Lightweight Thermal Paper From Germany: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76360-76365 [2011-31440]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76360-76365]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31440]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-428-840]


Lightweight Thermal Paper From Germany: Notice of Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on lightweight 
thermal paper from Germany. For the period November 1, 2009, through 
October 31, 2010, we have preliminarily determined that Papierfabrik 
August Koehler AG made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal 
value (NV).
    If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of 
this administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries of subject merchandise during the period of review (POR). See 
``Preliminary Results of Review'' section of this notice. Interested 
parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

DATES: Effective Date: December 7, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Moore or George McMahon, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
3692 or (202) 482-1167, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On November 1, 2010, the Department issued a notice of opportunity 
to request an administrative review of this order for the period of 
review (POR) of November 1, 2009, through October 31,

[[Page 76361]]

2010. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 
75 FR 67079 (November 1, 2010).
    On November 30, 2009, we received a timely request from Appleton 
Papers, Inc. (petitioner) for the Department to conduct an 
administrative review of Mitsubishi HiTec Paper Flensburg GmbH, 
Mitsubishi HiTec Paper Bielefeld GmbH and Mitsubishi International 
Corporation (collectively, Mitsubishi), and Papierfabrik August Koehler 
AG (Koehler). We also received a request from Koehler for the 
Department to conduct an administrative review of Koehler.
    On December 28, 2010, the Department published the notice of 
initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review covering the 
period November 1, 2009, through October 31, 2010, naming Mitsubishi 
and Koehler as respondents. See Initiation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation 
in Part, 75 FR 81565 (December 28, 2010) (Initiation Notice).
    On January 3, 2011, the Department issued initial questionnaires 
covering sections A, B, C, and E to Mitsubishi and Koehler with a due 
date of February 9, 2011. On January 25, 2011, petitioner requested 
that the Department determine whether antidumping duties have been 
absorbed by Koehler and Mitsubishi. After granting extensions to 
Mitsubishi and Koehler, Koehler submitted its section A response to the 
initial questionnaire on February 23, 2011, and sections B and C on 
March 2, 2011. On March 11, 2011, Mitsubishi submitted its sections A 
through C response to the initial questionnaire.
    On March 23, 2011, petitioner submitted deficiency comments 
concerning Koehler's initial questionnaire responses. On March 28, 
2011, petitioner, the sole party that requested a review of Mitsubishi, 
timely withdrew its request for a review of Mitsubishi. Accordingly, 
the Department rescinded the admininstrative review with respect to 
Mitsubishi. See Lightweight Thermal Paper from Germany: Notice of 
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 
20951 (April 14, 2011) (Partial Rescission).
    On July 16, 2010, the Department published a notice extending the 
time period for issuing the preliminary results of the administrative 
review from August 2, 2011, to November 30, 2011. See Lightweight 
Thermal Paper from Germany: Extension of Time Limits for the 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 
40689 (July 11, 2011).
    The Department issued supplemental questionnaires to Koehler on May 
9, 2011, July 22, 2011, October 17, 2011, and on October 28, 2011. 
Koehler submitted responses on June 6, 2011, August 18, 2011, October 
25, 2011, and on November 14, 2011, respectively.
    On July 7, 2011, petitioner submitted pre-preliminary comments 
stating that the Department should disregard Koehler's home market 
monthly rebates on sales of certain products. On August 30, 2010, 
petitioner submitted a rebuttal of factual information contained in 
Koehler's August 17, 2011, supplemental questionnaire response. On 
August 31, 2011, petitioner submitted comments on Koehler's August 18, 
2011, supplemental questionnaire response. On November 15, 2011, 
petitioner submitted supplemental pre-preliminary comments stating that 
the Department should disregard Koehler's monthly rebates. On November 
18, 2011, Koehler submitted pre-preliminary comments stating that the 
Department should accept Koehler's reported home market rebates, 
including its monthly rebates.

Period of Review

    The POR is November 1, 2009, through October 31, 2010.

Scope of the Order

    The scope of this order includes certain lightweight thermal paper, 
which is thermal paper with a basis weight of 70 grams per square meter 
(g/m\2\) (with a tolerance of  4.0 g/m\2\) or less; 
irrespective of dimensions; \1\ with or without a base coat \2\ on one 
or both sides; with thermal active coating(s) \3\ on one or both sides 
that is a mixture of the dye and the developer that react and form an 
image when heat is applied; with or without a top coat; \4\ and without 
an adhesive backing. Certain lightweight thermal paper is typically 
(but not exclusively) used in point-of-sale applications such as ATM 
receipts, credit card receipts, gas pump receipts, and retail store 
receipts. The merchandise subject to this order may be classified in 
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under 
subheadings 3703.10.60, 4811.59.20, 4811.90.8040, 4811.90.9090, 
4820.10.20, and 4823.40.00.\5\ Although HTSUS subheadings are provided 
for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the 
scope of this order is dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ LWTP is typically produced in jumbo rolls that are slit to 
the specifications of the converting equipment and then converted 
into finished slit rolls. Both jumbo and converted rolls (as well as 
LWTP in any other form, presentation, or dimension) are covered by 
the scope of these orders.
    \2\ A base coat, when applied, is typically made of clay and/or 
latex and like materials and is intended to cover the rough surface 
of the paper substrate and to provide insulating value.
    \3\ A thermal active coating is typically made of sensitizer, 
dye, and co-reactant.
    \4\ A top coat, when applied, is typically made of polyvinyl 
acetone, polyvinyl alcohol, and/or like materials and is intended to 
provide environmental protection, an improved surface for press 
printing, and/or wear protection for the thermal print head.
    \5\ HTSUS subheading 4811.90.8000 was a classification used for 
LWTP until January 1, 2007. Effective that date, subheading 
4811.90.8000 was replaced with 4811.90.8020 (for gift wrap, a non-
subject product) and 4811.90.8040 (for ``other'' including LWTP). 
HTSUS subheading 4811.90.9000 was a classification for LWTP until 
July 1, 2005. Effective that date, subheading 4811.90.9000 was 
replaced with 4811.90.9010 (for tissue paper, a non-subject product) 
and 4811.90.9090 (for ``other,'' including LWTP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), all products produced by Koehler covered by the 
description in the ``Scope of the Order'' section above and sold in 
Germany during the POR are considered to be foreign like products for 
purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. 
We have relied on 12 criteria to match U.S. sales of subject 
merchandise to comparison market sales of the foreign like product: (1) 
Form, (2) thermal active coating, (3) top coating, (4) basis weight, 
(5) maximum optical density units, (6) static sensitivity, (7) dynamic 
sensitivity, (8) color coating, (9) printing, (10) width, (11) length, 
and (12) core material. Where there were no sales of identical 
merchandise in the home market made in the ordinary course of trade to 
compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar 
foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics listed above.

Comparisons to Normal Value

    To determine whether sales of LWTP from Germany were made in the 
United States at less than NV, we compared the export price (EP) or 
constructed export price (CEP) to the NV, as described in the Export 
Price and Constructed Export Price and Normal Value sections of this 
notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated 
monthly weighted-average prices for NV and compared these to individual 
U.S. transaction prices.

Rebates

    Koehler reports a number of customer-specific rebates, which could 
apply to all products or be product-specific depending on the customer.

[[Page 76362]]

Rebates are granted and paid out on a periodic basis (monthly, 
quarterly, or annually). Koehler states that there were no written 
rebate agreements covering sales of the subject merchandise during the 
POR. As in the prior review, Koehler claims that there were initially 
written agreements with customers in 2002/2003, but the rebate 
practices became routine enough that the parties did not bother with 
formalized written rebate agreements since that time. Koehler states 
that the rebate percentage is simply specified on the relevant 
customer-specific price lists or in emails with the customer.
    On March 23, 2011, petitioner alleged that the margin in the 
instant review, as in the first review, is affected by Koehler's 
granting of monthly rebates (i.e., monatsbonus) in the home market. 
Petitioner also alleged that these monthly rebates are post-sale price 
adjustments used by Koehler as a mechanism by which to artificially 
eliminate its dumping margin.\6\ Further, petitioner incorporated by 
reference, in the instant review, its case brief submitted in the prior 
administrative review. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See March 23, 2011, submission from petitioner at 5, and 
Attachment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Final Results \7\ of the prior review, the Department 
disallowed the monthly rebates because the data on the record showed 
that there were significant adjustments to the rebate percentages which 
were retroactively applied by Koehler without sufficient documentation 
to support a finding that the customer was aware of such changes prior 
to the sales. Furthermore, we found that in certain instances, neither 
an ``approximate'' nor a ``precise'' rebate percentage was known to 
Koehler's customer prior to the time that it made the home market sales 
in question. Thus, because the record did not indicate that Koehler's 
customers were aware of the monatsbonus (monthly) rebate terms and 
conditions prior to the sales, and because of the significant 
volatility associated with the percentage changes of the monatsbonus 
program, the Department concluded that the monatsbonus program was not 
a legitimate rebate that should be treated as a price adjustment. See 
LWTP Decision Memo, at Comment 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Lightweight Thermal Paper From Germany: Notice of Final 
Results of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 
22078 (April 20, 2011) (Final Results), and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum (LWTP Decision Memo) at Comment 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, the Department allowed Koehler's quarterly and annual 
rebates. The Department stated that, the written rebate documentation 
for 2002/03 provided by Koehler was not relevant to the monatsbonus; 
instead, it pertained to rebates that were based on a longer periods of 
time (e.g., quarterly and annual periods). The Department found that, 
although Koehler referenced relatively minor changes that occurred with 
respect to the quartalsbonus (quarterly rebate) over a quarterly 
period, the degree of such a change was relatively insignificant 
compared to those reported by Koehler for the monatbonus over a monthly 
period. Further, in contrast to the monatsbonus, the quartalsbonus 
percentage applied had been stable and there was no evidence that it 
was retroactively applied on a routine basis. Therefore, the Department 
determined that there was a clear distinction between the monatbonus 
and the quartalsbonus program. Moreover, the Department determined that 
a customer could reasonably rely on the fact that it would receive a 
specific quartalsbonus percentage rebate at the time that it made its 
respective purchases. See Id.
    In the instant review, Koehler has created a flag field (REB1AFLAG) 
in its home market sales database for each KT 48 F20 (product code that 
appears on the invoice to the customer) transaction. Koehler asserts 
that based on email communications and credit notes, it can show 
whether the customer who received monthly rebates was aware of the 
rebate terms at the time of sale. Specifically, Koehler coded an ``N'' 
for sales where it claims it has no documentation to prove that the 
customer was aware of the rebate terms prior to sale and, thus, the 
customer may not have known of the precise rebate percentage prior to 
the sales. Koehler coded a ``Y'' for transactions where it claims there 
is documentation regarding knowledge of the rebate terms by the 
customer prior to sale, and thus, the customer must have known of the 
rebate percentage prior to the sale. See supplemental questionnaire 
response dated June 6, 2011, at 18. See also fourth supplemental 
questionnaire response dated November 11, 2011, at 5.
    The Department preliminarily finds that it is inappropriate to 
examine this rebate program on a transaction-specific basis, given the 
fact pattern. Instead, as in the prior review, we evaluate the 
monatsbonus rebate program as a whole to determine whether customers 
under this program knew of the terms of the rebate and rebate 
percentage prior to the sale. See LWTP Decision Memo at Comment 3; see 
also Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India: Notice 
of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 31961 
(June 5, 2008), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 27 (analyzing rebates as a program). In this review, record 
evidence shows that the monatsbonus rebate program is unique because it 
is only offered to certain customers, it is applied retroactively to 
sales, and Koehler randomly changes the monthly rebate percentages.
    Next, we preliminarily find that the documents that Koehler claims 
are the basis for its flagging methodology do not indicate that the 
customers were knowledgeable of the final rebate amount prior to the 
sale date. Koehler states that with respect to the change in rebate 
percentage for the monthly rebate for KT 48 F20 beginning in April 
2010, it has been unable to locate any documentation or communication 
confirming the change of the rebate percentage with the customer, and 
therefore does not know whether the customer received written 
notification prior to commencement of the applicable rebate period. 
However, according to Koehler, it is able to identify the latest 
possible date on which the customer could have known of the changed 
rebate percentage, and thus, Koehler used this date in its flagging 
methodology. Id., at 18. Due to the proprietary nature of this issue, 
please refer to the preliminary results calculation memo. See 
Calculation Memorandum for the Preliminary Results--Koehler for further 
discussion, dated November 30, 2011 (Preliminary Results Calculation 
Memo--Koehler).
    We preliminarily find that Koehler's flagging methodology does not 
provide proof that, prior to the sale, the customer knew the rebate 
percentage or the amount of the rebate. As a hypothetical example, if 
Koehler approved a monthly rebate of 18 percent on August 31, 2010, and 
retroactively applied it to all KT 48F20 sales in August, a customer 
might assume or guess that the 18 percent rebate will also be 
applicable to purchases made after August 31, 2010. However, the 
customer cannot know with certainty that the 18 percent rebate will be 
applicable to its purchases in September 2010, because Koehler may 
change the rebate to 12 percent on September 30, 2010, and 
retroactively apply a 12 percent rebate to September sales. Thus, we 
preliminarily find that Koehler created its flag methodology with 
information that was subject to change, and not always contemporaneous 
with the sales. Further, the customer has no knowledge of the amount of 
the ``monatsbonus'' monthly rebate or the terms and conditions at the 
time of purchase. Therefore, because of the inconsistent and 
retroactive application of the

[[Page 76363]]

monthly rebates, the Department preliminarily continues to find in the 
instant review, as in the prior review, that the monatsbonus program is 
not a legitimate rebate program that should be treated as a price 
adjustment.
    Also, consistent with the Department's findings in the Final 
Results, we continue to find that the quarterly and annual rebates are 
allowable adjustments because there is a clear, long-standing 
consistent practice compared to those reported by Koehler for the 
monatbonus over a monthly period. Further, in contrast to the 
monatsbonus, the quartalsbonus percentage applied has been relatively 
stable and there is no evidence that it is retroactively applied on a 
routine basis. Therefore, we continue to find that a customer can 
reasonably rely on the fact that it will receive the specific 
quartalsbonus percentage rebate at the time that it makes its 
respective purchases.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    For the price to the United States, we used, as appropriate, EP or 
CEP, in accordance with sections 772(a) and (b) of the Act. Pursuant to 
section 772(a) of the Act, we used the EP methodology when the 
merchandise was first sold by the producer or exporter outside the 
United States directly to the unaffiliated purchaser in the United 
States prior to importation and when CEP was not otherwise warranted 
based on the facts on the record. We calculated CEP for those sales 
where a person in the United States, affiliated with the foreign 
exporter or acting for the account of the exporter, made the first sale 
to the unaffiliated purchaser in the United States of the subject 
merchandise. See section 772(b) of the Act. We based EP and CEP on the 
packed prices charged to the first unaffiliated customer in the United 
States and the applicable terms of sale. When appropriate, we adjusted 
prices to reflect billing adjustments, rebates, and early payment 
discounts, and commissions.
    In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we made 
deductions, where appropriate, for movement expenses including U.S. 
warehouse expense, inland freight, inland insurance, brokerage & 
handling, international freight, marine insurance, freight rebate 
revenue, and U.S. customs duties.
    For CEP, in accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, when 
appropriate, we deducted from the starting price those selling expenses 
that were incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United 
States, including direct selling expenses (cost of credit, warranty, 
and other direct selling expenses). These expenses also include certain 
indirect selling expenses incurred by affiliated U.S. distributors. See 
Preliminary Results Calculations Memo--Koehler.

CEP Profit Calculation

    The Department's initial questionnaire dated January 3, 2011, 
directed Koehler to report the actual variable unit cost of 
manufacturing (VCOM) including materials, labor and overhead, and the 
total unit cost of manufacturing (TCOM), including materials, labor and 
variable and fixed overhead, if Koehler was not submitting the full 
cost of production in response to section D of the Department's 
questionnaire. The Department's initial questionnaire also states, for 
fields 55 (VCOMU) and 56 (TCOMU), ``{i{time} f for each product you 
sold during the POR in the United States, you sold the identical 
product in the foreign market, it is not necessary to supply this 
information. However, if you elect not to supply this information and 
the Department later determines that a U.S. sale should be compared to 
a sale of a similar product in the foreign market, the Department may 
have to resort to the facts available. Refer to difference in 
merchandise adjustments in the Glossary of Terms at Appendix I.'' See 
Section C of the Department's questionnaire at pages C-38 and C-39.
    The petitioner did not submit a sales below the cost of production 
(COP) allegation with respect to Koehler and the Department did not 
issue Koehler a section D questionnaire to require the reporting of 
Koehler's COP. With respect to its sales, Koehler stated that because 
it ``sold identical merchandise in the foreign product for each product 
sold during the POR in the United States, Koehler is not providing VCOM 
or TCOM information.'' See section C questionnaire response dated March 
2, 2011, at C-50 and C-51. Although Koehler was not required to provide 
COP data if all of its U.S. sales matched to sales of identical 
merchandise in the home market, COP data is necessary for the 
Department to calculate a CEP profit for CEP sales. Therefore, because 
the necessary COP information is not on the record of the current 
review, in accordance with sections 772(f)(1) and (2)(C)(iii) of the 
Act, we calculated the CEP profit percentage using information from 
Koehler AG's 2010 audited financial statements. We deducted from CEP an 
amount for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) and (f) of the 
Act. See Preliminary Results Calculation Memo--Koehler.

Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison Market

    To determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the 
home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared 
Koehler's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to 
the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Pursuant to 
section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, because Koehler had an aggregate 
volume of home market sales of the foreign like product that was 
greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the 
subject merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable.

B. Arm's-Length Test

    Because Koehler reported that its sales of the foreign like product 
were made to unaffiliated customers, the arm's-length test is not 
applicable.

C. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices

    We based home market prices on packed prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers in Germany. The Department excluded certain sales 
transactions reported as samples by Koehler. We adjusted the starting 
price for billing adjustments, early payment discounts, rebates, 
warehouse expenses, and inland freight where appropriate, pursuant to 
section 773(a)(6) of the Act. In addition, for comparisons made to EP 
sales, we made adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale 
(COS) pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. We made COS 
adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for home 
market sales (credit expense, warranty directly linked to sales 
transactions, royalties, and other direct selling expenses) and adding 
U.S. direct selling expenses (credit, commissions, warranty directly 
linked to sales transactions, and other direct selling expenses), where 
appropriate. See 19 CFR 351.410.
    When comparing U.S. sales with comparison market sales of similar, 
but not identical, merchandise, we also made adjustments for physical 
differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We based this 
adjustment on the difference in the VCOM for the foreign like product 
and subject merchandise, using weighted-average costs. See 19 CFR 
351.411(b).

D. Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the 
extent practicable, we determine NV based on

[[Page 76364]]

sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade (LOT) as the 
EP or CEP sales. In identifying LOTs for EP and comparison market sales 
(i.e., NV based on home market), we consider the starting prices before 
any adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider only the selling activities 
reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and profit under 
section 772(d) of the Act. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United 
States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
    Consistent with 19 CFR 351.412, to determine whether comparison 
market sales were at a different LOT than EP or CEP transactions, we 
examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the 
chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated 
customer. If the comparison market sales are at a different LOT and the 
difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of 
consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and 
comparison market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make 
an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales, 
if the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level and 
there is no basis for determining whether the difference in the levels 
between NV and CEP affects price comparability, we will grant a CEP 
offset, as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 
62 FR 61731, 61732-33 (November 19, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Koehler reported its sales in the home market and the U.S. market 
at the same single LOT. In the home market, Koehler reported that its 
sales were made through two channels of distribution: (1) Direct sales 
and (2) consignment sales. In the U.S. market, Koehler reported that 
its sales were made through three channels of distribution: (1) Market 
direct-shipment sales through its U.S. affiliated distributor, Koehler 
America, Inc. (i.e., CEP sales), (2) warehouse sales made through 
Koehler America, Inc. (i.e., CEP sales), (3) and direct sales from 
Koehler AG to the customer (i.e., EP sales).
    Based on our analysis, we find that Koehler's sales to the U.S. and 
home market were made at the same LOT, and as a result, no LOT 
adjustment is warranted. Furthermore, our analysis shows that Koehler's 
home market sales were not made at a more advanced LOT than Koehler's 
U.S. sales. Accordingly, we have not made a CEP offset to NV. See 
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.
    For a detailed description of our LOT methodology and a summary of 
company-specific LOT findings for these preliminary results, see our 
analysis contained in the Preliminary Results Calculation Memo--
Koehler.

Duty Absorption

    On January 25, 2011, petitioner requested that the Department 
determine whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by Koehler and 
Mitsubishi. Koehler has reported that it served as the importer of 
record for all of its U.S. sales during the POR. See second 
supplemental questionnaire response dated August 17, 2011, at 3. 
Because the subject merchandise was not sold through an importer who is 
affiliated with the foreign producer/exporter, we are not examining 
duty absorption. See section 751(a)(4) of the Act and Agro Dutch 
Industries, Ltd. v. United States, 508 F.3d 1024 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
    On April 14, 2011, the Department rescinded the review of 
Mitsubishi. See Partial Rescission. Due to the partial rescission of 
the review of Mitsubishi, we are not examining duty absorption with 
respect to Mitsubishi.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with 
section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the official exchange rates 
published by the Federal Reserve Bank.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following weighted-average percentage margin exists for the period 
November 1, 2009, through October 31, 2010.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Manufacturer/exporter          Weighted-average margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Papierfabrik August Koehler AG......                                3.16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Comment

    The Department will disclose calculations performed within five 
days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties to this 
proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may 
submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication 
of these preliminary results of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). 
Rebuttal briefs are limited to issues raised in the case briefs and may 
be filed no later than five days after the time limit for filing the 
case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties submitting arguments in 
this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A 
statement of the issue, (2) a brief summary of the argument, and (3) a 
table of authorities, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(d)(2). Case and 
rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 
19 CFR 351.303(f).
    An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
publication of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any 
hearing, if requested, ordinarily will be held two days after the due 
date of the rebuttal briefs in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(d)(1). 
The Department will issue the final results of this administrative 
review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised 
in any such comments, or at a hearing, if requested, within 120 days of 
publication of these preliminary results, unless extended. See section 
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h).

Assessment Rate

    Upon completion of the final results of this administrative review, 
the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), 
the Department will calculate importer-specific assessment rates for 
each respondent based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping 
duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of 
those sales. Where the respondent did not report the entered value for 
U.S. sales, we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates for 
the merchandise in question by aggregating the dumping margins 
calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing this amount 
by the total quantity of those sales. To determine whether the duty 
assessment

[[Page 76365]]

rates were de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in 
19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer-specific ad valorem rates 
based on the estimated entered value. Where the assessment rate is 
above de minimis, we will instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries 
of subject merchandise by that importer. Pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to 
antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate is de 
minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). The Department intends to issue 
assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of 
the final results of this review.
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This 
clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the 
POR produced by the respondent subject to this review for which the 
reviewed company did not know that the merchandise which it sold to an 
intermediary (e.g. a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was 
destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP 
to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no 
rate for the intermediary involved in the transaction. For a full 
discussion of this clarification, see id.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    To calculate the cash deposit rate for Koehler, we divided its 
total dumping margin by the total net value of its sales during the 
review period. The following deposit rates will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of lightweight thermal paper from Germany entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication 
date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash 
deposit rate for companies subject to this review will be the rate 
established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is 
less than 0.5 percent and, therefore, de minimis, no cash deposit will 
be required; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not 
listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-
specific rate published for the most recent final results for a review 
in which that manufacturer or exporter participated; (3) if the 
exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the 
original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the 
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for 
the most recent final results for the manufacturer of the merchandise; 
and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered 
in this review, the cash deposit rate will be 6.50 percent, the all-
others rate established in the LTFV investigation. See Antidumping Duty 
Orders: Lightweight Thermal Paper from Germany and the People's 
Republic of China, 73 FR 70959 (November 24, 2008). These cash deposit 
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further 
notice.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    These preliminary results of administrative review are issued and 
published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the 
Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

    Dated: November 30, 2011.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-31440 Filed 12-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P