[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 197 (Friday, October 10, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58653-58658]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-25773]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-866]


Certain Folding Gift Boxes From the People's Republic of China

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty 
administrative review.

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the 
Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on certain folding gift boxes from the People's 
Republic of China. The review covers two manufacturers/exporters and 
the period of review is August 6, 2001, through December 31, 2002.
    We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below 
normal value by one of the companies subject to this review. If these 
preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative 
review, we will instruct the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection to 
assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.

[[Page 58654]]


EFFECTIVE DATE: October 10, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Moats (Red Point), Yang Jin 
Chun (Yun Choy), or Thomas Schauer, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-5047, (202) 482-5760, and (202) 482-0410, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Case History

    On January 8, 2002, we published in the Federal Register the 
antidumping duty order on folding gift boxes from the People's Republic 
of China (PRC). See Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Folding Gift Boxes 
from the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 864 (Jan. 8, 2002).
    On January 2, 2003, we published a notice of opportunity to request 
an antidumping duty administrative review on folding gift boxes from 
the PRC. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 
68 FR 80 (Jan. 2, 2003). On January 30, 2003, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.213(b)(2), Red Point Paper Products Co., Ltd. (Red Point), a 
producer covered by the antidumping duty order, requested that the 
Department conduct an administrative review of the company. On January 
31, 2003, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), U.S. folding gift box 
producers Harvard Folding Box Company, Inc., and Field Container 
Company L.P. requested that the Department conduct an administrative 
review of Yun Choy Ltd. (Yun Choy), a Chinese producer and/or exporter 
of the subject merchandise. On February 21, 2003, in accordance with 
section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 
CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we issued a notice of initiation of an 
antidumping duty administrative review of this order and named Red 
Point and Yun Choy as respondents of this review. See Initiation of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 68 FR 9048 
(Feb. 27, 2003).
    On April 14, 2003, Red Point submitted its Section A response, on 
April 21, 2003, its Sections C and D responses, and on June 11, 2003, 
its supplemental responses. Yun Choy received the original 
questionnaire but did not respond. See ``The PRC-Wide Rate and Use of 
Facts Otherwise Available'' section below.

Scope of Order

    The products covered by this antidumping duty order are certain 
folding gift boxes. Certain folding gift boxes are a type of folding or 
knock-down carton manufactured from paper or paperboard. Certain 
folding gift boxes are produced from a variety of recycled and virgin 
paper or paperboard materials, including, but not limited to, clay-
coated paper or paperboard and kraft (bleached or unbleached) paper or 
paperboard. The scope of the order excludes gift boxes manufactured 
from paper or paperboard of a thickness of more than 0.8 millimeters, 
corrugated paperboard, or paper mache. The scope of the order also 
excludes those gift boxes for which no side of the box, when assembled, 
is at least nine inches in length.
    Certain folding gift boxes are typically decorated with a holiday 
motif using various processes, including printing, embossing, 
debossing, and foil stamping, but may also be plain white or printed 
with a single color. The subject merchandise includes certain folding 
gift boxes, with or without handles, whether finished or unfinished, 
and whether in one-piece or multi-piece configuration. One-piece gift 
boxes are die-cut or otherwise formed so that the top, bottom, and 
sides form a single, contiguous unit. Two-piece gift boxes are those 
with a folded bottom and a folded top as separate pieces. Certain 
folding gift boxes are generally packaged in shrink-wrap, cellophane, 
or other packaging materials, in single or multi-box packs for sale to 
the retail customer. The scope of the order excludes folding gift boxes 
that have a retailer's name, logo, trademark or similar company 
information printed prominently on the box's top exterior (such folding 
gift boxes are often known as ``not-for-resale'' gift boxes or ``give-
away'' gift boxes and may be provided by department and specialty 
stores at no charge to their retail customers). The scope of the order 
also excludes folding gift boxes where both the outside of the box is a 
single color and the box is not packaged in shrink-wrap, cellophane, 
other resin-based packaging films, or paperboard.
    Imports of the subject merchandise are classified under Harmonized 
Tariff Schedules of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 4819.20.00.40 
and 4819.50.40.60. These subheadings also cover products that are 
outside the scope of the order. Furthermore, although the HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our 
written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

Non-Market-Economy Country Status

    The Department has treated the PRC as a non-market-economy (NME) 
country in all past antidumping duty administrative reviews. See, e.g., 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Synthetic 
Indigo from the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 53711, 53712 (Sep. 
12, 2003), and Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial Rescission 
of the Antidumping Administrative Review: Petroleum Wax Candles from 
the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 53109, 53114 (Sep. 9, 2003). A 
designation as an NME remains in effect until it is revoked by the 
Department. See section 771(18)(C) of the Act.
    No party in this review has requested a revocation of the PRC's NME 
status. Therefore, we have preliminarily determined to continue to 
treat the PRC as an NME. When we review imports from an NME, section 
773(c)(1) of the Act directs us to base the normal value (NV) on the 
NME producer's factors of production, valued in a market economy at a 
comparable level of economic development and that is a significant 
producer of comparable merchandise. The sources used to value 
individual factors are discussed in the ``Factor Valuations'' section, 
below.

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department begins with 
a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are 
subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single 
antidumping duty rate. In this case, Red Point has requested a separate 
company-specific rate. Red Point is a Hong King company wholly owned by 
non-PRC nationals. Hong Kong companies are treated as market-economy 
companies because it is considered as a separate customs territory 
within the PRC, as it was under British rule. See Application of U.S. 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Laws to Hong Kong, 62 FR 42965 
(Aug. 11, 1997). Therefore, we determine that it is appropriate to 
calculate a separate rate for Red Point. Yun Choy did not submit any 
type of response to the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire. We 
preliminarily determine that Yun Choy did not establish its entitlement 
to a separate rate in this review and is therefore presumed to be part 
of the PRC NME entity and, as such, is subject to the PRC country-wide 
rate. See ``The PRC-Wide Rate and Use of Facts Otherwise Available'' 
section below.

[[Page 58655]]

The PRC-Wide Rate and Use of Facts Otherwise Available

    Both respondents were given the opportunity to respond to the 
Department's questionnaire. As explained above, we received a 
questionnaire response from Red Point and we have calculated a separate 
rate for Red Point. The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of subject 
merchandise except for entries from Red Point and Max Fortune, a 
producer which was excluded from the antidumping duty order.
    As discussed above, Yun Choy is appropriately considered part of 
the PRC-wide entity. Yun Choy did not respond to the Department's 
questionnaire. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an 
interested party or any other person (A) withholds information that has 
been requested by the administering authority, (B) fails to provide 
such information by the deadlines for the submission of the information 
or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and 
(e) of section 782, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this 
title, or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be 
verified as provided in section 782(i), the Department shall, subject 
to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available in reaching the 
applicable determination under this title.
    Because the PRC entity did not respond to the Department's 
questionnaire, we find that, in accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A) 
and (B) of the Act, the use of total facts available is appropriate. 
See, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review for 
Two Manufacturers/Exporters: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the 
People's Republic of China, 65 FR 50183, 50184 (Aug. 17, 2000). For a 
more detailed discussion, see the following determinations: Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review for Two 
Manufacturers/Exporters: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's 
Republic of China, 65 FR 40609, 40611 (June 30, 2000); Final 
Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Persulfates from the 
People's Republic of China, 62 FR 27222, 27224 (May 19, 1997); 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain 
Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel from Italy, 61 FR 36551, 36552 (July 
11, 1996); Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: 
Certain Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel from Italy, 62 FR 2655 (Jan. 
17, 1997). Because Yun Choy provided no information, sections 782(d) 
and (e) of the Act are not relevant to our analysis.
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the Department finds 
that an interested party ``has failed to cooperate by not acting to the 
best of its ability to comply with a request for information,'' the 
Department may use information that is adverse to the interests of the 
party as facts otherwise available. Adverse inferences are appropriate 
``to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by 
failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated full.'' See Statement of 
Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the URAA, H. Doc. No. 103-316, 
at 870 (1994).
    Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use as 
adverse facts available information derived from the petition, the 
final determination from the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, 
a previous administrative review, or any other information placed on 
the record. Under section 782(c) of the Act, a respondent has a 
responsibility not only to notify the Department if it is unable to 
provide requested information but also to provide a ``full explanation 
and suggested alternative forms.'' On February 27, 2003, the Department 
transmitted its questionnaire to Yun Choy via Federal Express. We 
confirmed that Yun Choy signed for and received the questionnaire on 
March 3, 2003 (Hong Kong date). Yun Choy did not submit a response to 
our questionnaire by the due date, April 7, 2003. On April 11, 2003, 
the Department mailed a letter via Federal Express to Yun Choy asking 
it to inform the Department as to whether it has submitted or intended 
to submit a response to the questionnaire or whether it and its 
affiliates did not have any U.S. sales or shipments during the review 
period. Yun Choy received the letter on April 14, 2003 (Hong Kong 
date), but it did not respond to the letter by the due date, April 21, 
2003. Because Yun Choy did not provide a response to the Department's 
questionnaire, the Department is unable to determine Yun Choy's 
eligibility for a separate rate. Thus, Yun Choy has not rebutted its 
presumption of government control and is presumed to be part of the PRC 
entity. Therefore, we determine that Yun Choy and, thereby, the PRC-
entity failed to cooperate to the best of its ability, making the use 
of an adverse inference appropriate.
    In accordance with the Department's practice, we have preliminarily 
assigned to the PRC entity (including Yun Choy) the rate of 164.75 
percent as adverse facts available. See, e.g., Rescission of Second New 
Shipper Review and Final Results and Partial Rescission of First 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Brake Rotors From the People's 
Republic of China, 64 FR 61581, 61584 (Nov. 12, 1999). This rate is the 
highest dumping margin determined in any segment of this proceeding and 
was established in the LTFV investigation. See Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Folding Gift Boxes from the 
People's Republic of China, 66 FR 58115, 58118 (Nov. 20, 2001) (Final 
Determination). In selecting a rate for adverse facts available, the 
Department selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse ``as to 
effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule to induce 
respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate 
information in a timely manner.'' See Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from 
Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (Feb. 23, 1998).
    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, where the Department 
selects from among the facts otherwise available and relies on 
``secondary information,'' the Department shall, to the extent 
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources 
reasonably at the Department's disposal. Secondary information is 
``information derived from the petition that gave rise to the 
investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject 
merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the 
subject merchandise.'' See SAA at 870. The word ``corroborate'' means 
to determine that the information used has probative value. Id. To 
corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent 
practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information 
to be used. We corroborated the rate of 164.75 percent in the LTFV 
investigation. See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Folding Gift Boxes From the People's Republic of China, 
66 FR 40973, 40976 (Aug. 6, 2001). We have no reason to question the 
reliability of this data for this review and no party has argued that 
it is not reliable. With respect to the relevance aspect of 
corroboration, however, the Department will consider information 
reasonably at its disposal to determine whether a margin continues to 
have relevance. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin 
is not appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will 
disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. For example, 
in Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews: Fresh Cut 
Flowers from Mexico, 61 FR 6812 (Feb. 22, 1996), the

[[Page 58656]]

Department disregarded the highest margin in that case as adverse best 
information available (the predecessor to facts available) because the 
margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense 
resulting in an unusually high margin. Similarly, the Department does 
not apply a margin that has been discredited. See D & L Supply Co. v. 
United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Department 
will not use a margin that has been judicially invalidated). None of 
these unusual circumstances are present here. Therefore, we consider 
the PRC-wide rate, which is the rate from the LTFV investigation, 
relevant for this review.
    Furthermore, since this rate is the rate from the final 
determination, we established the reliability and relevance of the rate 
in the investigation. See Final Determination. As there is no 
information on the record of this review that demonstrates that this 
final rate from the final determination is not reliable for use as the 
adverse facts available rate for the PRC-wide rate, we determine that 
this rate has probative value and, therefore, is an appropriate basis 
for the PRC-wide rate to be applied in this review to exports of 
subject merchandise by Yun Choy.

Surrogate Country

    When the Department is reviewing imports from an NME country, 
section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV, in most 
circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of production, valued in a 
surrogate market-economy country or countries selected in accordance 
with section 773(c)(4) of the Act. In accordance with that provision, 
the Department shall utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or 
costs of factors of production in one or more market-economy countries 
that are at a level of economic development comparable to the NME 
country and are significant producers of comparable merchandise.
    The Department has determined that India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Sri 
Lanka, and the Philippines are countries comparable to the PRC in terms 
of economic development. See Memorandum from Ron Lorentzen to Laurie 
Parkhill: Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on 
Folding Gift Boxes from the People's Republic of China: Request for a 
List of Surrogate Countries, dated June 30, 2003. Normally, the 
Department will select an appropriate surrogate based on the 
availability and reliability of data from these countries. In this 
case, we have found that India is a significant producer of comparable 
merchandise and we have reliable data from India which we can use to 
value the factors of production.
    We have used India as the surrogate country and, accordingly, we 
have calculated NV using Indian prices to value the PRC producers' 
factors of production, when available and appropriate. See Surrogate 
Country Selection Memorandum to The File from Jennifer Moats dated 
October 3, 2003 (Surrogate Country Memorandum). We have obtained and 
relied upon publicly available information wherever possible. See 
Factor Valuation Memorandum to The File from Jennifer Moats, dated 
October 3, 2003 (Factor Valuation Memorandum).
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results 
of an administrative review, interested parties may submit publicly 
available information to value the factors of production within 20 days 
after the date of publication of these preliminary results.

Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we used export price 
(EP) for Red Point because the subject merchandise was sold directly to 
unaffiliated customers in the United States prior to importation and 
because constructed export price was not otherwise warranted based on 
the facts of the record.
    We calculated EP based on free-on-board prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers in the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, 
for foreign inland freight from the plant to the port of exportation 
and for domestic brokerage and handling in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. All of these services were provided by Hong 
Kong companies and charged in Hong Kong dollars. Therefore, valuation 
of these charges based on surrogate values was not necessary.

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine the NV using a factors-of-production methodology if (1) the 
merchandise is exported from an NME country and (2) the information 
does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-
country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act.
    Factors of production include (1) hours of labor required, (2) 
quantities of raw materials employed, (3) amounts of energy and other 
utilities consumed, and (4) representative capital costs. We used 
factors of production reported by Red Point for materials, energy, 
labor, by-products, and packing. We valued all input factors not 
obtained from market economies using publicly available published 
information as discussed in the ``Surrogate Country'' and ``Factor 
Valuations'' sections of this notice.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), where a producer sources 
an input from a market economy and pays for it in market-economy 
currency, the Department employs the actual price paid for the input to 
calculate the factors-based NV. See also Lasko Metal Products v. United 
States, 437 F.3d 1442, 1445-1446 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Red Point reported 
that some of its inputs were purchased from market economies and paid 
for in market-economy currency. See ``Factor Valuations'' section 
below.

Factor Valuations

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on factors of production reported by Red Point for the POR. To 
calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor quantities by 
publicly available Indian surrogate values (except as noted below). In 
selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, specificity, 
and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we adjusted input 
prices by including freight costs to make them delivered prices. For a 
detailed description of all surrogate values used for Red Point, see 
the Factor Valuation Memorandum. For a detailed description of all 
actual values used for market-economy inputs, see the Red Point 
Preliminary Calculation Memorandum dated October 3, 2003.
    Because we used Indian import values to value inputs purchased 
domestically by the Chinese producers, we added to Indian surrogate 
values a surrogate freight cost calculated using the shorter of the 
reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or the 
distance from the nearest seaport to the factory. This adjustment is in 
accordance with Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1408 (Fed. 
Cir. 1997).
    Except as noted below, we valued raw material inputs using the 
average unit import values derived from the World Trade Atlas, 
published by the Global Trade Information Services, Inc. See the Global 
Trade Information Services Web site at http://www.gtis.com/wta.htm. 
(The source of the data for the World Trade Atlas is the Directorate 
General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics (DGCI&S) of the 
Indian Ministry of Commerce and Industry. The DGCI&S also releases the 
Monthly Statistics of Foreign Trade of India.)
    As explained above, Red Point purchased certain raw material inputs

[[Page 58657]]

from market-economy suppliers and paid for them in market-economy 
currencies. See Red Point's April 21, 2003, section D response at pages 
5-6 for a description of these inputs. The evidence provided by Red 
Point indicated that its market-economy purchases of these inputs were 
paid for by Red Point in a market-economy currency. See Red Point's 
April 21, 2003, section D response at page 6. Therefore, in accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), the Department has determined to use the 
market-economy prices as reported by Red Point to value these inputs 
from both market-economy and NME suppliers because the market-economy 
inputs represented a significant quantity of the inputs in each case 
and they were paid for in a market-economy currency.
    To value electricity, we used the all-India average for industrial 
electricity as reported in Annexure 4.26 of the Annual Report (2001-02) 
on The Working of State Electricity Boards & Electricity Departments, 
published by the Planning Commission (Power & Energy Division), 
Government of India, in May 2002. This information is included in 
Exhibit 11 of Red Point's August 25, 2003, submission.
    Red Point reported the following packing inputs: cartons, shrink 
wrap, tape, labels, keep-fresh film, and woodfree paper. We used the 
World Trade Atlas for Red Point to value these items. See the Factor 
Valuation Memorandum.
    We used Indian transport information to value delivery costs for 
raw materials. To calculate domestic inland freight (by truck), we used 
a price report from Iron & Steel Newsletter for transporting material 
between Mumbai and Pune, Mumbai and Vapi/Daman, and Delhi and Gurgaon 
which was provided in Exhibit 12 of Red Point's August 25, 2003, 
surrogate-value submission. We used the rates between these cities 
because they were within 200 kilometers of each other and comparable to 
the distance between Red Point's factory and Hong Kong, the port of 
exportation. We converted the Indian Rupee value to U.S. dollars.
    Red Point identified a by-product (paperboard scrap) which it 
claimed was sold to customers in the PRC. The Department has offset Red 
Point's cost of production by the value of a reported by-product where 
Red Point's response indicated that it was sold. See the Factor 
Valuation Memorandum for a complete discussion of by-product credits 
given and the surrogate value used.
    To value factory overhead expenses, selling, general and 
administrative expenses (SG&A), and profit, we calculated a rate based 
on financial statements from an Indian producer of comparable 
merchandise, Rollatainers Limited. For a further discussion of the 
surrogate values for overhead, SG&A, and profit, see the Factor 
Valuation Memorandum.
    For labor, consistent with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC 
regression-based wage rate at Import Administration's home page, 
Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries, revised in February 2003. See 
http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html. The source of the wage-rate 
data on the Import Administration's Web site is the 2001 Year Book of 
Labour Statistics, International Labor Office (Geneva: 2001), Chapter 
5B: Wages in Manufacturing.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the following 
percentage weighted-average dumping margins on folding gift boxes for 
the period August 6, 2001, through December 31, 2002:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin
                    Exporter/manufacturer                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Red Point....................................................       0.00
PRC-wide rate (including Yun Choy)...........................     164.75
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Comment

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii), interested parties may submit 
case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. 
Furthermore, as discussed in 19 CFR 351.309(d), rebuttal briefs, which 
must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed 
within 5 days after the time limit for filing the case brief. Parties 
who submit case or rebuttal briefs for this review are requested to 
submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue, and (2) a brief 
summary of the argument (five pages maximum, including footnotes) with 
an electronic version included. A list of authorities used should 
accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. See 19 CFR 
351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2).
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), any interested party may request a 
hearing within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. 
Issues raised in a hearing will be limited to those raised in the 
respective case and rebuttal briefs. If requested, a hearing will be 
held at the main Commerce Department building at a time and location to 
be determined. Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to 
participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, United States Department 
of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 days of the date of publication of 
this notice. A request should contain (1) the party's name, address, 
and telephone number, (2) the number of participants, and (3) a list of 
the issues to be discussed. Parties should confirm by telephone the 
date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled 
date.
    The Department will publish the final results of this 
administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues 
raised in any such written briefs. The Department will issue the final 
results of review within 120 days of publication of these preliminary 
results.

Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and the Bureau of Customs and 
Border Protection shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated, 
whenever possible, an exporter/importer (or customer)-specific 
assessment value for subject merchandise.

Cash-Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for 
all shipments of folding gift boxes entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as 
provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash-deposit rates 
for the reviewed companies will be the rates established in the final 
results of review; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed 
companies not listed above, the cash-deposit rate will continue to be 
the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if 
the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or 
the LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash-deposit rate 
will be the rate established for the most recent period for the 
manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash-deposit rate for all 
other manufacturers or exporters (except for Max Fortune, which was 
excluded from the antidumping duty order) will continue to be the 
``PRC-wide'' rate from the LTFV investigation. See Final Determination.
    These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect 
until publication of the final results of the next administrative 
review.
    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping

[[Page 58658]]

duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review 
period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the 
Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties 
occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
    These preliminary results of administrative review are issued and 
published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the 
Act.

    Dated: October 3, 2003.
James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 03-25773 Filed 10-9-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P