Certain Cased Pencils From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 38980-38983 [2010-16502]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
38980
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 7, 2010 / Notices
Signed at Washington, DC, this 22nd day
of June 2010.
Paul Piquado,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, Alternate Chairman, ForeignTrade Zones Board.
Attest:
Elizabeth Whiteman,
Acting Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010–16202 Filed 7–6–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–863]
Honey From the People’s Republic of
China: Extension of Time Limit for the
Preliminary Results for New Shipper
Review
cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: July 7, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Josh
Startup, 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) 482–5260.
Background
On February 4, 2010, the Department
of Commerce (‘‘Department’’) initiated
this new shipper review of the
antidumping duty order on honey from
the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’),
covering the period December 1, 2008,
through November 30, 2009. See Honey
from the People’s Republic of China:
Initiation of New Shipper Antidumping
Duty Reviews, 75 FR 5764 (February 4,
2010) (‘‘Initiation’’). The preliminary
results of this new shipper review were
due no later than July 28, 2010.
On February 12, 2010, the Department
exercised its discretion to toll the
deadlines for all Import Administration
cases by seven calendar days due to the
February 5, through February 12, 2010,
Federal Government closure. See
‘‘Memorandum to the Record from
Ronald Lorentzen, DAS for Import
Administration, regarding ‘Tolling of
Administrative Deadlines as a Result of
the Government Closure During the
Recent Snowstorm,’’’ dated February 12,
2010. As a result, the preliminary
results of this new shipper review are
currently due on August 4, 2010.
Extension of Time Limit for the
Preliminary Results
Section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:28 Jul 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
19 CFR 351.214(i)(1) require the
Department to issue the preliminary
results of a new shipper review within
180 days after the date on which the
new shipper review was initiated and
final results of a review within 90 days
after the date on which the preliminary
results were issued. The Department
may, however, extend the time period
for completion of the preliminary
results of a new shipper review to 300
days if it determines that the case is
extraordinarily complicated. See section
751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.214(i)(2).
The Department has determined that
the review is extraordinarily
complicated as the Department must
gather additional publicly available
information, issue additional
supplemental questionnaires, and allow
time for parties to comment on those
responses. Based on the timing of the
case and the additional information that
must be gathered, the preliminary
results of this new shipper review
cannot be completed within the 180 day
time limit. Accordingly, the Department
is extending the time limit for the
completion of the preliminary results of
this new shipper review by 90 days. The
preliminary results will now be due no
later than November 2, 2010 in
accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv)
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(2). The
final results will, in turn, be due 90 days
after the date of issuance of the
preliminary results, unless extended.
This notice is published pursuant to
sections 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 777(i)(1) of
the Act.
Dated: June 30, 2010.
John M. Andersen,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2010–16512 Filed 7–6–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–827]
Certain Cased Pencils From the
People’s Republic of China: Final
Results of the Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On December 22, 2009, the
Department of Commerce (the
‘‘Department’’) published the
preliminary results of the administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
on certain cased pencils from the
People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’),
covering the period December 1, 2007,
through November 30, 2008. See Certain
Cased Pencils From the People’s
Republic of China: Preliminary Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 74 FR 68047 (December 22,
2009) (‘‘Preliminary Results’’). We gave
the interested parties an opportunity to
comment on the Preliminary Results.
After reviewing the interested parties’
comments, we made changes to our
calculations for the final results of the
review. The final dumping margin for
this review is listed in the ‘‘Final Results
of the Review’’ section below.
DATES: Effective Date: July 7, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alexander Montoro or Joseph Shuler,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone (202) 482–0238 or (202) 482–
1293, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Following the Preliminary Results, the
Department issued additional
supplemental questionnaires to
mandatory respondent China First
Pencil Co., Ltd. (‘‘China First’’) on
December 28, 2009 and January 19,
2010. China First responded on January
11, 2010, and January 20, 2010,
respectively. The Department also
issued an additional supplemental
questionnaire to Shanghai Three Star
Stationery Industry Co., Ltd. (‘‘Three
Star’’), the other mandatory respondent,
on December 22, 2009 and received a
response on December 29, 2009.
China First and Three Star submitted
post-preliminary surrogate value
comments on January 12, 2010.
On February 11, 2010, Beijing Dixon
Stationery Company Ltd. (‘‘Dixon’’)
submitted a case brief and, on February
19, 2010, China First, Three Star, and
Orient International Holding Shanghai
Foreign Trade Co., Ltd. (‘‘SFTC’’)
submitted a joint case brief. None of the
parties requested a hearing.
As explained in the memorandum
from the Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, the Department
exercised its discretion to toll deadlines
for the duration of the closure of the
Federal Government from February 5,
through February 12, 2010. Thus, all
deadlines in this segment of the
proceeding were extended by seven
days. The revised deadline for the final
results of this administrative review was
thus extended to April 28, 2010. See
E:\FR\FM\07JYN1.SGM
07JYN1
cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 7, 2010 / Notices
Memorandum to the Record from
Ronald Lorentzen, DAS for Import
Administration, regarding ‘‘Tolling of
Administrative Deadlines As a Result of
the Government Closure During the
Recent Snowstorms,’’ dated February 12,
2010.
On April 21, 2010, the Department
published in the Federal Register an
extension of the time limit for the
completion of the final results of this
review until no later than May 28, 2010,
2010, in accordance with section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (’’ the Act’’), and 19 CFR
351.213(h)(2). See Certain Cased Pencils
From the People’s Republic of China:
Extension of Time Limit for the Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 75 FR 20815
(April 21, 2010).
On May 27, 2010, the Department
published in the Federal Register an
extension of the time limit for the
completion of the final results of this
review until no later than June 28, 2010,
2010, in accordance with section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, and 19 CFR
351.213(h)(2). See Certain Cased Pencils
From the People’s Republic of China:
Extension of Time Limit for the Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 75 FR 29720
(May 27, 2010).
On June 9, 2010, the Department
notified parties that as a result of the
recent decision in Dorbest Limited et. al.
v. United States, No. 2009–1257,–1266
(Fed. Cir. May 14, 2010), issued by the
United States Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit (‘‘CAFC’’), the
Department would be reconsidering its
valuation of the labor wage rate in this
review. The Department placed export
data on the record of the review and
gave parties until June 14, 2010 to
comment on the narrow issue of the
labor wage value in light of the CAFC’s
decision. On June 11, 2010, the
Department placed additional export
data on the record, and extended the
deadline for parties to comment until
June 16, 2010. On June 16, 2010, China
First, Three Star and SFTC, submitted
comments and additional data regarding
the wage rate issue. The Department, on
June 21, 2010, placed on the record
further data regarding the wage rate
issue.
Scope of the Order
Imports covered by the order are
shipments of certain cased pencils of
any shape or dimension (except as
described below) which are writing and/
or drawing instruments that feature
cores of graphite or other materials,
encased in wood and/or man-made
materials, whether or not decorated and
whether or not tipped (e.g., with erasers,
etc.) in any fashion, and either
sharpened or unsharpened. The pencils
subject to the order are currently
classifiable under subheading
9609.10.00 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States
(‘‘HTSUS’’). Specifically excluded from
the scope of the order are mechanical
pencils, cosmetic pencils, pens, noncased crayons (wax), pastels, charcoals,
chalks, and pencils produced under
U.S. patent number 6,217,242, from
paper infused with scents by the means
covered in the above-referenced patent,
thereby having odors distinct from those
that may emanate from pencils lacking
the scent infusion. Also excluded from
the scope of the order are pencils with
all of the following physical
characteristics: (1) Length: 13.5 or more
inches; (2) sheath diameter: Not less
than one-and-one quarter inches at any
point (before sharpening); and (3) core
length: Not more than 15 percent of the
length of the pencil.
In addition, pencils with all of the
following physical characteristics are
excluded from the scope of the order:
Novelty jumbo pencils that are
octagonal in shape, approximately ten
inches long, one inch in diameter before
sharpening, and three-and-one eighth
inches in circumference, composed of
turned wood encasing one-and-one half
inches of sharpened lead on one end
and a rubber eraser on the other end.
Although the HTSUS subheading is
provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the
scope of the order is dispositive.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case briefs are
addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision
Memorandum for the 2007–2008
Administrative Review of Certain Cased
Pencils from the People’s Republic of
China’’ (‘‘Issues and Decision
Memorandum’’), which is dated
concurrently with and hereby adopted
38981
by this notice. A list of the issues which
parties raised and to which we
responded in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum is attached to this notice
as an Appendix. The Issues and
Decision Memorandum is a public
document which is on file in the Central
Records Unit in room 1117 in the main
Department building, and is accessible
on the web at https://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/
frn. The paper copy and electronic
version of the memorandum are
identical in content.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on our analysis of the
comments received, we made the
following changes in calculating
dumping margins: (1) We made changes
to the surrogate value calculation for
China First’s and Three Star’s labor
costs; (2) we changed the surrogate
value for slats, using slat prices from
‘‘Paper and Stationery’’ 1 instead of U.S.
prices for basswood lumber from
‘‘Hardwood Market Report;’’ (3) we
changed the surrogate value for cores,
using core prices from ‘‘Paper and
Stationery’’ instead of Indian import
data from World Trade Atlas; (4) based
on China First’s January 12 and 20, 2010
fifth and sixth supplemental
questionnaire responses, we adjusted
the supplier distances used in
calculating freight costs from those used
in the Preliminary Results; (5) we made
corrections to certain ministerial errors
made in the Preliminary Results relating
to the paperboard surrogate value. For
further details, see ‘‘Analysis for the
Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Certain Cased
Pencils from the People’s Republic of
China: Shanghai Three Star Stationery
Industry Co., Ltd.,’’ ‘‘Analysis for the
Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Certain Cased
Pencils from the People’s Republic of
China: China First Pencil Co., Ltd.,’’ and
‘‘2007–2008 Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Certain Cased
Pencils from the People’s Republic of
China: Factor Valuation for the Final
Results’’ memoranda, all dated May 28,
2010.
Final Results of the Review
We determine that the following
margins exist for the period December 1,
2007, through November 30, 2008:
Margin
(percent)
Manufacturer/exporter
China First Pencil Company, Ltd.
1 ‘‘Pencil Industry in India—A Robust Future,’’
Divya Jha, in ‘‘Paper & Stationery Samachar’’ (Delhi
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:28 Jul 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
November 2008), an Indian trade journal, attached
as Exhibit SV–3A to China First and Three Star’s
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
November 20, 2009 Surrogate Value submission
(‘‘Paper and Stationery’’).
E:\FR\FM\07JYN1.SGM
07JYN1
38982
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 7, 2010 / Notices
Margin
(percent)
Manufacturer/exporter
(which includes subsidiaries Shanghai First Writing Instrument Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Great Wall Pencil Co., Ltd.; and China
First Pencil Fang Zheng Co., Ltd.) ...............................................................................................................................................
Shanghai Three Star Stationery Industry Co., Ltd ..................................................................................................................................
Beijing Dixon Stationery Company Ltd. ...................................................................................................................................................
Orient International Holding Shanghai Foreign Trade Corporation ........................................................................................................
Shandong Rongxin Import and Export Co., Ltd. .....................................................................................................................................
PRC-wide Entity 2 ....................................................................................................................................................................................
cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
2 The
01.00
06.10
03.55
03.55
03.55
114.90
PRC-wide entity includes Guangdong Stationery, Tianjin Wood, and Anhui I&E.
As noted in the Preliminary Results,
six respondents subject to this review
were not selected as mandatory
respondents. Of these non-mandatory
respondents, Dixon filed its separate
rate certification on March 2, 2009, and
Shandong Rongxin Import and Export
Co., Ltd. (‘‘Rongxin’’) and SFTC both
filed separate rate certifications on
March 4, 2009. In our analysis of the
information on the record regarding
SFTC, Rongxin, and Dixon, we found no
information indicating the existence of
government control of each company’s
export activities. See Dixon’s
submission of March 2, 2009 and
Rongxin’s and SFTC’s submissions of
March 4, 2009. Consequently, we
determine that SFTC, Rongxin, and
Dixon have met the criteria for the
application of a separate rate. The
remaining three non-mandatory
respondents, Guangdong Provincial
Stationery & Sporting Goods Import &
Export Corporation (‘‘Guangdong
Stationery’’), Tianjin Custom Wood
Processing Co., Ltd. (‘‘Tianjin Wood’’),
and Anhui Import & Export Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Anhui I&E’’), did not submit either a
separate rates certification or
application. Consequently, Anhui I&E,
Guangdong Stationery, and Tianjin
Wood have not satisfied the criteria for
separate rates for the POR and are
considered as being part of the PRCwide entity.
As stated above, SFTC, Rongxin, and
Dixon qualify for a separate rate in this
review. Moreover, we did not select
SFTC, Rongxin, or Dixon as mandatory
respondents in this review. Therefore,
SFTC, Rongxin, and Dixon are being
assigned dumping margins based on the
calculated margins of mandatory
respondents, in accordance with
Department practice. Accordingly, we
have assigned SFTC, Rongxin, and
Dixon the simple-average of the
dumping margins assigned to the China
First and Three Star.
Assessment Rates
The Department has determined, and
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(‘‘CBP’’) shall assess, antidumping duties
on all appropriate entries. The
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:28 Jul 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
Department intends to issue assessment
instructions to CBP 15 days after the
date of publication of the final results of
review. In accordance with 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1), we calculated exporter/
importer-specific (or customer-specific)
assessment rates for merchandise
subject to this review.
China First and Three Star did not
report entered values for their U.S.
sales. Therefore, we calculated a perunit assessment rate for each importer
(or customer) by dividing the total
dumping margins for reviewed sales to
that party by the total sales quantity
associated with those transactions. For
duty-assessment rates calculated on this
basis, we will direct CBP to assess the
resulting per-unit rate against the
entered quantity of the subject
merchandise. To determine whether the
duty assessment rates are de minimis, in
accordance with the requirement set
forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we
calculated importer (or customer)specific ad valorem ratios based on the
estimated entered value. Where an
importer-specific (or customer-specific)
rate is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50
percent), the Department will instruct
CBP to liquidate that importer’s (or
customer’s) entries of subject
merchandise without regard to
antidumping duties.
For companies receiving a separate
rate that were not selected for
individual review (i.e., Dixon, Rongxin,
and SFTC), we calculated an assessment
rate based on the simple-average of the
cash deposit rates calculated for
companies selected for individual
review, where those rates were not de
minimis or based on adverse facts
available, in accordance with
Department practice.
With respect to the PRC-wide entity
(including Guangdong Stationery,
Tianjin Wood, and Anhui I&E), we will
instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate
entries at PRC-wide rate of 114.90
percent.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash-deposit
requirements will apply to all
shipments of certain cased pencils from
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the PRC entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after
the publication date of the final results
of this administrative review, as
provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:
(1) The cash deposit rates for the
reviewed companies named above will
be the rates for those firms established
in the final results of this administrative
review; (2) for any previously reviewed
or investigated PRC or non-PRC
exporter, not covered in this review,
with a separate rate, the cash deposit
rate will be the company-specific rate
established in the most recent segment
of this proceeding; (3) for all other PRC
exporters, the cash deposit rate will be
the PRC-wide rate established in the
final results of this review which is
114.90 percent; and (4) the cash-deposit
rate for any non-PRC exporter of subject
merchandise from the PRC will be the
rate applicable to the PRC exporter that
supplied that exporter. These deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until further notice.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice serves as a final reminder
to importers of their responsibility
under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a
certificate regarding the reimbursement
of antidumping duties prior to
liquidation of the relevant entries
during this review period. Failure to
comply with this requirement could
result in the Secretary’s presumption
that reimbursement of antidumping
duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping
duties.
This notice also serves as a final
reminder to parties subject to the
administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’)
of their responsibility concerning the
return or destruction of proprietary
information disclosed under the APO in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.305.
Timely written notification of the return
or destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is
hereby requested. Failure to comply
with the regulations and the terms of an
APO is a sanctionable violation.
This notice of final results is issued
and published in accordance with
E:\FR\FM\07JYN1.SGM
07JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 7, 2010 / Notices
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the
Act.
Dated: June 28, 2010.
Paul Piquado,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
Appendix—Issues in Decision
Memorandum
Comment 1: Appropriate Labor Rate
Comment 2: Surrogate Values
a. Slats
b. Cores
c. Lacquer
Comment 3: Correction of Clerical Errors: Use
of Wrong Surrogate Value for Paperboard
Comment 4: Separate Rate Calculation
[FR Doc. 2010–16502 Filed 7–6–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–896, A–821–819]
cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Magnesium Metal From the People’s
Republic of China and the Russian
Federation: Final Results of the
Expedited Sunset Reviews of the
Antidumping Duty Orders
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On March 1, 2010, the
Department of Commerce (‘‘the
Department’’) initiated sunset reviews of
the antidumping duty orders on
magnesium metal from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) and the
Russian Federation (‘‘Russia’’), pursuant
to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). On March
16, 2010, US Magnesium LLS, the
petitioner in the magnesium metal
investigation, notified the Department
that it intended to participate in the PRC
and Russia sunset reviews. The
Department did not receive a
substantive response from any
respondent party in either review. Based
on the notices of intent to participate
and adequate responses filed by the
domestic interested party, and the lack
of response from any respondent
interested party, the Department
conducted expedited sunset reviews of
the orders pursuant to section
751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2). As a result of
these sunset reviews, the Department
finds that revocation of the orders
would likely lead to continuation or
recurrence of dumping, at the levels
indicated in the ‘‘Final Results of Sunset
Reviews’’ section of this notice, infra.
DATES: Effective Date: July 7, 2010.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:28 Jul 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Frances Veith, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 8, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)
482–4295.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On March 1, 2010, the Department
initiated sunset reviews of the Chinese
and Russian antidumping duty orders
on magnesium metal pursuant to section
751(c) of the Act. See Initiation of FiveYear (‘‘Sunset’’) Review, 75 FR 9160
(March 1, 2010); see also Notice of
Antidumping Duty Order: Magnesium
Metal From the People’s Republic of
China, 70 FR 19928 (April 15, 2005) and
Notice of Antidumping Duty Order:
Magnesium Metal From the Russian
Federation, 70 FR 19930 (April 15,
2005) (collectively, the ‘‘Orders’’). On
March 16, 2010, the Department
received timely notices of intent to
participate in each of the sunset reviews
from US Magnesium, pursuant to 19
CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). In accordance with
19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(ii)(A), US
Magnesium claimed interested party
status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act
as a producer of the domestic like
product.
On March 31, 2010, US Magnesium
filed substantive responses in each of
the sunset reviews, within the 30-day
deadline as specified in 19 CFR
351.218(d)(3)(i). The Department did
not receive a substantive response from
any respondent interested party in
either sunset review. As a result,
pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2),
the Department conducted expedited
sunset reviews of the Orders.
Scope of the Order
PRC
The merchandise covered by the order
is magnesium metal, which includes
primary and secondary alloy
magnesium metal, regardless of
chemistry, raw material source, form,
shape, or size. Magnesium is a metal or
alloy containing by weight primarily the
element magnesium. Primary
magnesium is produced by
decomposing raw materials into
magnesium metal. Secondary
magnesium is produced by recycling
magnesium-based scrap into magnesium
metal. The magnesium covered by the
order includes blends of primary and
secondary magnesium.
The subject merchandise includes the
following alloy magnesium metal
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
38983
products made from primary and/or
secondary magnesium including,
without limitation, magnesium cast into
ingots, slabs, rounds, billets, and other
shapes, magnesium ground, chipped,
crushed, or machined into raspings,
granules, turnings, chips, powder,
briquettes, and other shapes: Products
that contain 50 percent or greater, but
less than 99.8 percent, magnesium, by
weight, and that have been entered into
the United States as conforming to an
‘‘ASTM Specification for Magnesium
Alloy’’ 1 and thus are outside the scope
of the existing antidumping orders on
magnesium from the PRC (generally
referred to as ‘‘alloy’’ magnesium).
The scope of the order excludes the
following merchandise: (1) All forms of
pure magnesium, including chemical
combinations of magnesium and other
material(s) in which the pure
magnesium content is 50 percent or
greater, but less than 99.8 percent, by
weight, that do not conform to an
‘‘ASTM Specification for Magnesium
Alloy;’’ 2 (2) magnesium that is in liquid
or molten form; and (3) mixtures
containing 90 percent or less
magnesium in granular or powder form,
by weight, and one or more of certain
non-magnesium granular materials to
make magnesium-based reagent
mixtures, including lime, calcium
metal, calcium silicon, calcium carbide,
calcium carbonate, carbon, slag
coagulants, fluorspar, nephaline syenite,
feldspar, alumina (Al203), calcium
aluminate, soda ash, hydrocarbons,
graphite, coke, silicon, rare earth
metals/mischmetal, cryolite, silica/fly
ash, magnesium oxide, periclase,
ferroalloys, dolomite lime, and
colemanite.3
1 The meaning of this term is the same as that
used by the American Society for Testing and
Materials in its Annual Book of ASTM Standards:
Volume 01.02 Aluminum and Magnesium Alloys.
2 This material is already covered by existing
antidumping orders. See Notice of Antidumping
Duty Orders: Pure Magnesium From the People’s
Republic of China, the Russian Federation and
Ukraine; Notice of Amended Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Antidumping Duty
Investigation of Pure Magnesium From the Russian
Federation, 60 FR 25691 (May 12, 1995), and
Antidumping Duty Order: Pure Magnesium in
Granular Form From the People’s Republic of
China, 66 FR 57936 (November 19, 2001).
3 This third exclusion for magnesium-based
reagent mixtures is based on the exclusion for
reagent mixtures in the 2000–2001 investigations of
magnesium from the PRC, Israel, and Russia. See
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Pure Magnesium in Granular Form
From the People’s Republic of China, 66 FR 49345
(September 27, 2001)(‘‘Pure Magnesium Granular
PRC Final’’); Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium From
Israel, 66 FR 49349 (September 27, 2001) (‘‘Pure
Magnesium Granular Israel Final’’); Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value:
E:\FR\FM\07JYN1.SGM
Continued
07JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 7, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38980-38983]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-16502]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-827]
Certain Cased Pencils From the People's Republic of China: Final
Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On December 22, 2009, the Department of Commerce (the
``Department'') published the preliminary results of the administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on certain cased pencils from the
People's Republic of China (``PRC''), covering the period December 1,
2007, through November 30, 2008. See Certain Cased Pencils From the
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 74 FR 68047 (December 22, 2009) (``Preliminary
Results''). We gave the interested parties an opportunity to comment on
the Preliminary Results. After reviewing the interested parties'
comments, we made changes to our calculations for the final results of
the review. The final dumping margin for this review is listed in the
``Final Results of the Review'' section below.
DATES: Effective Date: July 7, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alexander Montoro or Joseph Shuler,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-
0238 or (202) 482-1293, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Following the Preliminary Results, the Department issued additional
supplemental questionnaires to mandatory respondent China First Pencil
Co., Ltd. (``China First'') on December 28, 2009 and January 19, 2010.
China First responded on January 11, 2010, and January 20, 2010,
respectively. The Department also issued an additional supplemental
questionnaire to Shanghai Three Star Stationery Industry Co., Ltd.
(``Three Star''), the other mandatory respondent, on December 22, 2009
and received a response on December 29, 2009.
China First and Three Star submitted post-preliminary surrogate
value comments on January 12, 2010.
On February 11, 2010, Beijing Dixon Stationery Company Ltd.
(``Dixon'') submitted a case brief and, on February 19, 2010, China
First, Three Star, and Orient International Holding Shanghai Foreign
Trade Co., Ltd. (``SFTC'') submitted a joint case brief. None of the
parties requested a hearing.
As explained in the memorandum from the Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Import Administration, the Department exercised its discretion to
toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal
Government from February 5, through February 12, 2010. Thus, all
deadlines in this segment of the proceeding were extended by seven
days. The revised deadline for the final results of this administrative
review was thus extended to April 28, 2010. See
[[Page 38981]]
Memorandum to the Record from Ronald Lorentzen, DAS for Import
Administration, regarding ``Tolling of Administrative Deadlines As a
Result of the Government Closure During the Recent Snowstorms,'' dated
February 12, 2010.
On April 21, 2010, the Department published in the Federal Register
an extension of the time limit for the completion of the final results
of this review until no later than May 28, 2010, 2010, in accordance
with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended ('' the
Act''), and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2). See Certain Cased Pencils From the
People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for the Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 20815 (April
21, 2010).
On May 27, 2010, the Department published in the Federal Register
an extension of the time limit for the completion of the final results
of this review until no later than June 28, 2010, 2010, in accordance
with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2). See
Certain Cased Pencils From the People's Republic of China: Extension of
Time Limit for the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 75 FR 29720 (May 27, 2010).
On June 9, 2010, the Department notified parties that as a result
of the recent decision in Dorbest Limited et. al. v. United States, No.
2009-1257,-1266 (Fed. Cir. May 14, 2010), issued by the United States
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (``CAFC''), the Department
would be reconsidering its valuation of the labor wage rate in this
review. The Department placed export data on the record of the review
and gave parties until June 14, 2010 to comment on the narrow issue of
the labor wage value in light of the CAFC's decision. On June 11, 2010,
the Department placed additional export data on the record, and
extended the deadline for parties to comment until June 16, 2010. On
June 16, 2010, China First, Three Star and SFTC, submitted comments and
additional data regarding the wage rate issue. The Department, on June
21, 2010, placed on the record further data regarding the wage rate
issue.
Scope of the Order
Imports covered by the order are shipments of certain cased pencils
of any shape or dimension (except as described below) which are writing
and/or drawing instruments that feature cores of graphite or other
materials, encased in wood and/or man-made materials, whether or not
decorated and whether or not tipped (e.g., with erasers, etc.) in any
fashion, and either sharpened or unsharpened. The pencils subject to
the order are currently classifiable under subheading 9609.10.00 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'').
Specifically excluded from the scope of the order are mechanical
pencils, cosmetic pencils, pens, non-cased crayons (wax), pastels,
charcoals, chalks, and pencils produced under U.S. patent number
6,217,242, from paper infused with scents by the means covered in the
above-referenced patent, thereby having odors distinct from those that
may emanate from pencils lacking the scent infusion. Also excluded from
the scope of the order are pencils with all of the following physical
characteristics: (1) Length: 13.5 or more inches; (2) sheath diameter:
Not less than one-and-one quarter inches at any point (before
sharpening); and (3) core length: Not more than 15 percent of the
length of the pencil.
In addition, pencils with all of the following physical
characteristics are excluded from the scope of the order: Novelty jumbo
pencils that are octagonal in shape, approximately ten inches long, one
inch in diameter before sharpening, and three-and-one eighth inches in
circumference, composed of turned wood encasing one-and-one half inches
of sharpened lead on one end and a rubber eraser on the other end.
Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and
customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is
dispositive.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case briefs are addressed in the ``Issues
and Decision Memorandum for the 2007-2008 Administrative Review of
Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic of China'' (``Issues
and Decision Memorandum''), which is dated concurrently with and hereby
adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties raised and
to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached
to this notice as an Appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a
public document which is on file in the Central Records Unit in room
1117 in the main Department building, and is accessible on the web at
https://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of
the memorandum are identical in content.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made the
following changes in calculating dumping margins: (1) We made changes
to the surrogate value calculation for China First's and Three Star's
labor costs; (2) we changed the surrogate value for slats, using slat
prices from ``Paper and Stationery'' \1\ instead of U.S. prices for
basswood lumber from ``Hardwood Market Report;'' (3) we changed the
surrogate value for cores, using core prices from ``Paper and
Stationery'' instead of Indian import data from World Trade Atlas; (4)
based on China First's January 12 and 20, 2010 fifth and sixth
supplemental questionnaire responses, we adjusted the supplier
distances used in calculating freight costs from those used in the
Preliminary Results; (5) we made corrections to certain ministerial
errors made in the Preliminary Results relating to the paperboard
surrogate value. For further details, see ``Analysis for the Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Cased
Pencils from the People's Republic of China: Shanghai Three Star
Stationery Industry Co., Ltd.,'' ``Analysis for the Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Cased Pencils from
the People's Republic of China: China First Pencil Co., Ltd.,'' and
``2007-2008 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Cased
Pencils from the People's Republic of China: Factor Valuation for the
Final Results'' memoranda, all dated May 28, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Pencil Industry in India--A Robust Future,'' Divya Jha, in
``Paper & Stationery Samachar'' (Delhi November 2008), an Indian
trade journal, attached as Exhibit SV-3A to China First and Three
Star's November 20, 2009 Surrogate Value submission (``Paper and
Stationery'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Results of the Review
We determine that the following margins exist for the period
December 1, 2007, through November 30, 2008:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
China First Pencil Company, Ltd............................
[[Page 38982]]
(which includes subsidiaries Shanghai First Writing 01.00
Instrument Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Great Wall Pencil Co.,
Ltd.; and China First Pencil Fang Zheng Co., Ltd.)....
Shanghai Three Star Stationery Industry Co., Ltd........... 06.10
Beijing Dixon Stationery Company Ltd....................... 03.55
Orient International Holding Shanghai Foreign Trade 03.55
Corporation...............................................
Shandong Rongxin Import and Export Co., Ltd................ 03.55
PRC-wide Entity \2\........................................ 114.90
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The PRC-wide entity includes Guangdong Stationery, Tianjin Wood, and
Anhui I&E.
As noted in the Preliminary Results, six respondents subject to
this review were not selected as mandatory respondents. Of these non-
mandatory respondents, Dixon filed its separate rate certification on
March 2, 2009, and Shandong Rongxin Import and Export Co., Ltd.
(``Rongxin'') and SFTC both filed separate rate certifications on March
4, 2009. In our analysis of the information on the record regarding
SFTC, Rongxin, and Dixon, we found no information indicating the
existence of government control of each company's export activities.
See Dixon's submission of March 2, 2009 and Rongxin's and SFTC's
submissions of March 4, 2009. Consequently, we determine that SFTC,
Rongxin, and Dixon have met the criteria for the application of a
separate rate. The remaining three non-mandatory respondents, Guangdong
Provincial Stationery & Sporting Goods Import & Export Corporation
(``Guangdong Stationery''), Tianjin Custom Wood Processing Co., Ltd.
(``Tianjin Wood''), and Anhui Import & Export Co., Ltd. (``Anhui
I&E''), did not submit either a separate rates certification or
application. Consequently, Anhui I&E, Guangdong Stationery, and Tianjin
Wood have not satisfied the criteria for separate rates for the POR and
are considered as being part of the PRC-wide entity.
As stated above, SFTC, Rongxin, and Dixon qualify for a separate
rate in this review. Moreover, we did not select SFTC, Rongxin, or
Dixon as mandatory respondents in this review. Therefore, SFTC,
Rongxin, and Dixon are being assigned dumping margins based on the
calculated margins of mandatory respondents, in accordance with
Department practice. Accordingly, we have assigned SFTC, Rongxin, and
Dixon the simple-average of the dumping margins assigned to the China
First and Three Star.
Assessment Rates
The Department has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (``CBP'') shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue assessment
instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final
results of review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we
calculated exporter/importer-specific (or customer-specific) assessment
rates for merchandise subject to this review.
China First and Three Star did not report entered values for their
U.S. sales. Therefore, we calculated a per-unit assessment rate for
each importer (or customer) by dividing the total dumping margins for
reviewed sales to that party by the total sales quantity associated
with those transactions. For duty-assessment rates calculated on this
basis, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting per-unit rate against
the entered quantity of the subject merchandise. To determine whether
the duty assessment rates are de minimis, in accordance with the
requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer
(or customer)-specific ad valorem ratios based on the estimated entered
value. Where an importer-specific (or customer-specific) rate is de
minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent), the Department will instruct
CBP to liquidate that importer's (or customer's) entries of subject
merchandise without regard to antidumping duties.
For companies receiving a separate rate that were not selected for
individual review (i.e., Dixon, Rongxin, and SFTC), we calculated an
assessment rate based on the simple-average of the cash deposit rates
calculated for companies selected for individual review, where those
rates were not de minimis or based on adverse facts available, in
accordance with Department practice.
With respect to the PRC-wide entity (including Guangdong
Stationery, Tianjin Wood, and Anhui I&E), we will instruct CBP to
liquidate appropriate entries at PRC-wide rate of 114.90 percent.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash-deposit requirements will apply to all shipments
of certain cased pencils from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed
companies named above will be the rates for those firms established in
the final results of this administrative review; (2) for any previously
reviewed or investigated PRC or non-PRC exporter, not covered in this
review, with a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the
company-specific rate established in the most recent segment of this
proceeding; (3) for all other PRC exporters, the cash deposit rate will
be the PRC-wide rate established in the final results of this review
which is 114.90 percent; and (4) the cash-deposit rate for any non-PRC
exporter of subject merchandise from the PRC will be the rate
applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that exporter. These
deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until
further notice.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to
the administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under the APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely
written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to
comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable
violation.
This notice of final results is issued and published in accordance
with
[[Page 38983]]
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: June 28, 2010.
Paul Piquado,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix--Issues in Decision Memorandum
Comment 1: Appropriate Labor Rate
Comment 2: Surrogate Values
a. Slats
b. Cores
c. Lacquer
Comment 3: Correction of Clerical Errors: Use of Wrong Surrogate
Value for Paperboard
Comment 4: Separate Rate Calculation
[FR Doc. 2010-16502 Filed 7-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
