Certain Tissue Paper Products From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Initiation of Anticircumvention Inquiry, 27430-27435 [2012-11217]

Download as PDF 27430 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 91 / Thursday, May 10, 2012 / Notices mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES an OCTG order, finished and unfinished OCTG are included in the scope when used in standard, line or pressure applications. C. Products produced to the A–335 specification unless they are used in an application that would normally utilize ASTM A–53, ASTM A– 106, ASTM A–333, ASTM A–334, ASTM A–589, ASTM A–795, and API 5L specifications. D. Line and riser pipe for deepwater application, i.e., line and riser pipe that is: (1) Used in a deepwater application, which means for use in water depths of 1,500 feet or more; (2) intended for use in and is actually used for a specific deepwater project; (3) rated for a specified minimum yield strength of not less than 60,000 psi; and (4) not identified or certified through the use of a monogram, stencil, or otherwise marked with an API specification (e.g., ‘‘API 5L’’). With regard to the excluded products listed above, the Department will not instruct CBP to require end-use certification until such time as the petitioner or other interested parties provide to the Department a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that the products are being utilized in a covered application. If such information is provided, we will require end-use certification only for the product(s) (or specification(s)) for which evidence is provided that such products are being used in a covered application as described above. For example, if, based on evidence provided by petitioner, the Department finds a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that seamless pipe produced to the A–335 specification is being used in an A–106 application, we will require end-use certifications for imports of that specification. Normally we will require only the importer of record to certify to the end use of the imported merchandise. If it later proves necessary for adequate implementation, we may also require producers who export such products to the United States to provide such certification on invoices accompanying shipments to the United States. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the merchandise subject to this scope is dispositive. Final Determination of No Shipments As we stated in the Preliminary Results, our prior practice concerning no-shipment respondents had been to rescind the administrative review if the respondent certified that it had no shipments and we confirmed through our examination of CBP data that there were no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. See 19 VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 May 09, 2012 Jkt 226001 CFR 351.213(d)(3); see also Certain Large Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe From Japan: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 38781 (July 6, 2010). In such circumstances, we normally instructed CBP to liquidate any entries from the no-shipment company at the cash deposit rate in effect on the date of entry. In our May 6, 2003, ‘‘automatic assessment’’ clarification, we explained that, where respondents in an administrative review demonstrate that they had no knowledge of sales through resellers to the United States, we would instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the all-others rate applicable to the proceeding. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (‘‘Assessment Policy Notice’’). As we stated in the Preliminary Results, because ‘‘as entered’’ liquidation instructions do not alleviate the concerns which the May 6, 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 Nippon, JFE, SMI, or NKK, and exported by other parties at the all-others rate. See Preliminary Results, 77 FR at 13081. In addition, we continue to find it is more consistent with the May 6, 2003, clarification not to rescind the review in these circumstances but, rather, to complete the review with respect to Nippon, JFE, SMI, and NKK, and issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of the review. See the ‘‘Assessment Rates’’ section of this notice below. Assessment Rates Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 This notice serves as a 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 Department’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties. Notification Regarding APOs This notice also 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 notification of 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. These final results of administrative review and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. Dated: May 3, 2012. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. 2012–11333 Filed 5–9–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review. As noted above, the Department clarified its ‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on May 6, 2003. See Assessment Policy Notice. This clarification will apply to POR entries by all respondent companies because they certified that they made no POR shipments of subject merchandise for which they had knowledge of U.S. destination. We will instruct CBP to liquidate these entries at the all-others rate established in the less-than-fairvalue investigation (68.88 percent) if there is no rate for the intermediary involved in the transaction. See Assessment Policy Notice for a full discussion of this clarification. PO 00000 Notification to Importers Sfmt 4703 [A–570–894] Certain Tissue Paper Products From the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Initiation of Anticircumvention Inquiry Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to a request from Seaman Paper Company of Massachusetts, Inc. (the petitioner), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is initiating an anticircumvention inquiry to determine whether certain imports of tissue paper products from India are circumventing the antidumping duty order on certain tissue paper products (tissue paper) AGENCY: E:\FR\FM\10MYN1.SGM 10MYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 91 / Thursday, May 10, 2012 / Notices from the People’s Republic of China (PRC).1 DATES: Effective Date: May 10, 2012. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Smith or Brandon Custard, AD/ CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1766 or (202) 482–1823, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Background On March 8, 2012, the petitioner submitted a request that the Department initiate and conduct an anticircumvention inquiry, pursuant to section 781(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.225(h), to determine whether imports of tissue paper from India made from jumbo rolls (and likely cut-tolength sheets) of tissue paper produced in the PRC are circumventing the antidumping duty order on tissue paper from the PRC. Specifically, the petitioner alleges that AR Printing and Packaging India Pvt. Ltd. (ARPP) is importing into India PRC-produced jumbo rolls (and likely cut-to-length sheets) of tissue paper for completion or assembly into merchandise of the same class or kind as that covered by the antidumping duty order on tissue paper from the PRC prior to exporting that merchandise to the United States; and that such activity on the part of ARPP constitutes circumvention of the PRC tissue paper order. On April 12, 2012, the Department requested that the petitioner provide additional information and clarification pertinent to its anticircumvention inquiry request in order to determine whether it was appropriate to grant that request. See Letter to Seaman Paper Company of Massachusetts, Inc., dated April 12, 2012. The petitioner provided the requested information and clarification on April 16, 2012. Scope of the Order The tissue paper products subject to order are cut-to-length sheets of tissue paper having a basis weight not exceeding 29 grams per square meter. Tissue paper products subject to this order may or may not be bleached, dyecolored, surface-colored, glazed, surface decorated or printed, sequined, crinkled, embossed, and/or die cut. The 1 See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Tissue Paper Products from the People’s Republic of China, 70 FR 16223 (March 30, 2005) (Tissue Paper Order). VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 May 09, 2012 Jkt 226001 tissue paper subject to this order is in the form of cut-to-length sheets of tissue paper with a width equal to or greater than one-half (0.5) inch. Subject tissue paper may be flat or folded, and may be packaged by banding or wrapping with paper or film, by placing in plastic or film bags, and/or by placing in boxes for distribution and use by the ultimate consumer. Packages of tissue paper subject to this order may consist solely of tissue paper of one color and/or style, or may contain multiple colors and/or styles. Tissue paper products subject to this order do not have specific classification numbers assigned to them under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) and appear to be imported under one or more of the several different ‘‘basket’’ categories, including but not necessarily limited to the following subheadings: HTSUS 4802.30, HTSUS 4802.54, HTSUS 4802.61, HTSUS 4802.62, HTSUS 4802.69, HTSUS 4804.39, HTSUS 4806.40, HTSUS 4808.30, HTSUS 4808.90, HTSUS 4811.90, HTSUS 4823.90, HTSUS 9505.90.40. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive. Excluded from the scope of the order are the following tissue paper products: (1) Tissue paper products that are coated in wax, paraffin, or polymers, of a kind used in floral and food service applications; (2) tissue paper products that have been perforated, embossed, or die-cut to the shape of a toilet seat, i.e., disposable sanitary covers for toilet seats; and (3) toilet or facial tissue stock, towel or napkin stock, paper of a kind used for household or sanitary purposes, cellulose wadding, and webs of cellulose fibers (HTSUS 4803.00.20.00 and 4803.00.40.00). Initiation of Anticircumvention Proceeding Applicable Statute Section 781(b) of the Act provides that the Department may find circumvention of an antidumping duty order when merchandise of the same class or kind subject to the order is completed or assembled in a foreign country other than the country to which the order applies. In conducting anticircumvention inquiries under section 781(b) of the Act, the Department relies upon the following criteria: (A) Merchandise imported into the United States is of the same class or kind as any merchandise produced in a foreign country that is subject to an antidumping duty order; (B) before PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 27431 importation into the United States, such imported merchandise is completed or assembled in another foreign country from merchandise which is subject to the order or produced in the foreign country that is subject to the order; (C) the process of assembly or completion in the foreign country referred to in section (B) is minor or insignificant; (D) the value of the merchandise produced in the foreign country to which the antidumping duty order applies is a significant portion of the total value of the merchandise exported to the United States; and (E) the administering authority determines that action is appropriate to prevent evasion of such order or finding. As discussed below, the petitioner presented evidence with respect to these criteria. A. Merchandise of the Same Class or Kind The petitioner claims that the tissue paper from India, which it alleges ARPP completes or assembles (i.e., by cutting to length (if necessary), folding, and packaging) in India before exporting it to the United States, is produced from jumbo rolls of PRC-origin tissue paper obtained from a tissue paper supplier located in the PRC, and is physically identical to the subject merchandise. The petitioner states that its claim is supported through an affidavit included in its March 8, 2012, anticircumvention inquiry request which shows that by testing the ARPP-packaged tissue paper the petitioner obtained from a retail store in the United States, an expert in tissue paper products was able to determine that the tissue paper was made from PRC-origin tissue paper, and that the tissue paper ARPP exports to the United States is of the same class or kind of merchandise as that covered by the antidumping duty order. See March 8, 2012, anticircumvention inquiry request at Exhibit 8, and April 16, 2012, submission at pages 3–10. Accordingly, pursuant to section 781(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, the petitioner claims that at least some of the tissue paper exported by ARPP to the United States is of the same class or kind as the tissue paper produced in the PRC, which is subject to the antidumping duty order. B. Completion of Merchandise in a Foreign Country The petitioner alleges that the tissue paper that is the subject of the anticircumvention inquiry request is made from jumbo rolls (and likely cutto-length sheets) of tissue paper produced in the PRC which are completed or assembled (i.e., cut-tolength, folded, and packaged) into finished tissue paper products in India E:\FR\FM\10MYN1.SGM 10MYN1 27432 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 91 / Thursday, May 10, 2012 / Notices for export to the United States. Based on information contained in documentation obtained largely from sources which the petitioner is claiming business proprietary treatment, the petitioner asserts that: (1) ARPP recently imported tissue paper jumbo rolls from a Chinese producer; (2) ARPP exported tissue paper products made from those jumbo rolls to the United States; and (3) ARPP’s facility in India performs only basic converting operations (i.e., cutting, folding and packing activities), and not capital-intensive papermaking operations. See March 8, 2012, anticircumvention inquiry request at Exhibits 1, 5, 9, 10, and 13; and the April 16, 2012, submission at pages 3– 5. Based on this information, the petitioner concludes that, pursuant to section 781(b)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, ARPP’s tissue paper products are completed or assembled in another foreign country (India) from merchandise (tissue paper jumbo rolls) which is produced in the foreign country (the PRC) that is subject to the antidumping duty order. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES C. Minor or Insignificant Process The petitioner maintains that for the purpose of section 781(b)(1)(C) of the Act, conversion of jumbo rolls of tissue paper produced in the PRC into cut-tolength tissue paper in India is a ‘‘minor or insignificant process’’ as defined by the Act. According to the petitioner, the record evidence in the PRC tissue paper proceeding demonstrates that converting jumbo rolls and/or sheets of tissue paper is a minor or insignificant process. The petitioner states that cutting, folding and packaging tissue paper are operations that merely impart the final sheet size and form in which the product is delivered to the ultimate customer. The petitioner also states that the most fundamental aspects of the merchandise, such as the basis weight, texture, quality, and other special characteristics that may be required if the paper is intended for printing, are established when the paper is produced. Furthermore, the petitioner claims that the types of minor assembly operations described above (and below) with respect to converting jumbo rolls is consistent with the information obtained in other anticircumvention inquiries involving tissue paper products from the PRC.2 See March 8, 2 See Certain Tissue Paper Products From the People’s Republic of China: Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order, 73 FR 57591 (October 3, 2008) (Quijiang); and Certain Tissue Paper Products From the People’s Republic of China: Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of the VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 May 09, 2012 Jkt 226001 2012, anticircumvention inquiry request at pages 20–21 and 29–30. The petitioner states that converting jumbo rolls of tissue paper involves two to three minor processes typically performed by hand in India: cutting the tissue to a specific size, folding it (by hand typically) and packaging it for export (by hand). The petitioner contends that, based on the information obtained from ARPP’s Web site, ARPP performs only basic converting operations in India (i.e., cutting (if necessary), folding and packing activities),3 which are minor or insignificant processes in the overall production of tissue paper products, not capital-intensive papermaking operations. See March 8, 2012, anticircumvention inquiry request at page 30 and Exhibit 1. The petitioner argues that an analysis of the relevant statutory factors of section 781(b)(2) of the Act further supports its conclusion that the processing in India is ‘‘minor or insignificant.’’ These factors include: (1) The level of investment in the foreign country; (2) the level of research and development in the foreign country; (3) the nature of the production process in the foreign country; (4) the extent of production facilities in the foreign country; and (5) whether the value of the processing performed in the foreign country represents a small proportion of the value of the merchandise imported into the United States. The petitioner argues that the processing in India is ‘‘minor and insignificant’’ as the term is defined in section 781(b)(2) of the Act when compared to the complex and capitalintensive processes involved in producing lightweight tissue paper from pulp, chemicals, and dyes. The petitioner’s analysis of the statutory factors follows below. most paper cutting machines, tables, chairs and lights, and the investment associated with this equipment is not significant. The petitioner states that its claim is supported by the information obtained from ARPP’s Web site (i.e., www.arprintpack.com) and is consistent with the Department’s determinations in past anticircumvention inquiries of the PRC tissue paper order which involved respondents with similar converting operations (i.e., Quijiang and Max Fortune Vietnam). See March 8, 2012, anticircumvention inquiry request at pages 26–27, and Exhibit 1. Accordingly, the petitioner concludes that the level of investment in ARPP’s converting operations is minor or insignificant. (1) Level of Investment The petitioner claims that the available information concerning ARPP’s operations indicates that the level of investment is minor or insignificant. According to the petitioner, ARPP’s operations (i.e., importing jumbo rolls from companies in China, cutting to length if necessary and using manual labor to hand-fold and package the tissue paper before export to the United States) requires at (3) Nature of the Production Process in India The petitioner states that information from ARPP’s Web site indicates that ARPP’s operations in India are designed to convert (cut and/or package) the tissue paper imported from the PRC without altering the fundamental characteristics of the basis weight, quality and texture of the tissue paper that are established during the papermaking process. Therefore, the petitioner claims that the information from ARPP’s Web site shows that its operations are limited to PRC-origin jumbo rolls and sheets being cut to size (if necessary), and folded and packed by hand prior to export. As such, they involve unskilled manual labor in contrast to skilled labor required for Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 47551 (August 5, 2011) (Max Fortune Vietnam). 3 ARPP’s Web site provides photos of only folding and packing operations taking place, and its list of production assets does not identify any papermaking equipment or machines. See March 8, 2012, anticircumvention inquiry request at Exhibit 1. PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 (2) Level of Research and Development The petitioner maintains that there is no evidence reasonably available which indicates research and development (R&D) is taking place in India. In fact, the petitioner claims that information on ARPP’s Web site indicates that ARPP is not a center for R&D and that any R&D which may take place is handled by ARPP’s U.S. affiliate, Gem Stone Printing Inc. The petitioner also states that tissue paper production involves mature technologies and processes, and any technical developments are refinements rather than new technologies. Converting operations also reflect mature technologies, according to the petitioner, and the Indian converting operations involve hand-folding and packaging, which are inherently mature processes. The petitioner states that this claim is also consistent with the Department’s determinations addressing the level of R&D in the Quijiang and Max Fortune Vietnam anticircumvention inquiries. See March 8, 2012, anticircumvention inquiry request at pages 27–28, and Exhibit 1. E:\FR\FM\10MYN1.SGM 10MYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 91 / Thursday, May 10, 2012 / Notices papermaking. While cutting jumbo rolls into sheets of tissue paper may involve some skill and machinery, according to the petitioner, the nature of this activity is not complex. Therefore, the petitioner contends that ARPP’s ‘‘production process’’ is minor or insignificant and is consistent with the Department’s determinations in Quijiang and Max Fortune Vietnam. See March 8, 2012, anticircumvention inquiry request at pages 29–30 and Exhibit 1. (4) Extent of Production Facilities in India The petitioner asserts, based on information obtained from ARPP’s Web site, that ARPP’s facility provides ample storage for cut tissue paper and that it does not believe that ARPP has machinery in place to make tissue paper. According to the petitioner, the information on ARPP’s Web site demonstrates that ARPP is not a paper mill, as it indicates that ARPP’s production capabilities focus exclusively on printing and converting a variety of paper products, but not on paper-making from pulp. Therefore, the petitioner concludes that ARPP’s facilities associated with converting tissue paper products are minimal. See March 8, 2012, anticircumvention inquiry request at pages 30–31, and Exhibit 1. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES (5) Value of Processing in India Compared to Value of Tissue Paper Imported Into United States The petitioner states that the simple completion or assembly processes performed by ARPP in India (i.e., cutting (if necessary), folding (by hand) and packing (also by hand) the tissue paper from the PRC) necessarily represents a small proportion of the value of the finished tissue paper product shipped to the United States. The petitioner also states that this conclusion is supported by the Department’s determination in the Quijiang anticircumvention inquiry, in which the Department determined that tissue paper converting processes are minor or insignificant.4 See March 8, 4 Specifically, in the Quijiang anticircumvention inquiry, the petitioner states that the Department determined that the conversion processes of the respondent Quijiang (i.e., allegedly the same type of conversion processes described above for ARPP) were minor or insignificant for purposes of the statute, and that inclusion of the resulting tissue paper in the order was appropriate to avoid circumvention of the order. See Certain Tissue Paper Products From the People’s Republic of China: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order and Extension of Final Determination, 73 FR 21580 (April 22, 2008) (which was upheld in Certain Tissue Paper Products From the People’s Republic of China: Affirmative Final Determination of VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 May 09, 2012 Jkt 226001 2012, anticircumvention inquiry request at pages 32–33. D. Value of Merchandise Produced in PRC For the reasons stated in section C.5. above and for the purpose of section 781(b)(1)(D) of the Act, the petitioner contends that the value of the processing performed by ARPP is a minor portion of the cost of the completed merchandise. According to the petitioner, in this case, that analysis necessarily implies that the value of the PRC-origin jumbo rolls and cut-to-length sheets used by ARPP is a significant portion of the total value of the merchandise exported to the United States, because there are no other operations or components to take into account. In addition, the petitioner states that this conclusion is supported by the Department’s determination in the Quijiang anticircumvention inquiry, in which the Department determined that the value of the PRC-origin jumbo rolls constitutes a great majority of the value of the finished merchandise. See March 8, 2012, anticircumvention inquiry request at pages 33–34. E. Factors To Consider in Determining Whether Action Is Necessary The petitioner states that, pursuant to sections 781(b)(1)(E) and (b)(3) of the Act, additional factors must be considered in the Department’s decision to issue a finding of circumvention regarding imports of tissue paper from India. These factors are discussed below. Pattern of Trade Section 781(b)(3)(A) of the Act directs the Department to take into account patterns of trade when making a decision in an anticircumvention case. According to the petitioner, at the time the PRC tissue paper petition was filed in February 2004, the only source of imports of tissue paper products was the PRC. Based on ARPP’s Web site information, publicly available ship manifest (PIERS) data and Global Trade Information Service (GTIS) data, the petitioner contends that a few months after the petition was filed, ARPP was established and it began commercial shipments in 2005. The petitioner also Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order, 73 FR 57591 (October 3, 2008)). In addition, the petitioner notes that the activities performed by Quijiang included processing such as dip-dying, which would add greater amounts of value than merely converting jumbo rolls and sheets of tissue paper. In contrast, the petitioner contends that ARPP is only converting the imported jumbo rolls and sheets without performing additional processing (such as dip-dying). See March 18, 2012, anticircumvention inquiry request at page 33. PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 27433 contends that the PIERS data show a pattern of trade since the initiation of the PRC tissue paper proceeding that is characteristic of circumvention (i.e., that India rapidly emerged from being a source of no imports to being a source of substantial and growing imports of tissue paper). See March 18, 2012, anticircumvention inquiry request at pages 35–36, and Exhibit 1 and 6; and the April 16, submission at Exhibit 2. Affiliation Section 781(b)(3)(B) of the Act directs the Department to take into account whether the manufacturer or exporter of the merchandise is affiliated with the person who uses the merchandise to assemble or complete in the foreign country that is subsequently imported into the United States when making a decision in an anticircumvention case. The petitioner points out that ARPP is affiliated through common ownership with Stone Sapphire, a Chinese company identified on ARPP’s Web site as manufacturing and sourcing tissue paper products in the PRC. Although the petitioner acknowledges that the degree of Stone Sapphire’s involvement in shipments of PRC-origin tissue paper to ARPP is not currently known, the petitioner claims that the history of circumvention in this proceeding provides good cause to initiate a formal inquiry and develop a formal record of information from ARPP and its affiliates. See March 8, 2012, anticircumvention request at pages 36– 37, and Exhibits 1 and 2; Quijiang, 73 FR 57593; and Max Fortune Vietnam, 76 FR 47551, and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4. Subsequent Import Volume Section 781(b)(3)(C) of the Act directs the Department to take into account whether imports of the merchandise into the foreign country have increased after the initiation of the investigation, which resulted in the issuance of the order, when making a decision in an anticircumvention case. According to the petitioner, given that India was not a source of tissue paper products in February 2004 (i.e., the time when the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation of tissue paper from the PRC was initiated), it is reasonable to infer that jumbo rolls and cut-to-length sheets of tissue paper were not being shipped to India for completion or assembly into finished tissue paper products because Chinese producers and exporters had no restrictions on their imports into the United States. In addition, the petitioner notes that ARPP did not exist in 2004, during the time the original LTFV investigation was initiated and E:\FR\FM\10MYN1.SGM 10MYN1 27434 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 91 / Thursday, May 10, 2012 / Notices conducted. Therefore, before that time, ARPP could not have imported tissue paper jumbo rolls and sheets from the PRC. However, since the initiation of the original investigation, imports of Chinese tissue paper into India have increased steadily and substantially. Specifically, the petitioner states that the GTIS data show that imports of jumbo rolls and sheets of tissue paper into India from the PRC were very small through the third quarter of 2004 (i.e., the months after the petitioner filed the original petition). However, since that time, the petitioner claims that the GTIS data show that the volume of imports into India from the PRC has steadily and significantly increased. See March 8, 2012, anticircumvention inquiry request at pages 37–38. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Analysis Based on our analysis of the petitioner’s March 8, 2012, anticircumvention inquiry request, as supplemented on April 16, 2012, the Department determines that a formal anticircumvention inquiry is warranted. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(e), the Department finds that the issue of whether a product is included within the scope of an order cannot be determined based solely upon the request and the descriptions of the merchandise and the Department will notify by mail all parties on the Department’s scope service list of the initiation of a scope inquiry, including an anticircumvention inquiry. In addition, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(f)(1), a notice of the initiation of an anticircumvention inquiry issued under 19 CFR 351.225(e) will include a description of the product that is the subject of the anticircumvention inquiry—in this case, cut-to-length tissue paper that has the characteristics identified in the scope of the order, as provided above—and an explanation of the reasons for the Department’s decision to initiate an anticircumvention inquiry, as provided below. With regard to whether the merchandise from India is of the same class or kind as the merchandise produced in the PRC, the petitioner has presented information indicating that the merchandise being imported from India is of the same class or kind as the tissue paper produced in the PRC, which is subject to the antidumping duty order. The merchandise from India shares physical characteristics with the merchandise covered by the antidumping duty order. See March 8, 2012, anticircumvention inquiry request at pages 8–9. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 May 09, 2012 Jkt 226001 With regard to completion of merchandise in a foreign country, the petitioner has presented information that the tissue paper exported from India is tissue paper of PRC origin which is further processed in India. See March 8, 2012, anticircumvention inquiry request at Exhibits 5, 8, 9, and 10; and the April 16, 2012, submission at pages 2–10. With regard to whether the conversion of PRC jumbo rolls and/or sheets of tissue paper into cut-to-length tissue paper in India is a ‘‘minor or insignificant process,’’ the petitioner addressed the relevant statutory factors used to determine whether the processing of jumbo rolls and/or sheets of tissue paper is minor or insignificant with the best information available to it at the time of its anticircumvention inquiry request. The petitioner relied on information obtained primarily from publicly available sources and affidavits for this purpose. See March 8, 2012, anticircumvention inquiry request at Exhibits 1, 8, 9, and 13. We find that the information presented by the petitioner supports its request to initiate an anticircumvention inquiry. In particular, the petitioner provided evidence for each of the criteria enumerated in the statute, including the following: (1) The nature of ARPP’s operations (i.e., limited to converting operations) suggest little investment has been made in ARPP; (2) because ARPP’s U.S. affiliate conducts R&D, it is reasonable to infer that any R&D takes place in the United States and not in India; (3) the cutting, folding and packaging activities (i.e., the converting process) performed by ARPP do not alter the fundamental characteristics of the tissue paper and, therefore, reflect a production process which is minor or insignificant; (4) ARPP’s basic converting operations suggest a significantly lower level of investment in production assets than that required by the capital-intensive nature of the papermaking process and, thus ARPP’s facilities are minimal; and (5) ARPP’s limited operations suggest that converting tissue paper adds little value to the merchandise imported into the United States. With respect to the value of the merchandise produced in the PRC, the petitioner relied on the information and arguments in the ‘‘minor or insignificant process’’ portion of its anticircumvention request to indicate that the value of the PRC jumbo rolls and sheets of tissue paper is significant relative to the total value of finished merchandise exported to the United States. We find that this information PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 adequately meets the requirements of this factor, as discussed above. Finally, the petitioner argued that the Department should also consider the pattern of trade, affiliation, and subsequent import volume as factors in determining whether to initiate the anticircumvention inquiry. The import information submitted by the petitioner indicates that U.S. imports of tissue paper from India, as well as Indian imports of tissue paper from China, rose significantly after the initiation of the investigation and the establishment of ARPP. In addition, the petitioner provides information showing ARPP’s affiliation with a known producer of tissue paper in the PRC, the timing of ARPP’s establishment, and that the nature of ARPP’s operations reflect an intention to shift completion of merchandise subject to the PRC tissue paper order from the PRC to India. Accordingly, we are initiating a formal anticircumvention inquiry concerning the antidumping duty order on certain tissue paper products from the PRC, pursuant to section 781(b) of the Act. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(l)(2), if the Department issues a preliminary affirmative determination, we will then instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation and require a cash deposit of estimated duties, at the applicable rate, for each unliquidated entry of the merchandise at issue, entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or after the date of initiation of the inquiry. The Department is focusing its analysis of the significance of the production process in India on the single company identified by the petitioner, namely ARPP, in its March 8, 2012, anticircumvention inquiry request. If the Department receives a formal request from an interested party regarding potential circumvention by other Indian companies involved in processing PRC jumbo rolls and/or sheets for export to the United States within sufficient time, we will consider conducting the inquiries concurrently. The Department will, following consultation with interested parties, establish a schedule for questionnaires and comments on the issues. The Department intends to issue its final determination within 300 days of the date of publication of this initiation consistent with section 781(f) of the Act. This notice is published in accordance with section 781(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(f). E:\FR\FM\10MYN1.SGM 10MYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 91 / Thursday, May 10, 2012 / Notices Dated: May 3, 2012. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. On January 10, 2012, the Department published a notice fully extending the time limit for completion of the final results of this new shipper review.3 Between March 16, 2012, and March 21, 2012, we received case and rebuttal briefs from Petitioners 4 and the respondent.5 As a result of our analysis, we have made changes to the Preliminary Results. [FR Doc. 2012–11217 Filed 5–9–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–552–801] Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the New Shipper Review Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On December 13, 2011, the Department of Commerce (‘‘Department’’) published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of the new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen fish fillets (‘‘frozen fish fillets’’) from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (‘‘Vietnam’’).1 We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the Preliminary Results and, based upon our analysis of the comments and information received, we made changes to the margin calculation for the final results of this new shipper review. The final weighted-average margins are listed below in the ‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section of this notice. The period of review (‘‘POR’’) is August 1, 2010, through January 31, 2011. DATES: Effective Date: May 10, 2012. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emeka Chukwudebe, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0219. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Background As noted above, on December 13, 2011, the Department published the Preliminary Results of this new shipper review. We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. We extended the deadlines for submission of surrogate value comments and case briefs on multiple occasions.2 1 See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results of the New Shipper Review, 76 FR 77485 (December 13, 2011) (‘‘Preliminary Results’’). 2 See Memorandum for All Interested Parties, from Alexis Polovina, Case Analyst, Import Administration, Re: Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Extension of VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:18 May 09, 2012 Jkt 226001 Scope of the Order The product covered by the order is frozen fish fillets, including regular, shank, and strip fillets and portions thereof, whether or not breaded or marinated, of the species Pangasius Bocourti, Pangasius Hypophthalmus (also known as Pangasius Pangasius), and Pangasius Micronemus. Frozen fish fillets are lengthwise cuts of whole fish. The fillet products covered by the scope include boneless fillets with the belly flap intact (‘‘regular’’ fillets), boneless fillets with the belly flap removed (‘‘shank’’ fillets), boneless shank fillets cut into strips (‘‘fillet strips/finger’’), which include fillets cut into strips, chunks, blocks, skewers, or any other shape. Specifically excluded from the scope are frozen whole fish (whether or not dressed), frozen steaks, and frozen belly-flap nuggets. Frozen whole dressed fish are deheaded, skinned, and eviscerated. Steaks are bone-in, crosssection cuts of dressed fish. Nuggets are the belly-flaps. The subject merchandise will be hereinafter referred to as frozen ‘‘basa’’ and ‘‘tra’’ fillets, which are the Time to Submit Surrogate Value Comments, dated December 30, 2011. See also Memorandum for All Interested Parties, from Emeka Chukwudebe, Case Analyst, Import Administration, Re: Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Extension of Surrogate Value Comments & Case Briefs Deadlines, dated January 5, 2012. See also Memorandum for All Interested Parties, from Emeka Chukwudebe, Case Analyst, Import Administration, Re: Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Second Extension of Case and Rebuttal Briefs, dated, February 29, 2012. See also Memorandum for All Interested Parties, from Emeka Chukwudebe, Case Analyst, Import Administration, Re: Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Revised Extension of Case and Rebuttal Briefs, dated, March 8, 2012. 3 See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Extension of Time for Final Results of the New Shipper Review, 77 FR 1470 (January 10, 2012). 4 The Catfish Farmers of America and individual U.S. Catfish Processors: America’s Catch, Consolidated Catfish Companies, LLC dba Country Select Catfish, Delta Pride Catfish, Inc., Harvest Select Catfish, Inc., Heartland Catfish Company, Pride of the Pond, Simmons Farm Raised Catfish, Inc., and Southern Pride Catfish Company LLC (collectively, ‘‘Petitioners’’). 5 Thuan An Production Trading & Services Co., Ltd. (‘‘TAFISHCO’’). PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 27435 Vietnamese common names for these species of fish. These products are classifiable under tariff article codes 0304.29.6033, 0304.62.0020, 0305.59.0000, 0305.59.4000, 1604.19.2000, 1604.19.2100, 1604.19.3000, 1604.19.3100, 1604.19.4000, 1604.19.4100, 1604.19.5000, 1604.19.5100, 1604.19.6100, 1604.19.8100 (Frozen Fish Fillets of the species Pangasius including basa and tra) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’).6 The order covers all frozen fish fillets meeting the above specification, regardless of tariff classification. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties are addressed in the ‘‘Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the New Shipper Review,’’ dated concurrently with this notice (‘‘I&D Memo’’), and which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties raised is attached to this notice as an Appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this new shipper review and the corresponding recommendation in this public memorandum which is on file electronically via Import Administration’s Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Services System (‘‘IA ACCESS’’). Access to IA ACCESS is available in the Central Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’) of the main Commerce Building, Room 7046. In addition, a complete version of the I&D Memo is accessible on the Web at http:// trade.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic versions of the I&D Memo are identical in content. 6 Until July 1, 2004, these products were classifiable under tariff article codes 0304.20.60.30 (Frozen Catfish Fillets), 0304.20.60.96 (Frozen Fish Fillets, NESOI), 0304.20.60.43 (Frozen Freshwater Fish Fillets) and 0304.20.60.57 (Frozen Sole Fillets) of the HTSUS. Until February 1, 2007, these products were classifiable under tariff article code 0304.20.60.33 (Frozen Fish Fillets of the species Pangasius including basa and tra) of the HTSUS. On March 2, 2011, the Department added two HTSUS numbers at the request of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’): 1604.19.2000 and 1604 19.3000. On January 30, 2012, the Department added eight HTSUS numbers at the request of U.S. CBP: 0304.62.0020, 0305.59.0000, 1604.19.2100, 1604.19.3100, 1604.19.4100, 1604.19.5100, 1604.19.6100, 1604.19.8100. E:\FR\FM\10MYN1.SGM 10MYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 91 (Thursday, May 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27430-27435]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11217]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-894]


Certain Tissue Paper Products From the People's Republic of 
China: Notice of Initiation of Anticircumvention Inquiry

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a request from Seaman Paper Company of 
Massachusetts, Inc. (the petitioner), the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) is initiating an anticircumvention inquiry to determine 
whether certain imports of tissue paper products from India are 
circumventing the antidumping duty order on certain tissue paper 
products (tissue paper)

[[Page 27431]]

from the People's Republic of China (PRC).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less 
than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Tissue Paper 
Products from the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 16223 (March 30, 
2005) (Tissue Paper Order).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: May 10, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Smith or Brandon Custard, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1766 or (202) 482-1823, 
respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On March 8, 2012, the petitioner submitted a request that the 
Department initiate and conduct an anticircumvention inquiry, pursuant 
to section 781(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 
19 CFR 351.225(h), to determine whether imports of tissue paper from 
India made from jumbo rolls (and likely cut-to-length sheets) of tissue 
paper produced in the PRC are circumventing the antidumping duty order 
on tissue paper from the PRC. Specifically, the petitioner alleges that 
AR Printing and Packaging India Pvt. Ltd. (ARPP) is importing into 
India PRC-produced jumbo rolls (and likely cut-to-length sheets) of 
tissue paper for completion or assembly into merchandise of the same 
class or kind as that covered by the antidumping duty order on tissue 
paper from the PRC prior to exporting that merchandise to the United 
States; and that such activity on the part of ARPP constitutes 
circumvention of the PRC tissue paper order.
    On April 12, 2012, the Department requested that the petitioner 
provide additional information and clarification pertinent to its 
anticircumvention inquiry request in order to determine whether it was 
appropriate to grant that request. See Letter to Seaman Paper Company 
of Massachusetts, Inc., dated April 12, 2012. The petitioner provided 
the requested information and clarification on April 16, 2012.

Scope of the Order

    The tissue paper products subject to order are cut-to-length sheets 
of tissue paper having a basis weight not exceeding 29 grams per square 
meter. Tissue paper products subject to this order may or may not be 
bleached, dye-colored, surface-colored, glazed, surface decorated or 
printed, sequined, crinkled, embossed, and/or die cut. The tissue paper 
subject to this order is in the form of cut-to-length sheets of tissue 
paper with a width equal to or greater than one-half (0.5) inch. 
Subject tissue paper may be flat or folded, and may be packaged by 
banding or wrapping with paper or film, by placing in plastic or film 
bags, and/or by placing in boxes for distribution and use by the 
ultimate consumer. Packages of tissue paper subject to this order may 
consist solely of tissue paper of one color and/or style, or may 
contain multiple colors and/or styles.
    Tissue paper products subject to this order do not have specific 
classification numbers assigned to them under the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) and appear to be imported under 
one or more of the several different ``basket'' categories, including 
but not necessarily limited to the following subheadings: HTSUS 
4802.30, HTSUS 4802.54, HTSUS 4802.61, HTSUS 4802.62, HTSUS 4802.69, 
HTSUS 4804.39, HTSUS 4806.40, HTSUS 4808.30, HTSUS 4808.90, HTSUS 
4811.90, HTSUS 4823.90, HTSUS 9505.90.40.
    Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and 
customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the 
investigation is dispositive.
    Excluded from the scope of the order are the following tissue paper 
products: (1) Tissue paper products that are coated in wax, paraffin, 
or polymers, of a kind used in floral and food service applications; 
(2) tissue paper products that have been perforated, embossed, or die-
cut to the shape of a toilet seat, i.e., disposable sanitary covers for 
toilet seats; and (3) toilet or facial tissue stock, towel or napkin 
stock, paper of a kind used for household or sanitary purposes, 
cellulose wadding, and webs of cellulose fibers (HTSUS 4803.00.20.00 
and 4803.00.40.00).

Initiation of Anticircumvention Proceeding

Applicable Statute

    Section 781(b) of the Act provides that the Department may find 
circumvention of an antidumping duty order when merchandise of the same 
class or kind subject to the order is completed or assembled in a 
foreign country other than the country to which the order applies. In 
conducting anticircumvention inquiries under section 781(b) of the Act, 
the Department relies upon the following criteria: (A) Merchandise 
imported into the United States is of the same class or kind as any 
merchandise produced in a foreign country that is subject to an 
antidumping duty order; (B) before importation into the United States, 
such imported merchandise is completed or assembled in another foreign 
country from merchandise which is subject to the order or produced in 
the foreign country that is subject to the order; (C) the process of 
assembly or completion in the foreign country referred to in section 
(B) is minor or insignificant; (D) the value of the merchandise 
produced in the foreign country to which the antidumping duty order 
applies is a significant portion of the total value of the merchandise 
exported to the United States; and (E) the administering authority 
determines that action is appropriate to prevent evasion of such order 
or finding. As discussed below, the petitioner presented evidence with 
respect to these criteria.

A. Merchandise of the Same Class or Kind

    The petitioner claims that the tissue paper from India, which it 
alleges ARPP completes or assembles (i.e., by cutting to length (if 
necessary), folding, and packaging) in India before exporting it to the 
United States, is produced from jumbo rolls of PRC-origin tissue paper 
obtained from a tissue paper supplier located in the PRC, and is 
physically identical to the subject merchandise. The petitioner states 
that its claim is supported through an affidavit included in its March 
8, 2012, anticircumvention inquiry request which shows that by testing 
the ARPP-packaged tissue paper the petitioner obtained from a retail 
store in the United States, an expert in tissue paper products was able 
to determine that the tissue paper was made from PRC-origin tissue 
paper, and that the tissue paper ARPP exports to the United States is 
of the same class or kind of merchandise as that covered by the 
antidumping duty order. See March 8, 2012, anticircumvention inquiry 
request at Exhibit 8, and April 16, 2012, submission at pages 3-10. 
Accordingly, pursuant to section 781(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, the 
petitioner claims that at least some of the tissue paper exported by 
ARPP to the United States is of the same class or kind as the tissue 
paper produced in the PRC, which is subject to the antidumping duty 
order.

B. Completion of Merchandise in a Foreign Country

    The petitioner alleges that the tissue paper that is the subject of 
the anticircumvention inquiry request is made from jumbo rolls (and 
likely cut-to-length sheets) of tissue paper produced in the PRC which 
are completed or assembled (i.e., cut-to-length, folded, and packaged) 
into finished tissue paper products in India

[[Page 27432]]

for export to the United States. Based on information contained in 
documentation obtained largely from sources which the petitioner is 
claiming business proprietary treatment, the petitioner asserts that: 
(1) ARPP recently imported tissue paper jumbo rolls from a Chinese 
producer; (2) ARPP exported tissue paper products made from those jumbo 
rolls to the United States; and (3) ARPP's facility in India performs 
only basic converting operations (i.e., cutting, folding and packing 
activities), and not capital-intensive papermaking operations. See 
March 8, 2012, anticircumvention inquiry request at Exhibits 1, 5, 9, 
10, and 13; and the April 16, 2012, submission at pages 3-5. Based on 
this information, the petitioner concludes that, pursuant to section 
781(b)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, ARPP's tissue paper products are completed 
or assembled in another foreign country (India) from merchandise 
(tissue paper jumbo rolls) which is produced in the foreign country 
(the PRC) that is subject to the antidumping duty order.

C. Minor or Insignificant Process

    The petitioner maintains that for the purpose of section 
781(b)(1)(C) of the Act, conversion of jumbo rolls of tissue paper 
produced in the PRC into cut-to-length tissue paper in India is a 
``minor or insignificant process'' as defined by the Act. According to 
the petitioner, the record evidence in the PRC tissue paper proceeding 
demonstrates that converting jumbo rolls and/or sheets of tissue paper 
is a minor or insignificant process. The petitioner states that 
cutting, folding and packaging tissue paper are operations that merely 
impart the final sheet size and form in which the product is delivered 
to the ultimate customer. The petitioner also states that the most 
fundamental aspects of the merchandise, such as the basis weight, 
texture, quality, and other special characteristics that may be 
required if the paper is intended for printing, are established when 
the paper is produced. Furthermore, the petitioner claims that the 
types of minor assembly operations described above (and below) with 
respect to converting jumbo rolls is consistent with the information 
obtained in other anticircumvention inquiries involving tissue paper 
products from the PRC.\2\ See March 8, 2012, anticircumvention inquiry 
request at pages 20-21 and 29-30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Certain Tissue Paper Products From the People's Republic 
of China: Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of the 
Antidumping Duty Order, 73 FR 57591 (October 3, 2008) (Quijiang); 
and Certain Tissue Paper Products From the People's Republic of 
China: Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of the 
Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 47551 (August 5, 2011) (Max Fortune 
Vietnam).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioner states that converting jumbo rolls of tissue paper 
involves two to three minor processes typically performed by hand in 
India: cutting the tissue to a specific size, folding it (by hand 
typically) and packaging it for export (by hand). The petitioner 
contends that, based on the information obtained from ARPP's Web site, 
ARPP performs only basic converting operations in India (i.e., cutting 
(if necessary), folding and packing activities),\3\ which are minor or 
insignificant processes in the overall production of tissue paper 
products, not capital-intensive papermaking operations. See March 8, 
2012, anticircumvention inquiry request at page 30 and Exhibit 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ARPP's Web site provides photos of only folding and packing 
operations taking place, and its list of production assets does not 
identify any papermaking equipment or machines. See March 8, 2012, 
anticircumvention inquiry request at Exhibit 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioner argues that an analysis of the relevant statutory 
factors of section 781(b)(2) of the Act further supports its conclusion 
that the processing in India is ``minor or insignificant.'' These 
factors include: (1) The level of investment in the foreign country; 
(2) the level of research and development in the foreign country; (3) 
the nature of the production process in the foreign country; (4) the 
extent of production facilities in the foreign country; and (5) whether 
the value of the processing performed in the foreign country represents 
a small proportion of the value of the merchandise imported into the 
United States.
    The petitioner argues that the processing in India is ``minor and 
insignificant'' as the term is defined in section 781(b)(2) of the Act 
when compared to the complex and capital-intensive processes involved 
in producing lightweight tissue paper from pulp, chemicals, and dyes. 
The petitioner's analysis of the statutory factors follows below.
(1) Level of Investment
    The petitioner claims that the available information concerning 
ARPP's operations indicates that the level of investment is minor or 
insignificant. According to the petitioner, ARPP's operations (i.e., 
importing jumbo rolls from companies in China, cutting to length if 
necessary and using manual labor to hand-fold and package the tissue 
paper before export to the United States) requires at most paper 
cutting machines, tables, chairs and lights, and the investment 
associated with this equipment is not significant. The petitioner 
states that its claim is supported by the information obtained from 
ARPP's Web site (i.e., www.arprintpack.com) and is consistent with the 
Department's determinations in past anticircumvention inquiries of the 
PRC tissue paper order which involved respondents with similar 
converting operations (i.e., Quijiang and Max Fortune Vietnam). See 
March 8, 2012, anticircumvention inquiry request at pages 26-27, and 
Exhibit 1. Accordingly, the petitioner concludes that the level of 
investment in ARPP's converting operations is minor or insignificant.
(2) Level of Research and Development
    The petitioner maintains that there is no evidence reasonably 
available which indicates research and development (R&D) is taking 
place in India. In fact, the petitioner claims that information on 
ARPP's Web site indicates that ARPP is not a center for R&D and that 
any R&D which may take place is handled by ARPP's U.S. affiliate, Gem 
Stone Printing Inc. The petitioner also states that tissue paper 
production involves mature technologies and processes, and any 
technical developments are refinements rather than new technologies. 
Converting operations also reflect mature technologies, according to 
the petitioner, and the Indian converting operations involve hand-
folding and packaging, which are inherently mature processes. The 
petitioner states that this claim is also consistent with the 
Department's determinations addressing the level of R&D in the Quijiang 
and Max Fortune Vietnam anticircumvention inquiries. See March 8, 2012, 
anticircumvention inquiry request at pages 27-28, and Exhibit 1.
(3) Nature of the Production Process in India
    The petitioner states that information from ARPP's Web site 
indicates that ARPP's operations in India are designed to convert (cut 
and/or package) the tissue paper imported from the PRC without altering 
the fundamental characteristics of the basis weight, quality and 
texture of the tissue paper that are established during the papermaking 
process. Therefore, the petitioner claims that the information from 
ARPP's Web site shows that its operations are limited to PRC-origin 
jumbo rolls and sheets being cut to size (if necessary), and folded and 
packed by hand prior to export. As such, they involve unskilled manual 
labor in contrast to skilled labor required for

[[Page 27433]]

papermaking. While cutting jumbo rolls into sheets of tissue paper may 
involve some skill and machinery, according to the petitioner, the 
nature of this activity is not complex. Therefore, the petitioner 
contends that ARPP's ``production process'' is minor or insignificant 
and is consistent with the Department's determinations in Quijiang and 
Max Fortune Vietnam. See March 8, 2012, anticircumvention inquiry 
request at pages 29-30 and Exhibit 1.
(4) Extent of Production Facilities in India
    The petitioner asserts, based on information obtained from ARPP's 
Web site, that ARPP's facility provides ample storage for cut tissue 
paper and that it does not believe that ARPP has machinery in place to 
make tissue paper. According to the petitioner, the information on 
ARPP's Web site demonstrates that ARPP is not a paper mill, as it 
indicates that ARPP's production capabilities focus exclusively on 
printing and converting a variety of paper products, but not on paper-
making from pulp. Therefore, the petitioner concludes that ARPP's 
facilities associated with converting tissue paper products are 
minimal. See March 8, 2012, anticircumvention inquiry request at pages 
30-31, and Exhibit 1.
(5) Value of Processing in India Compared to Value of Tissue Paper 
Imported Into United States
    The petitioner states that the simple completion or assembly 
processes performed by ARPP in India (i.e., cutting (if necessary), 
folding (by hand) and packing (also by hand) the tissue paper from the 
PRC) necessarily represents a small proportion of the value of the 
finished tissue paper product shipped to the United States. The 
petitioner also states that this conclusion is supported by the 
Department's determination in the Quijiang anticircumvention inquiry, 
in which the Department determined that tissue paper converting 
processes are minor or insignificant.\4\ See March 8, 2012, 
anticircumvention inquiry request at pages 32-33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Specifically, in the Quijiang anticircumvention inquiry, the 
petitioner states that the Department determined that the conversion 
processes of the respondent Quijiang (i.e., allegedly the same type 
of conversion processes described above for ARPP) were minor or 
insignificant for purposes of the statute, and that inclusion of the 
resulting tissue paper in the order was appropriate to avoid 
circumvention of the order. See Certain Tissue Paper Products From 
the People's Republic of China: Affirmative Preliminary 
Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order and 
Extension of Final Determination, 73 FR 21580 (April 22, 2008) 
(which was upheld in Certain Tissue Paper Products From the People's 
Republic of China: Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention 
of the Antidumping Duty Order, 73 FR 57591 (October 3, 2008)). In 
addition, the petitioner notes that the activities performed by 
Quijiang included processing such as dip-dying, which would add 
greater amounts of value than merely converting jumbo rolls and 
sheets of tissue paper. In contrast, the petitioner contends that 
ARPP is only converting the imported jumbo rolls and sheets without 
performing additional processing (such as dip-dying). See March 18, 
2012, anticircumvention inquiry request at page 33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Value of Merchandise Produced in PRC

    For the reasons stated in section C.5. above and for the purpose of 
section 781(b)(1)(D) of the Act, the petitioner contends that the value 
of the processing performed by ARPP is a minor portion of the cost of 
the completed merchandise. According to the petitioner, in this case, 
that analysis necessarily implies that the value of the PRC-origin 
jumbo rolls and cut-to-length sheets used by ARPP is a significant 
portion of the total value of the merchandise exported to the United 
States, because there are no other operations or components to take 
into account. In addition, the petitioner states that this conclusion 
is supported by the Department's determination in the Quijiang 
anticircumvention inquiry, in which the Department determined that the 
value of the PRC-origin jumbo rolls constitutes a great majority of the 
value of the finished merchandise. See March 8, 2012, anticircumvention 
inquiry request at pages 33-34.

E. Factors To Consider in Determining Whether Action Is Necessary

    The petitioner states that, pursuant to sections 781(b)(1)(E) and 
(b)(3) of the Act, additional factors must be considered in the 
Department's decision to issue a finding of circumvention regarding 
imports of tissue paper from India. These factors are discussed below.

Pattern of Trade

    Section 781(b)(3)(A) of the Act directs the Department to take into 
account patterns of trade when making a decision in an 
anticircumvention case. According to the petitioner, at the time the 
PRC tissue paper petition was filed in February 2004, the only source 
of imports of tissue paper products was the PRC. Based on ARPP's Web 
site information, publicly available ship manifest (PIERS) data and 
Global Trade Information Service (GTIS) data, the petitioner contends 
that a few months after the petition was filed, ARPP was established 
and it began commercial shipments in 2005. The petitioner also contends 
that the PIERS data show a pattern of trade since the initiation of the 
PRC tissue paper proceeding that is characteristic of circumvention 
(i.e., that India rapidly emerged from being a source of no imports to 
being a source of substantial and growing imports of tissue paper). See 
March 18, 2012, anticircumvention inquiry request at pages 35-36, and 
Exhibit 1 and 6; and the April 16, submission at Exhibit 2.

Affiliation

    Section 781(b)(3)(B) of the Act directs the Department to take into 
account whether the manufacturer or exporter of the merchandise is 
affiliated with the person who uses the merchandise to assemble or 
complete in the foreign country that is subsequently imported into the 
United States when making a decision in an anticircumvention case. The 
petitioner points out that ARPP is affiliated through common ownership 
with Stone Sapphire, a Chinese company identified on ARPP's Web site as 
manufacturing and sourcing tissue paper products in the PRC. Although 
the petitioner acknowledges that the degree of Stone Sapphire's 
involvement in shipments of PRC-origin tissue paper to ARPP is not 
currently known, the petitioner claims that the history of 
circumvention in this proceeding provides good cause to initiate a 
formal inquiry and develop a formal record of information from ARPP and 
its affiliates. See March 8, 2012, anticircumvention request at pages 
36-37, and Exhibits 1 and 2; Quijiang, 73 FR 57593; and Max Fortune 
Vietnam, 76 FR 47551, and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum 
at Comment 4.

Subsequent Import Volume

    Section 781(b)(3)(C) of the Act directs the Department to take into 
account whether imports of the merchandise into the foreign country 
have increased after the initiation of the investigation, which 
resulted in the issuance of the order, when making a decision in an 
anticircumvention case. According to the petitioner, given that India 
was not a source of tissue paper products in February 2004 (i.e., the 
time when the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation of tissue paper 
from the PRC was initiated), it is reasonable to infer that jumbo rolls 
and cut-to-length sheets of tissue paper were not being shipped to 
India for completion or assembly into finished tissue paper products 
because Chinese producers and exporters had no restrictions on their 
imports into the United States. In addition, the petitioner notes that 
ARPP did not exist in 2004, during the time the original LTFV 
investigation was initiated and

[[Page 27434]]

conducted. Therefore, before that time, ARPP could not have imported 
tissue paper jumbo rolls and sheets from the PRC. However, since the 
initiation of the original investigation, imports of Chinese tissue 
paper into India have increased steadily and substantially. 
Specifically, the petitioner states that the GTIS data show that 
imports of jumbo rolls and sheets of tissue paper into India from the 
PRC were very small through the third quarter of 2004 (i.e., the months 
after the petitioner filed the original petition). However, since that 
time, the petitioner claims that the GTIS data show that the volume of 
imports into India from the PRC has steadily and significantly 
increased. See March 8, 2012, anticircumvention inquiry request at 
pages 37-38.

Analysis

    Based on our analysis of the petitioner's March 8, 2012, 
anticircumvention inquiry request, as supplemented on April 16, 2012, 
the Department determines that a formal anticircumvention inquiry is 
warranted. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(e), the Department finds 
that the issue of whether a product is included within the scope of an 
order cannot be determined based solely upon the request and the 
descriptions of the merchandise and the Department will notify by mail 
all parties on the Department's scope service list of the initiation of 
a scope inquiry, including an anticircumvention inquiry. In addition, 
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(f)(1), a notice of the initiation of 
an anticircumvention inquiry issued under 19 CFR 351.225(e) will 
include a description of the product that is the subject of the 
anticircumvention inquiry--in this case, cut-to-length tissue paper 
that has the characteristics identified in the scope of the order, as 
provided above--and an explanation of the reasons for the Department's 
decision to initiate an anticircumvention inquiry, as provided below.
    With regard to whether the merchandise from India is of the same 
class or kind as the merchandise produced in the PRC, the petitioner 
has presented information indicating that the merchandise being 
imported from India is of the same class or kind as the tissue paper 
produced in the PRC, which is subject to the antidumping duty order. 
The merchandise from India shares physical characteristics with the 
merchandise covered by the antidumping duty order. See March 8, 2012, 
anticircumvention inquiry request at pages 8-9.
    With regard to completion of merchandise in a foreign country, the 
petitioner has presented information that the tissue paper exported 
from India is tissue paper of PRC origin which is further processed in 
India. See March 8, 2012, anticircumvention inquiry request at Exhibits 
5, 8, 9, and 10; and the April 16, 2012, submission at pages 2-10.
    With regard to whether the conversion of PRC jumbo rolls and/or 
sheets of tissue paper into cut-to-length tissue paper in India is a 
``minor or insignificant process,'' the petitioner addressed the 
relevant statutory factors used to determine whether the processing of 
jumbo rolls and/or sheets of tissue paper is minor or insignificant 
with the best information available to it at the time of its 
anticircumvention inquiry request. The petitioner relied on information 
obtained primarily from publicly available sources and affidavits for 
this purpose. See March 8, 2012, anticircumvention inquiry request at 
Exhibits 1, 8, 9, and 13.
    We find that the information presented by the petitioner supports 
its request to initiate an anticircumvention inquiry. In particular, 
the petitioner provided evidence for each of the criteria enumerated in 
the statute, including the following: (1) The nature of ARPP's 
operations (i.e., limited to converting operations) suggest little 
investment has been made in ARPP; (2) because ARPP's U.S. affiliate 
conducts R&D, it is reasonable to infer that any R&D takes place in the 
United States and not in India; (3) the cutting, folding and packaging 
activities (i.e., the converting process) performed by ARPP do not 
alter the fundamental characteristics of the tissue paper and, 
therefore, reflect a production process which is minor or 
insignificant; (4) ARPP's basic converting operations suggest a 
significantly lower level of investment in production assets than that 
required by the capital-intensive nature of the papermaking process 
and, thus ARPP's facilities are minimal; and (5) ARPP's limited 
operations suggest that converting tissue paper adds little value to 
the merchandise imported into the United States.
    With respect to the value of the merchandise produced in the PRC, 
the petitioner relied on the information and arguments in the ``minor 
or insignificant process'' portion of its anticircumvention request to 
indicate that the value of the PRC jumbo rolls and sheets of tissue 
paper is significant relative to the total value of finished 
merchandise exported to the United States. We find that this 
information adequately meets the requirements of this factor, as 
discussed above.
    Finally, the petitioner argued that the Department should also 
consider the pattern of trade, affiliation, and subsequent import 
volume as factors in determining whether to initiate the 
anticircumvention inquiry. The import information submitted by the 
petitioner indicates that U.S. imports of tissue paper from India, as 
well as Indian imports of tissue paper from China, rose significantly 
after the initiation of the investigation and the establishment of 
ARPP. In addition, the petitioner provides information showing ARPP's 
affiliation with a known producer of tissue paper in the PRC, the 
timing of ARPP's establishment, and that the nature of ARPP's 
operations reflect an intention to shift completion of merchandise 
subject to the PRC tissue paper order from the PRC to India.
    Accordingly, we are initiating a formal anticircumvention inquiry 
concerning the antidumping duty order on certain tissue paper products 
from the PRC, pursuant to section 781(b) of the Act. In accordance with 
19 CFR 351.225(l)(2), if the Department issues a preliminary 
affirmative determination, we will then instruct U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection to suspend liquidation and require a cash deposit of 
estimated duties, at the applicable rate, for each unliquidated entry 
of the merchandise at issue, entered or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption on or after the date of initiation of the inquiry.
    The Department is focusing its analysis of the significance of the 
production process in India on the single company identified by the 
petitioner, namely ARPP, in its March 8, 2012, anticircumvention 
inquiry request. If the Department receives a formal request from an 
interested party regarding potential circumvention by other Indian 
companies involved in processing PRC jumbo rolls and/or sheets for 
export to the United States within sufficient time, we will consider 
conducting the inquiries concurrently.
    The Department will, following consultation with interested 
parties, establish a schedule for questionnaires and comments on the 
issues. The Department intends to issue its final determination within 
300 days of the date of publication of this initiation consistent with 
section 781(f) of the Act.
    This notice is published in accordance with section 781(b) of the 
Act and 19 CFR 351.225(f).


[[Page 27435]]


     Dated: May 3, 2012.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-11217 Filed 5-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P