Certain Lined Paper Products From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2010-2011, 22232-22235 [2013-08790]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
22232
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 72 / Monday, April 15, 2013 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–533–843]
Certain Lined Paper Products From
India: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review; 2010–
2011
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On October 9, 2012, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) published in the Federal
Register the Preliminary Results of the
antidumping duty administrative review
of certain lined paper products from
India (CLPP), and gave interested parties
an opportunity to comment on the
Preliminary Results.1 The review covers
57 producers/exporters of the subject
merchandise, including Riddhi
Enterprises (Riddhi) and SAB
International (SAB).2 The period of
review (POR) is September 1, 2010,
through August 31, 2011. As a result of
our analysis of the comments and
information received, these final results
differ from the Preliminary Results.
For our final results, we find that
Riddhi and SAB have not made sales of
subject merchandise at less than normal
value (NV). In addition, we have
determined that 51 of the remaining
non-selected respondents will receive
the weighted-average non-selected
respondent rate as calculated in these
final results, and four uncooperative
non-selected respondents will continue
to receive a rate based on adverse facts
available (AFA).
DATES: Effective Date: April 15, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
George McMahon (Riddhi) and Cindy
Robinson (SAB), AD/CVD Operations,
Office 3, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)
482–1167 and (202) 482–3797,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
1 See Certain Lined Paper Products From India:
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2010–
2011, 77 FR 61381 (October 9, 2012) (Preliminary
Results), and accompanying Decision Memorandum
(Preliminary Decision Memorandum).
2 This review covers 57 manufacturers and
exporters of the subject merchandise from India,
two of which (Riddhi and SAB) are selected as
mandatory respondents. The names of the
remaining 55 non-selected respondents are listed
below in this notice as well as in the Initiation
Notice. See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and
Request for Revocation in Part, 76 FR 67133
(October 31, 2011) (Initiation Notice).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:00 Apr 12, 2013
Jkt 229001
Comments From Interested Parties
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.309(c)(1)(ii), we invited parties to
comment on our Preliminary Results.
On November 8, 2012, Riddhi and SAB
submitted their respective case briefs.
On November 8, 2012, Pioneer
Stationery Private Limited (Pioneer) 3
also submitted its case brief; however,
the Department rejected this brief
because it contained untimely filed
factual information.4 On November 13,
2012, Petitioner 5 filed case briefs
regarding Riddhi and SAB. Pursuant to
the Department’s instructions, Pioneer
submitted its revised case brief on
December 3, 2012, excluding the
untimely filed factual information. On
December 6, 2012, Riddhi and SAB filed
their respective rebuttal briefs. On
December 7, 2012, Petitioner and
Navneet Publications (India) Ltd.
(Navneet) filed rebuttal briefs.6 On
January 14, 2013, Petitioner’s counsel
met with officials from the Department.7
On January 16, 2013, Pioneer’s
representative and its counsel met with
officials from the Department.8
Scope of the Order
The merchandise covered by the CLPP
Order 9 is certain lined paper products.
The product is currently classified
under the following Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)
subheadings: 4811.90.9035,
4811.90.9080, 4820.30.0040,
4810.22.5044, 4811.90.9050,
4811.90.9090, 4820.10.2010,
4820.10.2020, 4820.10.2030,
4820.10.2040, 4820.10.2050,
3 Pioneer is one of the 55 non-selected
respondents and represents one of the 13 Indian
companies for which the Department issued a
Quantity & Value questionnaire. See the
Department’s December 8, 2011, letter.
4 See the Department’s Letter to Pioneer, dated
November 26, 2012.
5 Petitioner includes ACCO Brands USA LLC,
Norcom Inc., and Top Flight, Inc. See Petitioner’s
letter titled, ‘‘Notification of Membership Change,’’
dated April 1, 2013.
6 Navneet is one of the 55 non-selected
respondents.
7 See Memorandum to the File, Through Melissa
Skinner, Director, Office 8, from George McMahon,
Case Analyst, Office 8, titled ‘‘Certain Lined Paper
Products from India: Meeting with Interested
Party,’’ dated January 14, 2013.
8 See Memorandum to the File, Through Melissa
Skinner, Director, Office 8, from Cindy Robinson,
Case Analyst, Office 8, titled ‘‘Certain Lined Paper
Products from India: Meeting with Interested
Party,’’ dated January 16, 2013.
9 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) (CLPP Order).
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
4820.10.2060, and 4820.10.4000.
Although the HTSUS numbers are
provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written product
description remains dispositive.10
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and
rebuttal briefs by parties to this
administrative review are addressed in
the Memorandum to Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, from Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations, ‘‘Certain Lined Paper
Products from India: Issues and
Decision Memorandum for the Final
Results of the Fifth Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Certain Lined
Paper Products from India (2010–2011)’’
(‘‘Final Issues and Decision
Memorandum’’), dated concurrently and
hereby adopted by this notice. A list of
the issues that parties raised and to
which we responded is attached to this
notice as Appendix I. The Final Issues
and Decision Memorandum is a public
document and is on file electronically
via Import Administration’s
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Centralized Electronic Service System
(IA ACCESS). IA ACCESS is available to
registered users at https://
iaaccess.trade.gov and in the Central
Records Unit (CRU), room 7046 of the
main Department of Commerce
building. In addition, a complete
version of the Final Issues and Decision
Memorandum can be accessed directly
on the Internet at https://www.trade.gov/
ia/. The signed Final Issues and
Decision Memorandum and the
electronic versions of the Final Issues
and Decision Memorandum are
identical in content.
Methodology
The Department has conducted this
review in accordance with section
751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act). Export prices have
been calculated in accordance with
section 772 of the Act. NV has been
calculated in accordance with section
773 of the Act. Pursuant to sections
776(a) and (b) of the Act, these findings
in part rely on facts available, as well as
the application of adverse inferences in
selecting from among the facts available,
10 For a complete description of the Scope of the
Order, 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).
E:\FR\FM\15APN1.SGM
15APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 72 / Monday, April 15, 2013 / Notices
for those respondents that failed to
cooperate by not acting to the best of
their ability in responding to the
Department’s requests for information.
Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act,
we conducted a cost of production
(COP) analysis of Riddhi and SAB sales
in India in this review.11 Based on the
COP test, we disregarded Riddhi and
SAB sales at below-cost prices in their
respective comparison markets.
For a full description of the
methodology underlying our
conclusions, please see the Final Issues
and Decision Memorandum.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on a review of the record and
comments received from interested
parties regarding our Preliminary
Results, we have made companyspecific changes to the margin
calculations for Riddhi and SAB.12
In addition, we determine to apply
the rate for non-selected respondents to
Pioneer in these final results and not a
rate based on AFA.13 However, we
continue to apply an AFA rate to the
uncooperative respondents.
Furthermore, following the changes to
the dumping margins for the two
mandatory respondents in these final
results,14 the AFA rate and the rate for
non-selected respondents have also
changed. See next sections for details.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
AFA Rate
With regards to selection of the AFA
rate, the Department’s practice when
selecting an adverse rate from among
the possible sources of information is to
ensure that the rate is sufficiently
adverse ‘‘as to effectuate the statutory
purposes of the adverse facts available
rule to induce respondents to provide
11 The Department disregarded sales by Riddhi
that were below the COP in the previous
administrative review, therefore, we had a
reasonable basis to believe or suspect that Riddhi’s
sales may have been made at prices below the COP.
Accordingly, we requested that Riddhi respond to
section D of the Department’s questionnaire. See
Antidumping Questionnaire Cover Letter to Riddhi
dated January 20, 2011; see also Preliminary
Results.
12 See Final Issues and Decision Memorandum;
Memorandum to the File, Through Eric B.
Greynolds, Program Manager, Office 8, from George
McMahon, Case Analyst, Office 8, titled ‘‘Certain
Lined Paper Products from India: Calculation
Memorandum—Riddhi Enterprises Ltd.,’’ dated
February 8, 2013 (Riddhi Calculation
Memorandum); and Memorandum to the File,
Through Eric B. Greynolds, Program Manager,
Office 8, from Cindy Robinson, Case Analyst, Office
8, titled ‘‘Certain Lined Paper Products from India:
Calculation Memorandum—SAB International,’’
dated February 8, 2013 (SAB Calculation
Memorandum).
13 See Final Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 4 for details.
14 Both mandatory respondents have a zero
dumping margin in these final results.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:00 Apr 12, 2013
Jkt 229001
the Department with complete and
accurate information in a timely
manner.’’ 15 The Department’s practice
also ensures ‘‘that the party does not
obtain a more favorable result by failing
to cooperate than if it had cooperated
fully.’’ 16
In the present proceeding, because
prior calculated rates involved zeroing,
consistent with AFBs 2012 17 and
pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we
are relying on information placed on the
record by the cooperative
respondents.18 Specifically, the AFA
rate we have selected is the highest,
non-aberrational transaction-specific
margin, 22.02 percent, calculated for
one of the mandatory respondents in the
instant review.
Rates for Respondents Not Selected for
Individual Examination
Generally, when calculating the
margin for non-selected respondents,
the Department has looked to section
735(c)(5) of the Act for guidance, which
provides instructions for calculating the
all-others margin in an investigation.
Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides
that when calculating the all-others
margin, the Department will exclude
any zero and de minimis weightedaverage dumping margins, as well as
any weighted-average dumping margins
based on total facts available.
Accordingly, the Department’s usual
practice has been to average the margins
for selected respondents, excluding
margins that are zero, de minimis, or
based entirely on facts available.19
15 See, e.g., Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing
Bars from Turkey; Final Results and Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part,
71 FR 65082, 65084 (November 7, 2006); see also
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India:
Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 72 FR 65082, 65084 (November 7, 2006),
unchanged in the final results; Certain Frozen
Warmwater Shrimp from India: Final Results and
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 72 FR 65082, 65084
(November 7, 2006).
16 See Statement of Administrative Action (SAA)
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act,
H.R. Rep. No. 103–316, Vol. I, at 870 (1994),
reprinted at 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4199.
17 See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From
France, Germany, and Italy: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews; 2010–
2011, 77 FR 73415 (December 10, 2012), and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 1 (AFBs 2012).
18 See Final Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 5; see also Memorandum to the File
through Eric Greynolds, Program Manager, AD/CVD
Operations 8, from the Team titled ‘‘Certain Lined
Paper Products from India: Notice of Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review:
Selection of Total Adverse Facts-Available Rate,
(AFA Memo)’’ dated April 9, 2013.
19 See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From
France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United
Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
22233
Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act also
provides that where all rates are zero, de
minimis or based on total facts
available, the Department may use ‘‘any
reasonable method’’ to establish the rate
for non-selected respondents, including
‘‘averaging the estimated weighted
average dumping margins determined
for the exporters and producers
individually investigated.’’
In this review, we have calculated
weighted-average dumping margins of
zero for both mandatory respondents. In
past reviews, the Department has
determined that a ‘‘reasonable method’’
to use when, as here, the margins for
respondents selected for individual
examination are zero or de minimis is to
assign non-selected respondents the
average of the most recently determined
margins that are not zero, de minimis,
or based entirely on facts available
(which may be from a prior review or
new shipper review).20 However, if a
non-selected respondent has its own
calculated margin that is
contemporaneous with or more recent
than previous margins, the Department
has applied the individually-calculated
margin to the non-selected respondent,
including when that margin is zero or
de minimis.21
In the present proceeding, all prior
margins were calculated using the
Department’s zeroing methodology. The
Department has stated that it will not
use its zeroing methodology in
administrative reviews with preliminary
determinations issued after April 16,
2012.22 Therefore, the Department has
not relied on any weighted-average
margins calculated in prior reviews to
determine the rate for the non-selected
respondents in this review.
We have determined that a reasonable
method for assigning a margin to nonselected respondents in this review is to
utilize the weighted-average dumping
margins calculated for the two
mandatory respondents (zero percent)
and the AFA rate assigned to the four
uncooperative companies (22.02
percent). We have limited the number of
rates used in the average, that are based
on AFA due to failures to respond to the
quantity and value (Q&V)
questionnaires, to the same number of
companies that we determined we could
Administrative Reviews and Rescission of Reviews
in Part, 73 FR 52823, 52824 (September 11, 2008)
(AFBs 2008), and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 16.
20 Id.
21 Id.
22 See Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of
the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and
Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty
Proceedings; Final Modification for Reviews, 77 FR
8101 (February 14, 2012) (Final Modification).
E:\FR\FM\15APN1.SGM
15APN1
22234
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 72 / Monday, April 15, 2013 / Notices
reasonably examine in this review,
which was two. Accordingly, we
determined the non-selected rate by
taking the simple average of the rates
calculated for the two selected
mandatory respondents and two AFA
rates for companies that failed to
respond to the Q&V questionnaire.
Thus, we are assigning an average
dumping margin of 11.01 percent to all
non-selected respondents, including
Pioneer, in these final results.23
Final Results of the Review
As a result of this review, the
Department determines that the
dumping margins for the POR are as
follows:
A. Calculated Rate for the Two
Mandatory Respondents
Weightedaverage
dumping
margin
(percent)
Producer/Exporter
Riddhi Enterprises, Ltd. ..............
SAB International ........................
0.00
0.00
B. Rate for the Non-Selected,
Cooperative Respondents 24
Gauriputra International ..............
International Greetings Pvt. Ltd.
Karur K.C.P. Packagings Ltd .....
Kejriwal Paper Ltd. and Kejriwal
Exports ....................................
Lodha Offset Limited ..................
M.S. The Bell Match Company ..
Magic International Pvt Ltd .........
Mahavideh Foundation ...............
Marisa International ....................
Navneet Publications (India) Ltd.
Orient Press Ltd. ........................
Paperwise Inc. ............................
Phalada Agro Research Foundations .........................................
Pioneer Stationery Pvt. Ltd. .......
Premier Exports ..........................
Raghunath Exporters ..................
Rajvansh International ................
SAI Suburi International .............
SAR Transport Systems .............
SDV Intl Logistics Ltd. ................
Seet Kamal International ............
SGM Paper Products .................
Shivam Handicrafts ....................
Soham Udyog .............................
Sonal Printers Pvt. Ltd. ..............
Super Impex ...............................
Swati Growth Funds Ltd. ............
Swift Freight (India) Pvt. Ltd .......
V&M ............................................
Yash Laminates ..........................
11.01
11.01
11.01
11.01
11.01
11.01
11.01
11.01
11.01
11.01
11.01
11.01
11.01
11.01
11.01
11.01
11.01
11.01
11.01
11.01
11.01
11.01
11.01
11.01
11.01
11.01
11.01
11.01
11.01
11.01
calculated for the importer’s examined
sales to the total entered value of those
sales. Where the assessment rate is
above de minimis, we will instruct CBP
to assess duties on all entries of subject
merchandise by that importer. Pursuant
to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct
CBP to liquidate without regard to
antidumping duties any entries for
which the assessment rate is de minimis
(i.e., less than 0.50 percent).
The Department clarified its
‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on
May 6, 2003.26 This clarification applies
to entries of subject merchandise during
the POR produced by companies
examined in this review (i.e., companies
for which a dumping margin was
calculated) where the companies did
not know that their merchandise was
destined for the United States. In such
instances, we will instruct CBP to
liquidate unreviewed entries at the 3.91
percent all-others rate established in the
original investigation for India if there is
no company-specific rate for an
intermediary company(ies) involved in
the transaction.27
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit
requirements will be effective upon
Producer/Exporter
publication of these final results for all
shipments of CLPP from India entered,
C. AFA Rate for the Uncooperative
or withdrawn from warehouse, for
25
Respondents
consumption on or after the publication
Abhinav Paper Products Pvt Ltd
11.01
date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C)
American Scholar, Inc. and/or IWeighted
average
Scholar ....................................
11.01
of the Act: (1) for companies covered by
Producer/Exporter
dumping
A R Printing & Packaging India ..
11.01
this review, the cash deposit rate will be
margin
Akar Limited ................................
11.01
the rates listed above; (2) for previously
(percent)
Apl Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. ........
11.01
reviewed or investigated companies
Artesign Impex ............................
11.01
22.02 other than those covered by this review,
Arun Art Printers Pvt. Ltd. ..........
11.01 Ampoules & Vials Mfg. Co. Ltd.
the cash deposit rate will be the
Aryan Worldwide ........................
11.01 AR Printing & Packaging (India)
PVT .........................................
22.02 company-specific rate established for
Bafna Exports .............................
11.01
22.02
Cargomar Pvt. Ltd. .....................
11.01 Chitra Exports .............................
the most recent period; (3) if the
Diki Continental Exports .............
22.02
Cello International Pvt. Ltd. (M/S
exporter is not a firm covered in this
Cello Paper Products) .............
11.01
review, a prior review, or the original
Corporate Stationery Pvt. Ltd. ....
11.01 Assessment Rates
investigation, but the producer is, the
Crane Worldwide Logistics Ind
Pursuant section 751(a)(2)(A) of the
cash deposit rate will be the rate
Pvt. ..........................................
11.01
established for the most recent period
Creative Divya ............................
11.01 Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the
D.D International .........................
11.01 Department has determined, and U.S.
for the producer of the subject
Exel India (Pvt.) Ltd. ...................
11.01 Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
merchandise; and (4) if neither the
Exmart International Pvt. Ltd. .....
11.01 shall assess, antidumping duties on all
exporter nor the producer is a firm
Expeditors International (India)
appropriate entries of subject
covered in this review, a prior review,
Pvt/Expeditors Cargo Mgmnt
merchandise in accordance with the
or the original investigation, the cash
Systems ..................................
11.01 final results of this review. The
deposit rate will be 3.91 percent, the allFatechand Mahendrakumar .......
11.01
FFI International .........................
11.01 Department intends to issue appropriate others rate established in the original
Freight India Logistics Pvt. Ltd. ..
11.01 assessment instructions directly to CBP
investigation.28 These cash deposit
15 days after publication of the final
requirements, when imposed, shall
results of this administrative review.
23 See Final Issues and Decision Memorandum at
remain in effect until further notice.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we
Comment 5; see also Memorandum to the File
through Eric Greynolds, Program Manager, AD/CVD calculated importer-specific ad valorem
26 For a full discussion of this clarification, see
Operations 8, from the Team titled ‘‘Certain Lined
duty assessment rates based on the ratio Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Paper Products from India: Margin for Respondents
of the total amount of dumping
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954
Not Selected for Individual Examination: (NonWeightedaverage
dumping
margin
(percent)
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Producer/Exporter
Weightedaverage
dumping
margin
(percent)
selected Rate Memo)’’ dated April 9, 2013.
24 See Final Issues and Decision Memo at
Comment 5; see also Non-selected Rate Memo.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:00 Apr 12, 2013
Jkt 229001
25 See
Final Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 4; see also AFA memo.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(May 6, 2003).
27 See CLPP Order.
28 Id.
E:\FR\FM\15APN1.SGM
15APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 72 / Monday, April 15, 2013 / Notices
Disclosure
We will disclose the calculations
performed within five days of the date
of publication of this notice to parties in
this proceeding in accordance with 19
CFR 351.224(b).
Notification to Importers Regarding the
Reimbursement of Duties
This notice also 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 and/or
countervailing duties prior to
liquidation of the relevant entries
during the POR. Failure to comply with
this requirement could result in the
Department’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping and/or
countervailing duties occurred and the
subsequent assessment of doubled
antidumping duties.
Administrative Protective Order
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(a)(3), 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 the terms of an APO is a
sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing this
notice in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: April 9, 2013.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
Appendix
List of Comments in the Accompanying Final
Issues and Decision Memorandum:
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
A. General Issue
Comment 1: Whether to Apply Targeted
Dumping With Respect to Riddhi and
SAB
B. Company-Specific Issues
Comment 2: Whether the Department
Properly Calculated Riddhi’s
Comparison Market Net Price
(CMNETPRI)
Comment 3: Whether the Department
Properly Applied the Exchange Rate to
SAB’s Countervailing Duty Offset
(CVDU)
Comment 4: Whether to Apply the Adverse
Facts Available (AFA) Rate to Pioneer
Comment 5: The Proper Rate to Apply to the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:00 Apr 12, 2013
Jkt 229001
Non-Selected Respondents
[FR Doc. 2013–08790 Filed 4–12–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C–570–955]
Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks From
the People’s Republic of China: Final
Results of and Final Partial Rescission
of Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review; 2010
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On October 9, 2012, the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) published the preliminary
results of the 2010 administrative
review of the countervailing duty (CVD)
order on certain magnesia carbon bricks
from the People’s Republic of China
(PRC) covering the two mandatory
respondents for the period of review
(POR) of August 2, 2010, through
December 31, 2010.1 We invited parties
to comment on the Preliminary Results.2
Based on the analysis of the comments
received, the Department has not made
any changes to the subsidy rates
determined for the two mandatory
respondents. The final subsidy rates are
listed in the ‘‘Final Results of Review’’
section below.
DATES: Effective Date: April 15, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toni
Page or Elfi Blum, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 6, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)
482–1398 or (202) 482–0197,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
On October 9, 2012, the Department
published the Preliminary Results,
which covered the two mandatory
respondents—Fengchi Imp. and Exp.
Co., Ltd. of Haicheng City and Fengchi
Refractories Co., of Haicheng City
(collectively, Fengchi) and Yingkou
Bayuquan Refractories Co., Ltd. (BRC)—
as well as the remaining producers/
exporters for whom we initiated
reviews.
On November 13, 2012, the
Department received case briefs from
1 See Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks From the
People’s Republic of China: 2010 Countervailing
Duty Administrative Review, 77 FR 61397 (October
9, 2012) (Preliminary Results).
2 See Preliminary Results, 77 FR 61399.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
22235
Resco Products, Inc. (the petitioner in
the original investigation) (Petitioner),
the Government of the People’s
Republic of China (the GOC), and
Fengchi. The Department received
rebuttal briefs on November 19, 2012,
from Petitioner, Fengchi, and ANH
Refractories Company (ANH), a
domestic producer of subject
merchandise.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised by parties in their
case briefs are addressed in the Final
Decision Memorandum.3 A list of these
issues is attached to this notice in
Appendix I. The Final Decision
Memorandum is a public document and
is on file electronically via Import
Administration’s Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS).
Access to IA ACCESS is available to
registered users at https://
iaaccess.trade.gov and in the Central
Records Unit, room 7046 of the main
Department of Commerce building. In
addition, a complete version of the Final
Decision Memorandum can be accessed
directly on the Internet at https://
www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed Final
Decision Memorandum and electronic
versions of the Final Decision
Memorandum are identical in content.
Scope of the Order
The scope of the order includes
certain magnesia carbon bricks.4 Certain
magnesia carbon bricks that are the
subject of the order are currently
classifiable under subheadings
6810.11.0000, 6810.91.0000,
6810.99.0080, 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). While HTSUS
subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
written description is dispositive.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on the comments received from
the interested parties, we have made no
change to the Preliminary Results. For a
discussion of the issues, see the Final
Decision Memorandum.
3 See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration,
‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for Certain
Magnesia Carbon Bricks from the People’s Republic
of China: Final Results of the 2010 Administrative
Review,’’ dated concurrently with this notice and
herein incorporated by reference (Final Decision
Memorandum).
4 See Final Decision Memorandum for a complete
description of the scope of the order.
E:\FR\FM\15APN1.SGM
15APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 72 (Monday, April 15, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22232-22235]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08790]
[[Page 22232]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-533-843]
Certain Lined Paper Products From India: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2010-2011
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On October 9, 2012, the Department of Commerce (the
Department) published in the Federal Register the Preliminary Results
of the antidumping duty administrative review of certain lined paper
products from India (CLPP), and gave interested parties an opportunity
to comment on the Preliminary Results.\1\ The review covers 57
producers/exporters of the subject merchandise, including Riddhi
Enterprises (Riddhi) and SAB International (SAB).\2\ The period of
review (POR) is September 1, 2010, through August 31, 2011. As a result
of our analysis of the comments and information received, these final
results differ from the Preliminary Results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Certain Lined Paper Products From India: Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review; 2010-2011, 77 FR 61381 (October 9, 2012)
(Preliminary Results), and accompanying Decision Memorandum
(Preliminary Decision Memorandum).
\2\ This review covers 57 manufacturers and exporters of the
subject merchandise from India, two of which (Riddhi and SAB) are
selected as mandatory respondents. The names of the remaining 55
non-selected respondents are listed below in this notice as well as
in the Initiation Notice. See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for
Revocation in Part, 76 FR 67133 (October 31, 2011) (Initiation
Notice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For our final results, we find that Riddhi and SAB have not made
sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value (NV). In
addition, we have determined that 51 of the remaining non-selected
respondents will receive the weighted-average non-selected respondent
rate as calculated in these final results, and four uncooperative non-
selected respondents will continue to receive a rate based on adverse
facts available (AFA).
DATES: Effective Date: April 15, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George McMahon (Riddhi) and Cindy
Robinson (SAB), AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202) 482-1167 and (202) 482-3797, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments From Interested Parties
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), we invited parties to
comment on our Preliminary Results. On November 8, 2012, Riddhi and SAB
submitted their respective case briefs. On November 8, 2012, Pioneer
Stationery Private Limited (Pioneer) \3\ also submitted its case brief;
however, the Department rejected this brief because it contained
untimely filed factual information.\4\ On November 13, 2012, Petitioner
\5\ filed case briefs regarding Riddhi and SAB. Pursuant to the
Department's instructions, Pioneer submitted its revised case brief on
December 3, 2012, excluding the untimely filed factual information. On
December 6, 2012, Riddhi and SAB filed their respective rebuttal
briefs. On December 7, 2012, Petitioner and Navneet Publications
(India) Ltd. (Navneet) filed rebuttal briefs.\6\ On January 14, 2013,
Petitioner's counsel met with officials from the Department.\7\ On
January 16, 2013, Pioneer's representative and its counsel met with
officials from the Department.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Pioneer is one of the 55 non-selected respondents and
represents one of the 13 Indian companies for which the Department
issued a Quantity & Value questionnaire. See the Department's
December 8, 2011, letter.
\4\ See the Department's Letter to Pioneer, dated November 26,
2012.
\5\ Petitioner includes ACCO Brands USA LLC, Norcom Inc., and
Top Flight, Inc. See Petitioner's letter titled, ``Notification of
Membership Change,'' dated April 1, 2013.
\6\ Navneet is one of the 55 non-selected respondents.
\7\ See Memorandum to the File, Through Melissa Skinner,
Director, Office 8, from George McMahon, Case Analyst, Office 8,
titled ``Certain Lined Paper Products from India: Meeting with
Interested Party,'' dated January 14, 2013.
\8\ See Memorandum to the File, Through Melissa Skinner,
Director, Office 8, from Cindy Robinson, Case Analyst, Office 8,
titled ``Certain Lined Paper Products from India: Meeting with
Interested Party,'' dated January 16, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Order
The merchandise covered by the CLPP Order \9\ is certain lined
paper products. The product is currently classified under the following
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings:
4811.90.9035, 4811.90.9080, 4820.30.0040, 4810.22.5044, 4811.90.9050,
4811.90.9090, 4820.10.2010, 4820.10.2020, 4820.10.2030, 4820.10.2040,
4820.10.2050, 4820.10.2060, and 4820.10.4000. Although the HTSUS
numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written
product description remains dispositive.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 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)
(CLPP Order).
\10\ For a complete description of the Scope of the Order, 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to
this administrative review are addressed in the Memorandum to Paul
Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from Christian
Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing
Duty Operations, ``Certain Lined Paper Products from India: Issues and
Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Fifth Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Certain Lined Paper Products from India (2010-
2011)'' (``Final Issues and Decision Memorandum''), dated concurrently
and hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues that parties
raised and to which we responded is attached to this notice as Appendix
I. The Final Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is
on file electronically via Import Administration's Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS).
IA ACCESS is available to registered users at https://iaaccess.trade.gov
and in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room 7046 of the main Department
of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Final
Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet
at https://www.trade.gov/ia/. The signed Final Issues and Decision
Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Final Issues and Decision
Memorandum are identical in content.
Methodology
The Department has conducted this review in accordance with section
751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export
prices have been calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act.
NV has been calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act.
Pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, these findings in part
rely on facts available, as well as the application of adverse
inferences in selecting from among the facts available,
[[Page 22233]]
for those respondents that failed to cooperate by not acting to the
best of their ability in responding to the Department's requests for
information. Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we conducted a
cost of production (COP) analysis of Riddhi and SAB sales in India in
this review.\11\ Based on the COP test, we disregarded Riddhi and SAB
sales at below-cost prices in their respective comparison markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The Department disregarded sales by Riddhi that were below
the COP in the previous administrative review, therefore, we had a
reasonable basis to believe or suspect that Riddhi's sales may have
been made at prices below the COP. Accordingly, we requested that
Riddhi respond to section D of the Department's questionnaire. See
Antidumping Questionnaire Cover Letter to Riddhi dated January 20,
2011; see also Preliminary Results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For a full description of the methodology underlying our
conclusions, please see the Final Issues and Decision Memorandum.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on a review of the record and comments received from
interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, we have made
company-specific changes to the margin calculations for Riddhi and
SAB.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Final Issues and Decision Memorandum; Memorandum to the
File, Through Eric B. Greynolds, Program Manager, Office 8, from
George McMahon, Case Analyst, Office 8, titled ``Certain Lined Paper
Products from India: Calculation Memorandum--Riddhi Enterprises
Ltd.,'' dated February 8, 2013 (Riddhi Calculation Memorandum); and
Memorandum to the File, Through Eric B. Greynolds, Program Manager,
Office 8, from Cindy Robinson, Case Analyst, Office 8, titled
``Certain Lined Paper Products from India: Calculation Memorandum--
SAB International,'' dated February 8, 2013 (SAB Calculation
Memorandum).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, we determine to apply the rate for non-selected
respondents to Pioneer in these final results and not a rate based on
AFA.\13\ However, we continue to apply an AFA rate to the uncooperative
respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Final Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4 for
details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, following the changes to the dumping margins for the
two mandatory respondents in these final results,\14\ the AFA rate and
the rate for non-selected respondents have also changed. See next
sections for details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Both mandatory respondents have a zero dumping margin in
these final results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFA Rate
With regards to selection of the AFA rate, the Department's
practice when selecting an adverse rate from among the possible sources
of information is to ensure that the rate is sufficiently adverse ``as
to effectuate the statutory purposes of the adverse facts available
rule to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and
accurate information in a timely manner.'' \15\ The Department's
practice also ensures ``that the party does not obtain a more favorable
result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See, e.g., Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from
Turkey; Final Results and Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review in Part, 71 FR 65082, 65084 (November 7,
2006); see also Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India:
Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 65082, 65084 (November
7, 2006), unchanged in the final results; Certain Frozen Warmwater
Shrimp from India: Final Results and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 65082, 65084 (November
7, 2006).
\16\ See Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, Vol. I, at
870 (1994), reprinted at 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4199.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the present proceeding, because prior calculated rates involved
zeroing, consistent with AFBs 2012 \17\ and pursuant to section 776(b)
of the Act, we are relying on information placed on the record by the
cooperative respondents.\18\ Specifically, the AFA rate we have
selected is the highest, non-aberrational transaction-specific margin,
22.02 percent, calculated for one of the mandatory respondents in the
instant review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, Germany,
and Italy: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews;
2010-2011, 77 FR 73415 (December 10, 2012), and accompanying Issues
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1 (AFBs 2012).
\18\ See Final Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5; see
also Memorandum to the File through Eric Greynolds, Program Manager,
AD/CVD Operations 8, from the Team titled ``Certain Lined Paper
Products from India: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Selection of Total Adverse Facts-Available
Rate, (AFA Memo)'' dated April 9, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rates for Respondents Not Selected for Individual Examination
Generally, when calculating the margin for non-selected
respondents, the Department has looked to section 735(c)(5) of the Act
for guidance, which provides instructions for calculating the all-
others margin in an investigation. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act
provides that when calculating the all-others margin, the Department
will exclude any zero and de minimis weighted-average dumping margins,
as well as any weighted-average dumping margins based on total facts
available. Accordingly, the Department's usual practice has been to
average the margins for selected respondents, excluding margins that
are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available.\19\ Section
735(c)(5)(B) of the Act also provides that where all rates are zero, de
minimis or based on total facts available, the Department may use ``any
reasonable method'' to establish the rate for non-selected respondents,
including ``averaging the estimated weighted average dumping margins
determined for the exporters and producers individually investigated.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, Germany,
Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Reviews and Rescission of Reviews in Part, 73 FR
52823, 52824 (September 11, 2008) (AFBs 2008), and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this review, we have calculated weighted-average dumping margins
of zero for both mandatory respondents. In past reviews, the Department
has determined that a ``reasonable method'' to use when, as here, the
margins for respondents selected for individual examination are zero or
de minimis is to assign non-selected respondents the average of the
most recently determined margins that are not zero, de minimis, or
based entirely on facts available (which may be from a prior review or
new shipper review).\20\ However, if a non-selected respondent has its
own calculated margin that is contemporaneous with or more recent than
previous margins, the Department has applied the individually-
calculated margin to the non-selected respondent, including when that
margin is zero or de minimis.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Id.
\21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the present proceeding, all prior margins were calculated using
the Department's zeroing methodology. The Department has stated that it
will not use its zeroing methodology in administrative reviews with
preliminary determinations issued after April 16, 2012.\22\ Therefore,
the Department has not relied on any weighted-average margins
calculated in prior reviews to determine the rate for the non-selected
respondents in this review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-
Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping
Duty Proceedings; Final Modification for Reviews, 77 FR 8101
(February 14, 2012) (Final Modification).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have determined that a reasonable method for assigning a margin
to non-selected respondents in this review is to utilize the weighted-
average dumping margins calculated for the two mandatory respondents
(zero percent) and the AFA rate assigned to the four uncooperative
companies (22.02 percent). We have limited the number of rates used in
the average, that are based on AFA due to failures to respond to the
quantity and value (Q&V) questionnaires, to the same number of
companies that we determined we could
[[Page 22234]]
reasonably examine in this review, which was two. Accordingly, we
determined the non-selected rate by taking the simple average of the
rates calculated for the two selected mandatory respondents and two AFA
rates for companies that failed to respond to the Q&V questionnaire.
Thus, we are assigning an average dumping margin of 11.01 percent to
all non-selected respondents, including Pioneer, in these final
results.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Final Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5; see
also Memorandum to the File through Eric Greynolds, Program Manager,
AD/CVD Operations 8, from the Team titled ``Certain Lined Paper
Products from India: Margin for Respondents Not Selected for
Individual Examination: (Non-selected Rate Memo)'' dated April 9,
2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Results of the Review
As a result of this review, the Department determines that the
dumping margins for the POR are as follows:
A. Calculated Rate for the Two Mandatory Respondents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Producer/Exporter dumping
margin
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Riddhi Enterprises, Ltd..................................... 0.00
SAB International........................................... 0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Rate for the Non-Selected, Cooperative Respondents \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Final Issues and Decision Memo at Comment 5; see also
Non-selected Rate Memo.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Producer/Exporter dumping
margin
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abhinav Paper Products Pvt Ltd.............................. 11.01
American Scholar, Inc. and/or I-Scholar..................... 11.01
A R Printing & Packaging India.............................. 11.01
Akar Limited................................................ 11.01
Apl Logistics India Pvt. Ltd................................ 11.01
Artesign Impex.............................................. 11.01
Arun Art Printers Pvt. Ltd.................................. 11.01
Aryan Worldwide............................................. 11.01
Bafna Exports............................................... 11.01
Cargomar Pvt. Ltd........................................... 11.01
Cello International Pvt. Ltd. (M/S Cello Paper Products).... 11.01
Corporate Stationery Pvt. Ltd............................... 11.01
Crane Worldwide Logistics Ind Pvt........................... 11.01
Creative Divya.............................................. 11.01
D.D International........................................... 11.01
Exel India (Pvt.) Ltd....................................... 11.01
Exmart International Pvt. Ltd............................... 11.01
Expeditors International (India) Pvt/Expeditors Cargo Mgmnt 11.01
Systems....................................................
Fatechand Mahendrakumar..................................... 11.01
FFI International........................................... 11.01
Freight India Logistics Pvt. Ltd............................ 11.01
Gauriputra International.................................... 11.01
International Greetings Pvt. Ltd............................ 11.01
Karur K.C.P. Packagings Ltd................................. 11.01
Kejriwal Paper Ltd. and Kejriwal Exports.................... 11.01
Lodha Offset Limited........................................ 11.01
M.S. The Bell Match Company................................. 11.01
Magic International Pvt Ltd................................. 11.01
Mahavideh Foundation........................................ 11.01
Marisa International........................................ 11.01
Navneet Publications (India) Ltd............................ 11.01
Orient Press Ltd............................................ 11.01
Paperwise Inc............................................... 11.01
Phalada Agro Research Foundations........................... 11.01
Pioneer Stationery Pvt. Ltd................................. 11.01
Premier Exports............................................. 11.01
Raghunath Exporters......................................... 11.01
Rajvansh International...................................... 11.01
SAI Suburi International.................................... 11.01
SAR Transport Systems....................................... 11.01
SDV Intl Logistics Ltd...................................... 11.01
Seet Kamal International.................................... 11.01
SGM Paper Products.......................................... 11.01
Shivam Handicrafts.......................................... 11.01
Soham Udyog................................................. 11.01
Sonal Printers Pvt. Ltd..................................... 11.01
Super Impex................................................. 11.01
Swati Growth Funds Ltd...................................... 11.01
Swift Freight (India) Pvt. Ltd.............................. 11.01
V&M......................................................... 11.01
Yash Laminates.............................................. 11.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. AFA Rate for the Uncooperative Respondents \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See Final Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4; see
also AFA memo.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted
average
Producer/Exporter dumping
margin
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ampoules & Vials Mfg. Co. Ltd............................... 22.02
AR Printing & Packaging (India) PVT......................... 22.02
Chitra Exports.............................................. 22.02
Diki Continental Exports.................................... 22.02
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment Rates
Pursuant section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the
Department has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject
merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. The
Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions
directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this
administrative review.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated importer-specific
ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount
of dumping calculated for the importer's examined sales to the total
entered value of those sales. Where the assessment rate is above de
minimis, we will instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries of
subject merchandise by that importer. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2),
we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties
any entries for which the assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less
than 0.50 percent).
The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on
May 6, 2003.\26\ This clarification applies to entries of subject
merchandise during the POR produced by companies examined in this
review (i.e., companies for which a dumping margin was calculated)
where the companies did not know that their merchandise was destined
for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to
liquidate unreviewed entries at the 3.91 percent all-others rate
established in the original investigation for India if there is no
company-specific rate for an intermediary company(ies) involved in the
transaction.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ For a full discussion of this clarification, see
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of
Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).
\27\ See CLPP Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of these final results for all shipments of CLPP from India
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the
publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1)
for companies covered by this review, the cash deposit rate will be the
rates listed above; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated
companies other than those covered by this review, the cash deposit
rate will be the company-specific rate established for the most recent
period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a
prior review, or the original investigation, but the producer is, the
cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent
period for the producer of the subject merchandise; and (4) if neither
the exporter nor the producer is a firm covered in this review, a prior
review, or the original investigation, the cash deposit rate will be
3.91 percent, the all-others rate established in the original
investigation.\28\ These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until further notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 22235]]
Disclosure
We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the
date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Notification to Importers Regarding the Reimbursement of Duties
This notice also 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 and/or countervailing duties prior to
liquidation of the relevant entries during the POR. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and
the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
Administrative Protective Order
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(a)(3), 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 the terms of an
APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: April 9, 2013.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix
List of Comments in the Accompanying Final Issues and Decision
Memorandum:
A. General Issue
Comment 1: Whether to Apply Targeted Dumping With Respect to Riddhi
and SAB
B. Company-Specific Issues
Comment 2: Whether the Department Properly Calculated Riddhi's
Comparison Market Net Price (CMNETPRI)
Comment 3: Whether the Department Properly Applied the Exchange Rate
to SAB's Countervailing Duty Offset (CVDU)
Comment 4: Whether to Apply the Adverse Facts Available (AFA) Rate
to Pioneer
Comment 5: The Proper Rate to Apply to the Non-Selected Respondents
[FR Doc. 2013-08790 Filed 4-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
