Certain Lined Paper Products From India: Preliminary Results of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 58548-58555 [E8-23704]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 7, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58548-58555]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23704]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-843]


Certain Lined Paper Products From India: Preliminary Results of 
the First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain lined 
paper products from India with respect to 20 companies. The respondents 
which the Department selected for individual examination are Kejriwal 
Paper Limited (``Kejriwal'') and Ria ImpEx Pvt. Ltd. (``Ria'').\1\ The 
respondents which were not selected for individual examination are 
listed in the ``Preliminary Results of Review'' section of this notice. 
This is the first administrative review of this order. The period of 
review (POR) is April 17, 2006, through August 31, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Memorandum to Melissa Skinner, Director, Office 3, AD/
CVD Operations, through James Terpstra, Program Manager, from George 
McMahon, Case Analyst, Regarding Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review of Certain Lined Paper Products from India--Selection of 
Respondents for Individual Review, dated November 13, 2007 
(``Respondent Selection Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We preliminarily determine that sales made by Kejriwal have not 
been made at below normal value (``NV''). Because Ria is a selected 
mandatory respondent and was not responsive to the Department's 
requests for information, we have preliminarily assigned to Ria a 
margin based on adverse facts available (``AFA''). In addition, based 
on the preliminary results for the respondents selected for individual 
examination, we have preliminarily determined a weighted-average margin 
for those companies that are subject to review but not selected for 
individual examination. See the ``Non-Selected Rate'' section below for 
details. If the preliminary results are adopted in our final results of 
administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries. Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary 
results.

DATES: Effective Date: October 7, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Lai Robinson or George McMahon, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration-Room 1117, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-3797 or (202) 482-1167, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On September 28, 2006, the Department published in the Federal 
Register an antidumping duty order on certain lined paper products from 
India. See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's Republic of 
China; Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Lined Paper Products 
from India, Indonesia and the People's Republic of China; and Notice of 
Countervailing Duty Orders: Certain Lined Paper Products from India and

[[Page 58549]]

Indonesia, 71 FR 56949 (September 28, 2006) (``Lined Paper Order''). On 
September 4, 2007, the Department published in the Federal Register a 
notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order of certain lined paper products from India for 
the period April 17, 2006, through August 31, 2007. See Antidumping or 
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; 
Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 72 FR 50657 (September 4, 
2007). On September 21 and 26, 2007, the Department received timely 
requests for an administrative review from two respondents, Navneet and 
Kejriwal, respectively. On September 28, 2007, the Department received 
a timely request for an administrative review from the Association of 
American School Paper Suppliers (``AASPS''), the Petitioner,\2\ for the 
following 20 companies: Blue Bird India Ltd.; Creative Divya; Exel 
India Pvt. Ltd.; FFI International; Global Art India Inc.; Kejriwal 
Exports; Kejriwal Paper Limited; M/S Super ImpEx.; Magic International; 
Marigold ExIm Pvt. Ltd.; Marisa International; Navneet Publications 
(India) Ltd.; Pioneer Stationery Pvt. Ltd.; Rajvansh International; Ria 
ImpEx Pvt. Ltd.; Riddhi Enterprises; SAB International; TKS Overseas; 
Unlimited Accessories Worldwide; and V. Joshi Co.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Petitioner made the review request pursuant to section 
751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 31, 2007, the Department published a notice of 
initiation of administrative review for those 20 companies.\3\ On 
November 13, 2007, the Department issued a memorandum \4\ to interested 
parties regarding its intention to limit the number of companies 
examined by using the CBP entry data. In the CBP Memorandum, the 
Department solicited comments from interested parties regarding the use 
of CBP data for respondent selection in this review. On November 9 and 
20, 2007, the Department received comments regarding respondent 
selection from Petitioner. On November 19, 2007, the Department 
received comments regarding respondent selection from Navneet 
Publications (India) Limited (Navneet). On November 21, 2007, Kejriwal 
submitted rebuttal comments to Petitioner's comments dated November 9, 
2007. See the ``Respondent Selection Memo'' for further details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 72 FR 61621 (October 31, 2007).
    \4\ See Memorandum to File entitled ``Customs and Border Patrol 
Data for Selection of Respondents for Individual Review,'' dated 
November 13, 2007 (``CBP Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 3, 2007, Petitioner submitted comments with respect to 
an amendment of model match methodology. See below for further details. 
On January 17, 2008, Petitioner requested an extension for withdrawing 
its review request. The Department declined Petitioner's request on 
January 29, 2008.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Memorandum to File, through James Terpstra, Program 
Manager, Office 3, Office of AD/CVD Operations, from Cindy Robinson, 
Case Analyst, RE: Certain Lined Paper Products from India, Subject: 
Meeting with Petitioner, dated January 29, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based upon our consideration of the resource constraints and other 
factors including our current and anticipated workload and deadlines 
coinciding with the segment in question, we determined that it was not 
practicable to examine all exporters/producers of subject merchandise 
for which a review was requested. As a result, on December 17, 2007, we 
selected the two largest producers/exporters of certain lined paper 
products from India during the POR (i.e., Kejriwal and Ria) for 
individual examination, based on the volume information in the CBP data 
placed on record of this proceeding. See the ``Respondent Selection 
Memo.'' On this same date, we issued the antidumping questionnaire to 
Kejriwal and Ria.
    On December 3, 2007, we received Petitioner's comments regarding 
amendment of model match methodology by narrowing the paper volume 
categories from 24 to 7 categories. On December 18, 2007, the 
Department invited interested parties to this proceeding to comment on 
the methodology that Petitioner proposed.\6\ The Department did not 
receive comments on this matter from any other interested parties. On 
February 7, 2008, Petitioner requested that the Department adopt the 
criteria as outlined in its December 3, 2007 comments and revise the 
model match criteria for this review. In light of the fact that there 
were no viable comparison market sales of the subject merchandise 
reported by the mandatory respondents in this proceeding, the 
Department does not have a sufficient basis to examine the model match 
issues raised by Petitioner in the context of this review. Therefore, 
we did not revise the model match criteria for purposes of this review. 
See the ``Normal Value'' section below for further details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Memorandum to all Interested Parties from George 
McMahon, Case Analyst, re: Request for Comments Regarding Proposed 
Modifications to the Model Match Criteria, dated December 18, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 23, 2008, we received an e-mail from Ria requesting a 
five-week extension of the deadline to file its response to the 
Department's questionnaire issued on December 17, 2007. Because this 
request for extension was not properly filed, in accordance with the 
Department's filing and service regulations, with the Central Records 
Unit, the Department issued a letter to Ria on January 23, 2008, 
instructing Ria to properly file its request and properly serve it on 
the interested parties. In addition, the Department granted a partial 
extension until February 6, 2008 for Ria to respond to the Department's 
questionnaire. However, Ria did not correct its filing, nor did it 
submit any questionnaire responses to the Department.
    On February 6, 2008, Kejriwal filed its sections A, C, and D 
response to the Department's questionnaire. Petitioner provided its 
comments on Kejriwal's questionnaire response on February 28, 2008.
    On February 7, 2008, Navneet informed the Department that it was 
unable to submit a voluntary response but indicated that should one of 
the mandatory respondents not respond, it would request additional time 
to file its response. On February 13, 2008, Petitioner requested that 
the Department deny Navneet's extension request for filing its 
questionnaire response because Navneet is not a mandatory respondent. 
On February 20, 2008, the Department denied Navneet's extension request 
because the deadline to file a voluntary questionnaire response had 
passed.
    On March 14, 2008, we issued the first sections A-D supplemental 
questionnaire to Kejriwal. On April 21, 2008, Kejriwal submitted its 
response to the Department's first sections A-D supplemental 
questionnaire, to which Petitioner submitted its comments on May 5, 
2008. On May 13 and 28, and July 24, 2008, the Department issued 
additional section D supplemental questionnaires to Kejriwal, and 
Kejriwal submitted its responses on May 28, June 17, and August 18, 
2008, respectively. On July 11 and August 4, 2008, the Department 
issued additional sections A and C supplemental questionnaires to 
Kejriwal, which submitted its responses on July 25 and August 21, 2008, 
respectively. Petitioner provided further comments and Kejriwal 
provided its rebuttal comments on sections A, C, and D supplemental 
questionnaire responses between May 5 and June 9, 2008.
    On March 20, 2008, Kejriwal requested an extension for submitting 
factual information. The Department

[[Page 58550]]

granted Kejriwal's extension request.\7\ On April 3, 2008, Kejriwal 
submitted factual information, which includes a public financial 
statement of Blue Bird India, Ltd. (``Blue Bird''). On April 10, 2008, 
Petitioner submitted a letter containing certain factual information 
\8\ which, Petitioners claimed, rebuts and clarifies information 
submitted by Kejriwal on April 3, 2008. On April 11, 2008, Kejriwal 
filed a letter requesting that the Department remove Petitioner's April 
10, 2008, submission from the record of this administrative review on 
the grounds that Petitioner's submission did not meet the regulatory 
requirements of 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1) as it did not rebut, clarify or 
correct information previously on the record. On April 17, 2008, 
Petitioner rebutted Kejriwal's April 11, 2008, comments, asserting that 
the prior case decisions referenced by Kejriwal are not applicable 
because they refer to non-market economy cases. On April 28, 2008, the 
Department rejected Petitioner's April 10, 2008, submission because 
this submission contained new factual information which was untimely 
submitted and the information presented by Petitioner did not rebut, 
clarify, or correct the information reported in Blue Bird's financial 
statement.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See the Department's letter to Kejriwal, dated March 20, 
2008, extending the due date for interested parties to submit new 
factual information on the record of this proceeding from March 20, 
2008 to April 3, 2008. In its April 3, 2008 submission, Kejriwal 
states that Petitioner requested a review of Blue Bird and asserts 
that Blue Bird is an Indian producer of subject merchandise.
    \8\ Petitioner's submitted information contains the publicly 
available 2006-2007 financial statement of Navneet, an Indian 
producer of subject merchandise.
    \9\ The Department found that Petitioner's submission was filed 
after the Department's April 3, 2008 deadline for filing factual 
information. Moreover, it did not meet the regulatory requirements 
of 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1) because the Navneet financial statement 
submitted by Petitioner did not rebut, clarify or correct 
information previously on the record, i.e., the Blue Bird financial 
statement. Specifically, on page 2 of its April 10, 2008, letter, 
Petitioner simply states ``{c{time} oncerning the calculation of 
Kejriwal's selling expense and profit ratios, we hereby submit 
rebuttal information in the form of publicly available, and fully 
audited 2006-2007 financial statement of Navneet Publications 
(India) Ltd.--an Indian producer of subject merchandise.'' 
Petitioner has made no statements or arguments as to why Navneet's 
rather than Blue Bird's selling and profit data should be used by 
the Department in this review, or why it is relevant to the 
information placed on the record by Kejriwal on April 13, 2008. 
Accordingly, the Department rejected Petitioner's April 10, 2008, 
submission. See the Department's April 28, 2008, letter from Melissa 
G. Skinner, Director, Office 3, AD/CVD Operations, to AASPS; RE: 
2006--2007 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order of 
Certain Lined Paper from India; SUBJECT: Removal of untimely filed 
factual information from the Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 2, 2008, the Department postponed the preliminary results in 
this review until no later than September 29, 2008. See Certain Lined 
Paper Products from India: Extension of Time Limits for the Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 24219 (May 2, 
2008).
    On September 12, 2008, Petitioner filed pre-preliminary comments, 
to which Kejriwal submitted its rebuttal comments on September 17, 
2008.

Scope of the Order

    The scope of this order includes certain lined paper products, 
typically school supplies (for purposes of this scope definition, the 
actual use of or labeling these products as school supplies or non-
school supplies is not a defining characteristic) composed of or 
including paper that incorporates straight horizontal and/or vertical 
lines on ten or more paper sheets (there shall be no minimum page 
requirement for loose leaf filler paper) including but not limited to 
such products as single- and multi-subject notebooks, composition 
books, wireless notebooks, loose leaf or glued filler paper, graph 
paper, and laboratory notebooks, and with the smaller dimension of the 
paper measuring 6 inches to 15 inches (inclusive) and the larger 
dimension of the paper measuring 8\3/4\ inches to 15 inches 
(inclusive). Page dimensions are measured size (not advertised, stated, 
or ``tear-out'' size), and are measured as they appear in the product 
(i.e., stitched and folded pages in a notebook are measured by the size 
of the page as it appears in the notebook page, not the size of the 
unfolded paper). However, for measurement purposes, pages with tapered 
or rounded edges shall be measured at their longest and widest points. 
Subject lined paper products may be loose, packaged or bound using any 
binding method (other than case bound through the inclusion of binders 
board, a spine strip, and cover wrap). Subject merchandise may or may 
not contain any combination of a front cover, a rear cover, and/or 
backing of any composition, regardless of the inclusion of images or 
graphics on the cover, backing, or paper. Subject merchandise is within 
the scope of this order whether or not the lined paper and/or cover are 
hole punched, drilled, perforated, and/or reinforced. Subject 
merchandise may contain accessory or informational items including but 
not limited to pockets, tabs, dividers, closure devices, index cards, 
stencils, protractors, writing implements, reference materials such as 
mathematical tables, or printed items such as sticker sheets or 
miniature calendars, if such items are physically incorporated, 
included with, or attached to the product, cover and/or backing 
thereto.
    Specifically excluded from the scope of this order are:
     Unlined copy machine paper;
     Writing pads with a backing (including but not limited to 
products commonly known as ``tablets,'' ``note pads,'' ``legal pads,'' 
and ``quadrille pads''), provided that they do not have a front cover 
(whether permanent or removable). This exclusion does not apply to such 
writing pads if they consist of hole-punched or drilled filler paper;
     Three-ring or multiple-ring binders, or notebook 
organizers incorporating such a ring binder provided that they do not 
include subject paper;
     Index cards;
     Printed books and other books that are case bound through 
the inclusion of binders board, a spine strip, and cover wrap;
     Newspapers;
     Pictures and photographs;
     Desk and wall calendars and organizers (including but not 
limited to such products generally known as ``office planners,'' ``time 
books,'' and ``appointment books'');
     Telephone logs;
     Address books;
     Columnar pads & tablets, with or without covers, primarily 
suited for the recording of written numerical business data;
     Lined business or office forms, including but not limited 
to: pre-printed business forms, lined invoice pads and paper, mailing 
and address labels, manifests, and shipping log books;
     Lined continuous computer paper;
     Boxed or packaged writing stationary (including but not 
limited to products commonly known as ``fine business paper,'' 
``parchment paper,'' and ``letterhead''), whether or not containing a 
lined header or decorative lines;
     Stenographic pads (``steno pads''), Gregg ruled (``Gregg 
ruling'' consists of a single-or double-margin vertical ruling line 
down the center of the page. For a six-inch by nine-inch stenographic 
pad, the ruling would be located approximately three inches from the 
left of the book), measuring 6 inches by 9 inches;
    Also excluded from the scope of this order are the following 
trademarked products:
     Fly\TM\ lined paper products: A notebook, notebook 
organizer, loose or glued note paper, with papers that are printed with 
infrared reflective inks and readable only by a Fly\TM\ pen-top

[[Page 58551]]

computer. The product must bear the valid trademark Fly\TM\ (products 
found to be bearing an invalidly licensed or used trademark are not 
excluded from the scope).
     Zwipes\TM\: A notebook or notebook organizer made with a 
blended polyolefin writing surface as the cover and pocket surfaces of 
the notebook, suitable for writing using a specially-developed 
permanent marker and erase system (known as a Zwipes\TM\ pen). This 
system allows the marker portion to mark the writing surface with a 
permanent ink. The eraser portion of the marker dispenses a solvent 
capable of solubilizing the permanent ink allowing the ink to be 
removed. The product must bear the valid trademark Zwipes\TM\ (products 
found to be bearing an invalidly licensed or used trademark are not 
excluded from the scope).
     FiveStar[supreg]Advance\TM\: A notebook or notebook 
organizer bound by a continuous spiral, or helical, wire and with 
plastic front and rear covers made of a blended polyolefin plastic 
material joined by 300 denier polyester, coated on the backside with 
PVC (poly vinyl chloride) coating, and extending the entire length of 
the spiral or helical wire. The polyolefin plastic covers are of 
specific thickness; front cover is 0.019 inches (within normal 
manufacturing tolerances) and rear cover is 0.028 inches (within normal 
manufacturing tolerances). Integral with the stitching that attaches 
the polyester spine covering, is captured both ends of a 1'' wide 
elastic fabric band. This band is located 2\3/8\'' from the top of the 
front plastic cover and provides pen or pencil storage. Both ends of 
the spiral wire are cut and then bent backwards to overlap with the 
previous coil but specifically outside the coil diameter but inside the 
polyester covering. During construction, the polyester covering is sewn 
to the front and rear covers face to face (outside to outside) so that 
when the book is closed, the stitching is concealed from the outside. 
Both free ends (the ends not sewn to the cover and back) are stitched 
with a turned edge construction. The flexible polyester material forms 
a covering over the spiral wire to protect it and provide a comfortable 
grip on the product. The product must bear the valid trademarks 
FiveStar[reg] Advance\TM\ (products found to be bearing an invalidly 
licensed or used trademark are not excluded from the scope).
     FiveStar Flex\TM\: A notebook, a notebook organizer, or 
binder with plastic polyolefin front and rear covers joined by 300 
denier polyester spine cover extending the entire length of the spine 
and bound by a 3-ring plastic fixture. The polyolefin plastic covers 
are of a specific thickness; front cover is 0.019 inches (within normal 
manufacturing tolerances) and rear cover is 0.028 inches (within normal 
manufacturing tolerances). During construction, the polyester covering 
is sewn to the front cover face to face (outside to outside) so that 
when the book is closed, the stitching is concealed from the outside. 
During construction, the polyester cover is sewn to the back cover with 
the outside of the polyester spine cover to the inside back cover. Both 
free ends (the ends not sewn to the cover and back) are stitched with a 
turned edge construction. Each ring within the fixture is comprised of 
a flexible strap portion that snaps into a stationary post which forms 
a closed binding ring. The ring fixture is riveted with six metal 
rivets and sewn to the back plastic cover and is specifically 
positioned on the outside back cover. The product must bear the valid 
trademark FiveStar Flex\TM\ (products found to be bearing an invalidly 
licensed or used trademark are not excluded from the scope).
    Merchandise subject to this order is typically imported under 
headings 4820.10.2050, 4810.22.5044, 4811.90.9090, 4820.10.2010, 
4820.10.2020 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(``HTSUS''). The HTSUS headings are provided for convenience and 
customs purposes; however, the written description of the scope of the 
order is dispositive.

Application of Facts Available

    Section 776(a) of the Act provides that the Department will apply 
``facts otherwise available'' if, inter alia, necessary information is 
not available on the record or an interested party: (1) Withholds 
information that has been requested by the Department; (2) fails to 
provide such information within the deadlines established, or in the 
form or manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections 
(c)(1) and (e) of section 782 of the Act; (3) significantly impedes a 
proceeding; or (4) provides such information, but the information 
cannot be verified.
    As discussed in the ``Background'' section above, on December 17, 
2007, the Department selected Kejriwal and Ria as the mandatory 
respondents for this review, and on the same date, the Department 
issued the antidumping questionnaire to Kejriwal and Ria. See the 
``Respondent Selection Memo.'' The deadline to respond to the 
Department's questionnaire was January 23, 2008. On January 23, 2008, 
the Department received an e-mail from Ria requesting a five-week 
extension of the deadline to file its response to the Department's 
questionnaire issued on December 18, 2007. Because this request for 
extension was not properly filed and served on the interested parties 
in accordance with the Department's filing and service regulations, the 
Department on January 23, 2008, issued a letter to Ria and instructed 
Ria to properly file its extension request and properly serve it on the 
interested parties. Despite Ria's improper filing of its extension 
request, the Department granted a two-week extension until February 6, 
2008 for Ria to respond to the Department's questionnaire. However, 
despite the extension, Ria never submitted any questionnaire responses 
to the Department, nor did it request any further extension. By failing 
to respond to the Department's requests, Ria withheld requested 
information and significantly impeded the proceeding. Therefore, 
pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, the Department 
preliminarily finds that the use of total facts available for Ria is 
appropriate.
    According to section 776(b) of the Act, if the Department finds 
that an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best 
of its ability to comply with requests for information, the Department 
may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in 
selecting from the facts otherwise available. See also Notice of Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar 
from India, 70 FR 54023, 54025-26 (Sept. 13, 2005); and Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative 
Critical Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from 
Brazil, 67 FR 55792, 55794-96 (Aug. 30, 2002). Adverse inferences are 
appropriate ``to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable 
result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.'' See 
Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, Vol. 1, at 870 (1994) (SAA), 
reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4198-99. Furthermore, 
``affirmative evidence of bad faith on the part of a respondent is not 
required before the Department may make an adverse inference.'' See 
Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 
27340 (May 19, 1997); see also Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 
F.3d 1373, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Nippon). In this case, despite an 
improperly filed extension request, the Department granted Ria an 
opportunity

[[Page 58552]]

to refile the extension request and a two-week extension to respond to 
the Department's questionnaire. Ria never responded, refiled, or made 
additional request for a further extension. We preliminarily find that 
Ria did not act to the best of its ability in this proceeding, within 
the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act, because it could have 
responded to the Department's requests for information, but failed to 
do so. Therefore, an adverse inference is warranted in selecting from 
the facts otherwise available with respect to Ria. See Nippon, 337 F.3d 
at 1382-83.
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use as 
AFA information derived from: (1) The petition; (2) the final 
determination in the investigation; (3) any previous review; or (4) any 
other information placed on the record.
    The Department's practice, when selecting an AFA rate from among 
the possible sources of information, has been to ensure that the margin 
is sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the statutory purposes of 
the adverse facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the 
Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.'' 
See, e.g., Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Final 
Results and Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in 
Part, 71 FR 65082, 65084 (Nov. 7, 2006).
    In order to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse so as to 
induce cooperation, we have preliminarily assigned a rate of 23.17 
percent, which is the highest rate on the record of the proceeding 
which can be corroborated. Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value, and Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances: 
Certain Lined Paper Products from India (``India Lined Paper 
Investigation Final''), 71 FR 45012 (August 8, 2006). As stated in the 
India Lined Paper Investigation Final, this rate was assigned as AFA to 
two companies, which failed to cooperate to the best of their ability, 
and is based on Kejriwal's data submitted in the investigation. Id. The 
Department finds that this rate is sufficiently high as to effectuate 
the purpose of the facts available rule (i.e., we find that this rate 
is high enough to encourage participation in future segments of this 
proceeding in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act).

Corroboration of Information

    Section 776(c) of the Act requires the Department to corroborate, 
to the extent practicable, secondary information used as facts 
available. Secondary information is defined as ``information derived 
from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the 
final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous 
review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.'' See 19 
CFR 351.308(c) and (d); see also the SAA at 870. The SAA clarifies that 
``corroborate'' means that the Department will satisfy itself that the 
secondary information to be used has probative value. See the SAA at 
870. The SAA also states that independent sources used to corroborate 
such evidence may include, for example, published price lists, official 
import statistics and customs data, and information obtained from 
interested parties during the particular investigation. Id. To 
corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent 
practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information 
used.
    To corroborate secondary information, to the extent practicable, 
the Department normally examines the reliability and relevance of the 
information to be used. Unlike other types of information such as input 
costs or selling expenses, however, there are no independent sources 
for calculated dumping margins. The only source for margins is 
administrative determinations. Thus, with respect to an administrative 
review, if the Department chooses as facts available a calculated 
dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not 
necessary to question the reliability of the margin for that time 
period. See Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India: Preliminary Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 52012 (September 8, 
2008) (``Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India''). See also 
Antifriction Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, et al.: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Partial 
Rescission of Administrative Reviews, Notice of Intent to Rescind 
Administrative Reviews, and Notice of Intent to Revoke Order in Part, 
69 FR 5949, 5953 (February 9, 2004), unchanged in Antifriction Bearings 
and Parts Thereof from France, et al.: Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Reviews, Rescission of Administrative Reviews in 
Part, and Determination To Revoke Order in Part, 69 FR 55574, 55576-77 
(September 15, 2004).
    With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however, the 
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to 
determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where 
circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as 
AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an 
appropriate margin. For example, in Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 
6814 (Feb. 22, 1996), the Department disregarded the highest margin in 
that case as adverse best information available (the predecessor to 
facts available) because the margin was based on another company's 
uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high 
margin. Similarly, the Department does not apply a margin that has been 
discredited or judicially invalidated. See D & L Supply Co. v. United 
States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1221 (CAFC 1997).
    None of these unusual circumstances is present here. The Department 
considers the dumping margin of 23.17 percent relevant for use as AFA 
for this review because this margin is based on information from the 
investigation and is within the range of transaction-specific margins 
calculated for a mandatory respondent in this review.\10\ Moreover, 
there is no information on the record of this review that demonstrates 
that 23.17 percent is not an appropriate AFA rate for Ria. The 
Department finds that use of the rate of 23.17 percent as an AFA rate 
is sufficiently high to ensure that Ria does not benefit from failing 
to cooperate in our review by refusing to respond to our questionnaire. 
See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products from the 
Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review and Rescission of Administrative Review in Part, 73 FR 15132, 
15133 (March 21, 2008). See also Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from 
India.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The dumping margin of 23.17 percent is the AFA rate for 
Navneet in the original investigation, which was based on a 
calculated rate for Kejriwal. See the Memorandum to File through 
James Terpstra, Program Manager, from Cindy Lai Robinson, Case 
Analyst, entitled ``Analysis Memorandum for Kejriwal Paper, Re: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of 
Certain Lined Paper Products from India,'' dated September 29, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As this rate is both reliable and relevant, the Department 
determines that it has probative value. Accordingly, the Department has 
determined that the selected rate of 23.17 percent, the highest rate 
from any segment of this proceeding that can be corroborated, is in 
accordance with section 776(c)'s requirement that secondary information 
be corroborated (i.e., that it have probative value).

[[Page 58553]]

Comparisons to Normal Value

    To determine whether sales of certain lined paper products by 
Kejriwal to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared 
export price (``EP'') to the NV, as described in the ``Export Price'' 
and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice.
    Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the EPs of 
individual U.S. transactions to the weighted-average NV of the foreign 
like product where there were sales made in the ordinary course of 
trade, as discussed in the ``Cost of Production Analysis'' section 
below.

Export Price

    For all U.S. sales made by Kejriwal, we used EP methodology, in 
accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject 
merchandise was sold directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States prior to importation and constructed export price 
methodology was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of record.
    We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States. In accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, 
we made deductions for movement expenses, where appropriate, foreign 
inland freight from plant/warehouse to the port of exportation, foreign 
brokerage and handling, U.S. brokerage and handling, international 
freight, U.S. marine insurance, U.S. inland freight from port to 
warehouse, U.S. inland freight from warehouse to customers, U.S. duty 
and certain bank charges. In addition, we deducted billing adjustments 
from EP, where appropriate.

Normal Value

A. Home Market Viability and Comparison Market Selection

    In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales 
in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e., 
the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product 
is equal to or greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of 
U.S. sales), we compared Kejriwal's volume of home market sales of the 
foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject 
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act.
    Section 773(a)(1)(C)(i) of the Act applies to the Department's 
determination of NV if the foreign like product is not sold (or offered 
for sale) for consumption in the exporting country. When sales in the 
home market are not viable, section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act 
provides that sales to a particular third country market may be 
utilized if: (1) The prices in such market are representative; (2) the 
aggregate quantity of the foreign like product sold by the producer or 
exporter in the third country market is five percent or more of the 
aggregate quantity of the subject merchandise sold in or to the United 
States; and (3) the Department does not determine that a particular 
market situation in the third country market prevents a proper 
comparison with the U.S. price.
    Kejriwal reported that it made no sales to the home market and no 
sales to a third country. See Kejriwal's Section A Response, dated 
February 6, 2008, at A-2 and A-3; see also Kejriwal's supplemental 
questionnaire response at 15, dated April 21, 2008. Therefore, for 
Kejriwal, we used constructed value (``CV'') as the basis for 
calculating NV, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act.

B. Level of Trade

    Kejriwal reported sales only to unaffiliated distributors in the 
U.S. market, and no sales to either the home or third country markets. 
In the U.S. market, it reported only one level of trade. The selling 
functions, customer category, and the level of selling expenses for 
each type of sale was consistent for all distributors in the United 
States. A level-of-trade adjustment is not practicable in this review, 
as we do not have the information necessary with respect to the level 
of trade at which CV selling expenses and profit were determined.

C. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value

    In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we based 
Kejriwal's NV on CV. In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we 
calculated CV based on the sum of Kejriwal's cost of materials and 
fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling, 
general, and administrative expenses (``SG&A''), profit, and U.S. 
packing costs. We calculated the cost of materials and fabrication 
based on the CV information provided by Kejriwal in its section D 
response. We recalculated Kejriwal's financial expense ratio to include 
newsprint SG&A reclassified as cost of newsprint revenue in the cost of 
goods sold denominator. Because Kejriwal does not have Indian sales of 
the foreign like product or third country sales, the Department does 
not have comparison market selling expenses or profit to use in its 
calculations, as directed by section 773(e) of the Act. As an 
alternative, the Department has used as selling expenses and profit for 
Kejriwal, data from the March 31, 2007 financial statements of Blue 
Bird. Blue Bird sells merchandise within the same general category of 
products as the foreign like product in the Indian market. See 
Memorandum from Robert Greger to Neal Halper, Director, Office of 
Accounting, Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation 
Adjustments for the Preliminary Results--Kejriwal Paper Limited, dated 
September 29, 2008 (``COP/CV Memo'').

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with 
section 773A(a) of the Act based on exchange rates in effect on the 
dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Non-Selected Rate

    The statute and the Department's regulations do not directly 
address the establishment of rates to be applied to companies not 
selected for examination where the Department limited its examination 
in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. 
However, the Department normally determines the rates for non-selected 
companies in reviews in a manner that is consistent with section 
735(c)(5) of the Act. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act instructs that 
the Department is not to calculate an all-others rate using any zero or 
de minimis margins or any margins based on total facts available. 
Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act also provides that, where all margins 
are zero, de minimis, or based on total facts available, the Department 
may use ``any reasonable method'' for assigning the rate to non-
selected respondents. One method that section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act 
contemplates as a possible method is ``averaging the estimated weighted 
average dumping margins determined for the exporters and producers 
individually investigated.''
    In this review, the margin calculated for Kejriwal is de minimis 
and the margin applied to Ria is based on AFA. Thus, in this segment of 
the proceeding, we have assigned only de minimis and rates based 
entirely on AFA. Based on the facts of this case, the Department 
determines that a reasonable method for determining the margin for the 
non-selected companies in this review is the average of the margins, 
other than those which are zero, de minimis, or based on total facts 
available, that we found for the most recent period in which there were 
such margins. In this case, the most recently completed segment is the 
original investigation. In the investigation, only one rate that we 
calculated was not zero, de minimis, or

[[Page 58554]]

based on total facts available: the margin we calculated for Kejriwal 
was 3.91 percent (see India Lined Paper Investigation Final). This 
margin was also assigned as the all-others rate. While the statute 
contemplates that the Department may use an average of the zero, de 
minimis, or facts-available rates determined in an investigation where 
such rates are the only rates determined, in this review, the 
Department has additional information that would not be available in an 
investigation involving only de minimis/zero and AFA rates. 
Specifically, in addition to the option of using an average of the 
rates in this review, the Department can use the above de minimis rate 
calculated in the most recently completed segment of the proceeding. 
Consistent with the Department's decision in AFBs,\11\ we have 
determined that it is appropriate in this review to use the calculated 
above de minimis rate from the investigation, as there is no reason to 
find that it is not reasonably reflective of potential dumping margins 
for the non-selected companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, 
Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Reviews and Rescission of Reviews in Part, 73 FR 
52823 (September 11, 2008), and the accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 6 (``AFBs''). See also Certain Frozen Fish 
Fillets From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of 
Preliminary Results of the New Shipper Review and Fourth Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of the Fourth 
Administrative Review, 73 FR 52017 (September 8, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that in the investigation, Navneet, a non-selected company 
in this review, was assigned a company-specific rate of 23.17 percent 
based on AFA for its failure to cooperate to the best of its ability. 
In this review, however, there is no basis for finding Navneet 
uncooperative. As stated above, Navneet and the other 17 companies are 
non-selected companies under this review. The Department determines to 
use, as the non-selected rate, a calculated rate which does not rely on 
zero, de minimis, or facts-available margins from the investigation. 
Therefore, for purposes of these preliminary results, the 18 remaining 
non-selected companies subject to this review will receive the rate of 
3.91 percent calculated during the investigation.

Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties 
in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Preliminary Results of the Review

    We preliminarily determine that weighted-average dumping margins 
exist for the respondents for the period April 17, 2006, through August 
31, 2007, as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Weighted average margin
          Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kejriwal Paper Limited...................  0.44 (de minimis)
Ria ImpEx Pvt. Ltd.......................   23.17
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to the Non-Selected 
Companies Subject to This Review: \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ This rate is based on the weighted average of the margins 
calculated during the investigation (which is also the rate 
calculated for Kejriwal in the investigation). See the ``Non-
Selected Rate'' section above.

 
 
 
Blue Bird India Ltd.............................................    3.91
Creative Divya..................................................    3.91
Exel India Pvt. Ltd.............................................    3.91
FFI International...............................................    3.91
Global Art India Inc............................................    3.91
Kejriwal Exports................................................    3.91
M/S Super ImpEx.................................................    3.91
Magic International.............................................    3.91
Marigold ExIm Pvt. Ltd..........................................    3.91
Marisa International............................................    3.91
Navneet Publications (India) Ltd................................    3.91
Pioneer Stationery Pvt. Ltd.....................................    3.91
Rajvansh International..........................................    3.91
Riddhi Enterprises..............................................    3.91
SAB International...............................................    3.91
TKS Overseas....................................................    3.91
Unlimited Accessories Worldwide.................................    3.91
V. Joshi Co.....................................................    3.91
 

Disclosure and Public Hearing

    The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed 
in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Pursuant to 
19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit cases briefs not later 
than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal 
briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not 
later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. 
Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding 
are requested to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the 
issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of 
authorities. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2).
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), 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, 
Room 1117, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. 
Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address and telephone 
number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be 
discussed. Id. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those 
raised in the respective case briefs. The Department will issue the 
final results of this administrative review, including the results of 
its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 
120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to 
section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall 
determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212. The Department will issue 
appropriate appraisement instructions for the companies subject to this 
review directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the 
final results of this review.
    For Kejriwal, because it reported the entered value for some of its 
U.S. sales, we will calculate importer-specific ad valorem duty 
assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping 
duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of 
the sales for which entered value was reported. For Kejriwal's U.S. 
sales reported without entered values, we will calculate importer-
specific per-unit duty assessment rates by aggregating the total amount 
of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales and dividing 
this amount by the total quantity of those sales. To determine whether 
the duty assessment rates are de minimis, in accordance with the 
requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will calculate 
importer-specific ad valorem ratios based on the estimated entered 
value.
    For all other companies \13\ subject to this review which were not 
selected for individual examination, we will calculate an assessment 
rate based on the weighted average of the cash deposit rates calculated 
for the companies as described in the ``Non-Selected Rate'' section 
above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ As stated above, Ria will receive an AFA rate of 23.17 
percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific 
assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above 
de minimis. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to 
liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for

[[Page 58555]]

which the assessment rate is de minimis. See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). The 
final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of 
antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final 
results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, 
where applicable.
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment 
Policy Notice). This clarification will apply to entries of subject 
merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in these 
final results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know 
that the merchandise they sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller, 
trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In 
such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at 
the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediary involved 
in the transaction. See Assessment Policy Notice for a full discussion 
of this clarification.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for each specific 
company listed above will be that established in the final results of 
this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, 
therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in 
which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously 
reviewed or investigated companies not participating in this review, 
the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate 
published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm 
covered in this review, or the original investigation, but the 
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for 
the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) 
the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will 
continue to be 3.91 percent, the all-others rate made effective by the 
investigation. See Lined Paper Order, 70 FR at 5148. These deposit 
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further 
notice.

Notification to Importers

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

    Dated: September 29, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-23704 Filed 10-6-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P