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 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 http://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 http://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