Certain Coated Paper From Indonesia: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation, 53707-53710 [E9-25187]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Notices
4810.22.70, 4810.29.1000, 4810.29.5000,
4810.29.6000, 4810.29.70. While
HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the scope of the
investigation is dispositive.
[FR Doc. E9–25210 Filed 10–19–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(C–423–809)
Assessment
Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from
Belgium: Rescission of Countervailing
Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 20, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alexander Montoro or Mary Kolberg, at
(202) 482–0238 or (202) 482–1785,
respectively; AD/CVD Operations,
Office 1, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
the requested review. On September 22,
2009, AMS Belgium withdrew its
request for review within the 90-day
period. Therefore, in response to AMS
Belgium’s withdrawal of its request for
an administrative review, and as no
other party requested a review, the
Department is rescinding this
administrative review of the
countervailing duty order on stainless
steel plate in coils from Belgium for the
period January 1, 2008, through
December 31, 2008.
On May 1, 2009, the Department of
Commerce (‘‘the Department’’)
published a notice announcing the
opportunity to request an administrative
review of the countervailing duty order
on stainless steel plate in coils from
Belgium. See Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
To Request Administrative Review, 74
FR 20278 (May 1, 2009). On June 1,
2009, ArcelorMittal Stainless Belgium
N.V. (‘‘AMS Belgium’’) timely requested
an administrative review covering the
period January 1, 2008, through
December 31, 2008. In accordance with
19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), the Department
published a notice initiating an
administrative review of the
countervailing duty order on stainless
steel plate in coils from Belgium. See
Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Requests for Revocation in
Part, 74 FR 30052 (June 24, 2009).
The Department will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’)
to assess countervailing duties at the
cash deposit rate in effect on the date of
entry, for entries during the period
January 1, 2008, through December 31,
2008. The Department intends to issue
appropriate assessment instructions to
CBP 15 days after the date of
publication of this notice of rescission
of administrative review. In addition,
pursuant to an injunction issued in
ArcelorMittal Stainless Belgium N.V. v.
United States, CIT No. 08–00434, on
January 16, 2009, the Department must
continue to suspend liquidation of
entries made by AMS Belgium pending
a conclusive court decision in that
action.
Notification Regarding Administrative
Protective Order
This notice serves as a final reminder
to parties subject to administrative
protection orders (‘‘APO’’) of their
responsibility concerning the
disposition of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely
written notification of the return/
destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is
hereby requested. Failure to comply
with the regulations and terms of an
APO is a sanctionable violation.
This determination is issued and
published in accordance with sections
751(a)(l) and 777(i)(l) of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR
351.213(d)(4).
Rescission of Review
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(l), the
Secretary will rescind an administrative
review, in whole or in part, if the party
that requested a review withdraws the
request within 90 days of the date of
publication of the notice of initiation of
Dated: October 13, 2009.
John M. Andersen,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations.
[FR Doc. E9–25200 Filed 10–19–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:46 Oct 19, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
53707
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–560–824]
Certain Coated Paper From Indonesia:
Initiation of Countervailing Duty
Investigation
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: October 20, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gene Calvert or Dana Mermelstein,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–3586 or (202) 482–
1391, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petition
On September 23, 2009, the
Department of Commerce (‘‘the
Department’’) received a countervailing
duty (‘‘CVD’’) petition concerning
imports of certain coated paper suitable
for high-quality print graphics using
sheet-fed presses (‘‘certain coated
paper’’) from Indonesia filed in proper
form by Appleton Coated LLC, NewPage
Corporation, Sappi Fine Paper North
America, and the United Steel, Paper
and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing,
Energy, Allied Industrial and Service
Workers International Union
(collectively, ‘‘Petitioners’’). See
‘‘Petition for the Imposition of
Countervailing Duties: Certain Coated
Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print
Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses from
Indonesia,’’ dated September 23, 2009
(Indonesia CVD Petition). On September
29, October 5, and October 7, 2009, the
Department issued additional requests
for information and clarification of
certain areas of the Indonesia CVD
Petition. Based on the Department’s
requests, Petitioners timely filed
additional information pertaining to the
Indonesia CVD Petition on October 2,
October 6, and October 9, 2009
(hereinafter, ‘‘Supplement to the
Indonesia CVD Petition,’’ dated October
2, 2009, ‘‘Second Supplement to the
Indonesia CVD Petition,’’ dated October
6, 2009, and ‘‘Third Supplement to the
Indonesia CVD Petition,’’ dated October
9, 2009).
In accordance with section 702(b)(1)
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended,
(‘‘the Act’’), Petitioners allege that
producers/exporters of certain coated
paper in Indonesia received
countervailable subsidies within the
meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of
E:\FR\FM\20OCN1.SGM
20OCN1
53708
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Notices
the Act, and that imports from these
producers/exporters materially injure,
or threaten material injury to, an
industry in the United States.
The Department finds that Petitioners
have filed this CVD petition on behalf
of the domestic industry because they
are interested parties as defined in
sections 771(9)(C) and 771(9)(D) of the
Act, and Petitioners have demonstrated
sufficient industry support with respect
to the CVD investigation that they are
requesting the Department to initiate
(see ‘‘Determination of Industry Support
for the CVD Petition,’’ below).
Period of Investigation
The anticipated period of
investigation (‘‘POI’’) is calendar year
2008. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2).
Scope of Investigation
The products covered by this
investigation are certain coated paper
from Indonesia. For a full description of
the scope of this investigation, please
see the ‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ in the
Appendix to this notice.
cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Comments on Scope of Investigation
During our review of the Indonesia
CVD Petition, we discussed the scope
with Petitioners to ensure that it is an
accurate reflection of the products for
which the domestic industry is seeking
relief. Moreover, as discussed in the
preamble to the regulations (See
Antidumping Duties; Countervailing
Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323
(May 19, 1997)), we are setting aside a
period for interested parties to raise
issues regarding product coverage. The
Department encourages all interested
parties to submit such comments by
November 2, 2009. Comments should be
addressed to Import Administration’s
APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street
and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230. The period of
scope consultations is intended to
provide the Department with ample
opportunity to consider all comments
and to consult with parties prior to the
issuance of the preliminary
determinations.
Consultations
Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of
the Act, the Department held
consultations with the Government of
Indonesia (‘‘GOI’’) with respect to the
Indonesia CVD Petition on October 7,
2009. See Memorandum to The File,
‘‘Consultations with the Government of
Indonesia Regarding the Countervailing
Duty Petition on Certain Coated Paper
from Indonesia,’’ dated October 9, 2009,
a public document on file in the Central
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:46 Oct 19, 2009
Jkt 220001
Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’), Room 1117 of
the main Department of Commerce
building.
Determination of Industry Support for
the Petition
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires
that a petition be filed on behalf of the
domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A)
of the Act provides that a petition meets
this requirement if the domestic
producers or workers who support the
petition account for: (i) At least 25
percent of the total production of the
domestic like product; and (ii) more
than 50 percent of the production of the
domestic like product produced by that
portion of the industry expressing
support for, or opposition to, the
petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D)
of the Act provides that, if the petition
does not establish support of domestic
producers or workers accounting for
more than 50 percent of the total
production of the domestic like product,
the Department shall: (i) poll the
industry or rely on other information in
order to determine if there is support for
the petition, as required by
subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine
industry support using a statistically
valid sampling method.
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines
the ‘‘industry’’ as the producers as a
whole of a domestic like product. Thus,
to determine whether a petition has the
requisite industry support, the statute
directs the Department to look to
producers and workers who produce the
domestic like product. The United
States International Trade Commission
(‘‘ITC’’), which is responsible for
determining whether ‘‘the domestic
industry’’ has been injured, must also
determine what constitutes a domestic
like product in order to define the
industry. While both the Department
and the ITC must apply the same
statutory definition regarding the
domestic like product (see section
771(10) of the Act), they do so for
different purposes and pursuant to a
separate and distinct authority. In
addition, the Department’s
determination is subject to limitations of
time and information. Although this
may result in different definitions of the
like product, such differences do not
render the decision of either agency
contrary to law. See USEC, Inc. v.
United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (Ct.
Int’l Trade 2001), citing Algoma Steel
Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F.
Supp. 639, 644 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1988),
aff’d 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert.
denied 492 U.S. 919 (1989).
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the
domestic like product as ‘‘a product
which is like, or in the absence of like,
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
most similar in characteristics and uses
with, the article subject to an
investigation under this title.’’ Thus, the
reference point from which the
domestic like product analysis begins is
‘‘the article subject to an investigation’’
(i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to
be investigated, which normally will be
the scope as defined in the petition).
With regard to the domestic like
product, Petitioners offer a definition of
domestic like product that includes
sheeter rolls (rolls of certain coated
paper intended to be slit and used in
sheet-fed presses) and, therefore, is
broader than the scope of the
investigation, which does not include
sheeter rolls. Based on our analysis of
the information submitted on the
record, we have determined that certain
coated paper described in the scope of
the investigations and sheeter rolls
constitute a single domestic like product
and we have analyzed industry support
in terms of that domestic like product.
For a discussion of the domestic like
product analysis in this case, see
Countervailing Duty Investigation
Initiation Checklist: Certain Coated
Paper from Indonesia (‘‘Indonesia CVD
Initiation Checklist’’) at Attachment II,
Analysis of Industry Support for the
Petitions Covering Certain Coated Paper
from the People’s Republic of China and
Indonesia, dated concurrently with this
notice and on file in the CRU, Room
1117 of the main Department of
Commerce building.
In determining whether Petitioners
have standing under section
702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered
the industry support data contained in
the Indonesia CVD Petition with
reference to the domestic like product as
defined in the Indonesia CVD Petition.
To establish industry support,
Petitioners provided their own 2008
shipments of the domestic like product,
as well as one supporting company’s
(SMART Papers) 2008 shipments, and
compared the total to the 2008
shipments of the entire domestic
industry. See Volume I of the Indonesia
CVD Petition, at 2–3, Exhibits I–3, I–4,
and I–19, and Supplement to the
Indonesia CVD Petition, dated October
2, 2009, at 19–22 and Exhibit 4.
Petitioners estimated total 2008
shipments of the domestic like product
based on the American Forest & Paper
Association annual Coated Printing
Papers Survey. See Volume I of the
Indonesia CVD Petition, at 3 and
Exhibits I–3 and I–4, and Supplement to
the Indonesia CVD Petition, dated
October 2, 2009, at 22 and Exhibit 4; see
also Indonesia CVD Initiation Checklist
at Attachment II.
E:\FR\FM\20OCN1.SGM
20OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Notices
cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Our review of the data provided in the
Indonesia CVD Petition, supplemental
submissions, and other information
readily available to the Department
indicates that Petitioners have
established industry support. First, the
Indonesia CVD Petition established
support from domestic producers (or
workers) accounting for more than 50
percent of the total production of the
domestic like product and, as such, the
Department is not required to take
further action in order to evaluate
industry support (e.g., polling). See
section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also
Indonesia CVD Initiation Checklist at
Attachment II. Second, the domestic
producers (or workers) have met the
statutory criteria for industry support
under section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act
because the domestic producers (or
workers) who support the Indonesia
CVD Petition account for at least 25
percent of the total production of the
domestic like product. See Indonesia
CVD Initiation Checklist at Attachment
II. Finally, the domestic producers (or
workers) have met the statutory criteria
for industry support under section
702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the
domestic producers (or workers) who
support the Indonesia CVD Petition
account for more than 50 percent of the
production of the domestic like product
produced by that portion of the industry
expressing support for, or opposition to,
the Indonesia CVD Petition.
Accordingly, the Department
determines that the Indonesia CVD
Petition was filed on behalf of the
domestic industry within the meaning
of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. See id.
The Department finds that Petitioners
filed the Indonesia CVD Petition on
behalf of the domestic industry because
they are interested parties as defined in
sections 771(9)(C) and 771(9)(D) of the
Act and they have demonstrated
sufficient industry support with respect
to the countervailing duty investigation
that they are requesting the Department
initiate. See id.
Injury Test
Because Indonesia is a ‘‘Subsidies
Agreement Country’’ within the
meaning of section 701(b) of the Act,
section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to
this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC
must determine whether imports of the
subject merchandise from Indonesia
materially injure, or threaten material
injury to, a U.S. industry.
Allegations and Evidence of Material
Injury and Causation
Petitioners allege that imports of
certain coated paper from Indonesia are
benefitting from countervailable
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:46 Oct 19, 2009
Jkt 220001
subsidies and that such imports are
causing, or threaten to cause, material
injury to the domestic industry
producing certain coated paper. In
addition, Petitioners allege that
subsidized imports exceed the
negligibility threshold provided for
under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
Petitioners contend that the industry’s
injured condition is illustrated by
reduced market share, underselling and
price depressing and suppressing
effects, increased import penetration,
lost sales and revenue, reduced
production, capacity, and capacity
utilization, reduced shipments and
inventories, reduced employment, and
reduced financial performance. We have
assessed the allegations and supporting
evidence regarding material injury,
threat of material injury, and causation,
and we have determined that these
allegations are properly supported by
adequate evidence and meet the
statutory requirements for initiation. See
Indonesia CVD Initiation Checklist at
Attachment III, ‘‘Analysis of Allegations
and Evidence of Material Injury and
Causation’’ for the Petitions Covering
Certain Coated Paper from the People’s
Republic of China and Indonesia.
Initiation of Countervailing Duty
Investigation
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires
the Department to initiate a CVD
investigation whenever an interested
party files a CVD petition on behalf of
an industry that: (1) alleges the elements
necessary for an imposition of a duty
under section 701(a) of the Act; and (2)
is accompanied by information
reasonably available to the petitioners
supporting the allegations.
The Department has examined the
countervailing duty petition on certain
coated paper from Indonesia and finds
that it complies with the requirements
of section 702(b)(1) of the Act.
Therefore, in accordance with section
702(b)(1) of the Act, we are initiating a
CVD investigation to determine whether
producers/exporters of certain coated
paper from Indonesia receive
countervailable subsidies. For a
discussion of evidence supporting our
initiation determination, see Indonesia
CVD Initiation Checklist.
We are including in our investigation
the following programs alleged in the
Indonesia CVD Petition to provide
countervailable subsidies to producers/
exporters of the subject merchandise:
1. Provision of Standing Timber for
Less Than Adequate Remuneration.
2. Government Prohibition of Log
Exports.
3. Government Provision of InterestFree Reforestation Loans.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
53709
4. Debt Forgiveness through the
Indonesian Government’s Acceptance of
Financial Instruments with No Market
Value.
5. Debt Forgiveness through APP/
SMG’s Buyback of its Own Debt from
the Indonesian Government.
6. Government Forgiveness of
Stumpage Obligations.
7. Tax Incentives for Investment in
Priority Business Lines and Designated
Regions:
a. Corporate Income Tax Deduction;
b. Accelerated Depreciation and
Amortization;
c. Extension of Loss Carryforward;
d. Reduced Withholding Tax on
Dividends.
Respondent Selection
The petition identifies the Asia Pulp
& Paper/Sinar Mas Group (APP/SMG),
through the two Indonesian coated
paper mills it operates, PT. Pabrik
Kertas Tjiwi Kimia Tbk. (‘‘Tjiwi Kimia’’)
and PT Pindo Deli Pulp and Paper
(‘‘Pindo Deli’’), as the one major
producer of coated paper in Indonesia.
We have placed on the record import
data from U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (‘‘CBP’’) which supports
Petitioners’ contention. We note that in
a recent countervailing duty
investigation covering coated free sheet
paper from Indonesia, the Department
found that the APP/Sinar Mas Group
produced almost all exports of coated
paper from Indonesia and that Tjiwi
Kimia and Pindo Deli are cross-owned
companies within the APP/SMG family
of companies, which operates together
as a vertically integrated paper
production company. See Coated Free
Sheet Paper from Indonesia: Final
Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination, 72 FR 60642 (October
25, 2007), and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum.
Because record information indicates
that APP/SMG is the producer of nearly
all of the coated paper produced in
Indonesia, we are selecting APP/SMG as
a mandatory respondent in this
investigation, pursuant to section
777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act. We will release
the CBP data under APO to the parties
covered by APO on the day this
initiation is announced. We will
consider comments from interested
parties on respondent selection. Parties
wishing to comment must do so within
five days of the publication of this
notice in the Federal Register.
Distribution of Copies of the CVD
Petition
In accordance with section
702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, copies of the
public versions of the Indonesia CVD
E:\FR\FM\20OCN1.SGM
20OCN1
53710
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 20, 2009 / Notices
Petition and amendments thereto have
been provided to the GOI. To the extent
practicable, we will attempt to provide
a copy of the public version of the
Indonesia CVD Petition to each exporter
named in the petition, as provided
under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
ITC Notification
We have notified the ITC of our
initiation, as required by section 702(d)
of the Act.
Preliminary Determination by the ITC
The ITC will preliminarily determine,
within 45 days after the date on which
the petition was filed, whether there is
a reasonable indication that imports of
subsidized certain coated paper from
Indonesia materially injure, or threaten
material injury to, a U.S. industry. See
section 703(a)(2) of the Act. A negative
ITC determination will result in the
investigation being terminated; see
section 703(a)(1) of the Act. Otherwise,
the investigation will proceed according
to statutory and regulatory time limits.
This notice is issued and published
pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act.
Dated: October 13, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
cprice-sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Appendix I—Scope of the Investigation
The merchandise covered by this
investigation includes certain coated
paper and paperboard 1 in sheets
suitable for high quality print graphics
using sheet-fed presses; coated on one
or both sides with kaolin (China or other
clay), calcium carbonate, titanium
dioxide, and/or other inorganic
substances; with or without a binder;
having a GE brightness level of 80 or
higher 2; weighing not more than 340
grams per square meter; whether gloss
grade, satin grade, matte grade, dull
grade, or any other grade of finish;
whether or not surface-colored, surfacedecorated, printed (except as described
below), embossed, or perforated; and
irrespective of dimensions (‘‘Certain
Coated Paper’’).
Certain Coated Paper includes (a)
coated free sheet paper and paperboard
1 ‘‘ ‘Paperboard’ refers to Certain Coated Paper
that is heavier, thicker and more rigid than coated
paper which otherwise meets the product
description. In the context of Certain Coated Paper,
paperboard typically is referred to as ‘cover,’ to
distinguish it from ‘text.’ ’’
2 One of the key measurements of any grade of
paper is brightness. Generally speaking, the brighter
the paper the better the contrast between the paper
and the ink. Brightness is measured using a GE
Reflectance Scale, which measures the reflection of
light off of a grade of paper. One is the lowest
reflection, or what would be given to a totally black
grade, and 100 is the brightest measured grade.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:46 Oct 19, 2009
Jkt 220001
that meets this scope definition; (b)
coated groundwood paper and
paperboard produced from bleached
chemi-thermo-mechanical pulp
(‘‘BCTMP’’) that meets this scope
definition; and (c) any other coated
paper that meets this scope definition.
Certain Coated Paper is typically (but
not exclusively) used for printing multicolored graphics for catalogues, books,
magazines, envelopes, labels and wraps,
greeting cards, and other commercial
printing applications requiring high
quality print graphics.
Specifically excluded from the scope
are imports of paper and paperboard
printed with final content printed text
or graphics.
As of 2009, imports of the subject
merchandise are provided for under the
following categories of the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States
(‘‘HTSUS’’): 4810.14.11, 4810.14.1900,
4810.14.2010, 4810.14.2090,
4810.14.5000, 4810.14.6000, 4810.14.70,
4810.19.1100, 4810.19.1900,
4810.19.2010, 4810.19.2090,
4810.22.1000, 4810.22.50, 4810.22.6000,
4810.22.70, 4810.29.1000, 4810.29.5000,
4810.29.6000, 4810.29.70. While
HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the scope of the
investigation is dispositive.
[FR Doc. E9–25187 Filed 10–19–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–560–823, A–570–958]
Certain Coated Paper Suitable for
High-Quality Print Graphics Using
Sheet-Fed Presses From Indonesia
and the People’s Republic of China:
Initiation of Antidumping Duty
Investigations
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: October 20, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gemal Brangman (Indonesia) or Frances
Veith (People’s Republic of China), AD/
CVD Operations, Office 2 and Office 8,
respectively, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)
482–3773 or (202) 482–4295,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The Petitions
On September 23, 2009, the
Department of Commerce (‘‘the
Department’’) received Petitions
concerning imports of certain coated
paper, suitable for high-quality print
graphics using sheet fed presses
(‘‘certain coated paper’’) from Indonesia
and the People’s Republic of China
(‘‘PRC’’) filed in proper form by
Appleton Coated LLC, NewPage
Corporation, S.D. Warren Company d/b/
a Sappi Fine Paper North America, and
the United Steel, Paper and Forestry,
Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied
Industrial and Service Workers
International Union (collectively,
‘‘Petitioners’’). See Petition for the
Imposition of Antidumping Duties on
Certain Coated Paper from Indonesia
(‘‘Indonesia petition’’) dated September
23, 2009; and Petition for the Imposition
of Antidumping Duties on Certain
Coated Paper from the People’s
Republic of China dated September 23,
2009 (‘‘PRC petition’’) (collectively, ‘‘the
Petitions’’). On September 29, and
October 7, 2009, the Department issued
requests for additional information and
clarification of certain areas of the
Petitions. Based on the Department’s
request, Petitioners filed supplements to
the Petitions for both countries on
October 2, 8, and 9, 2009.
In accordance with section 732(b) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the
Act’’), Petitioners allege that imports of
certain coated paper from Indonesia and
the PRC are being, or are likely to be,
sold in the United States at less than fair
value, within the meaning of section
731 of the Act, and that such imports
materially injure, or threaten material
injury to, an industry in the United
States.
The Department finds that Petitioners
filed these Petitions on behalf of the
domestic industry because Petitioners
are interested parties as defined in
sections 771(9)(C) and 771(9)(D) of the
Act, and they have demonstrated
sufficient industry support with respect
to the investigations that they are
requesting the Department to initiate
(see ‘‘Determination of Industry Support
for the Petitions’’ below).
Scope of Investigations
The products covered by these
investigations are certain coated paper
from Indonesia and the PRC. For a full
description of the scope of the
investigations, please see the ‘‘Scope of
Investigations,’’ in Appendix I of this
notice.
Comments on Scope of Investigations
During our review of the Petitions, we
discussed the scope with Petitioners to
E:\FR\FM\20OCN1.SGM
20OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 201 (Tuesday, October 20, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53707-53710]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-25187]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-560-824]
Certain Coated Paper From Indonesia: Initiation of Countervailing
Duty Investigation
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: October 20, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gene Calvert or Dana Mermelstein, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20230; telephone: (202) 482-3586 or (202) 482-1391, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petition
On September 23, 2009, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') received a countervailing duty (``CVD'') petition
concerning imports of certain coated paper suitable for high-quality
print graphics using sheet-fed presses (``certain coated paper'') from
Indonesia filed in proper form by Appleton Coated LLC, NewPage
Corporation, Sappi Fine Paper North America, and the United Steel,
Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial
and Service Workers International Union (collectively,
``Petitioners''). See ``Petition for the Imposition of Countervailing
Duties: Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics
Using Sheet-Fed Presses from Indonesia,'' dated September 23, 2009
(Indonesia CVD Petition). On September 29, October 5, and October 7,
2009, the Department issued additional requests for information and
clarification of certain areas of the Indonesia CVD Petition. Based on
the Department's requests, Petitioners timely filed additional
information pertaining to the Indonesia CVD Petition on October 2,
October 6, and October 9, 2009 (hereinafter, ``Supplement to the
Indonesia CVD Petition,'' dated October 2, 2009, ``Second Supplement to
the Indonesia CVD Petition,'' dated October 6, 2009, and ``Third
Supplement to the Indonesia CVD Petition,'' dated October 9, 2009).
In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended, (``the Act''), Petitioners allege that producers/exporters of
certain coated paper in Indonesia received countervailable subsidies
within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of
[[Page 53708]]
the Act, and that imports from these producers/exporters materially
injure, or threaten material injury to, an industry in the United
States.
The Department finds that Petitioners have filed this CVD petition
on behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties
as defined in sections 771(9)(C) and 771(9)(D) of the Act, and
Petitioners have demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect
to the CVD investigation that they are requesting the Department to
initiate (see ``Determination of Industry Support for the CVD
Petition,'' below).
Period of Investigation
The anticipated period of investigation (``POI'') is calendar year
2008. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2).
Scope of Investigation
The products covered by this investigation are certain coated paper
from Indonesia. For a full description of the scope of this
investigation, please see the ``Scope of Investigation'' in the
Appendix to this notice.
Comments on Scope of Investigation
During our review of the Indonesia CVD Petition, we discussed the
scope with Petitioners to ensure that it is an accurate reflection of
the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.
Moreover, as discussed in the preamble to the regulations (See
Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296,
27323 (May 19, 1997)), we are setting aside a period for interested
parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. The Department
encourages all interested parties to submit such comments by November
2, 2009. Comments should be addressed to Import Administration's APO/
Dockets Unit, Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. The period of scope
consultations is intended to provide the Department with ample
opportunity to consider all comments and to consult with parties prior
to the issuance of the preliminary determinations.
Consultations
Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department
held consultations with the Government of Indonesia (``GOI'') with
respect to the Indonesia CVD Petition on October 7, 2009. See
Memorandum to The File, ``Consultations with the Government of
Indonesia Regarding the Countervailing Duty Petition on Certain Coated
Paper from Indonesia,'' dated October 9, 2009, a public document on
file in the Central Records Unit (``CRU''), Room 1117 of the main
Department of Commerce building.
Determination of Industry Support for the Petition
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic
producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and
(ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like
product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support
for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of
the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of
domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of
the total production of the domestic like product, the Department
shall: (i) poll the industry or rely on other information in order to
determine if there is support for the petition, as required by
subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a
statistically valid sampling method.
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the
producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine
whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute
directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the
domestic like product. The United States International Trade Commission
(``ITC''), which is responsible for determining whether ``the domestic
industry'' has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a
domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the
Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition
regarding the domestic like product (see section 771(10) of the Act),
they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and
distinct authority. In addition, the Department's determination is
subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may
result in different definitions of the like product, such differences
do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law. See USEC,
Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2001),
citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644
(Ct. Int'l Trade 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert.
denied 492 U.S. 919 (1989).
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a
product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in
characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation
under this title.'' Thus, the reference point from which the domestic
like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an
investigation'' (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be
investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the
petition).
With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioners offer a
definition of domestic like product that includes sheeter rolls (rolls
of certain coated paper intended to be slit and used in sheet-fed
presses) and, therefore, is broader than the scope of the
investigation, which does not include sheeter rolls. Based on our
analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined
that certain coated paper described in the scope of the investigations
and sheeter rolls constitute a single domestic like product and we have
analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product. For a
discussion of the domestic like product analysis in this case, see
Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Certain Coated
Paper from Indonesia (``Indonesia CVD Initiation Checklist'') at
Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the Petitions Covering
Certain Coated Paper from the People's Republic of China and Indonesia,
dated concurrently with this notice and on file in the CRU, Room 1117
of the main Department of Commerce building.
In determining whether Petitioners have standing under section
702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data
contained in the Indonesia CVD Petition with reference to the domestic
like product as defined in the Indonesia CVD Petition. To establish
industry support, Petitioners provided their own 2008 shipments of the
domestic like product, as well as one supporting company's (SMART
Papers) 2008 shipments, and compared the total to the 2008 shipments of
the entire domestic industry. See Volume I of the Indonesia CVD
Petition, at 2-3, Exhibits I-3, I-4, and I-19, and Supplement to the
Indonesia CVD Petition, dated October 2, 2009, at 19-22 and Exhibit 4.
Petitioners estimated total 2008 shipments of the domestic like product
based on the American Forest & Paper Association annual Coated Printing
Papers Survey. See Volume I of the Indonesia CVD Petition, at 3 and
Exhibits I-3 and I-4, and Supplement to the Indonesia CVD Petition,
dated October 2, 2009, at 22 and Exhibit 4; see also Indonesia CVD
Initiation Checklist at Attachment II.
[[Page 53709]]
Our review of the data provided in the Indonesia CVD Petition,
supplemental submissions, and other information readily available to
the Department indicates that Petitioners have established industry
support. First, the Indonesia CVD Petition established support from
domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of
the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, the
Department is not required to take further action in order to evaluate
industry support (e.g., polling). See section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act;
see also Indonesia CVD Initiation Checklist at Attachment II. Second,
the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for
industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the
domestic producers (or workers) who support the Indonesia CVD Petition
account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic
like product. See Indonesia CVD Initiation Checklist at Attachment II.
Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory
criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act
because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Indonesia
CVD Petition account for more than 50 percent of the production of the
domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry
expressing support for, or opposition to, the Indonesia CVD Petition.
Accordingly, the Department determines that the Indonesia CVD Petition
was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of
section 702(b)(1) of the Act. See id.
The Department finds that Petitioners filed the Indonesia CVD
Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested
parties as defined in sections 771(9)(C) and 771(9)(D) of the Act and
they have demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the
countervailing duty investigation that they are requesting the
Department initiate. See id.
Injury Test
Because Indonesia is a ``Subsidies Agreement Country'' within the
meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act
applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine
whether imports of the subject merchandise from Indonesia materially
injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.
Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation
Petitioners allege that imports of certain coated paper from
Indonesia are benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such
imports are causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the
domestic industry producing certain coated paper. In addition,
Petitioners allege that subsidized imports exceed the negligibility
threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
Petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is
illustrated by reduced market share, underselling and price depressing
and suppressing effects, increased import penetration, lost sales and
revenue, reduced production, capacity, and capacity utilization,
reduced shipments and inventories, reduced employment, and reduced
financial performance. We have assessed the allegations and supporting
evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and
causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly
supported by adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for
initiation. See Indonesia CVD Initiation Checklist at Attachment III,
``Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and
Causation'' for the Petitions Covering Certain Coated Paper from the
People's Republic of China and Indonesia.
Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires the Department to initiate a
CVD investigation whenever an interested party files a CVD petition on
behalf of an industry that: (1) alleges the elements necessary for an
imposition of a duty under section 701(a) of the Act; and (2) is
accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioners
supporting the allegations.
The Department has examined the countervailing duty petition on
certain coated paper from Indonesia and finds that it complies with the
requirements of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance
with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, we are initiating a CVD
investigation to determine whether producers/exporters of certain
coated paper from Indonesia receive countervailable subsidies. For a
discussion of evidence supporting our initiation determination, see
Indonesia CVD Initiation Checklist.
We are including in our investigation the following programs
alleged in the Indonesia CVD Petition to provide countervailable
subsidies to producers/exporters of the subject merchandise:
1. Provision of Standing Timber for Less Than Adequate
Remuneration.
2. Government Prohibition of Log Exports.
3. Government Provision of Interest-Free Reforestation Loans.
4. Debt Forgiveness through the Indonesian Government's Acceptance
of Financial Instruments with No Market Value.
5. Debt Forgiveness through APP/SMG's Buyback of its Own Debt from
the Indonesian Government.
6. Government Forgiveness of Stumpage Obligations.
7. Tax Incentives for Investment in Priority Business Lines and
Designated Regions:
a. Corporate Income Tax Deduction;
b. Accelerated Depreciation and Amortization;
c. Extension of Loss Carryforward;
d. Reduced Withholding Tax on Dividends.
Respondent Selection
The petition identifies the Asia Pulp & Paper/Sinar Mas Group (APP/
SMG), through the two Indonesian coated paper mills it operates, PT.
Pabrik Kertas Tjiwi Kimia Tbk. (``Tjiwi Kimia'') and PT Pindo Deli Pulp
and Paper (``Pindo Deli''), as the one major producer of coated paper
in Indonesia. We have placed on the record import data from U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') which supports Petitioners'
contention. We note that in a recent countervailing duty investigation
covering coated free sheet paper from Indonesia, the Department found
that the APP/Sinar Mas Group produced almost all exports of coated
paper from Indonesia and that Tjiwi Kimia and Pindo Deli are cross-
owned companies within the APP/SMG family of companies, which operates
together as a vertically integrated paper production company. See
Coated Free Sheet Paper from Indonesia: Final Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determination, 72 FR 60642 (October 25, 2007), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.
Because record information indicates that APP/SMG is the producer
of nearly all of the coated paper produced in Indonesia, we are
selecting APP/SMG as a mandatory respondent in this investigation,
pursuant to section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act. We will release the CBP
data under APO to the parties covered by APO on the day this initiation
is announced. We will consider comments from interested parties on
respondent selection. Parties wishing to comment must do so within five
days of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
Distribution of Copies of the CVD Petition
In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act, copies of
the public versions of the Indonesia CVD
[[Page 53710]]
Petition and amendments thereto have been provided to the GOI. To the
extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public
version of the Indonesia CVD Petition to each exporter named in the
petition, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
ITC Notification
We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section
702(d) of the Act.
Preliminary Determination by the ITC
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date
on which the petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable
indication that imports of subsidized certain coated paper from
Indonesia materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S.
industry. See section 703(a)(2) of the Act. A negative ITC
determination will result in the investigation being terminated; see
section 703(a)(1) of the Act. Otherwise, the investigation will proceed
according to statutory and regulatory time limits.
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of
the Act.
Dated: October 13, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix I--Scope of the Investigation
The merchandise covered by this investigation includes certain
coated paper and paperboard \1\ in sheets suitable for high quality
print graphics using sheet-fed presses; coated on one or both sides
with kaolin (China or other clay), calcium carbonate, titanium dioxide,
and/or other inorganic substances; with or without a binder; having a
GE brightness level of 80 or higher \2\; weighing not more than 340
grams per square meter; whether gloss grade, satin grade, matte grade,
dull grade, or any other grade of finish; whether or not surface-
colored, surface-decorated, printed (except as described below),
embossed, or perforated; and irrespective of dimensions (``Certain
Coated Paper'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ `` `Paperboard' refers to Certain Coated Paper that is
heavier, thicker and more rigid than coated paper which otherwise
meets the product description. In the context of Certain Coated
Paper, paperboard typically is referred to as `cover,' to
distinguish it from `text.' ''
\2\ One of the key measurements of any grade of paper is
brightness. Generally speaking, the brighter the paper the better
the contrast between the paper and the ink. Brightness is measured
using a GE Reflectance Scale, which measures the reflection of light
off of a grade of paper. One is the lowest reflection, or what would
be given to a totally black grade, and 100 is the brightest measured
grade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certain Coated Paper includes (a) coated free sheet paper and
paperboard that meets this scope definition; (b) coated groundwood
paper and paperboard produced from bleached chemi-thermo-mechanical
pulp (``BCTMP'') that meets this scope definition; and (c) any other
coated paper that meets this scope definition.
Certain Coated Paper is typically (but not exclusively) used for
printing multi-colored graphics for catalogues, books, magazines,
envelopes, labels and wraps, greeting cards, and other commercial
printing applications requiring high quality print graphics.
Specifically excluded from the scope are imports of paper and
paperboard printed with final content printed text or graphics.
As of 2009, imports of the subject merchandise are provided for
under the following categories of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (``HTSUS''): 4810.14.11, 4810.14.1900, 4810.14.2010,
4810.14.2090, 4810.14.5000, 4810.14.6000, 4810.14.70, 4810.19.1100,
4810.19.1900, 4810.19.2010, 4810.19.2090, 4810.22.1000, 4810.22.50,
4810.22.6000, 4810.22.70, 4810.29.1000, 4810.29.5000, 4810.29.6000,
4810.29.70. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and
customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the
investigation is dispositive.
[FR Doc. E9-25187 Filed 10-19-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
