an adverse inference 
is appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See, e.g., Artist Canvas, 71 FR 16116, 16118 (March 30, 
2006). See also, Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the 
URAA, H.R. Rep No. 103-316 (``SAA'') at 870.

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

[[Page 27509]]

Selection of the Adverse Facts Available Rate

    In deciding which facts to use as adverse facts available 
(``AFA''), section 776(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) provide 
that the Department may rely on information derived from (1) The 
petition, (2) a final determination in the investigation, (3) any 
previous review or determination, or (4) any information placed on the 
record. In selecting a rate for AFA, the Department selects a rate that 
is sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the purpose of the facts 
available rule to induce respondents to provide the Department with 
complete and accurate information in a timely manner.'' \39\ It is also 
the Department's practice to select a rate that ensures ``that the 
party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate 
than if it had cooperated fully.'' \40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than 
Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan, 
63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998).
    \40\ See Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results and Partial Rescission of the Seventh Administrative Review; 
Final Results of the Eleventh New Shipper Review, 70 FR 69937, 69939 
(November 18, 2005); see also, SAA at 870.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Generally, the Department finds selecting the highest rate in any 
segment of the proceeding as AFA to be appropriate.\41\ It is the 
Department's practice to select, as AFA, the higher of the (a) highest 
margin alleged in the petition, or (b) the highest calculated rate of 
any respondent in the investigation.\42\ In the instant investigation, 
as AFA, we have preliminarily assigned to the PRC-wide entity, 
including Anne Paper and Yalong, the highest calculated rate on the 
record of this proceeding, which in this case is the calculated margin 
for Hanhong. The Department preliminarily determines that this 
information is the most appropriate from the available sources to 
effectuate the purposes of AFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See, e.g., Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic 
of China; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review and Intent to Rescind in Part, 70 FR 76755, 76761 (December 
28, 2005) Unchanged in Certain Cased Pencils from the People's 
Republic of China; Final Results and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 38366, (July 6, 2006), 
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 10.
    \42\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from the People's 
Republic of China, 65 FR 34660 (May 21, 2000), and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at ``Facts Available.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will consider all margins on the record at the time 
of the final determination for the purpose of determining the most 
appropriate AFA rate for the PRC-wide entity including Anne Paper and 
Yalong.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Saccharin from the People's Republic of China, 67 
FR 79049, 79053-54 (December 27, 2002), unchanged in Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Saccharin From the 
People's Republic of China, 68 FR 27530 (May 20, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Corroboration

    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies 
on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the 
course of an investigation as facts available, it must, to the extent 
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources 
reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is described as 
``information derived from the petition that gave rise to the 
investigation or review, the final determination concerning merchandise 
subject to this investigation, or any previous review under section 751 
concerning the merchandise subject to this investigation.'' \44\ To 
``corroborate'' means simply that the Department will satisfy itself 
that the secondary information to be used has probative value.\45\ 
Independent sources used to corroborate may include, for example, 
published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and 
information obtained from interested parties during the particular 
investigation.\46\ To corroborate secondary information, the Department 
will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance 
of the information used.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Sodium Hexametaphosphate From the People's Republic of China, 73 FR 
6479, 6481 (February 4, 2008); see also, SAA at 870.
    \45\ See id.
    \46\ See id.
    \47\ See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or 
Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and 
Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 
(November 6, 1996), unchanged in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan, and Tapered Roller 
Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components 
Thereof, From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part, 62 FR 11825 (March 
13, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As we did not rely upon secondary information, no corroboration was 
required under section 776(c) of the Act; rather we used the highest 
margin rate calculated for any respondent in this investigation as the 
AFA rate for this investigation.\48\ See the ``Preliminary 
Determination'' section of this notice below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Sodium Hexametaphosphate From the People's Republic of China, 73 FR 
6479 (February 4, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consequently, we are applying a single antidumping rate--the PRC-
wide rate--to producers/exporters that failed to respond to the 
Department's antidumping questionnaires, or requests for shipment 
information, or did not apply for a separate rate, as applicable. The 
PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of the merchandise under 
investigation except for entries from respondents, Hanhong and Guanhao. 
These companies and their corresponding antidumping duty cash deposit 
rates are listed below in the ``Preliminary Determination'' section of 
this notice.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of LWTP to the United States by the 
respondents were made at LTFV, we compared export price (``EP'') to NV, 
as described in the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of 
this notice.

Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, EP is the price at 
which the merchandise subject to this investigation is first sold (or 
agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or 
exporter of the merchandise subject to this investigation outside of 
the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or 
to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States, as 
adjusted under section 772(c) of the Act. In accordance with section 
772(a) of the Act, we used EP for Hanhong's and Guanhao's U.S. sales 
because the merchandise subject to this investigation was sold directly 
to the unaffiliated customers in the United States prior to importation 
and because constructed export price (``CEP'') was not otherwise 
indicated.
    In response to questions raised by the Petitioner, we reviewed 
Hanhong's relationship with its U.S. customer and find that Hanhong and 
its U.S. customer were not affiliated during the POI under the meaning 
of section 771(33) of the Act. Our determination in this regard is 
based on Hanhong's response that: (1) Its U.S. customer controls the 
price at which it resells the merchandise under consideration to its 
U.S. customers; (2) Hanhong's U.S. customer takes title to the 
merchandise and thus bears the risk of loss; and (3) the written 
agreement between Hanhong and its U.S. customer allows Hanhong to sell 
to other U.S. customers and does not restrict its U.S. customer from 
purchasing thermal paper from other U.S. domestic or foreign suppliers. 
Accordingly, we treated Hanhong's reported sales to the

[[Page 27510]]

United States as EP transactions for the preliminary determination.
    We calculated EP based on the packed FOB delivered prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in, or for exportation to, the United States. 
We made deductions, as appropriate, for any movement expenses (e.g., 
foreign inland freight from the plant to the port of exportation, 
domestic brokerage) in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the 
Act.\49\ Where foreign inland freight or foreign brokerage and handling 
fees were provided by PRC service providers or paid for in renminbi, we 
based those charges on surrogate value rates from India. See ``Factor 
Valuation'' section below for further discussion of surrogate value 
rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ For a detailed description of all adjustments, see the 
Department's Memorandum to the File entitled, ``Lightweight Thermal 
Paper from the People's Republic of China: Analysis of the 
Preliminary Determination Margin Calculation for Hanhong'' dated May 
6, 2008 (``Hanhong Preliminary Analysis Memorandum''); and the 
Department's Memorandum to the File entitled, ``Lightweight Thermal 
Paper from the People's Republic of China: Analysis of the 
Preliminary Determination Margin Calculation for Guangdong Guanhao 
High-Tech Co., Ltd.'' dated May 6, 2008 (``Guanhao Preliminary 
Analysis Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining the most appropriate surrogate values to use in a 
given case, the Department's stated practice is to use period-wide 
price averages, prices specific to the input in question, prices that 
are net of taxes and import duties, prices that are contemporaneous 
with the POI, and publicly available data.\50\ The data we used for 
brokerage and handling expenses fulfill all of the foregoing criteria 
except that they are not specific to the merchandise subject to this 
investigation. There is no information of that type on the record of 
this investigation. The Department used two sources to calculate a 
surrogate value for domestic brokerage expenses: (1) data from the 
January 9, 2006, public version of the Section C questionnaire response 
from Kejriwal Paper Ltd. (``Kejriwal'') in the investigation of certain 
lined paper products from India; \51\ and (2) data from Agro Dutch 
Industries Ltd. in the administrative review of certain preserved 
mushrooms from India.\52\ Because these values were not concurrent with 
the POI of this investigation, we adjusted these rates for inflation 
using the Wholesale Price Indices (``WPI'') for India as published in 
the International Monetary Fund's (``IMF's'') International Financial 
Statistics, available at http://ifs.apdi.net/imf, and then calculated a 
simple average of the two companies' brokerage expense data.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See, e.g., Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic 
of China; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 71 FR 38366 (July 6, 2006), and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
    \51\ Kejriwal was a respondent in the certain lined paper 
products from India investigation for which the POI was July 1, 
2004, to June 30, 2005. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, 
and Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances 
in Part: Certain Lined Paper Products From India, 71 FR 19706 (April 
17, 2006) (``CLPP'') (unchanged in final determination).
    \52\ See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India: Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 37757 (June 30, 
2005) (unchanged in final results).
    \53\ See, e.g., Helical Spring Lock Washers From the People's 
Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 72 FR 52073, 52076 (September 12, 2007) 
(unchanged in final results).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine the NV using an FOP methodology if the merchandise is 
exported from an NME and the information does not permit the 
calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or 
constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. The Department bases 
NV on the FOPs because the presence of government controls on various 
aspects of NMEs renders price comparisons and the calculation of 
production costs invalid under the Department's normal methodologies. 
See, e.g., CLPP, 71 FR at 19703 (unchanged in final determination).
    Guanhao has not provided a complete cost reconciliation to the 
Department nor has it shown that Guanhao's reported FOPs tie to its 
accounting system. However, the Department is using Guanhao's reported 
FOPs to calculate its margin for the preliminary determination and is 
providing Guanhao with a final opportunity to provide a complete cost 
reconciliation as requested by the Department in the original 
questionnaire issued on December 3, 2008, and in the two supplemental 
questionnaires, issued to Guanhao on February 5, 2008, and March 25, 
2008.
    A complete cost reconciliation, including all requested support 
documentation, is hereby due to the Department no later than 14 days 
after its receipt of our supplemental questionnaire requesting Guanhao 
to provide its complete cost reconciliation, which we soon intend to 
issue to Guanhao. Given the fact that Guanhao was first instructed to 
provide this cost reconciliation on December 3, 2008, the fact that the 
Department has granted numerous extensions to Guanhao in which to 
provide its complete cost reconciliation, and in light of the impending 
verification, which is currently scheduled for early June 2008, and 
statutorily prescribed deadlines, it is unlikely that the Department 
will be able to grant Guanhao any additional time to provide a complete 
cost reconciliation in accordance with the Department's instructions 
and questions. If Guanhao does not provide a complete cost 
reconciliation in accordance with the Department's instructions, we may 
not conduct verification or consider this company's data usable for the 
final determination and may resort to the use of facts available or AFA 
for all of Guanhao's data pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the 
Act. We may revisit this issue for the final determination pending 
receipt of the data.

Factor Valuations

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on FOPs reported by respondents for the POI. To calculate NV, we 
multiplied the reported per-unit factor-consumption rates by publicly 
available Indian surrogate values. In selecting the surrogate values, 
we considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the 
data. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including freight 
costs to make them delivered prices. Specifically, we added to Indian 
import surrogate values a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of 
the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory of 
production or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory of 
production, where appropriate. This adjustment is in accordance with 
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision in Sigma 
Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1407-1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
    Guanhao reported that certain of its reported raw material inputs 
were sourced from a ME country and paid for in ME currencies. Pursuant 
to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), when a respondent sources inputs from an ME 
supplier in meaningful quantities (i.e., not insignificant quantities), 
we use the actual price paid by respondents for those inputs, except 
when prices may have been distorted by findings of dumping by the PRC 
and/or subsidies.\54\ Guanhao's reported information demonstrates that 
it has both significant and insignificant quantities of certain raw 
materials purchased from ME suppliers. Where we found ME

[[Page 27511]]

purchases to be of significant quantities, in accordance with our 
statement of policy as outlined in Antidumping Methodologies: Market 
Economy Inputs,\55\ we used the actual purchases of these inputs to 
value the inputs. Accordingly, we valued Guanhao's inputs using the ME 
prices paid for in ME currencies for the inputs where the total volume 
of the input purchased from all ME sources during the POI exceeded 33 
percent of the total volume of the input purchased from all sources 
during the period.\56\ Where the quantity of the reported input 
purchased from ME suppliers was below 33 percent of the total volume of 
the input purchased from all sources during the POI, and were otherwise 
valid, we weight averaged the ME input's purchase price with the 
appropriate surrogate value for the input according to their respective 
shares of the reported total volume of purchases.\57\ Where 
appropriate, we added freight to the ME prices of inputs. For a 
detailed description of the actual values used for the ME inputs 
reported, see Guanhao Preliminary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 
62 FR 27296, 27366 (May 19, 1997).
    \55\ See Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs, 
Expected Non-Market Economy Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for 
Comments, 71 FR 61716, 61717 (October 19, 2006) (``Antidumping 
Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs'').
    \56\ See Guanhao's December 21, 2007 section D submission at 
Exhibit 10. See also Guanhao's March 20, 2008, supplemental D 
submission at Exhibit 3.
    \57\ See Antidumping Methodologies: Market Economy Inputs at 71 
FR 61718.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis Memorandum.

    For this preliminary determination, in accordance with past 
practice, we used import values from the World Trade Atlas online 
(``Indian Import Statistics''), published by the Directorate General of 
Commercial Intelligence and Statistics, Ministry of Commerce of India, 
which were reported in rupees and are contemporaneous with the POI to 
calculate surrogate values for the respondents' reported material 
inputs.\58\ In selecting the best available information for valuing 
FOPs in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, the Department's 
practice is to select, to the extent practicable, surrogate values 
which are non-export average values, most contemporaneous with the POI, 
product-specific, and tax-exclusive.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
    \59\ See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary Determination of Critical 
Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain 
Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged in Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and 
Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 
FR 71005 (December 8. 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where we could not obtain publicly available information 
contemporaneous with the POI with which to value FOPs, we adjusted the 
surrogate values using, where appropriate, the Indian WPI as published 
in the IMF's.
    Furthermore, with regard to the Indian import-based surrogate 
values, we have disregarded import prices that we have reason to 
believe or suspect may be subsidized. We have reason to believe or 
suspect that prices of inputs from Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand 
may have been subsidized. We have found in other proceedings that these 
countries maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export 
subsidies and, therefore, it is reasonable to infer that all exports to 
all markets from these countries may be subsidized.\60\ We are also 
directed by the legislative history not to conduct a formal 
investigation to ensure that such prices are not subsidized.\61\ 
Rather, Congress directed the Department to base its decision on 
information that is available to it at the time it makes its 
determination. Therefore, we have not used prices from these countries 
in calculating the Indian import-based surrogate values. In instances 
where an ME input was obtained solely from suppliers located in these 
countries, we used Indian import-based surrogate values to value the 
input. In addition, we excluded Indian import data from NME and 
undesignated countries from our surrogate value calculations.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical 
Circumstances: Certain Color Television Receivers From the People's 
Republic of China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004), and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 7.
    \61\ See Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, 
Conference Report to Accompanying H.R. 3, H.R. Rep. 100-576 at 590 
(1988).
    \62\ See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this case, parties have debated which surrogate value is the 
best available information for valuing coated jumbo rolls of thermal 
paper (``CJRs''). Hanhong argues in favor of using the average of three 
Indonesian HTS categories contending that these data account for much 
larger import quantities than Indian imports of CJRs and represent 
average unit prices that are more comparative to the ``normal value'' 
German benchmark which it calculated from publicly available data from 
the companion German investigation. Hanhong also asserts that Indian 
import values for CJRs during the POI are aberrational beca