Certain Lined Paper Products From India: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 51558-51566 [E9-24210]

Download as PDF 51558 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 7, 2009 / Notices the November 2009 Pacific Council meeting. Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may come before the SAS for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal SAS action during this meeting. SAS action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the SAS’s intent to take final action to address the emergency. Special Accommodations The public listening station is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Ms. Carolyn Porter at (503) 820–2280 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Dated: October 2, 2009. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E9–24193 Filed 10–6–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–22–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–570–955] Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks From the People’s Republic of China: Postponement of Preliminary Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicholas Czajkowski or Justin Neuman, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1395 and (202) 482–0486, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Background On August 18, 2009, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated the countervailing duty investigation of certain magnesia carbon bricks from the People’s Republic of China. See Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks from the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation, 74 FR VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:25 Oct 06, 2009 Jkt 220001 42858 (August 25, 2009). Currently, the preliminary determination is due no later than October 22, 2009. Postponement of Due Date for the Preliminary Determination Section 703(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department to issue the preliminary determination in a countervailing duty investigation within 65 days after the date on which the Department initiated the investigation. However, the Department may postpone making the preliminary determination until no later than 130 days after the date on which the administering authority initiated the investigation if the petitioner makes a timely request for an extension pursuant to section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act. In the instant investigation, the petitioner made a timely request on September 25, 2009, requesting a postponement until 120 days from the initiation date. See 19 CFR 351.205(e) and the petitioner’s September 25, 2009 letter requesting postponement of the preliminary determination. Therefore, pursuant to the discretion afforded the Department under 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act and because the Department does not find any compelling reason to deny the request, we are extending the due date until 120 days after the Department’s initiation for the preliminary determination. Therefore, the deadline for the completion of the preliminary determination is now December 16, 2009. This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 703(c)(2) of the Act. Dated: October 1, 2009. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E9–24213 Filed 10–6–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–533–843] Certain Lined Paper Products From India: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 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 (CLPP) from India. For the period September 1, 2007, through PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 August 31, 2008, we have preliminarily determined that U.S. sales have been made below normal value (NV) by Navneet Publications (India) Limited (Navneet) and Blue Bird India Ltd. (Blue Bird). Because Blue Bird is a selected mandatory respondent and was not responsive to the Department’s requests for information, we have preliminarily assigned to Blue Bird a margin based on adverse facts available (AFA). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties based on the difference between the export price (EP) and NV. See ‘‘Preliminary Results of Review’’ section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. DATES: Effective Date: October 7, 2009 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Moore or Cindy Robinson, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–3692 or (202) 482– 3797, respectively. Background On September 2, 2008, the Department issued a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this order for the period of review (POR) of September 1, 2007, through August 31, 2008. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation: Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 73 FR 51272 (September 2, 2008). Pursuant to requests from interested parties,1 the Department published in 1 On September 29, 2008, the Department received a timely request for an administrative review filed on behalf of Kejriwal Paper Limited and a timely request for an administrative review filed on behalf of Navneet. On September 30, 2008, the Department received a timely request for an administrative review of the following 25 companies, filed on behalf of the Association of American School Paper Suppliers (the Association or Petitioner), a domestic interested party: Agility Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Blue Bird, Ceal Shipping Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Cello International Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Stationary Pvt. Ltd., Creative Divya, Exel India Pvt. Ltd., FFI International, Global Art India Inc., International Greetings Pvt. Ltd., Karim General Handmade Paper DIAR, Kejriwal Exports, M/S Super ImpEx., Magic International, Marigold ExIm Pvt. Ltd., Marisa International, Navneet Publications (India) Ltd., Pentagon Waterlines Pvt. Ltd., Pioneer Stationery Pvt. Ltd., Rajvansh International, Riddhi Enterprises, SAB International, TKS Overseas, Unlimited Accessories Worldwide, and V. Joshi Co. We inadvertently listed Kejriwal Paper Limited and Kejriwal Exports separately in our notice of initiation of this review. However, in Kejriwal Paper Limited’s response to the Department’s questionnaire, Kejriwal Exports was identified as a E:\FR\FM\07OCN1.SGM 07OCN1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 7, 2009 / Notices erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES the Federal Register the notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review with respect to 25 companies, including Navneet, Kejriwal Paper Limited (Kejriwal) and Blue Bird for the period September 1, 2007, through August 31, 2008. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Deferral of Administrative Review, 73 FR 64305 (October 29, 2008) (Initiation Notice).2 On November 25, 2008, the Department selected Kejriwal and Blue Bird as companies to be individually examined in this, the second administrative review of the antidumping duty order on CLPP from India. See Memorandum to Melissa Skinner from George McMahon titled ‘‘Certain Lined Paper Products from India: Selection of Respondents for Individual Review’’ (Respondent Selection Memo), dated November 25, 2008. On December 4, 2008, the Department issued an antidumping questionnaire (original questionnaire) to Kejriwal and Blue Bird with a due date of January 12, 2009. After two extension requests 3 to file its response to the original questionnaire, Blue Bird submitted its Section A questionnaire response on February 3, 2009. On February 10, 2009, Blue Bird requested a 13-week extension of time from February 16 to May 18, 2009, to respond to the Sections B, C, and D of the Department’s original questionnaire. In light of the fact that the Department had previously granted division of Kejriwal Paper Limited, and not as a separate company. Therefore, Kejriwal Exports should not be assigned a separate rate. Accordingly, the Department’s initiation is on Kejriwal Paper Limited and Kejriwal Exports, (collectively Kejriwal Paper Limited). See Initiation Notice. 2 See also Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 73 FR 70964 (November 24, 2008) at footnote 1, in which the Department states, ‘‘{w}e note that the Department erred by inadvertently including the manufacturer/exporter name: ‘‘Ria ImpEx Pvt. Ltd.’’ in the prior initiation notice under case number A– 533–843 for the period of review: 9/1/07–8/31/08.’’ See 73 FR 64305 (October 29, 2008). The Department did not receive a timely request to review Ria ImpEx Pvt. Ltd. for case number A–533– 843, therefore, the Department retracts its initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping order with respect to Ria ImpEx Pvt. Ltd. for the POR. 3 On January 9, 2009, in response to Blue Bird’s January 8, 2009, letter requesting a five-week extension until February 16, 2009, to file a response to the Department’s original questionnaire, the Department, due to time constraints, granted a three-week extension until February 3, 2009 (Extension 1). Subsequently, on January 29, 2009, in response to Blue Bird’s January 23, 2009, letter requesting a two-week extension until February 16, 2009, to file a response to Sections B through D of the Department’s original questionnaire, the Department granted a full extension to Blue Bird to respond to Sections B through D until February 16, 2009 (Extension 2). VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:25 Oct 06, 2009 Jkt 220001 two extensions and that the requested due date by Blue Bird, May 18, 2009, was only 15 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary results for this review, the Department granted Blue Bird a two-week extension until March 3, 2009. Nonetheless, Blue Bird failed to respond to the Department’s Sections B through D questionnaire and had no further communication with the Department. See the Department’s letter to Blue Bird dated February 13, 2009 (Extension 3). See also the ‘‘Application of Facts Available’’ section below for further details. On December 22, 2008, both Kejriwal and petitioner timely withdrew their requests for a review of Kejriwal. On January 2, 2009, petitioner requested that, because Kejriwal was no longer a mandatory respondent, the Department select a second mandatory respondent. On January 9, 2009, after we determined that we would rescind the review with respect to Kejriwal, we selected Navneet as a mandatory respondent because we determined that it was practicable to individually examine two respondents, and issued a questionnaire to Navneet. Navneet submitted its Section A questionnaire response on March 3, 2009; its Sections B and C response on March 20, 2009; and its Section D response on March 31, 2009. The Department issued its first and second supplemental questionnaires to Navneet on April 30, 2009, and June 19, 2009, respectively. Navneet submitted its first and second supplemental questionnaire responses on May 26, 2009, and July 1, 2009, respectively. On March 4, 2009, and March 24, 2009, petitioner submitted its comments on Blue Bird and Navneet’s Section A responses, respectively. On April 21, 2009, petitioner submitted its comments on Navneet’s Sections B and C responses. On June 11, 2009, petitioner submitted its comments on Navneet’s Sections A through C supplemental responses. On July 11, 2009, petitioner submitted pre-verification comments. On March 9, 2009, petitioner requested that the Department select another mandatory respondent in this review. On April 14, 2009, the Department declined to select another mandatory respondent because it was too late in the proceeding. See Memorandum to File from James Terpstra titled ‘‘Non-selection of addition respondent’’ dated April 14, 2009. On May 4, 2009, petitioner made a submission requesting that the Department modify its model match methodology. On May 14, 2009, Navneet submitted a letter arguing that this change was submitted too late to be PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 51559 considered and that the proposed change was unwarranted. On May 19, 2009, petitioner submitted a letter arguing that it was not too late to propose this change and that the change was warranted. On May 11, 2009, the Department published a notice of partial rescission with respect to Kejriwal and extended the time limit for issuing the preliminary results of this review by 120 days to September 30, 2009. See Certain Lined Paper Products from India: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 21781 (May 11, 2009) (Rescission and Preliminary Extension Notice). The Department conducted the cost verification from June 29, 2009, through July 3, 2009, and the sales verification from July 13, 2009, through July 17, 2009, in Mumbai, India. On July 27, 2009, the Department requested that Navneet provide an updated sales file to reflect the minor corrections presented to the sales verification team. On August 10, 2009, Navneet provided a revised U.S. sales file. Period of Review The POR is September 1, 2007, through August 31, 2008. Scope of the Order The scope of this order includes certain lined paper products, typically school supplies (for purposes of this scope definition, the actual use of or labeling these products as school supplies or non-school supplies is not a defining characteristic) composed of or including paper that incorporates straight horizontal and/or vertical lines on ten or more paper sheets (there shall be no minimum page requirement for loose leaf filler paper) including but not limited to such products as single- and multi-subject notebooks, composition books, wireless notebooks, loose leaf or glued filler paper, graph paper, and laboratory notebooks, and with the smaller dimension of the paper measuring 6 inches to 15 inches (inclusive) and the larger dimension of the paper measuring 83⁄4 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 E:\FR\FM\07OCN1.SGM 07OCN1 erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES 51560 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 7, 2009 / Notices 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; VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:25 Oct 06, 2009 Jkt 220001 • 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 organizer made with a blended polyolefin writing surface as the cover and pocket surfaces of the notebook, suitable for writing using a speciallydeveloped 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 23⁄8’’ 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 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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 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 4810.22.5044, 4811.90.9050, 4811.90.9090, 4820.10.2010, 4820.10.2020, 4820.10.2030, 4820.10.2040, 4820.10.2050, 4820.10.2060, and 4820.10.4000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS headings are provided for convenience and customs purposes; however, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. E:\FR\FM\07OCN1.SGM 07OCN1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 7, 2009 / Notices Model Match Methodology erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES On May 4, 2009, petitioner requested that the Department modify its model match methodology. We determine that it would be inappropriate to make such a substantial change in the model match methodology at this late stage in the administrative review. The physical characteristics used in the model matching hierarchy were established during the LTFV investigation in this proceeding by the Department, in consultation with all parties.4 The Department continued to use this model match methodology in the first review of this proceeding.5 In order to modify the model match methodology, according to section 782(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department must allow ‘‘reasonable opportunity’’ for interested parties to comment. See Koyo Seiko, 516 F. Supp. 2d 1323 at 1333 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2007); see also Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from India: Final Results of Administrative Review, and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4 (Shrimp from India), 74 FR 33409 (July 13, 2009). It is the Department’s practice to allow sufficient time to solicit comments from all parties, consider the merits of the proposed revisions, including an opportunity for the Department to clarify aspects of the party’s proposal and the information and basis that supports the proposal.6 In the past, the Department has revised 4 See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances in Part: Certain Lined Paper Products from India, 71 FR 19706 (April 17, 2006), unchanged in the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Lined Paper Products from India (India Lined Paper Investigation Final), 71 FR 45012 (August 8, 2006). 5 See Certain Lined Paper Products from India: Preliminary Results of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 58548 (October 7, 2008), unchanged in the Notice of Final Results of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review (India Lined Paper AR1 Final) 74 FR 17149 (April 14, 2009). 6 See also Honey From Argentina: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 30283 (May 27, 2004), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 15 (declining to address arguments for changing the model matching methodology raised for the first time in the case brief); Certain Small Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe From Romania: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Determination Not To Revoke Order in Part, 70 FR 7237 (Feb. 11, 2005), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 10 (stating that arguments on the model matching methodology should be presented early in the case). VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:25 Oct 06, 2009 Jkt 220001 model match characteristics prior to the issuance of questionnaires.7 In this case, petitioner submitted its request for a change in model match methodology on May 4, 2009, which was six months after the initiation of this review and 29 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary results for this review. At the time of the request, the Department had already issued the original and first supplemental questionnaires to respondents based on the same modelmatch methodology established in the original investigation and the first administrative review. Even with a subsequent extension of the deadline for completing the preliminary results, the timing of the request did not allow the Department sufficient time to solicit comments from all interested parties, to finalize the specifics of the model match changes, and to issue a revised questionnaire to respondents in time for the preliminary results. Moreover, parties have already committed significant resources to preparing their questionnaire responses, and petitioner has commented on same, using the original model match methodology. To change the methodology at this time would require the collection of additional information and place an increased burden on respondents.8 7 Structural Steel Beams from Korea: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 6837 (Feb. 9, 2005), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1 (noting that parties were invited to comment prior to the issuance of questionnaires in the third administrative review on model matching changes which initially had been raised too late in the second administrative review). 8 This process often takes a significant amount of time, and may span more than one review period before being implemented. See, e.g., Antifriction Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Rescission of Administrative Reviews in Part, and Determination To Revoke Order in Part (Ball Bearings), 69 FR 55574 (September 15, 2004), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. The Department declined to consider the issue of making a fundamental change to the model match methodology when it was first raised in the 2002– 2003 administrative review. Instead the Department decided to allow further time for comment and analysis of the issue in the context of the next administrative review and to ensure that all parties in the companion bearings cases were provided ample opportunity to consider and provide comment on the proposed change to the model match methodology. See the accompanying memorandum titled ‘‘Ball Bearings (and Parts Thereof) From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom—Model-Match Methodology’’ to James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from Jeffrey A. May, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated December 3, 2003, which is being placed on the record of this segment of the proceeding in the Central Records Unit (CRU) in room 1117 of the Department’s main building. See also Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice of Preliminary PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 51561 Therefore, consistent with the Department’s practice, the Department agrees, in part, with Navneet that petitioner’s request for changing the model match methodology in this review was submitted too late to be considered. For purposes of these preliminary results of this review, we have continued to rely on our established model matching methodology in this case. The Department will consider the petitioner’s arguments if raised at an early date in the next proceeding. Verification As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we have verified information provided by Navneet in the administrative review of the order on subject merchandise from India using standard verification procedures, including the examination of relevant sales and cost information, financial records, and the selection and review of original documentation containing relevant information. Our verification results are outlined in the public version of our verification report dated August 17, 2009, which is on file in the CRU. During the sales verification, Navneet reported four minor corrections which the Department has accepted. In addition, the Department made findings with respect to bonus pack sales, retail merchandising, and market research selling activity in the United States. See the Department’s Verification of Sales Responses of Navneet Publications (India) Ltd., in the Antidumping Review of Certain Lined Paper Products from India (Sales Verification Report), dated August 17, 2009, at page 2 for a full discussion. Application of Facts Available Section 776(a) of the Act provides that the Department will apply ‘‘facts otherwise available’’ if, inter alia, necessary information is not available on the record or an interested party: (1) Withholds information that has been requested by the Department; (2) fails to provide such information within the deadlines established, or in the form or manner requested by the Department, Results of Twelfth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review (Pasta from Italy) 74 FR 39285 (August 6, 2009), and the accompanying memorandum, titled ‘‘Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Pasta from Italy: Preliminary Model Match Clarification on Pasta Wheat Code Classifications’’ to John M. Andersen, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, through Melissa Skinner, Office Director, AD/CVD Operations 3, from James Terpstra, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations 3 for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, dated July 31, 2009, which is being placed on the record of this segment of the proceeding. E:\FR\FM\07OCN1.SGM 07OCN1 51562 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 7, 2009 / Notices erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 of the Act; (3) significantly impedes a proceeding; or (4) provides such information, but the information cannot be verified. As discussed in the ‘‘Background’’ section above, on November 25, 2008, the Department selected Kejriwal and Blue Bird as companies to be individually examined in this review, and on December 4, 2008, the Department issued its original questionnaire to Kejriwal and Blue Bird. See the Respondent Selection Memo and the Department’s December 4, 2008, Letter to Kejriwal and Blue Bird. The review of Kejriwal has since been rescinded. See Rescission and Preliminary Extension Notice. With respect to Blue Bird, the due date for the original questionnaire response was January 12, 2009. As noted in footnote 3 and in the ‘‘Background’’ section, above, Blue Bird made three extension requests (fiveweeks, two-weeks, and 13-weeks, respectively) to respond to the original questionnaire. The Department granted a three-week and a two-week extension, respectively, in response to Blue Bird’s first and second extension requests. In response to Blue Bird’s third request for a 13-week extension, however, the Department determined that it could only grant a maximum extension of two additional weeks because (1) the Department had previously granted Blue Bird two extensions for a total of five weeks; and (2) Blue Bird’s third extension request was impractical because the requested due date, May 18, 2009, was only 15 days before the original scheduled date of the preliminary results for this review.9 The revised deadline for Blue Bird to respond to the Department’s Sections B through D questionnaire was March 3, 2009. However, despite multiple extensions, Blue Bird never submitted any responses to the Department’s Sections B through D questionnaire. By failing to respond to the Department’s 9 In its letter to Blue Bird dated February 13, 2009, the Department further stated that it could only grant a two-week extension rather than a 13week extension because ‘‘prior to issuing the preliminary results, the Department must have complete, reliable, and accurate sales and costs information submitted by Blue Bird. In addition, the Department must have adequate time to review and analyze such sales and costs information and issue and analyze responses to any necessary supplemental questionnaires prior to issuance of the preliminary results. Further, because Blue Bird has not been reviewed previously, the Department planned to conduct verification in this segment of the proceeding. Therefore, it is impracticable for the Department to grant Blue Bird a three-month extension until May 18, 2009, which comes 15 days before the scheduled date for issuance of the preliminary results.’’ VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:25 Oct 06, 2009 Jkt 220001 requests, Blue Bird withheld requested information and significantly impeded the proceeding. Therefore, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, the Department preliminarily finds that the use of facts available for Blue Bird is appropriate. According to section 776(b) of the Act, if the Department finds that an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for information, the Department may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from the facts otherwise available. See also India Lined Paper AR1 Final; 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 are appropriate ‘‘to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.’’ See Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103–316, Vol. 1, at 870 (1994) (SAA), reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4198–99. Furthermore, ‘‘affirmative evidence of bad faith on the part of a respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse inference.’’ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997); see also Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1382–83 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Nippon). In this case, the Department granted Blue Bird three extensions for a total of seven weeks. Despite the clear explanation in the Department’s February 13, 2009, letter concerning its antidumping procedures and time limits imposed by the statute, and despite multiple extensions granted by the Department, Blue Bird never responded to the Department’s Section B through D questionnaires. Not only did it not take the opportunity to respond to the Department’s questionnaire, Blue Bird ceased to communicate with the Department after its third extension request. Therefore, we preliminarily find that Blue Bird did not act to the best of its ability in this proceeding, within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act, because it failed to respond to the Department’s requests for information and failed to provide any additional information. Thus, an adverse inference is warranted in PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 selecting from the facts otherwise available with respect to Blue Bird. See Nippon, 337 F.3d at 1382–83. Section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use as AFA information derived from: (1) The petition; (2) the final determination in the investigation; (3) any previous review; or (4) any other information placed on the record. The Department’s practice, when selecting an AFA rate from among the possible sources of information, has been to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse ‘‘as to effectuate the statutory purposes of the adverse facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.’’ See, e.g., Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Final Results and Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, 71 FR 65082, 65084 (November 7, 2006). In order to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse so as to induce cooperation, we have preliminarily assigned a rate of 72.96 percent, which is the highest transaction-specific rate calculated for a respondent in this review. Since this is not secondary information, we do not have to corroborate this rate pursuant to section 776(c) of the Act. The Department finds that this rate is sufficiently high to ensure that the respondent does not benefit from its failure to cooperate and to encourage participation in future segments of this proceeding in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act. When the Department selects a transaction-specific margin to use as AFA it analyzes the underlying transaction to ensure that it is not aberrational. See, e.g., Magnesium Metal From the Russian Federation: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 39919 (August 10, 2009). For example, if the highest margin involves a transaction with an unusually small quantity, or involves an unusual product, the Department may reject it as aberrational. However, none of these factors are present for the margins in this review. See Selection of AFA Margin for Blue Bird for our analysis of the relevant transactions. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, all products produced by Navneet covered by the description in the ‘‘Scope of the Order’’ section above and sold in India during the POR are considered to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. We have relied on eight criteria to match E:\FR\FM\07OCN1.SGM 07OCN1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 7, 2009 / Notices U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison market sales of the foreign like product: (1) Form, (2) paper volume, (3) brightness, (4) binding type, (5) cover material, (6) back material, (7) number of inserts, and (8) insert material. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics listed above. For purposes of the preliminary results, where appropriate, we have calculated the adjustment for differences in merchandise based on the difference in the variable cost of manufacturing (VCOM) between each U.S. model and the most similar home market model selected for comparison. erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Normal Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of CLPP from Navneet to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared EP to the NV, as described in the ‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated monthly weighted-average prices for NV and compared these to individual U.S. transaction prices. We used the information provide by Navneet, including certain minor changes from verification. See Sales Verification Report at page 2. Export Price For all U.S. sales made by Navneet, we used the EP methodology, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation and constructed export price methodology was not warranted based on the facts of record. We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Navneet reported that it did not offer any discounts or rebates in the U.S. market; therefore, the EP prices were not reduced to reflect discounts or rebates. In accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we made deductions, where appropriate, for movement expenses including foreign inland freight from plant/warehouse to the port of exportation, foreign brokerage and handling, and foreign bill of lading charges. In addition, we deducted the costs for the sales of nonsubject merchandise that were included in the value pack sales, where appropriate. We also increased EP by an amount equal to the countervailing duty (CVD) rate attributed to export subsidies in the most recently completed VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:25 Oct 06, 2009 Jkt 220001 countervailing duty administrative review of CLPP from India, in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act. Normal Value Selection of Comparison Market To determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared Navneet’s volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B) and 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, because Navneet had an aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product that was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable. Level of Trade In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent practicable, the Department determines NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or CEP transactions. In order to perform the LOT analysis, we examine the selling functions provided to different customer categories to evaluate the LOT in a particular market. Specifically, we compare the selling functions performed for home market sales with those performed with respect to the EP or CEP transactions, after deductions for economic activities occurring in the United States, pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.412, to determine if the home market LOT constituted a different LOT than the EP or CEP LOT. Consistent with 19 CFR 351.412, to determine whether comparison market sales were at a different LOT, we examined stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated (or arm’slength) customers. If the comparison market sales were at a different LOT and the differences affect price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we will make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Navneet reported that it has five channels of distribution or five LOTs in the home market (i.e., distributors with merchandising—full service; distributors with no merchandising— limited service; retail chain stores; institutional end-users who purchase PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 51563 materials for their own use; and schools that purchase customized products for their own use and for selling to students). Section 351.412(c)(2) of the Department’s regulations provides that the Department will determine that sales are made at different LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their equivalent). Substantial differences in selling activities are a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for determining that there is a difference in the stage of marketing. Some overlap in selling activities will not preclude a determination that sales are at different stages of marketing. We disagree with Navneet that there are five LOTs in the home market. Our analysis of the selling activities for Navneet shows that Navneet performs similar selling activities for different customer categories, although some of the activities were at different levels of intensity. Moreover, some selling activities within the claimed LOT1 are at a higher level of intensity than the same selling activities in the claimed LOT2 through LOT5. In addition, there is overlap among the channels of distribution for the different customer categories between LOT1 and LOT2 through LOT5 customers. Although there are differences in intensity of selling activities among LOT2 through LOT5 customers, this, in and of itself, does not show a substantial difference in selling activities that would form the basis for finding distinct LOTs. See, e.g., Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 52070 (September 12, 2007), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4. The differences in Navneet’s selling activities chart indicate that there are two LOTs in the home market: (1) LOT1 and (2) a combined LOT2, which is comprised of Navneet’s reported LOT2 through LOT5. The selling activities in the combined LOT2 in the home market are comparable to the selling activities in the LOT in the U. S. market. Due to the proprietary nature of this issue, please refer to Navneet’s Preliminary Calculation Memorandum for further discussion, dated September 30, 2009. In the U.S. market, Navneet reported that its sales were made through one channel of distribution to one customer category, and therefore, at one LOT. The Department has determined that Navneet’s home market sales in the combined LOT2 are at the same stage of marketing as the U.S. sales. We only compared home market sales in the combined LOT2 to the U.S. sales and determined that no LOT adjustment for E:\FR\FM\07OCN1.SGM 07OCN1 51564 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 7, 2009 / Notices erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Navneet’s sales to the United States was necessary. Cost of Production Analysis A ‘‘sales-below-cost’’ analysis was conducted in the investigation with respect to Navneet, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, because there were reasonable grounds to ‘‘believe or suspect’’ that sales of the foreign like product have been made below the cost of production (COP). However, in the investigation, the Department found that Navneet failed to provide the required information in the manner requested and therefore determined that Navneet did not act to the best of its ability. Consequently, in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, the Department found that the use of AFA was warranted under section 776(a)(2) of the Act. See India Lined Paper Investigation Final. In the first administrative review, Navneet was a non-selected company. See India Lined Paper AR1 Final. Because Navneet failed to act to the best of its ability in the only proceeding in which it was individually examined by the Department, we therefore have reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, that sales of the foreign like product under consideration for the determination of NV in this review may have been made at prices below COP. Thus, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we examined whether sales from Navneet in the home market were made at prices below the COP. In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a weightedaverage COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling, general and administrative expenses (SG&A) and packing expenses. For these preliminary results, we have adjusted Navneet’s reported cost of manufacturing to include common production costs not allocated to divisions and other common production costs of the stationery division not allocated to subdivisions. We have calculated the G&A expense for each control number (CONNUM) based on the G&A ratio submitted by Navneet in its May 26, 2009, COP/constructed value (CV) file. As Navneet did not incur net financial expense during fiscal year 2008, we excluded the interest expense (INTEX) field from the calculation of COP for each CONNUM. We calculated the COP and CV of all CONNUMs sold in the home market to exclude the central excise tax on raw material inputs. For further details, see the Memorandum to Neal M. Halper, VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:25 Oct 06, 2009 Jkt 220001 Director, Office of Accounting, through Michael P. Martin, Lead Accountant, from Robert B. Greger, Senior Accountant, titled ‘‘Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Lined Paper Products from India: Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results—Navneet Publications (India) Ltd.,’’ dated September 30, 2009. Test of Comparison Market Prices As required under section 773(b)(2) of the Act, we compared the weightedaverage COP to the per-unit price of the comparison market sales of the foreign like product, to determine whether these sales were made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, and whether such prices were sufficient to permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We determined the net comparison market prices for the below-cost test by subtracting from the gross unit price any applicable movement charges, discounts, rebates, direct and indirect selling expenses and packing expenses which were excluded from COP for comparison purposes. In addition, we made an adjustment for excise taxes that were paid on certain inputs that were included in the price. See also excise tax discussion below. Results of COP Test Pursuant to sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of sales of a given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in ‘‘substantial quantities’’ within an extended period of time. Where 20 percent or more of Navneet’s sales of a given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we determined such sales to have been made in ‘‘substantial quantities.’’ See sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act. Further, such sales were made within an extended period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act. In such cases, because we compared prices to PORaverage costs, we also determined that such sales were not made at prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, for purposes of this administrative review, we disregarded below-cost sales of a given product and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices We based home market prices on packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in India. Where appropriate, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act, we deducted from the starting price inland freight. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(c), we deducted rebates and discounts. In accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act, we added U.S. packing costs and deducted comparison market packing, respectively. We also made adjustments for Navneet, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), for indirect selling expenses incurred in the home market or the United States where commissions were granted on sales in one market but not in the other, the (‘‘commission offset’’). Specifically, where commissions are incurred in one market, but not in the other, we will limit the amount of such allowance to the amount of either the selling expenses incurred in the one market or the commissions allowed in the other market, whichever is less. In addition, for comparisons made to EP sales, we made adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale (COS) pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(b) by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for home market sales (credit expense) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit, bank charges, and commissions directly linked to sales transactions). In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based NV on LOTH2 sales. See the ‘‘Level of Trade’’ section above. Finally, consistent with section 773(a)(6)(B)(iii) of the Act, we made an adjustment for central excise taxes that Navneet paid on raw material inputs used to produce merchandise that was sold in the home market that were not paid on the same inputs used to produce merchandise that was exported from India. Under Indian law, Navneet was prohibited from charging this excise tax on sales of school supplies. In addition, the excise tax that Navneet paid on inputs into school supplies was not refunded and was not otherwise recovered by Navneet. Therefore, we find the tax is included in the price and adjustment is warranted. For products other than school supplies, Navneet reported home market selling prices net of the excise tax. Currency Conversion We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with section E:\FR\FM\07OCN1.SGM 07OCN1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 7, 2009 / Notices 773A(a) of the Act based on exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. Non-Selected Rate erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES The statute and the Department’s regulations do not directly address the establishment of rates to be applied to companies not selected for individual examination where the Department limited its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. However, the Department normally determines the rates for non-selected companies in reviews in a manner that is consistent with section 735(c)(5) of the Act. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act instructs the Department to calculate an all-others rate using the weighted average of the dumping margins established for the producers/exporters individually examined, excluding any zero or de minimis margins or any margins based on total facts available. In this review, Navneet is the only respondent for which the Department has calculated a company-specific rate that is based on the average of the margins calculated during the review, other than those which were zero, de minimis, or based on total facts available. Therefore, for purposes of these preliminary results, the 22 remaining non-selected companies subject to this review will receive the rate calculated for Navneet in this review. See also the ‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section, below. Manufacturer/exporter Creative Divya .......................... Exel India Pvt. Ltd. ................... FFI International ....................... Global Art India Inc. .................. International Greetings Pvt. Ltd. Karim General Handmade Paper DIAR ........................... M/S Super ImpEx. .................... Magic International ................... Marigold ExIm Pvt. Ltd. ............ Marisa International .................. Pentagon Waterlines Pvt. Ltd. .. Pioneer Stationery Pvt. Ltd. ..... Rajvansh International .............. Riddhi Enterprises .................... SAB International ...................... TKS Overseas .......................... Unlimited Accessories Worldwide ....................................... V. Joshi Co. .............................. Weighted average margin (percent) 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 Public Comment The Department will disclose calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties to this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs are limited to issues raised in the case briefs and may be filed no later than five days after the time limit for filing the case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties submitting arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the issue, (2) a brief Preliminary Results of the Review summary of the argument, and (3) a We preliminarily determine that table of authorities, in accordance with weighted-average dumping margins 19 CFR 351.309(d)(2). Further, parties exist for the respondents for the period submitting case and/or rebuttal briefs September 1, 2007, through August 31, are requested to provide the Department 2008, as follows: with an additional electronic copy of the public version of any such Weighted comments on a computer diskette. Case average Manufacturer/exporter margin and rebuttal briefs must be served on (percent) interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). Navneet Publications (India) An interested party may request a Ltd. ........................................ 2.08 hearing within 30 days of publication of Blue Bird ................................... 72.96 these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, Review-Specific Average Rate ordinarily will be held two days after Applicable to the 22 Non-Selected the due date of the rebuttal briefs in Companies Subject to This Review: accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(d)(1). The Department will issue the final Weighted results of this administrative review, average Manufacturer/exporter margin which will include the results of its (percent) analysis of issues raised in any such Agility Logistics Pvt. Ltd. .......... 2.08 comments, or at a hearing, if requested, within 120 days of publication of these Ceal Shipping Logistics Pvt. Ltd. ........................................ 2.08 preliminary results, unless extended. Cello International Pvt. Ltd. ...... 2.08 See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, and Corporate Stationary Pvt. Ltd. .. 2.08 19 CFR 351.213(h). VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:25 Oct 06, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 51565 Assessment Rate Upon completion of the final results of this administrative review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), the Department will calculate importer-specific assessment rates for each respondent based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those sales. Where the respondent did not report the entered value for U.S. sales, we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates for the merchandise in question by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. To determine whether the duty assessment rates were de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importerspecific ad valorem rates based on the estimated entered value. Where the assessment rate is above de minimis, we will instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). The Department intends to issue assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review. 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). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by the respondents subject to this review for which the reviewed companies did not know that the merchandise which it sold to an intermediary (e.g., a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediary involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see id. Cash Deposit Requirements To calculate the cash deposit rate for Navneet, we divided its total dumping margin by the total net value of its sales during the review period. For the responsive companies which were not selected for individual review, we have calculated a cash deposit rate based on the simple average of the cash deposit E:\FR\FM\07OCN1.SGM 07OCN1 51566 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 7, 2009 / Notices rates calculated for the companies selected for individual review. In this instance, there is only one non-AFA rate which we applied. The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of CLPP from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for companies subject to this review will be the rate established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.5 percent and, therefore, de minimis, no cash deposit will be required; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent final results for a review in which that manufacturer or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent final results for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be 3.91 percent, the allothers rate established in the LTFV investigation. See Lined Paper Orders.10 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. These preliminary results of administrative review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4). 10 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 Orders). VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:25 Oct 06, 2009 Jkt 220001 Dated: September 30, 2009. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E9–24210 Filed 10–6–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–570–863] Seventh Administrative Review of Honey From the People’s Republic of China: Second Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 7, 2009. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine Bertrand, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; telephone- (202) 482–3207. Background On February 2, 2009, the Department of Commerce (‘‘Department’’) published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of honey from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’), covering the period December 1, 2007 through November 30, 2008. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 74 FR 5821 (February 2, 2009). On March 6, 2009, after receiving comments on U.S. Customs and Border Protection data, the Department selected Anhui Native Produce Import & Export Corp. (‘‘Anhui Native’’) and Qinhuangdao Municipal Dafeng Industrial Co., Ltd. (‘‘QMD’’) as the mandatory respondents for this review. The Department sent its antidumping questionnaire to Anhui Native and QMD on March 9, 2009. The Department was unable to deliver its questionnaire to QMD due to incorrect addresses. See Memorandum to the File from Blaine Wiltse, Case Analyst, RE: Seventh Administrative Review of Honey from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’): Incorrect Addresses for QMD, dated March 27, 2009. On March 30, 2009, Dongtai Peak Honey Industry Co., Ltd. (‘‘Dongtai Peak’’) requested treatment as a voluntary respondent, and submitted its Section A response to the Department. On April 13, 2009, the Department selected Dongtai Peak as a voluntary PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 respondent for this review. On April 14, 2009, Dongtai Peak submitted its Sections C and D response to the Department. On April 15, 2009, Anhui Native withdrew its participation from the current review. On June 8, 2009, and June 16, 2009, the Department sent its Supplemental Sections A, C, and D Questionnaire and its Importer Specific Supplemental Questionnaire to Dongtai Peak. On July 8, 2009, and July 13, 2009, Dongtai Peak submitted its response to the Department’s Importer Specific Supplemental Questionnaire and Supplemental Sections A, C, and D Questionnaire. The Department previously extended this review by 60 days. See Seventh Administrative Review of Honey from the People’s Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results, 74 FR 41679 (August 18, 2009). The preliminary results of this administrative review are currently due on November 2, 2009. Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results The Department determines that completion of the preliminary results of this review by November 2, 2009 is not practicable. The Department requires more time to gather and analyze surrogate value information pertaining to this company. Additionally, the Department intends to provide additional time for interested parties to provide comments on supplemental questionnaires and suggested surrogate values. Lastly, the Department requires additional time to analyze the supplemental questionnaire that was already issued. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘Act’’), we are extending the time period for issuing the preliminary results of review by 45 days until December 16, 2009. The final results continue to be due 120 days after the publication of the preliminary results. This notice is published pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2). Dated: September 30, 2009. John M. Andersen, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations. [FR Doc. E9–24239 Filed 10–6–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S E:\FR\FM\07OCN1.SGM 07OCN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 193 (Wednesday, October 7, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51558-51566]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-24210]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-843]


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

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
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 (CLPP) from India. For the period September 1, 2007, 
through August 31, 2008, we have preliminarily determined that U.S. 
sales have been made below normal value (NV) by Navneet Publications 
(India) Limited (Navneet) and Blue Bird India Ltd. (Blue Bird). Because 
Blue Bird is a selected mandatory respondent and was not responsive to 
the Department's requests for information, we have preliminarily 
assigned to Blue Bird a margin based on adverse facts available (AFA). 
If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will 
instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping 
duties based on the difference between the export price (EP) and NV. 
See ``Preliminary Results of Review'' section of this notice. 
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

DATES: Effective Date: October 7, 2009

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Moore or Cindy Robinson, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-
3692 or (202) 482-3797, respectively.

Background

    On September 2, 2008, the Department issued a notice of opportunity 
to request an administrative review of this order for the period of 
review (POR) of September 1, 2007, through August 31, 2008. See 
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended 
Investigation: Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 73 FR 
51272 (September 2, 2008).
    Pursuant to requests from interested parties,\1\ the Department 
published in

[[Page 51559]]

the Federal Register the notice of initiation of this antidumping duty 
administrative review with respect to 25 companies, including Navneet, 
Kejriwal Paper Limited (Kejriwal) and Blue Bird for the period 
September 1, 2007, through August 31, 2008. See Initiation of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Deferral 
of Administrative Review, 73 FR 64305 (October 29, 2008) (Initiation 
Notice).\2\ On November 25, 2008, the Department selected Kejriwal and 
Blue Bird as companies to be individually examined in this, the second 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on CLPP from India. 
See Memorandum to Melissa Skinner from George McMahon titled ``Certain 
Lined Paper Products from India: Selection of Respondents for 
Individual Review'' (Respondent Selection Memo), dated November 25, 
2008. On December 4, 2008, the Department issued an antidumping 
questionnaire (original questionnaire) to Kejriwal and Blue Bird with a 
due date of January 12, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On September 29, 2008, the Department received a timely 
request for an administrative review filed on behalf of Kejriwal 
Paper Limited and a timely request for an administrative review 
filed on behalf of Navneet. On September 30, 2008, the Department 
received a timely request for an administrative review of the 
following 25 companies, filed on behalf of the Association of 
American School Paper Suppliers (the Association or Petitioner), a 
domestic interested party: Agility Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Blue Bird, 
Ceal Shipping Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Cello International Pvt. Ltd., 
Corporate Stationary Pvt. Ltd., Creative Divya, Exel India Pvt. 
Ltd., FFI International, Global Art India Inc., International 
Greetings Pvt. Ltd., Karim General Handmade Paper DIAR, Kejriwal 
Exports, M/S Super ImpEx., Magic International, Marigold ExIm Pvt. 
Ltd., Marisa International, Navneet Publications (India) Ltd., 
Pentagon Waterlines Pvt. Ltd., Pioneer Stationery Pvt. Ltd., 
Rajvansh International, Riddhi Enterprises, SAB International, TKS 
Overseas, Unlimited Accessories Worldwide, and V. Joshi Co.
    We inadvertently listed Kejriwal Paper Limited and Kejriwal 
Exports separately in our notice of initiation of this review. 
However, in Kejriwal Paper Limited's response to the Department's 
questionnaire, Kejriwal Exports was identified as a division of 
Kejriwal Paper Limited, and not as a separate company. Therefore, 
Kejriwal Exports should not be assigned a separate rate. 
Accordingly, the Department's initiation is on Kejriwal Paper 
Limited and Kejriwal Exports, (collectively Kejriwal Paper Limited). 
See Initiation Notice.
    \2\ See also Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 73 FR 70964 (November 24, 2008) at footnote 
1, in which the Department states, ``{w{time} e note that the 
Department erred by inadvertently including the manufacturer/
exporter name: ``Ria ImpEx Pvt. Ltd.'' in the prior initiation 
notice under case number A-533-843 for the period of review: 9/1/07-
8/31/08.'' See 73 FR 64305 (October 29, 2008). The Department did 
not receive a timely request to review Ria ImpEx Pvt. Ltd. for case 
number A-533-843, therefore, the Department retracts its initiation 
of an administrative review of the antidumping order with respect to 
Ria ImpEx Pvt. Ltd. for the POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After two extension requests \3\ to file its response to the 
original questionnaire, Blue Bird submitted its Section A questionnaire 
response on February 3, 2009. On February 10, 2009, Blue Bird requested 
a 13-week extension of time from February 16 to May 18, 2009, to 
respond to the Sections B, C, and D of the Department's original 
questionnaire. In light of the fact that the Department had previously 
granted two extensions and that the requested due date by Blue Bird, 
May 18, 2009, was only 15 days before the scheduled date of the 
preliminary results for this review, the Department granted Blue Bird a 
two-week extension until March 3, 2009. Nonetheless, Blue Bird failed 
to respond to the Department's Sections B through D questionnaire and 
had no further communication with the Department. See the Department's 
letter to Blue Bird dated February 13, 2009 (Extension 3). See also the 
``Application of Facts Available'' section below for further details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ On January 9, 2009, in response to Blue Bird's January 8, 
2009, letter requesting a five-week extension until February 16, 
2009, to file a response to the Department's original questionnaire, 
the Department, due to time constraints, granted a three-week 
extension until February 3, 2009 (Extension 1). Subsequently, on 
January 29, 2009, in response to Blue Bird's January 23, 2009, 
letter requesting a two-week extension until February 16, 2009, to 
file a response to Sections B through D of the Department's original 
questionnaire, the Department granted a full extension to Blue Bird 
to respond to Sections B through D until February 16, 2009 
(Extension 2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 22, 2008, both Kejriwal and petitioner timely withdrew 
their requests for a review of Kejriwal. On January 2, 2009, petitioner 
requested that, because Kejriwal was no longer a mandatory respondent, 
the Department select a second mandatory respondent. On January 9, 
2009, after we determined that we would rescind the review with respect 
to Kejriwal, we selected Navneet as a mandatory respondent because we 
determined that it was practicable to individually examine two 
respondents, and issued a questionnaire to Navneet. Navneet submitted 
its Section A questionnaire response on March 3, 2009; its Sections B 
and C response on March 20, 2009; and its Section D response on March 
31, 2009. The Department issued its first and second supplemental 
questionnaires to Navneet on April 30, 2009, and June 19, 2009, 
respectively. Navneet submitted its first and second supplemental 
questionnaire responses on May 26, 2009, and July 1, 2009, 
respectively.
    On March 4, 2009, and March 24, 2009, petitioner submitted its 
comments on Blue Bird and Navneet's Section A responses, respectively. 
On April 21, 2009, petitioner submitted its comments on Navneet's 
Sections B and C responses. On June 11, 2009, petitioner submitted its 
comments on Navneet's Sections A through C supplemental responses. On 
July 11, 2009, petitioner submitted pre-verification comments.
    On March 9, 2009, petitioner requested that the Department select 
another mandatory respondent in this review. On April 14, 2009, the 
Department declined to select another mandatory respondent because it 
was too late in the proceeding. See Memorandum to File from James 
Terpstra titled ``Non-selection of addition respondent'' dated April 
14, 2009.
    On May 4, 2009, petitioner made a submission requesting that the 
Department modify its model match methodology. On May 14, 2009, Navneet 
submitted a letter arguing that this change was submitted too late to 
be considered and that the proposed change was unwarranted. On May 19, 
2009, petitioner submitted a letter arguing that it was not too late to 
propose this change and that the change was warranted.
    On May 11, 2009, the Department published a notice of partial 
rescission with respect to Kejriwal and extended the time limit for 
issuing the preliminary results of this review by 120 days to September 
30, 2009. See Certain Lined Paper Products from India: Notice of 
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 74 FR 21781 (May 11, 2009) (Rescission and 
Preliminary Extension Notice).
    The Department conducted the cost verification from June 29, 2009, 
through July 3, 2009, and the sales verification from July 13, 2009, 
through July 17, 2009, in Mumbai, India. On July 27, 2009, the 
Department requested that Navneet provide an updated sales file to 
reflect the minor corrections presented to the sales verification team. 
On August 10, 2009, Navneet provided a revised U.S. sales file.

Period of Review

    The POR is September 1, 2007, through August 31, 2008.

Scope of the Order

    The scope of this order includes certain lined paper products, 
typically school supplies (for purposes of this scope definition, the 
actual use of or labeling these products as school supplies or non-
school supplies is not a defining characteristic) composed of or 
including paper that incorporates straight horizontal and/or vertical 
lines on ten or more paper sheets (there shall be no minimum page 
requirement for loose leaf filler paper) including but not limited to 
such products as single- and multi-subject notebooks, composition 
books, wireless notebooks, loose leaf or glued filler paper, graph 
paper, and laboratory notebooks, and with the smaller dimension of the 
paper measuring 6 inches to 15 inches (inclusive) and the larger 
dimension of the paper measuring 8\3/4\ inches to 15 inches 
(inclusive). Page dimensions are measured size (not advertised, stated, 
or ``tear-out'' size), and are measured as they appear in the product 
(i.e., stitched and folded pages in a notebook are measured by the size 
of the page as it appears in the notebook page, not the size of the 
unfolded paper). However, for measurement purposes, pages with tapered 
or rounded edges shall be measured at their longest and widest

[[Page 51560]]

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:
     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 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[supreg]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[supreg]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 4810.22.5044, 4811.90.9050, 4811.90.9090, 4820.10.2010, 
4820.10.2020, 4820.10.2030, 4820.10.2040, 4820.10.2050, 4820.10.2060, 
and 4820.10.4000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS). The HTSUS headings are provided for convenience and customs 
purposes; however, the written description of the scope of the order is 
dispositive.

[[Page 51561]]

Model Match Methodology

    On May 4, 2009, petitioner requested that the Department modify its 
model match methodology. We determine that it would be inappropriate to 
make such a substantial change in the model match methodology at this 
late stage in the administrative review. The physical characteristics 
used in the model matching hierarchy were established during the LTFV 
investigation in this proceeding by the Department, in consultation 
with all parties.\4\ The Department continued to use this model match 
methodology in the first review of this proceeding.\5\ In order to 
modify the model match methodology, according to section 782(g) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department must allow 
``reasonable opportunity'' for interested parties to comment. See Koyo 
Seiko, 516 F. Supp. 2d 1323 at 1333 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2007); see also 
Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from India: Final Results of 
Administrative Review, and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 
at Comment 4 (Shrimp from India), 74 FR 33409 (July 13, 2009). It is 
the Department's practice to allow sufficient time to solicit comments 
from all parties, consider the merits of the proposed revisions, 
including an opportunity for the Department to clarify aspects of the 
party's proposal and the information and basis that supports the 
proposal.\6\ In the past, the Department has revised model match 
characteristics prior to the issuance of questionnaires.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and 
Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances in 
Part: Certain Lined Paper Products from India, 71 FR 19706 (April 
17, 2006), unchanged in the Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value, and Negative Determination of Critical 
Circumstances: Certain Lined Paper Products from India (India Lined 
Paper Investigation Final), 71 FR 45012 (August 8, 2006).
    \5\ See Certain Lined Paper Products from India: Preliminary 
Results of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 
58548 (October 7, 2008), unchanged in the Notice of Final Results of 
the First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review (India Lined Paper 
AR1 Final) 74 FR 17149 (April 14, 2009).
    \6\ See also Honey From Argentina: Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 30283 (May 27, 2004), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 15 (declining 
to address arguments for changing the model matching methodology 
raised for the first time in the case brief); Certain Small Diameter 
Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe From 
Romania: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Final Determination Not To Revoke Order in Part, 70 FR 7237 (Feb. 
11, 2005), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 10 (stating that arguments on the model matching methodology 
should be presented early in the case).
    \7\ Structural Steel Beams from Korea: Notice of Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 6837 (Feb. 9, 
2005), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1 
(noting that parties were invited to comment prior to the issuance 
of questionnaires in the third administrative review on model 
matching changes which initially had been raised too late in the 
second administrative review).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this case, petitioner submitted its request for a change in 
model match methodology on May 4, 2009, which was six months after the 
initiation of this review and 29 days before the scheduled date of the 
preliminary results for this review. At the time of the request, the 
Department had already issued the original and first supplemental 
questionnaires to respondents based on the same model-match methodology 
established in the original investigation and the first administrative 
review. Even with a subsequent extension of the deadline for completing 
the preliminary results, the timing of the request did not allow the 
Department sufficient time to solicit comments from all interested 
parties, to finalize the specifics of the model match changes, and to 
issue a revised questionnaire to respondents in time for the 
preliminary results. Moreover, parties have already committed 
significant resources to preparing their questionnaire responses, and 
petitioner has commented on same, using the original model match 
methodology. To change the methodology at this time would require the 
collection of additional information and place an increased burden on 
respondents.\8\ Therefore, consistent with the Department's practice, 
the Department agrees, in part, with Navneet that petitioner's request 
for changing the model match methodology in this review was submitted 
too late to be considered. For purposes of these preliminary results of 
this review, we have continued to rely on our established model 
matching methodology in this case. The Department will consider the 
petitioner's arguments if raised at an early date in the next 
proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ This process often takes a significant amount of time, and 
may span more than one review period before being implemented. See, 
e.g., Antifriction Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, 
Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Rescission of 
Administrative Reviews in Part, and Determination To Revoke Order in 
Part (Ball Bearings), 69 FR 55574 (September 15, 2004), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. The 
Department declined to consider the issue of making a fundamental 
change to the model match methodology when it was first raised in 
the 2002-2003 administrative review. Instead the Department decided 
to allow further time for comment and analysis of the issue in the 
context of the next administrative review and to ensure that all 
parties in the companion bearings cases were provided ample 
opportunity to consider and provide comment on the proposed change 
to the model match methodology. See the accompanying memorandum 
titled ``Ball Bearings (and Parts Thereof) From France, Germany, 
Italy, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom--Model-Match 
Methodology'' to James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import 
Administration, from Jeffrey A. May, Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Import Administration, dated December 3, 2003, which is being placed 
on the record of this segment of the proceeding in the Central 
Records Unit (CRU) in room 1117 of the Department's main building. 
See also Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice of Preliminary Results of 
Twelfth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review (Pasta from Italy) 74 
FR 39285 (August 6, 2009), and the accompanying memorandum, titled 
``Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Pasta from 
Italy: Preliminary Model Match Clarification on Pasta Wheat Code 
Classifications'' to John M. Andersen, Acting Deputy Assistant 
Secretary, through Melissa Skinner, Office Director, AD/CVD 
Operations 3, from James Terpstra, Program Manager, AD/CVD 
Operations 3 for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, 
dated July 31, 2009, which is being placed on the record of this 
segment of the proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we have verified 
information provided by Navneet in the administrative review of the 
order on subject merchandise from India using standard verification 
procedures, including the examination of relevant sales and cost 
information, financial records, and the selection and review of 
original documentation containing relevant information. Our 
verification results are outlined in the public version of our 
verification report dated August 17, 2009, which is on file in the CRU.
    During the sales verification, Navneet reported four minor 
corrections which the Department has accepted. In addition, the 
Department made findings with respect to bonus pack sales, retail 
merchandising, and market research selling activity in the United 
States. See the Department's Verification of Sales Responses of Navneet 
Publications (India) Ltd., in the Antidumping Review of Certain Lined 
Paper Products from India (Sales Verification Report), dated August 17, 
2009, at page 2 for a full discussion.

Application of Facts Available

    Section 776(a) of the Act provides that the Department will apply 
``facts otherwise available'' if, inter alia, necessary information is 
not available on the record or an interested party: (1) Withholds 
information that has been requested by the Department; (2) fails to 
provide such information within the deadlines established, or in the 
form or manner requested by the Department,

[[Page 51562]]

subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 of the Act; (3) 
significantly impedes a proceeding; or (4) provides such information, 
but the information cannot be verified.
    As discussed in the ``Background'' section above, on November 25, 
2008, the Department selected Kejriwal and Blue Bird as companies to be 
individually examined in this review, and on December 4, 2008, the 
Department issued its original questionnaire to Kejriwal and Blue Bird. 
See the Respondent Selection Memo and the Department's December 4, 
2008, Letter to Kejriwal and Blue Bird. The review of Kejriwal has 
since been rescinded. See Rescission and Preliminary Extension Notice.
    With respect to Blue Bird, the due date for the original 
questionnaire response was January 12, 2009. As noted in footnote 3 and 
in the ``Background'' section, above, Blue Bird made three extension 
requests (five-weeks, two-weeks, and 13-weeks, respectively) to respond 
to the original questionnaire. The Department granted a three-week and 
a two-week extension, respectively, in response to Blue Bird's first 
and second extension requests. In response to Blue Bird's third request 
for a 13-week extension, however, the Department determined that it 
could only grant a maximum extension of two additional weeks because 
(1) the Department had previously granted Blue Bird two extensions for 
a total of five weeks; and (2) Blue Bird's third extension request was 
impractical because the requested due date, May 18, 2009, was only 15 
days before the original scheduled date of the preliminary results for 
this review.\9\ The revised deadline for Blue Bird to respond to the 
Department's Sections B through D questionnaire was March 3, 2009. 
However, despite multiple extensions, Blue Bird never submitted any 
responses to the Department's Sections B through D questionnaire. By 
failing to respond to the Department's requests, Blue Bird withheld 
requested information and significantly impeded the proceeding. 
Therefore, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, the 
Department preliminarily finds that the use of facts available for Blue 
Bird is appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In its letter to Blue Bird dated February 13, 2009, the 
Department further stated that it could only grant a two-week 
extension rather than a 13-week extension because ``prior to issuing 
the preliminary results, the Department must have complete, 
reliable, and accurate sales and costs information submitted by Blue 
Bird. In addition, the Department must have adequate time to review 
and analyze such sales and costs information and issue and analyze 
responses to any necessary supplemental questionnaires prior to 
issuance of the preliminary results. Further, because Blue Bird has 
not been reviewed previously, the Department planned to conduct 
verification in this segment of the proceeding. Therefore, it is 
impracticable for the Department to grant Blue Bird a three-month 
extension until May 18, 2009, which comes 15 days before the 
scheduled date for issuance of the preliminary 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 India Lined 
Paper AR1 Final; 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 are 
appropriate ``to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable 
result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.'' See 
Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, Vol. 1, at 870 (1994) (SAA), 
reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4198-99. Furthermore, 
``affirmative evidence of bad faith on the part of a respondent is not 
required before the Department may make an adverse inference.'' See 
Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 
27340 (May 19, 1997); see also Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 
F.3d 1373, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Nippon).
    In this case, the Department granted Blue Bird three extensions for 
a total of seven weeks. Despite the clear explanation in the 
Department's February 13, 2009, letter concerning its antidumping 
procedures and time limits imposed by the statute, and despite multiple 
extensions granted by the Department, Blue Bird never responded to the 
Department's Section B through D questionnaires. Not only did it not 
take the opportunity to respond to the Department's questionnaire, Blue 
Bird ceased to communicate with the Department after its third 
extension request. Therefore, we preliminarily find that Blue Bird did 
not act to the best of its ability in this proceeding, within the 
meaning of section 776(b) of the Act, because it failed to respond to 
the Department's requests for information and failed to provide any 
additional information. Thus, an adverse inference is warranted in 
selecting from the facts otherwise available with respect to Blue Bird. 
See Nippon, 337 F.3d at 1382-83.
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use as 
AFA information derived from: (1) The petition; (2) the final 
determination in the investigation; (3) any previous review; or (4) any 
other information placed on the record. The Department's practice, when 
selecting an AFA rate from among the possible sources of information, 
has been to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse ``as to 
effectuate the statutory purposes of the adverse facts available rule 
to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and 
accurate information in a timely manner.'' See, e.g., Certain Steel 
Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Final Results and Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, 71 FR 65082, 65084 
(November 7, 2006).
    In order to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse so as to 
induce cooperation, we have preliminarily assigned a rate of 72.96 
percent, which is the highest transaction-specific rate calculated for 
a respondent in this review. Since this is not secondary information, 
we do not have to corroborate this rate pursuant to section 776(c) of 
the Act. The Department finds that this rate is sufficiently high to 
ensure that the respondent does not benefit from its failure to 
cooperate and to encourage participation in future segments of this 
proceeding in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act. When the 
Department selects a transaction-specific margin to use as AFA it 
analyzes the underlying transaction to ensure that it is not 
aberrational. See, e.g., Magnesium Metal From the Russian Federation: 
Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 74 FR 39919 (August 10, 2009). For example, if the highest 
margin involves a transaction with an unusually small quantity, or 
involves an unusual product, the Department may reject it as 
aberrational. However, none of these factors are present for the 
margins in this review. See Selection of AFA Margin for Blue Bird for 
our analysis of the relevant transactions.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, all products 
produced by Navneet covered by the description in the ``Scope of the 
Order'' section above and sold in India during the POR are considered 
to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate 
product comparisons to U.S. sales. We have relied on eight criteria to 
match

[[Page 51563]]

U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison market sales of the 
foreign like product: (1) Form, (2) paper volume, (3) brightness, (4) 
binding type, (5) cover material, (6) back material, (7) number of 
inserts, and (8) insert material. Where there were no sales of 
identical merchandise in the home market made in the ordinary course of 
trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most 
similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics listed 
above.
    For purposes of the preliminary results, where appropriate, we have 
calculated the adjustment for differences in merchandise based on the 
difference in the variable cost of manufacturing (VCOM) between each 
U.S. model and the most similar home market model selected for 
comparison.

Normal Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of CLPP from Navneet to the United 
States were made at less than NV, we compared EP to the NV, as 
described in the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this 
notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated 
monthly weighted-average prices for NV and compared these to individual 
U.S. transaction prices. We used the information provide by Navneet, 
including certain minor changes from verification. See Sales 
Verification Report at page 2.

Export Price

    For all U.S. sales made by Navneet, we used the EP methodology, in 
accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject 
merchandise was sold directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States prior to importation and constructed export price 
methodology was not warranted based on the facts of record. We based EP 
on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United 
States. Navneet reported that it did not offer any discounts or rebates 
in the U.S. market; therefore, the EP prices were not reduced to 
reflect discounts or rebates.
    In accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we made 
deductions, where appropriate, for movement expenses including foreign 
inland freight from plant/warehouse to the port of exportation, foreign 
brokerage and handling, and foreign bill of lading charges. In 
addition, we deducted the costs for the sales of non-subject 
merchandise that were included in the value pack sales, where 
appropriate. We also increased EP by an amount equal to the 
countervailing duty (CVD) rate attributed to export subsidies in the 
most recently completed countervailing duty administrative review of 
CLPP from India, in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act.

Normal Value

Selection of Comparison Market

    To determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the 
home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared 
Navneet's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to 
the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Pursuant to 
sections 773(a)(1)(B) and 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, because Navneet had 
an aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product 
that was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. 
sales of the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market 
was viable.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, the Department determines NV based on sales in the 
comparison market at the same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or CEP 
transactions. In order to perform the LOT analysis, we examine the 
selling functions provided to different customer categories to evaluate 
the LOT in a particular market. Specifically, we compare the selling 
functions performed for home market sales with those performed with 
respect to the EP or CEP transactions, after deductions for economic 
activities occurring in the United States, pursuant to section 772(d) 
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.412, to determine if the home market LOT 
constituted a different LOT than the EP or CEP LOT.
    Consistent with 19 CFR 351.412, to determine whether comparison 
market sales were at a different LOT, we examined stages in the 
marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution 
between the producer and the unaffiliated (or arm's-length) customers. 
If the comparison market sales were at a different LOT and the 
differences affect price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of 
consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and 
comparison market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we will 
make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
    Navneet reported that it has five channels of distribution or five 
LOTs in the home market (i.e., distributors with merchandising--full 
service; distributors with no merchandising--limited service; retail 
chain stores; institutional end-users who purchase materials for their 
own use; and schools that purchase customized products for their own 
use and for selling to students).
    Section 351.412(c)(2) of the Department's regulations provides that 
the Department will determine that sales are made at different LOTs if 
they are made at different marketing stages (or their equivalent). 
Substantial differences in selling activities are a necessary, but not 
a sufficient, condition for determining that there is a difference in 
the stage of marketing. Some overlap in selling activities will not 
preclude a determination that sales are at different stages of 
marketing.
    We disagree with Navneet that there are five LOTs in the home 
market. Our analysis of the selling activities for Navneet shows that 
Navneet performs similar selling activities for different customer 
categories, although some of the activities were at different levels of 
intensity. Moreover, some selling activities within the claimed LOT1 
are at a higher level of intensity than the same selling activities in 
the claimed LOT2 through LOT5. In addition, there is overlap among the 
channels of distribution for the different customer categories between 
LOT1 and LOT2 through LOT5 customers. Although there are differences in 
intensity of selling activities among LOT2 through LOT5 customers, 
this, in and of itself, does not show a substantial difference in 
selling activities that would form the basis for finding distinct LOTs. 
See, e.g., Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador: Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 52070 (September 12, 
2007), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4. 
The differences in Navneet's selling activities chart indicate that 
there are two LOTs in the home market: (1) LOT1 and (2) a combined 
LOT2, which is comprised of Navneet's reported LOT2 through LOT5. The 
selling activities in the combined LOT2 in the home market are 
comparable to the selling activities in the LOT in the U. S. market. 
Due to the proprietary nature of this issue, please refer to Navneet's 
Preliminary Calculation Memorandum for further discussion, dated 
September 30, 2009.
    In the U.S. market, Navneet reported that its sales were made 
through one channel of distribution to one customer category, and 
therefore, at one LOT. The Department has determined that Navneet's 
home market sales in the combined LOT2 are at the same stage of 
marketing as the U.S. sales. We only compared home market sales in the 
combined LOT2 to the U.S. sales and determined that no LOT adjustment 
for

[[Page 51564]]

Navneet's sales to the United States was necessary.

Cost of Production Analysis

    A ``sales-below-cost'' analysis was conducted in the investigation 
with respect to Navneet, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, because 
there were reasonable grounds to ``believe or suspect'' that sales of 
the foreign like product have been made below the cost of production 
(COP). However, in the investigation, the Department found that Navneet 
failed to provide the required information in the manner requested and 
therefore determined that Navneet did not act to the best of its 
ability. Consequently, in selecting from among the facts otherwise 
available, the Department found that the use of AFA was warranted under 
section 776(a)(2) of the Act. See India Lined Paper Investigation 
Final. In the first administrative review, Navneet was a non-selected 
company. See India Lined Paper AR1 Final.
    Because Navneet failed to act to the best of its ability in the 
only proceeding in which it was individually examined by the 
Department, we therefore have reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, 
pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, that sales of the 
foreign like product under consideration for the determination of NV in 
this review may have been made at prices below COP. Thus, pursuant to 
section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we examined whether sales from Navneet in 
the home market were made at prices below the COP.
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a 
weighted-average COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and 
fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling, 
general and administrative expenses (SG&A) and packing expenses. For 
these preliminary results, we have adjusted Navneet's reported cost of 
manufacturing to include common production costs not allocated to 
divisions and other common production costs of the stationery division 
not allocated to subdivisions. We have calculated the G&A expense for 
each control number (CONNUM) based on the G&A ratio submitted by 
Navneet in its May 26, 2009, COP/constructed value (CV) file. As 
Navneet did not incur net financial expense during fiscal year 2008, we 
excluded the interest expense (INTEX) field from the calculation of COP 
for each CONNUM. We calculated the COP and CV of all CONNUMs sold in 
the home market to exclude the central excise tax on raw material 
inputs. For further details, see the Memorandum to Neal M. Halper, 
Director, Office of Accounting, through Michael P. Martin, Lead 
Accountant, from Robert B. Greger, Senior Accountant, titled 
``Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Lined Paper 
Products from India: Cost of Production and Constructed Value 
Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results--Navneet 
Publications (India) Ltd.,'' dated September 30, 2009.

Test of Comparison Market Prices

    As required under section 773(b)(2) of the Act, we compared the 
weighted-average COP to the per-unit price of the comparison market 
sales of the foreign like product, to determine whether these sales 
were made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time in 
substantial quantities, and whether such prices were sufficient to 
permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We 
determined the net comparison market prices for the below-cost test by 
subtracting from the gross unit price any applicable movement charges, 
discounts, rebates, direct and indirect selling expenses and packing 
expenses which were excluded from COP for comparison purposes. In 
addition, we made an adjustment for excise taxes that were paid on 
certain inputs that were included in the price. See also excise tax 
discussion below.

Results of COP Test

    Pursuant to sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C)(i) of the Act, where less 
than 20 percent of sales of a given product during the POR were at 
prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of 
that product because we determined that the below-cost sales were not 
made in ``substantial quantities'' within an extended period of time. 
Where 20 percent or more of Navneet's sales of a given product during 
the POR were at prices less than the COP, we determined such sales to 
have been made in ``substantial quantities.'' See sections 773(b)(2)(B) 
and (C) of the Act. Further, such sales were made within an extended 
period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act. In 
such cases, because we compared prices to POR-average costs, we also 
determined that such sales were not made at prices which would permit 
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance 
with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, for purposes of this 
administrative review, we disregarded below-cost sales of a given 
product and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, 
in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices

    We based home market prices on packed prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers in India. Where appropriate, in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(B) of the Act, we deducted from the starting price inland 
freight. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(c), we deducted rebates and 
discounts. In accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act, 
we added U.S. packing costs and deducted comparison market packing, 
respectively. We also made adjustments for Navneet, in accordance with 
19 CFR 351.410(e), for indirect selling expenses incurred in the home 
market or the United States where commissions were granted on sales in 
one market but not in the other, the (``commission offset''). 
Specifically, where commissions are incurred in one market, but not in 
the other, we will limit the amount of such allowance to the amount of 
either the selling expenses incurred in the one market or the 
commissions allowed in the other market, whichever is less.
    In addition, for comparisons made to EP sales, we made adjustments 
for differences in circumstances of sale (COS) pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(b) by deducting direct 
selling expenses incurred for home market sales (credit expense) and 
adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit, bank charges, and 
commissions directly linked to sales transactions). In accordance with 
section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based NV on LOTH2 sales. See the 
``Level of Trade'' section above.
    Finally, consistent with section 773(a)(6)(B)(iii) of the Act, we 
made an adjustment for central excise taxes that Navneet paid on raw 
material inputs used to produce merchandise that was sold in the home 
market that were not paid on the same inputs used to produce 
merchandise that was exported from India. Under Indian law, Navneet was 
prohibited from charging this excise tax on sales of school supplies. 
In addition, the excise tax that Navneet paid on inputs into school 
supplies was not refunded and was not otherwise recovered by Navneet. 
Therefore, we find the tax is included in the price and adjustment is 
warranted. For products other than school supplies, Navneet reported 
home market selling prices net of the excise tax.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with 
section

[[Page 51565]]

773A(a) of the Act based on exchange rates in effect on the dates of 
the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Non-Selected Rate

    The statute and the Department's regulations do not directly 
address the establishment of rates to be applied to companies not 
selected for individual examination where the Department limited its 
examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) 
of the Act. However, the Department normally determines the rates for 
non-selected companies in reviews in a manner that is consistent with 
section 735(c)(5) of the Act. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act instructs 
the Department to calculate an all-others rate using the weighted 
average of the dumping margins established for the producers/exporters 
individually examined, excluding any zero or de minimis margins or any 
margins based on total facts available.
    In this review, Navneet is the only respondent for which the 
Department has calculated a company-specific rate that is based on the 
average of the margins calculated during the review, other than those 
which were zero, de minimis, or based on total facts available. 
Therefore, for purposes of these preliminary results, the 22 remaining 
non-selected companies subject to this review will receive the rate 
calculated for Navneet in this review. See also the ``Suspension of 
Liquidation'' section, below.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    We preliminarily determine that weighted-average dumping margins 
exist for the respondents for the period September 1, 2007, through 
August 31, 2008, as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Weighted
                                                               average
                   Manufacturer/exporter                        margin
                                                              (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Navneet Publications (India) Ltd...........................         2.08
Blue Bird..................................................        72.96
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to the 22 Non-Selected 
Companies Subject to This Review:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Weighted
                                                               average
                   Manufacturer/exporter                        margin
                                                              (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agility Logistics Pvt. Ltd.................................         2.08
Ceal Shipping Logistics Pvt. Ltd...........................         2.08
Cello International Pvt. Ltd...............................         2.08
Corporate Stationary Pvt. Ltd..............................         2.08
Creative Divya.............................................         2.08
Exel India Pvt. Ltd........................................         2.08
FFI International..........................................         2.08
Global Art India Inc.......................................         2.08
International Greetings Pvt. Ltd...........................         2.08
Karim General Handmade Paper DIAR..........................         2.08
M/S Super ImpEx............................................         2.08
Magic International........................................         2.08
Marigold ExIm Pvt. Ltd.....................................         2.08
Marisa International.......................................         2.08
Pentagon Waterlines Pvt. Ltd...............................         2.08
Pioneer Stationery Pvt. Ltd................................         2.08
Rajvansh International.....................................         2.08
Riddhi Enterprises.........................................         2.08
SAB International..........................................         2.08
TKS Overseas...............................................         2.08
Unlimited Accessories Worldwide............................         2.08
V. Joshi Co................................................         2.08
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Comment

    The Department will disclose calculations performed within five 
days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties to this 
proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may 
submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication 
of these preliminary results of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). 
Rebuttal briefs are limited to issues raised in the case briefs and may 
be filed no later than five days after the time limit for filing the 
case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties submitting arguments in 
this proceeding 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, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(d)(2). Further, 
parties submitting case and/or rebuttal briefs are requested to provide 
the Department with an additional electronic copy of the public version 
of any such comments on a computer diskette. Case and rebuttal briefs 
must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.303(f).
    An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
publication of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any 
hearing, if requested, ordinarily will be held two days after the due 
date of the rebuttal briefs in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(d)(1). 
The Department will issue the final results of this administrative 
review, 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 these preliminary results, unless extended. See section 
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h).

Assessment Rate

    Upon completion of the final results of this administrative review, 
the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), 
the Department will calculate importer-specific assessment rates for 
each respondent based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping 
duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of 
those sales. Where the respondent did not report the entered value for 
U.S. sales, we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates for 
the merchandise in question by aggregating the dumping margins 
calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing this amount 
by the total quantity of those sales. To determine whether the duty 
assessment rates were de minimis, in accordance with the requirement 
set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer-specific ad 
valorem rates based on the estimated entered value. Where the 
assessment rate is above de minimis, we will instruct CBP to assess 
duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer. Pursuant 
to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without 
regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate 
is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). The Department intends to 
issue assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication 
of the final results of this review.
    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). This 
clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the 
POR produced by the respondents subject to this review for which the 
reviewed companies did not know that the merchandise which it sold to 
an intermediary (e.g., a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was 
destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP 
to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no 
rate for the intermediary involved in the transaction. For a full 
discussion of this clarification, see id.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    To calculate the cash deposit rate for Navneet, we divided its 
total dumping margin by the total net value of its sales during the 
review period. For the responsive companies which were not selected for 
individual review, we have calculated a cash deposit rate based on the 
simple average of the cash deposit

[[Page 51566]]

rates calculated for the companies selected for individual review. In 
this instance, there is only one non-AFA rate which we applied.
    The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of 
the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of 
CLPP from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption 
on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) 
of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for companies subject to this 
review will be the rate established in the final results of this 
review, except if the rate is less than 0.5 percent and, therefore, de 
minimis, no cash deposit will be required; (2) for previously reviewed 
or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will 
continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent 
final results for a review in which that manufacturer or exporter 
participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, 
a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) 
investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be 
the rate established for the most recent final results for the 
manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor 
the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review 
conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be 3.91 
percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation. See 
Lined Paper Orders.\10\ These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, 
shall remain in effect until further notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 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 Orders).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    These preliminary results of administrative review are issued and 
published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the 
Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

    Dated: September 30, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-24210 Filed 10-6-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P