Certain Lined Paper Products From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission, 23288-23294 [2011-10073]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
23288
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2011 / Notices
duty exemptions on imported materials
program. A full discussion of our
decision to apply adverse facts available
is presented in the Preliminary Results
in the section ‘‘Application of Facts
Available, Including the Application of
Adverse Inferences,’’ which is
unaffected by these final results. No
party commented on our preliminary
decision to apply facts available with
adverse inferences.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and
rebuttal briefs by parties to this
administrative review are addressed in
the Memorandum to Ronald K.
Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Import Administration, from
Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Operations,
entitled ‘‘Issues and Decision
Memorandum for the Final Results in
the Countervailing Duty Review of
Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road
Tires from the People’s Republic of
China,’’ dated concurrently with this
notice (Decision Memorandum).
Attached to this notice as an Appendix
is a list of the issues that parties have
raised, and to which we have responded
in the Decision Memorandum. The
Decision Memorandum is on file in the
Department’s Central Records Unit
(Room 7406 in the main Department of
Commerce building). In addition, a
complete version of the Decision
Memorandum can be accessed directly
on the Internet at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/
frn/. The paper copy and electronic
version of the Decision Memorandum
are identical in content.
Final Results of Review
After reviewing comments from all
parties, we have made no adjustments to
our calculations, as explained in our
Decision Memorandum. Consistent with
the Preliminary Results, and in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5),
we have calculated an individual
subsidy rate for Starbright for the POR.
We determine the total countervailable
subsidy to be 30.87 percent ad valorem.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Manufacturer/Exporter
Hebei Starbright Tire Co.,
Ltd. ....................................
Net subsidy
rate
(percent)
30.87
Assessment Rates/Cash Deposits
The Department intends to issue
appropriate assessment instructions to
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) 15 days after the date of
publication of these final results of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:09 Apr 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
review. The Department will instruct
CBP to liquidate shipments of subject
merchandise by Starbright entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after December 17,
2007, through December 31, 2008, at the
ad valorem rate listed above. Consistent
with the requirements of section 703(d)
of the Act, shipments entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after April 15, 2008,
and on or before September 4, 2008, the
period between the expiration of
‘‘provisional measures’’ and the
publication of the final affirmative
injury determination of the U.S.
International Trade Commission, will be
liquidated without regard to
countervailing duties. We will also
instruct CBP to collect cash deposits for
Starbright at the countervailing duty
rate indicated above on all shipments of
the subject merchandise entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the date of
publication of these final results of
review.
For all non-reviewed companies, the
Department has instructed CBP to assess
countervailing duties at the cash deposit
rates in effect at the time of entry, for
entries from December 17, 2007,
through December 31, 2008. The cash
deposit rates for all companies not
covered by this review are not changed
by the results of this review, and remain
in effect until further notice.
Return or Destruction of Proprietary
Information
This notice serves as a reminder to
parties subject to administrative
protective order (APO) of their
responsibility concerning the
disposition of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely
written notification of 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
results in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: April 18, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
Appendix
List of Comments in the Decision
Memorandum
Comment 1 Application of CVD Law to the
People’s Republic of China, and NonMarket Economies
Comment 2 Application of CVD Law and
Double Remedies
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Comment 3 Application of the CVD Law and
the Administrative Procedures Act
Comment 4 Starbright’s Creditworthiness for
2006
[FR Doc. 2011–9969 Filed 4–25–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–901]
Certain Lined Paper Products From the
People’s Republic of China: Notice of
Final Results of the Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Partial
Rescission
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On October 18, 2010, the U.S.
Department of Commerce (‘‘the
Department’’) published the preliminary
results of the third administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
on certain lined paper products
(‘‘CLPP’’) from the People’s Republic of
China (‘‘PRC’’). See Certain Lined Paper
Products from the People’s Republic of
China: Notice of Preliminary Results of
the Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 75 FR 63814 (October 18, 2010)
(‘‘Preliminary Results’’). We invited
parties to comment on the Preliminary
Results. This review covers the
following exporters and/or producer/
exporters: Shanghai Lian Li Paper
Products Co. Ltd. (‘‘Lian Li’’); Hwa Fuh
Plastics Co., Ltd./Li Teng Plastics
(Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (‘‘Hwa Fuh/Li
Teng’’); Leo’s Quality Products Co., Ltd./
Denmax Plastic Stationery Factory
(‘‘Leo/Denmax’’); and the Watanabe
Group (consisting of Watanabe Paper
Products (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Watanabe Shanghai’’); Watanabe Paper
Products (Linqing) Co., Ltd. (‘‘Watanabe
Linqing’’); and Hotrock Stationery
(Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (‘‘Hotrock
Shenzhen’’) (hereafter referred to as
‘‘Watanabe’’ or the ‘‘Watanabe Group’’ or
‘‘Respondent’’)). Based on our analysis of
the information and comments we
received from Watanabe and petitioner 1
after the Preliminary Results, we
continue to apply adverse facts available
(‘‘AFA’’) to Watanabe. Further, we are
rescinding the review with respect to
Lian Li, Hwa Fuh/Li Teng, and Leo/
Denmax.
DATES: Effective Date: April 26, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Cindy Lai Robinson or Stephanie
Moore, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3,
AGENCY:
1 The petitioner is the Association of American
School Paper Suppliers (‘‘AASPS’’).
E:\FR\FM\26APN1.SGM
26APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2011 / Notices
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–3797, or (202)
482–3692, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In the Preliminary Results the
Department found that there was
credible evidence on the record that
documents submitted by Watanabe at
verification were either inaccurate,
internally inconsistent, or were
otherwise unreliable and therefore,
applied an AFA rate of 258.21 percent
to the PRC-wide entity, including
Watanabe. Since the publication of
Preliminary Results, the following
events have occurred:
On October 22, 2010, Watanabe
submitted a letter requesting
clarification of how the Department
plans to proceed in the final results
following the Department’s AFA
decision with respect to Watanabe in
the Preliminary Results. On October 28,
2010, petitioner provided comments on
Watanabe’s letter. On November 16,
2010, the Department issued a letter to
Watanabe requesting further
information in order to more fully
evaluate the issues addressed in the
Preliminary Results. Watanabe
submitted its response on December 8,
2010.
On December 22, 2010, the
Department informed interested parties
of the due dates for filing case and
rebuttal briefs.2 On January 6, 2011,
Watanabe and petitioner filed their case
briefs. On January 13, 2011, Watanabe
and petitioner submitted their rebuttal
briefs.
In its January 13, 2011, rebuttal brief,
Watanabe alleged that AASPS’s January
6, 2011, case brief included business
proprietary information (‘‘BPI’’) for
which AASPS failed to properly
identify the person that originally
submitted the BPI data, as required by
19 CFR 351.306(c). On January 21, 2011,
in agreement with Watanabe’s
allegation, the Department rejected and
removed from the record, AASPS’s case
brief dated January 6, 2011. The
Department also granted a five-day
extension to allow petitioner to revise
and resubmit its case brief. On January
26, 2011, petitioner submitted its
revised case brief. Watanabe
resubmitted its rebuttal brief on
February 2, 2011.
2 See Memorandum to the File, through James
Terpstra, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 3, from Cindy Robinson, Case Analyst, titled
‘‘Certain Lined Paper Products from the People’s
Republic of China,’’ dated December 22, 2010.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:09 Apr 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
On February 4, 2011, the Department
extended the time limits for the final
results of this review until no later than
April 18, 2011. See Extension of Time
Limits for the Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Certain Lined Paper Products
from the People’s Republic of China, 76
FR 6397 (February 4, 2011).
Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order
The scope of this order includes
certain lined paper products, typically
school supplies (for purposes of this
scope definition, the actual use of or
labeling these products as school
supplies or non-school supplies is not a
defining characteristic) composed of or
including paper that incorporates
straight horizontal and/or vertical lines
on ten or more paper sheets (there shall
be no minimum page requirement for
looseleaf filler paper) including but not
limited to such products as single- and
multi-subject notebooks, composition
books, wireless notebooks, looseleaf or
glued filler paper, graph paper, and
laboratory notebooks, and with the
smaller dimension of the paper
measuring 6 inches to 15 inches
(inclusive) and the larger dimension of
the paper measuring 83⁄4 inches to 15
inches (inclusive). Page dimensions are
measured size (not advertised, stated, or
’’tear-out’’ size), and are measured as
they appear in the product (i.e., stitched
and folded pages in a notebook are
measured by the size of the page as it
appears in the notebook page, not the
size of the unfolded paper). However,
for measurement purposes, pages with
tapered or rounded edges shall be
measured at their longest and widest
points. Subject lined paper products
may be loose, packaged or bound using
any binding method (other than case
bound through the inclusion of binders
board, a spine strip, and cover wrap).
Subject merchandise may or may not
contain any combination of a front
cover, a rear cover, and/or backing of
any composition, regardless of the
inclusion of images or graphics on the
cover, backing, or paper. Subject
merchandise is within the scope of this
order whether or not the lined paper
and/or cover are hole punched, drilled,
perforated, and/or reinforced. Subject
merchandise may contain accessory or
informational items including but not
limited to pockets, tabs, dividers,
closure devices, index cards, stencils,
protractors, writing implements,
reference materials such as
mathematical tables, or printed items
such as sticker sheets or miniature
calendars, if such items are physically
incorporated, included with, or attached
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
23289
to the product, cover and/or backing
thereto.
Specifically excluded from the scope
of this order are:
• Unlined copy machine paper;
• Writing pads with a backing
(including but not limited to products
commonly known as ‘‘tablets,’’ ‘‘note
pads,’’ ‘‘legal pads,’’ and ‘‘quadrille
pads’’), provided that they do not have
a front cover (whether permanent or
removable). This exclusion does not
apply to such writing pads if they
consist of hole-punched or drilled filler
paper;
• Three-ring or multiple-ring binders,
or notebook organizers incorporating
such a ring binder provided that they do
not include subject paper;
• Index cards;
• Printed books and other books that
are case bound through the inclusion of
binders board, a spine strip, and cover
wrap;
• Newspapers;
• Pictures and photographs;
• Desk and wall calendars and
organizers (including but not limited to
such products generally known as
‘‘office planners,’’ ‘‘time books,’’ and
‘‘appointment books’’);
• Telephone logs;
• Address books;
• Columnar pads & tablets, with or
without covers, primarily suited for the
recording of written numerical business
data;
• Lined business or office forms,
including but not limited to: pre-printed
business forms, lined invoice pads and
paper, mailing and address labels,
manifests, and shipping log books;
• Lined continuous computer paper;
• Boxed or packaged writing
stationary (including but not limited to
products commonly known as ‘‘fine
business paper,’’ ‘‘parchment paper’’,
and ‘‘letterhead’’), whether or not
containing a lined header or decorative
lines;
• Stenographic pads (‘‘steno pads’’),
Gregg ruled (‘‘Gregg ruling’’ consists of a
single- or double-margin vertical ruling
line down the center of the page. For a
six-inch by nine-inch stenographic pad,
the ruling would be located
approximately three inches from the left
of the book), measuring 6 inches by 9
inches.
Also excluded from the scope of this
order are the following trademarked
products:
• Fly TM lined paper products: A
notebook, notebook organizer, loose or
glued note paper, with papers that are
printed with infrared reflective inks and
readable only by a Fly TM pen-top
computer. The product must bear the
valid trademark Fly TM (products found
E:\FR\FM\26APN1.SGM
26APN1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
23290
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2011 / Notices
to be bearing an invalidly licensed or
used trademark are not excluded from
the scope).
• Zwipes TM: A notebook or notebook
organizer made with a blended
polyolefin writing surface as the cover
and pocket surfaces of the notebook,
suitable for writing using a speciallydeveloped permanent marker and erase
system (known as a Zwipes TM pen).
This system allows the marker portion
to mark the writing surface with a
permanent ink. The eraser portion of the
marker dispenses a solvent capable of
solubilizing the permanent ink allowing
the ink to be removed. The product
must bear the valid trademark
Zwipes TM (products found to be bearing
an invalidly licensed or used trademark
are not excluded from the scope).
• FiveStar®Advance TM: A notebook
or notebook organizer bound by a
continuous spiral, or helical, wire and
with plastic front and rear covers made
of a blended polyolefin plastic material
joined by 300 denier polyester, coated
on the backside with PVC (poly vinyl
chloride) coating, and extending the
entire length of the spiral or helical
wire. The polyolefin plastic covers are
of specific thickness; front cover is
0.019 inches (within normal
manufacturing tolerances) and rear
cover is 0.028 inches (within normal
manufacturing tolerances). Integral with
the stitching that attaches the polyester
spine covering, is captured both ends of
a 1″ wide elastic fabric band. This band
is located 23⁄8″ from the top of the front
plastic cover and provides pen or pencil
storage. Both ends of the spiral wire are
cut and then bent backwards to overlap
with the previous coil but specifically
outside the coil diameter but inside the
polyester covering. During construction,
the polyester covering is sewn to the
front and rear covers face to face
(outside to outside) so that when the
book is closed, the stitching is
concealed from the outside. Both free
ends (the ends not sewn to the cover
and back) are stitched with a turned
edge construction. The flexible
polyester material forms a covering over
the spiral wire to protect it and provide
a comfortable grip on the product. The
product must bear the valid trademarks
FiveStar®Advance TM (products found to
be bearing an invalidly licensed or used
trademark are not excluded from the
scope).
• FiveStar Flex TM: A notebook, a
notebook organizer, or binder with
plastic polyolefin front and rear covers
joined by 300 denier polyester spine
cover extending the entire length of the
spine and bound by a 3-ring plastic
fixture. The polyolefin plastic covers are
of a specific thickness; front cover is
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:09 Apr 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
0.019 inches (within normal
manufacturing tolerances) and rear
cover is 0.028 inches (within normal
manufacturing tolerances). During
construction, the polyester covering is
sewn to the front cover face to face
(outside to outside) so that when the
book is closed, the stitching is
concealed from the outside. During
construction, the polyester cover is
sewn to the back cover with the outside
of the polyester spine cover to the inside
back cover. Both free ends (the ends not
sewn to the cover and back) are stitched
with a turned edge construction. Each
ring within the fixture is comprised of
a flexible strap portion that snaps into
a stationary post which forms a closed
binding ring. The ring fixture is riveted
with six metal rivets and sewn to the
back plastic cover and is specifically
positioned on the outside back cover.
The product must bear the valid
trademark FiveStar Flex TM (products
found to be bearing an invalidly
licensed or used trademark are not
excluded from the scope).
Merchandise subject to this order is
typically imported under headings
4820.10.2050, 4810.22.5044,
4811.90.9090, 4820.10.2010,
4820.10.2020 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States
(‘‘HTSUS’’). The HTSUS headings are
provided for convenience and customs
purposes; however, the written
description of the scope of this order is
dispositive.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and
rebuttal briefs by parties to this
administrative review are addressed in
the accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum, which is hereby adopted
by this notice. A list of the issues which
parties have raised, and to which we
have responded in the Issues and
Decision Memorandum, is attached to
this notice as an Appendix. In addition,
a complete version of the Issues and
Decision Memorandum can be accessed
directly on the Internet at https://
ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and
electronic version of the Issues and
Decision Memorandum are identical in
content.
Final Partial Rescission
In the Preliminary Results, the
Department preliminary rescinded this
review with respect to HwaFu/Li Teng
because the Department was unable to
directly serve its original questionnaire
to HwaFu/Li Teng.3 Consistent with the
3 See Memorandum to the File from Cindy
Robinson, Senior International Trade Analyst, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 3, regarding ‘‘Antidumping
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Department’s decision in Silicon Metal
from PRC,4 the Department is rescinding
the review with respect to Hwa Fu/Li
Teng. See also Certain Steel Concrete
Reinforcing Bars from Turkey: Final
Results and Rescission of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review in Part, 71
FR 65082, 65083 (November 7, 2006).
In addition, in the Preliminary
Results, the Department applied the
reseller policy with respect to the
following two respondents: Lian Li and
Leo/Denmax.5 Lian Li and Leo/Denmax
reported that they had no shipments of
subject merchandise to the United
States during the period of review
(‘‘POR’’). As we stated in the Preliminary
Results, our examination of shipment
data from U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (‘‘CBP’’) for these two
companies confirmed that there were no
entries of subject merchandise from
them during the POR. Further, we also
sent an inquiry to CBP to confirm the
claims made by Lian Li and Leo/
Denmax.6 In the Preliminary Results, we
determined not to rescind the review in
part in these circumstances but, rather,
to complete the review with respect to
Lian Li and Leo/Denmax and issue
appropriate instructions to CBP based
on the final results of the review.7
See id. However, in practice, the
Department to date has not applied the
Duty Administrative Review of Certain Lined Paper
Products from the People’s Republic of China: Proof
of Non-Delivery to Hwa Fu/Li Teng,’’ dated October
7, 2010.
4 See, e.g., Silicon Metal from the People’s
Republic of China: Preliminary Results and
Preliminary Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 73 FR 12378 (March 7,
2008) (Silicon Metal from PRC), unchanged in Final
Results and Final Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Silicon
Metal From the People’s Republic of China, 73 FR
46587 (August 11, 2008).
5 We applied the reseller policy stated in our May
6, 2003, ‘‘automatic assessment’’ clarification. We
explained that, where respondents in an
administrative review demonstrate that they had no
knowledge of sales through resellers to the United
States, we would instruct CBP to liquidate such
entries at the all-others rate applicable to the
proceeding. See Antidumping and Countervailing
Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping
Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (‘‘May 2003
automatic assessment clarification’’).
6 See Preliminary Results and CBP Message No.
0028302, dated January 28, 2010.
7 In addition, we stated that because ‘‘as entered’’
liquidation instructions do not alleviate the
concerns which the May 2003 clarification was
intended to address, we find it appropriate in this
case to instruct CBP to liquidate any existing entries
of merchandise produced by Lian Li and Leo/
Denmax and exported by other parties at the PRCwide entity rate should we continue to find at the
time of our final results that Lian Li and Leo/
Denmax had no shipments of subject merchandise
from the PRC. In support of our decision, we cited
our practice in Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp
from India: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 73 FR 77610, 77612
(December 19, 2008).
E:\FR\FM\26APN1.SGM
26APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2011 / Notices
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
reseller policy in non-market economy
(‘‘NME’’) cases.
The Department’s practice concerning
‘‘no-shipment’’ respondents in NME
cases has been to rescind the
administrative review if the respondent
certifies that it had no shipments and
the Department has confirmed through
its examination of data from CBP that
there were no shipments of subject
merchandise during the POR. See
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp
From the People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Results and Preliminary
Partial Rescission of Fifth Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 8338
(February 14, 2011). See also Certain
Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam: Notice of
Preliminary Results and Partial
Rescission of the Third Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR
53527, 53530 (September 19, 2007),
unchanged in Certain Frozen Fish Fillets
From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Partial
Rescission, 73 FR 15479, 15480 (March
24, 2008).
In this case, as stated above, both Lian
Li and Leo/Denmax certified that they
had no shipments and the Department
has confirmed through its examination
of data from CBP that there were no
shipments of subject merchandise
during the POR by Lian Li and/or Leo/
Denmax. Therefore, consistent with the
Department’s current practice in NME
cases, we are rescinding this
administrative review with respect to
Lian Li and Leo/Denmax.
Application of Adverse Facts Available
Section 776(a) of the Act provides
that, the Department shall apply ‘‘facts
otherwise available’’ if (1) necessary
information is not on the record, or (2)
an interested party or any other person
(A) withholds information that has been
requested, (B) fails to provide
information within the deadlines
established, or in the form and manner
requested by the Department, subject to
subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782
of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a
proceeding, or (D) provides information
that cannot be verified as provided by
section 782(i) of the Act.
Where the Department determines
that a response to a request for
information does not comply with the
request, section 782(d) of the Act
provides that the Department will so
inform the party submitting the
response and will, to the extent
practicable, provide that party the
opportunity to remedy or explain the
deficiency. If the party fails to remedy
the deficiency within the applicable
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:09 Apr 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
time limits and subject to section 782(e)
of the Act, the Department may
disregard all or part of the original and
subsequent responses, as appropriate.
Section 782(e) of the Act provides that
the Department ‘‘shall not decline to
consider information that is submitted
by an interested party and is
necessary to the determination but does
not meet all applicable requirements
established by the administering
authority’’ if the information is timely,
can be verified, is not so incomplete that
it cannot be used, and if the interested
party acted to the best of its ability in
providing the information. Where all of
these conditions are met, the statute
requires the Department to use the
information supplied if it can do so
without undue difficulties.
Section 776(b) of the Act further
provides that the Department may use
an adverse inference in applying the
facts otherwise available when a party
has failed to cooperate by not acting to
the best of its ability to comply with a
request for information. Such an adverse
inference may include reliance on
information derived from the petition,
the final determination, a previous
administrative review, or other
information placed on the record. See,
e.g., Notice of Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India,
70 FR 54023, 54025–26 (September 13,
2005); Statement of Administrative
Action, reprinted in H.R. Doc. No. 103–
216, at 870 (1994) (‘‘SAA’’). Furthermore,
‘‘affirmative evidence of bad faith on the
part of a respondent is not required
before the Department may make an
adverse inference.’’ See Antidumping
Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final
Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19,
1997); see also Nippon Steel Corp. v.
United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1382 (Fed.
Cir. 2003) (‘‘Nippon Steel’’).
In Nippon Steel, the Court set out two
requirements for drawing an adverse
inference under section 776(b) of the
Act. First, the Department ‘‘must make
an objective showing that a reasonable
and responsible importer would have
known that the requested information
was required to be kept and maintained
under the applicable statutes, rules, and
regulations.’’ Next the Department must
‘‘make a subjective showing that the
respondent * * * has failed to promptly
produce the requested information’’ and
that ‘‘failure to fully respond is the
result of the respondent’s lack of
cooperation in either: (a) Failing to keep
and maintain all required records, or (b)
failing to put forth its maximum efforts
to investigate and obtain the requested
information from its records.’’ The Court
clarifies further that ‘‘{a}n adverse
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
23291
inference may not be drawn merely
from a failure to respond, but only
under circumstances in which it is
reasonable for Commerce to expect that
more forthcoming responses should
have been made.’’ See Nippon Steel, at
1382–83.
Watanabe
As discussed in the Preliminary
Results, the Department determined that
facts available with an adverse inference
was warranted for Watanabe because
there was credible evidence on the
record that certain documents submitted
by Watanabe at verification were either
inaccurate, internally inconsistent, and/
or were otherwise unreliable. Further,
Watanabe was unable to explain the
discrepancies between documents
collected by the Department at
verification and documents provided by
petitioner that implicated the veracity of
Watanabe’s questionnaire response.
Subsequent to the Preliminary
Results, the Department requested that
Watanabe provide an explanation for
the numerous discrepancies identified
as a result of information provided by
petitioner prior to the Preliminary
Results. As discussed more fully in the
Issue and Decision Memorandum
accompanying this notice, among other
things, Watanbe attempted to explain
away the discrepancies by claiming any
discrepancy was merely caused by the
fact that, for each sale, there are actually
two separate entries—revenue and
payment. Because of the nature of the
issue, see Memorandum to the File,
through James Terpstra, Program
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3,
Import Administration, from Cindy
Robinson, Financial Analyst, titled
‘‘Certain Lined Paper Products from
People’s Republic of China: Certain
Business Proprietary Information (‘‘BPI’’)
in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum with Respect to the
Watanabe Group,’’ dated concurrently
with this notice (‘‘Watanabe BPI Memo’’)
for a complete discussion.
We continue to find that the factual
record in this review supports the
conclusion that Watanabe’s official
books and records do not accurately
reflect its actual commercial practice.
The existence of two sets of invoices
(one for revenue and one for payment)
undermines the credibility of the
Department’s verification as well as the
reliability of Watanabe’s books and
records and questionnaire response.
Watanabe owns and generates its own
accounting records and was aware that
its sales reconciliation was based on
records that did not accurately reflect
the amounts charged to or received from
its customers, yet it chose to not
E:\FR\FM\26APN1.SGM
26APN1
23292
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2011 / Notices
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
voluntarily explain this to the
Department. Because Watanabe did not
disclose this information to the
Department prior to or at verification,
the Department was prevented from
conducting verification based on
accurate documentation. Rather, the
Department conducted verification on
the basis of documents that did not
reflect the true selling prices and total
sales values charged and payments
received with respect to third country
sales, which renders the ‘‘Completeness
Test’’ and ‘‘Quantity and Value
Reconciliation’’ futile. Consequently, the
accuracy and completeness of
Watanabe’s sales and factors of
production records, and its accounting
system is called into question.
Furthermore, as noted above,
Watanabe had participated in the
original investigation and the second
administrative review and received an
AFA rate in the second review.
Accordingly, it should have known that
it is responsible for demonstrating the
reliability of its own data.
Because Watanabe withheld
information, significantly impeded the
proceeding and provided information
that could not be verified, we find that
application of facts available is
appropriate under sections 776(a)(2)(A),
(B), and (C) of the Act. We further find
that application of AFA is appropriate
under section 776(b) because Watanabe
failed to cooperate to the best of its
ability in responding to the
Department’s requests for information.
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving NME
countries, there is a rebuttable
presumption that all companies within
that country are subject to government
control and thus should be assessed a
single antidumping duty rate. It is the
Department’s policy to assign all
exporters of subject merchandise in an
NME country this single rate unless an
exporter demonstrates that it is
sufficiently independent so as to be
entitled to a separate rate. Exporters can
demonstrate this independence through
the absence of both de jure and de facto
governmental control over export
activities. See Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Sparklers from the People’s
Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6,
1991), as further developed in Notice of
Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from
the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR
22585 (May 2, 1994). It is the
Department’s practice to require a party
to submit evidence that it operates
independently of the State-controlled
entity in each segment of a proceeding
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:09 Apr 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
in which it requests separate rate status.
The process requires exporters to submit
a separate-rate status application. See
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, from
the People’s Republic of China: Final
Results of 2005–2006 Administrative
Review and Partial Rescission of
Review, 72 FR 56724 (October 4, 2007),
and Peer Bearing Co. Changshan v.
United States, 587 F.Supp. 2d 1319,
1324–25 (CIT 2008) (affirming the
Department’s determination in that
review). As discussed in the Preliminary
Results, and the Issues and Decision
Memorandum accompanying this
notice, in light of the credible evidence
placed on the record by petitioner and
the lack of an adequate explanation for
the discrepancies by Watanabe, we
continue to conclude that the
information in Watanabe’s
questionnaire response is not reliable
for purposes of this review. Therefore,
Watanabe has not demonstrated that it
operates free from government control.
As a result, the Department continues to
find that Watanabe is part of the PRCwide entity.
The PRC-Wide Entity
Because we determined that
Watanabe is part of the PRC-wide entity,
the PRC-wide entity is under review.
Pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act, we
further find that because the PRC entity
(including Watanabe) failed to respond
to the Department’s questionnaires,
withheld or failed to provide
information in a timely manner or in the
form or manner requested by the
Department, submitted information that
cannot be verified, or otherwise
impeded the proceeding, it is
appropriate to apply a dumping margin
for the PRC-wide entity using the facts
otherwise available on the record.
Moreover, by failing to respond to the
Department’s requests for information,
withholding or failing to provide
information in a timely manner or in the
form or manner requested by the
Department, submitting information that
cannot be verified, or otherwise
impeding the proceeding, we find that
the PRC-wide entity has failed to
cooperate by not acting to the best of its
ability to comply with the Department’s
requests for information in this
proceeding, within the meaning of
section 776(b) of the Act. Therefore, an
adverse inference is warranted in
selecting from the facts otherwise
available. See Nippon Steel, 337 F.3d at
1382–83.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Selection of Adverse Facts Available
Rate
In deciding which facts to use as
AFA, section 776(b) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.308(c)(1) provide that the
Department may rely on information
derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final
determination in the investigation, (3)
any previous review or determination,
or (4) any other information placed on
the record. In selecting a rate for AFA,
the Department selects a rate that is
sufficiently adverse ‘‘as to effectuate the
purpose of the facts available rule to
induce respondents to provide the
Department with complete and accurate
information in a timely manner.’’ See
Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless
Pressure Pipe from the People’s
Republic of China: Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 74 FR
4913 (January 28, 2009).
Generally, the Department finds that
selecting the highest rate from any
segment of the proceeding as AFA is
appropriate. See, e.g., Certain Cased
Pencils from the People’s Republic of
China; Notice of Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and Intent to Rescind in Part, 70
FR 76755, 76761 (December 28, 2005).
The CIT and the Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit have affirmed
decisions to select the highest margin
from any prior segment of the
proceeding as the AFA rate on
numerous occasions. See Rhone
Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d
1185, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Rhone
Poulenc); NSK Ltd. v. United States, 346
F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1335 (CIT 2004)
(upholding the application of an AFA
rate which was the highest available
dumping margin from a different
respondent in an investigation).
As AFA, we have assigned to the PRCwide entity, including Watanabe, a rate
of 258.21 percent, from the investigation
of CLPP from the PRC, which is the
highest rate on the record of all
segments of this proceeding. See Notice
of Amended Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain
Lined Paper Products from the People’s
Republic of China; Notice of
Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain
Lined Paper Products from India,
Indonesia and the People’s Republic of
China; and Notice of Countervailing
Duty Orders: Certain Lined Paper
Products from India and Indonesia, 71
FR 56949 (September 28, 2006). As
explained below, this rate has been
corroborated.
E:\FR\FM\26APN1.SGM
26APN1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2011 / Notices
Corroboration of Secondary
Information
Section 776(c) of the Act provides
that, when the Department relies on
secondary information rather than on
information obtained in the course of an
investigation or review, it shall, to the
extent practicable, corroborate that
information from independent sources
that are reasonably at its disposal.
Secondary information is defined as
information derived from the petition
that gave rise to the investigation or
review, the final determination
concerning the subject merchandise, or
any previous review under section 751
of the Act concerning the subject
merchandise. See SAA at 870.
Corroborate means that the Department
will satisfy itself that the secondary
information to be used has probative
value. Id. To corroborate secondary
information, the Department will, to the
extent practicable, examine the
reliability and relevance of the
information to be used. See Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews and Partial
Termination of Administrative Reviews:
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished from
Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings
Four Inches or Less in Outside
Diameter, and Components Thereof,
from Japan, 61 FR 57391, 57392
(November 6, 1996) (unchanged in the
final determination), Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Reviews and Termination in Part:
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished from
Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings
Four Inches or Less in Outside
Diameter, and Components Thereof,
from Japan, 62 FR 11825 (March 13,
1997). Independent sources used to
corroborate such evidence may include,
for example, published price lists,
official import statistics and customs
data, and information obtained from
interested parties during the particular
investigation. See Notice of Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: High and Ultra-High Voltage
Ceramic Station Post Insulators from
Japan, 68 FR 35627 (June 16, 2003)
(unchanged in final determination),
Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: High and Ultra
High Voltage Ceramic Station Post
Insulators from Japan, 68 FR 62560
(November 5, 2003); and Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Live Swine From Canada, 70
FR 12181, 12183–84 (March 11, 2005).
The AFA rate selected here is from
the investigation and was applied to
Watanabe in the second administrative
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:09 Apr 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
review. This rate was calculated based
on information contained in the
petition, which was corroborated for the
final determination. See Certain Lined
Paper Products from the People’s
Republic of China: Notice of Final
Results of the Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 74 FR 17160
(April 14, 2009). No additional
information has been presented in the
current review which calls into question
the reliability of the information.
Therefore, the Department finds that the
information continues to be reliable. In
addition, the AFA rate we are applying
is the rate currently in effect for the
PRC-wide entity.
Furthermore, in this case, the PRCwide rate which was applied to
Watanabe was corroborated and upheld
by the CIT in its recent decision
Watanabe v. United States (Slip Op. 10–
139 Court No. 09–00520) (CIT December
22, 2010), where the CIT found that the
Department need not corroborate the
PRC wide rate with regards to that
specific respondent. Specifically, the
CIT states: ‘‘{w}here Commerce has
found the respondent part of the PRCwide entity based on adverse inferences,
Commerce need not corroborate the
PRC-wide rate with respect to
information specific to that respondent
because there is ‘‘no requirement that
the PRC-wide entity rate based on AFA
relate specifically to the individual
company.’’ See also Peer Bearing Co.Changshan v. United States, 587 F.
Supp. 2d 1319, 1327 (CIT 2008);
Shandong Mach. Imp. & Exp. Co. v.
United States, Slip Op. 09–64, 2009 WL
2017042, (CIT June 24, 2009)
(Commerce has no obligation to
corroborate the PRC-wide rate as to an
individual party where that party has
failed to qualify for a separate rate).
Commerce’s permissible determination
that Watanabe is part of the PRC-wide
entity means that inquiring into
Watanabe’s separate sales behavior
ceases to be meaningful.
Changes since the Preliminary Results
We have made no changes from the
Preliminary Results in the final results.
Final Results of Review
The Department has determined that
the following dumping margin exists for
the period September 1, 2008, through
August 31, 2009:
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Producer/Manufacturer
PRC-Wide Rate (which includes the Watanabe
Group).
23293
Weighted-Average Margin
258.21%
Assessment Rates
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the
Department will determine, and CBP
shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries. The Department
intends to issue assessment instructions
to CBP 15 days after the date of
publication of these final results of
review. We will instruct CBP to assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries covered by this review.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit
requirements will be effective upon
publication of these final results of this
administrative review for all shipments
of the subject merchandise entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication
date, as provided for by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For
previously reviewed or investigated PRC
exporters who received a separate rate
in a prior segment of the proceeding, but
were not reviewed in this review, the
cash deposit rate will continue to be the
rate assigned in that segment of the
proceeding; (2) for all other PRC
exporters of subject merchandise that
have not been found to be entitled to a
separate rate the cash deposit rate will
be the PRC-wide rate of 258.21 percent;
and (3) for all non-PRC exporters of
subject merchandise the cash deposit
rate will be the rate applicable to the
PRC exporter that supplied that nonPRC exporter. These deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until further notice.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice 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.
This notice also serves as the only
reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’)
of their responsibility concerning the
E:\FR\FM\26APN1.SGM
26APN1
23294
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2011 / Notices
return/destruction or conversion to
judicial protective order of proprietary
information disclosed under APO in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3).
Failure to comply with the regulations
and terms of an APO is a violation
which is subject to sanction.
This administrative review and this
notice are published in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the
Act.
Dated: April 18, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
Appendix I
List of Comments in the Accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum
Comment 1: Alleged Procedural Irregularities
Comment 2: Timeliness of Petitioner’s New
Factual Information Submission
Comment 3: Application of Adverse
Inferences to Petitioner
Comment 4: Watanabe’s Inability to Respond
Based on Bracketing of Information
Comment 5: Petitioner’s Case Brief Was
Properly Rejected but Should Not Have
Been Allowed To Be Resubmitted
Comment 6: Application of Adverse
Inferences With Respect to Watanabe
Comment 7: Factors of Production and
Surrogate Values
[FR Doc. 2011–10073 Filed 4–25–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–973]
Certain Steel Wheels From the
People’s Republic of China: Initiation
of Antidumping Duty Investigation
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: April 26, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Brendan Quinn or Bobby Wong, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 8, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–5848
and (202) 482–0409, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
The Petition
On March 30, 2011, the Department of
Commerce (‘‘Department’’) received an
antidumping duty (‘‘AD’’) petition
concerning imports of certain steel
wheels (‘‘steel wheels’’) from the
People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) filed
in proper form by Accuride Corporation
(‘‘Accuride’’) and Hayes Lemmerz
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:09 Apr 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
International, Inc. (collectively,
‘‘Petitioners’’).1 On April 6, 2011, the
Department issued supplemental
questions to Petitioners regarding
certain issues in the Petition.2
Petitioners responded to the questions
with supplemental responses on April
11, 2011.3 On April 12, 2011, the
Department requested additional
information on certain issues.4 On April
14, 2011, Petitioners provided a
response to the Department’s requests.5
On April 14, 2011, the Department
requested further clarification with
respect to the Petition, which
Petitioners submitted on April 15,
2011.6 On April 18, 2011, the
Department further clarified the scope
of the Petition with Petitioners.7
In accordance with section 732(b) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the
Act’’), Petitioners allege that imports of
steel wheels from the PRC are being, or
are likely to be, sold in the United States
at less than fair value, within the
meaning of section 731 of the Act, and
that such imports materially injure, or
threaten material injury to, an industry
in the United States.
The Department finds that Petitioners
filed the Petition on behalf of the
domestic industry because Petitioners
are interested parties as defined in
section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and they
have demonstrated sufficient industry
support with respect to the investigation
that they are requesting the Department
to initiate (see ‘‘Determination of
Industry Support for the Petition’’
below). The Department also notes that,
pursuant to section 732(b)(1) of the Act,
the Petition is accompanied by
1 See the Petition for the Imposition of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duties Pursuant
to Sections 701 and 731 of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended (‘‘Petition’’), filed on March 30, 2011.
2 See April 6, 2011, Petition for the Imposition of
Antidumping Duties on Steel Wheels from the
People’s Republic of China: Supplemental
Questions.
3 See Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions dated
April 11, 2011 (‘‘First Supplement to the AD/CVD
Petitions’’). See also April 11, 2011, Petition for the
Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Steel Wheels
from the People’s Republic of China: PRC AD
Supplemental Questionnaire Response (‘‘PRC AD
Supplement to the Petitions’’).
4 See April 12, 2011, Memorandum to the File,
regarding ‘‘Phone Conference with and Request for
Further Information from Petitioners.’’
5 See Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions dated
April 14, 2011 (‘‘Second Supplement to the AD/
CVD Petitions’’).
6 See Supplement to the AD/CVD Petitions dated
April 15, 2011 (‘‘Third Supplement to the AD/CVD
Petitions’’).
7 See April 18, 2011, Memorandum to the File RE:
Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping (‘‘AD’’)
and Countervailing Duties (‘‘CVD’’) on Steel Wheels
from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’),
Clarification of Scope Language, on file in the
Central Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’), Room 7046 of the
main Department of Commerce building.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
information reasonably available to
Petitioners supporting their allegations.
Scope of the Investigation
The products covered by this
investigation are steel wheels from the
PRC. For a full description of the scope
of the investigation, see ‘‘Scope of the
Investigation,’’ in Appendix I of this
notice.
Comments on Scope of the Investigation
During our review of the Petition, we
discussed the scope with Petitioners to
ensure that it is an accurate reflection of
the products for which the domestic
industry is seeking relief. Moreover, as
discussed in the preamble to the
regulations (Antidumping Duties;
Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR
27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), we are
setting aside a period for interested
parties to raise issues regarding product
coverage. The Department encourages
interested parties to submit such
comments by Monday, May 9, 2011,
twenty calendar days from the signature
date of this notice. Comments should be
addressed to Import Administration’s
APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street
and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230. The period of
scope consultations is intended to
provide the Department with ample
opportunity to consider all comments
and to consult with parties prior to the
issuance of the preliminary
determination.
Comments on Product Characteristics
for Antidumping Duty Questionnaires
We are requesting comments from
interested parties regarding the
appropriate physical characteristics of
steel wheels to be reported in response
to the Department’s antidumping
questionnaires. This information will be
used to identify the key physical
characteristics of the merchandise under
investigation in order to more accurately
report the relevant factors and costs of
production, as well as to develop
appropriate product comparison
criteria.
Interested parties may provide any
information or comments that they feel
are relevant to the development of an
accurate listing of physical
characteristics. Specifically, they may
provide comments as to which
characteristics are appropriate to use as:
(1) General product characteristics; and
(2) the product comparison criteria. We
note that it is not always appropriate to
use all product characteristics as
product comparison criteria. We base
product comparison criteria on
meaningful commercial differences
E:\FR\FM\26APN1.SGM
26APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 80 (Tuesday, April 26, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23288-23294]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10073]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-901]
Certain Lined Paper Products From the People's Republic of China:
Notice of Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
and Partial Rescission
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On October 18, 2010, the U.S. Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') published the preliminary results of the third
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain lined
paper products (``CLPP'') from the People's Republic of China
(``PRC''). See Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's Republic
of China: Notice of Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 75 FR 63814 (October 18, 2010) (``Preliminary
Results''). We invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Results.
This review covers the following exporters and/or producer/exporters:
Shanghai Lian Li Paper Products Co. Ltd. (``Lian Li''); Hwa Fuh
Plastics Co., Ltd./Li Teng Plastics (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (``Hwa Fuh/Li
Teng''); Leo's Quality Products Co., Ltd./Denmax Plastic Stationery
Factory (``Leo/Denmax''); and the Watanabe Group (consisting of
Watanabe Paper Products (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (``Watanabe Shanghai'');
Watanabe Paper Products (Linqing) Co., Ltd. (``Watanabe Linqing''); and
Hotrock Stationery (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (``Hotrock Shenzhen'')
(hereafter referred to as ``Watanabe'' or the ``Watanabe Group'' or
``Respondent'')). Based on our analysis of the information and comments
we received from Watanabe and petitioner \1\ after the Preliminary
Results, we continue to apply adverse facts available (``AFA'') to
Watanabe. Further, we are rescinding the review with respect to Lian
Li, Hwa Fuh/Li Teng, and Leo/Denmax.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The petitioner is the Association of American School Paper
Suppliers (``AASPS'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: April 26, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Lai Robinson or Stephanie Moore,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 3,
[[Page 23289]]
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department
of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20230; telephone: (202) 482-3797, or (202) 482-3692, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In the Preliminary Results the Department found that there was
credible evidence on the record that documents submitted by Watanabe at
verification were either inaccurate, internally inconsistent, or were
otherwise unreliable and therefore, applied an AFA rate of 258.21
percent to the PRC-wide entity, including Watanabe. Since the
publication of Preliminary Results, the following events have occurred:
On October 22, 2010, Watanabe submitted a letter requesting
clarification of how the Department plans to proceed in the final
results following the Department's AFA decision with respect to
Watanabe in the Preliminary Results. On October 28, 2010, petitioner
provided comments on Watanabe's letter. On November 16, 2010, the
Department issued a letter to Watanabe requesting further information
in order to more fully evaluate the issues addressed in the Preliminary
Results. Watanabe submitted its response on December 8, 2010.
On December 22, 2010, the Department informed interested parties of
the due dates for filing case and rebuttal briefs.\2\ On January 6,
2011, Watanabe and petitioner filed their case briefs. On January 13,
2011, Watanabe and petitioner submitted their rebuttal briefs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Memorandum to the File, through James Terpstra, Program
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, from Cindy Robinson, Case
Analyst, titled ``Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's
Republic of China,'' dated December 22, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its January 13, 2011, rebuttal brief, Watanabe alleged that
AASPS's January 6, 2011, case brief included business proprietary
information (``BPI'') for which AASPS failed to properly identify the
person that originally submitted the BPI data, as required by 19 CFR
351.306(c). On January 21, 2011, in agreement with Watanabe's
allegation, the Department rejected and removed from the record,
AASPS's case brief dated January 6, 2011. The Department also granted a
five-day extension to allow petitioner to revise and resubmit its case
brief. On January 26, 2011, petitioner submitted its revised case
brief. Watanabe resubmitted its rebuttal brief on February 2, 2011.
On February 4, 2011, the Department extended the time limits for
the final results of this review until no later than April 18, 2011.
See Extension of Time Limits for the Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's
Republic of China, 76 FR 6397 (February 4, 2011).
Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order
The scope of this order includes certain lined paper products,
typically school supplies (for purposes of this scope definition, the
actual use of or labeling these products as school supplies or non-
school supplies is not a defining characteristic) composed of or
including paper that incorporates straight horizontal and/or vertical
lines on ten or more paper sheets (there shall be no minimum page
requirement for looseleaf filler paper) including but not limited to
such products as single- and multi-subject notebooks, composition
books, wireless notebooks, looseleaf or glued filler paper, graph
paper, and laboratory notebooks, and with the smaller dimension of the
paper measuring 6 inches to 15 inches (inclusive) and the larger
dimension of the paper measuring 8\3/4\ inches to 15 inches
(inclusive). Page dimensions are measured size (not advertised, stated,
or ''tear-out'' size), and are measured as they appear in the product
(i.e., stitched and folded pages in a notebook are measured by the size
of the page as it appears in the notebook page, not the size of the
unfolded paper). However, for measurement purposes, pages with tapered
or rounded edges shall be measured at their longest and widest points.
Subject lined paper products may be loose, packaged or bound using any
binding method (other than case bound through the inclusion of binders
board, a spine strip, and cover wrap). Subject merchandise may or may
not contain any combination of a front cover, a rear cover, and/or
backing of any composition, regardless of the inclusion of images or
graphics on the cover, backing, or paper. Subject merchandise is within
the scope of this order whether or not the lined paper and/or cover are
hole punched, drilled, perforated, and/or reinforced. Subject
merchandise may contain accessory or informational items including but
not limited to pockets, tabs, dividers, closure devices, index cards,
stencils, protractors, writing implements, reference materials such as
mathematical tables, or printed items such as sticker sheets or
miniature calendars, if such items are physically incorporated,
included with, or attached to the product, cover and/or backing
thereto.
Specifically excluded from the scope of this order are:
Unlined copy machine paper;
Writing pads with a backing (including but not limited to
products commonly known as ``tablets,'' ``note pads,'' ``legal pads,''
and ``quadrille pads''), provided that they do not have a front cover
(whether permanent or removable). This exclusion does not apply to such
writing pads if they consist of hole-punched or drilled filler paper;
Three-ring or multiple-ring binders, or notebook
organizers incorporating such a ring binder provided that they do not
include subject paper;
Index cards;
Printed books and other books that are case bound through
the inclusion of binders board, a spine strip, and cover wrap;
Newspapers;
Pictures and photographs;
Desk and wall calendars and organizers (including but not
limited to such products generally known as ``office planners,'' ``time
books,'' and ``appointment books'');
Telephone logs;
Address books;
Columnar pads & tablets, with or without covers, primarily
suited for the recording of written numerical business data;
Lined business or office forms, including but not limited
to: pre-printed business forms, lined invoice pads and paper, mailing
and address labels, manifests, and shipping log books;
Lined continuous computer paper;
Boxed or packaged writing stationary (including but not
limited to products commonly known as ``fine business paper,''
``parchment paper'', and ``letterhead''), whether or not containing a
lined header or decorative lines;
Stenographic pads (``steno pads''), Gregg ruled (``Gregg
ruling'' consists of a single- or double-margin vertical ruling line
down the center of the page. For a six-inch by nine-inch stenographic
pad, the ruling would be located approximately three inches from the
left of the book), measuring 6 inches by 9 inches.
Also excluded from the scope of this order are the following
trademarked products:
Fly TM lined paper products: A notebook,
notebook organizer, loose or glued note paper, with papers that are
printed with infrared reflective inks and readable only by a Fly
TM pen-top computer. The product must bear the valid
trademark Fly TM (products found
[[Page 23290]]
to be bearing an invalidly licensed or used trademark are not excluded
from the scope).
Zwipes TM: A notebook or notebook organizer
made with a blended polyolefin writing surface as the cover and pocket
surfaces of the notebook, suitable for writing using a specially-
developed permanent marker and erase system (known as a Zwipes
TM pen). This system allows the marker portion to mark the
writing surface with a permanent ink. The eraser portion of the marker
dispenses a solvent capable of solubilizing the permanent ink allowing
the ink to be removed. The product must bear the valid trademark Zwipes
TM (products found to be bearing an invalidly licensed or
used trademark are not excluded from the scope).
FiveStar[supreg]Advance TM: A notebook or
notebook organizer bound by a continuous spiral, or helical, wire and
with plastic front and rear covers made of a blended polyolefin plastic
material joined by 300 denier polyester, coated on the backside with
PVC (poly vinyl chloride) coating, and extending the entire length of
the spiral or helical wire. The polyolefin plastic covers are of
specific thickness; front cover is 0.019 inches (within normal
manufacturing tolerances) and rear cover is 0.028 inches (within normal
manufacturing tolerances). Integral with the stitching that attaches
the polyester spine covering, is captured both ends of a 1'' wide
elastic fabric band. This band is located 2\3/8\'' from the top of the
front plastic cover and provides pen or pencil storage. Both ends of
the spiral wire are cut and then bent backwards to overlap with the
previous coil but specifically outside the coil diameter but inside the
polyester covering. During construction, the polyester covering is sewn
to the front and rear covers face to face (outside to outside) so that
when the book is closed, the stitching is concealed from the outside.
Both free ends (the ends not sewn to the cover and back) are stitched
with a turned edge construction. The flexible polyester material forms
a covering over the spiral wire to protect it and provide a comfortable
grip on the product. The product must bear the valid trademarks
FiveStar[supreg]Advance TM (products found to be bearing an
invalidly licensed or used trademark are not excluded from the scope).
FiveStar Flex TM: A notebook, a notebook
organizer, or binder with plastic polyolefin front and rear covers
joined by 300 denier polyester spine cover extending the entire length
of the spine and bound by a 3-ring plastic fixture. The polyolefin
plastic covers are of a specific thickness; front cover is 0.019 inches
(within normal manufacturing tolerances) and rear cover is 0.028 inches
(within normal manufacturing tolerances). During construction, the
polyester covering is sewn to the front cover face to face (outside to
outside) so that when the book is closed, the stitching is concealed
from the outside. During construction, the polyester cover is sewn to
the back cover with the outside of the polyester spine cover to the
inside back cover. Both free ends (the ends not sewn to the cover and
back) are stitched with a turned edge construction. Each ring within
the fixture is comprised of a flexible strap portion that snaps into a
stationary post which forms a closed binding ring. The ring fixture is
riveted with six metal rivets and sewn to the back plastic cover and is
specifically positioned on the outside back cover. The product must
bear the valid trademark FiveStar Flex TM (products found to
be bearing an invalidly licensed or used trademark are not excluded
from the scope).
Merchandise subject to this order is typically imported under
headings 4820.10.2050, 4810.22.5044, 4811.90.9090, 4820.10.2010,
4820.10.2020 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(``HTSUS''). The HTSUS headings are provided for convenience and
customs purposes; however, the written description of the scope of this
order is dispositive.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to
this administrative review are addressed in the accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of
the issues which parties have raised, and to which we have responded in
the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as an
Appendix. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision
Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the Issues
and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.
Final Partial Rescission
In the Preliminary Results, the Department preliminary rescinded
this review with respect to HwaFu/Li Teng because the Department was
unable to directly serve its original questionnaire to HwaFu/Li
Teng.\3\ Consistent with the Department's decision in Silicon Metal
from PRC,\4\ the Department is rescinding the review with respect to
Hwa Fu/Li Teng. See also Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from
Turkey: Final Results and Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review in Part, 71 FR 65082, 65083 (November 7, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Memorandum to the File from Cindy Robinson, Senior
International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, regarding
``Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Lined Paper
Products from the People's Republic of China: Proof of Non-Delivery
to Hwa Fu/Li Teng,'' dated October 7, 2010.
\4\ See, e.g., Silicon Metal from the People's Republic of
China: Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 12378 (March 7, 2008)
(Silicon Metal from PRC), unchanged in Final Results and Final
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review:
Silicon Metal From the People's Republic of China, 73 FR 46587
(August 11, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, in the Preliminary Results, the Department applied the
reseller policy with respect to the following two respondents: Lian Li
and Leo/Denmax.\5\ Lian Li and Leo/Denmax reported that they had no
shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the period
of review (``POR''). As we stated in the Preliminary Results, our
examination of shipment data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(``CBP'') for these two companies confirmed that there were no entries
of subject merchandise from them during the POR. Further, we also sent
an inquiry to CBP to confirm the claims made by Lian Li and Leo/
Denmax.\6\ In the Preliminary Results, we determined not to rescind the
review in part in these circumstances but, rather, to complete the
review with respect to Lian Li and Leo/Denmax and issue appropriate
instructions to CBP based on the final results of the review.\7\
See id. However, in practice, the Department to date has not
applied the
[[Page 23291]]
reseller policy in non-market economy (``NME'') cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ We applied the reseller policy stated in our May 6, 2003,
``automatic assessment'' clarification. We explained that, where
respondents in an administrative review demonstrate that they had no
knowledge of sales through resellers to the United States, we would
instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the all-others rate
applicable to the proceeding. See Antidumping and Countervailing
Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May
6, 2003) (``May 2003 automatic assessment clarification'').
\6\ See Preliminary Results and CBP Message No. 0028302, dated
January 28, 2010.
\7\ In addition, we stated that because ``as entered''
liquidation instructions do not alleviate the concerns which the May
2003 clarification was intended to address, we find it appropriate
in this case to instruct CBP to liquidate any existing entries of
merchandise produced by Lian Li and Leo/Denmax and exported by other
parties at the PRC-wide entity rate should we continue to find at
the time of our final results that Lian Li and Leo/Denmax had no
shipments of subject merchandise from the PRC. In support of our
decision, we cited our practice in Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp
from India: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 73 FR 77610, 77612 (December 19, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department's practice concerning ``no-shipment'' respondents in
NME cases has been to rescind the administrative review if the
respondent certifies that it had no shipments and the Department has
confirmed through its examination of data from CBP that there were no
shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. See Certain Frozen
Warmwater Shrimp From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary
Results and Preliminary Partial Rescission of Fifth Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 76 FR 8338 (February 14, 2011). See also Certain
Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of
Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the Third Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 53527, 53530 (September 19, 2007),
unchanged in Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and
Partial Rescission, 73 FR 15479, 15480 (March 24, 2008).
In this case, as stated above, both Lian Li and Leo/Denmax
certified that they had no shipments and the Department has confirmed
through its examination of data from CBP that there were no shipments
of subject merchandise during the POR by Lian Li and/or Leo/Denmax.
Therefore, consistent with the Department's current practice in NME
cases, we are rescinding this administrative review with respect to
Lian Li and Leo/Denmax.
Application of Adverse Facts Available
Section 776(a) of the Act provides that, the Department shall apply
``facts otherwise available'' if (1) necessary information is not on
the record, or (2) an interested party or any other person (A)
withholds information that has been requested, (B) fails to provide
information within the deadlines established, or in the form and manner
requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of
section 782 of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D)
provides information that cannot be verified as provided by section
782(i) of the Act.
Where the Department determines that a response to a request for
information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act
provides that the Department will so inform the party submitting the
response and will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the
opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to
remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits and subject to
section 782(e) of the Act, the Department may disregard all or part of
the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Section 782(e)
of the Act provides that the Department ``shall not decline to consider
information that is submitted
by an interested party and is necessary to the determination but
does not meet all applicable requirements established by the
administering authority'' if the information is timely, can be
verified, is not so incomplete that it cannot be used, and if the
interested party acted to the best of its ability in providing the
information. Where all of these conditions are met, the statute
requires the Department to use the information supplied if it can do so
without undue difficulties.
Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may
use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when
a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its
ability to comply with a request for information. Such an adverse
inference may include reliance on information derived from the
petition, the final determination, a previous administrative review, or
other information placed on the record. See, e.g., Notice of Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar
from India, 70 FR 54023, 54025-26 (September 13, 2005); Statement of
Administrative Action, reprinted in H.R. Doc. No. 103-216, at 870
(1994) (``SAA''). Furthermore, ``affirmative evidence of bad faith on
the part of a respondent is not required before the Department may make
an adverse inference.'' See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties;
Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997); see also Nippon Steel
Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (``Nippon
Steel'').
In Nippon Steel, the Court set out two requirements for drawing an
adverse inference under section 776(b) of the Act. First, the
Department ``must make an objective showing that a reasonable and
responsible importer would have known that the requested information
was required to be kept and maintained under the applicable statutes,
rules, and regulations.'' Next the Department must ``make a subjective
showing that the respondent * * * has failed to promptly produce the
requested information'' and that ``failure to fully respond is the
result of the respondent's lack of cooperation in either: (a) Failing
to keep and maintain all required records, or (b) failing to put forth
its maximum efforts to investigate and obtain the requested information
from its records.'' The Court clarifies further that ``{a{time} n
adverse inference may not be drawn merely from a failure to respond,
but only under circumstances in which it is reasonable for Commerce to
expect that more forthcoming responses should have been made.'' See
Nippon Steel, at 1382-83.
Watanabe
As discussed in the Preliminary Results, the Department determined
that facts available with an adverse inference was warranted for
Watanabe because there was credible evidence on the record that certain
documents submitted by Watanabe at verification were either inaccurate,
internally inconsistent, and/or were otherwise unreliable. Further,
Watanabe was unable to explain the discrepancies between documents
collected by the Department at verification and documents provided by
petitioner that implicated the veracity of Watanabe's questionnaire
response.
Subsequent to the Preliminary Results, the Department requested
that Watanabe provide an explanation for the numerous discrepancies
identified as a result of information provided by petitioner prior to
the Preliminary Results. As discussed more fully in the Issue and
Decision Memorandum accompanying this notice, among other things,
Watanbe attempted to explain away the discrepancies by claiming any
discrepancy was merely caused by the fact that, for each sale, there
are actually two separate entries--revenue and payment. Because of the
nature of the issue, see Memorandum to the File, through James
Terpstra, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import
Administration, from Cindy Robinson, Financial Analyst, titled
``Certain Lined Paper Products from People's Republic of China: Certain
Business Proprietary Information (``BPI'') in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum with Respect to the Watanabe Group,'' dated concurrently
with this notice (``Watanabe BPI Memo'') for a complete discussion.
We continue to find that the factual record in this review supports
the conclusion that Watanabe's official books and records do not
accurately reflect its actual commercial practice. The existence of two
sets of invoices (one for revenue and one for payment) undermines the
credibility of the Department's verification as well as the reliability
of Watanabe's books and records and questionnaire response. Watanabe
owns and generates its own accounting records and was aware that its
sales reconciliation was based on records that did not accurately
reflect the amounts charged to or received from its customers, yet it
chose to not
[[Page 23292]]
voluntarily explain this to the Department. Because Watanabe did not
disclose this information to the Department prior to or at
verification, the Department was prevented from conducting verification
based on accurate documentation. Rather, the Department conducted
verification on the basis of documents that did not reflect the true
selling prices and total sales values charged and payments received
with respect to third country sales, which renders the ``Completeness
Test'' and ``Quantity and Value Reconciliation'' futile. Consequently,
the accuracy and completeness of Watanabe's sales and factors of
production records, and its accounting system is called into question.
Furthermore, as noted above, Watanabe had participated in the
original investigation and the second administrative review and
received an AFA rate in the second review. Accordingly, it should have
known that it is responsible for demonstrating the reliability of its
own data.
Because Watanabe withheld information, significantly impeded the
proceeding and provided information that could not be verified, we find
that application of facts available is appropriate under sections
776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act. We further find that application
of AFA is appropriate under section 776(b) because Watanabe failed to
cooperate to the best of its ability in responding to the Department's
requests for information.
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving NME countries, there is a rebuttable
presumption that all companies within that country are subject to
government control and thus should be assessed a single antidumping
duty rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of
subject merchandise in an NME country this single rate unless an
exporter demonstrates that it is sufficiently independent so as to be
entitled to a separate rate. Exporters can demonstrate this
independence through the absence of both de jure and de facto
governmental control over export activities. See Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the
People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as further
developed in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585
(May 2, 1994). It is the Department's practice to require a party to
submit evidence that it operates independently of the State-controlled
entity in each segment of a proceeding in which it requests separate
rate status. The process requires exporters to submit a separate-rate
status application. See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,
Finished or Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Final
Results of 2005-2006 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of
Review, 72 FR 56724 (October 4, 2007), and Peer Bearing Co. Changshan
v. United States, 587 F.Supp. 2d 1319, 1324-25 (CIT 2008) (affirming
the Department's determination in that review). As discussed in the
Preliminary Results, and the Issues and Decision Memorandum
accompanying this notice, in light of the credible evidence placed on
the record by petitioner and the lack of an adequate explanation for
the discrepancies by Watanabe, we continue to conclude that the
information in Watanabe's questionnaire response is not reliable for
purposes of this review. Therefore, Watanabe has not demonstrated that
it operates free from government control. As a result, the Department
continues to find that Watanabe is part of the PRC-wide entity.
The PRC-Wide Entity
Because we determined that Watanabe is part of the PRC-wide entity,
the PRC-wide entity is under review. Pursuant to section 776(a) of the
Act, we further find that because the PRC entity (including Watanabe)
failed to respond to the Department's questionnaires, withheld or
failed to provide information in a timely manner or in the form or
manner requested by the Department, submitted information that cannot
be verified, or otherwise impeded the proceeding, it is appropriate to
apply a dumping margin for the PRC-wide entity using the facts
otherwise available on the record. Moreover, by failing to respond to
the Department's requests for information, withholding or failing to
provide information in a timely manner or in the form or manner
requested by the Department, submitting information that cannot be
verified, or otherwise impeding the proceeding, we find that the PRC-
wide entity has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its
ability to comply with the Department's requests for information in
this proceeding, within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act.
Therefore, an adverse inference is warranted in selecting from the
facts otherwise available. See Nippon Steel, 337 F.3d at 1382-83.
Selection of Adverse Facts Available Rate
In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act
and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) provide that the Department may rely on
information derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final determination in
the investigation, (3) any previous review or determination, or (4) any
other information placed on the record. In selecting a rate for AFA,
the Department selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse ``as to
effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule to induce
respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate
information in a timely manner.'' See Circular Welded Austenitic
Stainless Pressure Pipe from the People's Republic of China: Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 74 FR 4913 (January 28,
2009).
Generally, the Department finds that selecting the highest rate
from any segment of the proceeding as AFA is appropriate. See, e.g.,
Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic of China; Notice of
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and
Intent to Rescind in Part, 70 FR 76755, 76761 (December 28, 2005). The
CIT and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit have affirmed
decisions to select the highest margin from any prior segment of the
proceeding as the AFA rate on numerous occasions. See Rhone Poulenc,
Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Rhone
Poulenc); NSK Ltd. v. United States, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1335 (CIT
2004) (upholding the application of an AFA rate which was the highest
available dumping margin from a different respondent in an
investigation).
As AFA, we have assigned to the PRC-wide entity, including
Watanabe, a rate of 258.21 percent, from the investigation of CLPP from
the PRC, which is the highest rate on the record of all segments of
this proceeding. See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's
Republic of China; Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Lined
Paper Products from India, Indonesia and the People's Republic of
China; and Notice of Countervailing Duty Orders: Certain Lined Paper
Products from India and Indonesia, 71 FR 56949 (September 28, 2006). As
explained below, this rate has been corroborated.
[[Page 23293]]
Corroboration of Secondary Information
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies
on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the
course of an investigation or review, it shall, to the extent
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that
are reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is defined as
information derived from the petition that gave rise to the
investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject
merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 of the Act
concerning the subject merchandise. See SAA at 870. Corroborate means
that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information
to be used has probative value. Id. To corroborate secondary
information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine
the reliability and relevance of the information to be used. See
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and
Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews: Tapered Roller Bearings
and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished from Japan, and Tapered
Roller Bearings Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components
Thereof, from Japan, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996) (unchanged
in the final determination), Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews and Termination in Part: Tapered Roller Bearings
and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished from Japan, and Tapered
Roller Bearings Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components
Thereof, from Japan, 62 FR 11825 (March 13, 1997). Independent sources
used to corroborate such evidence may include, for example, published
price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and
information obtained from interested parties during the particular
investigation. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: High and Ultra-High Voltage Ceramic Station Post
Insulators from Japan, 68 FR 35627 (June 16, 2003) (unchanged in final
determination), Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: High and Ultra High Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators
from Japan, 68 FR 62560 (November 5, 2003); and Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Live Swine From Canada,
70 FR 12181, 12183-84 (March 11, 2005).
The AFA rate selected here is from the investigation and was
applied to Watanabe in the second administrative review. This rate was
calculated based on information contained in the petition, which was
corroborated for the final determination. See Certain Lined Paper
Products from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results
of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 17160 (April 14,
2009). No additional information has been presented in the current
review which calls into question the reliability of the information.
Therefore, the Department finds that the information continues to be
reliable. In addition, the AFA rate we are applying is the rate
currently in effect for the PRC-wide entity.
Furthermore, in this case, the PRC-wide rate which was applied to
Watanabe was corroborated and upheld by the CIT in its recent decision
Watanabe v. United States (Slip Op. 10-139 Court No. 09-00520) (CIT
December 22, 2010), where the CIT found that the Department need not
corroborate the PRC wide rate with regards to that specific respondent.
Specifically, the CIT states: ``{w{time} here Commerce has found the
respondent part of the PRC-wide entity based on adverse inferences,
Commerce need not corroborate the PRC-wide rate with respect to
information specific to that respondent because there is ``no
requirement that the PRC-wide entity rate based on AFA relate
specifically to the individual company.'' See also Peer Bearing Co.-
Changshan v. United States, 587 F. Supp. 2d 1319, 1327 (CIT 2008);
Shandong Mach. Imp. & Exp. Co. v. United States, Slip Op. 09-64, 2009
WL 2017042, (CIT June 24, 2009) (Commerce has no obligation to
corroborate the PRC-wide rate as to an individual party where that
party has failed to qualify for a separate rate). Commerce's
permissible determination that Watanabe is part of the PRC-wide entity
means that inquiring into Watanabe's separate sales behavior ceases to
be meaningful.
Changes since the Preliminary Results
We have made no changes from the Preliminary Results in the final
results.
Final Results of Review
The Department has determined that the following dumping margin
exists for the period September 1, 2008, through August 31, 2009:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Producer/Manufacturer Weighted-Average Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRC-Wide Rate (which includes the Watanabe 258.21%
Group).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment Rates
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b),
the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties
on all appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue assessment
instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these
final results of review. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of these final results of this administrative review for
all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For previously
reviewed or investigated PRC exporters who received a separate rate in
a prior segment of the proceeding, but were not reviewed in this
review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the rate assigned in
that segment of the proceeding; (2) for all other PRC exporters of
subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a
separate rate the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 258.21
percent; and (3) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise the
cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that
supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when
imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice 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.
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility
concerning the
[[Page 23294]]
return/destruction or conversion to judicial protective order of
proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR
351.305(a)(3). Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an
APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This administrative review and this notice are published in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: April 18, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix I
List of Comments in the Accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum
Comment 1: Alleged Procedural Irregularities
Comment 2: Timeliness of Petitioner's New Factual Information
Submission
Comment 3: Application of Adverse Inferences to Petitioner
Comment 4: Watanabe's Inability to Respond Based on Bracketing of
Information
Comment 5: Petitioner's Case Brief Was Properly Rejected but Should
Not Have Been Allowed To Be Resubmitted
Comment 6: Application of Adverse Inferences With Respect to
Watanabe
Comment 7: Factors of Production and Surrogate Values
[FR Doc. 2011-10073 Filed 4-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
