Certain Uncoated Paper From Portugal: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances in the Antidumping Duty Investigation, 68293-68295 [2015-28112]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 213 / Wednesday, November 4, 2015 / Notices reliability and relevance of the data for these surveys. Affected Public: Business or other forprofit, Not-for-profit institutions. Frequency: One time. Respondent’s Obligation: Mandatory. Legal Authority: Title 13 U.S.C., Sections 131, 182 and 193. This information collection request may be viewed at www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to OIRA_Submission@ omb.eop.gov or fax to (202) 395–5806. Dated: October 29, 2015. Glenna Mickelson, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. 2015–28031 Filed 11–3–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–07–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration President’s Advisory Council on Doing Business in Africa: Meeting of the President’s Advisory Council on Doing Business in Africa International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of an open meeting by teleconference. AGENCY: The President’s Advisory Council on Doing Business in Africa (Council) will hold an open call to deliberate a recommendation related to infrastructure development in SubSaharan Africa and to conduct Council business. The final agenda will be posted at least one week in advance of the meeting on the Council’s Web site at https://trade.gov/pac-dbia. DATES: November 19, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. ET The deadline for members of the public to register, including requests for auxiliary aids, or to submit written comments for dissemination prior to the meeting, is 5:00 p.m. ET on November 17, 2015. ADDRESSES: Via teleconference. The call-in number and passcode will be provided by email to registrants. Requests to register (including for auxiliary aids) and any written comments should be submitted to Tricia Van Orden, Executive Secretary, President’s Advisory Council on Doing Business in Africa, electronically via email sent to dbia@trade.gov or via asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:30 Nov 03, 2015 Jkt 238001 letter mailed to Room 4043, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. Members of the public are encouraged to submit registration requests and written comments via email to ensure timely receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tricia Van Orden, Executive Secretary, President’s Advisory Council on Doing Business in Africa, Room 4043, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: 202–482–5876, email: dbia@trade.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background: President Barack Obama directed the Secretary of Commerce to establish the President’s Advisory Council on Doing Business in Africa by Executive Order No. 13675 dated August 5, 2014. The Council was established by Charter on November 3, 2014, to advise the President, through the Secretary of Commerce, on strengthening commercial engagement between the United States and Africa, with a focus on advancing the President’s Doing Business in Africa Campaign as described in the U.S. Strategy Toward Sub-Saharan Africa of June 14, 2012. This Council is established in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C. App. Public Participation: The meeting will be open to the public and will be accessible to people with disabilities. All listeners are required to register in advance by sending an electronic request to dbia@trade.gov or by sending a paper request to the address listed above. Requests must be received by 5:00 p.m. ET on November 17, 2015. Requests for auxiliary aids must be submitted by the registration deadline. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill. Public Submissions: The public is invited to submit written statements to the President’s Advisory Council on Doing Business in Africa. Statements must be received by 5:00 p.m. ET on November 17, 2015, by either of the following methods: a. Electronic Submissions Submit statements electronically to Tricia Van Orden, Executive Secretary, President’s Advisory Council on Doing Business in Africa, via email: dbia@ trade.gov. b. Paper Submissions Send paper statements to Tricia Van Orden, Executive Secretary, President’s Advisory Council on Doing Business in Africa, Room 4043, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 68293 Statements will be provided to the members in advance of the meeting for consideration and will be posted on the President’s Advisory Council on Doing Business in Africa Web site (https:// trade.gov/pac-dbia) without change, including any business or personal information provided such as names, addresses, email addresses, or telephone numbers. All statements received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. You should submit only information that you wish to make publicly available. Meeting Recording: A recording of the Council’s call will be available within ninety (90) days of the meeting on the Council’s Web site at https://trade.gov/ pac-dbia. Dated: October 29, 2015. Archana Sahgal, Deputy Director, Office of Advisory Committees and Industry Outreach. [FR Doc. 2015–28113 Filed 11–3–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–471–807] Certain Uncoated Paper From Portugal: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances in the Antidumping Duty Investigation Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. DATES: Effective date: November 4, 2015. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kabir Archuletta, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–2593. AGENCY: Background On August 26, 2015, the Department of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) published its preliminary determination in the antidumping duty investigation of certain uncoated paper from Portugal.1 On September 28, 2015, Petitioners 2 1 See Certain Uncoated Paper From Portugal: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 80 FR 51777 (August 26, 2015) (‘‘Preliminary Determination’’). 2 Petitioners are United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM Continued 04NON1 68294 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 213 / Wednesday, November 4, 2015 / Notices filed a timely critical circumstances allegation, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.206, alleging that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of the merchandise under consideration.3 On September 29, 2015, the Department issued a letter to Portucel S.A. (‘‘Portucel’’), the sole respondent in this investigation, requesting monthly shipment data from July 2014 through August 2015.4 On October 6, 2015, Portucel filed its response to the Department’s request for monthly shipment data.5 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.206(c)(1), when a critical circumstances allegation is filed 30 days or more before the scheduled date of the final determination, the Department will issue a preliminary finding whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that critical circumstances exist. Because the critical circumstances allegation in this case was submitted after the preliminary determination was published, the Department must issue its preliminary findings of critical circumstances no later than 30 days after the allegation was filed.6 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Legal Framework Section 733(e)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), provides that the Department, upon receipt of a timely allegation of critical circumstances, will determine whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that: (A)(i) There is a history of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports in the United States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise, or (ii) the person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was imported knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the subject merchandise at less than its fair value and that there was likely to be material injury by reason of such sales; and (B) there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short period. Further, 19 CFR 351.206(h)(1) provides that, in determining whether imports of the subject merchandise have and Service Workers International Union; Domtar Corporation; Finch Paper LLC; P.H. Glatfelter Company; and Packaging Corporation of America (collectively ‘‘Petitioners’’). 3 See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from Petitioners ‘‘Petitioners’ Critical Circumstances Allegation’’ (September 28, 2015) (‘‘Petitioners’ Critical Circumstances Allegation’’). 4 See Letter to Portucel from Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, Office V ‘‘Request for Monthly Quantity and Value Shipment Data’’ (September 29, 2015). 5 See Letter to Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, Office V, from Portucel ‘‘Portucel’s Monthly Quantity and Value Shipment Data’’ (October 6, 2015). 6 See 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2)(ii). VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:30 Nov 03, 2015 Jkt 238001 been ‘‘massive,’’ the Department normally will examine: (i) The volume and value of the imports; (ii) seasonal trends; and (iii) the share of domestic consumption accounted for by the imports. In addition, 19 CFR 351.206(h)(2) provides that, ‘‘{i}n general, unless the imports during the ‘relatively short period’ . . . have increased by at least 15 percent over the imports during an immediately preceding period of comparable duration, the Secretary will not consider the imports massive.’’ 19 CFR 351.206(i) defines ‘‘relatively short period’’ generally as the period starting on the date the proceeding begins (i.e., the date the petition is filed) and ending at least three months later. This section of the regulations further provides that, if the Department ‘‘finds that importers, or exporters or producers, had reason to believe, at some time prior to the beginning of the proceeding, that a proceeding was likely,’’ then the Department may consider a period of not less than three months from that earlier time. Critical Circumstances Allegation In their allegation, Petitioners contend that, based on the dumping margins assigned by the Department in the Preliminary Determination, importers knew or should have known that the merchandise under consideration was being sold at less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’).7 Petitioners also contend that, based on the preliminary determination of injury by the U.S. International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’), there is a reasonable basis to impute importers’ knowledge that material injury is likely by reason of such imports.8 Finally, as part of their allegation and pursuant to 19 CFR 351.206(h)(2), Petitioners submitted import statistics for the HTS numbers included in the scope for the period between August 2014 and July 2015 as evidence of massive imports of uncoated paper from Portugal during a relatively short period.9 Analysis The Department’s normal practice in determining whether critical circumstances exist pursuant to the statutory criteria has been to examine evidence available to the Department, such as: (1) The evidence presented in Petitioners’ critical circumstances allegation; (2) import statistics released by the ITC; and (3) shipment 7 See Petitioners’ Critical Circumstances Allegation, dated September 28, 2015, at 2–4. 8 Id. 9 Id. at 4–6, Exhibit 1. PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 information submitted to the Department by the respondents selected for individual examination.10 As further provided below, in determining whether the above statutory criteria have been satisfied in this case, we have examined: (1) The evidence presented in Petitioners’ September 28, 2015, allegation; (2) information obtained since the initiation of this investigation; and (3) the ITC’s preliminary injury determination. Section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act: History of Dumping and Material Injury by Reason of Dumped Imports in the United States or Elsewhere of the Subject Merchandise In determining whether a history of dumping and material injury exists, the Department generally has considered current or previous antidumping duty orders on subject merchandise from the country in question in the United States and current orders in any other country.11 In this case, the current investigation of the subject merchandise marks the first instance that the Department has examined whether the goods are dumped into the United States. As a result, the Department previously has not imposed an antidumping duty order on the subject merchandise. Moreover, the Department is not aware of any antidumping duty order on subject merchandise from Portugal in another country. Therefore, the Department finds no history of injurious dumping of the subject merchandise pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act. Section 733(e)(1)(A)(ii): The Importer Knew or Should Have Known That Exporter Was Selling at Less Than Fair Value and That There Was Likely To Be Material Injury In determining whether an importer knew or should have known that the exporter was selling subject merchandise at LTFV and that there was likely to be material injury by reason of such sales, the Department must rely on the facts before it at the time the determination is made. The Department generally bases its decision with respect to knowledge on the margins calculated 10 See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People’s Republic of China, 73 FR 31970, 31972–73 (June 5, 2008) (‘‘Carbon Steel Pipe’’); Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes from the People’s Republic of China, 74 FR 2049, 2052–53 (January 14, 2009) (‘‘SDGE’’). 11 See Carbon Steel Pipe, 73 FR at 31972–73; see also SDGE, 74 FR 2052–53. E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 213 / Wednesday, November 4, 2015 / Notices in the preliminary determination and the ITC’s preliminary injury determination. The Department normally considers margins of 25 percent or more for export price (‘‘EP’’) sales and 15 percent or more for constructed export price (‘‘CEP’’) sales sufficient to impute importer knowledge of sales at LTFV.12 Portucel had only CEP sales and the Department preliminarily determined a margin of 29.53 percent for Portucel, which was also assigned as the ‘‘all others’’ rate.13 Therefore, because the preliminary margins are greater than 15 percent for all producers and exporters, we preliminarily find, with respect to all producers and exporters, that there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that importers knew, or should have known, that exporters were selling the merchandise under consideration at LTFV. In determining whether an importer knew or should have known that there was likely to be material injury caused by reason of such imports, the Department normally will look to the preliminary injury determination of the ITC.14 If the ITC finds a reasonable indication of present material injury to the relevant U.S. industry, the Department will determine that a reasonable basis exists to impute importer knowledge that material injury is likely by reason of such imports.15 Here, the ITC found that ‘‘there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports from Australia, Brazil, China, Indonesia, and Portugal of certain uncoated paper, provided for in subheadings 4802.56 and 4802.57 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. . . .’’ 16 asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 12 See, e.g., Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Germany, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine: Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances, 67 FR 6224, 6225 (February 11, 2002); Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances: Magnesium Metal from the People’s Republic of China, 70 FR 5606, 5607 (February 3, 2005). 13 See Preliminary Determination, 80 FR at 51778. 14 See, e.g., Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances in the Antidumping Duty Investigation, 75 FR 24572, 24573 (May 5, 2010) (‘‘Salt Critical Circumstances Prelim’’). 15 See, e.g., Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Germany, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine: Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances, 67 FR 6224, 6225 (February 11, 2002); Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances: Magnesium Metal from the People’s Republic of China, 70 FR 5606, 5607 (February 3, 2005). 16 See Certain Uncoated Paper from Australia, Brazil, China, Indonesia, and Portugal, Investigation Nos. 701–TA–528–529 and 731–TA– 1264–1268 (Preliminary), 80 FR 13890 (March 17, 2015). VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:00 Nov 03, 2015 Jkt 238001 Section 733(e)(1)(B): Whether There Have Been Massive Imports of the Subject Merchandise Over a Relatively Short Period Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.206(h)(2), the Department will not consider imports to be massive unless imports in the comparison period have increased by at least 15 percent over imports in the base period. The Department normally considers a ‘‘relatively short period’’ as the period beginning on the date the proceeding begins and ending at least three months later.17 For this reason, the Department normally compares the import volumes of the subject merchandise for at least three months immediately preceding the filing of the petition (i.e., the ‘‘base period’’) to a comparable period of at least three months following the filing of the petition (i.e., the ‘‘comparison period’’).18 In their September 28, 2015 allegation, Petitioners included U.S. import data collected from the ITC’s Dataweb.19 Specifically, Petitioners provided data for a six-month base period (August 2014 through January 2015) and a six-month comparison period (February 2015 through July 2015), the most recent data available at the time of filing, in showing whether imports were massive.20 In response to a request by the Department, on October 6, 2015, Portucel submitted monthly shipment data for merchandise shipped from Portucel to the United States for a seven-month base period (July 2014 through January 2015) and a sevenmonth comparison period (February 2015 through August 2015).21 The quantity of Portucel’s shipments of uncoated paper increased in the comparison period by 18.6 percent over the base period.22 Our practice with respect to companies subject to the ‘‘all others’’ rate is to base our critical circumstances analysis on the experience of the investigated companies.23 17 See 19 CFR 351.206(i). Salt Critical Circumstances Prelim, 75 FR at 24574. 19 See Petitioners’ Critical Circumstances Allegation at 4–5, Exhibit 1. 20 Id. 5, Exhibit 1. At the time of filing, import data was available only through July 2015. 21 See Portucel’s Monthly Quantity and Value Shipment Data, filed on October 6, 2015. 22 See Memoradum to the File from Ryan Mullen, International Trade Analyst, Office V, through Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, Office V ‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Uncoated Paper from Portugal: Import Statistics for Critical Circumstances Analysis’’ at Exhibit 1. 23 See, e.g. Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sodium Nitrate from the Federal Republic of Germany, 73 FR 21909, 21912 (April 23, 2008), unchanged in Notice of 18 See PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 68295 Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances Record evidence indicates that importers of uncoated paper knew, or should have known, that exporters were selling the merchandise at LTFV, and that there was likely to be material injury by reason of such sales. In addition, we have found that Portucel had massive imports during a relatively short period. Therefore, in accordance with section 733(e)(1) of the Act, we preliminarily find that there is reason to believe or suspect that critical circumstances exist for imports of the merchandise under consideration from Portucel and companies subject to the all others rate.24 Suspension of Liquidation In accordance with section 733(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we are directing the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation of any unliquidated entries of the merchandise under consideration from Portugal entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after May 27, 2015, which is 90 days prior to the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register. ITC Notification In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of our preliminary affirmative critical circumstances determination. This determination is published pursuant to sections 733(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2)(ii). Dated: October 28, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. [FR Doc. 2015–28112 Filed 11–3–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration United States Travel and Tourism Advisory Board: Meeting of the United States Travel and Tourism Advisory Board International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of an open meeting. AGENCY: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sodium Nitrate from the Federal Republic of Germany, 73 FR 38986, 38987 (July 8, 2008), and accompany Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. 24 See section 733(f) of the Act; 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2)(ii). E:\FR\FM\04NON1.SGM 04NON1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 213 (Wednesday, November 4, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68293-68295]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28112]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-471-807]


Certain Uncoated Paper From Portugal: Preliminary Affirmative 
Determination of Critical Circumstances in the Antidumping Duty 
Investigation

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

DATES: Effective date: November 4, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kabir Archuletta, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
2593.

Background

    On August 26, 2015, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') 
published its preliminary determination in the antidumping duty 
investigation of certain uncoated paper from Portugal.\1\ On September 
28, 2015, Petitioners \2\

[[Page 68294]]

filed a timely critical circumstances allegation, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.206, alleging that critical circumstances exist with respect to 
imports of the merchandise under consideration.\3\ On September 29, 
2015, the Department issued a letter to Portucel S.A. (``Portucel''), 
the sole respondent in this investigation, requesting monthly shipment 
data from July 2014 through August 2015.\4\ On October 6, 2015, 
Portucel filed its response to the Department's request for monthly 
shipment data.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Certain Uncoated Paper From Portugal: Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of 
Final Determination, 80 FR 51777 (August 26, 2015) (``Preliminary 
Determination'').
    \2\ Petitioners are United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, 
Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers 
International Union; Domtar Corporation; Finch Paper LLC; P.H. 
Glatfelter Company; and Packaging Corporation of America 
(collectively ``Petitioners'').
    \3\ See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from Petitioners 
``Petitioners' Critical Circumstances Allegation'' (September 28, 
2015) (``Petitioners' Critical Circumstances Allegation'').
    \4\ See Letter to Portucel from Catherine Bertrand, Program 
Manager, Office V ``Request for Monthly Quantity and Value Shipment 
Data'' (September 29, 2015).
    \5\ See Letter to Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, Office V, 
from Portucel ``Portucel's Monthly Quantity and Value Shipment 
Data'' (October 6, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.206(c)(1), when a critical 
circumstances allegation is filed 30 days or more before the scheduled 
date of the final determination, the Department will issue a 
preliminary finding whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or 
suspect that critical circumstances exist. Because the critical 
circumstances allegation in this case was submitted after the 
preliminary determination was published, the Department must issue its 
preliminary findings of critical circumstances no later than 30 days 
after the allegation was filed.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Legal Framework

    Section 733(e)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the 
Act''), provides that the Department, upon receipt of a timely 
allegation of critical circumstances, will determine whether there is a 
reasonable basis to believe or suspect that: (A)(i) There is a history 
of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports in the 
United States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise, or (ii) the 
person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was imported knew 
or should have known that the exporter was selling the subject 
merchandise at less than its fair value and that there was likely to be 
material injury by reason of such sales; and (B) there have been 
massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short 
period.
    Further, 19 CFR 351.206(h)(1) provides that, in determining whether 
imports of the subject merchandise have been ``massive,'' the 
Department normally will examine: (i) The volume and value of the 
imports; (ii) seasonal trends; and (iii) the share of domestic 
consumption accounted for by the imports. In addition, 19 CFR 
351.206(h)(2) provides that, ``{i{time} n general, unless the imports 
during the `relatively short period' . . . have increased by at least 
15 percent over the imports during an immediately preceding period of 
comparable duration, the Secretary will not consider the imports 
massive.'' 19 CFR 351.206(i) defines ``relatively short period'' 
generally as the period starting on the date the proceeding begins 
(i.e., the date the petition is filed) and ending at least three months 
later. This section of the regulations further provides that, if the 
Department ``finds that importers, or exporters or producers, had 
reason to believe, at some time prior to the beginning of the 
proceeding, that a proceeding was likely,'' then the Department may 
consider a period of not less than three months from that earlier time.

Critical Circumstances Allegation

    In their allegation, Petitioners contend that, based on the dumping 
margins assigned by the Department in the Preliminary Determination, 
importers knew or should have known that the merchandise under 
consideration was being sold at less than fair value (``LTFV'').\7\ 
Petitioners also contend that, based on the preliminary determination 
of injury by the U.S. International Trade Commission (``ITC''), there 
is a reasonable basis to impute importers' knowledge that material 
injury is likely by reason of such imports.\8\ Finally, as part of 
their allegation and pursuant to 19 CFR 351.206(h)(2), Petitioners 
submitted import statistics for the HTS numbers included in the scope 
for the period between August 2014 and July 2015 as evidence of massive 
imports of uncoated paper from Portugal during a relatively short 
period.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Petitioners' Critical Circumstances Allegation, dated 
September 28, 2015, at 2-4.
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ Id. at 4-6, Exhibit 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis

    The Department's normal practice in determining whether critical 
circumstances exist pursuant to the statutory criteria has been to 
examine evidence available to the Department, such as: (1) The evidence 
presented in Petitioners' critical circumstances allegation; (2) import 
statistics released by the ITC; and (3) shipment information submitted 
to the Department by the respondents selected for individual 
examination.\10\ As further provided below, in determining whether the 
above statutory criteria have been satisfied in this case, we have 
examined: (1) The evidence presented in Petitioners' September 28, 
2015, allegation; (2) information obtained since the initiation of this 
investigation; and (3) the ITC's preliminary injury determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Affirmative Final Determination of Critical 
Circumstances: Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the 
People's Republic of China, 73 FR 31970, 31972-73 (June 5, 2008) 
(``Carbon Steel Pipe''); Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value and Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: 
Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes from the People's Republic of 
China, 74 FR 2049, 2052-53 (January 14, 2009) (``SDGE'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act: History of Dumping and Material 
Injury by Reason of Dumped Imports in the United States or Elsewhere of 
the Subject Merchandise

    In determining whether a history of dumping and material injury 
exists, the Department generally has considered current or previous 
antidumping duty orders on subject merchandise from the country in 
question in the United States and current orders in any other 
country.\11\ In this case, the current investigation of the subject 
merchandise marks the first instance that the Department has examined 
whether the goods are dumped into the United States. As a result, the 
Department previously has not imposed an antidumping duty order on the 
subject merchandise. Moreover, the Department is not aware of any 
antidumping duty order on subject merchandise from Portugal in another 
country. Therefore, the Department finds no history of injurious 
dumping of the subject merchandise pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) 
of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Carbon Steel Pipe, 73 FR at 31972-73; see also SDGE, 74 
FR 2052-53.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 733(e)(1)(A)(ii): The Importer Knew or Should Have Known That 
Exporter Was Selling at Less Than Fair Value and That There Was Likely 
To Be Material Injury

    In determining whether an importer knew or should have known that 
the exporter was selling subject merchandise at LTFV and that there was 
likely to be material injury by reason of such sales, the Department 
must rely on the facts before it at the time the determination is made. 
The Department generally bases its decision with respect to knowledge 
on the margins calculated

[[Page 68295]]

in the preliminary determination and the ITC's preliminary injury 
determination.
    The Department normally considers margins of 25 percent or more for 
export price (``EP'') sales and 15 percent or more for constructed 
export price (``CEP'') sales sufficient to impute importer knowledge of 
sales at LTFV.\12\ Portucel had only CEP sales and the Department 
preliminarily determined a margin of 29.53 percent for Portucel, which 
was also assigned as the ``all others'' rate.\13\ Therefore, because 
the preliminary margins are greater than 15 percent for all producers 
and exporters, we preliminarily find, with respect to all producers and 
exporters, that there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that 
importers knew, or should have known, that exporters were selling the 
merchandise under consideration at LTFV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See, e.g., Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Germany, 
Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine: Preliminary 
Determination of Critical Circumstances, 67 FR 6224, 6225 (February 
11, 2002); Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical 
Circumstances: Magnesium Metal from the People's Republic of China, 
70 FR 5606, 5607 (February 3, 2005).
    \13\ See Preliminary Determination, 80 FR at 51778.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining whether an importer knew or should have known that 
there was likely to be material injury caused by reason of such 
imports, the Department normally will look to the preliminary injury 
determination of the ITC.\14\ If the ITC finds a reasonable indication 
of present material injury to the relevant U.S. industry, the 
Department will determine that a reasonable basis exists to impute 
importer knowledge that material injury is likely by reason of such 
imports.\15\ Here, the ITC found that ``there is a reasonable 
indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured 
by reason of imports from Australia, Brazil, China, Indonesia, and 
Portugal of certain uncoated paper, provided for in subheadings 4802.56 
and 4802.57 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. . . 
.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See, e.g., Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the 
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of 
Critical Circumstances in the Antidumping Duty Investigation, 75 FR 
24572, 24573 (May 5, 2010) (``Salt Critical Circumstances Prelim'').
    \15\ See, e.g., Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Germany, 
Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine: Preliminary 
Determination of Critical Circumstances, 67 FR 6224, 6225 (February 
11, 2002); Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical 
Circumstances: Magnesium Metal from the People's Republic of China, 
70 FR 5606, 5607 (February 3, 2005).
    \16\ See Certain Uncoated Paper from Australia, Brazil, China, 
Indonesia, and Portugal, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-528-529 and 731-
TA-1264-1268 (Preliminary), 80 FR 13890 (March 17, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 733(e)(1)(B): Whether There Have Been Massive Imports of the 
Subject Merchandise Over a Relatively Short Period

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.206(h)(2), the Department will not consider 
imports to be massive unless imports in the comparison period have 
increased by at least 15 percent over imports in the base period. The 
Department normally considers a ``relatively short period'' as the 
period beginning on the date the proceeding begins and ending at least 
three months later.\17\ For this reason, the Department normally 
compares the import volumes of the subject merchandise for at least 
three months immediately preceding the filing of the petition (i.e., 
the ``base period'') to a comparable period of at least three months 
following the filing of the petition (i.e., the ``comparison 
period'').\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See 19 CFR 351.206(i).
    \18\ See Salt Critical Circumstances Prelim, 75 FR at 24574.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In their September 28, 2015 allegation, Petitioners included U.S. 
import data collected from the ITC's Dataweb.\19\ Specifically, 
Petitioners provided data for a six-month base period (August 2014 
through January 2015) and a six-month comparison period (February 2015 
through July 2015), the most recent data available at the time of 
filing, in showing whether imports were massive.\20\ In response to a 
request by the Department, on October 6, 2015, Portucel submitted 
monthly shipment data for merchandise shipped from Portucel to the 
United States for a seven-month base period (July 2014 through January 
2015) and a seven-month comparison period (February 2015 through August 
2015).\21\ The quantity of Portucel's shipments of uncoated paper 
increased in the comparison period by 18.6 percent over the base 
period.\22\ Our practice with respect to companies subject to the ``all 
others'' rate is to base our critical circumstances analysis on the 
experience of the investigated companies.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Petitioners' Critical Circumstances Allegation at 4-5, 
Exhibit 1.
    \20\ Id. 5, Exhibit 1. At the time of filing, import data was 
available only through July 2015.
    \21\ See Portucel's Monthly Quantity and Value Shipment Data, 
filed on October 6, 2015.
    \22\ See Memoradum to the File from Ryan Mullen, International 
Trade Analyst, Office V, through Catherine Bertrand, Program 
Manager, Office V ``Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain 
Uncoated Paper from Portugal: Import Statistics for Critical 
Circumstances Analysis'' at Exhibit 1.
    \23\ See, e.g. Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Sodium Nitrate from the Federal Republic of 
Germany, 73 FR 21909, 21912 (April 23, 2008), unchanged in Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sodium Nitrate 
from the Federal Republic of Germany, 73 FR 38986, 38987 (July 8, 
2008), and accompany Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances

    Record evidence indicates that importers of uncoated paper knew, or 
should have known, that exporters were selling the merchandise at LTFV, 
and that there was likely to be material injury by reason of such 
sales. In addition, we have found that Portucel had massive imports 
during a relatively short period. Therefore, in accordance with section 
733(e)(1) of the Act, we preliminarily find that there is reason to 
believe or suspect that critical circumstances exist for imports of the 
merchandise under consideration from Portucel and companies subject to 
the all others rate.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See section 733(f) of the Act; 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we are 
directing the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation 
of any unliquidated entries of the merchandise under consideration from 
Portugal entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after May 27, 2015, which is 90 days prior to the date of publication 
of the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register.

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our preliminary affirmative critical circumstances 
determination.
    This determination is published pursuant to sections 733(f) and 
777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2)(ii).

    Dated: October 28, 2015.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015-28112 Filed 11-3-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.