Certain Tissue Paper Products From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the 2008-2009 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63806-63810 [2010-26194]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
63806
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 200 / Monday, October 18, 2010 / Notices
sample based on industry groupings and
annual sales size. We will provide
report forms to the firms covered by this
survey in January 2011 and will require
their responses within 30 days after
receipt. Responses to AWTS are
required by law (Title 13 U.S.C.
Sections 182, 224, and 225). The sample
of firms selected will provide, with
measurable reliability, statistics on
annual sales, e-commerce sales,
purchases, total operating expenses,
year-end inventories held both inside
and outside the Unites States,
commissions, total operating revenue,
and gross selling value for 2010.
Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, no person is required to respond
to, nor shall a person be subject to a
penalty for failure to comply with, a
collection of information subject to
requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) unless that
collection of information displays a
current valid Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) control number. In
accordance with the PRA, 44 U.S.C.
3501–3521, OMB approved the AWTS
under OMB control number 0607–0195.
Based upon the foregoing, I have
directed that the annual survey be
conducted for the purpose of collecting
these data.
Dated: October 12, 2010.
Robert M. Groves,
Director, Bureau of the Census.
[FR Doc. 2010–26149 Filed 10–15–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–07–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–894]
Certain Tissue Paper Products From
the People’s Republic of China: Final
Results of the 2008–2009 Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On April 13, 2010, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) published the preliminary
results of the 2008–2009 administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
on certain tissue paper products from
the People’s Republic of China (PRC)
covering the period March 1, 2008,
through February 28, 2009. This
administrative review covers two
exporters of the subject merchandise:
Max Fortune Industrial Limited (Max
Fortune) and Seaman Paper Asia Co.,
Ltd. (Seaman Paper Asia). We invited
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:45 Oct 15, 2010
Jkt 223001
interested parties to comment on the
preliminary results.
Based on our analysis of the
comments received, we have made
changes to the margin calculations. The
weighted-average dumping margins are
listed below in the section entitled
‘‘Final Results of Review.’’
DATES: Effective Date: October 18, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Brian Smith or Gemal Brangman, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 2, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–1766 or (202) 482–
3773, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On April 13, 2010, the Department
published the preliminary results of this
administrative review. See Certain
Tissue Paper Products From the
People’s Republic of China: Preliminary
Results of the 2008–2009 Administrative
Review, 75 FR 18812 (April 13, 2010)
(Preliminary Results). In response to the
interested parties’ requests, we extended
the deadlines for submitting case and
rebuttal briefs for consideration in the
final results of this administrative
review.
On May 13, 2010, Max Fortune
requested a hearing.
On May 28, 2010, Max Fortune
requested the public disclosure of
certain information designated as
business proprietary that was included
in the petitioner’s 1 September 15, 2009,
submissions and examined by the
Department during verification.2 On
June 8, 2010, the Department informed
Max Fortune that it was unable to grant
its May 28, 2010, request because doing
so would reveal the source of the
information for which the Department
granted the petitioner business
proprietary treatment.
On June 25, 2010, Max Fortune
submitted its case brief. Neither Seaman
Paper Asia nor the petitioner submitted
case briefs. On July 1, 2010, the
petitioner submitted its rebuttal brief.
On July 14, 2010, the Department
notified the parties that as a result of the
recent decision in Dorbest Limited et al.
v. United States, No. 2009–1257, –1266
(Fed. Cir. May 14, 2010) (Dorbest),
issued by the United States Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC),
1 The petitioner is the Seaman Paper Company of
Massachusetts, Inc.
2 Max Fortune also requested in its May 28, 2010,
letter that the Department grant an additional
extension of the deadline to submit case and
rebuttal briefs and extend the final results deadline.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the Department would be reconsidering
its valuation of the labor wage rate in
this review. The Department placed
export data on the record of the review
and gave parties a specified period of
time to comment on the narrow issue of
the labor wage value and the
methodology proposed to value labor for
margin calculation purposes in light of
the CAFC’s decision in Dorbest.3 On
July 15, 2010, the Department corrected
certain wage rate data placed on the
record on July 14, 2010.4
On July 20, 2010, Max Fortune
withdrew its May 13, 2010, request for
a hearing. No other party in this review
requested a hearing.
On July 22, 2010, Max Fortune
submitted comments on the wage rate
data and proposed methodology the
Department placed on the record on July
14, 2010.
On July 23, 2010, the Department held
meetings with Max Fortune’s and the
petitioner’s counsels to discuss the
issues raised in Max Fortune’s case
brief.5
On August 9, 2010, the Department
placed on the record an additional
clarification/correction of the surrogate
wage rate data contained in the
Department’s July 14, 2010,
memorandum.6
On August 9, 2010, the Department
postponed the final results of this
review until October 11, 2010.7 See
Notice of Extension of Time Limit for
Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Certain Tissue
Paper Products From the People’s
Republic of China, 75 FR 49888 (August
16, 2010).
On August 16, 2010, Max Fortune
submitted comments and additional
data regarding the wage rate issue in
response to the Department’s August 9,
2010, memorandum.
On September 21 and 24, 2010, the
Department held additional meetings
with Max Fortune’s and the petitioner’s
counsels, respectively, to discuss the
3 See the Department’s memorandum to the file
entitled, ‘‘Data on Labor Wage,’’ dated July 14, 2010.
4 See the Department’s memorandum to the file
entitled, ‘‘Wage Rate Calculation—Error in Currency
Conversion of the Hourly Wage Rate for El
Salvador,’’ dated July 15, 2010.
5 See the Department’s memoranda to the file
entitled, ‘‘Ex Parte Meeting with Counsel for Max
Fortune Industrial Limited and Max Fortune (FZ)
Paper Products Co., Ltd. (Max Fortune),’’ dated July
26, 2010, and ‘‘Ex Parte Meeting with the
Petitioner’s Counsel,’’ dated July 26, 2010.
6 See the Department’s memorandum to the file
entitled, ‘‘Honduras Data on Labor Wage Rate,’’
dated August 9, 2010 (August 9, 2010
memorandum).
7 Since October 11, 2010, is a federal holiday, the
final results are due on the next business day,
October 12, 2010.
E:\FR\FM\18OCN1.SGM
18OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 200 / Monday, October 18, 2010 / Notices
issues raised in Max Fortune’s case
brief.8
We have conducted this
administrative review in accordance
with sections 751(a) and 777(i)(1) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act),
19 CFR 351.213, and 19 CFR 351.221.
Period of Review
The period of review (POR) is March
1, 2008, through February 28, 2009.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Scope of the Order
The tissue paper products covered by
this order are cut-to-length sheets of
tissue paper having a basis weight not
exceeding 29 grams per square meter.
Tissue paper products subject to this
order may or may not be bleached, dyecolored, surface-colored, glazed, surface
decorated or printed, sequined,
crinkled, embossed, and/or die cut. The
tissue paper subject to this order is in
the form of cut-to-length sheets of tissue
paper with a width equal to or greater
than one-half (0.5) inch. Subject tissue
paper may be flat or folded, and may be
packaged by banding or wrapping with
paper or film, by placing in plastic or
film bags, and/or by placing in boxes for
distribution and use by the ultimate
consumer. Packages of tissue paper
subject to this order may consist solely
of tissue paper of one color and/or style,
or may contain multiple colors and/or
styles.
The merchandise subject to this order
does not have specific classification
numbers assigned to them under the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS). Subject
merchandise may be under one or more
of several different subheadings,
including: 4802.30, 4802.54, 4802.61,
4802.62, 4802.69, 4804.31.1000,
4804.31.2000, 4804.31.4020,
4804.31.4040, 4804.31.6000, 4804.39,
4805.91.1090, 4805.91.5000,
4805.91.7000, 4806.40, 4808.30,
4808.90, 4811.90, 4823.90, 4802.50.00,
4802.90.00, 4805.91.90, 9505.90.40. The
tariff classifications are provided for
convenience and customs purposes;
however, the written description of the
scope of this order is dispositive.9
Excluded from the scope of this order
are the following tissue paper products:
8 See the Department’s memoranda to the file
entitled, ‘‘Ex Parte Meeting with Counsel for Max
Fortune Industrial Limited and Max Fortune (FZ)
Paper Products Co., Ltd. (Max Fortune),’’ dated
September 21, 2010, and ‘‘Ex Parte Meeting with the
Petitioner’s Counsel,’’ dated September 30, 2010.
9 On January 30, 2007, at the direction of U.S.
Customs and Border protection (CBP), the
Department added the following HTSUS
classifications to the AD/CVD module for tissue
paper: 4802.54.3100, 4802.54.6100, and
4823.90.6700. However, we note that the six-digit
classifications for these numbers were already listed
in the scope.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:45 Oct 15, 2010
Jkt 223001
(1) Tissue paper products that are
coated in wax, paraffin, or polymers, of
a kind used in floral and food service
applications; (2) tissue paper products
that have been perforated, embossed, or
die-cut to the shape of a toilet seat, i.e.,
disposable sanitary covers for toilet
seats; (3) toilet or facial tissue stock,
towel or napkin stock, paper of a kind
used for household or sanitary
purposes, cellulose wadding, and webs
of cellulose fibers (HTSUS
4803.00.20.00 and 4803.00.40.00).
Separate Rates
In our Preliminary Results at 75 FR
18814, we determined that both Max
Fortune and Seaman Paper Asia met the
criteria for the application of a separate
rate, as both companies are wholly
foreign-owned companies registered and
located in Hong Kong. We have not
received any information since the
issuance of the Preliminary Results that
provides a basis for the reconsideration
of this determination. Therefore, the
Department continues to find that Max
Fortune and Seaman Paper Asia both
meet the criteria for a separate rate for
purposes of the final results of this
review.
Application of Adverse Facts Available
In the Preliminary Results, we applied
total adverse facts available (AFA) to
Max Fortune pursuant to section
776(a)(2)(A), (C), and (D) and 776(b) of
the Act, because we determined based
on our findings at verification and our
analysis of the record information, that
we could not rely upon the data
submitted by Max Fortune to calculate
an accurate dumping margin.
As explained in the Preliminary
Results at 75 FR 18814–18815, the
petitioner placed on the record a
substantial amount of information,
supporting its allegations that, among
other things, Max Fortune did not
report: (1) Multiple affiliates involved in
the production and/or sale of the subject
merchandise exported to the United
States during the POR; and (2) multiple
unaffiliated suppliers of raw materials
and converting services involved in the
production of the subject merchandise
exported to the United States during the
POR.10 The petitioner obtained the
information supporting its allegations
from a foreign market researcher (FMR),
and the company that furnished this
data to the FMR later became a part of
this proceeding in order to provide the
Department the ability to conduct
verification of these data. In response to
the allegations made by the petitioner,
10 See the petitioner’s submission on September
15, 2009.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
63807
Max Fortune asserted that its PRC
affiliate, Max Fortune (FZ) Paper
Products Co., Ltd. Fuzhou (Max Fortune
Fuzhou), produced all of the tissue
paper it sold to the United States during
the POR.11
After conducting verification of the
data submitted on the record by Max
Fortune and the other company referred
to above, we found that for certain U.S.
sales reported by Max Fortune in its
U.S. sales listing which we selected for
examination at verification, Max
Fortune Fuzhou was not the only
producer of the tissue paper sold in
those transactions, contrary to Max
Fortune’s representations throughout
this review.12 As a result, we concluded
that Max Fortune withheld critical
information (i.e., the identities of
additional tissue paper suppliers and/or
processors associated with the tissue
paper it sold to the United States during
the POR, and their respective factors of
production (FOP) data), and in so doing,
significantly impeded this proceeding
and precluded the Department from
being able to calculate an accurate
dumping margin for Max Fortune in this
review based on its reported data. We
also stated that based upon our
verification of the two companies, our
experience in conducting such
verifications, the number and level of
detail of documents supplied by the
other company, and our careful analysis
of the record, we could not conclude
that the documents supplied by Max
Fortune were the actual documents used
in the transactions at issue.
Therefore, we were unable to verify
any of Max Fortune’s FOP data. Given
the nature and extent of the information
in Max Fortune’s possession which Max
Fortune withheld from disclosure (i.e.,
the actual documentation associated
with its U.S. sales transactions), we
concluded that Max Fortune failed to
cooperate by not acting to the best of its
ability to comply with the Department’s
request for information in this review.
Consequently, pursuant to sections
776(a)(2)(A), (C), and (D) and 776(b) of
the Act, we found it appropriate to
apply total AFA to Max Fortune in the
11 See Max Fortune’s submission dated October
19, 2009.
12 See Memorandum from John M. Andersen,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD
Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration,
entitled ‘‘Whether To Assign Max Fortune Industrial
Limited (Max Fortune HK) and Max Fortune (FZ)
Paper Products Co., Ltd. (Max Fortune Fuzhou)
(collectively Max Fortune) a Margin Based on
Adverse Facts Available in the Preliminary
Results,’’ dated April 7, 2010.
E:\FR\FM\18OCN1.SGM
18OCN1
63808
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 200 / Monday, October 18, 2010 / Notices
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Preliminary Results.13 Consistent with
the statute, court precedent, and
numerous other cases cited in the
Preliminary Results at 75 FR 18815, as
AFA, we assigned Max Fortune the
highest rate on the record of any
segment of this proceeding, i.e., 112.64
percent. We determined in the
Preliminary Results that this rate was
fully corroborated, consistent with
section 776(c) of the Act. See
Preliminary Results at 75 FR 18815.
For these final results of review, Max
Fortune provided comments in its case
brief disputing the Department’s
preliminary AFA decision, and the
petitioner provided rebuttal comments.
In its case brief, Max Fortune raises
questions regarding the accuracy and
reliability of the data provided by the
other company which the Department
verified and used as the basis for
determining that the documents
supplied by Max Fortune were not the
actual documents used in the
transactions at issue. Furthermore, Max
Fortune contends that the Department’s
verification of its data was flawless and,
therefore, cannot support the
application of AFA to Max Fortune,
particularly in light of the irregularities
and unexplained inconsistencies which
Max Fortune alleges are present in the
data and accounting records provided
by the other company which served as
the basis for the Department’s
preliminary decision not to rely on Max
Fortune’s data.
Upon consideration of the arguments
of the parties and further review of the
entire administrative record, including
the other company‘s extensive and
detailed data which Max Fortune alleges
are not reliable, we continue to find it
appropriate to apply total AFA to Max
Fortune. Although much of the data
Max Fortune provided to the
Department was aggregate and general,
Max Fortune is correct in its claim that
nothing in its response, when viewed in
isolation and on its face, made it evident
that Max Fortune supplied the
Department with documents not used in
its transactions. However, at
verification, for example, when
Department officials requested more
specific labor records, Max Fortune was
unable to supply such data.14 This was
13 See Shanghai Taoen, International Trading
Company v. United States, 360 F.Supp. 2d. 1339,
1344 (CIT 2005) (finding that the application of
total AFA was warranted in light of evidence on the
record that the respondent ‘‘purposely withheld’’
and provided misleading information to avoid a
higher dumping margin).
14 See Memorandum to The File from Case
Analysts entitled ‘‘Verification of the Sales and
Factors Questionnaire Response of Max Fortune
(FZ) Paper Products Co., Ltd. and Max Fortune
Industrial Limited in the Antidumping Duty
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:45 Oct 15, 2010
Jkt 223001
consistent with other record
information—Max Fortune provided
adequate general documentation but
could not give more specific
information on request. The other
company, however, unlike Max Fortune,
supplied the Department with an
extensive amount of detailed
information.15 Thus, after reviewing the
record evidence as a whole, we find that
it impugns the veracity of the data Max
Fortune presented to the Department,
both in its questionnaire responses and
at verification for its reported U.S. sales
made during the POR. For complete
discussion, see Comment 1 of the
Memorandum to Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, from Susan H.
Kuhbach, Acting Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Operations,
entitled ‘‘Issues and Decision
Memorandum for the Final Results of
the 2008–2009 Administrative Review
of Certain Tissue Paper Products from
the People’s Republic of China (PRC)’’
(Issues and Decision Memorandum)
accompanying this Federal Register
notice; and Memorandum from the
Team to The File, entitled, ‘‘Analysis of
Data-Specific Items Raised in the Case
Brief Submitted by Max Fortune
Industrial Limited (Max Fortune HK)
and Max Fortune (FZ) Paper Products
Co., Ltd. (Max Fortune Fuzhou)
(collectively Max Fortune),’’ dated
October 12, 2010.
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act states that
the Department may use ‘‘facts
available’’ if, inter alia, an interested
party (A) withholds information that has
been requested by the Department; (C)
significantly impedes a proceeding
under the antidumping statute; or (D) if
information is supplied by a company
that cannot be ‘‘verified as provided in
section 782(i).’’ All of these provisions
apply in this case, as Max Fortune’s
misrepresentations call into question
the veracity of the FOP data Max
Fortune submitted in this review.
As noted above, the Department has
concluded that Max Fortune
mischaracterized and withheld
information from the Department that
was fundamental and material to the
Department’s dumping margin analysis.
For multiple U.S. sales transactions in
Administrative Review of Certain Tissue Paper
Products from the People’s Republic of China,’’
dated April 7, 2010 (Max Fortune Verification
Report) at page 23.
15 Memorandum to The File from Case Analysts
entitled ‘‘Verification of Data Submitted by
{Anonymous Company} in the Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Certain Tissue Paper
Products from the People’s Republic of China,’’
dated April 7, 2010 at pages 10–16.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
its U.S. sales listing, Max Fortune
should have reported FOP data for
tissue paper supplied and/or processed
by unaffiliated companies. Instead, Max
Fortune misled the Department by
claiming it produced and processed all
of the tissue paper included in its U.S.
sales listing. Therefore, its actions
significantly impeded the Department’s
ability to conduct this administrative
review. Further, its actions have led us
to conclude that the information and
records provided by its PRC affiliated
producer, Max Fortune Fuzhou, at
verification are not reliable.
Accordingly, pursuant to section
776(a)(2)(A), (C), and (D) of the Act, we
have concluded that the application of
facts available is warranted in this case
with respect to Max Fortune.
Section 776(b) of the Act states that if
the Department concludes that a party
has failed to cooperate by not acting to
the best of its ability to comply with a
request for information, it may ‘‘use an
inference that is adverse to the interests
of that party.’’ It is the Department’s
practice to make an adverse inference
‘‘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. Doc. No.
103–316 at 870 (1994) (SAA) at 870. In
this case, Max Fortune has provided
documents on the record that were not
the actual documents used with respect
to the U.S. sales transactions at issue.
Accordingly, Max Fortune did not act to
the best of its ability when it provided
the Department with incorrect and
misleading characterizations with
respect to its agreement with other
companies and the tissue paper
included in its reported U.S. sales
transactions, and Max Fortune Fuzhou’s
sourcing from other PRC tissue paper
suppliers of some of that tissue paper.
Consequently, pursuant to sections
776(a)(2)(A), (C), and (D) and section
776(b) of the Act, we find it appropriate
to apply total AFA to Max Fortune in
this review. To calculate an
antidumping duty margin for Max
Fortune, even based on partial adverse
facts available, would effectively reward
Max Fortune’s efforts to create an
administrative record that cannot be
verified and otherwise does not reflect
the actual chain of production and
processing of the U.S. sales transaction
at issue. As a result, the Department has
no confidence in any information
supplied by Max Fortune for dumping
margin calculation purposes. Thus, the
application of total AFA is appropriate
in this case.
E:\FR\FM\18OCN1.SGM
18OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 200 / Monday, October 18, 2010 / Notices
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that
when the Department selects from
among the facts otherwise available and
relies on ‘‘secondary information,’’ the
Department shall, to the extent
practicable, corroborate that information
from independent sources reasonably at
the Department’s disposal. To
corroborate the information, the
Department seeks to determine that the
information used has probative value.
See SAA at 870. The Department has
determined that to have probative value,
information must be reliable and
relevant. See Certain Tissue Paper
Products from the People’s Republic of
China: Final Results and Final
Rescission, In Part, of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR
58642 (October 16, 2007), and
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 6.
For the final results, as AFA, we have
continued to assign Max Fortune the
highest rate on the record for any
segment of this proceeding—i.e., 112.64
percent. This rate represents the highest
rate from the petition in the less-thanfair-value investigation segment of this
proceeding. See Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Certain Tissue Paper
Products from the People’s Republic of
China, 70 FR 7475 (February 14, 2005).
We find that the 112.64 percent rate
is both reliable and relevant. See
Preliminary Results at 75 FR 18815, and
Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 1. Thus, we have concluded
it has probative value. As a result, we
determine that the 112.64 percent rate is
corroborated to the extent practicable
for the purposes of this administrative
review, in accordance with section
776(c) of the Act, and may reasonably be
applied as AFA to the exports of the
subject merchandise by Max Fortune.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and
rebuttal briefs by the parties and to
which we have responded are addressed
in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum, which is hereby adopted
by this notice. A list of the issues raised,
all of which are in the Issues and
Decision Memorandum, is attached to
this notice as Appendix I. Parties can
find a complete discussion of all issues
63809
raised in the briefs and the
corresponding recommendations in this
public memorandum, which is on file in
the Central Records Unit (CRU), room
7046 of the Department of Commerce. In
addition, a complete version of the
Issues and Decision Memorandum can
be accessed directly on the Web at
https://trade.gov/ia. The paper copy and
electronic version of the Issues and
Decision Memorandum are identical in
content.
Changes From the Preliminary Results
Based on the information submitted
and our analysis of the comments
received, we made one change to the
margin calculations for Seaman Paper
Asia. Specifically, we recalculated the
surrogate wage rate used to value
Seaman Paper Asia’s labor costs. See
Comment 2 of the Issues and Decision
Memorandum for further discussion.
Final Results of Review
We determine that the following
antidumping duty margins exist in these
final results for the period March 1,
2008, through February 28, 2009:
CERTAIN TISSUE PAPER PRODUCTS FROM THE PRC
Weighted-average
percent margin
(percent)
Individually reviewed exporter 2008–2009 administrative review
Seaman Paper Asia Company Ltd ..............................................................................................................................................
Max Fortune Industrial Ltd ...........................................................................................................................................................
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Assessment
Cash Deposit Requirements
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.
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1), for Seaman Paper Asia,
we calculated an importer-specific ad
valorem duty assessment rate based on
the ratio of the total amount of dumping
duties calculated for the examined sale
to the total entered value of the
examined sale because Seaman Paper
Asia reported entered value
information. Where the importerspecific ad valorem rate is zero or de
minimis, we will instruct CBP to
liquidate appropriate entries without
regard to antidumping duties. See 19
CFR 351.106(c)(2).
With respect to Max Fortune, we will
instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate
entries at the PRC-wide rate of 112.64
percent.
The following cash deposit
requirements will be effective upon
publication of the notice of final results
of the administrative review for all
shipments of certain tissue paper
products 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) A cash
deposit rate of 0.00 percent will be
required for certain tissue paper
products from the PRC exported by
Seaman Paper Asia; (2) a cash deposit
rate of 112.64 percent will be required
for certain tissue paper products from
the PRC exported by Max Fortune; (3)
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; (4)
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 112.64 percent; and (5) for all
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:45 Oct 15, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
0.00
112.64
non-PRC exporters of subject
merchandise, the cash deposit rate will
be the rate applicable to the PRC
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 the final
reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)
to file a certificate regarding the
reimbursement of antidumping duties
prior to liquidation of the relevant
entries during this review period.
Failure to comply with this requirement
could result in the Secretary’s
presumption that reimbursement of
antidumping duties occurred and in the
subsequent assessment of double
antidumping duties.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice serves as the only
reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of
their responsibility concerning the
disposition of proprietary information
E:\FR\FM\18OCN1.SGM
18OCN1
63810
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 200 / Monday, October 18, 2010 / Notices
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely
written notification of the return or
destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is
hereby requested. Failure to comply
with the regulations and the terms of an
APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these
final results of review in accordance
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
Dated: October 12, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
Appendix—List of Issues
Comment 1: Application of Adverse Facts
Available to Max Fortune
Comment 2: Appropriate Surrogate Labor
Rate
[FR Doc. 2010–26194 Filed 10–15–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XZ74
Fisheries of the South Atlantic and
Gulf of Mexico; Southeast Data,
Assessment, and Review (SEDAR);
Assessment Webinar 8 for SEDAR 22
Yellowedge Grouper and Tilefish
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of SEDAR 22 Gulf of
Mexico yellowedge grouper and tilefish
assessment webinar 8.
AGENCY:
The SEDAR 22 assessments of
the Gulf of Mexico stocks of yellowedge
grouper and tilefish will consist of a
series of workshops and webinars: A
Data Workshop, a series of Assessment
webinars, and a Review Workshop. See
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
DATES: The eighth SEDAR 22
Assessment Process webinar will be
held on Wednesday, November 3, 2010
from 10 a.m. to approximately 2 p.m.
(Eastern). The established times may be
adjusted as necessary to accommodate
the timely completion of discussion
relevant to the assessment process. Such
adjustments may result in the meeting
being extended from, or completed prior
to the time established by this notice.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held
via webinar. The webinar is open to
members of the public. Those interested
in participating should contact Julie
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:45 Oct 15, 2010
Jkt 223001
Neer at SEDAR (See FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT) to request an
invitation providing webinar access
information.
A listening station will be available at
the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management
Council office located at 2203 N. Lois
Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607.
Those interested in participating via the
listening station should contact Julie A.
Neer at SEDAR (See FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT) at least 1 day
prior to the webinar.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie
A. Neer, SEDAR Coordinator, 4055
Faber Place, Suite 201, North
Charleston, SC 29405; telephone: (843)
571–4366; e-mail: Julie.neer@safmc.net.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Gulf
of Mexico, South Atlantic, and
Caribbean Fishery Management
Councils, in conjunction with NOAA
Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf
States Marine Fisheries Commissions
have implemented the Southeast Data,
Assessment and Review (SEDAR)
process, a multi-step method for
determining the status of fish stocks in
the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a threestep process including: (1) Data
Workshop, (2) Assessment Process
utilizing webinars and (3) Review
Workshop. The product of the Data
Workshop is a data report which
compiles and evaluates potential
datasets and recommends which
datasets are appropriate for assessment
analyses. The product of the Assessment
Process is a stock assessment report
which describes the fisheries, evaluates
the status of the stock, estimates
biological benchmarks, projects future
population conditions, and recommends
research and monitoring needs. The
assessment is independently peer
reviewed at the Review Workshop. The
product of the Review Workshop is a
Summary documenting Panel opinions
regarding the strengths and weaknesses
of the stock assessment and input data.
Participants for SEDAR Workshops are
appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South
Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery
Management Councils and NOAA
Fisheries Southeast Regional Office and
Southeast Fisheries Science Center.
Participants include data collectors and
database managers; stock assessment
scientists, biologists, and researchers;
constituency representatives including
fishermen, environmentalists, and
NGO’s; International experts; and staff
of Councils, Commissions, and state and
federal agencies.
SEDAR 22 Assessment Webinar VIII
Using datasets recommended from the
Data Workshop, participants will
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
employ assessment models to evaluate
stock status, estimate population
benchmarks and management criteria,
and project future conditions.
Participants will recommend the most
appropriate methods and configurations
for determining stock status and
estimating population parameters.
Although non-emergency issues not
contained in this agenda may come
before this group for discussion, those
issues may not be the subject of formal
action during this meeting. Action will
be restricted to those issues specifically
listed in this notice and any issues
arising after publication of this notice
that require emergency action under
section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management
Act, provided the public has been
notified of the Council’s intent to take
final action to address the emergency.
Special Accommodations
These meetings are physically
accessible to people with disabilities.
Requests for sign language
interpretation or other auxiliary aids
should be directed to the Council office
(see ADDRESSES) at least 1 business day
prior to the meeting.
Dated: October 13, 2010.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2010–26126 Filed 10–15–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
[Order No. 1709]
Grant of Authority for Subzone Status;
SICK, Inc. (Photo-Electronic Industrial
Sensors); Bloomington, MN
Pursuant to its authority under the ForeignTrade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as
amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), the ForeignTrade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the
following Order:
Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zones Act
provides for ‘‘* * * the establishment
* * * of foreign-trade zones in ports of
entry of the United States, to expedite
and encourage foreign commerce, and
for other purposes,’’ and authorizes the
Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant to
qualified corporations the privilege of
establishing foreign-trade zones in or
adjacent to U.S. Customs and Border
Protection ports of entry;
Whereas, the Board’s regulations (15
CFR part 400) provide for the
establishment of special-purpose
subzones when existing zone facilities
cannot serve the specific use involved,
E:\FR\FM\18OCN1.SGM
18OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 200 (Monday, October 18, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63806-63810]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-26194]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-894]
Certain Tissue Paper Products From the People's Republic of
China: Final Results of the 2008-2009 Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On April 13, 2010, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published the preliminary results of the 2008-2009 administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on certain tissue paper products
from the People's Republic of China (PRC) covering the period March 1,
2008, through February 28, 2009. This administrative review covers two
exporters of the subject merchandise: Max Fortune Industrial Limited
(Max Fortune) and Seaman Paper Asia Co., Ltd. (Seaman Paper Asia). We
invited interested parties to comment on the preliminary results.
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made
changes to the margin calculations. The weighted-average dumping
margins are listed below in the section entitled ``Final Results of
Review.''
DATES: Effective Date: October 18, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Smith or Gemal Brangman, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1766 or (202) 482-3773, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On April 13, 2010, the Department published the preliminary results
of this administrative review. See Certain Tissue Paper Products From
the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the 2008-2009
Administrative Review, 75 FR 18812 (April 13, 2010) (Preliminary
Results). In response to the interested parties' requests, we extended
the deadlines for submitting case and rebuttal briefs for consideration
in the final results of this administrative review.
On May 13, 2010, Max Fortune requested a hearing.
On May 28, 2010, Max Fortune requested the public disclosure of
certain information designated as business proprietary that was
included in the petitioner's \1\ September 15, 2009, submissions and
examined by the Department during verification.\2\ On June 8, 2010, the
Department informed Max Fortune that it was unable to grant its May 28,
2010, request because doing so would reveal the source of the
information for which the Department granted the petitioner business
proprietary treatment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The petitioner is the Seaman Paper Company of Massachusetts,
Inc.
\2\ Max Fortune also requested in its May 28, 2010, letter that
the Department grant an additional extension of the deadline to
submit case and rebuttal briefs and extend the final results
deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 25, 2010, Max Fortune submitted its case brief. Neither
Seaman Paper Asia nor the petitioner submitted case briefs. On July 1,
2010, the petitioner submitted its rebuttal brief.
On July 14, 2010, the Department notified the parties that as a
result of the recent decision in Dorbest Limited et al. v. United
States, No. 2009-1257, -1266 (Fed. Cir. May 14, 2010) (Dorbest), issued
by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC),
the Department would be reconsidering its valuation of the labor wage
rate in this review. The Department placed export data on the record of
the review and gave parties a specified period of time to comment on
the narrow issue of the labor wage value and the methodology proposed
to value labor for margin calculation purposes in light of the CAFC's
decision in Dorbest.\3\ On July 15, 2010, the Department corrected
certain wage rate data placed on the record on July 14, 2010.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See the Department's memorandum to the file entitled, ``Data
on Labor Wage,'' dated July 14, 2010.
\4\ See the Department's memorandum to the file entitled, ``Wage
Rate Calculation--Error in Currency Conversion of the Hourly Wage
Rate for El Salvador,'' dated July 15, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 20, 2010, Max Fortune withdrew its May 13, 2010, request
for a hearing. No other party in this review requested a hearing.
On July 22, 2010, Max Fortune submitted comments on the wage rate
data and proposed methodology the Department placed on the record on
July 14, 2010.
On July 23, 2010, the Department held meetings with Max Fortune's
and the petitioner's counsels to discuss the issues raised in Max
Fortune's case brief.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See the Department's memoranda to the file entitled, ``Ex
Parte Meeting with Counsel for Max Fortune Industrial Limited and
Max Fortune (FZ) Paper Products Co., Ltd. (Max Fortune),'' dated
July 26, 2010, and ``Ex Parte Meeting with the Petitioner's
Counsel,'' dated July 26, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 9, 2010, the Department placed on the record an
additional clarification/correction of the surrogate wage rate data
contained in the Department's July 14, 2010, memorandum.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See the Department's memorandum to the file entitled,
``Honduras Data on Labor Wage Rate,'' dated August 9, 2010 (August
9, 2010 memorandum).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 9, 2010, the Department postponed the final results of
this review until October 11, 2010.\7\ See Notice of Extension of Time
Limit for Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review:
Certain Tissue Paper Products From the People's Republic of China, 75
FR 49888 (August 16, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Since October 11, 2010, is a federal holiday, the final
results are due on the next business day, October 12, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 16, 2010, Max Fortune submitted comments and additional
data regarding the wage rate issue in response to the Department's
August 9, 2010, memorandum.
On September 21 and 24, 2010, the Department held additional
meetings with Max Fortune's and the petitioner's counsels,
respectively, to discuss the
[[Page 63807]]
issues raised in Max Fortune's case brief.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See the Department's memoranda to the file entitled, ``Ex
Parte Meeting with Counsel for Max Fortune Industrial Limited and
Max Fortune (FZ) Paper Products Co., Ltd. (Max Fortune),'' dated
September 21, 2010, and ``Ex Parte Meeting with the Petitioner's
Counsel,'' dated September 30, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have conducted this administrative review in accordance with
sections 751(a) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(the Act), 19 CFR 351.213, and 19 CFR 351.221.
Period of Review
The period of review (POR) is March 1, 2008, through February 28,
2009.
Scope of the Order
The tissue paper products covered by this order are cut-to-length
sheets of tissue paper having a basis weight not exceeding 29 grams per
square meter. Tissue paper products subject to this order may or may
not be bleached, dye-colored, surface-colored, glazed, surface
decorated or printed, sequined, crinkled, embossed, and/or die cut. The
tissue paper subject to this order is in the form of cut-to-length
sheets of tissue paper with a width equal to or greater than one-half
(0.5) inch. Subject tissue paper may be flat or folded, and may be
packaged by banding or wrapping with paper or film, by placing in
plastic or film bags, and/or by placing in boxes for distribution and
use by the ultimate consumer. Packages of tissue paper subject to this
order may consist solely of tissue paper of one color and/or style, or
may contain multiple colors and/or styles.
The merchandise subject to this order does not have specific
classification numbers assigned to them under the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Subject merchandise may be under
one or more of several different subheadings, including: 4802.30,
4802.54, 4802.61, 4802.62, 4802.69, 4804.31.1000, 4804.31.2000,
4804.31.4020, 4804.31.4040, 4804.31.6000, 4804.39, 4805.91.1090,
4805.91.5000, 4805.91.7000, 4806.40, 4808.30, 4808.90, 4811.90,
4823.90, 4802.50.00, 4802.90.00, 4805.91.90, 9505.90.40. The tariff
classifications are provided for convenience and customs purposes;
however, the written description of the scope of this order is
dispositive.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ On January 30, 2007, at the direction of U.S. Customs and
Border protection (CBP), the Department added the following HTSUS
classifications to the AD/CVD module for tissue paper: 4802.54.3100,
4802.54.6100, and 4823.90.6700. However, we note that the six-digit
classifications for these numbers were already listed in the scope.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excluded from the scope of this order are the following tissue
paper products: (1) Tissue paper products that are coated in wax,
paraffin, or polymers, of a kind used in floral and food service
applications; (2) tissue paper products that have been perforated,
embossed, or die-cut to the shape of a toilet seat, i.e., disposable
sanitary covers for toilet seats; (3) toilet or facial tissue stock,
towel or napkin stock, paper of a kind used for household or sanitary
purposes, cellulose wadding, and webs of cellulose fibers (HTSUS
4803.00.20.00 and 4803.00.40.00).
Separate Rates
In our Preliminary Results at 75 FR 18814, we determined that both
Max Fortune and Seaman Paper Asia met the criteria for the application
of a separate rate, as both companies are wholly foreign-owned
companies registered and located in Hong Kong. We have not received any
information since the issuance of the Preliminary Results that provides
a basis for the reconsideration of this determination. Therefore, the
Department continues to find that Max Fortune and Seaman Paper Asia
both meet the criteria for a separate rate for purposes of the final
results of this review.
Application of Adverse Facts Available
In the Preliminary Results, we applied total adverse facts
available (AFA) to Max Fortune pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A), (C),
and (D) and 776(b) of the Act, because we determined based on our
findings at verification and our analysis of the record information,
that we could not rely upon the data submitted by Max Fortune to
calculate an accurate dumping margin.
As explained in the Preliminary Results at 75 FR 18814-18815, the
petitioner placed on the record a substantial amount of information,
supporting its allegations that, among other things, Max Fortune did
not report: (1) Multiple affiliates involved in the production and/or
sale of the subject merchandise exported to the United States during
the POR; and (2) multiple unaffiliated suppliers of raw materials and
converting services involved in the production of the subject
merchandise exported to the United States during the POR.\10\ The
petitioner obtained the information supporting its allegations from a
foreign market researcher (FMR), and the company that furnished this
data to the FMR later became a part of this proceeding in order to
provide the Department the ability to conduct verification of these
data. In response to the allegations made by the petitioner, Max
Fortune asserted that its PRC affiliate, Max Fortune (FZ) Paper
Products Co., Ltd. Fuzhou (Max Fortune Fuzhou), produced all of the
tissue paper it sold to the United States during the POR.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See the petitioner's submission on September 15, 2009.
\11\ See Max Fortune's submission dated October 19, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After conducting verification of the data submitted on the record
by Max Fortune and the other company referred to above, we found that
for certain U.S. sales reported by Max Fortune in its U.S. sales
listing which we selected for examination at verification, Max Fortune
Fuzhou was not the only producer of the tissue paper sold in those
transactions, contrary to Max Fortune's representations throughout this
review.\12\ As a result, we concluded that Max Fortune withheld
critical information (i.e., the identities of additional tissue paper
suppliers and/or processors associated with the tissue paper it sold to
the United States during the POR, and their respective factors of
production (FOP) data), and in so doing, significantly impeded this
proceeding and precluded the Department from being able to calculate an
accurate dumping margin for Max Fortune in this review based on its
reported data. We also stated that based upon our verification of the
two companies, our experience in conducting such verifications, the
number and level of detail of documents supplied by the other company,
and our careful analysis of the record, we could not conclude that the
documents supplied by Max Fortune were the actual documents used in the
transactions at issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Memorandum from John M. Andersen, Acting Deputy
Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, entitled
``Whether To Assign Max Fortune Industrial Limited (Max Fortune HK)
and Max Fortune (FZ) Paper Products Co., Ltd. (Max Fortune Fuzhou)
(collectively Max Fortune) a Margin Based on Adverse Facts Available
in the Preliminary Results,'' dated April 7, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, we were unable to verify any of Max Fortune's FOP data.
Given the nature and extent of the information in Max Fortune's
possession which Max Fortune withheld from disclosure (i.e., the actual
documentation associated with its U.S. sales transactions), we
concluded that Max Fortune failed to cooperate by not acting to the
best of its ability to comply with the Department's request for
information in this review. Consequently, pursuant to sections
776(a)(2)(A), (C), and (D) and 776(b) of the Act, we found it
appropriate to apply total AFA to Max Fortune in the
[[Page 63808]]
Preliminary Results.\13\ Consistent with the statute, court precedent,
and numerous other cases cited in the Preliminary Results at 75 FR
18815, as AFA, we assigned Max Fortune the highest rate on the record
of any segment of this proceeding, i.e., 112.64 percent. We determined
in the Preliminary Results that this rate was fully corroborated,
consistent with section 776(c) of the Act. See Preliminary Results at
75 FR 18815.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Shanghai Taoen, International Trading Company v. United
States, 360 F.Supp. 2d. 1339, 1344 (CIT 2005) (finding that the
application of total AFA was warranted in light of evidence on the
record that the respondent ``purposely withheld'' and provided
misleading information to avoid a higher dumping margin).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these final results of review, Max Fortune provided comments in
its case brief disputing the Department's preliminary AFA decision, and
the petitioner provided rebuttal comments. In its case brief, Max
Fortune raises questions regarding the accuracy and reliability of the
data provided by the other company which the Department verified and
used as the basis for determining that the documents supplied by Max
Fortune were not the actual documents used in the transactions at
issue. Furthermore, Max Fortune contends that the Department's
verification of its data was flawless and, therefore, cannot support
the application of AFA to Max Fortune, particularly in light of the
irregularities and unexplained inconsistencies which Max Fortune
alleges are present in the data and accounting records provided by the
other company which served as the basis for the Department's
preliminary decision not to rely on Max Fortune's data.
Upon consideration of the arguments of the parties and further
review of the entire administrative record, including the other
company`s extensive and detailed data which Max Fortune alleges are not
reliable, we continue to find it appropriate to apply total AFA to Max
Fortune. Although much of the data Max Fortune provided to the
Department was aggregate and general, Max Fortune is correct in its
claim that nothing in its response, when viewed in isolation and on its
face, made it evident that Max Fortune supplied the Department with
documents not used in its transactions. However, at verification, for
example, when Department officials requested more specific labor
records, Max Fortune was unable to supply such data.\14\ This was
consistent with other record information--Max Fortune provided adequate
general documentation but could not give more specific information on
request. The other company, however, unlike Max Fortune, supplied the
Department with an extensive amount of detailed information.\15\ Thus,
after reviewing the record evidence as a whole, we find that it impugns
the veracity of the data Max Fortune presented to the Department, both
in its questionnaire responses and at verification for its reported
U.S. sales made during the POR. For complete discussion, see Comment 1
of the Memorandum to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Import Administration, from Susan H. Kuhbach, Acting Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations,
entitled ``Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the
2008-2009 Administrative Review of Certain Tissue Paper Products from
the People's Republic of China (PRC)'' (Issues and Decision Memorandum)
accompanying this Federal Register notice; and Memorandum from the Team
to The File, entitled, ``Analysis of Data-Specific Items Raised in the
Case Brief Submitted by Max Fortune Industrial Limited (Max Fortune HK)
and Max Fortune (FZ) Paper Products Co., Ltd. (Max Fortune Fuzhou)
(collectively Max Fortune),'' dated October 12, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Memorandum to The File from Case Analysts entitled
``Verification of the Sales and Factors Questionnaire Response of
Max Fortune (FZ) Paper Products Co., Ltd. and Max Fortune Industrial
Limited in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain
Tissue Paper Products from the People's Republic of China,'' dated
April 7, 2010 (Max Fortune Verification Report) at page 23.
\15\ Memorandum to The File from Case Analysts entitled
``Verification of Data Submitted by {Anonymous Company{time} in the
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Tissue Paper
Products from the People's Republic of China,'' dated April 7, 2010
at pages 10-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act states that the Department may use
``facts available'' if, inter alia, an interested party (A) withholds
information that has been requested by the Department; (C)
significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute; or
(D) if information is supplied by a company that cannot be ``verified
as provided in section 782(i).'' All of these provisions apply in this
case, as Max Fortune's misrepresentations call into question the
veracity of the FOP data Max Fortune submitted in this review.
As noted above, the Department has concluded that Max Fortune
mischaracterized and withheld information from the Department that was
fundamental and material to the Department's dumping margin analysis.
For multiple U.S. sales transactions in its U.S. sales listing, Max
Fortune should have reported FOP data for tissue paper supplied and/or
processed by unaffiliated companies. Instead, Max Fortune misled the
Department by claiming it produced and processed all of the tissue
paper included in its U.S. sales listing. Therefore, its actions
significantly impeded the Department's ability to conduct this
administrative review. Further, its actions have led us to conclude
that the information and records provided by its PRC affiliated
producer, Max Fortune Fuzhou, at verification are not reliable.
Accordingly, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A), (C), and (D) of the Act,
we have concluded that the application of facts available is warranted
in this case with respect to Max Fortune.
Section 776(b) of the Act states that if the Department concludes
that a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its
ability to comply with a request for information, it may ``use an
inference that is adverse to the interests of that party.'' It is the
Department's practice to make an adverse inference ``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. Doc. No. 103-
316 at 870 (1994) (SAA) at 870. In this case, Max Fortune has provided
documents on the record that were not the actual documents used with
respect to the U.S. sales transactions at issue. Accordingly, Max
Fortune did not act to the best of its ability when it provided the
Department with incorrect and misleading characterizations with respect
to its agreement with other companies and the tissue paper included in
its reported U.S. sales transactions, and Max Fortune Fuzhou's sourcing
from other PRC tissue paper suppliers of some of that tissue paper.
Consequently, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (C), and (D) and
section 776(b) of the Act, we find it appropriate to apply total AFA to
Max Fortune in this review. To calculate an antidumping duty margin for
Max Fortune, even based on partial adverse facts available, would
effectively reward Max Fortune's efforts to create an administrative
record that cannot be verified and otherwise does not reflect the
actual chain of production and processing of the U.S. sales transaction
at issue. As a result, the Department has no confidence in any
information supplied by Max Fortune for dumping margin calculation
purposes. Thus, the application of total AFA is appropriate in this
case.
[[Page 63809]]
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that when the Department selects
from among the facts otherwise available and relies on ``secondary
information,'' the Department shall, to the extent practicable,
corroborate that information from independent sources reasonably at the
Department's disposal. To corroborate the information, the Department
seeks to determine that the information used has probative value. See
SAA at 870. The Department has determined that to have probative value,
information must be reliable and relevant. See Certain Tissue Paper
Products from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Final
Rescission, In Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR
58642 (October 16, 2007), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 6.
For the final results, as AFA, we have continued to assign Max
Fortune the highest rate on the record for any segment of this
proceeding--i.e., 112.64 percent. This rate represents the highest rate
from the petition in the less-than-fair-value investigation segment of
this proceeding. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Certain Tissue Paper Products from the People's
Republic of China, 70 FR 7475 (February 14, 2005).
We find that the 112.64 percent rate is both reliable and relevant.
See Preliminary Results at 75 FR 18815, and Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 1. Thus, we have concluded it has probative
value. As a result, we determine that the 112.64 percent rate is
corroborated to the extent practicable for the purposes of this
administrative review, in accordance with section 776(c) of the Act,
and may reasonably be applied as AFA to the exports of the subject
merchandise by Max Fortune.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by the parties
and to which we have responded are addressed in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the
issues raised, all of which are in the Issues and Decision Memorandum,
is attached to this notice as Appendix I. Parties can find a complete
discussion of all issues raised in the briefs and the corresponding
recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the
Central Records Unit (CRU), room 7046 of the Department of Commerce. In
addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can
be accessed directly on the Web at https://trade.gov/ia. The paper copy
and electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are
identical in content.
Changes From the Preliminary Results
Based on the information submitted and our analysis of the comments
received, we made one change to the margin calculations for Seaman
Paper Asia. Specifically, we recalculated the surrogate wage rate used
to value Seaman Paper Asia's labor costs. See Comment 2 of the Issues
and Decision Memorandum for further discussion.
Final Results of Review
We determine that the following antidumping duty margins exist in
these final results for the period March 1, 2008, through February 28,
2009:
Certain Tissue Paper Products From the PRC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-average
Individually reviewed exporter 2008-2009 percent margin
administrative review (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seaman Paper Asia Company Ltd....................... 0.00
Max Fortune Industrial Ltd.......................... 112.64
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment
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.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for Seaman Paper Asia, we
calculated an importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rate based
on the ratio of the total amount of dumping duties calculated for the
examined sale to the total entered value of the examined sale because
Seaman Paper Asia reported entered value information. Where the
importer-specific ad valorem rate is zero or de minimis, we will
instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to
antidumping duties. See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
With respect to Max Fortune, we will instruct CBP to liquidate
appropriate entries at the PRC-wide rate of 112.64 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 certain tissue paper products 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) A cash deposit rate of 0.00 percent will be required for certain
tissue paper products from the PRC exported by Seaman Paper Asia; (2) a
cash deposit rate of 112.64 percent will be required for certain tissue
paper products from the PRC exported by Max Fortune; (3) 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; (4) 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 112.64 percent; and (5) for all non-PRC exporters of subject
merchandise, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the
PRC 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 the final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding
the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and in the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information
[[Page 63810]]
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely
written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to
comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable
violation.
We are issuing and publishing these final results of review in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.221(b)(5).
Dated: October 12, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix--List of Issues
Comment 1: Application of Adverse Facts Available to Max Fortune
Comment 2: Appropriate Surrogate Labor Rate
[FR Doc. 2010-26194 Filed 10-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
