Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 17160-17165 [E9-8395]

Download as PDF 17160 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 14, 2009 / Notices Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), and consistent with our practice, we preliminarily determine to rescind this review. See, e.g., Stainless Steel Bar from India; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Review, and Partial Rescission of Administrative Review, 65 FR 12209 (March 8, 2000); Persulfates From the People’s Republic of China; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Administrative Review, 65 FR 18963 (April 10, 2000). Public Comment An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this preliminary notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 44 days after the date of publication of this preliminary notice, or the first working day thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this preliminary notice. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in such briefs, may be filed no later than five days after the time limit for filing the case brief 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issue, (2) a brief summary of the argument, and (3) a table of authorities. Further, parties submitting written comments should provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on diskette. The Department will issue the final notice, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, or at a hearing, if requested, within 120 days of publication of this preliminary notice. This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: April 8, 2009. John M. Andersen, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations. [FR Doc. E9–8497 Filed 4–13–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: International Trade Administration Background A–570–901 Certain Lined Paper Products from the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On October 7, 2008, the U.S. Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain lined paper products (CLPP) from the People’s Republic of China (PRC). See Certain Lined Paper Products from the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 58540 (October 7, 2008) (Preliminary Results). We invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. This review covers the following exporters and/or producer/exporters: (1) Shanghai Lian Li Paper Products Co., Ltd. (Lian Li); (2) Hwa Fuh Plastics Co. Ltd./Li Teng Plastics (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (H.F. Plastics/ L.T. Plastics); (3) Leo’s Quality Products Co., Ltd./ Denmax Plastic Stationery Factory (Denmax/Leo’s Products); and (4) 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 We find that certain exporters and producers/exporters sold subject merchandise at prices below normal value (NV) during the period of review (POR) of April 17, 2006, through August 31, 2007. Based on our analysis of the comments received and verification findings, we have made changes to certain surrogate values and to Lian Li’s margin. Therefore, the final results differ from the Preliminary Results. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 14, 2009. 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. 1 See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 72 FR 61621 (October 31, 2007). VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:39 Apr 13, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 We published the preliminary results of the first administrative review on October 7, 2008, in the Federal Register. See Preliminary Results. Since the Preliminary Results, the following events have occurred: On October 2 and November 6, 2008, the Department issued two additional supplemental questionnaires to Lian Li. Lian Li submitted its responses on October 16 and November 25, 2008, respectively. In its November 25, 2008, response, Lian Li provided its sales reconciliation and the factors of production reconciliations for all three companies: Lian Li, Sentian Paper Product Co., Ltd. (Sentian), and Shanghai Miaopanfang Paper Product Co., Ltd. (MPF).2 On October 27 and December 17, 2008, the Association of American School Paper Suppliers, the petitioner, submitted comments on Lian Li’s October 16 and November 25, 2008, responses, respectively. On November 6, 2008, Lian Li requested a hearing. The petitioner also requested a hearing on March 6, 2009. On December 31, 2008, the Department extended the time limit for the final results of this proceeding.3 On January 9, 2009, the petitioner submitted pre–verification comments regarding Lian Li. From January 12 through 16, 2009, the Department conducted verification on Lian Li’s reported sales information and on the reported factors of production (FOP) information submitted by Lian Li and its two suppliers of subject merchandise in Shanghai: Sentian and MPF. On February 26, 2009, the Department issued three verification reports with respect to Lian Li and its two suppliers.4 On March 6, 2009, Lian Li and the 2 On April 11, 2008, Lian Li submitted similar reconciliation information for itself, Sentian, and MPF. 3 See Certain Lined Paper Products from the People’s Republic of China: Extension of Time Limits for Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 80366 (December 31, 2008). 4 See Memorandum to the File, regarding Verification of the sales and Factors of Production Responses of Lian Li Paper Products Co., Ltd. in the First Administrative Review of Certain Lined Paper Products from the People’s Republic of China, dated February 26, 2008 (Lian Li Verification Report). See also Memorandum to the File, regarding Verification of the Factors of Production Responses of MPF in the First Administrative Review of Certain Lined Paper Products from the People’s Republic of China, dated February 26, 2008 (MPF Verification Report). See also Memorandum to the File, regarding Verification of the Factors of Production Responses of Sentian in the First Administrative Review of Certain Lined Paper Products from the People’s Republic of China, dated February 26, 2008 (Sentian Verification Report). E:\FR\FM\14APN1.SGM 14APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 14, 2009 / Notices petitioner filed their case briefs. On March 13, 2009, the Watanabe Group submitted its case brief. The petitioner and Lian Li submitted their rebuttal briefs on March 16, 2009. The Department conducted a hearing on March 18, 2009. Scope of the Antidumping Duty 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. VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:39 Apr 13, 2009 Jkt 217001 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: • FlyTM lined paper products: A notebook, notebook organizer, loose or glued note paper, with papers that are printed with infrared PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 17161 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 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 E:\FR\FM\14APN1.SGM 14APN1 17162 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 14, 2009 / Notices 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 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. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, regarding the Final Results of the First Administrative Review of Certain Lined Paper Products from the People’s Republic of China, dated April 6, 2009 (Issues and Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues raised, all of which are in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as Appendix I. VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:39 Apr 13, 2009 Jkt 217001 Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in the briefs and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room 1117 of the Department of Commerce. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/. The paper copy and electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Use of FOP Data submitted by Sentian and MPF At the Preliminary Results, the Department found that Lian Li’s two suppliers, Sentian and MPF, did not provide accurate and FOP data, and that they did not act to the best of their ability in this review. This finding was based largely on statements made by these companies which lead the Department to conclude that costs recorded at the individual companies (Sentian and MPF) were not reliable. Specifically, Lian Li stated that: ‘‘{d}uring year 2006, Sentian and MPF had two different production sites and the accountant just arbitrarily assigned distributed the sales and manufacturing costs to the two companies’ accounting books. As a result, either one company’s cost accounts are not complete and the calculations for usage rates based on one company’s books are not accurate.’’ See Lian Li’s April 11, 2008, supplemental response at page 12. Therefore, to be consistent with its practice in similar situations,5 the Department applied adverse facts available (AFA) in the Preliminary Results by assigning 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. See Preliminary Results. This was consistent with the Department’s decision in the original investigation, where the Department concluded that Sentian and MPF did not cooperate to the best of their ability with respect to a particular FOP, mixed–pulp paper consumption, and applied facts available (FA) with an adverse inference to Sentian’s and MPF’s paper consumption. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 5 See Certain Tissue Paper Products from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results and Final Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 58113 (October 6, 2008); see also Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Nippon Steel). PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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). In the Preliminary Results, the Department indicated that it would seek additional clarification from these companies regarding their accounting records. On October 16, 2009, Lian Li, Sentian and MPF made a submission in an effort to explain their accounting records. In the submission, Lian Li stated that the previous statements6 mischaracterized their accounting records; they explained that because the two companies were under common ownership and control, the owners operated them on a consolidated basis. In addition, because one of the two firms, MPF, had a lower tax rate, the companies would sometimes transfer sales and costs between the two firms to lower the overall tax burden. Based on this explanation we asked Lian Li to resubmit a reconciliation between the submitted FOP data and the financial statements; this was received on November 25, 2008. Based upon the explanation and information provided in the November 25, 2008, submission, the Department decided to proceed to verification. In January 2009 the Department conducted sales and FOP verification on the information submitted by Lian Li, Sentian and MPF in Shanghai, PRC. See Lian Li Verification Report, MPF Verification Report, and Sentian Verification Report, respectively. As stated in the Sentian and MPF Verification Reports, although the Department finds that the methodology adopted by Sentian and MPF adequately accounted for the consumption of the material inputs, the Department finds that the methodology did not accurately account for the consumption of labor and electricity. Specifically, for material transfers, the Department has concluded that Sentian and MPF’s accounting books properly captured the transfers when the transfers took place. Accordingly, we have concluded that the acutal consumption in Sentian’s and MPF’s factory was accurately recorded in the company–specific accounting books, which, in turn, was accurately reported in their submitted FOP databases. See id. However, at verification, we found that MPF and Sentian derived their reported consumption for labor and electricity by dividing the company–specific labor 6 See Lian Li’s April 11, 2008, response at page 12. See also the earlier quoted statement in this section above. E:\FR\FM\14APN1.SGM 14APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 14, 2009 / Notices and electricity usage by the post– transferred production quantity, rather than the actual company–specific production quantity. Because the post– transferred production quantity differs from the actual production quantity for each company, the mismatch of using post–transferred production quantity and the actual usage of these two factors resulted in misreporting of consumption for labor and electricity. Based on Lian Li’s two latest responses and the Department’s findings at verification, for purposes of these final results, with the exception of labor and electricity consumption (see Application of Partial Adverse Facts Available below), the Department has relied on Sentian and MPF’s reported FOP databases submitted on October 16, 2008. Application of Partial Adverse Facts Available Section 776(a) of the Act provides that the Department will apply ‘‘facts otherwise available’’ if, inter alia, necessary information is not available on the record or an interested party: A) withholds information that has been requested by the Department; B) fails to provide such information within the deadlines established, or in the form or manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 of the Act; C) significantly impedes a proceeding; or D) provides such information, but the information cannot be verified. 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.7 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 Final Results, 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, Sentian’s and MPF’s reported labor and electricity usage rate cannot be tied to 7 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 Preliminary Results). (Unchanged in the final results Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Review, 73 FR 49162 (August 20, 2008) (PRC Wooden Bedroom Furniture Final Results). VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:39 Apr 13, 2009 Jkt 217001 the books and records of the respective companies. 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. In this case, Sentian and MPF were aware of their skewed usage rates reported for labor and electricity in their April 11, 2008, response.8 After they received a partial AFA rate at the Preliminary Results because of their inaccurately reported FOP, the Department issued two more supplemental questionnaires. Although respondent clarified some of the reporting issues, it never attempted to correct the skewed usage rates for labor and electricity. At verification, the Department found that Sentian and MPF kept warehouse records which could be used to derive the actual production quantity for each company. Had Sentian and MPF calculated the actual, company–specific production quantity, they could have accurately calculated the labor and electricity consumption and provided it in their October 16 and November 25, 2008, responses. Therefore, the Department finds that Sentian and MPF did not act to the best of their ability with respect to its labor 8 See Lian Li’s April 11, 2008, supplemental questionnaire response at page 12 where it stated that as a result of the accountant arbitrarily distributing the sales and manufacturing costs to the two companies’ accounting book, there are discrepancies with respect to labor and electricity. PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 17163 and electricity consumption information. Therefore, the Department finds applying FA with an adverse inference is warranted with respect to the labor and electricity consumption for these final results. See Nippon Steel, 337 F.3d at 1382–83. In Nippon Steel, 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. As noted above, Sentian and MPF had received a partial AFA in the Preliminary Results and in the original investigation and, accordingly, they should have known that they were responsible for demonstrating the reliability of their own data. The Department requested this information on numerous occasions, and Sentian and MPF were aware of the problems with the reported data but did not attempt to remedy their data. Because the Department found both Sentian and MPF were unable to substantiate their reported consumption for labor and electricity, the Department concluded that Sentian and MPF did not cooperate to the best of their ability with respect to their consumption for the reported labor and electricity. See Nippon Steel and PRC Lined Paper Investigation Final. 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 E:\FR\FM\14APN1.SGM 14APN1 17164 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 14, 2009 / Notices adverse facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.’’ See 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 applied the highest monthly consumption rate of labor and electricity reported by each company in this review to all subject merchandise produced by Sentian and MPF. This is consistent with the Department’s practice in similar situations.9 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 information derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise. See 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.’’ 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 Universal Polybag Co. v. United States, 577F.Supp. 2d 1284 (CIT 2008); see also section 776(c) of the Act. As stated above, the Department calculated partial AFA based on information reported by the respondents, and thus did not rely upon secondary information for purposes of labor and electricity. Therefore, corroboration is not necessary in this 9 See PRC Lined Paper Investigation Final; see also Nippon Steel. VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:39 Apr 13, 2009 Jkt 217001 review in accordance with section 776(c) of the Act. Separate Rates In proceedings involving non–market economy (NME) countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department’s policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to an investigation in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers From the People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as amplified by Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide From the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994), and 19 CFR 351.107(d). In the Preliminary Results, we stated that Lian Li demonstrated its eligibility for separate–rate status. For these final results, we continue to find that evidence placed on the record of this review demonstrates that Lian Li provided information that shows both a de jure and de facto absence of government control with respect to its respective exports of the merchandise under review, and, thus is eligible for separate–rate status. See Preliminary Results at 58545. With respect to 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 (non–selected companies), we continue to grant a separate rate to these companies because they are wholly owned by individuals or companies located in a market economy. As wholly foreign– owned companies, we have no evidence indicating that they are under the control of the PRC. Therefore, a separate–rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether these companies are independent from government control. See Preliminary Results. See also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate from the People’s Republic of China, 64 FR 71104, 71104– 05 (December 20, 1999) (where the respondent was wholly foreign–owned and, thus, qualified for a separate rate). For these three non–selected companies, the Department continues to apply the calculated weighted–average margin based on an average of the rates it calculated for the mandatory respondents, excluding any rates that PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on AFA, pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act.10 In this proceeding, there is one mandatory respondent. Accordingly, for these final results, we continue to apply the rate calculated for Lian Li, 22.35 percent, to non–selected separate entities. Entities receiving this rate are identified by name in the ‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section of this notice. Changes since the Preliminary Results Based on comments received from the interested parties and findings at verification, we have made the following company–specific changes to Lian Li’s margin calculation: 1) for Lian Li, the Department relied on Lian Li’s FOP database submitted on October 16, 2008, to calculate the dumping margin; 2) for Sentian and MPF, the Department relied on the companies’ FOP databases to derive the dumping margin with respect to material inputs, but as described above, the Department applied the highest monthly consumption rate of labor and electricity reported by each company in this review to all subject merchandise produced by Sentian and MPF with respect to the usage rates of labor and electricity; 3) for creamwove paper and black paperboard, the Department used the actual distance provided by Lian Li’s suppliers for these two material inputs, and thus did not apply the Sigma cap distance as the Department did in the Preliminary Results; and 4) for labor rate, the Department applied the latest labor rate issued by the Office of Policy. See ‘‘Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries,’’ available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html. Final Results of Review We determine that the following weighted–average antidumping duty percentage margins exist for the POR: 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 .................................... Weighted– Average Margin (Percent) 22.35 22.35 22.35 10 See PRC Wooden Bedroom Furniture Preliminary Results. See also PRC Wooden Bedroom Furniture Final Results. E:\FR\FM\14APN1.SGM 14APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 14, 2009 / Notices 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. .......................................... 22.35 For details on the calculation of the antidumping duty weighted–average margin for Lian Li, see Lian Li’s Analysis Memo. A public version of this memorandum is on file in the CRU. Assessment Rates Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review. For assessment purposes, where possible, we calculated importer– specific assessment rates for CLPP 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, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212 (b). We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of these 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 equivalent to the company– specific weighted–average margin established in this review; (2) for PRC exporters who received a separate rate in a prior segment of the proceeding, but were not reviewed in this review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the rate assigned in that segment of the proceeding; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, including those companies for which this review has been rescinded, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC–wide rate of 258.21 percent; and (4) for all non– PRC exporters of subject merchandise VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:39 Apr 13, 2009 Jkt 217001 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. [FR Doc. E9–8395 Filed 4–13–09; 8:45 am] Notification to Interested Parties Weighted– Average Margin (Percent) Exporter 17165 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE This notice also serves as the final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and in the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return/destruction or conversion to judicial protective order of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. This administrative review and this notice are published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Dated: April 6, 2009. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I List of Comments in the Accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum Comment 1: Whether to Apply Adverse Facts Available (AFA) in Calculating Normal Value Comment 2: Whether to Apply Partial AFA for The Labor and Electricity Data Submitted by Sentian and MPF Comment 3: Whether to Revise Certain Surrogate Values to Incorporate More Accurate Values and Whether to Apply Adverse Inferences with Respect to Other Values for the Final Results Comment 4: Surrogate Financial Ratios Comment 5: Inland Freight and Sigma Cap Comment 6: The Inclusion of Graph Paper in the Review Comment 7: Selection of Single Mandatory Respondent Comment 8: Application of a Partial AFA Margin to Watanabe PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Comment 9: Whether Or Not Watanabe Was Deprived of Its Full Opportunity to Participate in the Review BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S RIN 0648–XF22 Marine Mammals; File No. 775–1875 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; receipt of application for permit amendment. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC), Woods Hole, MA, has applied for an amendment to Scientific Research Permit No. 775–1875. DATES: Written, telefaxed, or e-mail comments must be received on or before May 14, 2009. ADDRESSES: The application and related documents are available for review by selecting ‘‘Records Open for Public Comment’’ from the Features box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species (APPS) home page, https:// apps.nmfs.noaa.gov, and then selecting File No. 775–1875 from the list of available applications. These documents are also available upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s): Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713–2289; fax (301)427–2521; and Northeast Region, NMFS, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930; phone (978)281–9300; fax (978)281– 9333. Written comments or requests for a public hearing on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Those individuals requesting a hearing should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this particular application would be appropriate. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile at (301)427–2521, provided the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy submitted by mail and postmarked no later than the closing date of the comment period. E:\FR\FM\14APN1.SGM 14APN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 70 (Tuesday, April 14, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17160-17165]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-8395]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

A-570-901


Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's Republic of China: 
Notice of Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On October 7, 2008, the U.S. Department of Commerce (the 
Department) published the preliminary results of the first 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain lined 
paper products (CLPP) from the People's Republic of China (PRC). See 
Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's Republic of China: 
Notice of Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 73 FR 58540 (October 7, 2008) (Preliminary Results). We invited 
parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. This review covers the 
following exporters and/or producer/exporters: (1) Shanghai Lian Li 
Paper Products Co., Ltd. (Lian Li); (2) Hwa Fuh Plastics Co. Ltd./Li 
Teng Plastics (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (H.F. Plastics/ L.T. Plastics); (3) 
Leo's Quality Products Co., Ltd./ Denmax Plastic Stationery Factory 
(Denmax/Leo's Products); and (4) 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\ We find that certain exporters and producers/exporters 
sold subject merchandise at prices below normal value (NV) during the 
period of review (POR) of April 17, 2006, through August 31, 2007. 
Based on our analysis of the comments received and verification 
findings, we have made changes to certain surrogate values and to Lian 
Li's margin. Therefore, the final results differ from the Preliminary 
Results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 72 FR 61621 (October 31, 2007).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 14, 2009.

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

    We published the preliminary results of the first administrative 
review on October 7, 2008, in the Federal Register. See Preliminary 
Results. Since the Preliminary Results, the following events have 
occurred:
    On October 2 and November 6, 2008, the Department issued two 
additional supplemental questionnaires to Lian Li. Lian Li submitted 
its responses on October 16 and November 25, 2008, respectively. In its 
November 25, 2008, response, Lian Li provided its sales reconciliation 
and the factors of production reconciliations for all three companies: 
Lian Li, Sentian Paper Product Co., Ltd. (Sentian), and Shanghai 
Miaopanfang Paper Product Co., Ltd. (MPF).\2\ On October 27 and 
December 17, 2008, the Association of American School Paper Suppliers, 
the petitioner, submitted comments on Lian Li's October 16 and November 
25, 2008, responses, respectively. On November 6, 2008, Lian Li 
requested a hearing. The petitioner also requested a hearing on March 
6, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ On April 11, 2008, Lian Li submitted similar reconciliation 
information for itself, Sentian, and MPF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 31, 2008, the Department extended the time limit for 
the final results of this proceeding.\3\ On January 9, 2009, the 
petitioner submitted pre-verification comments regarding Lian Li. From 
January 12 through 16, 2009, the Department conducted verification on 
Lian Li's reported sales information and on the reported factors of 
production (FOP) information submitted by Lian Li and its two suppliers 
of subject merchandise in Shanghai: Sentian and MPF. On February 26, 
2009, the Department issued three verification reports with respect to 
Lian Li and its two suppliers.\4\ On March 6, 2009, Lian Li and the

[[Page 17161]]

petitioner filed their case briefs. On March 13, 2009, the Watanabe 
Group submitted its case brief. The petitioner and Lian Li submitted 
their rebuttal briefs on March 16, 2009. The Department conducted a 
hearing on March 18, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's Republic 
of China: Extension of Time Limits for Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 80366 (December 31, 2008).
    \4\ See Memorandum to the File, regarding Verification of the 
sales and Factors of Production Responses of Lian Li Paper Products 
Co., Ltd. in the First Administrative Review of Certain Lined Paper 
Products from the People's Republic of China, dated February 26, 
2008 (Lian Li Verification Report). See also Memorandum to the File, 
regarding Verification of the Factors of Production Responses of MPF 
in the First Administrative Review of Certain Lined Paper Products 
from the People's Republic of China, dated February 26, 2008 (MPF 
Verification Report). See also Memorandum to the File, regarding 
Verification of the Factors of Production Responses of Sentian in 
the First Administrative Review of Certain Lined Paper Products from 
the People's Republic of China, dated February 26, 2008 (Sentian 
Verification Report).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Antidumping Duty 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 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

[[Page 17162]]

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.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the briefs are addressed in the Issues and 
Decision Memorandum to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary 
for Import Administration, regarding the Final Results of the First 
Administrative Review of Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's 
Republic of China, dated April 6, 2009 (Issues and Decision 
Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the 
issues raised, all of which are in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, 
is attached to this notice as Appendix I. Parties can find a complete 
discussion of all issues raised in the briefs and the corresponding 
recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the 
Central Records Unit (CRU), room 1117 of the Department of Commerce. In 
addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can 
be accessed directly on the Internet at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/. The 
paper copy and electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum 
are identical in content.

Use of FOP Data submitted by Sentian and MPF

    At the Preliminary Results, the Department found that Lian Li's two 
suppliers, Sentian and MPF, did not provide accurate and FOP data, and 
that they did not act to the best of their ability in this review. This 
finding was based largely on statements made by these companies which 
lead the Department to conclude that costs recorded at the individual 
companies (Sentian and MPF) were not reliable. Specifically, Lian Li 
stated that:
    ``{d{time} uring year 2006, Sentian and MPF had two different 
production sites and the accountant just arbitrarily assigned 
distributed the sales and manufacturing costs to the two companies' 
accounting books. As a result, either one company's cost accounts are 
not complete and the calculations for usage rates based on one 
company's books are not accurate.''
See Lian Li's April 11, 2008, supplemental response at page 12. 
Therefore, to be consistent with its practice in similar situations,\5\ 
the Department applied adverse facts available (AFA) in the Preliminary 
Results by assigning 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. See Preliminary Results. This was consistent with the 
Department's decision in the original investigation, where the 
Department concluded that Sentian and MPF did not cooperate to the best 
of their ability with respect to a particular FOP, mixed-pulp paper 
consumption, and applied facts available (FA) with an adverse inference 
to Sentian's and MPF's paper consumption. 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Certain Tissue Paper Products from the People's Republic 
of China: Final Results and Final Rescission, in Part, of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 58113 (October 6, 
2008); see also Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 
1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Nippon Steel).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Preliminary Results, the Department indicated that it would 
seek additional clarification from these companies regarding their 
accounting records. On October 16, 2009, Lian Li, Sentian and MPF made 
a submission in an effort to explain their accounting records. In the 
submission, Lian Li stated that the previous statements\6\ 
mischaracterized their accounting records; they explained that because 
the two companies were under common ownership and control, the owners 
operated them on a consolidated basis. In addition, because one of the 
two firms, MPF, had a lower tax rate, the companies would sometimes 
transfer sales and costs between the two firms to lower the overall tax 
burden. Based on this explanation we asked Lian Li to resubmit a 
reconciliation between the submitted FOP data and the financial 
statements; this was received on November 25, 2008. Based upon the 
explanation and information provided in the November 25, 2008, 
submission, the Department decided to proceed to verification. In 
January 2009 the Department conducted sales and FOP verification on the 
information submitted by Lian Li, Sentian and MPF in Shanghai, PRC. See 
Lian Li Verification Report, MPF Verification Report, and Sentian 
Verification Report, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Lian Li's April 11, 2008, response at page 12. See also 
the earlier quoted statement in this section above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in the Sentian and MPF Verification Reports, although the 
Department finds that the methodology adopted by Sentian and MPF 
adequately accounted for the consumption of the material inputs, the 
Department finds that the methodology did not accurately account for 
the consumption of labor and electricity. Specifically, for material 
transfers, the Department has concluded that Sentian and MPF's 
accounting books properly captured the transfers when the transfers 
took place. Accordingly, we have concluded that the acutal consumption 
in Sentian's and MPF's factory was accurately recorded in the company-
specific accounting books, which, in turn, was accurately reported in 
their submitted FOP databases. See id. However, at verification, we 
found that MPF and Sentian derived their reported consumption for labor 
and electricity by dividing the company-specific labor

[[Page 17163]]

and electricity usage by the post-transferred production quantity, 
rather than the actual company-specific production quantity. Because 
the post-transferred production quantity differs from the actual 
production quantity for each company, the mismatch of using post-
transferred production quantity and the actual usage of these two 
factors resulted in misreporting of consumption for labor and 
electricity.
    Based on Lian Li's two latest responses and the Department's 
findings at verification, for purposes of these final results, with the 
exception of labor and electricity consumption (see Application of 
Partial Adverse Facts Available below), the Department has relied on 
Sentian and MPF's reported FOP databases submitted on October 16, 2008.

Application of Partial Adverse Facts Available

    Section 776(a) of the Act provides that the Department will apply 
``facts otherwise available'' if, inter alia, necessary information is 
not available on the record or an interested party: A) withholds 
information that has been requested by the Department; B) fails to 
provide such information within the deadlines established, or in the 
form or manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections 
(c)(1) and (e) of section 782 of the Act; C) significantly impedes a 
proceeding; or D) provides such information, but the information cannot 
be verified.
    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.\7\ 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 Final 
Results, 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, 
Sentian's and MPF's reported labor and electricity usage rate cannot be 
tied to the books and records of the respective companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 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 Preliminary Results). (Unchanged in 
the final results Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review and New Shipper Review, 73 FR 49162 (August 20, 2008) (PRC 
Wooden Bedroom Furniture Final Results).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
    In this case, Sentian and MPF were aware of their skewed usage 
rates reported for labor and electricity in their April 11, 2008, 
response.\8\ After they received a partial AFA rate at the Preliminary 
Results because of their inaccurately reported FOP, the Department 
issued two more supplemental questionnaires. Although respondent 
clarified some of the reporting issues, it never attempted to correct 
the skewed usage rates for labor and electricity. At verification, the 
Department found that Sentian and MPF kept warehouse records which 
could be used to derive the actual production quantity for each 
company. Had Sentian and MPF calculated the actual, company-specific 
production quantity, they could have accurately calculated the labor 
and electricity consumption and provided it in their October 16 and 
November 25, 2008, responses. Therefore, the Department finds that 
Sentian and MPF did not act to the best of their ability with respect 
to its labor and electricity consumption information. Therefore, the 
Department finds applying FA with an adverse inference is warranted 
with respect to the labor and electricity consumption for these final 
results. See Nippon Steel, 337 F.3d at 1382-83.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Lian Li's April 11, 2008, supplemental questionnaire 
response at page 12 where it stated that as a result of the 
accountant arbitrarily distributing the sales and manufacturing 
costs to the two companies' accounting book, there are discrepancies 
with respect to labor and electricity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Nippon Steel, 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.
    As noted above, Sentian and MPF had received a partial AFA in the 
Preliminary Results and in the original investigation and, accordingly, 
they should have known that they were responsible for demonstrating the 
reliability of their own data. The Department requested this 
information on numerous occasions, and Sentian and MPF were aware of 
the problems with the reported data but did not attempt to remedy their 
data. Because the Department found both Sentian and MPF were unable to 
substantiate their reported consumption for labor and electricity, the 
Department concluded that Sentian and MPF did not cooperate to the best 
of their ability with respect to their consumption for the reported 
labor and electricity. See Nippon Steel and PRC Lined Paper 
Investigation Final.
    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

[[Page 17164]]

adverse facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the 
Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.'' 
See 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 applied the highest monthly 
consumption rate of labor and electricity reported by each company in 
this review to all subject merchandise produced by Sentian and MPF. 
This is consistent with the Department's practice in similar 
situations.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See PRC Lined Paper Investigation Final; see also Nippon 
Steel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 information derived from the petition that gave rise to 
the investigation or review, the final determination concerning the 
subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 
concerning the subject merchandise. See 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.'' 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 Universal Polybag Co. v. 
United States, 577F.Supp. 2d 1284 (CIT 2008); see also section 776(c) 
of the Act.
    As stated above, the Department calculated partial AFA based on 
information reported by the respondents, and thus did not rely upon 
secondary information for purposes of labor and electricity. Therefore, 
corroboration is not necessary in this review in accordance with 
section 776(c) of the Act.

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving non-market economy (NME) countries, the 
Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies 
within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should 
be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the 
Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to 
an investigation in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter 
can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be 
entitled to a separate rate. See Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Sparklers From the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 
20588 (May 6, 1991), as amplified by Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide From the People's 
Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994), and 19 CFR 351.107(d).
    In the Preliminary Results, we stated that Lian Li demonstrated its 
eligibility for separate-rate status. For these final results, we 
continue to find that evidence placed on the record of this review 
demonstrates that Lian Li provided information that shows both a de 
jure and de facto absence of government control with respect to its 
respective exports of the merchandise under review, and, thus is 
eligible for separate-rate status. See Preliminary Results at 58545.
    With respect to 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 (non-selected companies), we continue 
to grant a separate rate to these companies because they are wholly 
owned by individuals or companies located in a market economy. As 
wholly foreign-owned companies, we have no evidence indicating that 
they are under the control of the PRC. Therefore, a separate-rate 
analysis is not necessary to determine whether these companies are 
independent from government control. See Preliminary Results. See also 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Creatine Monohydrate from the People's Republic of China, 64 FR 71104, 
71104-05 (December 20, 1999) (where the respondent was wholly foreign-
owned and, thus, qualified for a separate rate).
    For these three non-selected companies, the Department continues to 
apply the calculated 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, pursuant to 
section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act.\10\ In this proceeding, there is one 
mandatory respondent. Accordingly, for these final results, we continue 
to apply the rate calculated for Lian Li, 22.35 percent, to non-
selected separate entities. Entities receiving this rate are identified 
by name in the ``Final Results of Review'' section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See PRC Wooden Bedroom Furniture Preliminary Results. See 
also PRC Wooden Bedroom Furniture Final Results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Changes since the Preliminary Results

    Based on comments received from the interested parties and findings 
at verification, we have made the following company-specific changes to 
Lian Li's margin calculation: 1) for Lian Li, the Department relied on 
Lian Li's FOP database submitted on October 16, 2008, to calculate the 
dumping margin; 2) for Sentian and MPF, the Department relied on the 
companies' FOP databases to derive the dumping margin with respect to 
material inputs, but as described above, the Department applied the 
highest monthly consumption rate of labor and electricity reported by 
each company in this review to all subject merchandise produced by 
Sentian and MPF with respect to the usage rates of labor and 
electricity; 3) for creamwove paper and black paperboard, the 
Department used the actual distance provided by Lian Li's suppliers for 
these two material inputs, and thus did not apply the Sigma cap 
distance as the Department did in the Preliminary Results; and 4) for 
labor rate, the Department applied the latest labor rate issued by the 
Office of Policy. See ``Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries,'' 
available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html.

Final Results of Review

    We determine that the following weighted-average antidumping duty 
percentage margins exist for the POR:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Weighted-
                        Exporter                          Average Margin
                                                            (Percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shanghai Lian Li Paper Products Co., Ltd...............          22.35
Hwa Fuh Plastics Co., Ltd./ Li Teng Plastics                     22.35
 (Shenzhen)Co., Ltd....................................
Leo's Quality Products Co., Ltd./Denmax Plastic                  22.35
 Stationery Factory....................................

[[Page 17165]]

 
The Watanabe Group (consisting of the following                  22.35
 companies) Watanabe Paper Product (Shenghai) Co., Ltd.
 Watanabe Paper Product (Linqing) Co., Ltd. Hotrock
 Stationery (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For details on the calculation of the antidumping duty weighted-
average margin for Lian Li, see Lian Li's Analysis Memo. A public 
version of this memorandum is on file in the CRU.

Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), 
the Department will determine, and United States Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 
15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review. 
For assessment purposes, where possible, we calculated importer-
specific assessment rates for CLPP 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, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212 (b). We will 
instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries 
covered by this review.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of these 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 equivalent to the company-
specific weighted-average margin established in this review; (2) for 
PRC exporters who received a separate rate in a prior segment of the 
proceeding, but were not reviewed in this review, the cash deposit rate 
will continue to be the rate assigned in that segment of the 
proceeding; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have 
not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, including those 
companies for which this review has been rescinded, 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 Interested Parties

    This notice also serves as the final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding 
the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the 
relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this 
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and in the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the return/destruction or conversion to judicial protective 
order of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 
19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Failure to comply with the regulations and terms 
of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
    This administrative review and this notice are published in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: April 6, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix I

List of Comments in the Accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum
Comment 1: Whether to Apply Adverse Facts Available (AFA) in 
Calculating Normal Value
Comment 2: Whether to Apply Partial AFA for The Labor and Electricity 
Data Submitted by Sentian and MPF
Comment 3: Whether to Revise Certain Surrogate Values to Incorporate 
More Accurate Values and Whether to Apply Adverse Inferences with 
Respect to Other Values for the Final Results
Comment 4: Surrogate Financial Ratios
Comment 5: Inland Freight and Sigma Cap
Comment 6: The Inclusion of Graph Paper in the Review
Comment 7: Selection of Single Mandatory Respondent
Comment 8: Application of a Partial AFA Margin to Watanabe
Comment 9: Whether Or Not Watanabe Was Deprived of Its Full Opportunity 
to Participate in the Review
[FR Doc. E9-8395 Filed 4-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S