Certain Lined Paper Products From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63814-63822 [2010-26186]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
63814
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 200 / Monday, October 18, 2010 / Notices
Notice and opportunity for
public comment.
ACTION:
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Economic Development Administration
Pursuant to Section 251 of the Trade
Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2341
et seq.), the Economic Development
Administration (EDA) has received
petitions for certification of eligibility to
apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance
from the firms listed below.
Notice of Petitions by Firms for
Determination of Eligibility To Apply
for Trade Adjustment Assistance
Economic Development
Administration, Department of
Commerce.
AGENCY:
Accordingly, EDA has initiated
investigations to determine whether
increased imports into the United States
of articles like or directly competitive
with those produced by each of these
firms contributed importantly to the
total or partial separation of the firm’s
workers, or threat thereof, and to a
decrease in sales or production of each
petitioning firm.
LIST OF PETITIONS RECEIVED BY EDA FOR CERTIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY TO APPLY FOR TRADE ADJUSTMENT
ASSISTANCE 10/1/2010–10/12/2010
Date accepted for
investigation
Firm name
Address
Absolute Automation Systems,
Inc.
Electro-Mechanical Products,
Inc.
Euro Marble & Granite, Inc .......
N56 W24842 N. Corporate Circle, Sussex, WI 53089.
1100 W. Louisiana Avenue,
Denver, CO 80223.
4552 N. Ruby Street, Schiller
Park, IL 60176.
3622 West Main Street, Gray,
LA 70359.
70 Maryland Street, Jersey
Shore, PA 17740.
6850 Colerain Avenue, Cincinnati, OH 45239.
Gulf Coast Manufacturing, LLC
Jersey Shore Steel Company ...
Nolte Precise Manufacturing,
Inc.
Any party having a substantial
interest in these proceedings may
request a public hearing on the matter.
A written request for a hearing must be
submitted to the Trade Adjustment
Assistance for Firms Division, Room
7106, Economic Development
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no
later than ten (10) calendar days
following publication of this notice.
Please follow the requirements set
forth in EDA’s regulations at 13 CFR
315.9 for procedures to request a public
hearing. The Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance official number
and title for the program under which
these petitions are submitted is 11.313,
Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.
Dated: October 12, 2010.
Miriam Kearse,
Project Coordinator, TAA for Firms.
[FR Doc. 2010–26181 Filed 10–15–10; 8:45 am]
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
BILLING CODE 3510–24–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:45 Oct 15, 2010
Jkt 223001
10/7/2010
10/7/2010
10/7/2010
10/7/2010
10/7/2010
10/12/2010
Products
The firm manufactures industrial control panels, hi-volume
control panels, and machine control panels.
The firm manufactures parts of electro-mechanical industrial
machinery heat exchangers and laser components.
The firm manufactures cut stone and stone products such as
countertops and sinks.
The firm manufactures oil and gas well service equipment for
both land and offshore applications.
The firm manufactures small angle steel sections for furniture
and agriculture.
The firm manufactures custom, precision machined components typically from steel, some from plastic.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–901]
Certain Lined Paper Products From the
People’s Republic of China: Notice of
Preliminary Results of the
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(‘‘the Department’’) is conducting the
third administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain lined
paper products (‘‘CLPP’’) from the
People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) with
respect to four producers/exporters for
the period September 1, 2008, through
August 31, 2009. If these preliminary
results are adopted in our final results
of this review, we will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’)
to assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries of subject
merchandise during the period of
review.
Interested parties are invited to
comment on these preliminary results.
We intend to issue the final results no
later than 120 days from the date of
publication of this notice, pursuant to
section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’).
DATES: Effective Date: October 18, 2010.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Cindy Lai Robinson or Stephanie
Moore, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3,
Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–3797 or (202) 482–
3692, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On September 1, 2009, the
Department of Commerce (‘‘the
Department’’) published in the Federal
Register the notice of the ‘‘Opportunity
to Request Administrative Review’’ of
the antidumping duty order on certain
lined paper products from People’s
Republic of China, for the period
September 1, 2008, through August 31,
2009. See Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation: Opportunity
to Request Administrative Review, 74
FR 45179 (September 1, 2009). On
September 28, 2009, we received a
review request from the ‘‘Watanabe
Group’’ (consisting of Watanabe Paper
Products (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Watanabe Shanghai’’); Watanabe Paper
Products (Linqing) Co., Ltd. (‘‘Watanabe
Linqing’’); and Hotrock Stationery
(Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (‘‘Hotrock
Shenzhen’’)) (hereafter referred to as
‘‘Watanabe’’ or the Watanabe Group). On
September 30, 2009, we received a
E:\FR\FM\18OCN1.SGM
18OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 200 / Monday, October 18, 2010 / Notices
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
request from petitioner 1 to review the
following four companies: Shanghai
Lian Li Paper Products Co. Ltd. (‘‘Lian
Li’’); Hwa Fuh Plastics Co., Ltd./Li Teng
Plastics (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (‘‘Hwa
Fuh/Li Teng’’); Leo’s Quality Products
Co., Ltd./Denmax Plastic Stationery
Factory (‘‘Leo/Denmax’’); and the
Watanabe Group. On October 26, 2009,
we published the notice of initiation of
this antidumping duty administrative
review with respect to the above four
companies. See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Request for
Revocation in Part, 74 FR 54956
(October 26, 2009) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’).
Respondents and Questionnaires
On November 9, 2009, we issued a
questionnaire to Hwa Fuh/Li Teng, Leo/
Denmax, Lian Li, and the Watanabe
Group via FedEx Express.
On November 6, 2009, and January
13, 2010, Lian Li and Leo/Denmax
submitted letters, respectively,
certifying that they did not export the
subject merchandise to the United
States during the period of review
(‘‘POR’’). Both Lian Li and Leo/Denmax
requested that the Department rescind
the administrative review with respect
to each company.
On December 11, 2009, subsequent to
the notification from FedEx Express that
the questionnaire package to Hwa Fuh/
Li Teng was not deliverable because of
an invalid address and phone number in
Shenzhen, China, we resent the
Department’s original questionnaire to
Hwa Fuh’s address in Taichung,
Taiwan. In the December 11, 2009,
letter, we requested that Hwa Fuh (in
Taiwan) forward the questionnaire to Li
Teng (in Shenzhen). During November
and December 2009, we also made three
attempts to contact Hwa Fuh/Li Teng by
phoning Hwa Fuh/Li Teng numbers in
Shenzhen China and in Taichung
Taiwan. However, we were unable to
reach Hwa Fuh/Li Teng.
On December 16, 2009, Watanabe
submitted its section A response to the
Department’s original questionnaire, to
which petitioner submitted its
comments on January 15, 2010. On
January 8, 2010, Watanabe submitted its
sections C and D responses to the
Department’s original questionnaire, to
which petitioner provided its comments
on February 2, 2010. Watanabe also
submitted separate rate application on
January 8, 2010. On March 19, 2010, the
Department issued first supplemental
questionnaire to Watanabe, which
provided its response on April 21, 2010.
1 The petitioner is the Association of American
School Paper Suppliers (‘‘AASPS’’).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:45 Oct 15, 2010
Jkt 223001
On May 7, 2010, petitioner provided its
comments on Watanabe’s first
supplemental response. On May 24,
2010, the Department issued its second
supplemental questionnaire to
Watanabe, which provided its response
on June 21, 2010, and on July 2, 2010,
the Department issued its third
supplemental questionnaire to
Watanabe, which provided its response
on July 12, 2010. On July 16, 2010,
petitioner provided its comments on
Watanabe’s second supplemental
response and comments on the
upcoming verification. On July 16, 2010,
the Department issued sales and factors
of production verification agendas to
Watanabe. On July 19, 2010, the
petitioner provided additional preverification comments with respect to
Watanabe.
The Department conducted sales and
factors of production verification of
Watanabe from July 26 through 30, 2010
in Shanghai, China. On August 11,
2010, we received Watanabe’s minor
correction provided at the outset of the
verification.
On August 27, 2010, the petitioner
submitted comments concerning
Watanabe’s questionnaire responses and
the verification on those responses. This
letter contained certain business
proprietary information (‘‘BPI’’) that
called into question the reliability of the
documents reviewed at verification and
taken as exhibits and therefore, the
reliability of Watanabe’s response. On
September 2, 2010, petitioners met
Department officials to discuss these
comments.2 On September 3, 2010, the
Department issued a letter to Watanabe
requesting rebuttal comments to the
petitioner’s August 27, 2010,
allegations.
Watanabe submitted its rebuttal
comments on September 10, 2010. In its
comments, Watanabe did not address
these allegations directly as it claimed
that it did not have access to certain BPI
documents.
On September 20, 2010, the petitioner
submitted a letter which authorized
release of certain documents to
Watanabe. On September 21, 2010, the
Department issued a letter to Watanabe
asking them to specifically address the
allegations contained in the petitioner’s
August 27, 2010 letter.
On September 28, 2010, Watanabe
submitted a letter in response to the
Department’s September 21, 2010 letter.
Watanabe submitted certain factual
information and repeated arguments
made in its previous letter. See ‘‘Adverse
Facts Available’’ (‘‘AFA’’) section below
for a detailed discussion.
2 See
PO 00000
September 2, 2010, Ex Parte Memorandum
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
63815
Period of Review
The period of review (‘‘POR’’) is
September 1, 2008, through August 31,
2009.
Case Calendar
On May 18, 2010, the Department
extended the time limits for the
preliminary results. See Certain Lined
Paper Products from India and People’s
Republic of China: Extension of Time
Limits for the Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Reviews, 75 FR 27706 (May 18, 2010).
Additionally, as explained in the
memorandum from the Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, the Department has
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 have been extended by
seven days. 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. The revised deadline
for the preliminary results of this review
is October 7, 2010.3
Surrogate Country and Factors
On March 3, 2010, the Department
sent interested parties a letter requesting
comments on the surrogate country and
information pertaining to valuing factors
of production (‘‘FOPs’’). On April 19,
2010, Watanabe submitted surrogate
value comments regarding various
Indian sources. On June 21 and July 30,
2010, the petitioner submitted surrogate
value information for use in the
preliminary results. On July 6, 2010,
Watanabe submitted comments
objecting to the petitioner’s June 21,
2010 submission as being untimely. On
July 15, 2010, the petitioner submitted
rebuttal comments with respect to
Watanabe’s objection comment. The
petitioner argued that the deadline set
by the Department was applicable to the
preliminary results and it did not apply
to the final results.
Scope of the Order
The scope of this order includes
certain lined paper products, typically
school supplies (for purposes of this
scope definition, the actual use of or
3 Where a statutory deadline falls on a weekend,
federal holiday, or any other day when the
Department is closed, the Department will continue
its longstanding practice of reaching the
determination on the next business day. In this
instance, the preliminary results will be released no
later than October 8, 2010.
E:\FR\FM\18OCN1.SGM
18OCN1
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
63816
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 200 / Monday, October 18, 2010 / Notices
labeling of these products as school
supplies or non-school supplies is not a
defining characteristic) composed of or
including paper that incorporates
straight horizontal and/or vertical lines
on ten or more paper sheets (there shall
be no minimum page requirement for
looseleaf filler paper) including but not
limited to such products as single- and
multi-subject notebooks, composition
books, wireless notebooks, looseleaf or
glued filler paper, graph paper, and
laboratory notebooks, and with the
smaller dimension of the paper
measuring 6 inches to 15 inches
(inclusive) and the larger dimension of
the paper measuring 83⁄4 inches to 15
inches (inclusive). Page dimensions are
measured size (not advertised, stated, or
‘‘tear-out’’ size), and are measured as
they appear in the product (i.e., stitched
and folded pages in a notebook are
measured by the size of the page as it
appears in the notebook page, not the
size of the unfolded paper). However,
for measurement purposes, pages with
tapered or rounded edges shall be
measured at their longest and widest
points. Subject lined paper products
may be loose, packaged or bound using
any binding method (other than case
bound through the inclusion of binders
board, a spine strip, and cover wrap).
Subject merchandise may or may not
contain any combination of a front
cover, a rear cover, and/or backing of
any composition, regardless of the
inclusion of images or graphics on the
cover, backing, or paper. Subject
merchandise is within the scope of this
order whether or not the lined paper
and/or cover are hole punched, drilled,
perforated, and/or reinforced. Subject
merchandise may contain accessory or
informational items including but not
limited to pockets, tabs, dividers,
closure devices, index cards, stencils,
protractors, writing implements,
reference materials such as
mathematical tables, or printed items
such as sticker sheets or miniature
calendars, if such items are physically
incorporated, included with, or attached
to the product, cover and/or backing
thereto.
Specifically excluded from the scope
of this order are:
• Unlined copy machine paper;
• Writing pads with a backing
(including but not limited to products
commonly known as ‘‘tablets,’’ ‘‘note
pads,’’ ‘‘legal pads,’’ and ‘‘quadrille
pads’’), provided that they do not have
a front cover (whether permanent or
removable). This exclusion does not
apply to such writing pads if they
consist of hole-punched or drilled filler
paper;
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:45 Oct 15, 2010
Jkt 223001
• Three-ring or multiple-ring binders,
or notebook organizers incorporating
such a ring binder provided that they do
not include subject paper;
• Index cards;
• Printed books and other books that
are case bound through the inclusion of
binders board, a spine strip, and cover
wrap;
• Newspapers;
• Pictures and photographs;
• Desk and wall calendars and
organizers (including but not limited to
such products generally known as
‘‘office planners,’’ ‘‘time books,’’ and
‘‘appointment books’’);
• Telephone logs;
• Address books;
• Columnar pads & tablets, with or
without covers, primarily suited for the
recording of written numerical business
data;
• Lined business or office forms,
including but not limited to: pre-printed
business forms, lined invoice pads and
paper, mailing and address labels,
manifests, and shipping log books;
• Lined continuous computer paper;
• Boxed or packaged writing
stationery (including but not limited to
products commonly known as ‘‘fine
business paper,’’ ‘‘parchment paper’’,
and ‘‘letterhead’’), whether or not
containing a lined header or decorative
lines;
• Stenographic pads (‘‘steno pads’’),
Gregg ruled (‘‘Gregg ruling’’ consists of a
single- or double-margin vertical ruling
line down the center of the page. For a
six-inch by nine-inch stenographic pad,
the ruling would be located
approximately three inches from the left
of the book.), measuring 6 inches by 9
inches;
Also excluded from the scope of this
order are the following trademarked
products:
• Fly TM lined paper products: A
notebook, notebook organizer, loose or
glued note paper, with papers that are
printed with infrared reflective inks and
readable only by a FlyTM pen-top
computer. The product must bear the
valid trademark FlyTM (products found
to be bearing an invalidly licensed or
used trademark are not excluded from
the scope).
• ZwipesTM: A notebook or notebook
organizer made with a blended
polyolefin writing surface as the cover
and pocket surfaces of the notebook,
suitable for writing using a speciallydeveloped permanent marker and erase
system (known as a ZwipesTM pen).
This system allows the marker portion
to mark the writing surface with a
permanent ink. The eraser portion of the
marker dispenses a solvent capable of
solubilizing the permanent ink allowing
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the ink to be removed. The product
must bear the valid trademark ZwipesTM
(products found to be bearing an
invalidly licensed or used trademark are
not excluded from the scope).
• FiveStar ®AdvanceTM: A notebook
or notebook organizer bound by a
continuous spiral, or helical, wire and
with plastic front and rear covers made
of a blended polyolefin plastic material
joined by 300 denier polyester, coated
on the backside with PVC (polyvinyl
chloride) coating, and extending the
entire length of the spiral or helical
wire. The polyolefin plastic covers are
of specific thickness; front cover is
0.019 inches (within normal
manufacturing tolerances) and rear
cover is 0.028 inches (within normal
manufacturing tolerances). Integral with
the stitching that attaches the polyester
spine covering, is captured both ends of
a 1″ wide elastic fabric band. This band
is located 23⁄8″ from the top of the front
plastic cover and provides pen or pencil
storage. Both ends of the spiral wire are
cut and then bent backwards to overlap
with the previous coil but specifically
outside the coil diameter but inside the
polyester covering. During construction,
the polyester covering is sewn to the
front and rear covers face to face
(outside to outside) so that when the
book is closed, the stitching is
concealed from the outside. Both free
ends (the ends not sewn to the cover
and back) are stitched with a turned
edge construction. The flexible
polyester material forms a covering over
the spiral wire to protect it and provide
a comfortable grip on the product. The
product must bear the valid trademarks
FiveStar ®Advance TM (products found
to be bearing an invalidly licensed or
used trademark are not excluded from
the scope).
• FiveStar FlexTM: A notebook, a
notebook organizer, or binder with
plastic polyolefin front and rear covers
joined by 300 denier polyester spine
cover extending the entire length of the
spine and bound by a 3-ring plastic
fixture. The polyolefin plastic covers are
of a specific thickness; front cover is
0.019 inches (within normal
manufacturing tolerances) and rear
cover is 0.028 inches (within normal
manufacturing tolerances). During
construction, the polyester covering is
sewn to the front cover face to face
(outside to outside) so that when the
book is closed, the stitching is
concealed from the outside. During
construction, the polyester cover is
sewn to the back cover with the outside
of the polyester spine cover to the inside
back cover. Both free ends (the ends not
sewn to the cover and back) are stitched
with a turned edge construction. Each
E:\FR\FM\18OCN1.SGM
18OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 200 / Monday, October 18, 2010 / Notices
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
ring within the fixture is comprised of
a flexible strap portion that snaps into
a stationary post which forms a closed
binding ring. The ring fixture is riveted
with six metal rivets and sewn to the
back plastic cover and is specifically
positioned on the outside back cover.
The product must bear the valid
trademark FiveStar FlexTM (products
found to be bearing an invalidly
licensed or used trademark are not
excluded from the scope).
Merchandise subject to this order is
typically imported under headings
4820.10.2050, 4810.22.5044,
4811.90.9090, 4820.10.2010,
4820.10.2020 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States
(‘‘HTSUS’’). The HTSUS headings are
provided for convenience and customs
purposes; however, the written
description of the scope of this order is
dispositive.
Claims of No Shipments by Lian Li and
Leo/Denmax
Lian Li and Leo/Denmax filed no
shipment certifications indicating that
they did not export subject merchandise
to the United States during the POR. On
November 9, 2009, we conducted an
internal query of the U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) entry data
with respect to both companies. The
CBP data entry confirms Lian Li and
Leo/Denmax’s claims of no shipments.
However, we found that Lian Li’s
manufacturer ID number was used by
other producers/reporters and therefore,
appeared on the entry data. On
November 13, 2009, we requested that
CBP provide entry packets for those
entries where Lian Li’s ID appeared on
the entry data. We received the entry
packets from CBP on November 24 and
December 4, 2009. We found no
evidence from the CBP entry data
packets that Lian Li had any entries,
exports, or sales to the United States of
subject merchandise during the POR.
On December 11, 2009, the petitioner
submitted comments on Lian Li’s
November 6, 2009, letter. We rejected
the petitioner’s December 11, 2009,
letter because the submission over
bracketed certain information which is
public in nature. On December 22, 2009,
the petitioner resubmitted its comments
claiming that Lian Li might have
shipped subject merchandise to the
United States as a ‘‘Free and Dutiable’’
Type ‘‘01’’ entry, i.e., printed matter.4
4 The petitioner provided an import manifest
from the Port Import Export Reporting Service
(‘‘PIERS’’) which pertains to shipment of goods
listed as ‘‘printed matter’’ that entered into the
United States in December 2008. The petitioner
points out that the commodity description indicates
that the goods were produced and/or shipped by
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:45 Oct 15, 2010
Jkt 223001
Because printed matter is not subject
merchandise under the CLPP Order,5
the Department directed petitioner to
CBP in regards to any concerns of
possible manipulation of entry data and
product classification by Lian Li.
In addition, on January 28, 2010, we
sent CBP a ‘‘No Shipments Inquiry’’ with
regard to Lian Li and Leo/Denmax. The
inquiry requested that the CBP report
within 10 days of receipt of the message
any entries from the two companies. See
Message from the Department to CBP,
dated January 28, 2010. We have not
received any entry information from
CBP within the time limit.
Furthermore, on March 29, 2010, the
Department issued a second letter to
Lian Li and Leo/Denmax requesting
further clarification as to whether they
have not sold or shipped, directly or
indirectly, any lined paper products
(both subject and non-subject) to the
United States during the POR. Lian Li
provided its response on April 12, 2010,
confirming no shipments or no
knowledge of third country
transshipments of subject merchandise
to the United States during the POR. On
April 15, 2010, Leo/Denmax also
submitted a letter to recertify that it did
not have any exports, sales, or entries,
either directly or indirectly, of subject
merchandise to the United States during
the POR. Leo/Denmax again requested
that the Department rescind the
administrative review with respect to
Leo/Denmax.
With regard to the Lian Li and Leo/
Denmax claims of no shipments, our
practice since implementation of the
1997 regulations concerning noshipment respondents has been to
rescind the administrative review if the
respondent certifies that it had no
shipments and we have confirmed
through our examination of CBP data
that there were no shipments of subject
merchandise during the POR. See
Antidumping Duties; Countervailing
Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27393 (May 19,
Lian Li. The petitioner argues that because Lian Li
is assigned a very low antidumping duty rate, the
potential for manipulation of entry form data and
product classification data is very real. Therefore,
the petitioner requests that the Department query
CBP both generally and with specific reference to
Lian Li’s CBP code for antidumping purposes (A–
570–901–010) and the company’s manufacturer ID,
and to release the data provided by CBP to parties
so that these parties can comment on the results of
the CBP query. See the petitioner’s submission
dated December 11, 2009.
5 See Notice of Amended Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Lined Paper
Products from the People’s Republic of China;
Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Lined
Paper Products from India, Indonesia and the
People’s Republic of China; and Notice of
Countervailing Duty Orders: Certain Lined Paper
Products from India and Indonesia, 71 FR 56949
(September 28, 2006) (‘‘CLPP Order’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
63817
1997), and Oil Country Tubular Goods
from Japan: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and Partial Rescission of
Review, 70 FR 53161, 53162 (September
7, 2005), unchanged in Oil Country
Tubular Goods from Japan: Final
Results and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 71 FR 95 (January 3, 2006). As
a result, in such circumstances, we
normally instruct CBP to liquidate any
entries from the no-shipment company
at the deposit rate in effect on the date
of entry.
In our May 6, 2003, ‘‘automatic
assessment’’ clarification, we explained
that, where respondents in an
administrative review demonstrate that
they had no knowledge of sales through
resellers to the United States, we would
instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at
the all-others rate applicable to the
proceeding. See Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68
FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).
Based on Lian Li’s and Leo/Denmax’s
assertion of no shipments and
confirmation of that claim by CBP data,
we preliminarily determine that Lian Li
and Leo/Denmax had no sales to the
United States during the POR.
Because ‘‘as entered’’ liquidation
instructions do not alleviate the
concerns which the May 2003
clarification was intended to address,
we find it appropriate in this case to
instruct CBP to liquidate any existing
entries of merchandise produced by
Lian Li and Leo/Denmax and exported
by other parties at the PRC-wide entity
rate should we continue to find at the
time of our final results that Lian Li and
Leo/Denmax had no shipments of
subject merchandise from the PRC. See,
e.g., Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp
from India: Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 73 FR 77610, 77612 (December
19, 2008). In addition, the Department
finds that it is more consistent with the
May 2003 clarification not to rescind the
review in part in these circumstances
but, rather, to complete the review with
respect to Lian Li and Leo/Denmax and
issue appropriate instructions to CBP
based on the final results of the review.
See the Assessment Rates section of this
notice below.
Preliminary Partial Rescission
With respect to HwaFu/Li Teng, the
Department was unable to find correct
addresses for Hwa Fu/Li Teng.
Specifically, the Department made five
different attempts to deliver the
questionnaire, but was unable to find a
valid address for the company. See
E:\FR\FM\18OCN1.SGM
18OCN1
63818
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 200 / Monday, October 18, 2010 / Notices
Memorandum to the File from Cindy
Robinson, Senior International Trade
Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3,
regarding ‘‘Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Certain Lined
Paper Products from the People’s
Republic of China: Proof of NonDelivery to Hwa Fu/Li Teng.’’ dated
October 7, 2010. Therefore, the
Department preliminarily rescinds the
review with respect to these companies,
in accordance with our practice. See,
e.g., Silicon Metal from the People’s
Republic of China: Preliminary Results
and Preliminary Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review 73 FR 12378, March 7, 2008.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the
Act, we conducted verification of
information provided by Watanabe in
the administrative review of the order
on subject merchandise from the PRC
using standard verification procedures,
including the examination of relevant
sales and factors of production
information, financial records, and the
selection and review of original
documentation containing relevant
information. Our verification results are
outlined in the public version of our
verification report dated October 7,
2010, which is on file in the CRU.
Non-Market Economy Country Status
In every case conducted by the
Department involving the PRC, the PRC
has been treated as a non-market
economy (‘‘NME’’) country. See, e.g.,
Honey from the People’s Republic of
China: Preliminary Results and Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 70 FR 74764
(December 16, 2005) (unchanged in
final).6 Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i)
of the Act, any determination that a
foreign country is an NME country shall
remain in effect until revoked by the
administering authority. See, e.g.,
Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the
People’s Republic of China: Notice of
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR
58672 (October 7, 2005) (unchanged in
final); 7 and Carbazole Violet Pigment 23
from the People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review and
Rescission in Part, 71 FR 65073, 65074
(November 7, 2006) (unchanged in
6 See Honey from the People’s Republic of China:
Final Results and Final Rescission, in Part, of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR
34893 (June 16, 2006).
7 See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the
People’s Republic of China: Notice of Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR
7013 (February 10, 2006).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:45 Oct 15, 2010
Jkt 223001
final).8 None of the parties to this
proceeding has contested such
treatment. Accordingly, we calculated
NV in accordance with section 773(c) of
the Act, which applies to NME
countries.
Separate Rate Determination
A designation as an NME remains in
effect until it is revoked by the
Department. See section 771(18)(C) of
the Act. Accordingly, there is a
rebuttable presumption that all
companies within the PRC are subject to
government control and, thus, should be
assessed a single antidumping duty rate.
See Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and
Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In
Part: Certain Lined Paper Products From
the People’s Republic of China, 71 FR
53079 (September 8, 2006); Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Final Partial Affirmative
Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades
and Parts Thereof from the People’s
Republic of China, 71 FR 29303 (May
22, 2006).
In the Initiation Notice, the
Department notified parties of the
application process by which exporters
and producers may obtain separate rate
status in NME investigations. See
Initiation Notice. It is the Department’s
policy to assign all exporters of the
merchandise subject to review in NME
countries a single rate unless an
exporter can affirmatively demonstrate
an absence of government control, both
in law (de jure) and in fact (de facto),
with respect to exports. To establish
whether a company is sufficiently
independent to be entitled to a separate,
company-specific rate, the Department
analyzes each exporting entity in an
NME country under the test established
in Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less than Fair Value: Sparklers
from the People’s Republic of China, 56
FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’), as
amplified by Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the
People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585
(May 2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon Carbide’’).
However, if the Department
determines that a company is wholly
foreign-owned or located in a market
economy, then a separate rate analysis
is not necessary to determine whether it
is independent from government
control. It is the Department’s practice
to require a party to submit evidence
8 See Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from the
People’s Republic of China: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and
Rescission in Part, 72 FR 26589 (May 10, 2007).
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
that it operates independently of the
state-controlled entity in each segment
of a proceeding in which it requests
separate rate status. The process
requires exporters to submit a separaterate status application. See Tapered
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,
Finished or Unfinished, from the
People’s Republic of China: Final
Results of 2005–2006 Administrative
Review and Partial Rescission of
Review, 72 FR 56724 (October 4, 2007),
Peer Bearing Co. Changshan v. United
States, 587 F.Supp. 2d 1319, 1324–25
(CIT 2008) (affirming the Department’s
determination in that review).
As discussed below, we preliminarily
determine not to rely on Watanabe’s
responses. Therefore, we preliminarily
determine that the Watanabe Group has
not demonstrated that it operates free
from government control. Thus, we find
that for purposes of the preliminary
results of this review, the Watanabe
Group is part of the PRC-wide entity.
Application of Facts Available
We find that there is credible
evidence on the record that documents
submitted by Watanabe at verification
are either inaccurate, internally
inconsistent, or are otherwise
unreliable. Petitioner submitted
invoices that are corroborated by
Watanabe’s own records and show that
Watanabe’s claimed sales and payment
values do not tie to its own internal
bookkeeping. Because we relied on
these books and records during our
verification of the information in
Watanabe’s questionnaire response, we
have concluded that the information in
the questionnaire response is not
useable for purposes of these
preliminary results. Although Watanabe
provided some explanation that they
claim renders petitioner’s allegation
invalid, we find that Watanabe’s
explanations do not sufficiently address
the discrepancies raised by petitioner
that implicate the veracity of
Watanabe’s financial information.
Because this issue arose fairly late in the
proceeding, i.e., less than two months
prior to the deadline for these
preliminary results, we find that we
may need to collect additional
information in order to more fully
evaluate this issue for purposes of the
final results.
On August 27, 2010, the petitioner
filed a letter claiming that evidence
contained in its submission showed
that, at the very least, Watanabe
submitted false invoices at verification
that do not tie to its own records and are
physically different from invoices
petitioner submitted, which it sought
directly from its membership. Petitioner
E:\FR\FM\18OCN1.SGM
18OCN1
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 200 / Monday, October 18, 2010 / Notices
argued that (1) although filed after the
regulatory deadline for submission of
information to rebut, clarify, or correct
factual information, consistent with
prior practice, the Department should
nonetheless accept the information that
demonstrates that fraudulent documents
have been submitted, consistent with
the Department’s practice in Certain Oil
Country Tubular Goods; and (2) the
information it submitted has critical
implications for the veracity of
Watanabe’s financial information such
that the Department cannot use
Watanabe’s data for purposes of the
preliminary results. See e.g., Letter to
Hon. Gary F. Locke from petitioner, re:
Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from
the People’s Republic of China (Feb. 22,
2010) Case No. A–570–943; Memo to All
interested Parties from Wendy J.
Frankel, re: Release of Customs & Border
Protection Information (March 9, 2010)
Case No. A–570–943.
Petitioner specifically cited to the
invoices it submitted and the supplied
payment documentation at Verification
Exhibit 14 at page 1 Watanabe provided
to establish that the sales and payment
values do not tie to Watanabe’s own
internal records.
On September 3, 2010, we asked
Watanabe to address the petitioner’s
August 27 allegation that Watanabe
provided false documentation
(including falsified invoices) during the
Department’s verification.
On September 10, 2010, Watanabe
submitted its response, claiming that
petitioner’s submission should be
rejected as untimely. It further
contended that the Department should
not decline to rely on the verification
documents Watanabe provided.
Watanabe went on to argue that because
petitioner claimed proprietary treatment
for vast portions of the information
provided, it and its legal representative
and accountants could not see the
information. Watanabe asserted that it is
unable to meaningfully respond and, as
such, the Department should refuse to
consider the information. Watanabe also
argued petitioner’s reference to
verification exhibits in the absence of a
verification report is pure speculation as
to its contents. Further, Watanabe
argued that the documents petitioner
refers to relate to third country sales,
which it claims are irrelevant to the
Department’s inquiry into U.S. sales and
the mere allegation that such third
country sales were diverted to the
United States is insufficient. Finally,
Watanabe argued that petitioner should
be made to explain how it came to be
informed about confidential verification
exhibits.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:45 Oct 15, 2010
Jkt 223001
Regarding the payment for the
invoices, Watanabe explained that
invoice value and payments do not
necessarily need to correspond to each
other on a one-to-one basis for a variety
of reasons, e.g., it is common practice
for some invoices to be partially paid in
different payments or that one payment
might cover more than one invoice.
Moreover, there may be quality disputes
between buyer and seller, or simply a
breach of faith by the buyer. Such
discrepancies can sometimes result in
adjustments at the end of the accounting
period.
On September 20, 2010, per
Watanabe’s request to reveal the
confidential information so that it may
substantively comment, in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.306(a)(5), petitioner
authorized the Department to release
directly to Watanabe, for comment,
invoices that it had attached to its
August 27, 2010 submission. On
September 21, 2010, the Department
issued a letter to Watanabe releasing
those invoices to Watanabe and again
requested that they respond to
petitioner’s allegation that Watanabe
provided false documentation during
the Department’s recent verification of
Watanabe’s questionnaire response. On
September 24, 2010, due to a national
holiday, Watanabe requested an
extension for a period of one week from
the date the company reopens, which
was not provided.
On September 30, 2010, Watanabe
submitted a letter in which it repeated
many of the arguments raised in its
September 10, 2010 letter. Watanabe
also asserted that the information
provided by petitioner was fabricated
and is therefore unknown to it; because
of this, Watanabe argued that it could
not adequately respond to these
allegations. In addition, Watanabe
provided certain Customs data of record
to establish that it had properly reported
all of its sales.
Analysis
Watanabe has made a number of
arguments about why the Department
should reject petitioner’s allegations,
each of which are addressed below.
Watanabe argues that the factual
information submitted by petitioners
was untimely filed. While we agree that
this filing was past the deadlines in 19
CFR 351.301(b)(2) and (c)(1), the
Department has the discretion under 19
CFR 351.203(b) to extend any deadline
for good cause. Given the significance of
the issues raised by petitioners, we
extended the deadline for factual
information, and accepted petitioner’s
allegation and information, and
requested that Watanabe respond.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
63819
Watanabe also argues that petitioner
should be made to explain how it came
to be informed about confidential
verification exhibits. However, in letters
dated August 30, 2010, and September
17, and 20, 2010, petitioner adequately
explained how it had obtained the new
factual information that it had
submitted, specifying that it had been
done without explaining or providing
any data to its membership. There has
been no allegation of an APO violation
nor is there any evidence of improper
treatment of BPI on the record of this
case.
Watanabe argues that petitioner’s
arguments are without merit as they are
taken out of context because the
verification report had not been issued
at the time. We agree that it is
unfortunate that this issue arose before
the verification report had been issued.
However, in accordance with standard
practice, Watanabe served the petitioner
a copy of the verification exhibits
within 5 days of the conclusion of
verification. As discussed below, it is
clear from the exhibits that they were
obtained as part of the standard
verification procedures of ‘‘Quantity and
Value Reconciliation’’ and
‘‘Completeness Tests.’’ The procedures
and the relevant discussion of factual
information are in the October 7, 2010,
Verification Report.
Additionally, Watanabe claims that it
is unable to adequately respond these
allegations because Watanabe itself was
unable to access to certain information.
This claim is without merit. The issues
raised by petitioner relate directly to
Watanabe’s own proprietary information
contained in the verification exhibits.
Both in the public and Watanabe
proprietary version of petitioner’s
August 27, 2010, letter, and in the
Department’s letters of September 3, and
21, 2010, the factual bases of the
petitioner’s allegation is clear.
As to the merits of petitioner’s
allegations, petitioner supplied invoices
which they claimed correspond to
invoices related to third-country sales
reviewed at verification and provided as
verification exhibits. Specifically,
petitioner points to the similarity
between the products listed, quantities
and other details in the two sets of
invoices. However, they note the
significant differences in payment
amounts between the two sets of
invoices. Additionally, petitioner
provided documentation demonstrating
payment in the amount listed on the
petitioner-provided invoice and receipt
of that amount as recorded in Watanabe
supplied payment documentation at
Verification Exhibit 14 at page 1. For
three of Watanabe’s third-country sales,
E:\FR\FM\18OCN1.SGM
18OCN1
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
63820
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 200 / Monday, October 18, 2010 / Notices
petitioner provided documentation
demonstrating payment in the amount
listed on the invoices petitioner
provided and not those provided by
Watanabe. This raises a fundamental
question about the reliability of the
documents reviewed at verification.
The invoices in question were
reviewed as part verification procedure
called ‘‘Quantity and Value
Reconciliation’’ and ‘‘Completeness
Tests’’ which is a procedure done to test
whether the total quantity and value of
sales reported by the respondent tie to
their books and records. This is one of
the central elements of verification—to
ensure that respondent reported all the
necessary sales. The total sales of a
company include sales to the United
States, the home market, and third
countries. Without this step, we have no
way of determining whether all the U.S.
sales during the POR were properly
reported. As detailed in the verification
report, we selected sample transactions
from Watanabe’s list of total sales and
reviewed them to determine if they were
properly reported. This list identified
the total quantity and value for each
transaction. Thus, the invoices we
reviewed showed total revenue based on
the prices listed on them. This list of
total sales, including the quantity and
value, was then tied to Watanabe’s 2008
and 2009 Financial Statements.
To date, Watanabe’s substantive
response to the presentation of these
invoices and payment data by petitioner
is to provide a copy of one Customs data
record. This is intended to support the
value as reported on one of the invoices
provided by Watanabe at verification, to
claim that the allegations of petitioner
appears to be based on made-up
documents, and to claim that frequently,
customers pay amounts that differ from
the invoiced amount.
Watanabe has not, however,
addressed why the specific amount on
invoices petitioner provided tie directly
to Watanabe’s payment records.
Petitioner specifically cited to these
invoices and the payment documents
Watanabe provided as Verification
Exhibit 14 at page 1 to show that the
sales and payment values do not tie to
Watanabe’s own internal records, but to
the invoices provided by petitioner.
Watanabe’s answers provide possible
explanations as to why the payment
amount on invoices it provided may not
appear in its ledgers, but do not
adequately explain why instead the
payment amounts on invoices petitioner
provided are clearly identifiable in the
Watanabe-supplied payment
documentation at Verification Exhibit
14 at page 1.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:45 Oct 15, 2010
Jkt 223001
While Watanabe questions the
existence of any motive to misreporting
third country sales and attempts to
impugn the behavior of petitioner, we
are not satisfied with its response to the
allegations.
Regardless of the motives of either
party, we preliminarily determine that
petitioner has provided credible
evidence of misreporting of sales values
by Watanabe. The fact that the total
revenue associated with the invoiced
amounts petitioner submitted tied to the
company book and records tends to
show that the prices on the invoices
reviewed at verification are incorrect,
thus fundamentally calling into
question the reliability of Watanabe’s
records. As such, these records do not
appear to be a reliable basis to use for
our calculations. It is Watanabe’s
responsibility to provide a clear
explanation of what is the basis for
these different invoices, and how these
differences can be explained and clearly
tied to the records examined at
verification so that we can determine
that such records are reliable. Petitioner
provided to Watanabe invoices it
obtained from the members of its
association, and linked the invoiced
amount to the payment documentation
Watanabe supplied as Verification
Exhibit 14 at page 1.
Watanabe has not refuted the
evidence showing the values on the
invoices petitioner provided tie to
Watanabe’s own records. Because
Watanabe has failed to provide an
adequate explanation at the time of
these preliminary results, we have
relied on facts available for purposes of
these preliminary results. However, as
this issue has arisen late in the
proceeding and there were certain
constraints associated with proprietary
treatment, we will continue to probe
this issue further for purposes of the
final results.
Section 776(a) of the Act provides that
the Department will apply ‘‘facts
otherwise available’’ (‘‘FA’’) if, inter alia,
necessary information is not available
on the record or an interested party: (1)
Withholds information that has been
requested by the Department; (2) fails to
provide such information within the
deadlines established, or in the form or
manner requested by the Department,
subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of
section 782 of the Act; (3) significantly
impedes a proceeding; or (4) provides
such information, but the information
cannot be verified.
According to section 776(b) of the
Act, if the Department finds that an
interested party fails to cooperate by not
acting to the best of its ability to comply
with requests for information, the
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Department may use an inference that is
adverse to the interests of that party in
selecting from the facts otherwise
available. See also India Lined Paper
AR1 Final; Notice of Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India,
70 FR 54023, 54025–26 (September 13,
2005); and Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Final Negative Critical
Circumstances: Carbon and Certain
Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, 67 FR
55792, 55794–96 (August 30, 2002).
Adverse inferences are appropriate ‘‘to
ensure that the party does not obtain a
more favorable result by failing to
cooperate than if it had cooperated
fully.’’ See Statement of Administrative
Action accompanying the Uruguay
Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No.
103–316, Vol. 1, at 870 (1994) (‘‘SAA’’),
reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040,
4198–99. Furthermore, ‘‘affirmative
evidence of bad faith on the part of a
respondent is not required before the
Department may make an adverse
inference.’’ See Antidumping Duties;
Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR
27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997); see also
Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337
F.3d 1373, 1382–83 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
(‘‘Nippon’’).
We find that the PRC-wide entity,
including Watanabe, did not act to the
best of its ability in this proceeding,
within the meaning of section 776(b) of
the Act, because it failed to respond to
the Department’s requests for
information and failed to provide any
additional information. Based on all of
the above, the Department preliminarily
finds that adverse inference is
warranted in selecting from the facts
otherwise available. See Nippon, 337
F.3d at 1382–83.
Section 776(b) of the Act provides
that the Department may use as AFA
information derived from: (1) The
petition; (2) the final determination in
the investigation; (3) any previous
review; or (4) any other information
placed on the record. The Department’s
practice, when selecting an AFA rate
from among the possible sources of
information, has been to ensure that the
margin is sufficiently adverse ‘‘as to
effectuate the statutory purposes of the
adverse facts available rule to induce
respondents to provide the Department
with complete and accurate information
in a timely manner.’’ See, e.g., Certain
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from
Turkey; Final Results and Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review in Part, 71 FR 65082, 65084
(November 7, 2006).
To ensure that the margin is
sufficiently adverse so as to induce
E:\FR\FM\18OCN1.SGM
18OCN1
63821
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 200 / Monday, October 18, 2010 / Notices
cooperation, we have preliminarily
assigned to the PRC-wide entity,
including Watanabe, the rate of 258.21
percent, the highest rate on the record
of this proceeding. This rate was
assigned to the PRC-wide entity in the
investigation of CLPP from the PRC. See
Notice of Amended Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Certain Lined Paper Products from the
People’s Republic of China; Notice of
Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain
Lined Paper Products from India,
Indonesia and the People’s Republic of
China; and Notice of Countervailing
Duty Orders: Certain Lined Paper
Products from India and Indonesia, 71
FR 56949 (September 28, 2006). As
explained below, this rate has been
corroborated.
Corroboration of Secondary
Information
Section 776(c) of the Act provides
that, when the Department relies on
secondary information rather than on
information obtained in the course of an
investigation or review, it shall, to the
extent practicable, corroborate that
information from independent sources
that are reasonably at its disposal.
Secondary information is defined as
information derived from the petition
that gave rise to the investigation or
review, the final determination
concerning the subject merchandise, or
any previous review under section 751
of the Act concerning the subject
merchandise. See SAA at 870.
Corroborate means that the Department
will satisfy itself that the secondary
information to be used has probative
value. Id. To corroborate secondary
information, the Department will, to the
extent practicable, examine the
reliability and relevance of the
information to be used. See Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews and Partial
Termination of Administrative Reviews:
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished from
Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings
Four Inches or Less in Outside
Diameter, and Components Thereof,
from Japan, 61 FR 57391, 57392
(November 6, 1996) (unchanged in the
final determination), Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Reviews and Termination in Part:
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished from
Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings
Four Inches or Less in Outside
Diameter, and Components Thereof,
from Japan, 62 FR 11825 (March 13,
1997). Independent sources used to
corroborate such evidence may include,
for example, published price lists,
official import statistics and customs
data, and information obtained from
interested parties during the particular
investigation. See Notice of Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: High and Ultra-High Voltage
Ceramic Station Post Insulators from
Japan, 68 FR 35627 (June 16, 2003)
(unchanged in final determination)
Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: High and Ultra
High Voltage Ceramic Station Post
Insulators from Japan, 68 FR 62560
(November 5, 2003); and Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Live Swine From Canada, 70
FR 12181, 12183–84 (March 11, 2005).
The AFA rate selected here is from
the original investigation and was
applied to Watanabe in the second
Administrative Review. This rate was
calculated based on information
contained in the petition, which was
corroborated for the final determination.
No additional information has been
presented in the current review which
calls into question the reliability of the
information. Therefore, the Department
finds that the information continues to
be reliable.
Preliminary Results of the Review
The Department has determined that
the following preliminary dumping
margin exists for the period September
1, 2008, through August 31, 2009:
Weighted-average
margin
Producer/manufacturer
PRC-Wide Rate (which includes the Watanabe Group) .........................................................................................................
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Disclosure and Public Hearing
The Department will disclose to
parties the calculations performed in
connection with these preliminary
results within five days of the date of
publication of this notice. See 19 CFR
351.224(b). Because, as discussed above,
we intend to seek additional
information, we will establish the
briefing schedule at a later time, and
will notify parties of the schedule in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.309.
Parties who submit case briefs or
rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are
requested to submit with each
argument: (1) A statement of the issue;
(2) a brief summary of the argument;
and (3) a table of authorities. See 19 CFR
351.309(c)(2).
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c),
interested parties who wish to request a
hearing, or to participate if one is
requested, must submit a written
request to the Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, Room 1117,
within 30 days of the date of publication
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:45 Oct 15, 2010
Jkt 223001
of this notice. Requests should contain:
(1) The party’s name, address and
telephone number; (2) the number of
participants; and (3) a list of issues to be
discussed. Id. Issues raised in the
hearing will be limited to those raised
in the respective case briefs. The
Department will issue the final results
of this administrative review, including
the results of its analysis of the issues
raised in any written briefs, not later
than 120 days after the date of
publication of this notice, pursuant to
section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Assessment Rates
Upon issuance of the final results, the
Department will determine, and CBP
shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries covered by this
review. The Department intends to issue
assessment instructions to CBP 15 days
after the publication date of the final
results of this review. We will instruct
CBP to liquidate the Watanabe Group’s
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
258.21%
appropriate entries at the PRC-wide rate
of 258.21 percent.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit
requirements will be effective upon
publication of the notice of final results
of the administrative review for all
shipments of CLPP from the PRC
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the date of
publication, as provided by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For
previously reviewed or investigated
companies not listed above that have
separate rates, the cash-deposit rate will
continue to be the company-specific rate
published for the most recent period;
(2) for all other PRC exporters of subject
merchandise, which have not been
found to be entitled to a separate rate,
the cash-deposit rate will be PRC-wide
rate of 258.21 percent; and (3) for all
non-PRC exporters of subject
merchandise, the cash-deposit rate will
be the rate applicable to the PRC
E:\FR\FM\18OCN1.SGM
18OCN1
63822
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 200 / Monday, October 18, 2010 / Notices
exporter that supplied that non-PRC
exporter. These deposit requirements,
when imposed, shall remain in effect
until further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a
preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of
antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this
review period. Failure to comply with
this requirement could result in the
Secretary’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
This determination is issued and
published in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: October 7, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010–26186 Filed 10–15–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY
COMMISSION
Sunshine Act Meeting
Wednesday, October 20,
2010, 2 p.m.–4 p.m.
TIME AND DATE:
Hearing Room 420, Bethesda
Towers, 4330 East West Highway,
Bethesda, Maryland.
PLACE:
Commission Meeting—Open to
the Public.
STATUS:
Matter To Be Considered
Briefing Matter: Publicly Available
Consumer Product Safety Information
Database—Final Rule.
A live Webcast of the Meeting can be
viewed at https://www.cpsc.gov/webcast.
For a recorded message containing the
latest agenda information, call (301)
504–7948.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission, 4330 East West
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301)
504–7923.
Dated: October 12, 2010.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010–26232 Filed 10–14–10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355–01–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:45 Oct 15, 2010
Jkt 223001
CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND
COMMUNITY SERVICE
Proposed Information Collection;
Comment Request
Corporation for National and
Community Service.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The Corporation for National
and Community Service (hereinafter the
‘‘Corporation’’), as part of its continuing
effort to reduce paperwork and
respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to
provide the general public and federal
agencies with an opportunity to
comment on proposed and/or
continuing collections of information in
accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) (44
U.S.C. Sec. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program
helps to ensure that requested data can
be provided in the desired format,
reporting burden (time and financial
resources) is minimized, collection
instruments are clearly understood, and
the impact of collection requirement on
respondents can be properly assessed.
Currently, the Corporation is
soliciting comments concerning its
proposed collection request for the
National Evaluation of the Learn and
Serve America School-Based Program
(NELSAP). The evaluation utilizes an
experimental design to assess the
impact of Learn and Serve Americafunded service-learning activities on
student outcomes. The evaluation will
demonstrate the effectiveness of servicelearning as a pedagogical method.
Participation in the information
collection is voluntary and will not be
used in grant funding decisions.
Copies of the information collection
request can be obtained by contacting
the office listed in the addresses section
of this notice.
DATES: Written comments must be
submitted to the individual and office
listed in the ADDRESSES section by
December 17, 2010.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by the title of the information
collection activity, by any of the
following methods:
(1) By mail sent to: Corporation for
National and Community Service, Office
of Strategy; Attention: Kimberly Spring,
Room 10906B; 1201 New York Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20525.
(2) By hand delivery or by courier to
the Corporation’s mailroom at Room
8100 at the mail address given in
paragraph (1) above, between 9 a.m. and
4 p.m. Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(3) By fax to: (202) 606–3464,
Attention: Kimberly Spring
(4) Electronically through the
Corporation’s e-mail address system:
kspring@cns.gov.
Individuals who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TTY–TDD) may call (202) 606–3472
between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. eastern
time, Monday through Friday.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kimberly Spring, (202) 606–6629, or by
e-mail at kspring@cns.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Corporation is particularly interested in
comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the Corporation, including
whether the information will have
practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who
are expected to respond, including the
use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology
(e.g., permitting electronic submissions
of responses).
Background
The Corporation is implementing
NELSAP under the authority of Section
120 of the National and Community
Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12565),
which requires the Corporation to
support an assessment of the impact of
service-learning activities carried out
under the Learn and Serve America
Program. NELSAP will assess the
impact of Learn and Serve Americafunded service-learning activities on
ninth and tenth grade students’
academic achievement, academic
engagement, and civic engagement in
core academic areas (English, math,
science, and social studies). Data will be
collected from students on their
academic and civic engagement;
teachers on the implementation aspects
of treatment (service-learning) and
control (non-service-learning)
classrooms; and school and district
administrators on students’ school
records and academic achievement. In
cases of missing extant content-based
test scores for participating classrooms,
students will complete a norm-based
E:\FR\FM\18OCN1.SGM
18OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 200 (Monday, October 18, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63814-63822]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-26186]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-901]
Certain Lined Paper Products From the People's Republic of China:
Notice of Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting
the third administrative review of the antidumping duty order on
certain lined paper products (``CLPP'') from the People's Republic of
China (``PRC'') with respect to four producers/exporters for the period
September 1, 2008, through August 31, 2009. If these preliminary
results are adopted in our final results of this review, we will
instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise
during the period of review.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results. We intend to issue the final results no later than 120 days
from the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act'').
DATES: Effective Date: October 18, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Lai Robinson or Stephanie Moore,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3797 or (202)
482-3692, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On September 1, 2009, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') published in the Federal Register the notice of the
``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review'' of the antidumping
duty order on certain lined paper products from People's Republic of
China, for the period September 1, 2008, through August 31, 2009. See
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended
Investigation: Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 74 FR
45179 (September 1, 2009). On September 28, 2009, we received a review
request from the ``Watanabe Group'' (consisting of Watanabe Paper
Products (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (``Watanabe Shanghai''); Watanabe Paper
Products (Linqing) Co., Ltd. (``Watanabe Linqing''); and Hotrock
Stationery (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (``Hotrock Shenzhen'')) (hereafter
referred to as ``Watanabe'' or the Watanabe Group). On September 30,
2009, we received a
[[Page 63815]]
request from petitioner \1\ to review the following four companies:
Shanghai Lian Li Paper Products Co. Ltd. (``Lian Li''); Hwa Fuh
Plastics Co., Ltd./Li Teng Plastics (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (``Hwa Fuh/Li
Teng''); Leo's Quality Products Co., Ltd./Denmax Plastic Stationery
Factory (``Leo/Denmax''); and the Watanabe Group. On October 26, 2009,
we published the notice of initiation of this antidumping duty
administrative review with respect to the above four companies. See
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 74 FR 54956 (October 26,
2009) (``Initiation Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The petitioner is the Association of American School Paper
Suppliers (``AASPS'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Respondents and Questionnaires
On November 9, 2009, we issued a questionnaire to Hwa Fuh/Li Teng,
Leo/Denmax, Lian Li, and the Watanabe Group via FedEx Express.
On November 6, 2009, and January 13, 2010, Lian Li and Leo/Denmax
submitted letters, respectively, certifying that they did not export
the subject merchandise to the United States during the period of
review (``POR''). Both Lian Li and Leo/Denmax requested that the
Department rescind the administrative review with respect to each
company.
On December 11, 2009, subsequent to the notification from FedEx
Express that the questionnaire package to Hwa Fuh/Li Teng was not
deliverable because of an invalid address and phone number in Shenzhen,
China, we resent the Department's original questionnaire to Hwa Fuh's
address in Taichung, Taiwan. In the December 11, 2009, letter, we
requested that Hwa Fuh (in Taiwan) forward the questionnaire to Li Teng
(in Shenzhen). During November and December 2009, we also made three
attempts to contact Hwa Fuh/Li Teng by phoning Hwa Fuh/Li Teng numbers
in Shenzhen China and in Taichung Taiwan. However, we were unable to
reach Hwa Fuh/Li Teng.
On December 16, 2009, Watanabe submitted its section A response to
the Department's original questionnaire, to which petitioner submitted
its comments on January 15, 2010. On January 8, 2010, Watanabe
submitted its sections C and D responses to the Department's original
questionnaire, to which petitioner provided its comments on February 2,
2010. Watanabe also submitted separate rate application on January 8,
2010. On March 19, 2010, the Department issued first supplemental
questionnaire to Watanabe, which provided its response on April 21,
2010. On May 7, 2010, petitioner provided its comments on Watanabe's
first supplemental response. On May 24, 2010, the Department issued its
second supplemental questionnaire to Watanabe, which provided its
response on June 21, 2010, and on July 2, 2010, the Department issued
its third supplemental questionnaire to Watanabe, which provided its
response on July 12, 2010. On July 16, 2010, petitioner provided its
comments on Watanabe's second supplemental response and comments on the
upcoming verification. On July 16, 2010, the Department issued sales
and factors of production verification agendas to Watanabe. On July 19,
2010, the petitioner provided additional pre-verification comments with
respect to Watanabe.
The Department conducted sales and factors of production
verification of Watanabe from July 26 through 30, 2010 in Shanghai,
China. On August 11, 2010, we received Watanabe's minor correction
provided at the outset of the verification.
On August 27, 2010, the petitioner submitted comments concerning
Watanabe's questionnaire responses and the verification on those
responses. This letter contained certain business proprietary
information (``BPI'') that called into question the reliability of the
documents reviewed at verification and taken as exhibits and therefore,
the reliability of Watanabe's response. On September 2, 2010,
petitioners met Department officials to discuss these comments.\2\ On
September 3, 2010, the Department issued a letter to Watanabe
requesting rebuttal comments to the petitioner's August 27, 2010,
allegations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See September 2, 2010, Ex Parte Memorandum
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watanabe submitted its rebuttal comments on September 10, 2010. In
its comments, Watanabe did not address these allegations directly as it
claimed that it did not have access to certain BPI documents.
On September 20, 2010, the petitioner submitted a letter which
authorized release of certain documents to Watanabe. On September 21,
2010, the Department issued a letter to Watanabe asking them to
specifically address the allegations contained in the petitioner's
August 27, 2010 letter.
On September 28, 2010, Watanabe submitted a letter in response to
the Department's September 21, 2010 letter. Watanabe submitted certain
factual information and repeated arguments made in its previous letter.
See ``Adverse Facts Available'' (``AFA'') section below for a detailed
discussion.
Period of Review
The period of review (``POR'') is September 1, 2008, through August
31, 2009.
Case Calendar
On May 18, 2010, the Department extended the time limits for the
preliminary results. See Certain Lined Paper Products from India and
People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limits for the
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 75 FR
27706 (May 18, 2010). Additionally, as explained in the memorandum from
the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, the
Department has 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 have been extended by seven days. 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. The
revised deadline for the preliminary results of this review is October
7, 2010.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Where a statutory deadline falls on a weekend, federal
holiday, or any other day when the Department is closed, the
Department will continue its longstanding practice of reaching the
determination on the next business day. In this instance, the
preliminary results will be released no later than October 8, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surrogate Country and Factors
On March 3, 2010, the Department sent interested parties a letter
requesting comments on the surrogate country and information pertaining
to valuing factors of production (``FOPs''). On April 19, 2010,
Watanabe submitted surrogate value comments regarding various Indian
sources. On June 21 and July 30, 2010, the petitioner submitted
surrogate value information for use in the preliminary results. On July
6, 2010, Watanabe submitted comments objecting to the petitioner's June
21, 2010 submission as being untimely. On July 15, 2010, the petitioner
submitted rebuttal comments with respect to Watanabe's objection
comment. The petitioner argued that the deadline set by the Department
was applicable to the preliminary results and it did not apply to the
final results.
Scope of the Order
The scope of this order includes certain lined paper products,
typically school supplies (for purposes of this scope definition, the
actual use of or
[[Page 63816]]
labeling of these products as school supplies or non-school supplies is
not a defining characteristic) composed of or including paper that
incorporates straight horizontal and/or vertical lines on ten or more
paper sheets (there shall be no minimum page requirement for looseleaf
filler paper) including but not limited to such products as single- and
multi-subject notebooks, composition books, wireless notebooks,
looseleaf or glued filler paper, graph paper, and laboratory notebooks,
and with the smaller dimension of the paper measuring 6 inches to 15
inches (inclusive) and the larger dimension of the paper measuring 8\3/
4\ inches to 15 inches (inclusive). Page dimensions are measured size
(not advertised, stated, or ``tear-out'' size), and are measured as
they appear in the product (i.e., stitched and folded pages in a
notebook are measured by the size of the page as it appears in the
notebook page, not the size of the unfolded paper). However, for
measurement purposes, pages with tapered or rounded edges shall be
measured at their longest and widest points. Subject lined paper
products may be loose, packaged or bound using any binding method
(other than case bound through the inclusion of binders board, a spine
strip, and cover wrap). Subject merchandise may or may not contain any
combination of a front cover, a rear cover, and/or backing of any
composition, regardless of the inclusion of images or graphics on the
cover, backing, or paper. Subject merchandise is within the scope of
this order whether or not the lined paper and/or cover are hole
punched, drilled, perforated, and/or reinforced. Subject merchandise
may contain accessory or informational items including but not limited
to pockets, tabs, dividers, closure devices, index cards, stencils,
protractors, writing implements, reference materials such as
mathematical tables, or printed items such as sticker sheets or
miniature calendars, if such items are physically incorporated,
included with, or attached to the product, cover and/or backing
thereto.
Specifically excluded from the scope of this order are:
Unlined copy machine paper;
Writing pads with a backing (including but not limited to
products commonly known as ``tablets,'' ``note pads,'' ``legal pads,''
and ``quadrille pads''), provided that they do not have a front cover
(whether permanent or removable). This exclusion does not apply to such
writing pads if they consist of hole-punched or drilled filler paper;
Three-ring or multiple-ring binders, or notebook
organizers incorporating such a ring binder provided that they do not
include subject paper;
Index cards;
Printed books and other books that are case bound through
the inclusion of binders board, a spine strip, and cover wrap;
Newspapers;
Pictures and photographs;
Desk and wall calendars and organizers (including but not
limited to such products generally known as ``office planners,'' ``time
books,'' and ``appointment books'');
Telephone logs;
Address books;
Columnar pads & tablets, with or without covers, primarily
suited for the recording of written numerical business data;
Lined business or office forms, including but not limited
to: pre-printed business forms, lined invoice pads and paper, mailing
and address labels, manifests, and shipping log books;
Lined continuous computer paper;
Boxed or packaged writing stationery (including but not
limited to products commonly known as ``fine business paper,''
``parchment paper'', and ``letterhead''), whether or not containing a
lined header or decorative lines;
Stenographic pads (``steno pads''), Gregg ruled (``Gregg
ruling'' consists of a single- or double-margin vertical ruling line
down the center of the page. For a six-inch by nine-inch stenographic
pad, the ruling would be located approximately three inches from the
left of the book.), measuring 6 inches by 9 inches;
Also excluded from the scope of this order are the following
trademarked products:
Fly \TM\ lined paper products: A notebook, notebook
organizer, loose or glued note paper, with papers that are printed with
infrared reflective inks and readable only by a Fly\TM\ pen-top
computer. The product must bear the valid trademark Fly\TM\ (products
found to be bearing an invalidly licensed or used trademark are not
excluded from the scope).
Zwipes\TM\: A notebook or notebook organizer made with a
blended polyolefin writing surface as the cover and pocket surfaces of
the notebook, suitable for writing using a specially-developed
permanent marker and erase system (known as a Zwipes\TM\ pen). This
system allows the marker portion to mark the writing surface with a
permanent ink. The eraser portion of the marker dispenses a solvent
capable of solubilizing the permanent ink allowing the ink to be
removed. The product must bear the valid trademark Zwipes\TM\ (products
found to be bearing an invalidly licensed or used trademark are not
excluded from the scope).
FiveStar [supreg]Advance\TM\: A notebook or notebook
organizer bound by a continuous spiral, or helical, wire and with
plastic front and rear covers made of a blended polyolefin plastic
material joined by 300 denier polyester, coated on the backside with
PVC (polyvinyl chloride) coating, and extending the entire length of
the spiral or helical wire. The polyolefin plastic covers are of
specific thickness; front cover is 0.019 inches (within normal
manufacturing tolerances) and rear cover is 0.028 inches (within normal
manufacturing tolerances). Integral with the stitching that attaches
the polyester spine covering, is captured both ends of a 1'' wide
elastic fabric band. This band is located 2\3/8\'' from the top of the
front plastic cover and provides pen or pencil storage. Both ends of
the spiral wire are cut and then bent backwards to overlap with the
previous coil but specifically outside the coil diameter but inside the
polyester covering. During construction, the polyester covering is sewn
to the front and rear covers face to face (outside to outside) so that
when the book is closed, the stitching is concealed from the outside.
Both free ends (the ends not sewn to the cover and back) are stitched
with a turned edge construction. The flexible polyester material forms
a covering over the spiral wire to protect it and provide a comfortable
grip on the product. The product must bear the valid trademarks
FiveStar [supreg]Advance \TM\ (products found to be bearing an
invalidly licensed or used trademark are not excluded from the scope).
FiveStar Flex\TM\: A notebook, a notebook organizer, or
binder with plastic polyolefin front and rear covers joined by 300
denier polyester spine cover extending the entire length of the spine
and bound by a 3-ring plastic fixture. The polyolefin plastic covers
are of a specific thickness; front cover is 0.019 inches (within normal
manufacturing tolerances) and rear cover is 0.028 inches (within normal
manufacturing tolerances). During construction, the polyester covering
is sewn to the front cover face to face (outside to outside) so that
when the book is closed, the stitching is concealed from the outside.
During construction, the polyester cover is sewn to the back cover with
the outside of the polyester spine cover to the inside back cover. Both
free ends (the ends not sewn to the cover and back) are stitched with a
turned edge construction. Each
[[Page 63817]]
ring within the fixture is comprised of a flexible strap portion that
snaps into a stationary post which forms a closed binding ring. The
ring fixture is riveted with six metal rivets and sewn to the back
plastic cover and is specifically positioned on the outside back cover.
The product must bear the valid trademark FiveStar Flex\TM\ (products
found to be bearing an invalidly licensed or used trademark are not
excluded from the scope).
Merchandise subject to this order is typically imported under
headings 4820.10.2050, 4810.22.5044, 4811.90.9090, 4820.10.2010,
4820.10.2020 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(``HTSUS''). The HTSUS headings are provided for convenience and
customs purposes; however, the written description of the scope of this
order is dispositive.
Claims of No Shipments by Lian Li and Leo/Denmax
Lian Li and Leo/Denmax filed no shipment certifications indicating
that they did not export subject merchandise to the United States
during the POR. On November 9, 2009, we conducted an internal query of
the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') entry data with
respect to both companies. The CBP data entry confirms Lian Li and Leo/
Denmax's claims of no shipments. However, we found that Lian Li's
manufacturer ID number was used by other producers/reporters and
therefore, appeared on the entry data. On November 13, 2009, we
requested that CBP provide entry packets for those entries where Lian
Li's ID appeared on the entry data. We received the entry packets from
CBP on November 24 and December 4, 2009. We found no evidence from the
CBP entry data packets that Lian Li had any entries, exports, or sales
to the United States of subject merchandise during the POR.
On December 11, 2009, the petitioner submitted comments on Lian
Li's November 6, 2009, letter. We rejected the petitioner's December
11, 2009, letter because the submission over bracketed certain
information which is public in nature. On December 22, 2009, the
petitioner resubmitted its comments claiming that Lian Li might have
shipped subject merchandise to the United States as a ``Free and
Dutiable'' Type ``01'' entry, i.e., printed matter.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The petitioner provided an import manifest from the Port
Import Export Reporting Service (``PIERS'') which pertains to
shipment of goods listed as ``printed matter'' that entered into the
United States in December 2008. The petitioner points out that the
commodity description indicates that the goods were produced and/or
shipped by Lian Li. The petitioner argues that because Lian Li is
assigned a very low antidumping duty rate, the potential for
manipulation of entry form data and product classification data is
very real. Therefore, the petitioner requests that the Department
query CBP both generally and with specific reference to Lian Li's
CBP code for antidumping purposes (A-570-901-010) and the company's
manufacturer ID, and to release the data provided by CBP to parties
so that these parties can comment on the results of the CBP query.
See the petitioner's submission dated December 11, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because printed matter is not subject merchandise under the CLPP
Order,\5\ the Department directed petitioner to CBP in regards to any
concerns of possible manipulation of entry data and product
classification by Lian Li.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's
Republic of China; Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Lined
Paper Products from India, Indonesia and the People's Republic of
China; and Notice of Countervailing Duty Orders: Certain Lined Paper
Products from India and Indonesia, 71 FR 56949 (September 28, 2006)
(``CLPP Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, on January 28, 2010, we sent CBP a ``No Shipments
Inquiry'' with regard to Lian Li and Leo/Denmax. The inquiry requested
that the CBP report within 10 days of receipt of the message any
entries from the two companies. See Message from the Department to CBP,
dated January 28, 2010. We have not received any entry information from
CBP within the time limit.
Furthermore, on March 29, 2010, the Department issued a second
letter to Lian Li and Leo/Denmax requesting further clarification as to
whether they have not sold or shipped, directly or indirectly, any
lined paper products (both subject and non-subject) to the United
States during the POR. Lian Li provided its response on April 12, 2010,
confirming no shipments or no knowledge of third country transshipments
of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. On April
15, 2010, Leo/Denmax also submitted a letter to recertify that it did
not have any exports, sales, or entries, either directly or indirectly,
of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Leo/Denmax
again requested that the Department rescind the administrative review
with respect to Leo/Denmax.
With regard to the Lian Li and Leo/Denmax claims of no shipments,
our practice since implementation of the 1997 regulations concerning
no-shipment respondents has been to rescind the administrative review
if the respondent certifies that it had no shipments and we have
confirmed through our examination of CBP data that there were no
shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. See Antidumping
Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27393 (May 19, 1997), and
Oil Country Tubular Goods from Japan: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of
Review, 70 FR 53161, 53162 (September 7, 2005), unchanged in Oil
Country Tubular Goods from Japan: Final Results and Partial Rescission
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 95 (January 3, 2006).
As a result, in such circumstances, we normally instruct CBP to
liquidate any entries from the no-shipment company at the deposit rate
in effect on the date of entry.
In our May 6, 2003, ``automatic assessment'' clarification, we
explained that, where respondents in an administrative review
demonstrate that they had no knowledge of sales through resellers to
the United States, we would instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at
the all-others rate applicable to the proceeding. See Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68
FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).
Based on Lian Li's and Leo/Denmax's assertion of no shipments and
confirmation of that claim by CBP data, we preliminarily determine that
Lian Li and Leo/Denmax had no sales to the United States during the
POR.
Because ``as entered'' liquidation instructions do not alleviate
the concerns which the May 2003 clarification was intended to address,
we find it appropriate in this case to instruct CBP to liquidate any
existing entries of merchandise produced by Lian Li and Leo/Denmax and
exported by other parties at the PRC-wide entity rate should we
continue to find at the time of our final results that Lian Li and Leo/
Denmax had no shipments of subject merchandise from the PRC. See, e.g.,
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India: Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 77610, 77612 (December
19, 2008). In addition, the Department finds that it is more consistent
with the May 2003 clarification not to rescind the review in part in
these circumstances but, rather, to complete the review with respect to
Lian Li and Leo/Denmax and issue appropriate instructions to CBP based
on the final results of the review. See the Assessment Rates section of
this notice below.
Preliminary Partial Rescission
With respect to HwaFu/Li Teng, the Department was unable to find
correct addresses for Hwa Fu/Li Teng. Specifically, the Department made
five different attempts to deliver the questionnaire, but was unable to
find a valid address for the company. See
[[Page 63818]]
Memorandum to the File from Cindy Robinson, Senior International Trade
Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, regarding ``Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's
Republic of China: Proof of Non-Delivery to Hwa Fu/Li Teng.'' dated
October 7, 2010. Therefore, the Department preliminarily rescinds the
review with respect to these companies, in accordance with our
practice. See, e.g., Silicon Metal from the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial Rescission of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review 73 FR 12378, March 7, 2008.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we conducted verification
of information provided by Watanabe in the administrative review of the
order on subject merchandise from the PRC using standard verification
procedures, including the examination of relevant sales and factors of
production information, financial records, and the selection and review
of original documentation containing relevant information. Our
verification results are outlined in the public version of our
verification report dated October 7, 2010, which is on file in the CRU.
Non-Market Economy Country Status
In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the
PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (``NME'') country. See,
e.g., Honey from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results
and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR
74764 (December 16, 2005) (unchanged in final).\6\ Pursuant to section
771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is
an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the
administering authority. See, e.g., Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from
the People's Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 58672 (October 7, 2005)
(unchanged in final); \7\ and Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from the
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Rescission in Part, 71 FR 65073, 65074
(November 7, 2006) (unchanged in final).\8\ None of the parties to this
proceeding has contested such treatment. Accordingly, we calculated NV
in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME
countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Honey from the People's Republic of China: Final Results
and Final Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 71 FR 34893 (June 16, 2006).
\7\ See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic
of China: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 71 FR 7013 (February 10, 2006).
\8\ See Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from the People's Republic
of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
and Rescission in Part, 72 FR 26589 (May 10, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate Rate Determination
A designation as an NME remains in effect until it is revoked by
the Department. See section 771(18)(C) of the Act. Accordingly, there
is a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the PRC are
subject to government control and, thus, should be assessed a single
antidumping duty rate. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, and Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In Part:
Certain Lined Paper Products From the People's Republic of China, 71 FR
53079 (September 8, 2006); Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Final Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's
Republic of China, 71 FR 29303 (May 22, 2006).
In the Initiation Notice, the Department notified parties of the
application process by which exporters and producers may obtain
separate rate status in NME investigations. See Initiation Notice. It
is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of the merchandise
subject to review in NME countries a single rate unless an exporter can
affirmatively demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law
(de jure) and in fact (de facto), with respect to exports. To establish
whether a company is sufficiently independent to be entitled to a
separate, company-specific rate, the Department analyzes each exporting
entity in an NME country under the test established in Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Sparklers from the
People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (``Sparklers''),
as amplified by Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR
22585 (May 2, 1994) (``Silicon Carbide'').
However, if the Department determines that a company is wholly
foreign-owned or located in a market economy, then a separate rate
analysis is not necessary to determine whether it is independent from
government control. It is the Department's practice to require a party
to submit evidence that it operates independently of the state-
controlled entity in each segment of a proceeding in which it requests
separate rate status. The process requires exporters to submit a
separate-rate status application. See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China:
Final Results of 2005-2006 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission
of Review, 72 FR 56724 (October 4, 2007), Peer Bearing Co. Changshan v.
United States, 587 F.Supp. 2d 1319, 1324-25 (CIT 2008) (affirming the
Department's determination in that review).
As discussed below, we preliminarily determine not to rely on
Watanabe's responses. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that the
Watanabe Group has not demonstrated that it operates free from
government control. Thus, we find that for purposes of the preliminary
results of this review, the Watanabe Group is part of the PRC-wide
entity.
Application of Facts Available
We find that there is credible evidence on the record that
documents submitted by Watanabe at verification are either inaccurate,
internally inconsistent, or are otherwise unreliable. Petitioner
submitted invoices that are corroborated by Watanabe's own records and
show that Watanabe's claimed sales and payment values do not tie to its
own internal bookkeeping. Because we relied on these books and records
during our verification of the information in Watanabe's questionnaire
response, we have concluded that the information in the questionnaire
response is not useable for purposes of these preliminary results.
Although Watanabe provided some explanation that they claim renders
petitioner's allegation invalid, we find that Watanabe's explanations
do not sufficiently address the discrepancies raised by petitioner that
implicate the veracity of Watanabe's financial information. Because
this issue arose fairly late in the proceeding, i.e., less than two
months prior to the deadline for these preliminary results, we find
that we may need to collect additional information in order to more
fully evaluate this issue for purposes of the final results.
On August 27, 2010, the petitioner filed a letter claiming that
evidence contained in its submission showed that, at the very least,
Watanabe submitted false invoices at verification that do not tie to
its own records and are physically different from invoices petitioner
submitted, which it sought directly from its membership. Petitioner
[[Page 63819]]
argued that (1) although filed after the regulatory deadline for
submission of information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual
information, consistent with prior practice, the Department should
nonetheless accept the information that demonstrates that fraudulent
documents have been submitted, consistent with the Department's
practice in Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods; and (2) the information
it submitted has critical implications for the veracity of Watanabe's
financial information such that the Department cannot use Watanabe's
data for purposes of the preliminary results. See e.g., Letter to Hon.
Gary F. Locke from petitioner, re: Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods
from the People's Republic of China (Feb. 22, 2010) Case No. A-570-943;
Memo to All interested Parties from Wendy J. Frankel, re: Release of
Customs & Border Protection Information (March 9, 2010) Case No. A-570-
943.
Petitioner specifically cited to the invoices it submitted and the
supplied payment documentation at Verification Exhibit 14 at page 1
Watanabe provided to establish that the sales and payment values do not
tie to Watanabe's own internal records.
On September 3, 2010, we asked Watanabe to address the petitioner's
August 27 allegation that Watanabe provided false documentation
(including falsified invoices) during the Department's verification.
On September 10, 2010, Watanabe submitted its response, claiming
that petitioner's submission should be rejected as untimely. It further
contended that the Department should not decline to rely on the
verification documents Watanabe provided. Watanabe went on to argue
that because petitioner claimed proprietary treatment for vast portions
of the information provided, it and its legal representative and
accountants could not see the information. Watanabe asserted that it is
unable to meaningfully respond and, as such, the Department should
refuse to consider the information. Watanabe also argued petitioner's
reference to verification exhibits in the absence of a verification
report is pure speculation as to its contents. Further, Watanabe argued
that the documents petitioner refers to relate to third country sales,
which it claims are irrelevant to the Department's inquiry into U.S.
sales and the mere allegation that such third country sales were
diverted to the United States is insufficient. Finally, Watanabe argued
that petitioner should be made to explain how it came to be informed
about confidential verification exhibits.
Regarding the payment for the invoices, Watanabe explained that
invoice value and payments do not necessarily need to correspond to
each other on a one-to-one basis for a variety of reasons, e.g., it is
common practice for some invoices to be partially paid in different
payments or that one payment might cover more than one invoice.
Moreover, there may be quality disputes between buyer and seller, or
simply a breach of faith by the buyer. Such discrepancies can sometimes
result in adjustments at the end of the accounting period.
On September 20, 2010, per Watanabe's request to reveal the
confidential information so that it may substantively comment, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.306(a)(5), petitioner authorized the
Department to release directly to Watanabe, for comment, invoices that
it had attached to its August 27, 2010 submission. On September 21,
2010, the Department issued a letter to Watanabe releasing those
invoices to Watanabe and again requested that they respond to
petitioner's allegation that Watanabe provided false documentation
during the Department's recent verification of Watanabe's questionnaire
response. On September 24, 2010, due to a national holiday, Watanabe
requested an extension for a period of one week from the date the
company reopens, which was not provided.
On September 30, 2010, Watanabe submitted a letter in which it
repeated many of the arguments raised in its September 10, 2010 letter.
Watanabe also asserted that the information provided by petitioner was
fabricated and is therefore unknown to it; because of this, Watanabe
argued that it could not adequately respond to these allegations. In
addition, Watanabe provided certain Customs data of record to establish
that it had properly reported all of its sales.
Analysis
Watanabe has made a number of arguments about why the Department
should reject petitioner's allegations, each of which are addressed
below.
Watanabe argues that the factual information submitted by
petitioners was untimely filed. While we agree that this filing was
past the deadlines in 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2) and (c)(1), the Department
has the discretion under 19 CFR 351.203(b) to extend any deadline for
good cause. Given the significance of the issues raised by petitioners,
we extended the deadline for factual information, and accepted
petitioner's allegation and information, and requested that Watanabe
respond.
Watanabe also argues that petitioner should be made to explain how
it came to be informed about confidential verification exhibits.
However, in letters dated August 30, 2010, and September 17, and 20,
2010, petitioner adequately explained how it had obtained the new
factual information that it had submitted, specifying that it had been
done without explaining or providing any data to its membership. There
has been no allegation of an APO violation nor is there any evidence of
improper treatment of BPI on the record of this case.
Watanabe argues that petitioner's arguments are without merit as
they are taken out of context because the verification report had not
been issued at the time. We agree that it is unfortunate that this
issue arose before the verification report had been issued. However, in
accordance with standard practice, Watanabe served the petitioner a
copy of the verification exhibits within 5 days of the conclusion of
verification. As discussed below, it is clear from the exhibits that
they were obtained as part of the standard verification procedures of
``Quantity and Value Reconciliation'' and ``Completeness Tests.'' The
procedures and the relevant discussion of factual information are in
the October 7, 2010, Verification Report.
Additionally, Watanabe claims that it is unable to adequately
respond these allegations because Watanabe itself was unable to access
to certain information. This claim is without merit. The issues raised
by petitioner relate directly to Watanabe's own proprietary information
contained in the verification exhibits. Both in the public and Watanabe
proprietary version of petitioner's August 27, 2010, letter, and in the
Department's letters of September 3, and 21, 2010, the factual bases of
the petitioner's allegation is clear.
As to the merits of petitioner's allegations, petitioner supplied
invoices which they claimed correspond to invoices related to third-
country sales reviewed at verification and provided as verification
exhibits. Specifically, petitioner points to the similarity between the
products listed, quantities and other details in the two sets of
invoices. However, they note the significant differences in payment
amounts between the two sets of invoices. Additionally, petitioner
provided documentation demonstrating payment in the amount listed on
the petitioner-provided invoice and receipt of that amount as recorded
in Watanabe supplied payment documentation at Verification Exhibit 14
at page 1. For three of Watanabe's third-country sales,
[[Page 63820]]
petitioner provided documentation demonstrating payment in the amount
listed on the invoices petitioner provided and not those provided by
Watanabe. This raises a fundamental question about the reliability of
the documents reviewed at verification.
The invoices in question were reviewed as part verification
procedure called ``Quantity and Value Reconciliation'' and
``Completeness Tests'' which is a procedure done to test whether the
total quantity and value of sales reported by the respondent tie to
their books and records. This is one of the central elements of
verification--to ensure that respondent reported all the necessary
sales. The total sales of a company include sales to the United States,
the home market, and third countries. Without this step, we have no way
of determining whether all the U.S. sales during the POR were properly
reported. As detailed in the verification report, we selected sample
transactions from Watanabe's list of total sales and reviewed them to
determine if they were properly reported. This list identified the
total quantity and value for each transaction. Thus, the invoices we
reviewed showed total revenue based on the prices listed on them. This
list of total sales, including the quantity and value, was then tied to
Watanabe's 2008 and 2009 Financial Statements.
To date, Watanabe's substantive response to the presentation of
these invoices and payment data by petitioner is to provide a copy of
one Customs data record. This is intended to support the value as
reported on one of the invoices provided by Watanabe at verification,
to claim that the allegations of petitioner appears to be based on
made-up documents, and to claim that frequently, customers pay amounts
that differ from the invoiced amount.
Watanabe has not, however, addressed why the specific amount on
invoices petitioner provided tie directly to Watanabe's payment
records. Petitioner specifically cited to these invoices and the
payment documents Watanabe provided as Verification Exhibit 14 at page
1 to show that the sales and payment values do not tie to Watanabe's
own internal records, but to the invoices provided by petitioner.
Watanabe's answers provide possible explanations as to why the payment
amount on invoices it provided may not appear in its ledgers, but do
not adequately explain why instead the payment amounts on invoices
petitioner provided are clearly identifiable in the Watanabe-supplied
payment documentation at Verification Exhibit 14 at page 1.
While Watanabe questions the existence of any motive to
misreporting third country sales and attempts to impugn the behavior of
petitioner, we are not satisfied with its response to the allegations.
Regardless of the motives of either party, we preliminarily
determine that petitioner has provided credible evidence of
misreporting of sales values by Watanabe. The fact that the total
revenue associated with the invoiced amounts petitioner submitted tied
to the company book and records tends to show that the prices on the
invoices reviewed at verification are incorrect, thus fundamentally
calling into question the reliability of Watanabe's records. As such,
these records do not appear to be a reliable basis to use for our
calculations. It is Watanabe's responsibility to provide a clear
explanation of what is the basis for these different invoices, and how
these differences can be explained and clearly tied to the records
examined at verification so that we can determine that such records are
reliable. Petitioner provided to Watanabe invoices it obtained from the
members of its association, and linked the invoiced amount to the
payment documentation Watanabe supplied as Verification Exhibit 14 at
page 1.
Watanabe has not refuted the evidence showing the values on the
invoices petitioner provided tie to Watanabe's own records. Because
Watanabe has failed to provide an adequate explanation at the time of
these preliminary results, we have relied on facts available for
purposes of these preliminary results. However, as this issue has
arisen late in the proceeding and there were certain constraints
associated with proprietary treatment, we will continue to probe this
issue further for purposes of the final results.
Section 776(a) of the Act provides that the Department will apply
``facts otherwise available'' (``FA'') if, inter alia, necessary
information is not available on the record or an interested party: (1)
Withholds information that has been requested by the Department; (2)
fails to provide such information within the deadlines established, or
in the form or manner requested by the Department, subject to
subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 of the Act; (3) significantly
impedes a proceeding; or (4) provides such information, but the
information cannot be verified.
According to section 776(b) of the Act, if the Department finds
that an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best
of its ability to comply with requests for information, the Department
may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in
selecting from the facts otherwise available. See also India Lined
Paper AR1 Final; Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India, 70 FR 54023,
54025-26 (September 13, 2005); and Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical
Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, 67
FR 55792, 55794-96 (August 30, 2002). Adverse inferences are
appropriate ``to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable
result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.'' See
Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, Vol. 1, at 870 (1994) (``SAA''),
reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4198-99. Furthermore,
``affirmative evidence of bad faith on the part of a respondent is not
required before the Department may make an adverse inference.'' See
Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296,
27340 (May 19, 1997); see also Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337
F.3d 1373, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (``Nippon'').
We find that the PRC-wide entity, including Watanabe, did not act
to the best of its ability in this proceeding, within the meaning of
section 776(b) of the Act, because it failed to respond to the
Department's requests for information and failed to provide any
additional information. Based on all of the above, the Department
preliminarily finds that adverse inference is warranted in selecting
from the facts otherwise available. See Nippon, 337 F.3d at 1382-83.
Section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use as
AFA information derived from: (1) The petition; (2) the final
determination in the investigation; (3) any previous review; or (4) any
other information placed on the record. The Department's practice, when
selecting an AFA rate from among the possible sources of information,
has been to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse ``as to
effectuate the statutory purposes of the adverse facts available rule
to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and
accurate information in a timely manner.'' See, e.g., Certain Steel
Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Final Results and Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, 71 FR 65082, 65084
(November 7, 2006).
To ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse so as to induce
[[Page 63821]]
cooperation, we have preliminarily assigned to the PRC-wide entity,
including Watanabe, the rate of 258.21 percent, the highest rate on the
record of this proceeding. This rate was assigned to the PRC-wide
entity in the investigation of CLPP from the PRC. See Notice of Amended
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Lined
Paper Products from the People's Republic of China; Notice of
Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Lined Paper Products from India,
Indonesia and the People's Republic of China; and Notice of
Countervailing Duty Orders: Certain Lined Paper Products from India and
Indonesia, 71 FR 56949 (September 28, 2006). As explained below, this
rate has been corroborated.
Corroboration of Secondary Information
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies
on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the
course of an investigation or review, it shall, to the extent
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that
are reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is defined as
information derived from the petition that gave rise to the
investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject
merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 of the Act
concerning the subject merchandise. See SAA at 870. Corroborate means
that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information
to be used has probative value. Id. To corroborate secondary
information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine
the reliability and relevance of the information to be used. See
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and
Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews: Tapered Roller Bearings
and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished from Japan, and Tapered
Roller Bearings Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components
Thereof, from Japan, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996) (unchanged
in the final determination), Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part: Tapered Roller Bearings
and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished from Japan, and Tapered
Roller Bearings Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components
Thereof, from Japan, 62 FR 11825 (March 13, 1997). Independent sources
used to corroborate such evidence may include, for example, published
price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and
information obtained from interested parties during the particular
investigation. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: High and Ultra-High Voltage Ceramic Station Post
Insulators from Japan, 68 FR 35627 (June 16, 2003) (unchanged in final
determination) Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: High and Ultra High Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators from
Japan, 68 FR 62560 (November 5, 2003); and Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Live Swine From Canada,
70 FR 12181, 12183-84 (March 11, 2005).
The AFA rate selected here is from the original investigation and
was applied to Watanabe in the second Administrative Review. This rate
was calculated based on information contained in the petition, which
was corroborated for the final determination. No additional information
has been presented in the current review which calls into question the
reliability of the information. Therefore, the Department finds that
the information continues to be reliable.
Preliminary Results of the Review
The Department has determined that the following preliminary
dumping margin exists for the period September 1, 2008, through August
31, 2009:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-average
Producer/manufacturer margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRC-Wide Rate (which includes the Watanabe Group). 258.21%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosure and Public Hearing
The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed
in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the
date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Because, as
discussed above, we intend to seek additional information, we will
establish the briefing schedule at a later time, and will notify
parties of the schedule in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309. Parties who
submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested
to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief
summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. See 19 CFR
351.309(c)(2).
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to
request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a
written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration,
Room 1117, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice.
Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address and telephone
number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be
discussed. Id. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those
raised in the respective case briefs. The Department will issue the
final results of this administrative review, including the results of
its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than
120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to
section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Assessment Rates
Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine,
and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries
covered by this review. The Department intends to issue assessment
instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final
results of this review. We will instruct CBP to liquidate the Watanabe
Group's appropriate entries at the PRC-wide rate of 258.21 percent.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the notice of final results of the administrative review
for all shipments of CLPP from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as
provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For previously
reviewed or investigated companies not listed above that have separate
rates, the cash-deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific
rate published for the most recent period; (2) for all other PRC
exporters of subject merchandise, which have not been found to be
entitled to a separate rate, the cash-deposit rate will be PRC-wide
rate of 258.21 percent; and (3) for all non-PRC exporters of subject
merchandise, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the
PRC
[[Page 63822]]
exporter that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further
notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: October 7, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-26186 Filed 10-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
