Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 58540-58548 [E8-23713]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
58540
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Notices
14th and Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC.
Comments: None received. Decision:
Approved. We know of no instruments
of equivalent scientific value to the
foreign instruments described below, for
such purposes as each is intended to be
used, that was being manufactured in
the United States at the time of its order.
Docket Number: 08–040. Applicant:
New Mexico Institute of Mining and
Technology; Socorro, New Mexico
87801. Instrument: Unit Telescope.
Manufacturer: Advanced Mechanical
and Optical Systems SA (AMOS),
Belgium. Intended Use: See notice at 73
FR 52644, September 10, 2008. Reasons:
The instrument has the following
features which are essential to the
research. The instrument is able to be
relocated, the functions of the
instrument are able to be controlled and
monitored over a network connection,
and the instrument has an aperture
greater than one-meter.
Docket Number: 08–042. Applicant:
University of Alabama at Birmingham,
Birmingham, AL 35294. Instrument: FIE
Vitrobot. Manufacturer: FEI Company,
the Netherlands. Intended Use: See
notice at 73 FR 52644, September 10,
2008. Reasons: The instrument has a
controlled environmental chamber and
the capability of fully automated
operation. These features are required
for the research.
Dated: September 30, 2008.
Faye Robinson,
Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff,
Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8–23583 Filed 10–6–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–901]
Certain Lined Paper Products from the
People’s Republic of China: Notice of
Preliminary Results of the
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(‘‘the Department’’) is conducting the
first administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain lined
paper products (‘‘CLPP’’) from the
People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’)
with respect to four producers/exporters
for the period April 17, 2006, through
August 31, 2007. We have preliminarily
determined that sales have been made
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:23 Oct 06, 2008
Jkt 217001
below normal value (‘‘NV’’) by Shanghai
Lian Li Paper Products Co., Ltd. (‘‘Lian
Li’’). If these preliminary results are
adopted in our final results of this
review, we will instruct U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries of subject merchandise during
the period of review.
Interested parties are invited to
comment on these preliminary results.
We intend to issue the final results no
later than 120 days from the date of
publication of this notice, pursuant to
section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’).
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 7, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Victoria Cho or Cindy Lai Robinson,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–5075 or (202) 482–
3797, 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 the
PRC.1 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 the PRC for the
period April 17, 2006, through August
31, 2007.2 On September 28, 2007, the
following parties requested the
Department to conduct an
administrative review of themselves in
the antidumping review of CLPP from
the PRC: Lian Li; Hwa Fuh Plastics Co.
Ltd./Li Teng Plastics (Shenzhen) Co.,
Ltd. (‘‘H.F. Plastics/L.T. Plastics’’); Leo’s
Quality Products Co., Ltd./Denmax
Plastic Stationery Factory (‘‘Denmax/
Leo’s Products’’); and the Watanabe
Group (which consists of the following
three companies: Watanabe Paper
Products (Shanghai) Co. Ltd.
(‘‘Watanabe Shanghai’’); Watanabe
Paper Products (Linqing) Co. Ltd.
(‘‘Watanabe Linqing’’); and Hotrock
1 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 Indonesia, 71 FR 56949
(September 28, 2006) (Lined Paper Order).
2 See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order,
Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
to Request Administrative Review, 72 FR 50657
(September 4, 2007).
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Stationery (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd.
(‘‘Hotrock Shenzhen’’)
On October 1, 2007, the Association
of American School Paper Suppliers, a
domestic interested party and Petitioner
in the underlying investigation,
requested that the Department conduct
an administrative review of the
Watanabe Group and Lian Li as well as
any of these companies’ subsidiaries or
affiliates (as well as predecessor and
successor companies), whether directly
to the United States or indirectly
through third countries. On October 31,
2007, the Department initiated this
review with respect to all requested
companies. See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews, 72 FR 61621
(October 31, 2007).
On May 6, 2008, the Petitioner
submitted a request for an extension for
these preliminary results. On June 5,
2008, the Department published a notice
extending the time period for issuing
the preliminary results for 120 days to
September 29, 2008. See Certain Lined
Paper Products From the People’s
Republic of China: Extension of Time
Limits for Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 73 FR 31964 (June 5, 2008).
Respondent Selection and Quantity and
Value
Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs
the Department to calculate individual
dumping margins for each known
exporter or producer of the subject
merchandise.3 However, section
777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the
Department discretion to limit its
examination to a reasonable number of
exporters or producers if it is not
practicable to examine all exporters or
producers involved in the review.
The Department obtained CBP
quantity and value data for the parties
for which a review was requested. After
assessing its resources, the Department
determined that it can reasonably
examine one of the four exporters
subject to this review. On November 7,
2007, the Department selected Lian Li as
a mandatory respondent in this
investigation.4
On November 8, 2007, the Department
issued its initial sections A, C, and D
antidumping duty questionnaire to Lian
Li. On December 6, 2007, Lian Li
3 Regarding respondent selection in general, see
also 19 CFR 351.204(c).
4 See Memorandum to Wendy J. Frankel, Director,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, from Marin Weaver,
International Trade Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 8, titled, ‘‘Selection of
Respondents for the Antidumping Review of
Certain Lined Paper Products from the People’s
Republic of China’’ (November 7, 2007)
(‘‘Respondent Selection Memo’’).
E:\FR\FM\07OCN1.SGM
07OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Notices
submitted its Section A response to the
Department’s original questionnaire,
and on January 23, 2008, Lian Li
submitted its supplemental Section A
questionnaire response. On January 3,
2008, Lian Li submitted its section C
response to the Department’s original
questionnaire and on March 6, 2008,
Lian Li submitted its supplemental
section C questionnaire response. On
January 10, 2008, Lian Li submitted its
Section D response to the Department’s
original questionnaire and on January
23, 2008, Lian Li submitted its
supplemental section D questionnaire
response. On April 11, 2008, Lian Li
submitted its fourth and fifth
supplemental responses to the
Department’s supplemental
questionnaires.
On May 1, 2008, the Petitioner
submitted deficiency comments
regarding Lian Li’s supplemental
questionnaire response.
On September 12, 2008, the Petitioner
submitted pre–preliminary results
comments. On September 18, 2008, Lian
Li submitted a letter to correct certain
errors contained in its factors of
production (‘‘FOP’’) database.
Period of Review
The period of review (‘‘POR’’) is April
17, 2006, through August 31, 2007.
Surrogate Country and Factors
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
On November 9, 2007, the Department
requested that the Office of Policy
provide a list of surrogate countries for
this review.5 On December 20, 2007, the
Office of Policy issued its list of
surrogate countries.6 On January 18,
2008, the Department requested that
interested parties submit surrogate
country selection comments. On
February 22, 2008, the Department
selected its surrogate country for this
review.7 The Department received Lian
Li’s and the Petitioner’s comments on
April 1, and on April 8 and 15, 2008,
respectively.
5 See Memorandum to Ron Lorentzen, Director,
Office of Policy, from Wendy Frankel, Director,
Office 8, AD/CVD Operations, titled, ‘‘Certain Lined
Paper Products from the People’s Republic of
China: Request for Surrogate Country Selection’’
(November 9, 2007).
6 See Memorandum to Wendy Frankel regarding
the Request for a List of Surrogate Countries, dated
December 20, 2007 (‘‘Office of Policy Surrogate
Countries Memo’’).
7 See Memorandum to the File from Andrea
Berton, International Trade Compliance Analyst,
Office 8, AD/CVD Operations, titled, ‘‘2006/
2007Administrative Review of the Antidumping
Duty Order of Certain Lined Paper Products from
the People’s Republic of China: Selection of a
Surrogate Country’’ (February 22, 2008) (‘‘Surrogate
Country Selection Memo’’).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:23 Oct 06, 2008
Jkt 217001
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
looseleaf filler paper) including but not
limited to such products as single- and
multi–subject notebooks, composition
books, wireless notebooks, looseleaf or
glued filler paper, graph paper, and
laboratory notebooks, and with the
smaller dimension of the paper
measuring 6 inches to 15 inches
(inclusive) and the larger dimension of
the paper measuring 8–3/4 inches to 15
inches (inclusive). Page dimensions are
measured size (not advertised, stated, or
tear–out size), and are measured as they
appear in the product (i.e., stitched and
folded pages in a notebook are measured
by the size of the page as it appears in
the notebook page, not the size of the
unfolded paper). However, for
measurement purposes, pages with
tapered or rounded edges shall be
measured at their longest and widest
points. Subject lined paper products
may be loose, packaged or bound using
any binding method (other than case
bound through the inclusion of binders
board, a spine strip, and cover wrap).
Subject merchandise may or may not
contain any combination of a front
cover, a rear cover, and/or backing of
any composition, regardless of the
inclusion of images or graphics on the
cover, backing, or paper. Subject
merchandise is within the scope of this
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’’),
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
58541
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:
• FlyTM lined paper products: A
notebook, notebook organizer, loose
or glued note paper, with papers
that are printed with infrared
reflective inks and readable only by
a FlyTM pen–top computer. The
product must bear the valid
trademark FlyTM (products found to
be bearing an invalidly licensed or
used trademark are not excluded
from the scope).
• ZwipesTM: A notebook or notebook
E:\FR\FM\07OCN1.SGM
07OCN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
58542
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Notices
organizer made with a blended
polyolefin writing surface as the
cover and pocket surfaces of the
notebook, suitable for writing using
a specially–developed permanent
marker and erase system (known as
a ZwipesTM pen). This system
allows the marker portion to mark
the writing surface with a
permanent ink. The eraser portion
of the marker dispenses a solvent
capable of solubilizing the
permanent ink allowing the ink to
be removed. The product must bear
the valid trademark ZwipesTM
(products found to be bearing an
invalidly licensed or used
trademark are not excluded from
the scope).
• FiveStar AdvanceTM: 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 AdvanceTM (products
found to be bearing an invalidly
licensed or used trademark are not
excluded from the scope).
• FiveStar FlexTM: A notebook, a
notebook organizer, or binder with
plastic polyolefin front and rear
covers joined by 300 denier
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:23 Oct 06, 2008
Jkt 217001
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 FlexTM (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 this
order is dispositive.
Non–Market Economy Country Status
In every case conducted by the
Department involving the PRC, the PRC
has been treated as a non–market
economy (‘‘NME’’) country. See, e.g.,
Honey from the People’s Republic of
China: Preliminary Results and Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 70 FR 74764
(December 16, 2005) (unchanged in
final).8 Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i)
of the Act, any determination that a
foreign country is an NME country shall
remain in effect until revoked by the
administering authority. See, e.g.,
Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the
People’s Republic of China: Notice of
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
8 See Honey from the People’s Republic of China:
Final Results and Final Rescission, in Part, of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR
34893 (June 16, 2006).
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR
58672 (October 7, 2005) (unchanged in
final);9 and Carbazole Violet Pigment 23
from the People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review and
Rescission in Part, 71 FR 65073, 65074
(November 7, 2006) (unchanged in
final).10 None of the parties to this
proceeding has contested such
treatment. Accordingly, we calculated
NV in accordance with section 773(c) of
the Act, which applies to NME
countries.
Surrogate Country
Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires
the Department to value an NME
producer’s FOPs, to the extent possible,
in one or more market–economy
countries that (1) are at a level of
economic development comparable to
that of the NME country, and (2) are
significant producers of comparable
merchandise. The Department
determined that India, Indonesia, Sri
Lanka, the Philippines, and Egypt are
countries comparable to the PRC in
terms of economic development. See
‘‘Office of Policy Surrogate Countries
Memo.’’ In addition, based on publicly
available information placed on the
record (e.g., production data), India is a
significant producer of the subject
merchandise.11 Id. Further, we have
available on the record of this segment
of the proceeding information with
which to value the FOPs and determine
surrogate financial ratios in India.
Accordingly, we have selected India as
the surrogate country for purposes of
valuing the FOPs because it meets the
Department’s criteria for surrogate–
country selection.
Application of Facts Available
Section 776(a) of the Act provides that
the Department will apply ‘‘facts
otherwise available’’ (‘‘FA’’) 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
9 See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the
People’s Republic of China: Notice of Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR
7013 (February 10, 2006)
10 See Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from the
People’s Republic of China: Fianl Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and
Rescission in Part, 72 FR 26589 (May 10, 2007).
11 See Memorandum from Andrea Berton,
International Trade Compliance Analyst, Office of
AD/CVD Enforcement, through Blanche Ziv,
Program Manager, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement,
to File, ‘‘2006/2007 Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order of Certain Lined Paper
Products from the People’s Republic of China:
Selection of a Surrogate Country’’ (February 22,
2008) (‘‘Surrogate Country Memo’’).
E:\FR\FM\07OCN1.SGM
07OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
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.
To date in this review, as stated above
in the ‘‘Background’’ section, the
Department has issued five
supplemental questionnaires to Lian Li.
Although Lian Li responded to the
Department’s original and five
supplemental questionnaires, for the
reasons discussed below, the
Department finds that the FOP
databases submitted by Lian Li for its
two unaffiliated suppliers, Shanghai
Sentian Paper Product Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Sentian’’) and Shanghai Miaopanfang
Paper Product Co., Ltd. (‘‘MPF’’) cannot
be relied on for purposes of calculating
NV for these preliminary results. In
addition, the Department finds that Lian
Li also failed to provide FOP data for
certain merchandise it produced and
sold in the United States during the
POR. Accordingly, the Department finds
that for purposes of these preliminary
results, application of FA to Lian Li is
warranted, in accordance with section
776(a) of the Act.
A. Application of Adverse Facts
Available for the FOP Data of Lian Li’s
Suppliers
In its original Section A response,
Lian Li stated that, in addition to its
own production, it purchased and
resold merchandise which was
produced by two unaffiliated suppliers,
Sentian and MPF. Lian Li provided
three separate FOP databases, one for
each of the three producers in its
original Section D response. It also
provided a consolidated FOP database
inclusive of FOPs for all three
producers. Because the initial FOP
databases did not have proper
supporting documentation and because
Lian Li did not provide reconciliations
as requested, on January 17, 2008, the
Department issued a supplemental
questionnaire. The Department
requested that Lian Li provide, for each
producer of subject merchandise,
reconciliations for the reported FOPs, as
was required in the Department’s
original questionnaire at Appendix V. In
the same letter, the Department also
requested that Lian Li provide proper
worksheets which can be tied to the
financial statements or accounting
records of each respective producer.
Although Lian Li provided some
worksheets in its responses dated
January 24 and February 27, 2008, the
Department found that the ‘‘worksheets
in and of themselves cannot be relied
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:23 Oct 06, 2008
Jkt 217001
upon without support from the
appropriate source documentation’’12
and therefore, the Department issued
another supplemental Sections C and D
questionnaire on March 6, 2008, in
which it requested supporting
documentation for the three largest raw
material inputs and the three largest
packing material inputs for June 2006.
In its April 11, 2008, response at 12,
Lian Li indicated that because Sentian
and MPF are affiliated with each other
and share the same management and
accounting staff, the same accountant
collectively gathered all production,
warehouse and sales records.
Furthermore, Lian Li stated that the FOP
databases provided by Sentian and MPF
were based on arbitrary sales and
manufacturing costs assigned to each
company’s books and records by the
companies’ accountant. Therefore, Lian
Li claimed that ‘‘the only way to make
the cost as accurate as possible based on
the accounting records of the affiliated
companies is to combine the total
production and total consumption of
these two affiliated companies together,
as they have done in their own records,
and calculate a combined variance for
both companies.’’
It is the Department’s practice to rely
on accurate information submitted by
respondents to calculate dumping
margins in an antidumping duty
proceeding. See PRC Wooden Bedroom
Furniture.13 When the Department finds
that a respondent’s reported information
is not reliable, the Department will
resort to FA. Id. Specifically, in the
Department’s recent decision in PRC
Wooden Bedroom Furniture, the
Department concluded that a
respondent’s submitted data are not
reliable when the data cannot be tied to
reliable financial statements or a reliable
financial recording system. In this case,
Lian Li states that the reported FOPs of
both of its suppliers, Sentian and MPF,
are arbitrarily assigned and therefore not
accurate. Lian Li further states that the
FOP data cannot be tied to the books
and records of the two companies.
Furthermore, based on the information
on the record at this point in the review,
it is not clear whether Sentian’s and
MPF’s accounting books and records are
reliable, given the arbitrary manner in
which sales and costs were assigned.
12 See the Department’s supplemental Sections C
and D questionnaire dated March 6, 2008, at 3.
13 See Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the
People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review and
Partial Rescission of Administrative Review, 73 FR
8273 (February 13, 2008) (‘‘PRC Wooden Bedroom
Furniture’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
58543
Because, by Lian Li’s own admission,
the reported FOP data provided by
Sentian and MPF are arbitrary and
inaccurate, we preliminarily find that
such data are unreliable and therefore
cannot be used for these preliminary
results. Thus, the Department will use
the facts otherwise available to calculate
NV for subject merchandise produced
by Sentian and MPF for these
preliminary results of review.
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
(September 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 (August
30, 2002). Adverse inferences may be
employed ‘‘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, Sentian and MPF knew
that their reported FOP data were
inaccurate and based on arbitrarily
assigned numbers which could not be
tied to their accounting books and
records and were therefore unreliable.
However, the Department was not
informed of such fact until the last
supplemental questionnaire response
was filed. Sentian and MPF clearly
should have known that if the FOP data
are arbitrarily assigned numbers and
cannot be tied to any of the companies’
accounting records, the data cannot be
relied upon by the Department. In this
regard it is important to note that FOPs
for Sentian and MPF were examined
and verified in the investigation phase
of this proceeding, and where such
FOPs were found to be unreliable, the
Department in that segment resorted to
E:\FR\FM\07OCN1.SGM
07OCN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
58544
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Notices
FA, with an adverse inference. Thus,
Sentian and MPF were aware of the
Department’s requirements and
standards from the very beginning of
this review.
Had Lian Li, Sentian and MPF
informed the Department of this
problem in its original or first
supplemental Section D questionnaire
responses, dated January 11 and 23,
2008, respectively, the Department
would have had the opportunity to
further examine the issue and, if
warranted, consider alternatives to the
use of the unreliable data. However,
Sentian and MPF withheld this
information for three additional months
until Lian Li filed its response to the
Department’s March 6, 2008,
supplemental questionnaire. As such,
the Department preliminarily finds that
Sentian and MPF did not act to the best
of their ability in this review, within the
meaning of section 776(b) of the Act.
Therefore, an adverse inference is
warranted in selecting from the facts
otherwise available with respect to the
FOPs for subject merchandise produced
by Sentian and MPF. See Nippon, 337
F.3d at 1382–83.
In Nippon, the Court set out two
requirements for drawing an adverse
inference under section 776(b) of the
Act. First, the Department ‘‘must make
an objective showing that a reasonable
and responsible importer would have
known that the requested information
was required to be kept and maintained
under the applicable statutes, rules, and
regulations.’’ Next the Department must
‘‘make a subjective showing that the
respondent . . . has failed to promptly
produce the requested information’’ and
that ‘‘failure to fully respond is the
result of the respondent’s lack of
cooperation in either: (a) failing to keep
and maintain all required records, or (b)
failing to put forth its maximum efforts
to investigate and obtain the requested
information from its records.’’ The Court
clarifies further that ‘‘{a}n adverse
inference may not be drawn merely
from a failure to respond, but only
under circumstances in which it is
reasonable for Commerce to expect that
more forthcoming responses should
have been made.’’ See Nippon, at 1382–
83.
In the underlying investigation, the
Department examined and verified the
FOPs of Sentian and MPF and where it
found that Sentian and MPF were
unable to substantiate their reported
consumption for a particular FOP,
mixed–pulp paper, the Department
resorted to FA with an adverse
inference. See Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, and Affirmative Critical
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:23 Oct 06, 2008
Jkt 217001
Circumstances, In Part: Certain Lined
Paper Products from People’s Republic
of China, 71 FR 53079 (September 8,
2006) (‘‘PRC Lined Paper Investigation
Final’’), and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 18..
In its final determination, the
Department, citing Nippon, concluded
that Lian Li and its producers were
responsible for demonstrating the
reliability of their own data, and found
the company unable to substantiate its
reported consumption for a particular
FOP. Therefore, the Department
concluded that Sentian and MPF did
not cooperate to the best of their ability
with respect to this FOP, mixed–pulp
paper consumption, and applied FA
with an adverse inference to Sentian’s
and MPF’s paper consumption. As
adverse facts available (‘‘AFA’’), the
Department applied the highest reported
paper consumption rate for any single
CONNUM from any of Lian Li’s other
suppliers. Id.
Therefore, we preliminarily determine
that Sentian and MPF should have
known from the beginning of this
review that the requested information
would be required and that by failing to
maintain and provide the information,
they have failed to cooperate to the best
of their ability. As such, an adverse
inference is warranted in this review.
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
(November 7, 2006) (quoting Carbon
and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from
Brazil: Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at LTFV and Final Negative
Circumstances, 67 FR 55792 (August 30,
2002)).
In order to ensure that the margin is
sufficiently adverse so as to induce
cooperation, the Department has
preliminarily assigned the highest NV
for any single matching control number
(‘‘CONNUM’’) from the three producers
at issue in this review, Lian Li, Sentian,
and MPF, to all subject merchandise
produced by Sentian and MPF. This is
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
consistent with the Department’s
practice in similar situations.14 See also
PRC Lined Paper Investigation Final.
The Department finds that this adverse
inference is sufficient to effectuate the
purpose of the facts available rule (i.e.,
we find that this is sufficient to
encourage participation in future
segments of this proceeding in
accordance with section 776(b) of the
Act).
After issuance of these preliminary
results, however, the Department
expects to issue an additional
questionnaire to Lian Li to seek further
clarification on certain information,
including Sentian’s and MPF’s FOP
data, which was submitted on the
record in this proceeding.
B. Application of Facts Otherwise
Available for Certain of Lian Li’s Own
FOP Data
In the U.S. sales database submitted
by Lian Li dated April 11, 2008, with
respect to its own production, the
Department found several sales
CONNUMs for which Lian Li did not
report matching FOP CONNUMs in its
FOP database. The Department believes
that the missing FOP CONNUMs are
attributable to a technical mis–coding
problem caused partially by the
Department’s instructions to Lian Li to
re–code certain products.15 In its April
11, 2008, response, Lian Li re–coded its
CONNUMs in its revised U.S. sales
database but it did not recode the
corresponding CONNUMs in its FOP
database accordingly. Pursuant to
section 776(a) of the Act, the
Department has determined
preliminarily to apply facts otherwise
available to the missing FOP
CONNUMs. For purposes of these
preliminary results, as facts available,
the Department determined FOPs for the
re–coded sales based on FOPs for
similar CONNUMs reported by Lian Li.
See ‘‘Lian Li Preliminary Calculation
Memo’’16 for further details.
14 See China Kingdom Import & Export Co., Ltd.
v. United States, Consol. Ct. No. 03–00302, Slip Op.
07–135 (CIT September 4, 2007) (‘‘China
Kingdom’’).
15 Specifically, the Department found that in Lian
Li’s FOP database, Lian Li reported that binding
type and cover material for various products are not
consistently reported and may possibly be
incorrectly reported. Therefore, in its fifth
supplemental questionnaire, dated March 6, 2008,
the Department instructed Lian Li to assign a
CONNUM to each unique product reported in the
section C sales database by specifying its product
characteristics in Fields 3.1 through 3.8. See The
Department’s March 6, 2008, letter to Lian Li at 12–
14 (‘‘The Department’s March 6, 2008, letter’’).
16 See the Memorandum to file from Victoria Cho,
titled ‘‘Calculation Memorandum, Shanghai Lian Li
Paper Products Co. Ltd.; Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Investigation of Certain Lined Paper
E:\FR\FM\07OCN1.SGM
07OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Notices
As stated above, the Department
intends to issue an additional
questionnaire to Lian Li to seek further
clarification of certain information,
including Lian Li’s missing FOP
CONNUMs, after issuance of these
preliminary results.
Corroboration of Information
Section 776(c) of the Act requires the
Department to corroborate, to the extent
practicable, secondary information used
as FA. Secondary information is
Ainformation 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
SAA at 870; see also 19 CFR 351.308 (c)
and (d). The SAA clarifies that
‘‘corroborate’’ means that the
Department will satisfy itself that the
‘‘secondary information to be used has
probative value.’’ See Id. The SAA and
the Department’s regulations state that
independent sources used to corroborate
such evidence may include, for
example, published price lists, official
import statistics and customs data, and
information obtained from interested
parties during the particular
investigation or review. See SAA at 870;
19 CFR 351.308 (d). To corroborate
secondary information, the Department
will, to the extent practicable, examine
the reliability and relevance of the
information used. See Ferro Union, Inc.
v. United States, 44 F.Supp. 2d 1310
(CIT 1999); section 776 (c) of the Act.
As stated above, the Department
calculated partial AFA based on
information reported by the
respondents, and did not rely on any
secondary information. Therefore,
corroboration is not necessary in this
review in accordance with section
776(c) of the Act.
Separate Rates
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
In the Separate Rates Application and
Separate Rates Certification Letter,17 the
Department notified parties of the recent
application process by which exporters
and producers may obtain separate–rate
status in an NME review. The process
requires exporters and producers to
submit a separate–rate status
certification and/or application. See
also Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate–
from People’s Republic of China,’’ dated September
29, 2008 (‘‘Lian Li Preliminary Calculation Memo’’).
17 See The Department’s letter to interested
parties entitled, ‘‘Certain Lined Paper Products from
People’s Republic of China: Separate Rates
Application and Separate Rates Certification,’’
dated November 20, 2007 (‘‘Separate Rates
Application and Separate Rates Certification
Letter’’).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:23 Oct 06, 2008
Jkt 217001
Rates Practice and Application of
Combination Rates in Antidumping
Investigations involving Non–Market
Economy Countries, (April 5, 2005)
(‘‘Policy Bulletin 05.1’’), available at
<https://ia.ita.doc.gov>. 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.
In proceedings involving NME
countries, the Department begins with a
rebuttable presumption that all
companies within the country are
subject to government control and thus
should be assessed a single antidumping
duty rate. See Policy Bulletin 05.1. It is
the Department’s policy to assign all
exporters of merchandise subject to
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. Id. Exporters can
demonstrate this independence through
the absence of both de jure and de facto
government control over export
activities. Id. The Department analyzes
each entity exporting the subject
merchandise 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.
See e.g., Final results of Antidumping
Administrative Review: Petroleum Wax
Candles from the PRC, 72 FR 52355
(September 13, 2007).
58545
independent from government control.
See Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Creatine
Monohydrate from the People’s
Republic of China, 64 FR 71104–05
(December 20, 1999) (where the
respondent was wholly foreign–owned
and, thus, qualified for a separate rate).
Accordingly, we have preliminarily
granted a separate rate to these
companies.
2. Joint Wholly Chinese–Owned
Companies
Lian Li, the mandatory respondent in
this review, stated that it is a wholly
Chinese–owned company. Therefore,
the Department must analyze whether
this respondent can demonstrate the
absence of both de jure and de facto
government control over its export
activities.
A. Separate Rate Recipients
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) any other formal
measures by the government
decentralizing control of companies. See
Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. The evidence
provided by Lian Li 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 exporter’s 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
Lian Li’s letter to the Department
entitled, ‘‘Lined Paper Products from
China; Section A Response of Shanghai
Lian Li Paper Products Co., Ltd.,’’ dated
December 13, 2007, at Exhibit 1.
1. Wholly Foreign–Owned
The three companies not selected for
individual examination in this review
(H.F. Plastics/L.T. Plastics; Denmax/
Leo’s Products; and the Watanabe
Group) reported in their separate–rate
applications (collectively ‘‘Foreign–
owned SR Applicants’’) that they are
wholly owned by individuals or
companies located in a market
economy. Therefore, because they are
wholly foreign–owned, and we have no
evidence indicating that they are under
the control of the PRC, a separate–rate
analysis is not necessary to determine
whether these companies are
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
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\07OCN1.SGM
07OCN1
58546
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
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
preclude the Department from assigning
separate rates. The evidence provided
by Lian Li supports a preliminary
finding of de facto absence of
government control based on the
following: (1) Lian Li sets its own export
prices independent of the government
and without the approval of a
government authority; (2) Lian Li has
authority to negotiate and sign contracts
and other agreements; (3) Lian Li has
autonomy from the government in
making decisions regarding the
selection of management; and (4) there
is no restriction on any of Lian Li’s use
of export revenue. See Lian Li’s letter to
the Department entitled, ‘‘Lined Paper
Products from China; Section A
Response of Shanghai Lian Li Paper
Products Co., Ltd.,’’ dated December 13,
2007, at Exhibit 1.
Therefore, the Department
preliminarily finds that Lian Li has
established that it qualifies for a
separate rate under the criteria
established by Silicon Carbide and
Sparklers.
Separate Rate Calculation
This review covers four exporters. As
stated previously, the Department
selected one exporter, Lian Li, as a
mandatory respondent in this review.
The remaining three companies (H.F.
Plastics/L.T. Plastics; Denmax/Leo’s
Products; and the Watanabe Group)
submitted timely information as
requested by the Department and
remain subject to this review as
cooperative separate–rate respondents.
For the exporters subject to this
review that were determined to be
eligible for separate–rate status, but
were not selected as mandatory
respondents (‘‘Separate–Rate
Recipients’’), the Department normally
establishes a weighted–average margin
based on an average of the rates it
calculated for the mandatory
respondents, excluding any rates that
are zero, de minimis, or based entirely
on AFA.18 In this proceeding, there is
only one mandatory respondent.
Accordingly, for these preliminary
18 See
PRC Wooden Bedroom Furniture.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:23 Oct 06, 2008
Jkt 217001
results, the rate calculated for Lian Li is
applied as the rate for non–selected
separate entities. That rate is 217.23
percent. Entities receiving this rate are
identified by name in the ‘‘Preliminary
Results of Review’’ section of this
notice.
Date of Sale
Lian Li reported the invoice date as
the date of sale because it claims that,
for its U.S. sales of subject merchandise
made during the POR, the material
terms of sale were established on the
invoice date. We have preliminarily
determined that the invoice date is the
most appropriate date to use as Lian Li’s
date of sale in accordance with 19 CFR
351.401(i) and the Department’s long–
standing practice of determining the
date of sale.19
Normal Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of lined
paper products to the United States by
Lian Li were made at less than NV, we
compared export price (‘‘EP’’) to NV, as
described in the ‘‘Export Price,’’ and
‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice,
pursuant to section 771(35) of the Act.
Export Price
We based U.S. price for Lian Li on EP
in accordance with section 772(a) of the
Act, because the first sale to an
unaffiliated purchaser was made prior
to importation, and constructed export
price was not otherwise warranted by
the facts on the record. We calculated
EP based on the packed price from the
exporter to the first unaffiliated
customer in the United States. We
deducted foreign inland freight from the
starting price (gross unit price), in
accordance with section 772(c) of the
Act.
Lian Li incurred foreign inland freight
expenses from PRC service providers.
We therefore valued these services using
Indian surrogate values (see ‘‘Factors of
Production’’ section below for further
discussion).
Normal Value
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides
that, in the case of an NME, the
Department shall determine 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
19 See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain
Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from
Thailand, 69 FR 76918 (December 23, 2004), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 10.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
constructed value under section 773(a)
of the Act.
The Department will base NV on
FOPs because the presence of
government controls on various aspects
of NME economies renders price
comparisons and the calculation of
production costs invalid under our
normal methodologies. Therefore, we
calculated NV based on FOPs in
accordance with sections 773(c)(3) and
(4) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c).
The FOPs include: (1) hours of labor
required; (2) quantities of raw materials
employed; (3) amounts of energy and
other utilities consumed; and (4)
representative capital costs. We used the
FOPs reported by respondents for
materials, energy, labor, by–products,
and packing, with the exception of
subject merchandise produced by
Sentian and MPF, as noted above.
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.408(c)(1), the Department will
normally use publicly available
information to value the FOPs, but
when a producer sources an input from
a market–economy country and pays for
it in market–economy currency, the
Department may value the factor using
the actual price paid for the input.20
Lian Li reported that it did not purchase
any inputs from market–economy
suppliers for the production of the
subject merchandise. See Lian Li’s
January 10, 2008, questionnaire
response at 4.
With regard to both the Indian
import–based surrogate values and the
market–economy input values, we have
disregarded prices that we have reason
to believe or suspect may be
subsidized.21 We have reason to believe
or suspect that prices of inputs from
India, 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.
We are also guided by the statute’s
20 See Lasko Metal Products v. United States, 43
F.3d 1442, 1445–1446 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (affirming
the Department’s use of market-based prices to
value certain FOPs).
21 See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of
Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 70 FR 54007, 54011 (September 13, 2005)
(unchanged in the final results); Automotive
Replacement Glass Windshields From the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results of Administrative
Review, 69 FR 61790 (October 21, 2004), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 5, and China National Machinery Import
& Export Corporation v. United States, 293 F. Supp.
2d 1334 (CIT 2003), as affirmed by the Federal
Circuit, 104 Fed. Appx. 183 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
E:\FR\FM\07OCN1.SGM
07OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
legislative history that explains that it is
not necessary to conduct a formal
investigation to ensure that such prices
are not subsidized. See H.R. Rep. 100–
576 at 590 (1988). Rather, the
Department was instructed by Congress
to base its decision on information that
is available to it at the time it is making
its determination. Id. Therefore, we
have not used prices from these
countries in calculating the Indian
import–based surrogate values.
Factor Valuations
In accordance with section 773(c) of
the Act, for subject merchandise
produced by Lian Li, we calculated NV
based on the FOPs reported by Lian Li
for the POR. To calculate NV, we
multiplied the reported per–unit factor
quantities by publicly available Indian
surrogate values (except as noted
below). In selecting the surrogate values,
the Department considers the quality,
specificity, and contemporaneity of the
data. See, e.g., PRC Lined Paper
Investigation Final and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 3.
As appropriate, we adjusted input
prices by including freight costs to
render 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 or the distance from the
nearest seaport to the factory. This
adjustment is in accordance with the
decision of the Federal Circuit in Sigma
Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 1401,
1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). For a detailed
description of all surrogate values used
for Lian Li, see the Surrogate Value
Memorandum.
Except as noted below, we valued raw
material inputs using the surrogate
values denominated in Indian rupees
(‘‘Rs’’) using the Indian Wholesale Price
Index (‘‘WPI’’) from the RBI Handbook
of Statistics on Indian Economy as
published on the Reserve Bank of India
website. See www.rbi.org.in, a printout
of which is attached to the Surrogate
Value Memorandum. We applied a
surrogate value using Indian import
prices for the POI reported in the
Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade
of India, as published by the Directorate
General of Commercial Intelligence and
Statistics of the Ministry of Commerce
and Industry, Government of India, and
available from World Trade Atlas
(‘‘WTA’’).22 We excluded from our
calculations any imports from NME
countries, imports from unspecified
countries, and imports from countries
22 See
https://www.gtis.com/wta.htm.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:23 Oct 06, 2008
Jkt 217001
which the Department has determined
maintain non–specific export subsidies
(i.e., Indonesia, South Korea, and
Thailand). Where necessary we adjusted
surrogate values for inflation, exchange
rates, and taxes, and we converted all
applicable items to a per–kilogram
(‘‘Kg’’) basis.
To value electricity, we valued
electricity rates using the WPI in the
India Source: Reserve Bank of India
Bulletin Electricity Source, Table 178, of
the Handbook of Statistics on the Indian
Economy under the All Commodities
Source. We adjusted the value to reflect
inflation using the ‘‘Fuel, Power, Light
and Lubricants’’ inflation index
published in the Table 178, a copy of
which is attached to the Surrogate Value
Memorandum.
To value water, we used the revised
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation water rates for June 1, 2003
for the Mumbai region, available at
https://www.midcindia.com/water
supply, adjusted for inflation. See
Surrogate Value Memorandum.
For direct labor, indirect labor 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 site.
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 each respondent. See
Surrogate Value Memorandum at 8.
For factory overhead, selling, general,
and administrative expenses (‘‘SG&A’’),
Lian Li submitted financial information
for the year–ended March 31, 2007, for
one Indian producer of comparable
merchandise: Sundaram Multi Pap Ltd.
(‘‘Sundaram’’), a producer of
comparable merchandise.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), we
preliminarily determine that
Sundaram’s financial statement is the
best available information with which to
calculate financial ratios, because it is
complete, publicly available, and
contemporaneous with the POR.
Therefore, we used the financial
statements to value factory overhead,
SG&A, and profit, for these preliminary
results.
For packing materials, we used the
per–kilogram values obtained from the
WTA and made adjustments to account
for freight costs incurred between the
PRC suppliers plant. See Surrogate
Value Memorandum.
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions into
U.S. dollars, in accordance with section
773A(a) of the Act, based on the
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
58547
exchange rates in effect on the dates of
the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal
Reserve Bank.
Preliminary Results of Review
We preliminarily determine that the
following weighted–average dumping
margin exists:
The weighted–average dumping margins
are as follows:
Exporter
Shanghai Lian Li Paper Products
Co., Ltd. ..................................
Hwa Fuh Plastics Co., Ltd./Li
Teng Plastics (Shenzhen) Co.,
Ltd. ..........................................
Leo’s Quality Products Co., Ltd./
Denmax Plastic Stationery
Factory ....................................
The Watanabe Group (consisting
of the following companies).
Watanabe Paper Product
(Shenghai) Co., Ltd. ................
Watanabe Paper Product
(Linqing) Co., Ltd..
Hotrock Stationery (Shenzhen)
Co., Ltd..
Weighted–
Average
Margin
217.23
217.23
217.23
217.23
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). Because, as discussed above,
we intend to seek additional
information, we will establish the
briefing schedule at a later time, and
will notify parties of the schedule in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.309.
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
E:\FR\FM\07OCN1.SGM
07OCN1
58548
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Notices
publication of this notice, pursuant to
section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Assessment Rates
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the
Department will determine, and CBP
shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries. The Department
will issue appropriate assessment
instructions directly to CBP 15 days
after the publication of the final results
of this review. For assessment purposes,
where possible, we calculated importer–
specific assessment rates for certain
lined paper products from the PRC via
ad valorem duty assessment rates based
on the ratio of the total amount of the
dumping margins calculated for the
examined sales to the total entered
value of those same sales. We will
instruct CBP to assess antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries covered
by this review if any assessment rate
calculated in the final results of this
review is above de minimis. The final
results of this review shall be the basis
for the assessment of antidumping
duties on entries of merchandise
covered by the final results of these
reviews and for future deposits of
estimated duties, where applicable.
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
‘‘PRC–wide’’ 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 upon
publication of the final results of this
administrative review for all shipments
of the subject merchandise entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication
date, as provided for by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for the
exporters listed above, the cash deposit
rate will be established in the final
results of this review (except, if the rate
is zero or de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5
percent, no cash deposit will be
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:23 Oct 06, 2008
Jkt 217001
required for that company); (2) for
previously investigated or reviewed PRC
and non–PRC exporters not listed above
that have separate rates, the cash
deposit rate will continue to be the
exporter–specific rate published for the
most recent period; (3) for all PRC
exporters of subject merchandise which
have not been found to be entitled to a
separate rate, the cash deposit rate will
be the PRC–wide rate of 258.21 percent;
and (4) for all non–PRC exporters of
subject merchandise which have not
received their own rate, the cash deposit
rate will be the rate applicable to the
PRC exporters that supplied that non–
PRC exporter. These deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a
preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f)(2) 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.
This determination is 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. E8–23713 Filed 10–6–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
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.
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:
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Background
International Trade Administration
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
[A–533–843]
Certain Lined Paper Products From
India: Preliminary Results of the First
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
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
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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’’).
E:\FR\FM\07OCN1.SGM
07OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 7, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58540-58548]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23713]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-901]
Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's Republic of China:
Notice of Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting
the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on
certain lined paper products (``CLPP'') from the People's Republic of
China (``PRC'') with respect to four producers/exporters for the period
April 17, 2006, through August 31, 2007. We have preliminarily
determined that sales have been made below normal value (``NV'') by
Shanghai Lian Li Paper Products Co., Ltd. (``Lian Li''). If these
preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this review, we
will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise
during the period of review.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results. We intend to issue the final results no later than 120 days
from the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act'').
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 7, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Victoria Cho or Cindy Lai Robinson,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5075 or (202)
482-3797, 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
the PRC.\1\ 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 the PRC for the period April 17, 2006, through August 31, 2007.\2\
On September 28, 2007, the following parties requested the Department
to conduct an administrative review of themselves in the antidumping
review of CLPP from the PRC: Lian Li; Hwa Fuh Plastics Co. Ltd./Li Teng
Plastics (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (``H.F. Plastics/L.T. Plastics''); Leo's
Quality Products Co., Ltd./Denmax Plastic Stationery Factory (``Denmax/
Leo's Products''); and the Watanabe Group (which consists of the
following three companies: Watanabe Paper Products (Shanghai) Co. Ltd.
(``Watanabe Shanghai''); Watanabe Paper Products (Linqing) Co. Ltd.
(``Watanabe Linqing''); and Hotrock Stationery (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd.
(``Hotrock Shenzhen'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 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 Indonesia, 71 FR 56949 (September 28, 2006)
(Lined Paper Order).
\2\ See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative
Review, 72 FR 50657 (September 4, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 1, 2007, the Association of American School Paper
Suppliers, a domestic interested party and Petitioner in the underlying
investigation, requested that the Department conduct an administrative
review of the Watanabe Group and Lian Li as well as any of these
companies' subsidiaries or affiliates (as well as predecessor and
successor companies), whether directly to the United States or
indirectly through third countries. On October 31, 2007, the Department
initiated this review with respect to all requested companies. See
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews, 72 FR 61621 (October 31, 2007).
On May 6, 2008, the Petitioner submitted a request for an extension
for these preliminary results. On June 5, 2008, the Department
published a notice extending the time period for issuing the
preliminary results for 120 days to September 29, 2008. See Certain
Lined Paper Products From the People's Republic of China: Extension of
Time Limits for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 73 FR 31964 (June 5, 2008).
Respondent Selection and Quantity and Value
Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to calculate
individual dumping margins for each known exporter or producer of the
subject merchandise.\3\ However, section 777A(c)(2) of the Act gives
the Department discretion to limit its examination to a reasonable
number of exporters or producers if it is not practicable to examine
all exporters or producers involved in the review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Regarding respondent selection in general, see also 19 CFR
351.204(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department obtained CBP quantity and value data for the parties
for which a review was requested. After assessing its resources, the
Department determined that it can reasonably examine one of the four
exporters subject to this review. On November 7, 2007, the Department
selected Lian Li as a mandatory respondent in this investigation.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Memorandum to Wendy J. Frankel, Director, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 8, from Marin Weaver, International Trade
Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, titled, ``Selection
of Respondents for the Antidumping Review of Certain Lined Paper
Products from the People's Republic of China'' (November 7, 2007)
(``Respondent Selection Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 8, 2007, the Department issued its initial sections A,
C, and D antidumping duty questionnaire to Lian Li. On December 6,
2007, Lian Li
[[Page 58541]]
submitted its Section A response to the Department's original
questionnaire, and on January 23, 2008, Lian Li submitted its
supplemental Section A questionnaire response. On January 3, 2008, Lian
Li submitted its section C response to the Department's original
questionnaire and on March 6, 2008, Lian Li submitted its supplemental
section C questionnaire response. On January 10, 2008, Lian Li
submitted its Section D response to the Department's original
questionnaire and on January 23, 2008, Lian Li submitted its
supplemental section D questionnaire response. On April 11, 2008, Lian
Li submitted its fourth and fifth supplemental responses to the
Department's supplemental questionnaires.
On May 1, 2008, the Petitioner submitted deficiency comments
regarding Lian Li's supplemental questionnaire response.
On September 12, 2008, the Petitioner submitted pre-preliminary
results comments. On September 18, 2008, Lian Li submitted a letter to
correct certain errors contained in its factors of production (``FOP'')
database.
Period of Review
The period of review (``POR'') is April 17, 2006, through August
31, 2007.
Surrogate Country and Factors
On November 9, 2007, the Department requested that the Office of
Policy provide a list of surrogate countries for this review.\5\ On
December 20, 2007, the Office of Policy issued its list of surrogate
countries.\6\ On January 18, 2008, the Department requested that
interested parties submit surrogate country selection comments. On
February 22, 2008, the Department selected its surrogate country for
this review.\7\ The Department received Lian Li's and the Petitioner's
comments on April 1, and on April 8 and 15, 2008, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Memorandum to Ron Lorentzen, Director, Office of Policy,
from Wendy Frankel, Director, Office 8, AD/CVD Operations, titled,
``Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's Republic of China:
Request for Surrogate Country Selection'' (November 9, 2007).
\6\ See Memorandum to Wendy Frankel regarding the Request for a
List of Surrogate Countries, dated December 20, 2007 (``Office of
Policy Surrogate Countries Memo'').
\7\ See Memorandum to the File from Andrea Berton, International
Trade Compliance Analyst, Office 8, AD/CVD Operations, titled,
``2006/2007Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order of
Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's Republic of China:
Selection of a Surrogate Country'' (February 22, 2008) (``Surrogate
Country Selection Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 looseleaf filler paper) including but not limited to
such products as single- and multi-subject notebooks, composition
books, wireless notebooks, looseleaf or glued filler paper, graph
paper, and laboratory notebooks, and with the smaller dimension of the
paper measuring 6 inches to 15 inches (inclusive) and the larger
dimension of the paper measuring 8-3/4 inches to 15 inches (inclusive).
Page dimensions are measured size (not advertised, stated, or tear-out
size), and are measured as they appear in the product (i.e., stitched
and folded pages in a notebook are measured by the size of the page as
it appears in the notebook page, not the size of the unfolded paper).
However, for measurement purposes, pages with tapered or rounded edges
shall be measured at their longest and widest points. Subject lined
paper products may be loose, packaged or bound using any binding method
(other than case bound through the inclusion of binders board, a spine
strip, and cover wrap). Subject merchandise may or may not contain any
combination of a front cover, a rear cover, and/or backing of any
composition, regardless of the inclusion of images or graphics on the
cover, backing, or paper. Subject merchandise is within the scope of
this 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
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
[[Page 58542]]
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[reg] 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 this order is dispositive.
Non-Market Economy Country Status
In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the
PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (``NME'') country. See,
e.g., Honey from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results
and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR
74764 (December 16, 2005) (unchanged in final).\8\ Pursuant to section
771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is
an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the
administering authority. See, e.g., Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from
the People's Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 58672 (October 7, 2005)
(unchanged in final);\9\ and Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from the
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Rescission in Part, 71 FR 65073, 65074
(November 7, 2006) (unchanged in final).\10\ None of the parties to
this proceeding has contested such treatment. Accordingly, we
calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which
applies to NME countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Honey from the People's Republic of China: Final Results
and Final Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 71 FR 34893 (June 16, 2006).
\9\ See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic
of China: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 71 FR 7013 (February 10, 2006)
\10\ See Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from the People's Republic
of China: Fianl Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
and Rescission in Part, 72 FR 26589 (May 10, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surrogate Country
Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires the Department to value an
NME producer's FOPs, to the extent possible, in one or more market-
economy countries that (1) are at a level of economic development
comparable to that of the NME country, and (2) are significant
producers of comparable merchandise. The Department determined that
India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, and Egypt are countries
comparable to the PRC in terms of economic development. See ``Office of
Policy Surrogate Countries Memo.'' In addition, based on publicly
available information placed on the record (e.g., production data),
India is a significant producer of the subject merchandise.\11\ Id.
Further, we have available on the record of this segment of the
proceeding information with which to value the FOPs and determine
surrogate financial ratios in India. Accordingly, we have selected
India as the surrogate country for purposes of valuing the FOPs because
it meets the Department's criteria for surrogate-country selection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Memorandum from Andrea Berton, International Trade
Compliance Analyst, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, through Blanche
Ziv, Program Manager, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, to File, ``2006/
2007 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order of Certain
Lined Paper Products from the People's Republic of China: Selection
of a Surrogate Country'' (February 22, 2008) (``Surrogate Country
Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application of Facts Available
Section 776(a) of the Act provides that the Department will apply
``facts otherwise available'' (``FA'') 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
[[Page 58543]]
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.
To date in this review, as stated above in the ``Background''
section, the Department has issued five supplemental questionnaires to
Lian Li. Although Lian Li responded to the Department's original and
five supplemental questionnaires, for the reasons discussed below, the
Department finds that the FOP databases submitted by Lian Li for its
two unaffiliated suppliers, Shanghai Sentian Paper Product Co., Ltd.
(``Sentian'') and Shanghai Miaopanfang Paper Product Co., Ltd.
(``MPF'') cannot be relied on for purposes of calculating NV for these
preliminary results. In addition, the Department finds that Lian Li
also failed to provide FOP data for certain merchandise it produced and
sold in the United States during the POR. Accordingly, the Department
finds that for purposes of these preliminary results, application of FA
to Lian Li is warranted, in accordance with section 776(a) of the Act.
A. Application of Adverse Facts Available for the FOP Data of Lian Li's
Suppliers
In its original Section A response, Lian Li stated that, in
addition to its own production, it purchased and resold merchandise
which was produced by two unaffiliated suppliers, Sentian and MPF. Lian
Li provided three separate FOP databases, one for each of the three
producers in its original Section D response. It also provided a
consolidated FOP database inclusive of FOPs for all three producers.
Because the initial FOP databases did not have proper supporting
documentation and because Lian Li did not provide reconciliations as
requested, on January 17, 2008, the Department issued a supplemental
questionnaire. The Department requested that Lian Li provide, for each
producer of subject merchandise, reconciliations for the reported FOPs,
as was required in the Department's original questionnaire at Appendix
V. In the same letter, the Department also requested that Lian Li
provide proper worksheets which can be tied to the financial statements
or accounting records of each respective producer. Although Lian Li
provided some worksheets in its responses dated January 24 and February
27, 2008, the Department found that the ``worksheets in and of
themselves cannot be relied upon without support from the appropriate
source documentation''\12\ and therefore, the Department issued another
supplemental Sections C and D questionnaire on March 6, 2008, in which
it requested supporting documentation for the three largest raw
material inputs and the three largest packing material inputs for June
2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See the Department's supplemental Sections C and D
questionnaire dated March 6, 2008, at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its April 11, 2008, response at 12, Lian Li indicated that
because Sentian and MPF are affiliated with each other and share the
same management and accounting staff, the same accountant collectively
gathered all production, warehouse and sales records. Furthermore, Lian
Li stated that the FOP databases provided by Sentian and MPF were based
on arbitrary sales and manufacturing costs assigned to each company's
books and records by the companies' accountant. Therefore, Lian Li
claimed that ``the only way to make the cost as accurate as possible
based on the accounting records of the affiliated companies is to
combine the total production and total consumption of these two
affiliated companies together, as they have done in their own records,
and calculate a combined variance for both companies.''
It is the Department's practice to rely on accurate information
submitted by respondents to calculate dumping margins in an antidumping
duty proceeding. See PRC Wooden Bedroom Furniture.\13\ When the
Department finds that a respondent's reported information is not
reliable, the Department will resort to FA. Id. Specifically, in the
Department's recent decision in PRC Wooden Bedroom Furniture, the
Department concluded that a respondent's submitted data are not
reliable when the data cannot be tied to reliable financial statements
or a reliable financial recording system. In this case, Lian Li states
that the reported FOPs of both of its suppliers, Sentian and MPF, are
arbitrarily assigned and therefore not accurate. Lian Li further states
that the FOP data cannot be tied to the books and records of the two
companies. Furthermore, based on the information on the record at this
point in the review, it is not clear whether Sentian's and MPF's
accounting books and records are reliable, given the arbitrary manner
in which sales and costs were assigned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of
China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review and Partial
Rescission of Administrative Review, 73 FR 8273 (February 13, 2008)
(``PRC Wooden Bedroom Furniture'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because, by Lian Li's own admission, the reported FOP data provided
by Sentian and MPF are arbitrary and inaccurate, we preliminarily find
that such data are unreliable and therefore cannot be used for these
preliminary results. Thus, the Department will use the facts otherwise
available to calculate NV for subject merchandise produced by Sentian
and MPF for these preliminary results of review.
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 (September 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 (August 30, 2002). Adverse inferences may
be employed ``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, Sentian and MPF knew that their reported FOP data
were inaccurate and based on arbitrarily assigned numbers which could
not be tied to their accounting books and records and were therefore
unreliable. However, the Department was not informed of such fact until
the last supplemental questionnaire response was filed. Sentian and MPF
clearly should have known that if the FOP data are arbitrarily assigned
numbers and cannot be tied to any of the companies' accounting records,
the data cannot be relied upon by the Department. In this regard it is
important to note that FOPs for Sentian and MPF were examined and
verified in the investigation phase of this proceeding, and where such
FOPs were found to be unreliable, the Department in that segment
resorted to
[[Page 58544]]
FA, with an adverse inference. Thus, Sentian and MPF were aware of the
Department's requirements and standards from the very beginning of this
review.
Had Lian Li, Sentian and MPF informed the Department of this
problem in its original or first supplemental Section D questionnaire
responses, dated January 11 and 23, 2008, respectively, the Department
would have had the opportunity to further examine the issue and, if
warranted, consider alternatives to the use of the unreliable data.
However, Sentian and MPF withheld this information for three additional
months until Lian Li filed its response to the Department's March 6,
2008, supplemental questionnaire. As such, the Department preliminarily
finds that Sentian and MPF did not act to the best of their ability in
this review, within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act.
Therefore, an adverse inference is warranted in selecting from the
facts otherwise available with respect to the FOPs for subject
merchandise produced by Sentian and MPF. See Nippon, 337 F.3d at 1382-
83.
In Nippon, the Court set out two requirements for drawing an
adverse inference under section 776(b) of the Act. First, the
Department ``must make an objective showing that a reasonable and
responsible importer would have known that the requested information
was required to be kept and maintained under the applicable statutes,
rules, and regulations.'' Next the Department must ``make a subjective
showing that the respondent . . . has failed to promptly produce the
requested information'' and that ``failure to fully respond is the
result of the respondent's lack of cooperation in either: (a) failing
to keep and maintain all required records, or (b) failing to put forth
its maximum efforts to investigate and obtain the requested information
from its records.'' The Court clarifies further that ``{a{time} n
adverse inference may not be drawn merely from a failure to respond,
but only under circumstances in which it is reasonable for Commerce to
expect that more forthcoming responses should have been made.'' See
Nippon, at 1382-83.
In the underlying investigation, the Department examined and
verified the FOPs of Sentian and MPF and where it found that Sentian
and MPF were unable to substantiate their reported consumption for a
particular FOP, mixed-pulp paper, the Department resorted to FA with an
adverse inference. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value, and Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part:
Certain Lined Paper Products from People's Republic of China, 71 FR
53079 (September 8, 2006) (``PRC Lined Paper Investigation Final''),
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 18.. In its
final determination, the Department, citing Nippon, concluded that Lian
Li and its producers were responsible for demonstrating the reliability
of their own data, and found the company unable to substantiate its
reported consumption for a particular FOP. Therefore, the Department
concluded that Sentian and MPF did not cooperate to the best of their
ability with respect to this FOP, mixed-pulp paper consumption, and
applied FA with an adverse inference to Sentian's and MPF's paper
consumption. As adverse facts available (``AFA''), the Department
applied the highest reported paper consumption rate for any single
CONNUM from any of Lian Li's other suppliers. Id.
Therefore, we preliminarily determine that Sentian and MPF should
have known from the beginning of this review that the requested
information would be required and that by failing to maintain and
provide the information, they have failed to cooperate to the best of
their ability. As such, an adverse inference is warranted in this
review.
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
(November 7, 2006) (quoting Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod
from Brazil: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at LTFV and Final
Negative Circumstances, 67 FR 55792 (August 30, 2002)).
In order to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse so as to
induce cooperation, the Department has preliminarily assigned the
highest NV for any single matching control number (``CONNUM'') from the
three producers at issue in this review, Lian Li, Sentian, and MPF, to
all subject merchandise produced by Sentian and MPF. This is consistent
with the Department's practice in similar situations.\14\ See also PRC
Lined Paper Investigation Final. The Department finds that this adverse
inference is sufficient to effectuate the purpose of the facts
available rule (i.e., we find that this is sufficient to encourage
participation in future segments of this proceeding in accordance with
section 776(b) of the Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See China Kingdom Import & Export Co., Ltd. v. United
States, Consol. Ct. No. 03-00302, Slip Op. 07-135 (CIT September 4,
2007) (``China Kingdom'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After issuance of these preliminary results, however, the
Department expects to issue an additional questionnaire to Lian Li to
seek further clarification on certain information, including Sentian's
and MPF's FOP data, which was submitted on the record in this
proceeding.
B. Application of Facts Otherwise Available for Certain of Lian Li's
Own FOP Data
In the U.S. sales database submitted by Lian Li dated April 11,
2008, with respect to its own production, the Department found several
sales CONNUMs for which Lian Li did not report matching FOP CONNUMs in
its FOP database. The Department believes that the missing FOP CONNUMs
are attributable to a technical mis-coding problem caused partially by
the Department's instructions to Lian Li to re-code certain
products.\15\ In its April 11, 2008, response, Lian Li re-coded its
CONNUMs in its revised U.S. sales database but it did not recode the
corresponding CONNUMs in its FOP database accordingly. Pursuant to
section 776(a) of the Act, the Department has determined preliminarily
to apply facts otherwise available to the missing FOP CONNUMs. For
purposes of these preliminary results, as facts available, the
Department determined FOPs for the re-coded sales based on FOPs for
similar CONNUMs reported by Lian Li. See ``Lian Li Preliminary
Calculation Memo''\16\ for further details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Specifically, the Department found that in Lian Li's FOP
database, Lian Li reported that binding type and cover material for
various products are not consistently reported and may possibly be
incorrectly reported. Therefore, in its fifth supplemental
questionnaire, dated March 6, 2008, the Department instructed Lian
Li to assign a CONNUM to each unique product reported in the section
C sales database by specifying its product characteristics in Fields
3.1 through 3.8. See The Department's March 6, 2008, letter to Lian
Li at 12-14 (``The Department's March 6, 2008, letter'').
\16\ See the Memorandum to file from Victoria Cho, titled
``Calculation Memorandum, Shanghai Lian Li Paper Products Co. Ltd.;
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Investigation of Certain Lined
Paper from People's Republic of China,'' dated September 29, 2008
(``Lian Li Preliminary Calculation Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 58545]]
As stated above, the Department intends to issue an additional
questionnaire to Lian Li to seek further clarification of certain
information, including Lian Li's missing FOP CONNUMs, after issuance of
these preliminary results.
Corroboration of Information
Section 776(c) of the Act requires the Department to corroborate,
to the extent practicable, secondary information used as FA. Secondary
information is Ainformation 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 SAA at 870; see also 19 CFR
351.308 (c) and (d). The SAA clarifies that ``corroborate'' means that
the Department will satisfy itself that the ``secondary information to
be used has probative value.'' See Id. The SAA and the Department's
regulations state that independent sources used to corroborate such
evidence may include, for example, published price lists, official
import statistics and customs data, and information obtained from
interested parties during the particular investigation or review. See
SAA at 870; 19 CFR 351.308 (d). To corroborate secondary information,
the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability
and relevance of the information used. See Ferro Union, Inc. v. United
States, 44 F.Supp. 2d 1310 (CIT 1999); section 776 (c) of the Act.
As stated above, the Department calculated partial AFA based on
information reported by the respondents, and did not rely on any
secondary information. Therefore, corroboration is not necessary in
this review in accordance with section 776(c) of the Act.
Separate Rates
In the Separate Rates Application and Separate Rates Certification
Letter,\17\ the Department notified parties of the recent application
process by which exporters and producers may obtain separate-rate
status in an NME review. The process requires exporters and producers
to submit a separate-rate status certification and/or application. See
also 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 <https://ia.ita.doc.gov>. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See The Department's letter to interested parties entitled,
``Certain Lined Paper Products from People's Republic of China:
Separate Rates Application and Separate Rates Certification,'' dated
November 20, 2007 (``Separate Rates Application and Separate Rates
Certification Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department begins with
a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are
subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single
antidumping duty rate. See Policy Bulletin 05.1. It is the Department's
policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to 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. Id. Exporters can demonstrate this independence through the
absence of both de jure and de facto government control over export
activities. Id. The Department analyzes each entity exporting the
subject merchandise 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. See e.g.,
Final results of Antidumping Administrative Review: Petroleum Wax
Candles from the PRC, 72 FR 52355 (September 13, 2007).
A. Separate Rate Recipients
1. Wholly Foreign-Owned
The three companies not selected for individual examination in this
review (H.F. Plastics/L.T. Plastics; Denmax/Leo's Products; and the
Watanabe Group) reported in their separate-rate applications
(collectively ``Foreign-owned SR Applicants'') that they are wholly
owned by individuals or companies located in a market economy.
Therefore, because they are wholly foreign-owned, and we have no
evidence indicating that they are under the control of the PRC, a
separate-rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether these
companies are independent from government control. See Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate
from the People's Republic of China, 64 FR 71104-05 (December 20, 1999)
(where the respondent was wholly foreign-owned and, thus, qualified for
a separate rate). Accordingly, we have preliminarily granted a separate
rate to these companies.
2. Joint Wholly Chinese-Owned Companies
Lian Li, the mandatory respondent in this review, stated that it is
a wholly Chinese-owned company. Therefore, the Department must analyze
whether this respondent can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and
de facto government control over its 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) any other
formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies.
See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. The evidence provided by Lian Li
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 exporter's 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 Lian Li's letter to the
Department entitled, ``Lined Paper Products from China; Section A
Response of Shanghai Lian Li Paper Products Co., Ltd.,'' dated December
13, 2007, at Exhibit 1.
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
[[Page 58546]]
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 preclude the Department from
assigning separate rates. The evidence provided by Lian Li supports a
preliminary finding of de facto absence of government control based on
the following: (1) Lian Li sets its own export prices independent of
the government and without the approval of a government authority; (2)
Lian Li has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other
agreements; (3) Lian Li has autonomy from the government in making
decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) there is no
restriction on any of Lian Li's use of export revenue. See Lian Li's
letter to the Department entitled, ``Lined Paper Products from China;
Section A Response of Shanghai Lian Li Paper Products Co., Ltd.,''
dated December 13, 2007, at Exhibit 1.
Therefore, the Department preliminarily finds that Lian Li has
established that it qualifies for a separate rate under the criteria
established by Silicon Carbide and Sparklers.
Separate Rate Calculation
This review covers four exporters. As stated previously, the
Department selected one exporter, Lian Li, as a mandatory respondent in
this review. The remaining three companies (H.F. Plastics/L.T.
Plastics; Denmax/Leo's Products; and the Watanabe Group) submitted
timely information as requested by the Department and remain subject to
this review as cooperative separate-rate respondents.
For the exporters subject to this review that were determined to be
eligible for separate-rate status, but were not selected as mandatory
respondents (``Separate-Rate Recipients''), the Department normally
establishes a weighted-average margin based on an average of the rates
it calculated for the mandatory respondents, excluding any rates that
are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on AFA.\18\ In this proceeding,
there is only one mandatory respondent. Accordingly, for these
preliminary results, the rate calculated for Lian Li is applied as the
rate for non-selected separate entities. That rate is 217.23 percent.
Entities receiving this rate are identified by name in the
``Preliminary Results of Review'' section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See PRC Wooden Bedroom Furniture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Sale
Lian Li reported the invoice date as the date of sale because it
claims that, for its U.S. sales of subject merchandise made during the
POR, the material terms of sale were established on the invoice date.
We have preliminarily determined that the invoice date is the most
appropriate date to use as Lian Li's date of sale in accordance with 19
CFR 351.401(i) and the Department's long-standing practice of
determining the date of sale.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from
Thailand, 69 FR 76918 (December 23, 2004), and accompanying Issues
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Normal Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of lined paper products to the United
States by Lian Li were made at less than NV, we compared export price
(``EP'') to NV, as described in the ``Export Price,'' and ``Normal
Value'' sections of this notice, pursuant to section 771(35) of the
Act.
Export Price
We based U.S. price for Lian Li on EP in accordance with section
772(a) of the Act, because the first sale to an unaffiliated purchaser
was made prior to importation, and constructed export price was not
otherwise warranted by the facts on the record. We calculated EP based
on the packed price from the exporter to the first unaffiliated
customer in the United States. We deducted foreign inland freight from
the starting price (gross unit price), in accordance with section
772(c) of the Act.
Lian Li incurred foreign inland freight expenses from PRC service
providers. We therefore valued these services using Indian surrogate
values (see ``Factors of Production'' section below for further
discussion).
Normal Value
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that, in the case of an NME,
the Department shall determine 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 will base NV on FOPs because the presence of
government controls on various aspects of NME economies renders price
comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under our
normal methodologies. Therefore, we calculated NV based on FOPs in
accordance with sections 773(c)(3) and (4) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.408(c). The FOPs include: (1) hours of labor required; (2)
quantities of raw materials employed; (3) amounts of energy and other
utilities consumed; and (4) representative capital costs. We used the
FOPs reported by respondents for materials, energy, labor, by-products,
and packing, with the exception of subject merchandise produced by
Sentian and MPF, as noted above.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), the Department will
normally use publicly available information to value the FOPs, but when
a producer sources an input from a market-economy country and pays for
it in market-economy currency, the Department may value the factor
using the actual price paid for the input.\20\ Lian Li reported that it
did not purchase any inputs from market-economy suppliers for the
production of the subject merchandise. See Lian Li's January 10, 2008,
questionnaire response at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See Lasko Metal Products v. United States, 43 F.3d 1442,
1445-1446 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (affirming the Department's use of
market-based prices to value certain FOPs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to both the Indian import-based surrogate values and
the market-economy input values, we have disregarded prices that we
have reason to believe or suspect may be subsidized.\21\ We have reason
to believe or suspect that prices of inputs from India, 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. We are also guided by the statute's
[[Page 58547]]
legislative history that explains that it is not necessary to conduct a
formal investigation to ensure that such prices are not subsidized. See
H.R. Rep. 100-576 at 590 (1988). Rather, the Department was instructed
by Congress to base its decision on information that is available to it
at the time it is making its determination. Id. Therefore, we have not
used prices from these countries in calculating the Indian import-based
surrogate values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic
of Vietnam: Notice of Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 54007,
54011 (September 13, 2005) (unchanged in the final results);
Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields From the People's Republic
of China: Final Results of Administrative Review, 69 FR 61790
(October 21, 2004), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum
at Comment 5, and China National Machinery Import & Export
Corporation v. United States, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (CIT 2003), as
affirmed by the Federal Circuit, 104 Fed. Appx. 183 (Fed. Cir.
2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factor Valuations
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, for subject
merchandise produced by Lian Li, we calculated NV based on the FOPs
reported by Lian Li for the POR. To calculate NV, we multiplied the
reported per-unit factor quantities by publicly available Indian
surrogate values (except as noted below). In selecting the surrogate
values, the Department considers the quality, specificity, and
contemporaneity of the data. See, e.g., PRC Lined Paper Investigation
Final and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3.
As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including freight costs
to render 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 or the
distance from the nearest seaport to the factory. This adjustment is in
accordance with the decision of the Federal Circuit in Sigma Corp. v.
United States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). For a detailed
description of all surrogate values used for Lian Li, see the Surrogate
Value Memorandum.
Except as noted below, we valued raw material inputs using the
surrogate values denominated in Indian rupees (``Rs'') using the Indian
Wholesale Price Index (``WPI'') from the RBI Handbook of Statistics on
Indian Economy as published on the Reserve Bank of India website. See
www.rbi.org.in, a printout of which is attached to the Surrogate Value
Memorandum. We applied a surrogate value using Indian import prices for
the POI reported in the Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of
India, as published by the Directorate General of Commercial
Intelligence and Statistics of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry,
Government of India, and available from World Trade Atlas
(``WTA'').\22\ We excluded from our calculations any imports from NME
countries, imports from unspecified countries, and imports from
countries which the Department has determined maintain non-specific
export subsidies (i.e., Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand). Where
necessary we adjusted surrogate values for inflation, exchange rates,
and taxes, and we converted all applicable items to a per-kilogram
(``Kg'') basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See https://www.gtis.com/wta.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To value electricity, we valued electricity rates using the WPI in
the India Source: Reserve Bank of India Bulletin Electricity Source,
Table 178, of the Handbook of Statistics on the Indian Economy under
the All Commodities Source. We adjusted the value to reflect inflation
using the ``Fuel, Power, Light and Lubricants'' inflation index
published in the Table 178, a copy of which is attached to the
Surrogate Value Memorandum.
To value water, we used the revised Maharashtra Industrial
Development Corporation water rates for June 1, 2003 for the Mumbai
region, available at https://www.midcindia.com/water supply, adjusted
for inflation. See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
For direct labor, indirect labor 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 site. 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 each respondent. See
Surrogate Value Memorandum at 8.
For factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses
(``SG&A''), Lian Li submitted financial information for the year-ended
March 31, 2007, for one Indian producer of comparable merchandise:
Sundaram Multi Pap Ltd. (``Sundaram''), a producer of comparable
merchandise.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), we preliminarily determine that
Sundaram's financial statement is the best available information with
which to calculate financial ratios, because it is complete, publicly
available, and contemporaneous with the POR. Therefore, we used the
financial statements to value factory overhead, SG&A, and profit, for
these preliminary results.
For packing materials, we used the per-kilogram values obtained
from the WTA and made adjustments to account for freight costs incurred
between the PRC suppliers plant. See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
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.
Preliminary Results of Review
We preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average
dumping margin exists:
The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
Exporter Average Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shanghai Lian Li Paper Products Co., Ltd............... 217.23
Hwa Fuh Plastics Co., Ltd./Li Teng Plastics (Shenzhen) 217.23
Co., Ltd..............................................
Leo's Quality Products Co., Ltd./Denmax Plastic 217.23
Stationery Factory....................................
The Watanabe Group (consisting of the following
companies)............................................
Watanabe Paper Product (Shenghai) Co., Ltd............. 217.23
Watanabe Paper Product (Linqing) Co., Ltd..............
Hotrock Stationery (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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). Because, as
discussed above, we intend to seek additional information, we will
establish the briefing schedule at a later time, and will notify
parties of the schedule in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309. 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
[[Page 58548]]
publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the
Act.
Assessment Rates
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and
CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The
Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to
CBP 15 days after the publication of the final results of this review.
For assessment purposes, where possible, we calculated importer-
specific assessment rates for certain lined paper products from the PRC
via ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total
amount of the dumping margins calculated for the examined sales to the
total entered value of those same sales. We will instruct CBP to assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if
any assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is
above de minimis. The final results of this review shall be the basis
for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise
covered by the final results of these reviews and for future deposits
of estimated duties, where applicable.
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 ``PRC-wide'' 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 upon
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for the exporters
listed above, the cash deposit rate will be established in the final
results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis,
i.e., less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit will be required for that
company); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC
exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit
rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the
most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise
which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash
deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 258.21 percent; and (4) for
all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received
their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to
the PRC exporters that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further
notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) 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.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated:
