Certain Lined Paper Products From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61390-61394 [2012-24813]
Download as PDF
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
61390
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 9, 2012 / Notices
for any manufacturer other than Kenda
Rubber (China) Co., Ltd.
25. Exporter Kenda Rubber (China) Co., Ltd.,
for any manufacturer other than Kenda
Rubber (China) Co., Ltd.
26. Exporter L-Guard International Enterprise
27. Exporter Longkou Xinglong Tire Co. Ltd.
28. Exporter Mai Shandong Radial Tyre Co.,
Ltd.
29. Exporter Maxxis International (HK) Co.
Ltd.
30. Exporter Midland Speciality Tire Co.,
Ltd.
31. Exporter Oriental Tyre Technology
Limited, for any manufacturers other
than Midland Off The Road Tire Co.,
Ltd., Midland Specialty Tire Co., Ltd., or
Xuzhou Hanbang Tyres Co., Ltd.
32. Exporter Qingdao Aonuo Tyre Co. Ltd.,
for any manufacturer other than Qingdao
Aonuo Tyre Co. Ltd.
33. Exporter Qingdao Doublestar Tire
Industrial Co., Ltd.
34. Exporter Qingdao Eastern Industrial
Group Co. Ltd.
35. Exporter Qingdao Etyre International
Trade Co. Ltd., for any manufacturers
other than Shandong Xingda Tyre Co.
Ltd., Shandong Xingyuan International
Trade Co. Ltd., or Shandong Xingyuan
Rubber Co. Ltd.
36. Exporter Qingdao Free Trade Zone FullWorld International Trading Co., Ltd., for
any manufacturers other than Qingdao
Eastern Industrial Group Co., Ltd.,
Qingdao Qihang Tyre Co., Ltd., Qingdao
Shuanghe Tyre Co., Ltd., Qingdao
Yellowseatyre Factory, or Shandong
Zhentai Tyre Co., Ltd.
37. Exporter Qingdao Hengda Tire Co. Ltd.,
for any manufacturer other than Qingdao
Hengda Tire Co. Ltd.
38. Exporter Qingdao Honour Tyre Co. Ltd.
39. Exporter Qingdao Milestone Tyres Co.,
Ltd., for any manufacturers other than
Qingdao Shuanghe Tyre Co., Ltd.,
Shandong Zhentai Tyre Co., Ltd.,
Shifeng Double-Star Tire Co., Ltd., or
Weifang Longtai Tyre Co., Ltd.
40. Exporter Qingdao Qihang Tyre Co. Ltd.,
for any manufacturer other than Qingdao
Qihang Tyre Co. Ltd.
41. Exporter Qingdao Qizhou Rubber Co.,
Ltd., for any manufacturer other than
Qizhou Rubber Co., Ltd.
42. Exporter Qingdao Seanoble International
Trade
43. Exporter Qingdao Shuanghe Tyre Co. Ltd.
44. Exporter Qingdao Sinorient International
Ltd., for any manufacturer other than
Qingdao Hengda Tyres Co., Ltd., Shifeng
Double-Star Tire Co., Ltd., or Tengzhou
Broncho Tyre Co., Ltd
45. Exporter Qingdao Tengjiang Tyre Co. Ltd.
46. Exporter Qingdao Yellowsea Tyre Factory
47. Exporter Sailun Co., Ltd.
48. Exporter Shandong Chengshan Group
49. Exporter Shandong Goldkylin Rubber
Group Co.
50. Exporter Shandong Huatai Rubber Co.
Ltd.
51. Exporter Shandong Huitong Tyres Co.
Ltd., for any manufacturer other than
Shandong Huitong Tyres Co. Ltd.
52. Exporter Shandong Jinyu Tyre Co., Ltd.,
for any manufacturer other than
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:28 Oct 05, 2012
Jkt 229001
Shandong Jinyu Tyre Co., Ltd.
53. Exporter Shandong Linglong Tyre Co.
Ltd.
54. Exporter Shandong LuHe Group General
Co.
55. Exporter Shandong Sangong Rubber Co.
Ltd.
56. Exporter Shandong Taishan Tyre Co.,
Ltd., for any manufacturer other than
Shandong Taishan Tyre Co., Ltd.
57. Exporter Shandong Wanda Boto Tyre Co.,
Ltd., for any manufacturer other than
Shandong Wanda Boto Tyre Co., Ltd.
58. Exporter Shandong Xingda Tyre Co., Ltd.
59. Exporter Shandong Xingyuan
International Trading Co., Ltd., for any
manufacturers other than Shangdong
Xingda Tyre Co., Ltd. or Xingyuan Tyre
Group Co., Ltd.
60. Exporter Shandong Xingyuan Rubber Co.
Ltd.
61. Exporter Shandong Zhentai Tyre Co., Ltd.
62. Exporter Shanghai Huyai Group
Company
63. Exporter Shangong Zhongce Tyre Co. Ltd.
64. Exporter Shifeng Double-Star Tire Co.
Ltd.
65. Exporter Sichuan Haida Tyre Group Co.
Ltd.
66. Exporter Techking Tires Limited, for any
manufacturers other than Shandong
Xingda Tyre Co. Ltd., Shandong
Xingyuan International Trade Co. Ltd., or
Shandong Xingyuan Rubber Co. Ltd
67. Exporter Tengzhou Broncho Tyre Co. Ltd.
68. Exporter Tianjin Wanda Tyre Group
69. Exporter Triangle Tyre Co. Ltd., for any
manufacturer other than Triangle Tyre
Co. Ltd.
70. Exporter U.S. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co.
71. Exporter Weifang Longtai Tyre Co., Ltd.
72. Exporter Wendeng Sanfeng Tyre Co. Ltd.,
for any manufacturer other than
Wendeng Sanfeng Tyre Co. Ltd.
73. Exporter World Tyres Limited
74. Exporter Xiamen Rubber Factory
75. Exporter Xingyuan Tyre Co., Ltd
76. Exporter Xuzhou Hanbang Tyres Co., Ltd.
77. Exporter Xuzhou Xugong Tyre Co. Ltd.,
for any manufacturer other than Xuzhou
Xugong Tyre Co. Ltd.
78. Exporter Zhaoyuan Leo Rubber Co. Ltd.,
for any manufacturer other than
Zhaoyuan Leo Rubber Co. Ltd.
[FR Doc. 2012–24832 Filed 10–5–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–901]
Certain Lined Paper Products From the
People’s Republic of China: Notice of
Final Results and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On June 1, 2012, the
Department of Commerce (the
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
‘‘Department’’) published in the Federal
Register its preliminary results of the
fifth administrative review of certain
lined paper products from the People’s
Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’).1 We invited
parties to comment on the Preliminary
Results, however, no party submitted a
case brief to the Department. The
current review covers two exporters:
Leo’s Quality Products Co., Ltd./
Denmax Plastic Stationery Factory
(‘‘Leo/Denmax’’) and Shanghai Lian Li
Paper Products Co., Ltd. (‘‘Lian Li’’). For
Leo/Denmax, we continue to apply
adverse facts available (‘‘AFA’’); for Lian
Li, we are rescinding the review.
DATES: Effective Date: October 9, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Cindy Robinson, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 3, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce, 14th Street
and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)
482–3797.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In the Preliminary Results, the
Department preliminarily rescinded this
review with respect to Lian Li based on
evidence on the record indicating that
Lian Li had no shipments of subject
merchandise which entered the United
States during the period of review
(‘‘POR’’) of September 1, 2010, through
August 31, 2011.2 As discussed in the
Preliminary Results, on December 30,
2011, Lian Li submitted a letter,
certifying that they did not export the
subject merchandise to the United
States during the POR; the Department
confirmed this information with U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’).
We invited interested parties to submit
comments on our Preliminary Results,
but we received no comments.
In addition, the Department
preliminarily applied AFA with respect
to Leo/Denmax because Leo/Denmax
did not respond to the Department’s
questionnaire. As stated above, on June
1, 2012, the Department published its
Preliminary Results. On June 5, 2012,
the Department received a letter dated
May 29, 2012, from Leo/Denmax stating
that they made no sales of subject
merchandise to the United States during
the POR and requesting rescission of the
review with respect to Leo/Denmax.
However, because Leo/Denmax’s letter
claiming that it made no shipments was
1 See Certain Lined Paper Products from the
People’s Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary
Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and Preliminary Rescission, In Part, 77 FR
32498 (June 1, 2012) (‘‘Preliminary Results’’).
2 Id.
E:\FR\FM\09OCN1.SGM
09OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 9, 2012 / Notices
improperly and untimely submitted, the
Department rejected and returned Leo/
Denmax’s letter on June 11, 2012.3
Therefore, for purposes of these final
results, we continue to apply AFA with
respect to Leo/Denmax. See the
‘‘Application of AFA with Respect to
Leo/Denmax’’ section below for further
details.
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Period of Review
The POR is September 1, 2010,
through August 31, 2011.
Scope of the Order
The scope of this order includes
certain lined paper products, typically
school supplies (for purposes of this
scope definition, the actual use of or
labeling these products as school
supplies or non-school supplies is not a
defining characteristic) composed of or
including paper that incorporates
straight horizontal and/or vertical lines
on ten or more paper sheets (there shall
be no minimum page requirement for
looseleaf filler paper) including but not
limited to such products as single- and
multi-subject notebooks, composition
books, wireless notebooks, looseleaf or
glued filler paper, graph paper, and
laboratory notebooks, and with the
smaller dimension of the paper
measuring 6 inches to 15 inches
(inclusive) and the larger dimension of
the paper measuring 8-3/4 inches to 15
inches (inclusive). Page dimensions are
measured size (not advertised, stated, or
‘‘tear-out’’ size), and are measured as
they appear in the product (i.e., stitched
and folded pages in a notebook are
measured by the size of the page as it
appears in the notebook page, not the
size of the unfolded paper). However,
for measurement purposes, pages with
tapered or rounded edges shall be
measured at their longest and widest
points. Subject lined paper products
may be loose, packaged or bound using
any binding method (other than case
bound through the inclusion of binders
board, a spine strip, and cover wrap).
Subject merchandise may or may not
contain any combination of a front
cover, a rear cover, and/or backing of
any composition, regardless of the
inclusion of images or graphics on the
cover, backing, or paper. Subject
merchandise is within the scope of this
order whether or not the lined paper
and/or cover are hole punched, drilled,
perforated, and/or reinforced. Subject
3 See the Department’s June 11, 2012, letter to
Tilly Shiang, General Manager, Leo’s Quality
Products Co., Ltd. from James Terpstra, Program
Manager, titled ‘‘Certain Lined Paper Products from
the People’s Republic of China—Return of
Improperly and Untimely Submission of Leos’ May
29, 2012 No Shipment Letter, (Rejection Letter).’’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:28 Oct 05, 2012
Jkt 229001
merchandise may contain accessory or
informational items including but not
limited to pockets, tabs, dividers,
closure devices, index cards, stencils,
protractors, writing implements,
reference materials such as
mathematical tables, or printed items
such as sticker sheets or miniature
calendars, if such items are physically
incorporated, included with, or attached
to the product, cover and/or backing
thereto.
Specifically excluded from the scope
of this order are:
• Unlined copy machine paper;
• Writing pads with a backing
(including but not limited to products
commonly known as ‘‘tablets,’’ ‘‘note
pads,’’ ‘‘legal pads,’’ and ‘‘quadrille
pads’’), provided that they do not have
a front cover (whether permanent or
removable). This exclusion does not
apply to such writing pads if they
consist of hole-punched or drilled filler
paper;
• Three-ring or multiple-ring binders,
or notebook organizers incorporating
such a ring binder provided that they do
not include subject paper;
• Index cards;
• Printed books and other books that
are case bound through the inclusion of
binders board, a spine strip, and cover
wrap;
• Newspapers;
• Pictures and photographs;
• Desk and wall calendars and
organizers (including but not limited to
such products generally known as
‘‘office planners,’’ ‘‘time books,’’ and
‘‘appointment books’’);
• Telephone logs;
• Address books;
• Columnar pads & tablets, with or
without covers, primarily suited for the
recording of written numerical business
data;
• Lined business or office forms,
including but not limited to: Pre-printed
business forms, lined invoice pads and
paper, mailing and address labels,
manifests, and shipping log books;
• Lined continuous computer paper;
• Boxed or packaged writing
stationary (including but not limited to
products commonly known as ‘‘fine
business paper,’’ ‘‘parchment paper’’,
and ‘‘letterhead’’), whether or not
containing a lined header or decorative
lines;
• Stenographic pads (‘‘steno pads’’),
Gregg ruled (‘‘Gregg ruling’’ consists of
a single- or double-margin vertical
ruling line down the center of the page.
For a six-inch by nine-inch stenographic
pad, the ruling would be located
approximately three inches from the left
of the book.), measuring 6 inches by 9
inches.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
61391
Also excluded from the scope of this
order are the following trademarked
products:
• FlyTM lined paper products: A
notebook, notebook organizer, loose or
glued note paper, with papers that are
printed with infrared reflective inks and
readable only by a FlyTM pen-top
computer. The product must bear the
valid trademark FlyTM (products found
to be bearing an invalidly licensed or
used trademark are not excluded from
the scope).
• ZwipesTM: A notebook or notebook
organizer made with a blended
polyolefin writing surface as the cover
and pocket surfaces of the notebook,
suitable for writing using a speciallydeveloped permanent marker and erase
system (known as a ZwipesTM pen).
This system allows the marker portion
to mark the writing surface with a
permanent ink. The eraser portion of the
marker dispenses a solvent capable of
solubilizing the permanent ink allowing
the ink to be removed. The product
must bear the valid trademark ZwipesTM
(products found to be bearing an
invalidly licensed or used trademark are
not excluded from the scope).
• FiveStar®AdvanceTM: A notebook
or notebook organizer bound by a
continuous spiral, or helical, wire and
with plastic front and rear covers made
of a blended polyolefin plastic material
joined by 300 denier polyester, coated
on the backside with PVC (poly vinyl
chloride) coating, and extending the
entire length of the spiral or helical
wire. The polyolefin plastic covers are
of specific thickness; front cover is
0.019 inches (within normal
manufacturing tolerances) and rear
cover is 0.028 inches (within normal
manufacturing tolerances). Integral with
the stitching that attaches the polyester
spine covering, is captured both ends of
a 1″ wide elastic fabric band. This band
is located 2-3/8″ from the top of the
front plastic cover and provides pen or
pencil storage. Both ends of the spiral
wire are cut and then bent backwards to
overlap with the previous coil but
specifically outside the coil diameter
but inside the polyester covering.
During construction, the polyester
covering is sewn to the front and rear
covers face to face (outside to outside)
so that when the book is closed, the
stitching is concealed from the outside.
Both free ends (the ends not sewn to the
cover and back) are stitched with a
turned edge construction. The flexible
polyester material forms a covering over
the spiral wire to protect it and provide
a comfortable grip on the product. The
product must bear the valid trademarks
FiveStar®AdvanceTM (products found to
be bearing an invalidly licensed or used
E:\FR\FM\09OCN1.SGM
09OCN1
61392
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 9, 2012 / Notices
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
trademark are not excluded from the
scope).
• FiveStar FlexTM: A notebook, a
notebook organizer, or binder with
plastic polyolefin front and rear covers
joined by 300 denier polyester spine
cover extending the entire length of the
spine and bound by a 3-ring plastic
fixture. The polyolefin plastic covers are
of a specific thickness; front cover is
0.019 inches (within normal
manufacturing tolerances) and rear
cover is 0.028 inches (within normal
manufacturing tolerances). During
construction, the polyester covering is
sewn to the front cover face to face
(outside to outside) so that when the
book is closed, the stitching is
concealed from the outside. During
construction, the polyester cover is
sewn to the back cover with the outside
of the polyester spine cover to the inside
back cover. Both free ends (the ends not
sewn to the cover and back) are stitched
with a turned edge construction. Each
ring within the fixture is comprised of
a flexible strap portion that snaps into
a stationary post which forms a closed
binding ring. The ring fixture is riveted
with six metal rivets and sewn to the
back plastic cover and is specifically
positioned on the outside back cover.
The product must bear the valid
trademark FiveStar FlexTM (products
found to be bearing an invalidly
licensed or used trademark are not
excluded from the scope).
Merchandise subject to this order is
typically imported under headings
4810.22.5044, 4811.90.9050,
4820.10.2010, 4820.10.2020,
4820.10.2030, 4820.10.2040,
4820.10.2060, and 4820.10.4000 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). The HTSUS
headings are provided for convenience
and customs purposes; however, the
written description of the scope of this
order is dispositive.
Since the issuance of the order, the
Department has clarified the scope of
the order in response to numerous scope
inquiries. In addition, on September 23,
2011, the Department revoked, in part,
the PRC AD order with respect to
FiveStar® AdvanceTM notebooks and
notebook organizers without PVC
coatings.4
Analysis of Comments Received
We have received no comments on
our Preliminary Results, with the
exception of Leo/Denmax’s May 29,
2012, letter which the Department
4 See Certain Lined Paper Products From People’s
Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Changed Circumstances Review and
Revocation, in Part, 76 FR 60803 (September 30,
2011).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:28 Oct 05, 2012
Jkt 229001
rejected on June 11, 2012, as noted
above.
Final Rescission of Review With
Respect to Lian Li
Because there is no information on
the record which indicates that Lian Li
made shipments of subject merchandise
which entered the United States during
the POR, and because we did not
receive any comments on our
Preliminary Results, in accordance with
19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent
with our practice, we are rescinding this
review of the antidumping duty order
on certain lined paper products from the
PRC for the period of September 1,
2010, through August 31, 2011, with
respect to Lian Li. The cash deposit rate
for Lian Li will continue to be the rate
established in the most recently
completed segment of this proceeding.
Application of Adverse Facts Available
(AFA) With Respect to Leo/Denmax
In this case, the Department issued a
questionnaire to Leo/Denmax on
November 8, 2011, by email. Receiving
no acknowledgement of receipt of the
emailed questionnaire from Leo/
Denmax, the Department sent a hard
copy of the questionnaire to Leo/
Denmax through United Parcel Service
(‘‘UPS’’) by registered mail on
November 17, 2011.5 After the
Department announced its Preliminary
Results, Leo/Denmax submitted a letter
stating that Leo/Denmax did not have
any exports, sales or entries of subject
merchandise to the United States during
the POR, and requested that the
Department rescind the administrative
review with respect to Leo/Denmax. The
deadline for submitting a letter
certifying ‘‘no shipments’’ was
December 31, 2011, but the Department
did not receive Leo/Denmax’s noshipment letter until June 5, 2012 (dated
May 29, 2011), 158 days after the filing
deadline for a no shipment letter.6
Moreover, Leo/Denmax’s letter was not
filed electronically on the Department’s
filing system (IA ACCESS), as required
and stated in the initial questionnaire
issued to Leo/Denmax. Instead, Leo/
Denmax filed its letter manually in
regular mail without submitting the
proper certifications. Therefore, on June
11, 2012, the Department rejected Leo’s/
Denmax’s no-shipment submission
dated May 29, 2012, because the letter
5 See ‘‘Proof of Delivery of Antidumping
Questionnaire to Leo’s Quality Products Co., Ltd,’’
memorandum to file from Joy Zhang, analyst,
through James Terpstra, Program Manager, Office 3,
AD/CVD Operations, dated January 4, 2012.
6 The Department’s Rejection Letter inadvertently
stated that the deadline for filing a notice of no sale
letter is October 31, 2011.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
was improperly and untimely
submitted. In accordance with 19 CFR
351.302(d)(iii), the Department also
withdrew all known copies of Leo/
Denmax’s May 29, 2012, letter from the
record and returned them to Leo/
Denmax. The Department informed Leo/
Denmax that this information shall not
be considered by the Department in
making its final results of review.7
Section 776(a) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’) provides
that the Department shall apply ‘‘facts
otherwise available’’ if (1) necessary
information is not on the record, or (2)
an interested party or any other person
(A) withholds information that has been
requested, (B) fails to provide
information within the deadlines
established, or in the form and manner
requested by the Department, subject to
subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782
of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a
proceeding, or (D) provides information
that cannot be verified as provided by
section 782(i) of the Act.
Where the Department determines
that a response to a request for
information does not comply with the
request, section 782(d) of the Act
provides that the Department will so
inform the party submitting the
response and will, to the extent
practicable, provide that party the
opportunity to remedy or explain the
deficiency. If the party fails to remedy
the deficiency within the applicable
time limits and subject to section 782(e)
of the Act, the Department may
disregard all or part of the original and
subsequent responses, as appropriate.
Section 782(e) of the Act provides that
the Department ‘‘shall not decline to
consider information that is submitted
by an interested party and is necessary
to the determination but does not meet
all applicable requirements established
by the administering authority’’ if the
information is timely, can be verified, is
not so incomplete that it cannot be used,
and if the interested party acted to the
best of its ability in providing the
information. Where all of these
conditions are met, the statute requires
the Department to use the information
supplied if it can do so without undue
difficulties.
Section 776(b) of the Act further
provides that the Department may use
an adverse inference in applying the
facts otherwise available when a party
has failed to cooperate by not acting to
the best of its ability to comply with a
request for information. Such an adverse
inference may include reliance on
information derived from the petition,
the final determination, a previous
7 Id.
E:\FR\FM\09OCN1.SGM
09OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 9, 2012 / Notices
administrative review, or other
information placed on the record.8
Furthermore, ‘‘affirmative evidence of
bad faith on the part of a respondent is
not required before the Department may
make an adverse inference.’’ 9
Because Leo/Denmax did not provide
the requested information timely and
properly, they significantly impeded the
proceeding and we find that application
of facts available is appropriate under
sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the
Act. We further find that application of
AFA is appropriate under section 776(b)
because Leo/Denmax failed to cooperate
to the best of its ability in responding to
the Department’s requests for
information.
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving nonmarket
economy (‘‘NME’’) countries, there is a
rebuttable presumption that all
companies within that country are
subject to government control and thus
should be assessed a single antidumping
duty rate. It is the Department’s policy
to assign all exporters of subject
merchandise in an NME country this
single rate unless an exporter
demonstrates that it is sufficiently
independent so as to be entitled to a
separate rate. Exporters can demonstrate
this independence through the absence
of both de jure and de facto
governmental control over export
activities.10 It is the Department’s
practice to require a party to submit
evidence that it operates independently
of the State-controlled entity in each
segment of a proceeding in which it
requests separate rate status. The
process requires exporters to submit a
separate-rate status application.11 As
discussed in the Preliminary Results,
Leo/Denmax did not respond to the
Department’s questionnaire regarding
8 See, e.g., Notice of Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar
from India, 70 FR 54023, 54025–26 (September 13,
2005); Statement of Administrative Action,
reprinted in H.R. Doc. No. 103–216, at 870 (1994)
(‘‘SAA’’).
9 See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties;
Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997); see
also Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d
1373, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (‘‘Nippon’’).
10 See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People’s
Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as
further developed in Notice of Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide
from the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585
(May 2, 1994).
11 See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,
Finished or Unfinished, from the People’s Republic
of China: Final Results of 2005–2006 Administrative
Review and Partial Rescission of Review, 72 FR
56724 (October 4, 2007), Peer Bearing Co.
Changshan v. United States, 587 F.Supp. 2d 1319,
1324–25 (CIT 2008) (affirming the Department’s
determination in that review).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:28 Oct 05, 2012
Jkt 229001
separate rate eligibility, or submit a
separate rate certification. Furthermore,
Leo/Denmax has not demonstrated that
it operates free from government
control. Therefore, the Department
continues to find that Leo/Denmax is
part of the PRC-wide entity.
The PRC-Wide Entity
Because we determined that Leo/
Denmax is part of the PRC-wide entity,
the PRC-wide entity is under review.
Pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act, we
further find that because the PRC entity
(including Leo/Denmax) failed to
respond to the Department’s
questionnaires, withheld or failed to
provide information in a timely manner
or in the form or manner requested by
the Department, submitted information
that cannot be verified, or otherwise
impeded the proceeding, it is
appropriate to apply a dumping margin
for the PRC-wide entity using the facts
otherwise available on the record.
Moreover, by failing to respond to the
Department’s requests for information,
we find that the PRC-wide entity has
failed to cooperate by not acting to the
best of its ability to comply with the
Department’s requests for information in
this proceeding, within the meaning of
section 776(b) of the Act. Therefore, an
adverse inference is warranted in
selecting from the facts otherwise
available.12
Selection of Adverse Facts Available
Rate
In deciding which facts to use as
AFA, section 776(b) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.308(c)(1) provide that the
Department may rely on information
derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final
determination in the investigation, (3)
any previous review or determination,
or (4) any other information placed on
the record. In selecting a rate for AFA,
the Department selects a rate that is
sufficiently adverse ‘‘as to effectuate the
purpose of the facts available rule to
induce respondents to provide the
Department with complete and accurate
information in a timely manner.’’13
Generally, the Department finds that
selecting the highest rate from any
segment of the proceeding as AFA is
appropriate.14 The Court of
International Trade (‘‘CIT’’) and the
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
12 See
Nippon, 337 F.3d at 1382–83.
Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless
Pressure Pipe from the People’s Republic of China:
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value, 74 FR 4913 (January 28, 2009).
14 See, e.g., Certain Cased Pencils from the
People’s Republic of China; Notice of Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and Intent to Rescind in Part, 70 FR 76755,
76761 (December 28, 2005).
13 See
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
61393
(‘‘CAFC’’) have affirmed the
Department’s prior decisions to select
the highest margin from any prior
segment of the proceeding as the AFA
rate on numerous occasions.15
As AFA, we have assigned to the PRCwide entity a rate of 258.21 percent,
from the investigation of certain lined
paper products from the PRC, which is
the highest rate on the record of all
segments of this proceeding.16 As
explained below, this rate has been
corroborated.
Corroboration of Secondary
Information
Section 776(c) of the Act provides
that, when the Department relies on
secondary information rather than on
information obtained in the course of an
investigation or review, it shall, to the
extent practicable, corroborate that
information from independent sources
that are reasonably at its disposal.
Secondary information is defined as
information derived from the petition
that gave rise to the investigation or
review, the final determination
concerning the subject merchandise, or
any previous review under section 751
of the Act concerning the subject
merchandise.17 Corroborate means that
the Department will satisfy itself that
the secondary information to be used
has probative value.18 To corroborate
secondary information, the Department
will, to the extent practicable, examine
the reliability and relevance of the
information to be used.19
The AFA rate selected in this instance
is from the original investigation. This
15 See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899
F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (‘‘Rhone Poulenc’’);
NSK Ltd. v. United States, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312,
1335 (CIT 2004) (upholding the application of an
AFA rate which was the highest available dumping
margin from a different respondent in an
investigation).
16 See Notice of Amended Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Lined Paper
Products from the People’s Republic of China;
Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Lined
Paper Products from India, Indonesia and the
People’s Republic of China; and Notice of
Countervailing Duty Orders: Certain Lined Paper
Products from India and Indonesia, 71 FR 56949
(September 28, 2006).
17 See SAA at 870.
18 Id.
19 See Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of
Administrative Reviews: Tapered Roller Bearings
and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished from
Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings Four Inches or
Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof,
from Japan, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996)
(unchanged in the final determination), Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Reviews and Termination in Part: Tapered Roller
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished from Japan, and Tapered Roller
Bearings Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter,
and Components Thereof, from Japan, 62 FR 11825
(March 13, 1997).
E:\FR\FM\09OCN1.SGM
09OCN1
61394
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 9, 2012 / Notices
rate was calculated based on
information contained in the petition,
which was corroborated for the final
determination.20 This rate was also
applied in the 2007–2008 period of
review of lined paper products from the
PRC and the CIT found this PRC-wide
rate to be corroborated.21 No additional
information has been presented in the
current review which calls into question
the reliability of the information.22
Therefore, the Department finds that the
information continues to be reliable and
has probative value. In addition, the
AFA rate we are applying is the rate
currently in effect for the PRC-wide
entity.23
Final Results of Review
We determine that the following
margin exists for the period September
1, 2010, through August 31, 2011:
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Exporter
Weightedaverage
margin
(percent)
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the date of
publication, as provided by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For
previously reviewed or investigated
companies not listed above that have
separate rates, the cash-deposit rate will
continue to be the company-specific rate
published for the most recent period; (2)
for all other PRC exporters of subject
merchandise, which have not been
found to be entitled to a separate rate,
the cash-deposit rate will be PRC-wide
rate of 258.21 percent; and (3) for all
non-PRC exporters of subject
merchandise, the cash-deposit rate will
be the rate applicable to the PRC
exporter that supplied that non-PRC
exporter. These deposit requirements,
when imposed, shall remain in effect
until further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a final reminder
to importers of their responsibility
under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a
PRC-wide Entity (including
certificate regarding the reimbursement
Leo/Denmax) .....................
258.21
of antidumping duties prior to
liquidation of the relevant entries
Assessment Rates
during this review period. Failure to
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the comply with this requirement could
Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), the
result in the Secretary’s presumption
Department will determine, and CBP
that reimbursement of antidumping
shall assess, antidumping duties on all
duties occurred and the subsequent
appropriate entries covered by this
assessment of double antidumping
review. The Department intends to issue
duties.
assessment instructions to CBP 15 days
after the publication date of the final
Notification Regarding APOs
results of this review. We will instruct
This notice also serves as a reminder
CBP to liquidate all appropriate entries
to parties subject to administrative
at the PRC-wide rate of 258.21 percent.
protective orders (‘‘APO’’) of their
Cash Deposit Requirements
responsibility concerning the return or
The following cash deposit
destruction of proprietary information
requirements will be effective upon
disclosed under APO in accordance
publication of the notice of final results
with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues
of the administrative review for all
to govern business proprietary
shipments of certain lined paper
information in this segment of the
products from the PRC entered, or
proceeding. Timely written notification
of the return/destruction of APO
20 See Notice of Amended Final Determination of
materials or conversion to judicial
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Lined Paper
protective order is hereby requested.
Products from the People’s Republic of China;
Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Lined
Failure to comply with the regulations
Paper Products from India, Indonesia and the
and terms of an APO is a violation
People’s Republic of China; and Notice of
which is subject to sanction.
Countervailing Duty Orders: Certain Lined Paper
Products from India and Indonesia, 71 FR 56949
This notice is issued and published in
(September 28, 2006).
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and
21 See Watanabe Group v. United States, Court
777(i)(1) of the Act, as amended, and 19
No. 09–520, Slip Op. 2010–139 (CIT Dec. 22, 2010),
affirming Final Results in Certain Lined Paper
CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Products from the People’s Republic of China:
Notice of Final Results of the Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 74 FR 63387 (December 3,
2009).
22 See Certain Lined Paper Products from the
People’s Republic of China: Notice of Final Results
of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76
FR 23288 (April 26, 2011).
23 Id.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:28 Oct 05, 2012
Jkt 229001
Dated: October 1, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012–24813 Filed 10–5–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–954]
Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks From
the People’s Republic of China:
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review; 2010–2011
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to requests from
interested parties, the Department of
Commerce (‘‘Department’’) is
conducting the administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on certain
magnesia carbon bricks from the
People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’),
covering the period of review (‘‘POR’’)
of March 12, 2010, through August 31,
2011. The Department has preliminarily
applied adverse facts available (AFA) to
the two mandatory respondents who
both failed to cooperate to the best of
their ability in this proceeding. The
Department also intends to rescind the
review of seven companies that certified
that they had no shipments of subject
merchandise to the United States during
the POR.
DATES: Effective Date: October 9, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry
Huang, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9,
Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4047.
AGENCY:
Scope of the Order
The merchandise subject to the order
includes certain magnesia carbon bricks.
Certain magnesia carbon bricks that are
the subject of this order are currently
classifiable under subheadings
6902.10.1000, 6902.10.5000,
6815.91.0000, 6815.99.2000 and
6815.99.4000 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States
(‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the HTSUS
numbers are provided for convenience
and customs purposes, the written
product description, available in Certain
Magnesia Carbon Bricks From Mexico
and the People’s Republic of China:
Antidumping Duty Orders, 75 FR 57257
(September 20, 2010), remains
dispositive.
Preliminary Partial Rescission of
Administrative Review
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we
have preliminarily determined that
ANH (Xinyi) Refractories (‘‘ANH’’),
Yingkou New Century Refractories Ltd.
(‘‘Yingkou New Century’’), and RHI-
E:\FR\FM\09OCN1.SGM
09OCN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 9, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61390-61394]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24813]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-901]
Certain Lined Paper Products From the People's Republic of China:
Notice of Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On June 1, 2012, the Department of Commerce (the
``Department'') published in the Federal Register its preliminary
results of the fifth administrative review of certain lined paper
products from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'').\1\ We invited
parties to comment on the Preliminary Results, however, no party
submitted a case brief to the Department. The current review covers two
exporters: Leo's Quality Products Co., Ltd./Denmax Plastic Stationery
Factory (``Leo/Denmax'') and Shanghai Lian Li Paper Products Co., Ltd.
(``Lian Li''). For Leo/Denmax, we continue to apply adverse facts
available (``AFA''); for Lian Li, we are rescinding the review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's Republic
of China: Notice of Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Preliminary Rescission, In Part, 77 FR
32498 (June 1, 2012) (``Preliminary Results'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: October 9, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Robinson, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3797.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In the Preliminary Results, the Department preliminarily rescinded
this review with respect to Lian Li based on evidence on the record
indicating that Lian Li had no shipments of subject merchandise which
entered the United States during the period of review (``POR'') of
September 1, 2010, through August 31, 2011.\2\ As discussed in the
Preliminary Results, on December 30, 2011, Lian Li submitted a letter,
certifying that they did not export the subject merchandise to the
United States during the POR; the Department confirmed this information
with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP''). We invited
interested parties to submit comments on our Preliminary Results, but
we received no comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the Department preliminarily applied AFA with respect
to Leo/Denmax because Leo/Denmax did not respond to the Department's
questionnaire. As stated above, on June 1, 2012, the Department
published its Preliminary Results. On June 5, 2012, the Department
received a letter dated May 29, 2012, from Leo/Denmax stating that they
made no sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the
POR and requesting rescission of the review with respect to Leo/Denmax.
However, because Leo/Denmax's letter claiming that it made no shipments
was
[[Page 61391]]
improperly and untimely submitted, the Department rejected and returned
Leo/Denmax's letter on June 11, 2012.\3\ Therefore, for purposes of
these final results, we continue to apply AFA with respect to Leo/
Denmax. See the ``Application of AFA with Respect to Leo/Denmax''
section below for further details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See the Department's June 11, 2012, letter to Tilly Shiang,
General Manager, Leo's Quality Products Co., Ltd. from James
Terpstra, Program Manager, titled ``Certain Lined Paper Products
from the People's Republic of China--Return of Improperly and
Untimely Submission of Leos' May 29, 2012 No Shipment Letter,
(Rejection Letter).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Review
The POR is September 1, 2010, through August 31, 2011.
Scope of the Order
The scope of this order includes certain lined paper products,
typically school supplies (for purposes of this scope definition, the
actual use of or labeling these products as school supplies or non-
school supplies is not a defining characteristic) composed of or
including paper that incorporates straight horizontal and/or vertical
lines on ten or more paper sheets (there shall be no minimum page
requirement for looseleaf filler paper) including but not limited to
such products as single- and multi-subject notebooks, composition
books, wireless notebooks, looseleaf or glued filler paper, graph
paper, and laboratory notebooks, and with the smaller dimension of the
paper measuring 6 inches to 15 inches (inclusive) and the larger
dimension of the paper measuring 8-3/4 inches to 15 inches (inclusive).
Page dimensions are measured size (not advertised, stated, or ``tear-
out'' size), and are measured as they appear in the product (i.e.,
stitched and folded pages in a notebook are measured by the size of the
page as it appears in the notebook page, not the size of the unfolded
paper). However, for measurement purposes, pages with tapered or
rounded edges shall be measured at their longest and widest points.
Subject lined paper products may be loose, packaged or bound using any
binding method (other than case bound through the inclusion of binders
board, a spine strip, and cover wrap). Subject merchandise may or may
not contain any combination of a front cover, a rear cover, and/or
backing of any composition, regardless of the inclusion of images or
graphics on the cover, backing, or paper. Subject merchandise is within
the scope of this order whether or not the lined paper and/or cover are
hole punched, drilled, perforated, and/or reinforced. Subject
merchandise may contain accessory or informational items including but
not limited to pockets, tabs, dividers, closure devices, index cards,
stencils, protractors, writing implements, reference materials such as
mathematical tables, or printed items such as sticker sheets or
miniature calendars, if such items are physically incorporated,
included with, or attached to the product, cover and/or backing
thereto.
Specifically excluded from the scope of this order are:
Unlined copy machine paper;
Writing pads with a backing (including but not limited to
products commonly known as ``tablets,'' ``note pads,'' ``legal pads,''
and ``quadrille pads''), provided that they do not have a front cover
(whether permanent or removable). This exclusion does not apply to such
writing pads if they consist of hole-punched or drilled filler paper;
Three-ring or multiple-ring binders, or notebook
organizers incorporating such a ring binder provided that they do not
include subject paper;
Index cards;
Printed books and other books that are case bound through
the inclusion of binders board, a spine strip, and cover wrap;
Newspapers;
Pictures and photographs;
Desk and wall calendars and organizers (including but not
limited to such products generally known as ``office planners,'' ``time
books,'' and ``appointment books'');
Telephone logs;
Address books;
Columnar pads & tablets, with or without covers, primarily
suited for the recording of written numerical business data;
Lined business or office forms, including but not limited
to: Pre-printed business forms, lined invoice pads and paper, mailing
and address labels, manifests, and shipping log books;
Lined continuous computer paper;
Boxed or packaged writing stationary (including but not
limited to products commonly known as ``fine business paper,''
``parchment paper'', and ``letterhead''), whether or not containing a
lined header or decorative lines;
Stenographic pads (``steno pads''), Gregg ruled (``Gregg
ruling'' consists of a single- or double-margin vertical ruling line
down the center of the page. For a six-inch by nine-inch stenographic
pad, the ruling would be located approximately three inches from the
left of the book.), measuring 6 inches by 9 inches.
Also excluded from the scope of this order are the following
trademarked products:
FlyTM lined paper products: A notebook,
notebook organizer, loose or glued note paper, with papers that are
printed with infrared reflective inks and readable only by a
FlyTM pen-top computer. The product must bear the valid
trademark FlyTM (products found to be bearing an invalidly
licensed or used trademark are not excluded from the scope).
ZwipesTM: A notebook or notebook organizer made
with a blended polyolefin writing surface as the cover and pocket
surfaces of the notebook, suitable for writing using a specially-
developed permanent marker and erase system (known as a
ZwipesTM pen). This system allows the marker portion to mark
the writing surface with a permanent ink. The eraser portion of the
marker dispenses a solvent capable of solubilizing the permanent ink
allowing the ink to be removed. The product must bear the valid
trademark ZwipesTM (products found to be bearing an
invalidly licensed or used trademark are not excluded from the scope).
FiveStar[supreg]AdvanceTM: A notebook or
notebook organizer bound by a continuous spiral, or helical, wire and
with plastic front and rear covers made of a blended polyolefin plastic
material joined by 300 denier polyester, coated on the backside with
PVC (poly vinyl chloride) coating, and extending the entire length of
the spiral or helical wire. The polyolefin plastic covers are of
specific thickness; front cover is 0.019 inches (within normal
manufacturing tolerances) and rear cover is 0.028 inches (within normal
manufacturing tolerances). Integral with the stitching that attaches
the polyester spine covering, is captured both ends of a 1'' wide
elastic fabric band. This band is located 2-3/8'' from the top of the
front plastic cover and provides pen or pencil storage. Both ends of
the spiral wire are cut and then bent backwards to overlap with the
previous coil but specifically outside the coil diameter but inside the
polyester covering. During construction, the polyester covering is sewn
to the front and rear covers face to face (outside to outside) so that
when the book is closed, the stitching is concealed from the outside.
Both free ends (the ends not sewn to the cover and back) are stitched
with a turned edge construction. The flexible polyester material forms
a covering over the spiral wire to protect it and provide a comfortable
grip on the product. The product must bear the valid trademarks
FiveStar[supreg]AdvanceTM (products found to be bearing an
invalidly licensed or used
[[Page 61392]]
trademark are not excluded from the scope).
FiveStar FlexTM: A notebook, a notebook
organizer, or binder with plastic polyolefin front and rear covers
joined by 300 denier polyester spine cover extending the entire length
of the spine and bound by a 3-ring plastic fixture. The polyolefin
plastic covers are of a specific thickness; front cover is 0.019 inches
(within normal manufacturing tolerances) and rear cover is 0.028 inches
(within normal manufacturing tolerances). During construction, the
polyester covering is sewn to the front cover face to face (outside to
outside) so that when the book is closed, the stitching is concealed
from the outside. During construction, the polyester cover is sewn to
the back cover with the outside of the polyester spine cover to the
inside back cover. Both free ends (the ends not sewn to the cover and
back) are stitched with a turned edge construction. Each ring within
the fixture is comprised of a flexible strap portion that snaps into a
stationary post which forms a closed binding ring. The ring fixture is
riveted with six metal rivets and sewn to the back plastic cover and is
specifically positioned on the outside back cover. The product must
bear the valid trademark FiveStar FlexTM (products found to
be bearing an invalidly licensed or used trademark are not excluded
from the scope).
Merchandise subject to this order is typically imported under
headings 4810.22.5044, 4811.90.9050, 4820.10.2010, 4820.10.2020,
4820.10.2030, 4820.10.2040, 4820.10.2060, and 4820.10.4000 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''). The HTSUS
headings are provided for convenience and customs purposes; however,
the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.
Since the issuance of the order, the Department has clarified the
scope of the order in response to numerous scope inquiries. In
addition, on September 23, 2011, the Department revoked, in part, the
PRC AD order with respect to FiveStar[supreg] AdvanceTM
notebooks and notebook organizers without PVC coatings.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Certain Lined Paper Products From People's Republic of
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances
Review and Revocation, in Part, 76 FR 60803 (September 30, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis of Comments Received
We have received no comments on our Preliminary Results, with the
exception of Leo/Denmax's May 29, 2012, letter which the Department
rejected on June 11, 2012, as noted above.
Final Rescission of Review With Respect to Lian Li
Because there is no information on the record which indicates that
Lian Li made shipments of subject merchandise which entered the United
States during the POR, and because we did not receive any comments on
our Preliminary Results, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and
consistent with our practice, we are rescinding this review of the
antidumping duty order on certain lined paper products from the PRC for
the period of September 1, 2010, through August 31, 2011, with respect
to Lian Li. The cash deposit rate for Lian Li will continue to be the
rate established in the most recently completed segment of this
proceeding.
Application of Adverse Facts Available (AFA) With Respect to Leo/Denmax
In this case, the Department issued a questionnaire to Leo/Denmax
on November 8, 2011, by email. Receiving no acknowledgement of receipt
of the emailed questionnaire from Leo/Denmax, the Department sent a
hard copy of the questionnaire to Leo/Denmax through United Parcel
Service (``UPS'') by registered mail on November 17, 2011.\5\ After the
Department announced its Preliminary Results, Leo/Denmax submitted a
letter stating that Leo/Denmax did not have any exports, sales or
entries of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, and
requested that the Department rescind the administrative review with
respect to Leo/Denmax. The deadline for submitting a letter certifying
``no shipments'' was December 31, 2011, but the Department did not
receive Leo/Denmax's no-shipment letter until June 5, 2012 (dated May
29, 2011), 158 days after the filing deadline for a no shipment
letter.\6\ Moreover, Leo/Denmax's letter was not filed electronically
on the Department's filing system (IA ACCESS), as required and stated
in the initial questionnaire issued to Leo/Denmax. Instead, Leo/Denmax
filed its letter manually in regular mail without submitting the proper
certifications. Therefore, on June 11, 2012, the Department rejected
Leo's/Denmax's no-shipment submission dated May 29, 2012, because the
letter was improperly and untimely submitted. In accordance with 19 CFR
351.302(d)(iii), the Department also withdrew all known copies of Leo/
Denmax's May 29, 2012, letter from the record and returned them to Leo/
Denmax. The Department informed Leo/Denmax that this information shall
not be considered by the Department in making its final results of
review.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See ``Proof of Delivery of Antidumping Questionnaire to
Leo's Quality Products Co., Ltd,'' memorandum to file from Joy
Zhang, analyst, through James Terpstra, Program Manager, Office 3,
AD/CVD Operations, dated January 4, 2012.
\6\ The Department's Rejection Letter inadvertently stated that
the deadline for filing a notice of no sale letter is October 31,
2011.
\7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 776(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act'')
provides that the Department shall apply ``facts otherwise available''
if (1) necessary information is not on the record, or (2) an interested
party or any other person (A) withholds information that has been
requested, (B) fails to provide information within the deadlines
established, or in the form and manner requested by the Department,
subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 of the Act, (C)
significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D) provides information that
cannot be verified as provided by section 782(i) of the Act.
Where the Department determines that a response to a request for
information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act
provides that the Department will so inform the party submitting the
response and will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the
opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to
remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits and subject to
section 782(e) of the Act, the Department may disregard all or part of
the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Section 782(e)
of the Act provides that the Department ``shall not decline to consider
information that is submitted by an interested party and is necessary
to the determination but does not meet all applicable requirements
established by the administering authority'' if the information is
timely, can be verified, is not so incomplete that it cannot be used,
and if the interested party acted to the best of its ability in
providing the information. Where all of these conditions are met, the
statute requires the Department to use the information supplied if it
can do so without undue difficulties.
Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may
use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when
a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its
ability to comply with a request for information. Such an adverse
inference may include reliance on information derived from the
petition, the final determination, a previous
[[Page 61393]]
administrative review, or other information placed on the record.\8\
Furthermore, ``affirmative evidence of bad faith on the part of a
respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse
inference.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See, e.g., Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India, 70 FR 54023,
54025-26 (September 13, 2005); Statement of Administrative Action,
reprinted in H.R. Doc. No. 103-216, at 870 (1994) (``SAA'').
\9\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule,
62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997); see also Nippon Steel Corp. v.
United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (``Nippon'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because Leo/Denmax did not provide the requested information timely
and properly, they significantly impeded the proceeding and we find
that application of facts available is appropriate under sections
776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act. We further find that application
of AFA is appropriate under section 776(b) because Leo/Denmax failed to
cooperate to the best of its ability in responding to the Department's
requests for information.
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving nonmarket economy (``NME'') countries,
there is a rebuttable presumption that all companies within that
country are subject to government control and thus should be assessed a
single antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's policy to assign
all exporters of subject merchandise in an NME country this single rate
unless an exporter demonstrates that it is sufficiently independent so
as to be entitled to a separate rate. Exporters can demonstrate this
independence through the absence of both de jure and de facto
governmental control over export activities.\10\ It is the Department's
practice to require a party to submit evidence that it operates
independently of the State-controlled entity in each segment of a
proceeding in which it requests separate rate status. The process
requires exporters to submit a separate-rate status application.\11\ As
discussed in the Preliminary Results, Leo/Denmax did not respond to the
Department's questionnaire regarding separate rate eligibility, or
submit a separate rate certification. Furthermore, Leo/Denmax has not
demonstrated that it operates free from government control. Therefore,
the Department continues to find that Leo/Denmax is part of the PRC-
wide entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR
20588 (May 6, 1991), as further developed in Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from
the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994).
\11\ See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or
Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of
2005-2006 Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Review, 72
FR 56724 (October 4, 2007), Peer Bearing Co. Changshan v. United
States, 587 F.Supp. 2d 1319, 1324-25 (CIT 2008) (affirming the
Department's determination in that review).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PRC-Wide Entity
Because we determined that Leo/Denmax is part of the PRC-wide
entity, the PRC-wide entity is under review. Pursuant to section 776(a)
of the Act, we further find that because the PRC entity (including Leo/
Denmax) failed to respond to the Department's questionnaires, withheld
or failed to provide information in a timely manner or in the form or
manner requested by the Department, submitted information that cannot
be verified, or otherwise impeded the proceeding, it is appropriate to
apply a dumping margin for the PRC-wide entity using the facts
otherwise available on the record. Moreover, by failing to respond to
the Department's requests for information, we find that the PRC-wide
entity has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability
to comply with the Department's requests for information in this
proceeding, within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act. Therefore,
an adverse inference is warranted in selecting from the facts otherwise
available.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Nippon, 337 F.3d at 1382-83.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Selection of Adverse Facts Available Rate
In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act
and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) provide that the Department may rely on
information derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final determination in
the investigation, (3) any previous review or determination, or (4) any
other information placed on the record. In selecting a rate for AFA,
the Department selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse ``as to
effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule to induce
respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate
information in a timely manner.''\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Circular Welded Austenitic Stainless Pressure Pipe from
the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value, 74 FR 4913 (January 28, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generally, the Department finds that selecting the highest rate
from any segment of the proceeding as AFA is appropriate.\14\ The Court
of International Trade (``CIT'') and the Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit (``CAFC'') have affirmed the Department's prior
decisions to select the highest margin from any prior segment of the
proceeding as the AFA rate on numerous occasions.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See, e.g., Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic
of China; Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Intent to Rescind in Part, 70 FR 76755,
76761 (December 28, 2005).
\15\ See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1185,
1190 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (``Rhone Poulenc''); NSK Ltd. v. United
States, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1335 (CIT 2004) (upholding the
application of an AFA rate which was the highest available dumping
margin from a different respondent in an investigation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As AFA, we have assigned to the PRC-wide entity a rate of 258.21
percent, from the investigation of certain lined paper products from
the PRC, which is the highest rate on the record of all segments of
this proceeding.\16\ As explained below, this rate has been
corroborated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's
Republic of China; Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Lined
Paper Products from India, Indonesia and the People's Republic of
China; and Notice of Countervailing Duty Orders: Certain Lined Paper
Products from India and Indonesia, 71 FR 56949 (September 28, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corroboration of Secondary Information
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies
on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the
course of an investigation or review, it shall, to the extent
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that
are reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is defined as
information derived from the petition that gave rise to the
investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject
merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 of the Act
concerning the subject merchandise.\17\ Corroborate means that the
Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be
used has probative value.\18\ To corroborate secondary information, the
Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and
relevance of the information to be used.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See SAA at 870.
\18\ Id.
\19\ See Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews: Tapered
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished from
Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings Four Inches or Less in Outside
Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan, 61 FR 57391, 57392
(November 6, 1996) (unchanged in the final determination), Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Termination
in Part: Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings Four Inches or
Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan, 62 FR
11825 (March 13, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The AFA rate selected in this instance is from the original
investigation. This
[[Page 61394]]
rate was calculated based on information contained in the petition,
which was corroborated for the final determination.\20\ This rate was
also applied in the 2007-2008 period of review of lined paper products
from the PRC and the CIT found this PRC-wide rate to be
corroborated.\21\ No additional information has been presented in the
current review which calls into question the reliability of the
information.\22\ Therefore, the Department finds that the information
continues to be reliable and has probative value. In addition, the AFA
rate we are applying is the rate currently in effect for the PRC-wide
entity.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's
Republic of China; Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Lined
Paper Products from India, Indonesia and the People's Republic of
China; and Notice of Countervailing Duty Orders: Certain Lined Paper
Products from India and Indonesia, 71 FR 56949 (September 28, 2006).
\21\ See Watanabe Group v. United States, Court No. 09-520, Slip
Op. 2010-139 (CIT Dec. 22, 2010), affirming Final Results in Certain
Lined Paper Products from the People's Republic of China: Notice of
Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR
63387 (December 3, 2009).
\22\ See Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's Republic
of China: Notice of Final Results of the Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 76 FR 23288 (April 26, 2011).
\23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Results of Review
We determine that the following margin exists for the period
September 1, 2010, through August 31, 2011:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Exporter margin
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRC-wide Entity (including Leo/Denmax).................. 258.21
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment Rates
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1), the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess,
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days
after the publication date of the final results of this review. We will
instruct CBP to liquidate all appropriate entries at the PRC-wide rate
of 258.21 percent.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the notice of final results of the administrative review
for all shipments of certain lined paper products from the PRC entered,
or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of
publication, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For
previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above that
have separate rates, the cash-deposit rate will continue to be the
company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (2) for all
other PRC exporters of subject merchandise, which have not been found
to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash-deposit rate will be PRC-
wide rate of 258.21 percent; and (3) for all non-PRC exporters of
subject merchandise, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate applicable
to the PRC exporter that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further
notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) 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.
Notification Regarding APOs
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective orders (``APO'') of their responsibility
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues
to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the
proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of
APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby
requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO
is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, as amended, and 19 CFR
351.213(d)(4).
Dated: October 1, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-24813 Filed 10-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P